Born Again Voters Up for Grabs (by Jim Wallis)
A common question from over the last few years has been for proof that the movement I describe has a real and measurable constituency. "Give us a sign," they say. The headline from the latest Barna Group report is another such sign: Born Again Voters No Longer Favor Republican Candidates. (Barna defines "born again Christians" this way: "people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.") In the report's words:
One of the most reliable constituencies of the Republican Party in recent years has been born again Christians. A new national survey of likely voters conducted by The Barna Group, however, shows that the Republicans have lost the allegiance of many born again voters. The November election is truly up for grabs - and if the election were held today, most born again voters would select the Democratic Party nominee for president, whoever that might be. … The new Barna study shows that if the election were to be held today, 40 percent of all born again adults who are likely to vote in November would choose the Democratic candidate and just 29 percent would choose the Republican candidate. The remaining 28 percent are currently not sure whom they would choose ...
Barna also polls what they call "A subset of the born again population – evangelicals …," (defined by Barna as the most theologically conservative), who they say "remained firmly committed to conservative ideals and, to a lesser extent, to the Republican Party." Yet here too is an amazing shift:
If the election were held today, only 45 percent of evangelicals say they would support the Republican nominee for president, and 11 percent would support the Democratic representative. Most significant is that a whopping 40 percent of evangelicals are undecided. This is extraordinary, given that 62 percent of evangelicals voted for the Republican candidate in 1992, 67 percent did so in 1996, along with 67 percent in 2000 and 85 percent in 2004.
Now, let me be clear that this shift does not by itself necessarily equal a movement for social justice - such a movement must never be the property of any political party. But this poll does demonstrate seismic shifts in the issues most important to this critical constituency. The old litmus tests no longer apply, and a broader set of issues now compel their votes. Who the candidates are and their position on a broad range of issues will matter. As Barna concludes (emphasis added):
Today we have a greater proportion of faith-driven voters who are concerned about issues that are often thought of as 'liberal' social policy concerns, such as poverty and health care. Abortion and family protection remain significant issues to the faith constituency, but they are not the only issues that matter to the group - or even the driving issues. Relying upon traditional stereotypes of born again or evangelical voters will not serve candidates well this year.
Add to:
Category: Faith and Politics
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
That is an encouraging sign, and I've seen it reported quite consistently over the past several months - the apparent end of the narrow evagelical focus on all things sexual and reproductive, which frankly has always struck me as odd.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | February 4, 2008 2:20 PM
I really like this post. I think the shift is owed to the campaign of Obama, who has elevated the dialogue and made the democrats more appealing to Christian values. This also opens Christians up to hearing both sides of the argument. It's all rather refreshing and it also means we dont have to always vote against our economic and foreign policy imperatives.
Posted by: sojoman | February 4, 2008 2:21 PM
Dear Jim Wallis--
Between 1992 and 2004, 62%-85% of Evangelical voters selected the Republican candidate.
This leaves, at the most, 15% - 38% voting Democratic.
He (and you)find it signinficant that 40% of Evangelicals are presently undecided.
Please just look at the numbers instead of spinning the numbers.
Neither party has a nominee. 45% of Evangelicals at this point committed to the Republican nominee and 11% to the Democratic nominee are numbers absolutely consistent with the last twenty-six years (at minimum).
If half of the undecideds go to each party, it will be a 65-35 split. The greater likelihood is something like 70-30.
This is neither a seismic shift. Nor is it any shift over the past three decades.
The Evangelical vote has been significantly Republican--but never a voting block or approximating something like the African-American vote. The continued 'spin' that such is the case is wrong.
And it is equally wrong to claim there is a seismic shift if there is not evidence.
How do you read the numbers you cite as different than what I see?
Only three of the remaining candidates (In order: Clinton, Obama, Huckabee) received double-digit support from the 'born-again' voters in the Barna research. It looks to me that whatever the unrest there is in the Evangelical swing voters--it is unhappiness with the options on the Republican side. (Understandably from my viewpoint)
I don't post this because I do not want what you say to be true. It is that I do not see the evidence to assert what you assert.
I watched Jerry Falwell, etc., ride the story that there was a vast, unrepresented, majority of moral voters that needed to be represented by a 'movement'--to influence. There was some truth to the argument. But I think it was vastly overstated--and ultimately became a lie that was knowingly told as a lie.
Please do not repeat this pattern. That is the sole plea of this comment.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 4, 2008 2:22 PM
Christians have been told over and over again by Democrats that they mean them no harm. And Christians have been somewhat convinced that Hilary and Barak will not force the horrors into their Churches that their Progressive and Liberal radical hordes want to. Hilary and Barak paint a picture that they can keep these wolves at bay, but when Christians see what two Liberal/Progressive politicians will do to this country and its future (the children) in all reality, they will once again reject Democrat politics for the moral sham that it is. While Republicans get removed from their positions when they engage in immorality, we see the Democrats get re-elected when they do far worse things. As a Christian that will not vote for a Democrat, I listen to my more gullible friends within the Church, that think they can trust the party of Hollywood pederasty and Marxist ideology that the Democrats are trying to hide right now. I do not. The GOP lost Christians when they started acting and living like Liberals and Progressives morally and socially. It won't take long for the GOP to come to its senses and promote a better America once again. We can fend off liberal/progressive/humanist desires for a few years if the unthinkable were to happen and a Leftist were elected President. If the Romans and the "Enlightenment Elites" couldn't debauch Christians in history, neither will the Democrats. All it will take is for Christians to once again "test all things and hold fast to the truth," for Democrat socialist and humanist ideology to be put back in Gehenna where it belongs.
Don't gloat for too long Jim. It took Republicans acting like Democrats, and Democrats "sounding" like Christians, to bring us to this point in American history. It won't last long when the wool is put aside and truth is shown for what it is.
Posted by: Donny | February 4, 2008 2:22 PM
From being a bit connected by grassrootas connections this discernment by Reverend Wallis has some merit . I am not sure if he totally grasps the reasons why their is such disenchantment with the GOP though by Born Again Christians .
Basically corruption and lack of commitment by the political elected leadership is my take .
The last Bush State of the Union speech was an incredible thing to watch . Geroge Bush talking with authority about his use of the veto if their was not a reduction of 50 percent of the earmarks , "behind the scene pork and sometimes perhaps credible needs but un debated by individual districts" .
Where was he when the GOP had control ?
The GOP is divided big time , the Presidency is who ever wins the Democratic Primary is im take .
Hillary just said in a speech she would consider a five year interest freeze . Help us , I hope she listens to economic pros if she gets elected ! John McCain who I am supporting at my Caucus just stated be prepared to be in Iraq another 100 years . Politically about as stupid as a person can be .
Because Born Again Belivers do not support the GOP does not mean they support the Dems.
Jim Wallis needs to get out more in the political trenches if he wants to be a player in Evangelical Politics. Hope the dems are right about things I disagree about , because they are going to get their chance in my opinion .
Posted by: Mick | February 4, 2008 2:26 PM
To respond to Letjusticerolldown: You miss-read the original post and crossed the numbers a bit. There were two polls mentioned here, one concerning evangelical voters at large, and a second focusing on a Republican Evangelicals. In your attempt to argue against Wallis, you crossed the polls and got different results. Look at it again, and you'll see that even with 28% of evangelicals undecided, there are still 40% who say they'll vote Democratic this year. And besides, the point isn't that more will vote one way than the other, but that this segment of the population IS NOT by definition Republican. Candidates on both sides need to keep that in mind as they court voters, and the Republican party can no longer fall back on pro-life/anti-gay rhetoric to garner evangelical support.
And Mick, I'm surprised by your comment suggesting that Wallis needs to "get out more in the political trenches" if he wants to be effective. Do you know much about his work? His life is built around being a public theologian and trying to get Evangelicals to vote progressive on issues of poverty, hunger, health care, truth-telling, etc. I think he'd be happy with a Democratic president at the moment, but perhaps bringing the Republican party in line with such progressive ideas would be an even more satisfying result.
Finally, Donny, I think you'd do well to remember that God doesn't create or endorse political parties, and that there isn't anything naturally good or evil about either party in our system. Blindly following the GOP will get you in as much trouble as someone blindly following the Dems.
Posted by: NHD | February 4, 2008 2:43 PM
The numbers still look great for Republicans who like to play the Christian card.
I am a Christian who's registered Democrat and wince when I read the likes of Tony Perkins and Dr. Dobson's Family Research Council who are so blatantly partisan. They are more a political organization than a religious one. The proof is one who wants to be Christ like would not gossip, criticize, and lie about other Christian brothers like they do in order to gain political points.
Their methods are truly deplorable.
Posted by: STeve | February 4, 2008 2:53 PM
NHD--I think we are on the same page. I was commenting on the Evangelical (not Born Again) numbers.
