Romney for President
Well, I've waited, weighed and pondered for months- and I think I'm ready to make my choice for 2008. It is, after all, less than a year before the Iowa Caucuses! ;)
I like John McCain. Ok, that puts me in a minority where social conservatives are concerned. But I think he's gotten a bad shake from them. I continue to believe- contrary to the conservative "party line-" that the "Gang of Fourteen" deal was a stroke of genius. It got John Roberts and Sam Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, and had it not been for Iraq and the black eye immigration hard liners gave the Republicans among Hispanics, it would have undoubtedly gotten President Bush's next appointee confirmed, too- probably giving social conservatives a majority on the court, and our best chance ever for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, Cruzan v. Director, and the other undemocratic and socially destructive instances of amendment of the Constitution by judicial fiat of which the Supreme Court has been guilty.
Until recently, I agreed with McCain that gay "marriage" should remain a matter of state concern, and not nationalized- and certainly not forbidden by amendment to the Constitution. But I've changed my mind, because the issue is too fundamental to be treated as something anybody has the option to change. Marriage is a pre-political institution; it is more foundational to society even than government, and existed long before governments existed.
It is what it is, and what it always has been. It has never been other than an arrangement between one man and one woman. Government at no level has the authority to modify an institution more foundational to civilizaton and even chronologically prior to government itself. To attempt to do so is in fact to abolish that institution, and to replace it with a new one. And if marriage can be legislated into an institution which can involve people of the same gender, why can't goverment legislate it into an institution which may involve more than two? We may laugh at the eccentrics who publicly "marry" dolphins and dogs- and obviously, homosexuals are human beings, not animals. But if government has the power to modify marriage so as to make it into an institution capable of being entered into by members of the same gender, in principle what's to stop it from extending the border not only beyond the boundaries of gender, but also those of species? For that matter, inanimate objects can as logically be the object of matrimony as two people of the same gender, if the principle be granted that government has the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit!
It has to be by constitutional amendment. The definition of marriage as an institution involving two people of different genders is simply not something government at any level has the right or the power to change.
But for me, the deal-breaker where McCain is concerned is his stand on embryonic stem-cell research. To be pro-life (for the most part) on abortion while favoring the legalized cannibalization of embryos for theraputic purposes is not only philosophically unconsistent, but inane. If life begins at conception, it begins at conception for the purposes of stem-cell research, too- and this regardless of the fate of the embryos or the intentions of those who cause them to be conceived.
Combined with the most basic facts of the controversy, throughly ignored by the media- the utter failure of medical science thus far to come up with a practical way to treat a single illness with embryonic stem cells or to overcome what seems to be their inate tendency to result in malignant tumors when we try, and McCain's position favoring expanded embryonic stem cell research strikes me as ethically and philosophically incoherant. This is especially the case when it is combined with the promise of epethelial stem cells and others derived from wholly non-controversial and ethically innocuous sources, which are just as pluripotent as embryonic stem cells are if not more so, lack their practical disadvantages, and are already being used to treat a variety of illnesses.
I appreciate Sen. McCain's forthright position on the use of torture by American military and intelligence personnel, and concede his impressive qualifications as a commander-in-chief and architect of our foreign policy. I can only praise his courage, consistency, and sober insight on the Iraq question. But for the reasons elucidated above, I cannot support his candidacy for president- at least at this stage.
Talk to me again, should the circumstances arise, in August of next year. Unlike Rudy Giuliani- whom I can see little reason to prefer to Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama or John Edwards- I will support John McCain if he is the nominee. I'll even work for him. But for the reasons explained above, I cannot at this point support him for the nomination.
Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are other men of whom I have an especially high opinion, and whose candidacy I find attractive. They are both thoughtful men. They are both good men. Both are men of conscience and principle. They are both effective public speakers with effective public personalities. Both are social conservatives who combine principle with compassion. But Brownback has been so stereotyped by the media as a mindless, extremist tool of the religious Right that he will find a hard time reaching out to moderates- or rather, in having them be receptive to his outreach. He is so much an unknown that I doubt that he will have the time or the opportunity to effectively challenge the media's mischaracterization of him as an ideological fanatic in time for it to do him much good.
Huckabee is a Southern governor- a major asset in a race in which, I believe, carrying the South solidly will be a prerequisite to a Republican victory. But his opponents have smeared him with nit-picking, groundless ethical accusations which- despite their insubstantiality- will likely be a major distraction. We cannot afford to have memories of Mark Foley and the "culture of corruption" resurrected- however unfairly-in a year in which the Republican party is attempting a fresh start with the voters. Recalling how the Democrats (and- inexcusably- the media) continued to harp on the non-issue of President Bush's supposed "AWOL" status as a National Guardsman four full years after his fellow members of the Alabama National Guard came forward to share their memories of serving with him in an assignment to which his detractors suggested that he never reported only underscores my conviction that Mike Huckabee simply wouldn't get a fair break from a mainsteam media hungry for a Democrat in the White House.
McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Gingrich, and all the other candidates are good men. But we need an alternative- somebody capable of carrying our message as a party to a diverse nation and both inspiring personal confidence and setting a responsible and appropriate agenda for the nation his fellow candidates share, but cannot so effectively present.
