The Kafkaesque attack on Mike Huckabee's religious tolerance

Gov. Huckabee is being accused on all sides of running a 'tacit anti-Mormon campaign' for acknowledging his own Christianity and charitably refraining from answering questions about whether a religion which denies the Trinity and other historically constitutive doctrines of the Christian religion is a cult. Even the normally sensible Charles Krauthamer has delivered himself of this bizarre pronouncement:


The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving Day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual. Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way...

...I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.

This is no small issue. Nor is its significance confined to the battle between Romney and Huckabee for the allegiance of social conservatives. Fundamental issues are involved here which speak to the very nature of religious pluralism- issues concerning which both the religious Right and the secularist Left seem to me to speak with a remarkable lack of reflection either upon the nature of religious belief itself, or self-understandings of the very religions to which the overwhelming majority religious Americans profess allegiance.

In one sense, of course, Krauthammer is exactly right: the (Deistic) god of the Founders- the god on the coinage, and the god Lincoln was doubtless thinking of when the great, religiously unorthodox Emancipator decreed the first Thanksgiving- are all indeed the bland, insipid idol To Whom It May Concern.

But that's the problem. That "deity" is hardly nonsectarian. Indeed, the cult of "God in general" is very much a national sect- one to which no Christian or Jew can consistently belong upon pain denying his own religion, of violating the First Commandment, and of participating in the very evisceration of the First Amendment. The Cult of the Great Red, White and Blueberry Muffin is, in fact, nothing less than a national religion, comprised of the lowest common denominator of what the great religions confess- and hence, not only inconsistent but logically incompatible with the embarrassing particularity of each of them, in their own historic self-understandings. To insist on the substance of any one faith- to confess anything beyond the lowest common denominator of the great American religions- or even to imply that any disagreement among them has any real significance is the one and only heresy proscribed by our national religion. And inevitably, when that happens, accurate perceptions like Krauthammer's as to the nature of the great American idol and its worship degenerate quickly into sheer drivel.

John Murray Cuddihy pointed out in his remarkable book No Offense that each of our great American religions in fact had to give up a key distinctive conviction- hitherto considered absolutely constitutive- in order to gain acceptance in the Cult of God In General. In order to accommodate the Jews, mainline Protestantism had to effectively trash no less a conviction than the Reformation's foundational belief in justification by faith alone, through grace alone, for Christ's sake alone. A religion which restricted salvation to believers in Christ- as the faith of the Reformation did, and to the extent it is faithfully confessed, still does- is anathema to the Cult of the Muffin.

Neither could Catholicism continue to insist on its status as the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. A back door to heaven had to be opened to Protestants and Jews; "invincible ignorance" managed to do the trick until Vatican II obliged by finding less offensive ways to allow non-Catholics to qualify.

Jews were allowed to remain what the Old Testament proclaimed them to be: God's Chosen People. But somehow, "choosenness" had to be redefined in terms unoffensive to an American religious consciousness so befuddled in its understanding of tolerance as to effectively define it as the insistence that everybody agree not to insist on anything offensive to anybody else. The Jews became God's chosen people only in the sense of noblesse oblige- of special irresponsibility, rather than of any special standing among the nations in the esteem of the Deity.

Now, here's the thing: by any biblical (or even historical) standard, precisely because he is neither specifically the Holy Trinity nor specifically the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the god of the American Civil Religion (which is nothing more or less, as Cuddihy observes, than the worship of civility)- the Great To Whom it May Concern- is another god- a false one, who does not say or command what the God of Moses or Jesus (or, for that matter, Mohammed) said and commanded. The cult of this red, white and blue idol is not, as Krauthammer (and most Americans) conceive of it, somehow an affirmation of all of the great American faiths; it is in fact a denial of all of them, and the erection of something far more shallow and far poorer and more trivial than any of them in their place.

Article Six of the United States Constitution makes it very clear that there ought to be no religious test for public office. As a Lutheran, my own faith tells me that the question of one's personal standing before God and one's worthiness in the civil realm are completely different issues; that one need not be a Christian in order to be a good man, fully qualified to be God's servant in fulfilling the divinely ordained functions of public office. Hence, I deplore in unequivocal terms any suggestion that Mitt Romney- a man I respect, and who I will enthusiastically support should he be the Republican nominee for president next year- ought not to be elected to that office because he is a Mormon. I share the disgust of Mormon and non-Mormon alike at the religious test which forms the basis upon which huge numbers of my fellow Americans oppose the Romney candidacy. But at the same time, I equally deplore the religious test which certain Mormon supporters of Gov. Romney- and others- are employing in attacking Mike Huckabee precisely for the content of his own religious beliefs.

