The Good Samarit-Mormon: a Biblical basis for Christian holdouts to vote for Romney

With the 2012 Presidential race coming down to the wire, the fundamentalist Christian protest vote against Mitt Romney on the basis of his Mormon religion may be just what progressive secularist elitists need to realize their dream of entrenching for generations to come a Marxist social gospel that portends more of the very sort of policies conservative Christians most strongly oppose. Despite Barack Obama’s track record of trampling the consciences of Christian family businesses and nonprofits who conscientiously object to Obamacare, among other egregious overreaches, his well-documented scorn for all who “cling to religion,” and his predisposition toward judicial nominees that are sure to erode constitutional liberties, a small but significant number of devout Christians actually cite conscience as their reason for preferring to see the country go down in flames rather than touch a Mormon candidate with a ten foot pole.

Evidently, the story of the Good Samaritan is not to be found among the well-worn prooftexts these fundamentalists ardently wave in justification of their principled, yet self-congratulatory, stance. For if it was, they might see the very words of Jesus with regard to acts of civic righteousness by religious heretics as warrant for the idea that one need not necessarily be a bona fide Christian to engage in a ministry of common grace -- a category in which government belongs. One need look no further than the story of the Good Samaritan in chapter 10 of the Gospel of Luke for clear biblical validation of a heretic’s ministry of common grace being preferred above the religious purity of those whose doctrinal imprimatur serves as an excuse to abdicate responsibility for doing good in the world.

I raise this issue not to suggest that religious fundamentalists don’t help the poor – much to the contrary, they tend to be immensely charitable, and do so voluntarily with their own money -- just as Romney does -- unlike the progressives who can never spend enough of other people’s money but manage to proliferate the image that they have a corner on the market when it comes to compassion. Rather, I think the story of the Good Samaritan invalidates the fundamentalists’ grounds for disqualifying Mitt Romney for their votes.

The story of the Good Samaritan is not merely a benign story glorifying random acts of kindness toward a stranger. Context reveals Jesus’ clear intention to portray in sharp relief a theological point that was unmistakably political. It is the story of righteous acts done by someone whom your religious community has anathematized as an enemy of God.

In those days, Samaritans were considered by faithful Israelites to be theological deviants as well as political enemies. Jews thoroughly despised Samaritans. Samaritans did not worship the right way. They didn’t participate in the annual pilgrimage feasts that brought faithful Israelites to Jerusalem three times a year for proper worship. They did not subscribe to Israel’s national ambitions to restore a monarchy that would, among other things, direct the nation to right worship. Instead they offered worship to God at shrines up in the mountains, the same kinds of places where the pagans offered despicable, obscene and demonic worship to Molech and Baal. Thus, faithful Israelites reasoned, Samaritans couldn’t possibly have any true knowledge of God. With such irreconcilable theological differences, the Jews viewed the Samaritans as apostates, half-breeds, enemies of the one true God. Any association with the Samaritans would make a Jew feel unclean and disobedient to God.

What an indictment of their religious and political sensibilities for Jesus to depict a Samaritan, and not a faithful Israelite, help a man who has been robbed, beaten and left for dead by the side of the road, and thus an exemplar of righteously walking in the ways of God! Worse, the Samaritan comes along only after both priest and Levite have abdicated moral responsibility and abrogated the second greatest commandment: to love one’s neighbor.

Would the priest and Levite have been made ritually unclean by touching the wounded man, and therefore unfit to properly offer worship to God? Was the Samaritan somehow disobeying the Law of Moses by pouring UNKOSHER wine on the man's wounds? Did this somehow defile the beaten man? In the strictest sense, many Pharisees would have answered “yes,” then perhaps wince at the realization that myopic insistence on ritual cleanliness would have left the man to die, naked, in a ditch. They were more concerned about their own religious purity than doing righteous acts of justice to help a fellow man who bears the image of God.

The priest and Levite could have stifled the cognitive dissonance by using “the sovereignty of God” as a fig leaf. I can just imagine one of them saying something to the effect of ….“it was God’s will for the man to die… I remained faithful and therefore will escape his judgment.” That’s precisely the view of my fundamentalist friends, who think that voting for a Mormon would defile them, thereby exposing themselves –and the nation – to the wrath of God. And if Obama is allowed to take America down in flames with a Marxist anti-gospel, “well, that’s God’s will, at least I remained faithful and will escape his judgment.” They blithely congratulate themselves for being too pious to vote for anyone who shares their values but not their sectarian doctrines.