Mitt Romney, it seems to me, is that alternative. He is not perfect. His lack of governmental experience is a huge drawback (the experience he has consists of a single term in the Massachusetts governor's mansion), and the political pitfalls to which he is vulnerable as a result are manifold. He shows a disturbing tendency to follow in his distinguished father's footsteps and put his foot in his mouth; in our current nit-picking age of attack politics and personal ridicule as a political weapon, this vulnerability is a major one.
But Mitt Romney is avery smart man. He's a man with an impressive ability to communicate. He's a man who comes across as a leader, and as genuine. He's a man who clearly has the personal characteristics to be an effective president, even if he doesn't have the political experience and personal expertise I'd like.
His executive experience not only in Boston, but as the guiding light of the Salt Lake City Olympics and in private business, reveals him as an effective administrator and a man likely to surround himself with people who are experts on areas in which his own expertise may be deficient- and to listen to them.
Yes, he has changed his position on abortion and other social issues. But people change. People grow. The weak-willed and the morally unprincipled switch back and forth at will. But he who refuses to change his position when he becomes convinced that he has previously been wrong is not a strong leader. He is a fool.
Personally, as I've said before, Mitt Romney's religion is an asset. Frankly, too many on the religious Right (though not nearly as many, of course, as on the political Left!) are confused about the relationship between faith and government. Mitt Romney is running neither to be our national pastor nor our society's chief theologian. He is running to exercise the authority of the government in the defense of the weak against the strong, and the upholding of those common standards of social decency and common welfare which have always animated our leaders even when their religious convictions have been other than orthodox. In this time of grave national crisis in the realm of ethics and values, we need to look to the ethics and values of our president, not his views on the salvation of souls.
Martin Luther was paraphrased by my seminary advisor, Dr. Ralph Quere, as commenting that it is better to be ruled by a smart Turk than by a dumb Christian. Well, the same goes with being led by a smart Mormon. In Lutheranese, the presidency of the United States is in the realm of God's Kingdom of the Left Hand- the realm of justice and order and law and compulsion, in which all members of society are equally His subjects, no matter what they believe in Him, or whether they believe in HIm at all. It has nothing to do with the Kingdom of the Right hand- the realm of grace, of faith, and of theology, of which only Christians are citizens.
We have neither the right nor any good reason to demand that our president be orthodox. But we have the absolute obligation to demand that he be good, and that he govern by the divine principles of decency which St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1 are inscribed upon the human heart, and equally accessible to people of all beliefs.
Mormon or not, I'd be proud to have Mitt Romney as my president, and I've decided to support him for the 2008 Republican nomination for that office.
ADDENDUM: And now, in mid-March, I've changed my mind.
The reason isn't that Romney has offended me somehow. It's that the man who has been my first choice for the 2008 nomination ever since the aftermath of the 2000 election, former Senator Fred Thompson- who I thought unlikely to run- is considering doing precisely that.
I take back nothing I've said about Governor Romney, BTW- except the endorsement. It's Thompson for me!
I like John McCain. Ok, that puts me in a minority where social conservatives are concerned. But I think he's gotten a bad shake from them. I continue to believe- contrary to the conservative "party line-" that the "Gang of Fourteen" deal was a stroke of genius. It got John Roberts and Sam Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, and had it not been for Iraq and the black eye immigration hard liners gave the Republicans among Hispanics, it would have undoubtedly gotten President Bush's next appointee confirmed, too- probably giving social conservatives a majority on the court, and our best chance ever for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, Cruzan v. Director, and the other undemocratic and socially destructive instances of amendment of the Constitution by judicial fiat of which the Supreme Court has been guilty.
Until recently, I agreed with McCain that gay "marriage" should remain a matter of state concern, and not nationalized- and certainly not forbidden by amendment to the Constitution. But I've changed my mind, because the issue is too fundamental to be treated as something anybody has the option to change. Marriage is a pre-political institution; it is more foundational to society even than government, and existed long before governments existed.
It is what it is, and what it always has been. It has never been other than an arrangement between one man and one woman. Government at no level has the authority to modify an institution more foundational to civilizaton and even chronologically prior to government itself. To attempt to do so is in fact to abolish that institution, and to replace it with a new one. And if marriage can be legislated into an institution which can involve people of the same gender, why can't goverment legislate it into an institution which may involve more than two? We may laugh at the eccentrics who publicly "marry" dolphins and dogs- and obviously, homosexuals are human beings, not animals. But if government has the power to modify marriage so as to make it into an institution capable of being entered into by members of the same gender, in principle what's to stop it from extending the border not only beyond the boundaries of gender, but also those of species? For that matter, inanimate objects can as logically be the object of matrimony as two people of the same gender, if the principle be granted that government has the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit!
It has to be by constitutional amendment. The definition of marriage as an institution involving two people of different genders is simply not something government at any level has the right or the power to change.
But for me, the deal-breaker where McCain is concerned is his stand on embryonic stem-cell research. To be pro-life (for the most part) on abortion while favoring the legalized cannibalization of embryos for theraputic purposes is not only philosophically unconsistent, but inane. If life begins at conception, it begins at conception for the purposes of stem-cell research, too- and this regardless of the fate of the embryos or the intentions of those who cause them to be conceived.
