Answering Grudem and Weyrich on the Romney Question<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 By Warren Cole Smith

Recently, two men I respect a great deal came out in support of Gov. Mitt Romney for president.  These two men are Paul Weyrich, one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, and Dr. Wayne Grudem, a brilliant theologian and professor at Phoenix Seminary.

I do not consider myself the intellectual equal of either man, so it is with some trepidation that I confront them directly in their support of Romney, and in particular their defense of Romney's Mormonism.  So you will not think I'm being coy, let me state my position plainly:  I believe that Mitt Romney's adherence to the faith and practices of the Mormon Church disqualify him from the support of Bible-believing Christians for the office of President of the United States of America – the most visible and powerful symbol of leadership in the world today.

Does His Mormonism Matter?

But before I tell you why, let's begin with a key argument that Christian defenders of Romney make about his Mormonism, an argument that amounts to this:  His Mormonism doesn't matter.  As Bob Jones, III, said, "We're picking a president, not a preacher."  So as not to create a straw man, let's look at Weyrich's statement of this argument, from his Nov. 16 "Washington Times" editorial "The Romney Difference": 
"If we were endorsing Mr. Romney for head of the Southern Baptist Convention, or in my case as head of the synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the objections of these Evangelical Christians would be wholly appropriate. But we are not.
"The issue here is simply this: Is Mr. Romney competent to be president of this great country? Indeed he is. Mr. Romney has the experience, vision and values to be president."
Theologian Wayne Grudem makes essentially the same argument in an Oct. 18 townhall.com editorial:
 
What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney's conservative political values.
Again, I have great respect for the intellectual firepower of both Weyrich and Grudem, but let's look closely at this argument. 
First of all, I cannot help but point out that these statements suggest that they want it "both ways" when it comes to Romney's faith.  They want to say that his faith doesn't matter, but they also say that "vision," "values," and "ethics" matter.  The Christian worldview teaches, by contrast, that there is a short tether binding beliefs and behavior.  If beliefs are false, then behavior will eventually – but inevitably – be warped.

That's why – secondly -- it is inevitable that a discussion of Romney must pass through a discussion of the beliefs of Mormonism.  Excellent books have been written on the subject, so I will not re-process the arguments here.  But let me say a few things about Mormonism that I expect both Grudem (a Reformed theologian) and Weyrich (a devout Catholic) – not to mention Mitt Romney himself – would probably agree with.  First of all, on such essential doctrines as the Trinity and the role of Jesus in salvation, there are major differences between orthodox (biblical) Christianity and Mormonism.   And, of course, these theological differences have consequences in practice, history, and culture.  Polygamy is one well-known difference.  Institutional racism is another.  Even granting Romney's and the church's relatively recent renunciation of these doctrines and practices, there are other problems.  Mormons have institutionalized the practice of revising history, beginning with a belief that Jesus came to the natives of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />North America, but extending to a belief in events of the 19th and 20th century that are completely unsubstantiated – and in some cases entirely refuted – by reasonable modern scholarship.

It is possible that the vast majority of Americans don't care about these theological differences.  Indeed, Americans are generally tone-deaf to theological nuances – and to the consequences of these nuances.  However, I would have expected that Grudem and Weyrich would not have had such a theological tin ear.  And the politically conservative Weyrich surely remembers conservative thinker Richard Weaver's famous line:  "Ideas have consequences."  If that is true, then theological ideas have eternal consequences.

And to all American voters I would ask this question:  Do we want a guy who believes in a history you can "make up as you go along" negotiating the outcome of conflicts with REAL histories that go back thousands of years?

Again, I do not want to diagnose Mormonism book, chapter, and verse.  But let me be plain on this point:  At its core, Mormonism is – by Christian standards -- an a-historical (and at times anti-historical) worldview based on legalism, not grace.  It requires of its followers an adherence to laws and strictures that (in some cases) are superficially similar to some of Christianity's moral laws and codes, but the boat of Mormonism is most certainly not tied to the same anchor as Christianity.  That's a fact even most Mormons acknowledge.  The boat of Mormonism has been cut loose from that anchor, and is adrift.  Any similarity between Christian and Mormon "vision, ethics, and values" is historically temporary.

