May 2008 Archives

LifeWay Research, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, has released some interesting results from its in-depth surveys of Southern Baptist pastors across the nation.

Eighty percent of Southern Baptist pastors say that they currently support and plan to vote for Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the presumptive 2008 Republican nominee for president. Conversely, only one percent expressed their intention to vote for Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and zero percent supported Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Fifteen percent of the Southern Baptist pastors surveyed said they were still undecided about their presidential preference, while four percent said they intended to vote for a third-party candidate.

These pastor presidential preference numbers are probably skewed slightly by the fact that only pastors were surveyed, and not non-ordained church members. Over recent history, surveys have shown consistently that Southern Baptist pastors are slightly more conservative on most issues than rank-and-file church membership.

Still, these poll numbers are radically at odds with the general public, where polling shows a tight race between Senator McCain and either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

When it comes to presidential preference, Southern Baptists are marching to the beat of a different drum than their non-Southern Baptist neighbors.

Southern Baptists—the largest Protestant denomination in America, with just under 16.3 million members in nearly 44,000 local congregations—have some awareness that they are out of step with the broader culture in which they live. As Evangelicals, they expect to be. Indeed, if they were not a significant degree out of step with the larger culture, at least on moral issues, they would be concerned that instead of influencing the culture, they were being too influenced by it—that instead of being salt and light they were being salted and lit by the culture.

However, there are occasions when Southern Baptists are themselves startled with just how much they are marching to the beat of a different drummer than the wider culture around them.

This week LifeWay Research, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources (the publishing and research entity of the Southern Baptist Convention), released research and survey data which revealed that while 50 percent of Americans say that it is “morally acceptable to ask for a physician’s aid in taking his or her life,” almost 9 out of 10 (88 percent) of Southern Baptist pastors strongly disagreed with that position.

A similar polarity surfaced on the question of embryo destructive stem cell research. While 66 percent of the American public agreed that such research is “morally acceptable” given the potential for medical breakthroughs, 76 percent of Southern Baptists pastors “strongly disagreed” and an additional 14 percent “somewhat disagreed” with such embryonic research.

Clearly, Southern Baptists are marching to a beat of a different drummer than their non-Southern Baptist neighbors on these controversial issues.

Monday, May 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a significant signal that they may be returning to sanity on the issue of child pornography. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress and state legislatures can pass laws that criminalize the advertising and promotion of child pornography. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has upheld a federal statute that regulates Internet sexual materials.

The law upheld by the Supreme Court passed in 2003. The legislative intent was to protect children from the danger of being sexually exploited on the Internet. The law was challenged by a Florida man who was convicted after posting this message in an Internet chat room: “Dad of toddler has ‘good’ pics of her and me for swap of your toddler pics or live cam.”

“Toddlers?!” How can anyone concerned about children argue that free speech rights protect this kind of disgusting speech and activity? Surely our societal obligations as adults to protect children trump the supposed “rights” of individual adults to pander and pimp this type of material.

The Supreme Court’s decision will make it easier to protect children, and I pray it is but the harbinger of even better decisions to come in the future.

The two dissenting justices? Justices Ginsberg and Souter. Has there ever been in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court a justice who was a more catastrophic disappointment to the president who nominated him than David Souter? If there has been, I don’t want to know about it. It would simply be too depressing.

The California Supreme Court has ruled (by a 4-3 vote) in its supposedly “infinite” wisdom that the California state constitution requires that same-sex couples must have the same right to get married as heterosexual couples do. The California Supreme Court did this in spite of the fact that the people of California voted in a referendum in 2000 that marriage was only to be a man and a woman, thus ruling out not only same-sex marriage, but also polygamy.

Californians voted by a 61 to 39 percent margin to define marriage in this exclusive and specific way. When one examined the referendum votes more closely, marriage “as only between a man and a woman” carried every county in the state, including San Francisco. It also carried virtually every age and ethnic demographic with the single exception of voters between 18 and 25 years of age.

The California justices brushed the wishes of the state’s electorate aside with seemingly little, if any, discomfort. Fortunately, it appears that there will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November. This amendment initiative would allow the people of California to give their Supreme Court further instructions on how they would have themselves to be governed in the matter of what constitutes marriage.

If they amend their constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, they will have struck a blow for democratic government. They also will have won a victory for government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” instead of imperial rule by judges who seem to have little, if any, compunction about overriding the clear wishes of the people if the people dare to disagree with the judges’ “enlightened” social values.