Combined with the most basic facts of the controversy, throughly ignored by the media- the utter failure of medical science thus far to come up with a practical way to treat a single illness with embryonic stem cells or to overcome what seems to be their inate tendency to result in malignant tumors when we try, and McCain's position favoring expanded embryonic stem cell research strikes me as ethically and philosophically incoherant. This is especially the case when it is combined with the promise of epethelial stem cells and others derived from wholly non-controversial and ethically innocuous sources, which are just as pluripotent as embryonic stem cells are if not more so, lack their practical disadvantages, and are already being used to treat a variety of illnesses.
I appreciate Sen. McCain's forthright position on the use of torture by American military and intelligence personnel, and concede his impressive qualifications as a commander-in-chief and architect of our foreign policy. I can only praise his courage, consistency, and sober insight on the Iraq question. But for the reasons elucidated above, I cannot support his candidacy for president- at least at this stage.
Talk to me again, should the circumstances arise, in August of next year. Unlike Rudy Giuliani- whom I can see little reason to prefer to Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama or John Edwards- I will support John McCain if he is the nominee. I'll even work for him. But for the reasons explained above, I cannot at this point support him for the nomination.
Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are other men of whom I have an especially high opinion, and whose candidacy I find attractive. They are both thoughtful men. They are both good men. Both are men of conscience and principle. They are both effective public speakers with effective public personalities. Both are social conservatives who combine principle with compassion. But Brownback has been so stereotyped by the media as a mindless, extremist tool of the religious Right that he will find a hard time reaching out to moderates- or rather, in having them be receptive to his outreach. He is so much an unknown that I doubt that he will have the time or the opportunity to effectively challenge the media's mischaracterization of him as an ideological fanatic in time for it to do him much good.
Huckabee is a Southern governor- a major asset in a race in which, I believe, carrying the South solidly will be a prerequisite to a Republican victory. But his opponents have smeared him with nit-picking, groundless ethical accusations which- despite their insubstantiality- will likely be a major distraction. We cannot afford to have memories of Mark Foley and the "culture of corruption" resurrected- however unfairly-in a year in which the Republican party is attempting a fresh start with the voters. Recalling how the Democrats (and- inexcusably- the media) continued to harp on the non-issue of President Bush's supposed "AWOL" status as a National Guardsman four full years after his fellow members of the Alabama National Guard came forward to share their memories of serving with him in an assignment to which his detractors suggested that he never reported only underscores my conviction that Mike Huckabee simply wouldn't get a fair break from a mainsteam media hungry for a Democrat in the White House.
McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Gingrich, and all the other candidates are good men. But we need an alternative- somebody capable of carrying our message as a party to a diverse nation and both inspiring personal confidence and setting a responsible and appropriate agenda for the nation his fellow candidates share, but cannot so effectively present.
Mitt Romney, it seems to me, is that alternative. He is not perfect. His lack of governmental experience is a huge drawback (the experience he has consists of a single term in the Massachusetts governor's mansion), and the political pitfalls to which he is vulnerable as a result are manifold. He shows a disturbing tendency to follow in his distinguished father's footsteps and put his foot in his mouth; in our current nit-picking age of attack politics and personal ridicule as a political weapon, this vulnerability is a major one.
But Mitt Romney is avery smart man. He's a man with an impressive ability to communicate. He's a man who comes across as a leader, and as genuine. He's a man who clearly has the personal characteristics to be an effective president, even if he doesn't have the political experience and personal expertise I'd like.
His executive experience not only in Boston, but as the guiding light of the Salt Lake City Olympics and in private business, reveals him as an effective administrator and a man likely to surround himself with people who are experts on areas in which his own expertise may be deficient- and to listen to them.
Yes, he has changed his position on abortion and other social issues. But people change. People grow. The weak-willed and the morally unprincipled switch back and forth at will. But he who refuses to change his position when he becomes convinced that he has previously been wrong is not a strong leader. He is a fool.
Personally, as I've said before, Mitt Romney's religion is an asset. Frankly, too many on the religious Right (though not nearly as many, of course, as on the political Left!) are confused about the relationship between faith and government. Mitt Romney is running neither to be our national pastor nor our society's chief theologian. He is running to exercise the authority of the government in the defense of the weak against the strong, and the upholding of those common standards of social decency and common welfare which have always animated our leaders even when their religious convictions have been other than orthodox. In this time of grave national crisis in the realm of ethics and values, we need to look to the ethics and values of our president, not his views on the salvation of souls.
Martin Luther was paraphrased by my seminary advisor, Dr. Ralph Quere, as commenting that it is better to be ruled by a smart Turk than by a dumb Christian. Well, the same goes with being led by a smart Mormon. In Lutheranese, the presidency of the United States is in the realm of God's Kingdom of the Left Hand- the realm of justice and order and law and compulsion, in which all members of society are equally His subjects, no matter what they believe in Him, or whether they believe in HIm at all. It has nothing to do with the Kingdom of the Right hand- the realm of grace, of faith, and of theology, of which only Christians are citizens.
We have neither the right nor any good reason to demand that our president be orthodox. But we have the absolute obligation to demand that he be good, and that he govern by the divine principles of decency which St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1 are inscribed upon the human heart, and equally accessible to people of all beliefs.
Mormon or not, I'd be proud to have Mitt Romney as my president, and I've decided to support him for the 2008 Republican nomination for that office.
ADDENDUM: And now, in mid-March, I've changed my mind.
The reason isn't that Romney has offended me somehow. It's that the man who has been my first choice for the 2008 nomination ever since the aftermath of the 2000 election, former Senator Fred Thompson- who I thought unlikely to run- is considering doing precisely that.
I take back nothing I've said about Governor Romney, BTW- except the endorsement. It's Thompson for me!
Comments
In our book, Mitt is the man!
To help our readership we created this Mitt Romney interactive Issue map . Share and enjoy.
Unless you were speaking of someone other than Newt...? Newt, the one who abandoned not one but two wives on their sickbeds?
But as for Romney, I need to hear more from him, but right now, he's as good as any.
I'm listening.
SERIOUSLY, if I were to do a “line-up” of all the serious presidential candidates (Obama, Edwards, Hillary (or Billary? - j/k) McCain, Giuliani and Romney) here’s my - near best - objective analysis:
1. LOOKS/APPEARANCE:
Choice: Romney
Believe it or not, in today’s world of tv/media obsession, “being kind to the camera” is a huge plus! And with the indisputable impact and role of the media in the election outcomes, I’d give the edge to Romney. By the way, if you think looks, are not important, then why all the fuss about the phrase: “looks presidential/looks like a president”?
2. INTELLIGENCE based on educational and academic achievements:
Choice: Romney - I’d dare anyone to challenge this one! (For those who do not know about Romney’s educational background, please check it out, it’s all over the ‘Net.)
3. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE:
Choice: Romney. He has more experience, than any other candidate, both in the private and public sectors, which I must add, is an absolute must for a leader, especially of the US being the leader in democracy and capitalism. He was a CEO of a successful venture capital firm and was governor*. He was also asked to help rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics which was a SUCCESS! ($100 million profit). The national debt/deficit needs to be controlled if not eliminated and Romney has the experience to do that.
4. CHARACTER:
Choice: Definitely Romney
Need I say more? Integrity, clean, great family, doesn’t smoke or drink, etc., etc.,
5. THE MOST ARTICULATE:
Choice: Romney (sorry Obama, Romney has addressed many more varieties of audiences through his private and public experience ). This is an indispensable skill for a president. By the way, I can’t wait for the debates to begin.
6. ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Choice: Romney
Need I list them? - ok, Health care, successful business ventures, balanced budgets, Winter Olympics, etc., etc., Through his accomplishments, he has acquired the necessary experience to be effective as president.
7. FOREIGN POLICY/ INT’L AFFAIRS
Choice: I’ll give the edge to the Senators
But note also, that Romney through his global business experience and deals, as well as being a smart person himself, Romney can easily outdo the senators in certain areas. He is a great communicator and will be an asset in international negotiations. He also has excellent knowledge and understanding of the world (nations and countries).
8. HOMELAND SECURITY
Edge: Romney
He headed the 2002 Winter Olympics and was in charge of security, especially a few months after 9-11. Romney was also a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
No other candidate had the experience of overseeing a huge security force and undertaking as Romney during the Olympics.
Now, all politics and subjectivity aside, based on the above basic and most essential requirements for leadership, and presidential qualifications, who clearly has the advantage to become an effective president?
MITT ROMNEY! (After all the title: “MR President” already has his initials!)
Again, off all the candidates, Romney has the knowledge, skills, experience and character to become the next president.
------------------------------
*Having been the governor of a liberal/democratic state, Romney will, therefore, be the best and effective president if by 2008 (and beyond), the Democrats still have the majority in both houses. Romney will be effective in such a “hostile” and divided environment - a Democrat dominated one! He would say: “been there, done that” (as it was in Massachusetts). Hence, no other candidate has had such an EXECUTIVE experience as Romney.
"I've been trying to put it to rest for years, but this cat has nine times nine lives. She appears again in another incarnation in an interview that Jeff Greenfield did with Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. Greenfield asks whether one can derive from Christian faith a set of public policy specifics. Reed: "I guess my argument on that would be what Martin Luther said, which is: I would rather be operated on by a Turkish surgeon than a Christian butcher." The usual form of it is, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a stupid Christian." I had used it for years in speeches and writing until I was challenged. My curiosity piqued, I launched an inquiry that ended up involving scholars and librarians both here and in Europe, only to discover that Luther never said it. It fits Luther's "twofold kingdom" approach to civil governance, and he said much of the same purport, but please take this as yet another effort to put it to rest."
What Luther actually did say in "Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should Be Obeyed" was:
"You must know that since the beginning of the world a wise prince is a mighty rare bird, and an upright prince ever rarer. They are generally the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth; therefore, one must constantly expect the worst from them and look for little good, especially in divine matters which concern the salvation of souls. They are God's executioners and hangmen; his divine wrath uses them to punish the wicked and to maintain outward peace.... If a prince should happen to be wise, upright, or a Christian, that is one of the great miracles, the most precious token of divine grace upon that land."
As for Mitt, Mormon and Massachusetts are two marks I have against him.
