[T]his is a huge signal. This is like a lighthouse going on, the light shining its beam on Mitt Romney. Not only that, but the argument made by Bob Jones III basically means that not only is he supporting Mitt Romney, he’s basically saying he is the only option so far as he sees it on the Republican side.No endorsement from Mohler, though. Could this mean mainline fundamentalists are more politically engaged than conservative evangelicals?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Al Mohler on the BJ III Endorsement of Romney
From another Hugh Hewitt post, again courtesy Josh Scheiderer. Here's Mohler:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"No endorsement from Mohler, though. Could this mean mainline fundamentalists are more politically engaged than conservative evangelicals?
I am not shocked to see this endorsement from BJ III whereas I would be stunned to see it from Dr Mohler.
To say that Dr Mohler is, therefore, more politically engaged (without entering into whether he is a "mainline fundamentalist")...I don't think that follows. Maybe it means Dr Mohler is less politically engaged......and more Biblically engaged?
Hey, Ben, Grudem also endorsed Romney. Curiouser and curiouser...
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ok, I read Grudem's article now. He outlines his reasons for supporting Romney quite clearly and offers a reasonable apology for supporting a Mormon politically.
Personally, I think there is a lot to like about Romney, though I am not fully convinced. Grudem says that he is a solid conservative as opposed to McCain and Thompson whom he seems to say are conservative when it suits them. He may be right about those two, but I am not certain how solid Romney's conservativism is.
Anyway, it boils down to this for him in his last paragraph:
So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.
Very interesting. Still not sold yet.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ed, I think you may have misread my post. The implication of my question is that Mohler may be LESS politically engaged.
Of course I agree with you that I do not expect any endorsement from Mohler at any point in the presidential campaign. That's the irony to me, since fundamentalists are thought of as more isolated from the world than evangelicals of Mohler's stripe.
On the other hand, Don rightly points out that some conservative evangelicals will make public endorsements.
Perhaps it is independence that facilitates such statements. BJ3 isn't part of a denominational mechanism, and I don't think Grudem is either. At least they don't work as denominational employees. Mohler does, and SBC President Frank Page certainly represents an organized denominational mechanism that represents a diversity of views.
Post a Comment