Whither the evangelical vote?

Much of the post-election slicing and dicing to tell us what really happened on election day and why centers on the question of what happened to the power of the Evangelical, read "Conservative Christian", voters. Since the Reagan Presidency, at least, when ministers like the Rev. Robertson and the late Rev. Falwell, claimed that the Republican Party was triumphant because of the voter turnout and loyalty of this group, the "Religious Right" has been seen as a core constituency of the GOP, and its social agenda was seen as the bottom-line definition of what America should be.

Now, with the Democratic victories of Tuesday, various theories have been advanced about just why the GOP lost ground and the Dems gained. Some say that Obama cast himself in such a way that he appealed to the evangelicals; some suggest that America repudiated conservative Christian values; some say the economy trumped every other consideration; some say that the "Religious Right" may be down now, but it is not out; some say that the current Republican administration failed to remain true to the "true values".

So, what can we know? From Christianity Today (see: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/the_evangelical.html) comes a report that Obama only received 25% of the evangelical vote, which is about what Kerry got. That does not suggest an evangelical groundswell for the Democrats. A Pew Center report (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367) confirms that, while the Democratic ticket realized some gains among evangelicals, the largest gains for the Dems were among Catholics and those unaffiliated with any religion. The Pew report also indicates that there was an increase in evangelical voters from 2004 to 2008 of 3%. That suggests this group is still strong.

So, what does all of this mean? Who really knows? I am convinced that the leadership of the evangelicals believes the GOP lost its way during the Bush Presidency and that now is the time to regroup and refocus. In fact, a pre-election story from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop28-2008oct28,0,3963149.story) reports:
The social conservatives and moderates who together boosted the Republican Party to dominance have begun a tense battle over the future of the GOP, with social conservatives already moving to seize control of the party's machinery and some vowing to limit John McCain's influence, even if he wins the presidency.

In skirmishes around the country in recent months, evangelicals and others who believe Republicans have been too timid in fighting abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration have won election to the party's national committee, in preparation for a fight over the direction and leadership of the party.

This will be an on-going story at the intersection of religion and politics.

A Hope Expressed For The Future

The polls in Utah have been open for several hours now. Our church is a polling place - I vote here in fact - and I have been pleased to see a pretty steady stream of people coming to vote.

After today, though, the hard part begins. Regardless of who wins, the issues facing our country seem so daunting that I cannot imagine how they can be addressed. Worse still, it seems that our country is even more divided than ever before.

So, it was with great interest that I read this guest editorial on the Washington Post On Faith site. It was written by Tim Harrison. Let me let him speak for himself:

I'm a conservative Christian - what the media calls an evangelical. I believe in creationism, oppose gay marriage, and think abortion is the killing of a life ready to change the world. I'm a leader in my church and I volunteer to better my community by serving others. ...

If we are going to tackle the huge, complex issues and problems facing our country today, we are going to have to check our religion-based stances at the door. This country is too large and too diverse to apply one set of religious absolutes to every citizen. If we are a country that has been a "melting pot" for generations, and will continue to be --- if we are a country that embraces diversity, then we must build a new bridge of common ground across divisive religious issues. At the very least, we must be able to see the one who disagrees with us (no matter what their religious beliefs) as a partner in overcoming the huge problems (our new common ground) that we face as a nation--problems such as alternate energy sources, the financial markets, national security, Iraq, healthcare, and poverty (both here and abroad).

This is a message of reconciliation. It's a message of trying to set aside the partisan politics and instead, pick up the mantle of responsibility to solve the serious problems facing America and the world. Why can't we all do that? Why can't we quit trying to prove we're right and the other side is wrong, whatever side the "other" side happens to be?

This is all a new thought for me. I'm still not totally comfortable with it yet. However, I know that I've been part of the problem. I've done my part in vilifying those who disagree with me. But things must change, both in my family, my workplace, and in my nation. One thing's for sure, I want to do my part and put aside the religious issues while I play my part in solving the larger issues, whatever they might be.

