Mitt Romney gave a speech on Thursday designed to allay fears about his Mormonism and unite "people of faith" behind his campaign. I didn't see it, but it sounds like it was well received by many religious conservatives. One observer who wasn't as impressed was David Brooks. In an astute analysis, Brooks puts his finger on a common problem with much discussion of religion and "faith" nowadays -- the tendency to blur distinctions and sacrifice truth. Brooks sees more clearly than most the danger in confusing the God of "American civic religion" with the God of the Bible.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?
In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant.
Romney’s job yesterday was to unite social conservatives behind him. If he succeeded, he did it in two ways. He asked people to rally around the best traditions of America’s civic religion. He also asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end.
Romney might turn out to be the best option for Christian voters, but hopefully we won't sacrifice truth on the altar of keeping Hillary out of the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment