Evangelicals are back in the media spotlight again, but the spotlight has gone from red to purple. Back in the 1970s, largely energized by Roe v. Wade, Evangelicals asserted themselves into the political process as never before. Though it is debated how much real influence they had even then and on into the 80s, on one thing all agreed: the Evangelical vote could be counted on by the Republican party. So after 30-some years, why would the Evangelical voter be back in the news? The “man bites dog” story for 2008 is that for an increasing number of (particularly, but not exclusively) young Christians, Evangelical Democrat is no longer an oxymoron.
This is where it gets personal: ten years ago I would not have been able to get my mouth to form the word “Democrat,” and now I are one.
Well, maybe I’m not a Democrat, insofar as I’m not thrilled about accepting any political party into my heart. As a matter of fact, I sat out the previous election, my discouraged heart filled with pox for both houses. All that changed when Barack Obama burst out of East Nowhere, Illinois, and onto the national stage. I’ll admit it; I was smitten from the get-go. (Please don’t send me your YouTube links to the Obama as Paris Hilton ads, I get the wierdness, thanks.) But after my honeymoon was over, I found myself still just as enthusiastic.
I can easily tell you the basic reasons why, and let me save you the effort of typing out the obvious critiques: my reasons don’t go very high up the policy-wonkometer. In the first draft of this post, I actually spelled them out. But then I deleted them, because I don’t want whatever discussion this post begins to be Topic: Obama, messiah or antichrist.
Here’s what I would like to discuss with my fellow Conn-versation bloggers and all you gentle readers. Not why or why not Obama or McCain is the best candidate, but the far more interesting (to me, anyway) question of can one be a true Evangelical in all the usual earmarks (Deity of Christ, salvation by faith in him alone, Bible is the Word of God, etc.) and vote for Obama? And to get the 50,000 pound elephant out into the open, what about the Big A, abortion? For those of you who oppose Obama, is that the biggest reason why? For those who, like me, plan to vote for Obama, how do you “handle” the abortion question when it comes up? Is that the make-or-break issue for Evangelical Christians? Should it be?
September 12, 2008 at 1:19 am
Mark:
Why are you making me think about this now? I successfully ignored both conventions and hoped I could let this election “slip my mind”. Since I’m here I will further expose myself. I Have NO Idea What To Do About Voting.
I share many of the concerns listed above. I worry about a gov’t that I am so dependent upon that I sometimes wonder if I really grasp the idea of God as my provider. I wrestle with how I am to be a Christian and an American in the 21st century. I’m not sure I will vote this year because I don’t have any cognitive rest.
If push came to shove I’d vote Obama for one reason…he’s a mixed-race candidate (I know he identifies himself as a black man, he can do what he wants). For our country, I think more will actually change in the long run by having a mixed-race president than any policies put in place. How does that relate to my evangelicalism? I’m not certain.
September 11, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Oh, forgot to respond to your allusion to my terrorism comment.
I’m not sure what you meant by “interesting that you post this on 9-11,” but if that was meant to be a dig, let me explain further.
I had said, “The issues for me are what I see as a useless and damaging war that is distracting from the real battle against terrorism” not at all flippantly, but with real conviction that our obsession with Iraq has done the opposite of making us safer. While we spend billions and thousands of lives in Iraq, the masterminds of 9-11 live on in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our troops in Afghanistan are woefully under-equipped and under-manned because most of our resources are in Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush allowed the former government of Pakistan to dictate to him where we could and could not look for the terrorists!
September 11, 2008 at 10:12 pm
deoppressoliber:
I was deeply moved by your account of the agonizing decisions surrounding your wife’s tubal pregnancy, as well as your courage as you faced the prospect of delivering a “less-than-normal” child.
Please know that I also celebrate and stand up and cheer the Palins’ decision to welcome their Down’s Syndrome child into their family.
See, I take from your comment (and please set me straight if I am wrong) that you assume that those of us who “lean left” and/or will vote for Obama also support abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth for me, and I suspect most or all of the commenters above on my side of the political fence feel likewise. I hate abortion, just as I hate a long list of many other sins and miseries and broken, messed up things in this present world. I wish they didn’t happen. But as we’ve been trying to present, the answer to such tragedy may not be as easy as “just make it illegal.” As someone pointed out above, making it illegal (by Supreme Court ruling) doesn’t actually outlaw or stop it.
