Francis Beckwith on Chrisitan Creeds and the “Kennedy Mistake”

From First Things:

“Creeds are not meant to measure the qualifications of a political candidate in a liberal democracy. Not only does the formulation of Christendom’s most important creeds predate the existence of liberal democracies, their subject matter bears no relation to assessing those attributes that we consider essential to the leadership of a political regime. In practice, most Christians already fully grasp this truth.

“For example, many evangelicals in the 1980 presidential election voted for Ronald W. Reagan over Jimmy Carter, even though Carter was clearly more evangelical in his theology and church participation than Reagan. For Reagan’s supporters, it was his policies and not his theology that was decisive for them. Although these evangelicals would have likely chosen Carter over Reagan to teach Sunday school, they preferred Reagan in the Oval Office because they believed that Reagan’s policies best advanced the common good.

“If one believes that the common good is achieved when a political regime treats justly its citizens and the many institutions that help develop and sustain their virtue, a candidate who embraces these ideals, even if he or she is not a Christian, is a candidate that a Christian can support with a clear conscience…

“Romney, in order to pacify secularists and traditional Christians, may be tempted to emulate Kennedy and claim that his theology and church do not influence or shape his politics. But this would be a mistake. For it would signal to traditional Christians that Romney does not believe that theology could, in principle, count as knowledge; but this is precisely the view of the secularist who believes that religion, like matters of taste, should remain private. Yet if a citizen has good reason to believe her theological tradition offers real insights into the nature of humanity and the common good—insights that could be defended on grounds that even a secularist cannot easily dismiss—why should she remain mute simply because the secularist stipulates a definition of religion that requires her silence? Why should she accept the secularist’s limitations on her religious liberty based on what appears to many of us as a capricious and politically convenient understanding of “religion”? If Romney commits the Kennedy Mistake, it would give tacit permission to secularists to call into question the political legitimacy of not only Romney’s fellow religionists (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) but also conservative Catholics and evangelicals.”

Mormonism is rooted in a rebuke to traditional Christianity

Time:

Many Evangelicals have been taught that Mormonism is a cult with a heretical understanding of Scripture and doctrine. Mormons reject the unified Trinity and teach that God has a body of flesh and blood. Though Mormons revere Christ as Saviour and certainly call themselves Christians, the church is rooted in a rebuke to traditional Christianity. Joseph Smith presented himself as a prophet whom God had instructed to restore his true church, since “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” He described how an angel named Moroni provided him with golden tablets that told the story (written in what Smith called “reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics, never seen before) of an ancient civilization of Israelites sent by God to America. The tablets included lessons Jesus taught during a visit to America after his Resurrection. Smith was able to read and translate the tablets with the help of special transparent stones he used as spectacles. He published them as the Book of Mormon in 1830.

Even if Mormonism is false, it’s still worth believing?

In World Magazine:

In a late April interview with Romney, WORLD asked: “The Apostle Paul is famous for saying that if the historical facts don’t back up Christianity, then his teaching—Paul’s teaching—is worthless and the Christian faith is futile. Would you be willing to say the same thing if it were shown that Joseph Smith made things up? Would it be fair to conclude that Mormon teaching is also worthless and futile?”

Romney was quick to answer. “I’m not going to take that hypothetical—OK?” he said, almost curtly, then softened. “I’m no Paul,” he added modestly.

This kind of talk rings familiar to me. I talk to so many Mormons here in Utah who believe that even if Mormonism isn’t true, it still might be worth it to believe in, and certainly—even if Mormonism is helping to send people to hell for idolatry—it isn’t worth opposing. I call this an “atheological tendency“. It’s the ultimate shrug.