The quotation itself is not the one you site (or which Fr. Neuhouse cites), but rather one from"An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility" of 1520, in which Luther writes:
It is said that there is no better temporal rule anywhere than among the Turks, who have neither spiritual nor temporal law, but only their Koran; and we must confess that there is no more shameful rule than among us, with our spiritual and temporal law, so that there is no estate which lives according to the light of nature, still less according to Holy Scripture.
Granted that the saw is a very loose paraphrase. But as Fr. Neuhaus himself observes, it accurately summarizes an important aspect of Luther's Two Kingdoms theory.
That the Kingdom of the Left Hand is a commonplace among all the nations of the earth; that it is governed according to natural law, equally accessible to all regardless of religion; and that specifically Christian belief is in no sense necessary for a prince (or a citizen!) to fulfill his duties in the Kingdom of the Left Hand is a basic feature of Luther's Two Kingdoms theology, and you're following Calvin rather than Luther if you reject a candidate for office in the Kingdom of the Left Hand on the ground of his qualifications as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Right. Like a great many on the religious Right, you're "brewing the Two Kingdoms into one another-"
an activity which, as Luther pointed out, is the cause of no end of mischief.
Don't know specifically what you have against Romney's record in Massachusetts, but greater specificity would enable a more comprehensive reaction.
They are God's executioners and hangmen; his divine wrath uses them to punish the wicked and to maintain outward peace. Our God is a great lord and ruler; this is why he must also have such noble, highborn, and rich hangmen and constables. He desires that everyone shall copiously accord them to riches, honor, and fear in abundance. It pleases his divine will that we call his hangmen gracious lords, fall at their feet, and be subject to them in all humility, so long as they do not ply their trade too far and try to become shepherds instead of hangmen.
I, for one, do not regularly expect great miracles:
Ordinarily the course of events is in accordance with the passage from Isaiah 3 [:4], "I will make boys their princes and gaping fools shall rule over them"...The world is too wicked, and does not deserve to have many wise and upright princes. Frogs must have their storks.
Is the USofA any different? Can you tell me it deserves to have many wise and upright princes?
I for one accept the rule of gaping fools with humility. That doesn't mean I have to vote for any of them.
Your list fits the duties and responsibilities of the Kingdom of the Left- at least in a pre-capitalist society such as Luther lived in- quite well. Today it would probably have to be modified in some ways to reflect modern reality. But that's precisely the reason why, as Luther argued, it is enough that a magistrate in God's Kingdom of the Left Hand be a just and moral man, and absolutely not necessary that he be a Christian. That hangup is the one inherent in Calvinism and other Reformed political systems which confuse the Two Kingdoms and "brew them together."
To the contrary, especially given its tendency for it to draw insubstantial criticisms like the one implied by your link, to change one's public positions when one becomes convinced that he is wrong is a mark of integrity and character- as well as thoughtfulness.
We could use a bit more of all three, nicht wahr? Would that all politicians would have the ephiphany Mitt Romney has had, and on precisely the same issues!
One of my favorite passages is Ecclesiastes 1:9-10. It helps to make sense of a world. "See, this is new (modern even)..."
sure.
...and abandoning precisely God's Kingdom of the Left Hand- which is not yours to abandon, and in which you are an accountable citizen whether you want to be or not- to the devil.
I count myself as a fully accountable citizen. I would thank you to not spread rumors to the contrary. I will not fail to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
But if by abandon you mean choose not to participate in Left hand activities, you are correct. Recently as I have found out what the Left hand kingdom is all about I have chosen to sit it out for the time being. I stopped going to church voter's meetings and I don't even plan on voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
The Preacher is writing about human nature, not about technology and politics.
To bad you've chosen to abandon your duty to God as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Left Hand, however temporarily.
Granted, technology may be new, but "politics" and left hand kingdom stuff is all about human nature. Ecclesiastes helps understanding this a great deal.
To bad you've chosen to abandon your duty to God as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Left Hand, however temporarily.
It will get along without me. There is no shortage of persons willing to administer the left hand kingdom. As you point out, they don't have to be Christian to be effective.
The problem I have with participating in left hand activities is that in dealing with the wicked, one often has to be wicked.
Take the famous King Solomon example with the baby and the two mothers fighting over it. His solution is considered wise, but it is also wicked. Either he actually intended to cut the baby in half, or he was lying. Either way, he was acting wickedly.
While you are chastizing with Balaam's rod, don't forget to include the "scholars and librarians both here and in Europe" also involved with Neuhaus in debunking the phrase's "urban legend" (the pervasiveness of which can be seen by googling "Martin Luther", "wise Turk", and "foolish Christian" on the Internet).
You also may want to clarify whether it is you who are claiming your seminary advisor's "very loose paraphase" is based on the provided quote, or whether it was Dr. Quere himself who claimed his paraphrase was based on the excerpt from "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility."
In the meantime, I will show you and any other readers (Lutheran or otherwise) why the urban legend, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a stupid Christian", has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted excerpt from "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility and why any such (para)phrase is quite unlikely to have been even loosely uttered (even in German or Latin) by Dr. Luther. The key points, as they should be for all phrases bandied about as being uttered by (or paraphrased from) Luther, are context, context, context.