One simply cannot have it both ways. If Gov. Romney's religious beliefs (as opposed to the values he shares with a great many of us who disagree with him theologically) are irrelevant to the current presidential campaign (as they surely are) then so are the religious beliefs of those of us who, precisely on the basis of our religious beliefs as to the irreducible content of the Christian faith, cannot acknowledge Mormonism as any part of Christianity.

Historically, the Christian faith has rather specific content. There is a great deal of disagreement about the nature of that content (though considerably less than most secularists think). Now, , disagreement even upon matters considered to be religiously ultimate is not necessary a bad thing- however contrary that sentiment might be to the spirit of Muffin Worship. In fact, though contemporary, muffinized America has a great deal of difficulty understanding this point, disagreement is an absolutely indispensible requirement of either diversity or real tolerance. The greater and more consequential the disagreement, the greater the diversity- and the greater the need for tolerance. It is simply impossible to be tolerant of a belief held by another which one also holds oneself!

Belief in the Holy Trinity has been regarded as one of the irreducible minimums of the Christian Faith by the greater Christian tradition- that is, by the overwhelming majority of those claiming the name "Christian-" ever since the Council of Nicea in 325 (well, actually well before that date- contrary to the argument Mormons often make that Nicea was somehow rigged against the Arian heretics). Agreement or disagreement with the definitions of Nicea or the other ecumenical councils with whose findings the LDS church dissents is simply not the issue here. It's not a matter of whether the Mormons or the overwhelming majority of those both now and through the ages are right as to the doctrine of the Trinity, or the other dogmatic foul lines of the Christian faith. It's a matter of the rest of us who claim the name Christian having every bit as much of a right to regard the teachings of Mormonism as incompatible with historic Christianity as Mormons do to believe the precise opposite.

The word 'cult' is often used by "Evangelicals" and others to describe various religious movements which claim Christian identity while denying what are seen by historic Christianity as essential and constitutive doctrines of Christianity. Mormonism falls into that group, as does Christian Science, Unitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many smaller groups. Yes, the term is pejorative; terms expressing disapprobation usually are!

And yes, applying the term "cult" to Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian-Universalism, the United Pentecostal Church, and other such groups which reject beliefs most of us who call ourselves Christian regard as absolutely foundational to Christianity may even be unhelpful, since the word "cult" seems to be associated in the modern American mind with the antics of those who follow violent, crazy, charismatic leaders like David Koresh or Jim Jones. But disapproving of the doctrinal content of Mormonism or Christian Science or Unitarianism or other groups which meet the commonly-accepted definition of the term among "Evangelicals" still does not make those who accept the majority definition of Christianity bigots. It simply makes them people whose own religious beliefs- indeed, whose respect for history- define Mormonism or Christian Science or Unitarianism and the rest as being groups which claim Christian identity while teaching things which exclude it from the historically-acknowledged boundaries of what constitutes Christian thought.

It should be understood that those definitions are themselves only 'sectarian' in a sense. We are not talking here about definitions of what is or is not a Christian held only by Baptists, or by Methodists, or by Lutherans, or by Calvinists, or by Eastern Orthodoxy, or by any other particular denomination or group of denominations. We are talking about definitions held unanimously and historically by the overwhelming majority of people in all denominations claiming to be Christian since the first centuries of Christianity as to what constitutes the lines across which one cannot step and still be considered not orthodox, not sound in doctrine, not conforming to the ideal expression of Christian faith, but Christian in any finally meaningful sense whatsoever.

It is not my purpose here either to attack Mormonism or to engage in an exercise in apologetics. There are many other aspect of Mormon teaching besides the Trinity which fall outside the majority understanding of what constitutes the Christian faith. Whether that understanding is right or wrong is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand- that issue being that the majority has every bit as much right to its own understanding of what constitutes Christianity as Mormonism does, and that to accuse it- or any of its members- of bigotry for holding to that denomination is itself to create a religious test just as objectionable as that which people who admittedly are bigots raise in disqualifying Gov. Romney from the presidency on the basis of his religion.

In short, if Mitt Romney's religion ought not to be an issue in the current campaign- and it ought not to be- than neither should Mike Huckabee's, or that of any other candidate. And that includes the religiously-based convictions of Gov. Huckabee and all those other candidates as to whether or not Mormonism ought to be considered as falling within the pale of the Christian faith.

