Evan McMullin: An Explanation of Reluctantly Voting for Romney, Part 2

As Denny Burk articulates well, in the current presidential election, both of the major party candidates are entirely unacceptable. For this reason, I have been planning to vote third-party (or for an independent candidate). I like the Constitution Party platform, and had planned to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle. However, Castle is not listed on the ballot in Kentucky, and I am receiving conflicting information as to whether he is an approved write-in candidate.

The best option that I have on the Kentucky ballot appears to be Evan McMullin. According to his website, McMullin is pro-life and a constitutional conservative. Though it's, admittedly, rather a long-shot, there is a possibility of McMullin winning the presidency (probably through the contingent election process).

The realities of this election season leave many evangelicals, like me, with the unsavory choice of casting a vote for a Mormon. I [and many of my fellow evangelicals] deem this choice "unsavory" because Mormonism promotes an anti-Christian view of both the content and the source of true belief in God.

In thinking through this matter, I'm reminded of my reasoning in voting for Mitt Romney against Barack Obama in the 2012 election. Though reluctant to vote for Romney, I found Obama to be entirely unacceptable due to his radically pro-abortion agenda. The following is what I wrote concerning Mitt Romney in 2012, which also applies to voting for McMullin this Tuesday.

Many of my evangelical friends are, understandably, concerned that electing Mitt Romney will promote Mormonism: that Mormon missionaries, both in the U.S. and throughout the world, will find greater ease in winning people to their false gospel if they can trumpet their religion as the religion of the President.

But to what extent is this a valid concern?

Note that some within the Mormon organization itself do not believe that Mitt Romney as President will help their cause. For example, see the following excerpt of a letter from a Mormon missionary, as heard on NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday:

"My fear is that if Mitt Romney's elected President, it will be more difficult for LDS missionaries abroad to distinguish themselves from the United States in countries where many may not love Americans. I worry any 'wrongs' made by Mitt Romney would reflect poorly upon the [Mormon] Church, not only abroad, but here in the States."

It is unlikely that Mormon missionaries will be able to use Mr. Romney as much of an example if they have to: 1) constantly distance themselves from the notion that Mormonism = Americanism [especially when they are in other nations]; 2) constantly explain why the Mormon Church's positions on issues are somewhat different that Mr. Romney's positions.

Finally, I would encourage my fellow evangelicals to consider the following: when Bill Clinton was elected President, and throughout his presidency, he was a member "in good standing" of a Southern Baptist affiliated church in Arkansas. Does anyone really believe that having Mr. Clinton in office (even before the Lewinsky scandal came to light) was any help at all for Southern Baptist evangelists and missionaries? I can testify that during the Clinton administration I was involved in door-to-door evangelism with my Dad and other members of my church; I can honestly say that it never crossed our minds to mention Bill Clinton. If having a member of one's denomination as President is not a help for a true expression Christian belief, then why should we assume that a Mormon as President would help that false expression of faith in God?