First, "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility" was written to describe what Luther saw as the distressing conditions of the German nation under the pope and the reforms needed for correction. It has nothing to do with whether the Turks would be better rulers than (stupid) Romanists.
The irrelevance of the alleged paraphrase to the carefully excised excerpt can be seen by looking at the entire paragraph from the section of the Letter outlined in part III.B.ii.d, on correcting the teachings of the law at universities. In the paragraph Luther charges that it's a waste of time to study canon law in the German university, since the Romanists make up their own laws as they goes along [Aside: Sort of like the Commission on Constitutional Matters does in the Missouri Synod today]. At the end Luther brings up ("It is said...") the form of Turkish (Islamist) rule, which depends only on the Koran, and compares it to the absolutely shameful mess of Romanist made-up canon laws ("spiritual laws") and the imperial laws ("temporal laws") under which the poor Germans are now ruled.
Rather than indicating a preference for rule by wise Turks, Luther's quoted excerpt mocks the rule under the pope and his Romanist followers. It is analogous to cynically claiming, "It is said that there would be no better President than Benedict Arnold, rather than the shameful mess of another Clinton in the Oval Office." This is further confirmed by reading the paragraphs that follow, in which Luther indicates his real preference that "Holy Scriptures and good rulers would be law enough."
"It seems just to me that territorial laws and territorial customs should take precedence of the general imperial laws, and the imperial laws be used only in case of necessity. Would to God that as every land has its own peculiar character, so it were ruled by its own brief laws, as the lands were ruled before these imperial laws were invented, and many lands are still ruled without them!"
Or later in his Letter:
"... it[is] His will that this empire be ruled by the Christian princes of Germany, regardless whether the pope stole it, or got it by robbery, or made it anew. It is all God’s ordering, which came to pass before we knew of it."
Not much room for Turkish rule (wise or other) there!!
Second - Still not convinced about Luther's views on letting Turks take over to rule?!? So were some others in Luther's time:
"Certain persons have been begging me for the past five years to write about war against the Turks, and encourage our people and stir them up to it, and now that the Turk is actually approaching, my friends are compelling me to do this duty, especially since there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks."
That is why in 1528 Luther wrote "Vom Kriege wider die Türken" ("On War Against the Turk") in which he explains the context of some previous comments:
"For the popes had never seriously intended to make war on the Turk, but used the Turkish war as a conjurer’s hat, playing around in it, and robbing Germany of money by means of indulgences, whenever they took the notion. All the world knew it, but now it is forgotten. Thus they condemned my article not because it prevented the Turkish war, but because it tore off this conjurer’s hat and blocked the path along which the money went to Rome... If there had been a general opinion that a serious war was at hand, I could have dressed my article up better and made some distinctions....
"But what moved me most of all was this. They undertook to fight against the Turk under the name of Christ, and taught men and stirred them up to do this, as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ; and this is straight against Christ’s doctrine and name. It is against His doctrine, because He says that Christians shall not resist evil, shall not fight or quarrel, not take revenge or insist on rights. It is against His name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ....
"I say this not because I would teach that worldly rulers ought not be Christians, or that a Christian cannot bear the sword and serve God in temporal government. Would God they were all Christians, or that no one could be a prince unless he were a Christian! Things would be better than they now are and the Turk would not be so powerful. But what I would do is keep the callings and offices distinct and apart, so that everyone can see to what he is called, and fulfill the duties of his office faithfully and with the heart, in the service of God."
Luther also notes:
"For although some praise his [the Turk's] government because he allows everyone to believe what he will so long as he remains the temporal lord, yet this praise is not true, for he does not allow Christians to come together in public, and no one can openly confess Christ or preach or teach against Mohammed.
"How can one injure Christ more than with these two things; namely, force and wiles? With force, they prevent preaching and suppress the Word. With wiles, they daily put wicked and dangerous examples before men’s eyes and draw men to them. If we then would not lose our Lord Jesus Christ, His Word and faith, we must pray against the Turks as against other enemies of our salvation and of all good. Nay, as we pray against the devil himself....
"But as the pope is Antichrist, so the Turk is the very devil. The prayer of Christendom is against both. Both shall go down to hell, even though it may take the Last Day to send them there; and I hope it will not be long.
"Moreover, I hear it said that there are those in Germany who desire the coming of the Turk and his government, because they would rather be under the Turk than under the emperor or princes. It would be hard to fight against the Turk with such people. Against them I have no better advice to give than that pastors and preachers be exhorted to be diligent in their preaching and faithful in instructing such people, pointing out to them the danger they are in and the wrong that they are doing, how they are making themselves partakers of great and numberless sins and loading themselves down with them in the sight of God, if they are found in this opinion. For it is misery enough to be compelled to suffer the Turk as overlord and to endure his government; but willingly to put oneself under it, or to desire it, when one need not and is not compelled – the man who does that ought to be shown the sin he is committing and how terribly he is going on."
There are indeed many, many more statements of Luther in "On War Against the Turk" that are just as valuable today, both for Europe and the U.S. But these should be more than sufficient to convince reasonable readers that Luther never regarded it as a preferrable desire or choice to be ruled by a Turk... or even represented by a Muslim congressman (someone pass this on to the voters in Minnesota's Fifth District).