The truly bizarre thing about the current attacks on Huckabee is that in fact he has consistently refused to answer questions about the status of Mormonism as a cult, or whether Gov. Romney is a Christian. As would be the case for any Christian holding to the majority view of the very theological definition of Christianity, were he to answer that question truthfully and in good conscience he would be required to answer in the affirmative.

So precisely in order not to attack Gov. Romney's religion, or to be perceived as endorsing a religious test for the presidency, Gov. Huckabee has consistently refused to answer the question, and responded that it is precisely what we all agree that it is: irrelevant.

I find it very difficult to find words to describe the perversity of using that very refusal to discuss the issue and thus say something negative about Gov. Romney's faith as a basis for claiming that Huckabee is engaging in a religious attack on Mormonism or on Mitt Romney. Understand this very carefully: what is being demanded of Gov. Huckabee here is that he renounce his own religious convictions concerning the constitutive content of the Christian faith, and embrace Mormonism's. And anything less than that is claimed to be evidence of intolerance on his part!

Almost as bizarre is the claim that Huckabee- a former Baptist minister whose candidacy has as much natural resonence with "Evangelicals" as Romney's Mormonism does for members of the LDS- should emphasize his status as a Christian leader whose faith is important to him as somehow an attack on Romney. I doubt whether there are many Mormons who don't know that Mitt Romney is a member of an LDS, and I doubt whether the overwhelming support for Mitt Romney among Mormons is a cause for a great crisis of conscience among Romney's Mormon supporters. Nor should it be. It is natural that people are attracted to candidates who have cultural and religious viewponts similar to theirs. Romney's values and his attitudes toward issues of governmental policy where the implications of his faith and mine coincide, as vastly as those convictions in themselves differ, is a very important reason why I would find Romney an acceptable candidate. But does anyone seriously argue that the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon is irrelevant to the fact that so many Mormons support him- or that there's anything the least bit wrong about that fact?

Why is Mike Huckabee seen as operating an anti-Mormon campaign- subtle or otherwise- for stressing his commonalities as an "Evangelical" with an important constituency in Iowa? If there were a heavily contested Utah primary, would Mitt Romney be an anti-Baptist bigot for acknowledging his LDS membership while campaigning in the state ?

And so, my question: why is it that Gov. Romney's religious beliefs are rightly considered irrelevant to the presidential campaign, while Gov. Huckabee's are fair game?

The answer is that the Romney campaign and others are violating the spirit of Gov. Romney's own speech the other night on the relationship between religious faith and government. You can't have it both ways.

If there should be no religious test required for Mitt Romney, then neither should such a test be required where Mike Huckabee is concerned.

ADDENDUM: Here is a sensible response to the anti-Huckabee nonsense from Ramesh Ponnuru over at the National Review's blog, The Corner.



ADDENDUM II: Lest it be misunderstood, the Huckabee campaign has re-done the TV ad airing here in Iowa which touts him as a "Christian leader" with a version replacing the word "Christian" with "proven."

Once more, Huckabee's reasonable and civil response to his abusers contrasts dramatically with the nasty way he's being treated by other candidates these days on the very issue of who is and who is not a Christian.

Comments

solarblogger said…
The term "cult" is probably not a helpful one. I am not so much against having words with a pejorative tinge to them, as worried that the pejorative tinge of this word has less to do with false doctrine than other things. In the 1970's, the word was used of groups like The Children of God who engaged in scary practices. In the backs of some people's minds is a question of whether groups labeled as cults are likely to kidnap or brainwash people. They are happy if they find out a group does not do this, and likely feel misled if they hear a group labeled a cult if the group is neighborly and eschews violence.

After Waco, I read some good articles suggesting that use of terms like "cult" may have a tendency to make it easier for the government to marginalize religions that the majority don't feel affinity with. I think the case is good, and so I am for speaking in ways that include even scary minorities as good Americans. If asked about salvation, we can be as sectarian as we need to be. But lots of people who aren't going to heaven can qualify as decent Americans.

Romney's speech did what I think it needed to do. I don't like him as a candidate. But his Mormonism would not stand in the way of my voting for him if I embraced his other policies.
Upon further review, as they say in the NFL, I'm inclined to agree with you on both counts.
In fact, not only to I agree with what you say, but I have revised the post to acknowledge your concern. Thank you.