May his tribe increase. The only way we are going to be able to tackle the issues facing our country is for all people to work together, despite their differences with each other. Surely we can agree that the campaign slogan for the McCain/Palin ticket is applicable here - "Country First".

That is certainly a hope for the future.

Saturday Night Reflection

I thought it would be appropriate to consider this comment from Reinhold Niebuhr:

The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism.

Last Ditch Political Tactics ... with a religious overlay

These four items caught my eye:

** Voter Guides, Part I
It has been common for conservative Christian groups to provide voting guides to help their church members make the "right" choices for important races, as if the faithful did not know before hand. These were not, strictly speaking, endorsements because the guides merely laid out a candidate's position on issues, but, as everyone knows, once you define what issues to include, the guides become de facto endorsements.

Now, the leadership of the FLDS has published a voter's guide rating candidates' views on issues important to the polygamous group. Not surprisingly, the Utah Attorney General and two district court judges, each of whom had been involved in a high profile case involving FLDS members that did not go well for the FLDS people, received a negative rating.

** Voter Guides, Part II
Not to be outdone by the religious community, the John McCain campaign has issued its own "voter guide" to help the undecided voters in key swing states. The issues McCain chose to highlight, though, are all of those that are always common in the religious guides, like defense of traditional marriage, against "activist" judges, and for school choice. Many within the conservative Christian community applauded the publication, but said it should have been distributed much earlier.

** More aspersions against the Democrats
Bishop Finn of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese called for the faithful to ask Mary to intercede in the upcoming Presidential election and duplicate the overwhelming victory Christian forces experienced before. In Bishop Finn's words, "In 1571, in the midst of the Battle of Lepanto, when the future of Christian Europe was in the balance and the odds against them were overwhelming, prayer to Our Lady of the Rosary brought the decisive victory. We ask her now to watch over our country and bring us the victory of life."

For those who are not up on 16th century European conflicts, the Battle of Lepanto was a decisive victory by the armies of Christian Europe against the Ottoman Turks, the Muslim invaders. Bishop Finn did not indicate whether his allusion to the Muslim invaders referred to Obama and Biden only or to all Democrats.

** Can a godless candidate win?
The news out of North Carolina is not pretty. The Republican incumbent in the Senate race, Elizabeth Dole, has aired an ad claiming her opponent took money from a group of atheists. Quoting the CNN story, "'Godless Americans and Kay Hagan,' the ad continues. 'She hid from cameras. Took 'Godless' money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return?' The ad ends with a picture of Hagan and a voice that sounds like hers declaring, 'There is no God.'"

Of course, the ad skirts lightly around some facts. Senator Dole's challenger, Kay Hagan, is a Sunday School teacher and an Elder in a Presbyterian church. The ad does not mention any of this.

What issue relating to the operation of the American government did this ad address?
What do you think Senator Dole was hoping to achieve with this ad? Do you think it was a legitimate issue to raise? It will be interesting to see how North Carolinians respond to this type of ad.

Remember Praying to Lower Gas Prices?

Back in the spring, I referenced a story about a group who decided the way to deal with the escalating gas prices was to go to the local gas station, circle the pumps, and pray for God to lower the prices. In August, the BBC ran a follow-up story on the group at a time when prices had declined by about 5%.

As you would imagine, the group asserted that God was the one who caused the prices to decline. According to the article, "Mr Twyman [this is Rocky Twyman who started the group] is sceptical that market forces might be responsible for the lower prices. But he and his prayer warriors have changed their motoring habits. 'We believe not just in prayer - because we believe that faith without works is dead. So we've encouraged people to car-pool more and organise their days more, because it's a combination of faith with these other factors.' Pray At The Pump plans to build on its success and drive gasoline prices even lower. In the words of Rocky Twyman: 'We just thank God for blessing us with small victories and we expect greater things to come.'"

Now, of course, we know that market forces have played a role. In fcat, in the face of the world-wide financial crisis, gas prices in America have declined even more. I wonder how Mr. Twyman feels about the falling gas prices now?