Second, whether citing Dr. Quere or Fr. Neuhaus or those European scholars, the argument ipse dixit remains a logical fallacy. The question is Luther's own theology on that specific question- surely at least as the context of the quotation on the matter actually being discussed as on the red herring of whether rule by an unbeliever is somehow to be preferred.
Third, your argument is indeed a red herring. Nobody is suggesting, much less citing Luther in support of, the notion that government by a Muslim is somehow to be preferred to government by a Christian- or even that, in the abstract, the latter is not to be preferred to the former. The point, rather, is that one need not be a citizen of the Kingdom of the Right to do one's duty in the Kingdom of the Left; that it's the Kingdom of the Right whose currency is the Gospel, while the Kingdom of the Left is run by the Law- and that the Law is in the realm of nature, and accessible to believer and non-believer alike.
As Fr. Neuhaus himself observes, the saw about "smart Turks and dumb Christians," whether literally authentic or not, does accurately represent Luther's Two Kingdoms theology.
The point is that it is not necessary for a ruler to be a Christian, however desirable it might be It is enough that he be a just man who governs according to the light available in nature itself. And the fact remains that. given the existing alternatives, the words "no better government on earth" expresses a preference for the quality of government (though not necessarily the policies)reported to exist under the Turk to that which (whatever the causes)existed in Christendom.
Whether Luther would have preferred a comparable quality of govenment by specifically Christian rulers is not in dispute, nor is it relevant to the issue. Nor is the issue whether Luther would have been content to have the Turk bring his good government to Germany and make dhimmi of Papist and Lutheran alike; of course he wouldn't have!
The issue is whether God's servant who bears the sword must necessarily be a Christian in order to fulfill his duties in what is after all the Kingdom of the Left Hand. Luther's answer is "no."
But the question is not whether we should replace our national government with the Taliban. The question is whether a Mormon (or, by extension, a Jew or an agnostic or even an atheist of a Muslim) should in principle be rejected as a potential president. It is my belief that one particular Mormon- Mitt Romney- would make a better president than the other (hetrodox) candidates who are at least nominal Christians. Certainly I believe that a non-Christian who protects the rights of the unborn, the institution of the traditional family, and specifically those national values and customs, moral and otherwise, which Luther properly suggested should be cherished and protected by the ruler would be a better president than a nominal Christian who does not. I think the authentic Luther quote from the Address to the Christian Nobility speaks to that matter-
especially given the utter irrelevance of the downside Luther saw to government by the Turk, which does not arise here- quite eloquently indeed.
In other words, "Better to be ruled by a pro-life, pro-family Mormon than a pro-abortion, pro- embryonic stem cell research, pro-gay 'marriage' 'Christian.'" And that especially in a constitutional Republic whose political customs and values he shares.
Now, you may well believe that there are Christians candidates who would mabke better candidates than Mitt Romney. Then by all means, make the case. But don't confuse the Two Kingdoms, and the distinction between Law and Gospel itself, by suggesting that any of the other candidates should be preferred to him simply because they're nominal Christians, and he's a faithful Mormon.
Which, lest we utterly lose sight of it, is the point. To trash the Two Kingdoms is no more Lutheran than trashing the Sixth Amendment is Christian.
But both equally reflect Luther's theology of the Two Kingdoms.
2. Luther never said anything that could be paraphrased as, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a stupid Christian."
3. In particular, the excerpted sentence from Luther's "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility" does not mean anything near the alleged paraphrase. In that paragraph Luther does not claim any desire for Turkish rule. Luther is attacking (using mockery) the rule of the papacy and the laws of the Empire, which make up the shameful rule he referred to. In that section, Luther is recommending to the German nobility the various refoms in education, particularly in the teaching of law. In that Letter Luther is advocating the German Christian nobility to refuse to give Rome any more money, and to govern with their territorial laws rather than to be dominated by Rome.
4. In Luther's "On War Against the Turk" Luther makes it clear that he is opposed to Turkish (Mohmmadean) rule and that it is a sin for a Christian to prefer such rule.
5. Luther also pointed out that the Church did not have the authority to war against the Turk rule, even if some Christians were to find themselves under such rule. But Luther agreed that the government (under Charles or the German rulers) had the authority to war against the Muslims to protect their citizens.
2. Luther's words say otherwise.
3. Luther explicitly credits the notion that there is no better government on earth than under the Turk. While nobody claims that he said that he would rather be ruled by the Turks, or even that he would find such a situation tolerable, the statement clearly speaks rather directly to the matter at hand, which you have chosen to ignore in order to go off on a tangent: as is explicit in Luther's Two Kingdoms theology, it is not necessary to be a Christian in order to carry out the responsibilities of a ruler in
the Kindom of the Left. One does not need the Holy Spirit in order to act justly and to protect the weak from the strong. One does not need the Gospel to conform one's rule to the natural law.
Whatever point Luther was making by saying it, he does credit the notion that- within obvious limitations peculiar the case (sharia and the Turkish intent to reduce Christians to dhimmitude)- the Turk, in fact, does a better job of it than any contemporary Christian!
If you want to argue that he was making a different point entirely, fine. If you want to argue that Luther was against Turks ruling Christians, also fine; nobody has said anythin to the contrary (which makes me wonder why you continue to pursue what has already been pointed out to you is a red herring).