What an honor and a privilege it was to be present as an honorary member of the official U.S. delegation at the Recognition and Gala hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres Wednesday night here in Jerusalem!

It was an inspiring event. There were speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, as well as by President Peres and President George W. Bush—all short and to the point.

The consistent theme echoed by each of the speakers, and throughout the event, was the special relationship between Israel and the United States, as well as the special bond between their nations’ citizens. Much was rightly made of President Harry Truman’s decision to recognize the new state of Israel 11 minutes after it was declared an independent nation in 1948. The fact that the U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel diplomatically was crucial to Israel’s survival, offering invaluable support to the young nation. President Truman made this decision, it was noted, in the face of intense opposition from members of his own Cabinet.

During the celebration, video presentations used historic footage from Israel’s tumultuous modern history to remind all present of the terrible dangers these courageous people have faced. And while the news of the terrible rocket attack on innocent citizens that very day was mentioned, these resilient people plunged ahead with characteristic determination in celebrating their 60th birthday with their best friend—the United States.

My whole life I have heard about the “special relationship” between America and Great Britain—and it is special for historic reasons—a common language (sort of) and a common heritage up to 1776. However, the relationship between America and Great Britain has been, at least in my lifetime, somewhat one-sided, with America’s love and appreciation for Great Britain being greater than the British rendered to us in return.

Not so with the Israelis. It was clear for all with eyes to see and ears to hear that the Israelis love us at least as much as we love them—if not more.

American Evangelicalism will never be the same after the 2008 election. The broadening of the Evangelical agenda, the increase of ethnic evangelicals and the generational changing of the guard from Robertson, Dobson and Graham to Warren, Hybels, Osteen, and Jakes...

Have we gone full circle? From the days of the Moral Majority in the 1980’s to the Christian Coalition in the 1990’s , Evangelicals stepped out from behind the curtains of political obscurity and by sheer grass roots mobilization...

Dr. Darrell L. Bock is Research Professor of New Testament and Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary. The Evangelical Manifesto is both a call to evangelicals for self-reflection on how they publicly engage in discussion and...

Harry Knox is director of the Religion and Faith Program at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The dust is settling on the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the quadrennial legislative meeting held April 23 – May 2 in...

As I write this, I am on a plane flying to Israel to attend official observances celebrating the nation of Israel’s 60th birthday. I was asked, along with others, by President Bush to be an “honorary” member of the official...

The inevitable reality, as it pertains to the Democratic Presidential race and the subsequent National election (sorry Senator Clinton), paints a canvas where the seasoned veteran from Arizona, Sen. John McCain will face the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama....

The criticism leveled against An Evangelical Manifesto, released this week, covers the expected territory, from questions about the motives of the steering committee and signers, to warnings that the devil is behind it all, to—get this—charges that the title of...

Earlier this week (“Christians and Politics: Too much or too little?”) I shared information from a public opinion survey which showed Americans’ significant level of comfort with “Christians being involved in politics.” The poll found the following levels of support...

Over the past few weeks, a national polling firm for LifeWay Research and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission conducted a survey asking Americans to respond to this statement: “I am concerned that at times Christians are too involved in...

...or "If I Were to Run for Office." Trust me, I'd be branded a right-winger, a neo-con Republican, an ultra-liberal Democrat, an anti-abortion pro-abortionist, and a bigoted anti-Semitic. And all because of the churches I've chosen to remain in. I...

By: Marcia Ford Greetings! I'm Marcia Ford, author of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter, and I'll be your guest blogger this week. I know I'm in good company here; not only am I always up for...

Steven Waldman asks his earlier question in a different way; this time focusing on the "moral" question of whether I, and others who supported the war, ignored the pope on this issue. Did I find John Paul II persuasive in...

On April 3, 2008, Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) authorities raided the Eldorado, Texas compound (known as the Yearning for Zion ranch) of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) polygamist sect. The authorities raided the compound based on...

On May 5, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed a law marking the first Thursday in May every year as a National Day of Prayer. (Earlier, President Harry Truman had declared a National Day of Prayer in 1952, but did not...

Steven Waldman asks "Why Didn't Catholics Follow the Church on the War?" I wasn't aware, and don't mean this glibly, that the Church had an official position on the war. I am aware, of course, of all the "concern" about...