Liberty University Here We Come

By Steve Matthews

For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. (James 1:7)

If a Mormon takes the White House, what does it mean for evangelicals?  A while back I commented on this very issue, and one of my points was that should Mormon Mitt Romney – or John Huntsman who was in the race at the time – become president, Mormonism would go mainstream. Historically, evangelicals have been good on the issue of Mormonism, correctly pointing out that it is not Christianity.  But with the prestige of the presidency standing behind it, evangelicals would face tremendous pressure to drop their opposition and embrace Mormons as fellow believers.  Well, as it turns out, I was wrong in what I said.  The process already appears to be well under way, and all this without the Republican establishment having finished the job of foisting its Mormon golden boy on the rest of the country.

In an open letter to Jerry Falwell Jr., Chancellor of Liberty University, Erskine Seminary professor John Makujina* sharply criticizes the school –  an institution founded by Baptist Jerry Falwell in the 1970s “with a vision to train Champions for Christ as a world class university” – for extending an invitation to Mitt Romney to speak at its upcoming commencement.  Makujina writes,

“I was deeply disturbed at the news that Liberty University (LU) has invited Gov. Mitt Romney as their commencement speaker.  I do not quite know what would motivate a university with high Christian ideas and a commitment to the fundamentals of the faith to ask a Mormon to speak at commencement.  I fear, however, that Liberty’s dedication to the RNC and to the success of the conservative movement has trumped its allegiance to sound doctrine and the Gospel.” (italics added)

And that’s just it, isn’t it?  Far too many Christians, especially far too many high-profile Christians, rather than letting the Bible guide their political beliefs and actions, have allowed themselves to become Republican dupes, who can be counted on to support whatever nonsense the RNC happens to be pushing at the moment,  even to the point of willfully betraying the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

These days, ordinary Christians often are much sounder in their thinking than church officers, and this principle seems to apply in the case of LU’s students compared with the leaders of the school  The announcement of Romney as commencement speaker kicked off a wave of criticism from students on the school’s Facebook page.  But LU’s response to all this seemed more like the spin we have come to expect from political operatives embarrassed by some public relations gaffe than the words and actions of Christian leaders interested in the spiritual growth and well being of their students.  As CNN reports,

In a statement from Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., the school says that the complaints have significantly died down and that many of those complaining ‘had no affiliation with the university.’

Translating this into non-PR, we can interpret Falwell’s remarks to mean, “Move along, folks, nothing to see here.  The narrow minded Bible thumpers have repented and come to see things from a more mature perspective.  And those internet flamers?  They were in no way affiliated with our dignified institution.  We never knew them.”

So is everything just lovely now in Lynchburg?  Hardly.  The CNN report continues,

After last week’s announcement, hundreds of comments were registered under the announcement on Liberty’s Facebook page.  While some were supportive of the decision to invite Romney, a number of respondents were angered and posted their frustration to Facebook.

As of Monday morning, the announcement was deleted from the page, along with all the comments.

‘Complaints died down because they took the ability to complain down from the website,’ said Janet Loeffler, a 53-year old freshman at Liberty who takes classes online.  Loeffler was a frequent poster to the Facebook page.” (emphasis added)

It seems that the spirit of authoritarianism is alive and well at LU, if not the Spirit of Christ.  Get on board or shut your mouth is their motto.  Now to be fair, LU states that students have other channels for registering their complaints, and I don’t doubt that this is the case, but by deleting the Facebook post together will all the comments, the school has gone into cover up mode.  How dare those freshmen speak up!

Tony Perkins also works to smooth over the dissent with his remark that he sees the Romney invitation as an opportunity.  This is certainly true, but whether it is a good opportunity is another matter entirely.  CNN quotes him saying,

” ‘ As Christians we can disagree strongly but we show respect and I think they will show respect for Mitt Romney,’ Perkins said on CNN’s Starting Point Monday morning.

‘They may not warmly applaud him and may continue to express differences and clearly there are differences theologically between Mormons and Christians, but here’s an opportunity for Mitt Romney to talk about what he has in common with evangelicals and that is on the value issues.’ “

To Perkins credit, he manages to distinguish between Mormons and Christians, but what’s this business about Romney and Evangelicals having common values.  Which values does Perkins have in mind? In his essay The Sin of Signing Ecumenical Declarations, John Robbins pointed out,

Christianity does not have a single proposition in common with systems of unbelieving thought [this includes Mormonism].  That is the philosophical lesson that must be drawn from the many Biblical statements and injunctions about purity, separation, sanctification and holiness.  Those terms do not apply, in some pietistic fashion, merely to one’s behavior, they apply even more strictly to one’s ideas and thoughts, ideas are not neutral, nor are they common to various systems of thought.  Ideas are to be ‘taken captive to the obedience of Christ.’