The point is, first, that to credit the idea that the Turks had better government than was known anywhere in the Christian world is-whether you like it or not- to implicitly agree that Christian faith is not necessary in order for a ruler to achieve what Luther is prepared to credit the notion that the Turks have achieved- i.e., better government than obtained among Christians anywhere on earth. Sorry, Carl, but his words are what they are.And as Fr. Neuhaus points out, whether or not you believe that the saw about smart Turks and dumb Christians is a paraphrase, it is a clear implication of Luther's Two Kingdoms theology.
Luther doesn't credit the notion; he only mentions the notion ("It is said..."). He did not confirm he agreed with what is said, or that the Turks should rule in place of the pope. Luther didn't mean that the nobles and princes should consider appointing a Muslim or two to govern Germany. He said it to direct attention to the points he wanted to make in his subsequent paragraphs (as I noted earlier) and in what he had been alluding to in the many previous paragraphs.
If I say, "It is said that Luther threw an inkwell at the devil", or "It is said that a cat has nine lives", or "It is said if your ears burn someone is talking about you.", I hope that no one assumes (like some mistakenly have with Luther's "It is said...") that I really believe these statements or actually promote them as the truth... or at least one should suspend judgment on what they think I mean until the context of what I say following any such statement is heard and understood.
It is silliness to attempt to rip this single sentence of Luther from its true context, isolate it from the points Luther was actually discussing in his "Open Letter to the Christian Nobility", and dress it up as a fabled quote (or disguise it as a "very loose paraphrase"). Luther's Two Kingdom theology certainly doesn't need any assistance from such vaudevillian antics.
Again, in his "On War Against the Turk" Luther most clearly states his view on the evils of any government under the Turks (Islamists). Such a view completely opposes the notion that "there is no better temporal rule anywhere than among the Turks".
Carl, this isn't hard. I'm at a loss as to why you keep trying to refute things I've pointed out over and over again that I never claimed. In any event, you are engaging in some non sequiturs and even absurdities that need to be challenged.
I have never claimed that Luther was in favor of Turks governing Germany, or anywhere else in particular. I have no idea, therefore, why you keep insisting that something I've never claimed is untrue!
No American city in recent decades has been as effectively governed as Chicago under Richard J. Daley. It was known throughout the nation as "the city that works." City services were delivered with an efficiency that was matched nowhere else in America. Even Daley's most outspoken opponents had to concede the point.
Yet the city government was desperately corrupt. Every election was conducted under a cloud. Nepotism and the abuse of power was the rule even at the highest levels. I worked in campaign after campaign against the Daley Machine.
I might well have said, "There is no city in America that is governed as effectively as Chicago under Richard J. Daley." That would not have implied that therefore I approved of the Daley Administration, or wanted to live under it. In fact, fighting it was my avocation for something like a decade.
If Luther was not crediting the suggestion that "there is no better government on earth than under the Turk," then his citing that observation by others was inane. His whole point was to establish the inferiority of government under the Christian princes of his day to that under Turkish rule. This did not imply his approval of Turkish rule. Nor did it imply that he considered rule under the Turks (and I'm sorry, but that is not the same thing as "Islamists") in any sense acceptable or even tolerable. He was making an observation that historically was correct: the Ottoman Empire was administered far better than the Holy Roman Empire!
That is what he said, Carl. To suggest that he did not personally credit it is to render the quotation inane; it does not then support the argument which you yourself point out that he was making! You have pointed out- correctly- that Luther was not here urging his Two Kingdoms teaching, deploring the poor state of government among the purported Christians of the time. Fair enough. But in the process of making that point, he- Luther himself, Carl- credits the notion that contemporary Turks- whatever their flaws and failings which would render living under them inadmissable- were superior to
He does not say that he wanted to be ruled by either, or that either the state of affairs which existed under the Turk or that which then existed in Germany was acceptable. OK? Is that clear?
Secondly, whether or not you're prepared to concede that the saw originated as a paraphrase of the words in question (which, in fact, it did; I've already pointed out that I first heard it from a respected Luther scholar), and whether or not it has anything to do with the point Luther was trying to make, Fr. Neuhaus's point still stands: "better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian" is in fact a statement wholly in keeping with Luther's Two Kingdoms teaching.
Now. Shall we stop fencing and get down to the substantial issue which you seem to be trying to avoid engaging?
Do you, then, deny that Luther saw the governance of the Kingdom of the Left Hand as being a function of the Law, and thus requiring only a civilly just man governing according to the light of nature rather than someone under the influence of the Holy Spirit? I agree that as a practical matter the rule of sharia is a seperate case, and nobody is suggesting otherwise.
This is an absurd question, Carl, but at this point I have to ask it: are you saying, in effect, that Luther did not hold his own doctrine of the Two Kingdoms? Are you citing "On the War Against the Turk" as evidence that Luther thought that only Christians could govern in the Kingdom of the Left? If so, it would be an odd thing, but it would explain your aversion to the notion of a Mormon being President. If not, I'd welcome your explanation of why you consider his Mormonism to be relevant at all.
"...were superior to the very Christian princes Luther was condemning!"