Generic conflicts between Mitt and Liberty students

May 13, 2012 By

Before we get to the coverage of Mitt Romney’s visit to Liberty University, I’d like to flash back to the scene-setter story that ran in The Washington Post on the day before that commencement address.

One of the keys to this kind of coverage is that far too many reporters seem to think that evangelical Protestants are the only Trinitarian Christians who have problems with many of the core doctrines that are proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is an evangelical problem, you see, not a clash between Mormons and Methodists, Mormons and Roman Catholics, Mormons and the Orthodox, etc., etc.

The other key to the coverage is that reporters are struggling to describe the differences between the beliefs of Mormons and these dang evangelical Protestants (as well as Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, etc., etc.) without discussing, well, the differences between these radically different camps of believers.

In other words, it’s hard to write a story about XYZ without mentioning some of the content of XYZ. However, many reporters seem determined to do precisely that.

You can see this struggle in this particular Post report, which opens like this:

LYNCHBURG, Va. – Megan Leach and Sarabeth Rudd agree on almost everything. They are both evangelical, in their 20s and law students at the conservative Liberty University. They vehemently oppose abortion rights and same-sex marriage, believing they are contrary to God’s word. Yet when presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney comes to their campus Saturday to speak before a crowd of 34,000, Leach will be there cheering him on and Rudd will stay home.

One woman is hoping she will see a conservative leader willing to take a stand on social issues. The other said her conscience won’t allow her to vote for a candidate who does not share her religious beliefs.

What, precisely, is implied with this statement that Romney does not share “her religious beliefs”? The candidate also does not share the “religious beliefs” of law student No. 1, either. That is clear.

Come to think of it, it would be accurate to say that neither of these women share many, or maybe some, of the “religious beliefs” of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, either, since they are Catholics. What we have here is a totally empty phrase.

Let’s move on.

Republican strategists hope the renewed debate on social issues, in the wake of President Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage, will galvanize conservative Christians behind Romney.

But Rudd thinks the former Massachusetts governor should never have been invited to speak at her college. There is nothing he could say to win her vote — other than that he has become an evangelical Christian and made Jesus his savior.

“People get so blinded by their party that they forget principle,” said Rudd, who is 25. “His theology goes against my faith. I’m not going to vote for him for that.”

So Rudd would not vote for Santorum? She would not vote for a Catholic conservative? How about a conservative Anglican? Once again, what does, “His theology goes against my faith” mean? Readers must assume, of course, that this statement has something to do with the whole evangelical vs. Mormon thing (when the actual issues are larger and deeper than that).

Let’s move on, again.

In the GOP primaries, conservative Christians were among the Republicans least likely to support Romney. Although polls show some movement, several prominent evangelical leaders have raised concerns about his Mormon faith, saying it does not represent their own worldview. Liberty’s curriculum refers to Mormonism as conflicting with its own theology.

Worldview? Is the doctrine of the Trinity merely a part of an undefined “worldview”? Also, what is meant by the statement that Mormonism conflicts with this university’s “own theology”? Once again, this makes it sound like the conflicts between Mormonism and Trinitarian Christianity are the result of small, specific beliefs that are solely defended by the kind of folks who congregate in places such as Liberty University. In an attempt to avoid facts and specifics, the story serves up — nothing.

At the end, we see the same problem, one last time.

Jason Campbell, who graduated from Liberty seven years ago and was back on campus Thursday, is hoping Romney — despite his religious beliefs — can get evangelicals fired up for 2012.

“This is still the Moral Majority,” he said. “It’s right here.”

Read the whole story and then answer this question: What specific doctrinal issues are at the heart of the conflict between Romney and these students? What did readers actually learn from this story?

Good luck with that. Did anyone actually talk to these students? Ask them any specific questions and record the answers?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Academia, Baptists, Marriage & family, Mormons, Politics
About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Folks, this is not the place for comments for or against Mormonism.