As for Carson’s speech, I found little in it that I would disagree with. I appreciated his wisdom about the political realities of being willing to accept small gains instead of insisting on all-or-nothing show downs. As a matter of fact, this is one reason why a friend of mine who is one of the godliest men I know and also very deeply involved in the Democratic party stays there. He wants to be an influence for change in the party, particularly to pull it even further away from the radical pro-abortion stance it had in the 70s. It’s easy to forget how far the Dem party has come on this issue simply because they seem so far to the left of where conservative Christians would want them to be. Back in the 70s it was forbidden language among Dems to even suggest that there should be alternatives to abortion. Now the Dem presidential candidate stated clearly in his acceptance speech that alternatives must be actively pursued and vigorously supported.
September 11, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Valerie,
That’s nice that you have such a positive look on humanity. The problem is that people don’t kill babies because its a social-economic hardship. They kill babies and allow society to justify their actions on the basis of social-economic issues.
September 11, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Mark,
“The issues for me are what I see as a useless and damaging war that is distracting from the real battle against terrorism”
Interesting you post this on 9-11
In terms of abortion I would refer you to my post here: http://deoppressoliber.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/in-the-hands-of-god/
and to D.A. Carson’s assessment as abbreviated here: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/09/da-carson-on-practical-strategies-for.html
Carson makes a compelling case (”Circulate hard facts”) that true social justice-that is so vogue today in Christian circles-has correlation to roe v wade.
Steve
September 11, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Going back to the abortion issue, I feel I have to wonder if it’s really my place to force my moral beliefs on others. From a strictly societal standpoint, it makes sense to uphold laws against homicide, but abortion is more of a private evil (and I do believe it is an evil – both for the child and for the mother to go through). However I don’t think that the Lord is glorified simply by forcing citizens (in a democracy, I might add) to “be moral” and bear a child by law. Are the hearts of unbelievers drawn any closer to God by this? I also agree with Mari and Art and those who are looking at the deeper-rooted issues around unwanted pregnancies and the need to act proactively at these levels first.
September 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Many evangelicals in America are conservative because they believe in conservative ideals as a useful and practical political model; others don’t give a toot about political models and think they can spiritualize our government by making it look like the Kingdom of God. The latter are the ones I’m worried about. Unfortunately, the latter find a close parallel in their critics on the left.
The theocratic Christian left and right agree that a central role of our government should be to accomplish in some way the specific concerns of the Christian religion: those on the right typically push sanctions on homosexuality, drugs, and prostitution and those on the left seem to be motivated to give money to the poor, stop war, and cripple big business. Each side is dumbfounded that the other is under the impression that its version of government looks anything like Christianity.
But are we supposed to make our political system look like a church? Supplement the Church? Replace the Church? Or should we look objectively at all the political systems and see the one that functions the best and most fairly according to a common, cohesive understanding of morality?
The right wants the government to have jurisdiction over personal morality, while the left wants control over economic matters for the sake of promoting group-think morality. One wants to limit our freedom to commit personal sins – not an ideal sort of freedom, but one God granted all of us – and the other wants to remove our freedom over own money.
“The best government is that which governs least.” I uphold this aphorism of O’Sullivan not in either moral or economic freedom, but in both. This makes me libertarian in political philosophy. But because there may be different practical interpretations of a philosophical system, don’t assume I’m a member of that party (I’m not). The fact is, the ideals of smaller government are far likelier to be promoted by the Republican party than by Democrats, although I readily admit that the current GOP has been more about paying lip-service to that ideal than making it a part of its platform. However badly the Republicans follow their stated ideal, there’s no doubt that the policies of the DNC are geared toward creating a bigger leviathan, to our detriment.
What does Obama have going for him that evangelical Christians should be happy about? He wants to end the war; of course, there’s no indication that he or those most vocal in supporting this aim have given requisite thought to the wisest way to resolve the problem, which may include pulling out slowly (a strategy they will hear nothing of). What else does Obama have going for him that Christians like? I’m not talking about charisma or personality characteristics, but specific policies that aren’t shared by his contender. I’m also not referring to ideals (”we need a better energy policy”), which are a dime a dozen, but the actual policy ideas able to realize these ideals. Are we wanting to vote in Obama because we like him personally (or dislike McCain personally) and want to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust to chance (”hope”) that he will be capable of formulating the perfect policy down the road?