If Christianity and Mormonism have no propositions in common, they can have no values in common, however one may define that term.  Take, for example, the popular subject of family values.  Generally speaking, when people state that they support family values they mean they believe in traditional marriage and child rearing.  But because Mormons do not get their ideas on family values from Scripture alone, they must have a different idea of what this term means than do Christians.  Any agreement between the two parties on family values would be merely verbal in nature, that is to say Mormons and Christians may both use the term “family values”, but they attach different meanings to it.  When Christians and Mormons talk about family values, they are not talking about the same thing. 

Falwell Jr. defends the decision to invite Romney with the laughable argument that most of the commencement speakers over the past 25 years, “did not share Liberty’s doctrinal beliefs.”  I take it by this Falwell Jr.  means to say that most of the commencement speakers at LU over the past quarter century have not been Christians.  If this is the case, all Falwell Jr. has done is condemn himself with this own words.  Is it really asking too much of a school that bills itself as a Christian university to actually have Christian commencement speakers?  Are we to believe that there is not a single Christian among LU’s alumni qualified to give the commencement address?  If not, how about a Christian from outside the school.  Surely there must be some Christina somewhere who could do the job.  If it was a politician they really wanted, who knows, maybe Ron Paul could have found his way to Lynchburg.  Paul is a man with a credible Christian testimony.  And what is more, he connects with college students in a way Mitt Romney never can.  But apparently finding a Christian commencement speaker is harder than it seems.  And LU board member Mark DeMoss defends the school’s sleight of hand secularism by noting that LU’s founder Jerry Falwell Sr.,

 explained, or justified it [the practice of inviting non-Christians to give the commencement address] by virtue of us having a baccalaureate service that was a decidedly Christian service.  And commencement could feature a prominent figure from politics or business – evangelical or not evangelical.

Now the Bible has a word for this sort of thing:  double-mindedness. The folks running the show at LU are out to prove that they can too serve two masters and have, by their own admission, invested a lot of effort toward this end.  But Christ said this is impossible to serve two masters, and James stated that a double-minded man will receive nothing of the Lord.  Perhaps this evangelical double-mindedness is part of the reason why, despite decades of effort by the Moral Majority et. al., the culture continues to deteriorate with each passing year.   When Christians refuse to fight the Lord’s battles in the Lord’s way, not only will they lose, they will deserve to lose.

Mitt Romney may well turn out to be the Mormon JFK, doing for Mormonism what John F. Kennedy did for Roman Catholicism.  Some may recall that the election of Kennedy, the nation’s first Roman Catholic president, was vigorously opposed by many Protestants.  Kennedy had to work hard in his campaign to convince Protestant Americans that he was not a Vatican tool.  But how many contemporary Evangelicals – how many administrators at LU – either would not understand or actually be embarrassed by the concerns expressed by their forebears a mere half-century ago?

Today, Kennedy’s 1960 election is widely viewed as having been a watershed breakthrough for the Roman Catholic Church’s influence on American politics.  Just how far that influence has progressed can been seen by the fact that in 1983, for the first time in its history, the US began exchanging ambassadors with the Vatican.  Further, these days hard-core Roman Catholic presidential candidates don’t even need to bother with defending or downplaying their Romanism as Kennedy was forced to do.  They parade it around for all the world to see.  Rick Santorum, a man who gets sick at the thought of the Christian doctrine of the separation of church and state, can make absurd statements claiming that, “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” In doing so, not only does Santorum not encounter any real opposition from Christians, but actually receives their active and enthusiastic support.

Funny, but I don’t seem to recall any objective or vision held by framers of our Constitution that involved the church (or does he mean the Church) influencing or operating the government of the United States. As far as I am aware, the Constitution enumerates certain powers to be divided among the three branches of the federal government – none of which includes the Church – and reserves all other authority for the states or the people.  But perhaps Rick was just confused and really had in mind the Holy Roman Empire or Spain during the Inquisition.  Both these are splendid examples of what the Church can do when it puts its mind to the business of influencing and operating the government.

A Romney presidency means a bright future for Mormonism.  In fact, it may be that Romney’s election may do more for Mormonism than Kennedy’s did for Romanism.  After all, the Roman Catholic Church-State was well established before 1960, whereas Mormonism is still in search of widespread acceptance.  Makujina makes the following observation,

[T]he Mormon Church stands to benefit enormously through a Romney presidency.  Analysts are expecting a huge spike in Mormon conversions if Romney becomes president.  Even common sense dictates that, with a Mormon in the White House, LDS missionaries will find an ever more hospitable climate in which to spread their soul-damning religion – especially overseas…

With the most powerful man in the world as their chief ambassador, the Saints could achieve the coveted status of a major world religion, a standing that will likely never be reversed.