I might just be slow in connecting the dots here. If you don't mind reviewing the Barna quotes and my comment again to help me clarify.........
If you don't have time, I do appreciate response.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 4, 2008 2:53 PM
I have to agree with the earlier comentator that if the undecideds split 50-50, then the break down is 65-35 Rs and Ds among "born agains". This seems consistent with the last decade of voting.
Things haven't changed that much.
I think Obama gives a lot of young evangelicals pause to consider voting for him, but when push comes to shove only some of the young evangelicals will pull the lever. The rest will probably stay home. Like it or not, as long as Democrats remain the party of abortion on demand... there will be no significant inroads with evangelicals or conservative catholics.
Posted by: Matt K | February 4, 2008 3:18 PM
I guess I was never an "evangelical" if that means hewing to whatever is the secular definition of "politically conservative." (Right now we have a big-spending profligate administration with priorities skewed differently from my own that is somehow "conservative" financially? Please. Spend and tax-through-inflation? Give me small government, but if we only have a choice between big government and big government, then the lesser evil to me is social programs over garrison state militarism.)
My life and its priorities were completely changed by becoming Born Again. I never asked what political program anybody had or what party they belonged to. I really wanted to find out What Jesus Wanted Me to Do. Over the years, the Republican Party courted us, saying a lot of the right things in regards to abortion and family values, while at the same time many prominent Democrats openly disparaged us. Regardless of the hidden hypocrisy of many the Republican Party in being consistent across the board, they were the only ones who seemed to listen to us.
And thereby, politically, we became captive, with nowhere else to go. And the Republicans, and financial conservatives, including the Gekkonomists, could use as as they wished in pursuit of their own very different goals.
What a wonderful thing that the other viable party in American politics now courts our support.
If our support is truly not a thing to be taken for granted, but sought after by all parties, our Christian agenda will have to be taken account of, and acted upon to ensure our continuing support.
We can then fulfill our prophetic function, as a church called not to power but to make power accountable to truth and justice.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 4, 2008 3:47 PM
Blimey I push off for a few months and there's still a familiar pattern to the comments and the commentators.
interesting thing here is the creation of seperate groups of "born again" and "evangelical" christians. I was always under the impression that the definition of "born again" used by Barna pretty much summed up what an evangelical was.
As far as the change goes the first poll is remarkable, the second less so - yes my reading too is that a split of the undecided 50-50 would give a result much as before
Posted by: l'etranger | February 4, 2008 5:49 PM
Nicholas Kristoff has a good column in Sunday's NY Times called "Evangelicals a Liberal Could Love." It is relevant to this discussion. Enjoy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Posted by: I and I | February 4, 2008 6:10 PM
And Mick, I'm surprised by your comment suggesting that Wallis needs to "get out more in the political trenches" if he wants to be effective.
Posted by: NHD
I do not think you are aware of the trenches NHD . As you can see by how many people view Evangelicals who do vote Republican are depicted here . The message Wallis gives is to a select audience , like minded people who share a common faith , but a different slant on the issues . He needs to perhaps to counter the belief that voting democrat is enhancing abortion , enhancing government intrusion , spending money that does not alleviate poverty but only gives it a method of causing dependence on the government . Concern for the poor is not just feeding the poor , but an an avenue to be able to feed themselves . Right ? So I want bother to debate that issue , because it Wallis never does here , he points to no solutions , and the supporters here are mixed with those who support gay rights to marry , abortion rights , and no solutions to educating the poor in a matter that is needed to fight poverty , not just feed it .
"Do you know much about his work? His life is built around being a public theologian and trying to get Evangelicals to vote progressive on issues of poverty, hunger, health care, truth-telling, etc. "
Well again , I am not commenting on that for two reasons , one i don't know but what I have read here mostly . Also , all the programs you list are admirable , but you failed to say how he proposes it ? Vote democratic ? Again NHD , you have to counter the assumptions people have of democratic party with many people of Faith . If you just want to talk to progressive Christians , that is fine . He does not say that , I am Born again , and he sure has never considered talking to me about it . I have little trust for republicans solving our problems , why should I trust democrats ?
"I think he'd be happy with a Democratic president at the moment, but perhaps bringing the Republican party in line with such progressive ideas would be an even more satisfying result."
Well its kind of obvious he wants a democratic President , and I believe his wish will be granted .
Keeping America safe , including neigborhoods , a culture where kids jhave the opportunity to be kids , Renewable energy , affordable housing to me is an important issue , education , and health care everyone can have or afford . If that is a progressive issue , OK , sounds like common sense to me . Maybe I am a closet progressive .
But Wallis believing Born Agains are coming around because of him is just silly , they are doing what they always have , doing the best they can and trying to make heads and tails about a very sad culture shift in this country . Wallis I know is concerned about that culture and how children are exposed to it . Being a Father has helped in see that , I am glad he has come around to some of our issues also .
Posted by: Mick | February 4, 2008 7:29 PM
I'll tell ya, we need to get beyond the Joe Six Pack reasoning. The world is a whole lot bigger than what's the matter with Kansas. Talk about being self-centered.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 4, 2008 7:40 PM
Thanks I and I . NY Times editorial , typical far left , but actually almost readable .
Now only if some of that same self examination went to the Liberal blowhards from the left that the writer talks about from the right , there could be actually partnerships really being made .
The belief that republican or democrats are the solution I strongly disagree with from a spirtual and Christian view point . , Just my own experience has made me see it that way so we just have to disagree .
But policies , just think if both political parties were lobbies by Evangelicals on agreed on the same issues , and then the partioes because of our lobbying tried to work them out . Instead of the issue of abortion is only third on the left so the left is winning ? Silly stuff .
Wallis goofs by lessening the value of important issues because he does not see the importance of them as do others .
Like me saying climate change is number four so the right is winning ? How about renewable clean energy that everyone can afford , so everyone is winning ?
Posted by: Mick | February 4, 2008 7:43 PM
If Ron Paul isn't in the final election I will vote Democrat or third party.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 4, 2008 7:56 PM
I'll tell ya, we need to get beyond the Joe Six Pack reasoning. The world is a whole lot bigger than what's the matter with Kansas. Talk about being self-centered.
Posted by: N.M. Rod
Joe Six pack has enough of his problems that appear to be off your radar also . People who seem to think their issues are all important and all important but fail to believe the poor, the middle , the wealthy , and all in between have a view point only worth respecting if they agree with theirs are the self centered ones .
Posted by: Mick | February 4, 2008 8:00 PM
Donny wrote:
It won't take long for the GOP to come to its senses and promote a better America once again. We can fend off liberal/progressive/humanist desires for a few years if the unthinkable were to happen and a Leftist were elected President.
Rick responded:
Comments like yours are the very reason that the "religious right" has one foot in the grave ... Frankly, your thinking is old and worn-out; God is no longer in that.
Was He ever?
D
Posted by: Don | February 4, 2008 8:03 PM
Any more, when accusations fly about "Christians" vs. "Liberals" or "Conservatives", I automatically quit reading and move on to the next comment or article.
I would very much like anyone who is inclined to do so, to stop telling me "what Christians want" and "how Christians feel", along with suggesting that Christians in this country are persecuted by vast left-wing or right-wing conspiracies. I never find that these persons speak for me -- and I know we're all too mature to question the quality of someone else's commitment to Christ, which means that Christians are coming from a variety of perspectives. It takes that to get done all the work Christ needs done now.
Our country's political direction concerns me greatly and I have very strong opinions about who and what will be necessary to turn things moral and compassionate again. But I'm also very aware that it's far more important for me to make sure I'm answering my own call, doing my own work, rather than hovering over the shoulders of others, critiquing theirs.
Jim Wallis's writing has affected my faith in powerful ways for more than 25 years. I think that counts as being down in the trenches. And I'm looking forward to reading your book on faith, as soon as you have one. I'm eager to find out if you are as inspiring.
Posted by: openeyes | February 4, 2008 8:49 PM
"Rick responded:
Comments like yours are the very reason that the "religious right" has one foot in the grave ... Frankly, your thinking is old and worn-out; God is no longer in that."
You lefties can keep wishing your dream comes true, but you've said that so many times in the past. Every time some liberal gets elected, you write our epitaph. Frankly, your thinking is even older than mine. Yours was articulated as Christ was on the Cross. Those of the licentious camp have desired nothing more than for Christians to be gone, from the days of Rome until these days of Hollywood morals. Notice who "Hollywood" is supporting in the millions of dollars?
Posted by: Donny | February 4, 2008 9:40 PM
Jim Wallis's writing has affected my faith in powerful ways for more than 25 years
Could be your problem , God effects most of our Faith . Pass the Kool Aid
Posted by: OpenWider | February 4, 2008 10:11 PM
openeyes,
It is interesting how many people want to treat Christians as a special interest group fighting among other special interests for the privilege of managing the political mechanism.
