Unbelievers, moreover, seem to be acceptable biblically to serve in public office. When Paul wrote Romans 13—which commands obedience to civil government—pagans were the chief government officials in Rome.

Publisher’s Note: On May 27 we ran an Op-Ed piece written by Warren Cole Smith, the Associate Publisher of World Magazine, in which he gave his reasons why he could not vote for Mitt Romney (or any practicing Mormon, for that matter). Needless to say, that stirred up a huge controversy, in both the mainline press and even within the evangelical Christian community. This article is written by Tim Lamer who is the Managing Editor of World Magazine; Tim takes a different viewpoint. (Just a reminder, editor’s work for publishers in most situations, unlike The Aquila Report where we are partners! dkc)

On Sept. 14, 2001, three days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush entered the pulpit of the National Cathedral and gave the country some idea of his religious beliefs. Seeking to comfort the nation, Bush assured Americans that “the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.” He finished his speech by saying, “As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God’s love.”

Readers may recognize that last quote as a paraphrase of Romans 8:38-39. They may also notice that Bush left out five key words that end the passage: “in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The speech and subsequent statements clearly implied that Bush did not believe faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. It turns out that President Bush, a favorite of evangelicals, was in public life a universalist. This observation provides some context for evangelicals as we consider whether to vote for a Mormon—such as Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman—for president. It shows that making sound theology a requirement for our vote will often leave us without any candidate to support.

Christianity, we should remember, is not designed to win popularity contests. A presidential candidate trying to appeal to the majority is unlikely to espouse crucial facets of a religion whose Messiah is a “stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:8) and whose adherents are told to expect the world’s hatred (John 15:18-19). Presidents seek to unite people; Christ came to divide them (Luke 12:51).

Unbelievers, moreover, seem to be acceptable biblically to serve in public office. When Paul wrote Romans 13—which commands obedience to civil government—pagans were the chief government officials in Rome. This suggests that unbelievers can serve God’s purpose for government, and that evangelicals, in good conscience, can vote for a non-Christian if he’s the best-qualified candidate for president.

But is Mormonism a special case? Is it particularly disqualifying, as opposed to, say, the nominal Christianity that so prevails in America? Mormons deny the Trinity (which by itself makes false their claim to be Christians), but so have legions of mainline Protestants for decades. Mormons add to Scripture, but mainline Protestant luminaries subtract from it by dismissing the parts they don’t like. At least Mormons still oppose abortion and same-sex marriage; many mainline churches don’t have that going for them anymore.

The most persuasive argument against considering a vote for a Mormon is the idea that it could help spread Mormonism. The religion of Joseph Smith is so finely tuned to the desires of fallen man (you can become a god in the afterlife!) that it’s amazing Mormonism hasn’t grown faster. If having a Mormon in the White House would give cultural cachet to a false religion, then that might be a reason—the only one I can see—for evangelicals to vote against him on religious grounds.

Timothy Lamer is the managing editor of WORLD Magazine.