It is a tad exasperating, but then one recalls one’s Calvinism again, and everything’s okay. I refer, of course, to the questions of high theology that have now beset the contenders for the Republican nomination for president. I shall respond briefly (and with my customary moderation) by means of three basic points.
First, the fracas has been the occasion for many to trot out that apocryphal Luther quote about preferring to be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. Right, but Romney is a foolish Turk. Now what? But even though Luther didn’t say it, I would agree with him if he had — I personally would much rather be governed by a pagan who acted like a Christian than a Christian who acted like a pagan. But what we always seem to get are pagans who act like pagans, and then, when we object to that, we are soundly refuted by a misunderstanding of something Luther never said. All I want is a wise Christian. Is that too much to ask? Apparently.
Second, the question whether or not there be more gods than one is hardly a question on the same level as baptismal modes, or whether the choir should chant Gregory or sing Watts. There are any number of ways to state this, but monotheism is not a detail. Mormonism is fundamentally polytheistic in that entertaining Battlestar Galatica kind of way, and the Christian faith is not. In essentials, unity, sure, and whether or not god used to be one of us, and whether or not each one of us can eventually become just like him, with our own planet and everything, is one of those essential questions. Come down on the wrong side of that one and you are not a Christian, whatever that might do to your personal feelings.
Having said so much as this, the reason why Romney’s Mormonism is not a huge practical deal is because his is a compromised Mormonism. He bows and scrapes in front of the idols of American secularism, in just the same way that most Christian candidates do. He believes whatever Mormony thoughts he does in the privacy of his own head, but he makes sure to offer a pinch of incense to our common emperor every time he comes into the public square. He is therefore a henotheist, and the chief god he serves is the god of American civil religion. Then, having committed himself to idolatry, he has at least had the good sense to be an idolater all the way down. This, in distinction from orthodox Christian candidates, who prostrate themselves before the putt-putt god of American civil religion while on the public stage, and who then worship the Lord of Heaven and earth, the one to whom all authority has been given, the risen Lord, the Creator of all things, in whom all things hold together, behind their eyes and between their ears. That damned pinch of incense has filled up this particular room with clouds of dense smoke, and it appears that nobody in here can think straight anymore. All of us, orthodox or not, are feeling kind of woozy in that epistemological way. Incense’ll do that.
And third, last night I heard Charles Krauthammer trying in vain to defend American secularism by pointing to the Constitution’s prohibition of a “religious test” in order to hold public office. Two points should be made about this. First, even on his understanding of “religious test,” there is nothing unconstitutional about a citizen refusing to vote for someone because of his religion. Krauthammer’s understanding of the Constitution here would be relevant if someone were proposing to remove Romney and Huntsman from the ballot because of their Mormonism. But if someone proposes to not vote for them because of their Mormonism, the Constitution says to such an enlightened voter, “Be my guest.” Second, when the Constitution was adopted, “religious test” mean “denominational test,” and included all Protestant denominations. I mention this merely as a point of historical interest for all of you antiquarians. And third, the refusal to apply a religious test only works if everybody agrees beforehand to submit to the badly camouflaged religion of secularism. In other words, the refusal to apply religious tests only works if everybody has already passed the established religious test. But if somebody doesn’t pass that religious test, and has the bad manners to run for Congress anyway, say, as a full-throated jihadist, we will all be treated to the spectacle of secularists applying a religious test while pretending with smug superiority that they are doing no such thing. Their facial expressions while conducting this interesting intellectual exercise create quite an aesthetic treat.