    This is a place to discuss the JOURNALISTIC problems in this Post piece, problems rooted in its discussion of a conflict — without providing readers with any content about the conflict itself.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I’m sort of sick of autopsies of the Evangelical vote. Sometimes I think it is the liberal media’s way of trying to get many of those who have conservative social values to stay home on election day–which will be a tremendous help to President Obama (clearly the mainstream media’s favored candidate).
    How about some real in-depth looks at the Black vote (which polls claim is almost 100% in Obama’s pocket) now that Obama has become— according to the Newsweek cover— the Gay President. This should result in some interesting stories from Black communities since they-and especially their religious leaders and believers–have been overwhelmingly against Gay “marriage” and have been the backbone of the votes against so-called Gay “marriage” in many states including California and the landslide in North Carolina.

  • Mike O.

    tmatt, I have to agree on all your points. If an article indicates there is a conflict (which there is) it’s best that the article touches on it. It doesn’t even have to go that deep into doctrinal issues, just a very brief overview as to the differences between the sides.

    Now before I clicked on the article I thought, based on the number of excerpts in your post, that the article was of a sizable length; but it was very brief. Still I think it would be possible to put in an equally brief few sentences (maybe 80 or so words) showing the problems more traditional christianity has with Mormonism. It doesn’t have to go into Nephi, or Joseph Smith, or anything terribly specific. I ask the folks here if they can come up with a very short rundown of the conflict that could fit into an article like this.

  • Jettboy

    I’m sorry, but the only reason I see why evangelicals would want a newspaper story to cover the reason for the disagreements is to act as an apologetic for them. No one else cares. What reason would a newspaper give for what most people honestly do see as “small, specific beliefs that are solely defended by the kind of folks who congregate in places such as Liberty University.” If a person really wanted to know I am sure they can easily find out what those differences are outside a newspaper. I for one do not believe newspapers exist to give theological lessons or compare doctrines.

  • Mike O.

    Jettboy, I have to disagree. To me, the story is newsworthy since it involves the presumptive Republican nominee for president going into a Republican stronghold and meeting significant resistance. Depending how you feel about the evangelical vote, this could be seen as a microcosm of the struggles ahead for him. It also needed to be covered because it’s possible he could have that breakout speech that gels a fractured base against a common opponent.

    Now I believe the folks at GR can be obsessed with the minutia of religion, especially if the story isn’t focused on religion. A baseball player makes a reference to God and you have people demanding to know whether he is a 4-point or 5-point calvinist.

    But this is different. This is a story about religion and it is newsworthy. There is a religious conflict which has implications in November’s election. I think in covering this conflict a reporter can give a very brief and neutral summary on it.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    MIKE O:

    I am not aware of any Calvinist athletes we’ve discussed lately. Most of the time, our comments on sports center on athletes being more comfortable talking about the role of faith in their lives than are the reporters who write about their lives. Sins of omission, in other words.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JETTBOY:

    If the MSM produces stories ABOUT A CONFLICT, then it is nonsensical not to include at least a sentence or two that defines the convict.

    In this case, it is also clear that the conflict is NOT between Mormons and evangelicals. It’s the same basic divide between Mormon believers and Trinitarian Christian believers.

    (BTW, Romney was rather precise and candid in his speech on that front. Just a short reference, but clear.)

  • carl jacobs

    [I]t’s hard to write a story about XYZ without mentioning some of the content of XYZ. However, many reporters seem determined to do precisely that.

    I am going to do something I have never done before and cut a journalist some slack. The problem with explaining the difference between Nicean Christianity and Mormonism is that it can’t be done in small bites sufficient for a news article. Plus the differences are profoundly doctrinal. You would have to explain different understandings of grace and gospel, anthropology, Theology and soteriology. Unless you understand all these things, you can’t even understand the one thing everyone knows about Mormon – their past history with plural marriage. All in 300 words, and with the certain knowledge that the general reader is going to turn you off when you start talking about doctrine.