Wanting to “stick it” to McCain and Bush and the other conservative turncoats is understandable; shooting yourself in the foot as a “symbolic gesture” is, IMHO, not.
September 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Sorry: should read, but take the “A” issue & transfer it to other situations.
September 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I don’t want to be a one issue candidate either but that the “A” issue & transfer it to other situations. Slavery or the rights of Jews/others in Germany b/f WWII. “I don’t like slavery but I don’t want it to b/c the only issue.”
“I don’t like how the Nazi party is treating the Jews but they are giving jobs to poor Germans.”
September 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Some points to consider… Conservative judges were appointed to the Supreme Court, yet, we still have abortion. It is very unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. The truth is if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal, as it was before Roe v Wade. Did you know that? The only result would be states would not be mandated to make abortion legal. Some would ban it, and some will keep it. Abortions would continue in America, women would just have to drive across a state line. Do the research yourself if you doubt what I say. It’s not enough to just vote for a pro-life candidate, we must take action to reduce the number of abortions. The real solution lies within our churches and synagogues. It’s been there all along.
Here are some ideas to consider. Empty-nesters, open your home to a young woman that has an unplanned pregnancy. Perhaps the housing and support will enable her to keep her child. Young stay-at-home mothers, you can offer to provide free day care for the child while the mother is at work. Churches… take some of the tithe and give it to the families in need so they can maintain a home for their unborn child. Forget about bigger buildings and sound systems. This is the real help a young woman with an unplanned pregnancy may need. It is woefully inadequate to give a few dollars to the pregnancy distress centers, or cast a vote, and expect that to have a major impact. The Church must fix this problem! Isn’t that what Jesus would direct us to do?
Is this too much to ask? Take in a stranger? Provide daycare? I don’t think so… not if you really want to reduce abortions. We can no longer cast our votes and relieve our consciences in one fell swoop. Is that what Jesus would tell us to do? Pass laws or provide real help? This is the responsibility of the Church, and it is time we step up to the plate.
Yes, we are our brother’s keeper. Jesus tells us “I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.” Matthew 25:40. That includes health care, poverty, education, social security, the economy, and peace! Please, talk amongst yourselves and with your pastors, then make a plan! Search your hearts, pray, and weigh ALL of your values when you vote. Ask the government to do what it should, and help the Church to do what it should. After all, we are our brother’s keeper!
September 11, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Hey Rob, get your facts straight! It is not Christ like to perpetuate falsehoods. As for the “Born Alive Protection Act,” it was actually tied to another bill that would have directly challenged Roe and thus would never have passed constitutional muster (and Obama wasn’t willing to spend taxpayer money in the process). If that sounds like a cop-out, two things need to be considered: 1) A weaker bill was passed after Obama left the Illinois Senate; and 2) the late Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey Sr., known for his anti-abortion stance, for similar reasons actually vetoed a bill that would have challenged Roe.
September 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Hey Darryl: Actually, I’d be curious if you’ve read Balmer’s book I mentioned, Thy Kingdom Come. Given that you’re an American religious historian, you’re probably in a better place than anyone to critique (…or to avoid it, given it’s popy; I wouldn’t blame you).
Any thoughts by chance? And do you have any opinions about Balmer?
September 11, 2008 at 11:45 am
I think Mari’s comment is very close to my own thinking on the issue of “the big A.” There are larger questions of justice when it comes to abortion, questions bigger than the “rights of the baby.” There are already systemic evils embedded within our socio-economic system that, in many ways, could be magnified with making abortion illegal. Those are issues we need to think about because those are issues that deal with justice, something I think our Lord is very fond of (Isaiah, Amos, etc.). On the other hand, I’m quite sure he is not fond of abortion either.
But (and this is where I am going with this to echo Mari), to take a stand on the side of abortion by only looking at the justice issues is just as foolish as taking a stand against abortion by only looking at the “murder” issue.
I’d like to see an argument that shows how making abortion illegal is going to promote justice in our socio-economic system or an argument that shows how abortion’s legality can also promote a high value of life. In my experience, the latter argument has been made much more than the former. That might be a problem.
September 11, 2008 at 11:37 am
On Mari’s statement, yes you need to look at a larger picture. How about who gets the majority of abortions in the USA?
Does that picture cause us any concern, not abortion itself but the impact of who uses the procedure?
If you don’t know it is minority women.
