Should Christians Support a Mormon for Oklahoma Governor?
Three Republicans – Tulsa businessman Bob Sullivan, state Sen. James Williamson, and Congressman Ernest Istook – are running to unseat Governor Brad Henry in November. I happen to like all three of them, and believe any of them would be preferable to Henry. But if we assume for a moment that Istook is going to be the nominee – and he’s certainly the frontrunner – it’s not too early to be thinking about a question that is certain to arise in this Bible Belt state: Can evangelicals support Istook, even though he’s a Mormon?
A whisper campaign about Istook’s religion (launched by surrogates, of course, without Henry’s fingerprints) is a virtual certainty, and could easily sway the more theologically unsophisticated among us. It’s up to the theologically sophisticated to help the rest of us think this through.
Last summer Terry Eastland wrote a Weekly Standard cover story (“In 2008, will it be Mormon in America?”) assessing the presidential prospects of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is also a Mormon. “What do evangelical leaders active in politically conservative circles say about a Romney candidacy?” Eastland wrote. “Many I asked were reluctant to be quoted by name. As one of them told me, ‘We have to work with Mormons.’ Over the past quarter-century Mormons have made common cause with politically conservative evangelicals (and Catholics) on a broad range of issues involving marriage, family, abortion, stem cells, pornography, and religious liberty. Moreover, Mormons have worked alongside evangelicals for many of the same candidates at election time.
“Someone willing to go on the record was Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship. Notwithstanding his ‘fundamental’ theological differences with Mormonism, Colson said, ‘I could in very good conscience support Romney,’ calling him ‘a first-rate guy in every respect’ and ‘a social conservative on most of the issues we care about.’ Colson obviously wasn’t declaring for Romney, but simply indicating that he would not in religious principle, so to speak, be opposed to Romney and indeed could find political reasons to support him. Whether he would actually do so, of course, would ‘all depend on what the lineup is’ and ‘where each person stands.’ The other evangelical leaders I contacted took the same view.”
Is Colson’s view correct? I’d like to hear what you think (please post comments below), but I am inclined to think it is.
In October 2004 Colson wrote a commentary critical of one prominent evangelical who declared he wasn’t going to vote at all in the 2004 presidential election since, in his view, neither Bush nor Kerry measured up to biblical standards. “That position is dead wrong and damaging to democracy,” Colson wrote. “It’s the utopian notion which assumes divine perfection in fallen humans. His assumption that we can support only candidates who have perfect scores according to our reading of the Bible makes me wonder how he votes at all. And if that’s the standard, all of us should stop voting. But that’s exactly what the fundamentalist movement did in the early part of the twentieth century … Their error was allowing perfectionism to get in the way of their responsibility to act for the common good. It’s an error we can’t afford to repeat – not this year, not ever.”
“Voting is not an option for Christians,” Colson continued. “It’s a biblical duty, because by voting we carry out God’s agency; we are His instruments for appointing leaders. Just like Samuel in the Old Testament, we are commissioned to find the very best people we can who are best able to lead us. Not to vote, or to turn down both presidential candidates because they’re not perfect on a biblical score sheet, is a dereliction of biblical responsibility. Remember that the first job of a leader biblically is to preserve order, out of which freedom flows, and then to restrain evil. Every thinking Christian has to look at both candidates this year and decide for himself or herself which one can best keep and preserve order and restrain evil.”
Now please don’t misunderstand. With all due respect to my Mormon friends, I believe that Mormonism is outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy and that evangelicals must always “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” (Jude 1:3). Nonetheless, I don’t know of any scriptural principle that would prohibit evangelical support for a Mormon political candidate, as long as that candidate is good on the issues we hold dear.
If someone wants to argue that it’s wrong to support Istook, I would ask why it would be permissible to support Brad Henry. I realize Henry was (is?) a Baptist deacon and all, but has anyone ever heard him make a profession of faith or seen any fruit that might suggest he’s regenerate?
I think I would rather be ruled by a wise Mormon than a not-so-wise Baptist. What do you think?