Franchising Your Church

In August, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece about a new trend in American Christianity. To quote from the August 15 article, written by Andrew Park, "American megachurch pastors are starting up video-based branches overseas to spread their faith, and their faces, to places where evangelical Christianity is just taking hold, using Starbucks as their model for rapid expansion. But here at home, where houses of worship are already as plentiful as suburban strip centers, the same strategy of high-tech franchising is emerging, despite objections from many Christians that it's the wrong way to reach new converts.

You read it correctly. Many churches are operating multiple campuses with many of them as video venues where the service is available on screen and the congregation needs to do little more than watch. According to the WSJ article, somewhere between 2000 to 2500 churches have multiple campuses now, with estimates of more than 30000 in a few years.

The rationale for this is simple. With many people in our country not involved in church anywhere, the lure of a "big-name, high-powered" preacher appearing at a screen near you might be enough to get the bodies in the seats. Also, the "building and grounds costs" of such a church campus are relatively modest. To their credit, I guess, at least most of these churches have an "on-site" minister to address pastoral care issues, but this person does not do the preaching.

So, does this sound like church to you? Would you attend such a church? Would you rather attend a church like this than a traditional service? Does this further elevate the status of celebrity ministers? Is this a good thing?

A Troubling Intersection of Politics and Religious Affiliation

The US Presidential election is next week. It seems that issues relating to religion and religious affiliation are even more important now than before.

The news outlets are swirling with reports that Christian evangelicals and conservatives might not support the Republican ticket because of long-standing distrust of Senator McCain, despite the appeal of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. Then, other pundits predict that most of the "undecideds" at this point in the race are Christian evangelicals who WILL support the Republican ticket. In either case, Governor Palin seems assured of a continuing high profile status among the Republicans because of her conservative religious views.

The disaffection of the traditional Conservative Christian base of the Republican Party for John McCain has been a story since the 2000 Presidential race. It is interesting that it has become a major story again. It will be even more interesting to see whether that group continues to be enthralled with Governor Palin long enough for her to launch her own bid for the Presidency at some point in the future.

One other story with religious overtones that seems to be gaining ground again is the question of whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. This, of course, was a significant enough issue that Colin Powell, in his remarks supporting Senator Obama for President, addressed it.

In a story from this weekend's Lexington Herald-Leader comes the news that "Despite heavy national media attention about Obama's faith, more than half of likely Republican voters — 54 percent — and one of every four Democrats in the state do not know that the Democratic presidential nominee is a Christian, the poll found. The poll showed that 14 percent of likely Kentucky voters — 28 percent of Republicans, 4 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents — think Obama adheres to the Muslim faith." And, in a story from the Agence France-Presse, carried on the Pew Forum website, comes this report, "US Muslims are facing tough times fearful about growing suspicions of Islam amid false rumors that Democratic nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim and could have links to terrorists. ... 'This is part of an islamophobic hate campaign that fuels prejudice against Americans who practice their Islamic faith and Muslims worldwide,' [said a group of Islamic scholars]. In September, a controversial DVD on Islam was circulated in Florida, adding fuel to the fire of the US election campaign. The video, titled Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West and released more than a year ago by a group called Clarion Fund, showed images of young children reciting appeals for jihad mixed with archival footage of Hitler Youths."

{Sidenote to this report - the group that has been bombarding my office with fax messages to ensure that I do the "right" thing for my congregation and tell them how horrible Obama is and how they should vote for McCain sent me a packet of material just in time, containing a 'sample sermon' - to tell me exactly what to say - a copy of the Obsession DVD, and another DVD to drive home the point. I hope to have enough time in the next few days to look at all the material.}

So, let me ask you some questions. Since identification of what religion a candidate holds is important to some folks, at least, in this campaign: Is John McCain considered enough of a Christian, whatever that means, to be supported by the evangelical/conservative Christian groups? However you answer that question, would that affect your support for him? Is Barack Obama considered enough of a Christian to have the support of the Christian majority in America? Do you think Barack Obama is a Muslim? Either way, would that have an impact on your support for him? And, in a question I have raised in this blog before, even though there is no religious test for public office defined in the Constitution, do you think there should be or do you think that there is an unwritten religious expectation for people seeking office?