Business and Political Success

Both Grudem and Weyrich also make another important point in Romney's behalf, and that is his previous business and political success.  They cite his leadership of the Olympic Games, his success at Bain & Co., which led to his own financial fortune, and his success as governor of Massachusetts.  They are right to make these arguments.  These successes are significant, and should be considered in an evaluation of his convictions and character.  If I were a Romney supporter, I would certainly tout his business and political success.  You'd be foolish not to. 

But allow me to make the obvious point that his success in business by itself proves nothing.  Some of our best presidents – from Jefferson to Lincoln – were failed businessmen.  And, of course, there is the old saw that "even Hitler made the trains run on time."  The office of President of the United States of America certainly does need an effective manager.  It is a position that requires leadership gifts much more than management skills.  It is an office whose occupant needs a moral vision for America.

I certainly do not disdain Romney's successes, but they seem to be more a function of being at the right place at the right time than anything else.  His success at the Olympics came in the aftermath of the Los Angeles Olympics, which brought a paradigm shift in how Olympic Games were run.  The new paradigm demanded huge taxpayer subsidies and massive corporate sponsorships.  And while the new Olympic Games brought with it great financial rewards,  some say it also permanently polluted the Olympic ideal.  Romney's leadership of the Salt Lake City Olympics only perpetuated that trend, leading inevitably to the fraud and scandal – and widespread public distrust -- we now see among Olympic-level competition. 

At Bain, he rode the 1990s wave of "irrational exuberance" as a leveraged buyout mogul, cashing out in 1998 and leaving other people to clean up the mess of the market's collapse.  And as a one-term governor of Massachusetts, he helped open the Pandora's Box of same-sex unions.  Because of those same-sex union policies, the largest adoption agency in the state – a Catholic agency – was forced to shut down when it refused to place babies with homosexual couples. 

Romney's business and political career has seen success – but primarily for Romney himself:  his net worth is estimated to be around $250-million.  And it's hard to see that the legacy he left behind in the corporate or public sectors will be judged kindly by history.

So far, he has invested more money than any other candidate in his own campaign for the presidency.   So it's also hard to see how Romney would even be a viable candidate today if we knew him based on the strength of his business and political record, and not on the advertising his money has bought.

Indeed, on June 13, Romney's media operation issued a press release announcing a "National Faith and Values Steering Committee."  The list of names accompanying the release looked suspicious to me.  I recognized many of them as leaders of organizations that either were public relations professionals, or who generated income getting out the evangelical vote.  So I called the Romney campaign and asked, "How many people on the steering committee are paid by the campaign?"  The answer I got was, "Some of them are."  I pressed further.  I asked, "Is there anyone on the committee that is NOT paid?"  The answer:  "I'm sure there are, but I don't know who."  I asked if it would be possible to get a list of who is being paid by the Romney campaign, and who is not.  I was promised that list, but it was never delivered.

That exchange with the Romney campaign does not prove that Romney's "National Faith and Values Steering Committee" is bought and paid for.  In fact, Mark DeMoss, who is on that committee, has since issued a statement saying his Atlanta-based public relations company has not received money from the campaign.  But the very fact that he had to issue such a statement is telling.  Of course, I realize the truth in the old saying that "money is the mother's milk of politics."  But evangelical leaders, who should have graduated from milk to meat, at least theologically speaking, should be wary of even the perception that their endorsements can be bought and sold by money alone.

The bottom line:  business and financial success are not qualifiers for the presidency, and in fact can be a disqualifier if that success is bought with a tainted moral coin.

Romney's Conversion?