Everybody loves a winner, and it should come as no surprise if a Mormon in the White House will result in a boom in Mormon conversions.  “After all, if it’s good enough for the president,” many will reason, “it’s good enough for me.”  And this is not all.  In addition to creating positive energy for the LDS church, a spike in Mormons membership likely will have the negative effect of shutting down evangelical opposition to Mormonism.  Ministers increasingly will feel pressure to soft peddle or cease their criticism of Mormonism.  They will be embarrassed and shamed into silence on the subject much in the same way Protestant pulpits have been embarrassed and shamed into silence on Romanism.  Just ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard a minister attack Roman Catholic doctrine from the pulpit on a Sunday morning.  If you’re like most of us, your answer is never.  If Romney is elected, expect Mormonism to get the same free pass in the future.

If Makujina’s analysis is correct, and I believe that it is, what are Christians to do when they go to the polls this fall?  Many will suppose that they must either support Obama and his obvious unconstitutional (and unbiblical) socialism, or, despite their deep reservations, get behind the Mormon Romney and hope that Makujina is wrong.  But is this the case?  Is choosing between the lesser of two evils a proper Christian approach to voting?  On an elementary level, the answer would seem to be no.  The lesser of two evils is still an evil.  And where do the Scriptures ever advise Christians to say, “Let us do evil so that good may come”?  But if it’s wrong for a Christian to support either candidate, what is a Christian to do?  He is still faced with a dilemma, right?

The short answer is no.  The apparent dilemma is, in fact, undone by a logical blunder known as a false disjunction.  In fact, you could almost say that the dilemma involving whether to vote for Obama or Romney provides a textbook example of this fallacy.  For in his textbook on logic, Gordon Clark gives the following, remarkably pertinent example.  He writes,

A stupid, artificial example [of a dilemma with a false disjunction], without the least literary flavor would be:  If I vote the Democratic ticket, I shall encourage war and inflation; if I vote Republican, I encourage depression and unemployment; but I must vote either Democratic or Republican, so I am forced to encourage war or unemployment.

Although in the United States third parties are almost uniformly useless, their mere existence makes this dilemma defective.  For that matter, until we are compelled to vote whether we want to or not, we can simply refuse to go to the polls.  This equally well refutes the dilemma, and it just might be more effective politically than third parties are.”  (Logic, 99)

Translating Clark’s example into our current situation, we could state the apparent dilemma this way:  If I vote for Obama, I shall encourage socialism; if I vote for Romney, I shall encourage Mormonism (and socialism too, for that matter); but I must vote for either Obama or Romney, so I am forced to encourage socialism or Mormonism.  But just as in Clark’s example, this dilemma is easily avoided by the Christian voter.  If Obama and Romney are his only two choices, he may simply choose not to vote in the presidential election.  Put another way, a Christian may choose to withhold his consent if he believes the candidates are not qualified.

And consent is no small matter.  Consent, in fact, makes the difference between guilt and innocence.  Take the case of Joseph of Arimathea.   Luke says of him,

Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man.  He had not consented to their decision and deed.  He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God.  (Luke 23:51)

Joseph most likely was not even at the trial of Christ or the meeting where the council bound and delivered Christ to Pilate (Mark 14:64 and 15:1).  He withheld his consent by choosing not to participate in the council’s evil plans.  To put it another way, Joseph of Arimathea did not vote to murder Jesus.  For this reason, he was not responsible, that is to say he was not answerable, for the sin of condemning to death, and promoting the execution of, an innocent man.  Luke notes this by calling Joseph, “a good and just man.” Had Joseph given his consent, he would have been as guilty as the rest of the council members.  The same principle of consent applies to all voters.  By pulling the lever for a candidate, a voter is consenting to have that person in office and is, therefore, responsible for the results.  If a voter, Christian or otherwise, consents to the election of Mitt Romney by voting for him, and if a Romney presidency has the effect of promoting Mormonism as I have argued, then that voter will be responsible, that is to say he will be answerable, to God for the sin advancing the cause of a blasphemous, false religion.

Neither Barak Obama nor Mitt Romney is qualified to be president.  Neither cares a whit for the Constitution, neither has any love for liberty or the rule of law, neither deserves the support of American voters.  If these two men win their respective party’s nomination, it will not be the first time voters have been faced with two unqualified candidates, but this time the political establishment seems to have outdone itself.  Now perhaps it will not come down to a choice between these two.  What seems inevitable today may prove impossible tomorrow.  One or both of these men may stumble between now and the summer conventions.  Perhaps a viable third party candidate will arise and give Christians someone they can support in good conscience.  But if faced with the choice of Obama or Romney, come November the only proper response for a Christian voter will be to withhold his consent and throw his support behind none of the above.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

* Correction: John Makujina was not at  Erskine Seminary, but at Erskine College.

 

Advertisement

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics