It's Not the Mormon Thing, It's the Character Thing

The Republican candidates for president and the pundits of every political stripe have been dancing around the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  None wants to be accused of being bigoted or narrow minded the way many Protestant leaders were when John F. Kennedy (a Roman Catholic) ran for president.   With all of the tight rope walking and politically correct care being taken not to mention the “M” word, it seems that they are all missing the real issue.

The problem is not that Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  The problem is that Mitt Romney seems to have a problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon. 

Since he gave his Faith in America speech at the Bush library in 2007, Mitt Romney has been running for president and away from his Mormonism.  In interviews, speeches and on the stump, he has consistently painted himself as a generic evangelical Christian and claimed that any differences between his faith and that of evangelical Protestantism is of little consequence. 

Huh?

There are very real and very deep differences between Mormon theology and that of evangelical Protestants.  In fact, some Mormon nuances on traditional Trinitarian Christian theology would likely find more sympathy in far left Christian communities than far right!  What Romney is talking about when he speaks of the theological connection between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity he is speaking almost exclusively about social issues; marriage equality, abortion rights, the social safety net, etc.  The claim Romney is making is that what you think about gay marriage is what matters.  What you think of Jesus is just trivia.

I know several Mormons and I know from them that this is not core Mormon belief.  Mormons as a whole take their theological beliefs very seriously and do not, in fact, see themselves as just another branch of politically activist evangelical Protestantism.  And Mitt Romney knows this. 

For many years, Romney served as the Stake President in the Boston area.  A Stake is a geographical collection of congregations similar, but not exactly the same, as a Catholic diocese or a Presbyterian presbytery.  The Stake President is the presiding officer of the Stake.  Elevation to such an office surely involves both a deep knowledge and acceptance of the tenants of the Mormon tradition.   Mitt Romney held this office so we can reasonably assume that he is both more aware and more subscribed to the tenants of the faith than many in the pews Mormons may be.  That is his faith and he deserves credit for taking on an unpaid leadership role in support of it.

Yet, Romney has been willing time and again to distort and subjugate his own faith in order to nurture political alliance.  This raises a question about Romney.  Which is it: either Mitt Romney’s faith is not important to him and he brazenly lies when he says that it is or he is simply so craven that he would jettison the faith he claims to hold so dear in order to advance in politics.  Neither seems a very good profile for President of the United States.

The problem is not that he is a Mormon.  It is the way he treats his Mormonism that gives me pause and raises questions about his character.  If he is so willing to throw his faith under the bus to gain advancement, what will he do with the American people? 

Personally, I am glad when a candidate says that his or her faith will inform their decisions in office.   It allows me, as a voter, to determine whether or not those values comport with my own and whether I believe this person will adequately represent me and my neighbors in office.

The constitution does not impose a religious test for office.  But the way a candidate treats the values and principles of his or her religion is a helpful character test as we decide who should hold office.

If Mitt Romney treats the nation as shabbily as he does his own faith life, that says something very unfortunate about his character.