But the political mechanism - the unprovoked use or threat of force - is inherently corrupt. It is pagan at its root. God never intended His people to have a King or a centralized government of any form. He did not want the Jews or the Christians to be in the habit of clamoring amongst the pagans for the favor of the king or the state.
He intended His chosen ones to be set apart. To relinquish the sword. To take full and exclusive responsibility for accomplishing the mandates He set out for them - through the power of the Holy Spirit. And now so much money and human energy goes to waste on the political process.
Christians fight to maintain the privileged legal status. They want the state to protect them from various threats instead of depending on their One Savior. They want their investments to be safeguarded, they want their jobs to be secure, they want their communities to be nice and clean and free of riff-raff (some of Jesus' best friends...) and they are willing to use the muzzle of a gun to accomplish these desires.
Donny, I'm not as worried about Hollywood as I am about Springfield, whichever one you might live closest to. The pagans are pagan. I'm worried about Christians that act like pagans in their willingness to use coercion to protect their own interests, or American interests over human interests.
If we are concerned about the poor in Darfur, pay to get them out and work to make the laws here easier for people to immigrate legally. Don't ask a politician to do it. Apply the same ethic to every social and political issue. Become a Christian Anarchist. We don't need the state, we've got Jesus.
Jim Wallis is a conservative in comparison, a status-quo, let's use the government to do the church's job, wishy-washy, emoticrat. He's even in favor of using the military in certain instances. That's just absurd.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 4, 2008 10:13 PM
I guess there are conservative churchists and liberal churchists.
Frankly, I'm sick of it. It's old.
I mean, who really cares? Been there done that, took off the T shirt and used it for baby diapers.
I became a Christian so I wouldn't have to choose between a really tired, dodgy ying and yang.
It's a two-headed monster with the heads screaming hysterically at each other.
Posted by: Jen Echs | February 4, 2008 10:46 PM
You lefties can keep wishing your dream comes true, but you've said that so many times in the past. Every time some liberal gets elected, you write our epitaph. Frankly, your thinking is even older than mine.
First, I'm not a lefty unless you're comparing me to you. Second, of course my views are older than yours -- I say without apology that they represent a more Biblical, historical strain of Christianity because the focus is on God, not cultural/political power.
Beyond that, I too would like to see Christians crossing denominational, ideological and cultural lines and working together for the common good. But you can't do that and simultaneously focus on defeating enemies, something our LORD never told us to do.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 4, 2008 10:58 PM
That's wonderful that so many evangelicals are undecided and considering voting Democratic.
Not necessarily because I always favor Democrats (Trust me, I'm a true swing voter!) - but because they are having doubts. That means they are asking questions. That means they are finally thinking - instead of letting others do their thinking FOR them.
And those are very healthy things. When you finally start asking questions, having doubts, and have no one to follow and tell you what to think - guess what? It drives you to God.
Seriously...I said that same thing several years ago to a friend that entered an occupation where she constantly had to decide what God wanted her to participate in - and what He didn't. There were good things, and many bad things in it.
And I told her she would be surprised many years later, because she would look back and be very thankful for all her confusion and doubtful times - because it would be just that very confusion that would drive her to God, asking, "Help me! What do I do? What should I think? What is the correct response here? There is no one to give me the answers. Only YOU, Lord."
God wants a direct relationship with each of us. He is very possessive of it. Not a relationship that is filtered and "middle-guyed" through the James Dobsons or Jerry Falwells - or even the Jim Wallises (No harm meant here.). The LOrd wants each of us to run to HIM to sort out our thoughts and questions and confusion.
Often, it's not the destination that is the most important. But the journey. The travel, the process along the way. The getting to know God, learning to ask His wisdom, learning to rely on Him alone for answers.
You watch - years later, people will look back on their doubts and "undecidness" - and smile. Because they will remember how much it drove them closer to God.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 5, 2008 1:11 AM
Sounds like the Evangelicals may be waking up to the fact that the CIA (which, per a retired CIA agent, works to keep Democrats and Republicans apart) has been covertly reshaping America as a nation which can easily be manipulated by the 'NeoCons" and whatever groups might be behind them, for whatever their secret agendas might be. This has been going on for a long time.
The demonization of Liberals (and especially Liberal Christians) was one of their earliest implementations and continues to this day.