I would agree that we have to look at how the poor are treated and cared for, but who should be doing the caring for them? How should it be done?
I would argue the current system in the US has led to a silent slavery. A system that does not promote people caring for one another and people relying on the government- the new slave owner. The system does not view poor as people of value, and devalues them saying they are not capable of caring for themselves.
What we need to see is a church community that cares for others more so than themselves. When you go and buy an over-priced cup of coffee do you think about how it could be used to help the poor in the US or internationally?
That cup of coffee for example could pay for an entire years education for a child in India. Feed a family a long long time, when they live on a quarter a week.
So yes, look at the entire picture. Does abortion push to further inequality and lack of justice in society or more?
I would argue it leads to more injustice and perpetuation of the new US slave system.
Rob
September 11, 2008 at 11:25 am
1) Politifacts is not a good resource. It is funded by George Sorros. I prefer other places to get details.
2) Obama has stated the reason he voted for it was he feared it would lead to limiting abortion. The bill however, contained language that would not do that. He has waffled a little bit on his reasons. But, that was his first response. You could argue the bill was merely to catch people in voting for something bad. It did in this case. That is where the real dilemma comes in with Obama. How could any human agree to the killing of a child that is living outside a womb simply because the parent does not want it?
Can we just ignore his voting record because it may contain something that is unpleasant for our conscious?
I do not know reading a few responses in that anyone has answered the question, how do you resolve this in your conscious.
Rob
September 11, 2008 at 11:02 am
Mark,
Your post has me doing a bit of self-reflection. To be frank, I am fed up with the all too typical one-issue voting (or two-issue, if we want to throw “gay marriage” into the mix). But your question made me realize that out of this frustration, I have virtually stopped caring about an issue that I DO need to care about.
So, how do I consider the “Big A” (as you put it) when casting my vote (like you) with Obama? Over the years, I have been increasingly faced with larger, systemic factors that are critical to this discussion (socio-economic, education, etc). In advocating for the life of the unborn, I need to be taking seriously what this means.
In thinking about the systemic issues at play, I am overwhelmed by the number of broken or single-parent homes, lack of financial and educational resources, horrific housing situations . . . the list goes on and on. What kind of care are we willing to provide for the mothers (and their children!) who do not go through with an abortion?
What I’m trying to get at, is that I need to consider more than “What does this candidate believe about abortion?” I need to pay attention to how abortion is intimately connected to other factors–not just one moral or immoral choice.
September 11, 2008 at 8:56 am
Darryl:
“Neither party gets Christianity” – I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m identifying myself as “guy who will vote for Obama,” not as a Democrat. I’m planning to vote for Obama because I think a presidential vote is largely a symbolic gesture, and I happen to think symbols are very important. I’m rather cynical about policy promises in a presidential election, so I don’t pay much attention to them. I’ve been attracted to Obama’s message of hope, the potential impact of electing an African-American just 40 years after MLK Jr.’s Dream speech…and I’ll just go ahead and say it: “anyone but Bush.”
So for me, I don’t think I’m “running for cover” (although you are probably correct that other Evangelical Right types are) since I left the xian right some time ago. But yes, I’ll admit that I am as much running from Bush as I am toward Obama. The issues for me are what I see as a useless and damaging war that is distracting from the real battle against terrorism, the alarming loss of freedom through the Patriot Act and other “black ops” of the administration, America being increasingly viewed as the international bully.
September 11, 2008 at 8:37 am
JD:
I haven’t read that. Right now my ‘fun’ reading is Rapture Ready, a humorous look at Evangelical subculture. It contains some insight into the rise of the Xian Right, but your book probably gets into it more seriously.
Mark
September 11, 2008 at 6:17 am
Mark: my own sense is that evangelicals were never a good fit in the conservative “movement” to begin with. So I wonder why you once considered yourself a Republican, not that I think Christianity actually clarifies red-state-blue-state categories. In looking over the history of the Religious Right, from Falwell to Cizik, it looks to me like evangelicals’ pro-family instincts took them into a party that said it was going to stand up for traditional values. Now that the GOP has a hugely unpopular president, executing a highly distasteful war, evangelicals are running for cover.
Neither party gets Christianity, and both have used it to attract the God-vote. In fact, the recent prayer-bathed convention of the Democrats is all the fault of the Religious Right. Without Jerry Falwell, no one would care if Obama has Jesus in his heart or not.