    The story here is not about the doctrinal compatibility of the two sides. It is their ability to co-exist for the mutual benefit of achieving shared temporal goals despite those differences. I can understand why a journalist might want to skip over the doctrinal details, and proceed directly to the important story from his perspective.

    OK, I have violated the laws of nature and nature’s God by defending journalists. I must now go wash my mouth out with soap to atone for this egregious behavior.

    carl

  • Mike O.

    tmatt, it was a humorous exaggeration. Granted it wasn’t astoundingly humorous — nor that much of an exaggeration. I was going to write “demand to know his position on triclavianism” but I think used that in some post in the past. I’ve said it in relevant GR posts before, that often times GR demands specifics on a person’s beliefs when it has nothing or close to nothing to do with a story. I’m not going to bog down this thread with that. I’ll surely make my case the next time such a story pops up on GR.

    But I brought it up in my earlier post to differentiate between stories that aren’t wholly about religion (where you, and I, and everybody else can argue forever as to how much religious detail is needed) and stories like this that are both newsworthy and decidedly religious.

  • http://!)! Passing By

    Would it not be more accurate to refer to Liberty as a “fundamentalist” school, rather than “evangelical”? Maybe common usage makes the former, a more specific term, a subset of the latter, but I always thought of fundamentalists (which Jerry Falwell certainly was) as being different from evangelicals. Certainly they have different cultural niches. As the “evangelical” students really evangelicals or could they have been as comfortable at Wheaton College as Liberty? At Bob Jones? The identity problem is exacerbated in this blog entry by Michelle Boorstein, which refers to a conflict between Mormon and Southern Baptist doctrine. Have I missed something?

    To me, these are journalistic issues. There is no more one kind of evangelical than Catholic, Jew, or Muslim.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    If a story wants to talk about theological diffetences being applied to a polutical issue–namely, whether theological agreement determines one’s vote–why not also examine the areas in which thete is AGREEMENT between these faith traditions? After all, a much higher percentage of Mormons are politically and socially conservative and Republican than Evangelical Christians are. The standards of behavior and dtess at BYU are at least as strict as at Liberty University.

    When the whole point of an ekection is to build unity in order to form a majority of voters, the article should ask the boycotting student why anyone who is Mormon, Catholic, Jewush or Buddhist or even Episcopalian or Greek Orthodox should vote for a Southern Baptist candidate if she thinks an election is a contest among religioys factions. The article should ask the student if she livrs in the real world, or a fantasy one where her brand of religion is an actual majority rather than a shrinking portion of the electorate.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Passing By:

    Falwell the elder embraced Fundamentalism as a label.

    I know for A FACT that this does not describe the faculty of Liberty as a whole. No way.

  • http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com AuthenticBioethics

    I heartily agree with tmatt’s questions. From a purely “what is this story about?” perspective, the article raises a lot of questions and leaves them flat. There are three key areas that the story claims to be about and then fails to be about them. Points 1 and 2 pertain to how both Leach and Rudd see Romney in polar extremes in respect to the faith the seem to share, each taken separately. Then point 3 is Leach and Rudd’s take on each other’s views. None of this is developed adequately. As point 3a, I would have liked to know just how common each view is among LU students. Is Rudd an outlier found for dramatic effect, or a representative of a sizable faction–is there really a “split”? There is talk about “a healthy heap of skepticism” but what does that mean, what is the breakdown?

    So, given such an egregious error or rather defect of literary and journalistic style, could it be that the story is not really “about” that at all?

    This story does accomplish several other things, which makes me wonder. First, it aligns Romney with what appears to be narrow-minded, biblically based thinking, the Moral Majority of the 1980s. Then, it portrays the Moral Majority as fractured and not necessarily behind Romney. Romney is shown as having to struggle to get the support of a demographic that should jump in behind him against Obama–not even Leach, Romney’s fan from the lede is sure she’ll vote for him. So I wonder if the conflicts are really what this story is about and whether they’re just a foil for portraying Romney as having difficulty forming a solid base of Republicans.

    So I ask: Is the conflict between