Many bloggers mention "the anti-Christ." It seems to me that the most likely suspect for
"an anti-Christ" would be the NeoCon/CIA cabal.
Posted by: Semper | February 5, 2008 1:46 AM
Semper are you being serious ? Is this anything to do with the Twin Towers being destroyed by a man hiding behind the grassy noll ?
"If Ron Paul isn't in the final election I will vote Democrat or third party."
Posted by: jurisnaturalist
You guys are the most diverse group of supporters I have ever seen in my 20 years of political rub
a rub .
. But I guess you will be voting for the democrat or third party . I think McCain got it , and Hillary most likely .
There is a rush of Ron Paul supporters around here , many from the old Pat Roberston group who got mad and left the polical battlefield out here about 10 years ago . Also from the liberaterians , and some disgruntled anti war democrats that must of gotten sick with the democratic party promise but not deliver message .
Posted by: Mick | February 5, 2008 2:10 AM
It is the Liberals and Progressives that declare they are holier than thou. Obama and Clinton literally want to "change the world" to force everyone to be Liberal or Progressive. Totalitarianism is not something new.
Donny -- We on the "left" feel that way about much of the right, and with more justification. BTW, the secular right is no more of a friend to true Christianity than you claim the left is -- if serious "born-again" Christians were taking positions against conservative policies, which is happening now to a certain extent, they will be persecuted. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the right is using Christians only for the sake of votes? It doesn't care about God or any kind of religion!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 8:38 AM
I might consider Ron Paul except for his toxic position on immigration.
I usually don't respond to Donny, but I think it needs to be said that he is confusing two things. Progressivism is a longstanding tradition among evangelical Christians, going back at least as far as the Wesleys in 18th century England. I think he's confusing that with the current incarnation of the Democratic party, with its support of gay rights, abortion rights, and what often looks like pure hedonism.
They aren't the same thing, Donny. Rev Jim Wallis stands squarely in the tradition of progressive evangelicalism. Please don't continue confusing his progressivism with the present-day Democratic platform.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 5, 2008 8:42 AM
"There is a rush of Ron Paul supporters around here, many from the old Pat Roberston group who got mad and left the polical battlefield out here about 10 years ago."
I do believe you mean Pat Buchanan supporters. His platform is certainly closer to Buchanan's than Robertson's vis-a-vis the Iraq War. But apparently the few fuddy-duddies that still listen to Robertson did not take his marching orders and contribute to and vote for Rudy.
Posted by: I and I | February 5, 2008 9:54 AM
Donny
The love of Jesus changed my life. I return my children to the lesson of obedience again and again. We talk about the relationship of obedience to happiness and wisdom. I have learned to love obedience much more than I used to. There is such goodness in goodness--isn't there?
I pray we who call Jesus, "Lord," will learn the pleasant taste of His ways. That we will enjoy God and love the ways He enjoys and pursues us. That our compassion, care and passion for each other would draw the world towards Him.
That we would model a sexuality, family-life, and intimacy with God which would answer deep longings of humanity.
I am working on a new model of housing and services for elders that churches can use to care for their own members and elders in their neighborhood. This involves individuals, families, churches, foundations, corporations, local government, State, and Federal policy--just to creatively address a slice of one issue.
There are devout Christians involved--but many others with a passion to provide housing for elders who are very old and frail (which I hopefully will be one day :)). I engage persons who care deeply about how frail elders can get transportation around the city when they have no family. There are a thousand issues in this one slice of reality.
I don't know the political stripes or sexual ethics of most the people with whom I work. This is where I am living out my faith. It is not mostly political--but it is involved. The project involves sewers, fire & safety, crime prevention, housing codes, health codes, roads, sidewalks, etc. etc. It involves political decisions as to what kinds of development works for different neighborhoods. There are persons of all kinds of political stripes at work every day in government and elected positions who work to facilitate someone's Grandma having a safe house.
I do fear for a people who have lost any sense of fear for God. But as I understand Jesus' great news we are to be salt and light with a love that conquers all. Whether in prison (like Daniel or Paul) or representing God to rulers (like Daniel or Paul).
The Holy Spirit does a great job of convicting.
It is a mistake to read too much into persons because they hold to different political ideologies. e.g. We might agree to a concept of justice and come out on different ends of whether the Federal Government should legislate drug laws.
If you see liberalism as the devil incarnate, you will have turned a group of people (that includes devout Jesus-followers) into a god. Which is as big of a mistake as turning government into our savior or object to which we bow our lives.