September 11, 2008 at 1:03 am
My apologies Mark. Out of curiosity, you ever read Randall Balmer’s book on the the development of the religious right? It’s on my shelf, I think it’s called “Thy Kingdom Come.” A bit irritating to read b/c of his caricaturing, but quite illuminating.
BTW, another great site is http://www.factcheck.org. It’s out of Penn’s Annenberg Institute.
September 11, 2008 at 12:10 am
Thanks, Rob
Without getting into all the wonky-details of the Illinois vote (and maybe we won’t be able to avoid that)…what if that vote was not as simple as the opposition sound bites try to make it? What if it wasn’t actually a “vote for infanticide” but rather a very difficult vote to cast on a bill that contained wording Obama couldn’t accept for other reasons? Is it possible that he wasn’t voting “for infanticide” but rather against a larger agenda of the bill’s drafters?
I pretty much ignore the “voting record” accusations from both sides in an election. The sound bites almost always over-simplify very complex decisions. Very few bills are simply what they say they are. For example, a conservative legislator might vote against a bill to restrict same-sex marriages because the bill is loaded up with all kinds of other riders and add-ons that he can’t support. Then his opponent in the next election can try to paint him as being “for same-sex marriage” because of his “voting record.” That is why I put little weight on claims about what a candidate supposedly voted for or against until I’ve had a chance to examine in detail what was really voted upon.
politifacts.com is a good source for checking out such accusations.
September 11, 2008 at 12:02 am
JD:
Thanks for your comment. It’s interesting to hear your thought process on politics.
I would, however, really like this discussion not to be about who is the “best”candidate and why (plenty of places to discuss that), but rather about how one can (or can’t) be an Evangelical and vote outside the traditional* voting block of Evangelicals, concentrating around issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and prayer in schools.
*if 30-some years is enough to establish a tradition
September 11, 2008 at 12:02 am
Yes, I can appreciate someone not wanting to be a one issue voter. I can respect a person voting Democrat and being Pro-Life.
What I cannot fathom is how a Christian can work around the extreme view Obama has on abortion. That he voted for infanticide, not abortion. That in his mind he saw that voting against infanticide would be equal to condemning abortion.
How can an evangelical agree with that? I’m not being critical and I have asked other liberal leaning friends that same question. How in good conscious believe it is ok to vote for Obama knowing that?
I’m sticking to your point, and would like a good answer to that.
Rob
September 10, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I don’t like both candidates. I’m a dem, though I call myself a republicrat. I’m not enthusiastic about Obama. I remember when Obama entered the senate, and remember thinking to myself that in 2 terms I’d like him to run (i.e. after he had experience under his belt). I really wanted a Biden-Obama ticket, or even Dodd-Obama, but not the other way around. The dems have been saying “no more on the job training” for years, and now they’ve gone and nominated someone who not only has negligible experience in every major category, but whose resume is utterly dwarfed by his runningmate. I’m just waiting for the McCain party to play back the tapes and pose the question of whether it’s sense or integrity the dems lack. Had Obama some executive experience–say as governor–I might have been able to buy the case. Nope. And that apart from the fact that his economic policies are incomplete, his healthcare makes little sense, and his energy policy totally won’t work. I just wish he would’ve waited.
McCain I used to like essentially because he was like Biden but pro-life; but he lost the maverick title 2 yrs ago when he waffled on his stance toward the war and detainee rights. He became a bushy when beforehand he was sternly opposed (I loved that). I hoped it might just be a facade to win republicans, but he just kept going. Then I thought his choice of VP might indicate for sure: if he went for someone like Lindsay Graham, I’d have been comforted. But instead he went for Palin for the votes (clearly he did–there were a hundred better qualified just as feisty men and women). Don’t be duped. McCain isn’t any better on healthcare or the economy, though his energy plan is more solvent (the question is whether it’s worth the drilling).
I’ll prb. vote for Obama, though if I do it’ll really be a vote for Biden. There are still some other issues I’m thinking through…e.g. the next prez will prb nominate one supreme court justice (for Stevens). Though I’m somewhat comforted that my district will never vote republican so my vote doesn’t really matter much.
Eh. I hate elections. Go Nader!
September 10, 2008 at 11:51 pm
[...] Traphagen just started a thread at Conn-versations which should shape up to be interesting: Here’s what I would like to discuss with my fellow [...]