Then, of course, there is the question of what Romney actually believes.  Even his supporters acknowledge that Romney held pro-abortion and pro-homosexual views – and enacted policies that supported the same -- when he was governor of Massachusetts.  But they say he's changed.  He's converted to "our" point of view.  Again, Wayne Grudem makes this case: 
 
Some people object that Romney has "flip-flopped" on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated. He hasn't flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative. I think that's a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal. (In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.) Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.

I am sympathetic to Grudem's argument.  We conservatives too often use our arguments like a blunt instrument, mercilessly beating those who do not agree with us.  And then, when they change their minds, we beat on them for not being with us all along, as Johnny-come-latelies, as not "true" believers.

But is Romney's conversion to pro-life and pro-family positions sincere, or just a political manifestation of his free-market ideas?  By that I mean that it's pretty obvious that pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality were the ideas favored by the Massachusetts electorate, and it's equally obvious that pro-life and pro-family ideas are ideas favored by Republican primary voters.  So, again I ask:  Is Romney a true conservative, or a libertarian obeying the law of the marketplace?

I truly don't know the answer to that question.  But I do know how we should discover the answer.  We should let time go by and see if he is willing to stand firm for life and family when it is not popular to do so.  Grudem makes a good point when he says that Reagan radically changed his views.  But those changes were made over much longer period of time.  By the time Reagan was elected president – with pro-life and evangelical support – in 1980, he had been tested by two failed presidential runs.  Richard Viguerie, one of Paul Weyrich's compatriots in the early days of the conservative revolution, told me that Reagan would often quietly, with little fanfare, attend conservative gatherings not as a speaker or "star," but as a participant, sitting in the audience and taking notes as the leading conservative thinkers of the 60s and 70s were  holding forth.  Romney, on the other hand, was governor of Massachusetts as recently as 12 months ago.  Romney's conversion may be real, but not enough time has gone by – not by any reasonable standard – for us to entrust the highest office in the free world to it.

Spreading the Mormon Faith

Let me make one more point that is perhaps minor to most Americans, but which I think should make a significant difference to many evangelical Christians:  As Theodore Roosevelt said, the presidency is a "bully pulpit."  Indeed, it has become the bulliest pulpit in the world.  The entire planet hangs on what the occupant of that pulpit says and does.  When a president oversleeps, that becomes international news.  When a First Lady parts her hair differently, that new style becomes a worldwide fashion trend.  I'm not saying this is a good thing.  I am saying it's a fact.  Which is why a Mormon in that pulpit would be a source of pride and a shot in the arm to the LDS church.  It would serve to normalize the false teachings of Mormonism the world over.  

Again, theologically and historically, Mormonism is a religion with a false view of the world.   If the ethics and morals we admire in Mitt Romney are based on that false view, they are at best temporary, and at worst a Trojan horse by which that false view of the world is infiltrated into mainstream thinking.   Non-Christians likely don't care much about this point one way or the other.  But for the Christian, this is a vital issue.  One of the strongest warnings Jesus issues is to those who "lead little ones astray."  He said it would be better for that person if a millstone is put around his neck and he is cast into the sea.  The validation of the false religion of Mormonism would almost certainly have the effect of leading many astray.  Evangelical Christians should have no part of that effort.

Unfit to Serve?

No person is perfect.  That's a theological reality.  No candidate perfectly represents the people, or even is core constituency.  That's a political reality.  But certain qualifications make a candidate unfit to serve.  There was a time when racism or anti-Semitism would not disqualify a candidate for service.  Today, it does, and rightly so.  I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve.  Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism.  I'm willing to take him at his word on that.  But there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy will be to promote Mormonism.   That alone, in spite of his ability to "make the trains run on time," disqualifies him from service in what Theodore Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit" of the presidency. 
I admire and respect Wayne Grudem and Paul Weyrich.  I have learned much from them.  But in this case I believe they are dead wrong.  If Mitt Romney believes what the Mormon Church teaches about the world and how it operates, he is unfit to serve.  We make such a man our leader at great peril to the intellectual, material, and spiritual health of our nation.

Warren Smith is the publisher of the Evangelical Press News Service.  He can be reached at warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com