The fact is, you don’t have to agree with Romney’s Mormon metaphysics or Christology to concur with the sincerity of his regard for limited government, sensible budgets, lower taxes and respect for traditional morality and unassailable record of personal charity. After all, nowhere did Jesus concede the point about the errors of Samaritan doctrine. Nor, for that matter, did he shrink from declaring truth to the Samaritan woman at the well when she tried to use a theological and political point of contention to sidestep the question of her own need for redemption.  The fact that the Samaritan, a veritable heretic, acted as the good neighbor is central to Jesus’ point. This is part and parcel with a major theme of Jesus teaching, as well as that of many rabbis throughout the centuries, that saving a life is a greater imperative than strict adherence to religious strictures of ritual cleanliness that define holiness according to group identity. How much the imperative to avert calamity for an entire nation?

The story shames all religious fundamentalists, by drawing in sharp relief the contrast between religious purists who abdicate responsibility for taking just action in an imperfect world, and religious deviants who are reviled by the fundamentalists, yet walk in the ways of God through practical acts of justice and compassion. Meanwhile, we see that the same “religious deviants” whom fundamentalists doctrinally despise and politically shun, can in fact do the will of God.

Romney ain't perfect, but he'll do

After all, who has been a better neighbor than Mitt Romney, giving away his entire inheritance to charity and as much as 30% of his personal income, managing a sizeable benevolence organization for his community on top of serving the public both as governor and saving the Olympics for zero pay?

Furthermore, why is it that the ancient Israelite King Ahab is excoriated for pagan practices, while Cyrus, King of Persia, also a pagan, is considered praiseworthy? The main difference has to do with the fact that Ahab was using the political infrastructure to coerce the nation to worship pagan gods, while Cyrus acted righteously in supporting the religious freedom of God’s people. Similarly, the concept of free will, or agency, is so central to Romney’s religious sensibilities that he’d be the last person in the world to use political office to impose his religion on anyone else, and his record as governor supports that.

At the crux of this issue is a theological error exhibited by both the conservative fundamentalist Christians who oppose Romney’s candidacy and the liberal, Marxist progressive Christians who are pulling for Obama: they both fail to distinguish between a) the special grace of God that characterizes not only the Christian doctrines of salvation and vocation but also the very concept of spiritual revelation and faith claims in general, and b) the common grace of God that characterizes natural blessings, conscience and civic righteousness, which is available to all people without regard to either doctrinal creed or spiritual election, both as a gift and as a ministry. Although both special grace and common grace are equally manifestations of the Sovereignty of God, the distinction is vital for understanding how God can ordain the human institution of government without human government being the means for redeeming the world. It is also helpful for understanding why someone’s actions may be properly understood to be righteous without needing to make any inference about the person’s eternal destiny.  

The audacity of HYPE

The doctrine of common grace provides a solid theological framework for understanding the inherent limits of government. America's predominantly Christian founders understood this distinction, which is why the Constitution forbids any religious litmus test for office. But today, it's a concept neither the advocates of Marxist utopianism not the proponents of an idealized Christendom seem to be able to accept. The fact that these two totalitarian groups would be so diametrically opposed in the policies they advocate should not in itself be surprising. Left wing progressives’ failure to distinguish between special and common grace enables them to posit government as the means of redeeming the world, as though law will make people good, while right wing fundamentalist’s failure to make the distinction is what permits them to think that America’s wellbeing hinges on voting for only born-again Christians in every office in the land, as though that will make America “Christian”. Both groups’ aspirations are characterized by their eschatological ideals, with religious fervor that propels them to resort to heavy-handed political absolutism where the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Pastor Robert Jeffress: almost sorta kinda starting to get it?

In Obama, progressives have found their ersatz messiah and they’re devoted to him despite his being the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Many fundamentalist Christians, finding themselves unable to resurrect Ronald Reagan, and hopeless to clone The Gipper from recombinant Ron Paul DNA, seem content to effectively sit this one out. Some, like fiery Dallas preacher Robert Jeffress, are sort of starting to come around.

Hopefully before Tuesday enough will figure out it’s OK to vote for a good Samarit-Mormon.