I’m still getting barraged with emails regarding my post about about Huck’s portrayal of Mormon theology, mostly pointing out various theological distinctives on both the Mormon and Christian side that I glossed over. But this email I received from a pastor puts things in context:

I tend to agree with you. I do believe that, while Mormonism is obviously derived from Christianity, it is a different religion (cf. First Things, March 2000 and June/July 2000). But we are not electing the leader of my church, faith, or religion. The issue is not theology, but governance, and however much I disagree with Romney’s theology, it has led him to advocate a form of governance that I like, while the converse is true in Huckabee’s case – I like his theology, but his record of governance leaves much to be desired. Let Huckabee preach. Let Romney rule.

I think this separation here is the proper Christian view of religion’s role in governance — as outlined by Augustine and Martin Luther’s two cities/two kingdoms theology — and if you subscribe to that, Huck pointing out one of Romney’s “controversial” beliefs in such a political context is not okay. However Mormons arrive at their beliefs regarding morality, their morals should be acceptable to nearly every Christian in a civic sense. Huckabee is muddying the waters here, and it’s my sense that he damn well knows he’s up to no good when he points out Romney’s unorthodox beliefs.