Posted by: PJ | February 5, 2008 10:09 AM
Donny,
Why should pagans act like Christians? Why?
Especially when Christians act like pagans in supporting the state?
If we don’t see the right asking for absolute power what do you call the Patriot Act?
Don,
Paul on immigration. I agree to a point. On the surface his position is anti-immigrant, but with further study he favors making it easier to immigrate legally. This is what is really needed, a change in the laws.
Ron Paul in general: A good guy who doesn’t have broad appeal. A Christian who wants to limit the scope of the state.
He is the only one working to reduce the size and influence of the government across the board. So, I support him.
But if he doesn’t run, its Obama for me. As much as any of the other candidates are concerned they are all so close to one another in principles it doesn’t really matter. They are all for big government, just in different ways. All pagans, just different idols. So I take Obama for the historical significance.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 5, 2008 11:25 AM
The following is an item that I sent to the Obama team a few weeks ago when it seemed that they were getting sidetracked with issues such as race etc.... This past weekend the Tennessee Obama asked that supporters print an email off and take it to their respective churches to share during "community announcement times." I still have not seen a copy of the item, so I can't comment on its content or intent. The note that was sent to me was to encourage readers to link to the video of his speech in Atlanta on the Sunday before Martin Luther King holiday.
From:Doug
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:18 PM
To: 'info@barackobama.com'
Subject:RE: VIDEO: Obama's speech at Dr. King's church
Morality has to be the point that wins the week for the undecided, not who is right or wrong by making racial comments or other mistakes in their words. Don't get sidetracked it’s a no win situation! Religion can not be the topic of the day - but living a Christ-like life must be. If Barack wants to carry this campaign to the next level then he must be willing to put his Christianty up front - for God has called us to deliver the Good News to the world and He most certainly can help us do that even within the context of a political stump-speech. The so-called moral majority of this country, (even with all of its bigotry and ignorance still lingering beneath the surface) longs for a true Christian to step forth in this election in order that they can rally. Let them do for your campaign what they did for a peanut farmer/Sunday school teacher from Georgia, and let them do for you, what they have done for the republican nominee for the past two elections. Be willing to let your campaign go down in flames for the sake of promoting righteousness over rhetoric, love over self-centeredness, and peacefulness over prosperity.
The Democratic party have come to a point where they consider it a given that the so-called Christian-coalition is going to side with the other party and this is becoming a sad and costly mistake in this election. They are looking for someone to step forward to take up their issues, which Barack already does, he just doesn't discuss it in a manner that sounds like he is their candidate as well.
America is made up mostly of God believers to one degree or another. On election day the polls become full of those that have the strongest tendencies toward believing that Jesus is God's one and only son. Talk to the majority about what they want to know. They want to know if you really believe that God is the head of your household, your campaign, and our country. And if so, they will support you - even if they have to do it more silently than they have done in the past.
Keep it up - doors are being opened each week!!!!! Doug
PS: Great speech in Atlanta!!!!!!!
Posted by: doug | February 5, 2008 11:38 AM
I do believe you mean Pat Buchanan supporters. His platform is certainly closer to Buchanan's than Robertson's vis-a-vis the Iraq War. But apparently the few fuddy-duddies that still listen to Robertson did not take his marching orders and contribute to and vote for Rudy.
Posted by: I and I
No I and I , but perhaps him too . Pat Robertson . About ten years ago we had a rift is the GOP , a large segment fled to what is called the Constitution party . They organized , had candidates , based on the Constitution and Jesus Christ . I knew many of these people , they are believers . But I swear they had such high principles Jesus Christ himself would not be able to be apart of their party . They ran in some elections and eeven caused one very popular republican candidate to loose a Congressional seat because they took his votes and the democrat won by a small margin .
Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the Constitution , a good man , but he commented on this one world government conspiracy also that so many far right Christians got into , Left Behind Books type of thing .
No offense to Ron Paul supporters , I know they are a dedicated group , but he marginalized himself putting in with that conpiracy anti government rhetoric in my opionion . He gave it credit , I heard him do it myself . To me that is fringe stuff .
Posted by: Mick | February 5, 2008 2:28 PM
"Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the Constitution , a good man , but he commented on this one world government conspiracy also that so many far right Christians got into , Left Behind Books type of thing."
