Tea Party at the Pulpit

Yesterday was fast and testimony meeting, and I had an interesting experience. One member of the congregation stepped up to bear his testimony, talked about going to a "tea party" meeting the day before, and discussed some of the things he learned there. There was actually very little in his remarks that most LDS church members would find offensive, but I was troubled by it nonetheless. I guess I think asking conservative church members whether his comments were offensive is kind of like asking white people whether the Florida State Seminoles mascot is offensive.

I admit that I am extremely sensitive on this issue. I carry around a huge chip on my shoulder, because throughout my adult life I have been treated by many LDS church members as though my political views make me an apostate. Church leaders have repeatedly expressed the Church's official neutrality on political matters. Here is their official statement on the issue:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality

Before every general election in the US, the Church reiterates its neutral stand, and reminds us, as they did in 2008, that, "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."

Nevertheless, many LDS Church members seem to completely disregard this official view. They believe Glenn Beck is a worthy Latter-day Saint, but Harry Reid is not. They believe that they, not the appropriate bishop or stake president, have the right to determine Brother Reid's worthiness to hold a temple recommend or call himself a Latter-day Saint. Such attitudes are not restricted to elected officials. I have repeatedly been asked by well-meaning church members how I can possibly be a good Latter-day Saint and a democrat. My commitment both to my religion and to my political views has been questioned by those who think they know what I should believe better than I do. I have several friends who have actually left the Church because they were falsely made to feel that their political views were inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

After church yesterday, I had a conversation with a good friend who happens to be a John Bircher. Despite my considerable disagreement with him on many political issues, I have great respect for him. He pointed out to me that LDS Birchers are even more rare than LDS liberals, at least everywhere except Appleton, Wisconsin. He has taken the approach to just let things like this roll off his back, and not say anything about it. I wish I could adopt that approach. I know I should. But I just have a really hard time figuring out why it is that when someone else thinks it's ok to espouse their political views in church, and I challenge them on it, I'm the bad guy. I'm the one who is being confrontational and not following the principles of the gospel, while the person who started it is excused. I don't get that. Maybe someday, when I develop greater humility, I will understand, but right now I don't.

I should also say that I consider the man who bore his testimony yesterday to be a friend. I like him, respect him, and enjoy working with him in my church calling. I believe him to be a very good person, far better than I am, who is true to his convictions. He also makes no secret of his political views. It is not uncommon for him to find opportunities to insert references to his politics into conversations or comments during priesthood and Sunday School lessons. As a result, my guard was already up when he went to the pulpit yesterday. It shouldn't have been, but it was.

I am not going to go through the entire testimony word for word to discuss what I found offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to dissect my comments from the pulpit that way. The essential message in his comments, as I understood it, was that our right to practice Christianity should be defended and that we should vote for candidates who will uphold this right. This is not at all inconsistent with the principles of the gospel. However, I think the point could have been made just fine without referring to the discussion of this issue at a tea party meeting or the implication that tea party candidates are the only ones who believe in protecting Christian values. I also found comments about "our stimulus dollars at work" and the political correctness of showing respect to other religions but not Christianity to be unnecessary and distracting.

One final thought. After the meeting, I had a pleasant conversation with my friend, where I tried to politely express my concerns. I want to reiterate here one of the things I said to him. In his testimony, he made reference to the comments of a Christian minister at the tea party meeting, who was calling for tolerance for Christian beliefs and values. I asked my friend if he had ever stopped to think that this Christian minister very likely has no respect for our religious beliefs, considers us to be members of a cult, and refuses to consider us Christians. An interesting thought to contemplate, as we decide with whom we should ally ourselves in our zeal to protect our values and beliefs.