Didn't realize that. I always respected Ron Paul even though I disagree with most of his domestic positions. I know many Paul supporters are not far-religious-right types, but I know there are a lot of Libertarians who hold to that too, from a secular viewpoint rather than from a "tribulation and anti-christ" viewpoint. Disappointed to hear he talked that way. Not that I would have ever voted for him anyway...
Posted by: I and I | February 5, 2008 4:33 PM
Yes, Mike. I am being very serious. It has a lot
to do with Benazir Bhutto being "taken care of,"
so the region would not be destabilized
Hmmm....it seems that the Democrats have emerged from Super Tuesday with two super candidates.
Rather gentle voiced ones at that. Amazing in this land of hype and shysterism. Perhaps we are seeing a real return toward the path of raditional
American values. The possibility of having strong, knowledgeable and thoughtful people in Washington, with a sense of the best in our history, is a very hopeful sign.
Posted by: Semper | February 6, 2008 11:32 AM
The only thing I know about Ron Paul, indeed, the only thing I need to know about Ron Paul, is that he is a memeber of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
That alone is enough for me to oppose him.
The AAPS is not a medical association - it is a political organization. The journal of the AAPS is not indexed in the NLM because it is not considered a medical journal.
Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 6, 2008 11:37 AM
Pardon me. I was actually responding to Jurisnaturalist's post contained in Mick's (aka to me as Mick) post.
Posted by: Semper | February 6, 2008 11:37 AM
Neuro_nurse wrote:
The only thing I know about Ron Paul, indeed, the only thing I need to know about Ron Paul, is that he is a memeber of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That alone is enough for me to oppose him.
Off topic, I know, but I'm curious. Why is the fact that AAPS is a political and not a medical organization a valid reason to oppose Paul's candidacy? What's their political agenda? Also, is Ron Paul a physician?
I'm not trying to defend Paul; I've already said I can't support him for another reason. But I'm curious.
Don
Posted by: Don | February 6, 2008 11:47 AM
"Why is the fact that AAPS is a political and not a medical organization a valid reason to oppose Paul's candidacy?"
We already have a president who thumbs his nose at scientific evidence. As a health care professional, I don't have much respect for members of an organization of physicians who've made it policy to do so.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 6, 2008 6:26 PM
John 18:36
Posted by: Roy | February 7, 2008 4:07 PM
If all these "born again" and other Christians would vote for a Christian, then Alan Keyes would be our next president and we could conclude all these discussions about whether Ron Paul is better than Hillary or McCain. He is the ONLY Christian in that rotten bunch, let's do it.
Posted by: Jack | February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
Donny says that Democratic politics are Marxist, socialist and a moral sham. He offers no proof of this at all, and in fact it is a lie. That's not a moral thing to do, lie about things.
The truth is that Democrats and Republicans fall in a very narrow category which is to the right. They are both capitalistic. They are also both bore authoritarian than they are libertarian. Even Ron Paul, leader of the current libertarian crowd, is not entirely libertarian.
But lets get to the soul of this argument. Donny is arguing that Democrats can't be Christian. That's silly. He's arguing that politics can be inherently un-Christian.
This is also a flat out lie. Only Christians in the USA have this narrow view that only one political system is Christian and all others are pagan, godless systems. You can be a socialist and a Christian. You can be a Marxist and a Christian. You can be a Fascist and a Christian. None of these government systems are either Christian or non-Christian. They only govern human, secular affairs. They are profane and Christianity is sacred.
Christian doctrine does not dictate human government, and the only un-Christian policies are the ones that would limit our "free exercise."
It's silly to argue a government system is un-Christian, especially when you see the history of the Church - authoritarian, imperialistic, hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, republic, democratic, parliamentarian, et al. The first "Christian nation" was an empire. The following for over a thousand years were monarchies or otherwise authoritarian.
But somehow Democratic policies in the USA are un-Christian and the same policies presented by the Republicans are not?
I've got a good idea, read 1 Samuel 8 and Isaiah 40 and let me know what God thinks of human government.
Posted by: Steve K | February 7, 2008 4:18 PM
The surveys that have shown large margins for Republicans from evangelicals have usually been solely about white evangelicals, and the reports don't always make that clear. Minority evangelicals, of which there are a very large number, have tended to vote predominantly Democratic.
So part of this is having color blind polling, in which the Democratic minority evangelicals balance out the Republican white evangelicals. But part of it is that white evangelicals, particularly young ones, genuinely see a broader range of Christian concerns with one party better on some and the other on the rest.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 7, 2008 9:09 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?