Stop the Shouting

Anyone else tired of the shouting matches and name-calling? This healthcare debate has created a flea market for misinformation that has attracted hot-tempered patrons in record numbers. It is a debate that must be had, but it is nearly impossible to have it in the current environment.

Someone needs to call timeout and get back to an intelligent, rational, respectful discussion. My recent article, Incivility Muzzles Interactive Debate, published in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution asks us to do just that. Take a look and let me know where you stand. Fed up with the insults or madder than Sean Hannity?

Christians and Gitmo

A fascinating article was published today by RelevantMagazine.com entitled "Are Christians Wrong about Gitmo?" The article was authored by Natalie and Tyler Wigg-Stevenson and cites two fascinating polls. The first was conducted by Mercer University in 2008 and concludes that a majority of white Southern Evangelicals thought that it was "often" or "sometimes" justified to torture suspected terrorists and that their faith had little to do with how they reached that conclusion. The second was conducted by Pew Research Center and concludes that a majority of respondents who claim no religious affiliation opposed torture. (Looks like the compassion award goes to the non-Christians yet again.)

The Relevant article, however, pushes beyond the rich ironies of these polls to make some strong claims. "The fundamental problem with Guantanamo, from a Christian perspective, is that it is a place outside the law," Natalie and Tyler write, claiming that Gitmo is inconsistent with the Bible's teachings on justice, law, authority, and judgment.

The point is made eloquently, but what is the solution? It begins with a reaffirmation of the values we hold dearly. "We owe it to our country, our church, and most of all to our God to state with courage and conviction that morality and justice are not luxuries—they are essentials," they say. "We believe these things not because they are easy or even self-evident, but because we are among those for whom 'Christian teachings or beliefs' form the foundation of everything we think, say and do."

I have often stated my opposition to torture, and I have done so without reservation. I think Gitmo is a blemish on America, and should be closed. I am, however, open to other opinions. What do you think about Gitmo/torture/this article?

Political Scandals Breed Cynicism Among Evangelicals

America can't stop talking about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the cheating state executive who disappeared for several days to make a love connection with his Argentinian mistress. In fact, Sanford is probably the only person in the United States who was giddy to learn that Michael Jackson had died because it would eat up some of his air time on the evening news.

It was this scandal that inspired the L.A. Times to run a fascinating story entitled, "Will scandals inspire evangelicals to stray from the Republican party?," which bolsters a trend that I have seen for some time. Christ-followers are becoming fed up with their traditional party of choice, but aren't finding the alternative Democratic Party a much better option. Instead, they are becoming increasingly convinced about "the unholiness of the political realm."

"The...rumors and sexual details make me want to avoid the voting booth altogether," Margaret Feinberg told the L.A. Times. "My head says that every vote counts, but my heart aches at the impropriety. How can I trust someone to uphold the laws of the land when they can't uphold their marriage vows?"

While Sanford's particular story is unusually shocking, political scandals in general have sadly become commonplace to many Americans. If you are like me, a Fox News Alert about a Governor who has embezzled money to bankroll his secret addiction or a Congressman whose been getting some nookie from his housekeeper doesn't make me bowl over anymore. As I speak with others like me, I am realizing that this creeping cynicism toward all things political may be pushing evangelicals into a less political phase of cultural engagement.

Have Western Christians placed too much trust in one particular political party? How can we be appropriately involved in the political arena as good citizens while maintaining our convictions as good Christians?

Falwell Jr. Does the Right Thing

A few weeks ago, I was outraged when I read in the Washington Times that Liberty University's administration revoked the official club status of its College Democrats. I am not a registered Democrat, but I am a Liberty alumnus. Anything that so blatantly squelches the free exchange of ideas on a university campus will naturally compromise that university's (and its graduates') credibility. I sent out a tweet about this expressing my outrage.

Let's be honest. If Harvard had revoked the official status of their College Republicans while leaving their College Democrats untouched, Sean Hannity would be broadcasting his television show from Harvard's campus the next evening! Treating these opposing entities differently is not only unfair, it is inappropriate for an institution of higher learning.

Yesterday, I was pleased to learn that Liberty's Chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr., had reached a compromise that will treat all political clubs in the same fashion. They will all be allowed to use Liberty's name and meeting facilities, but none will be officially endorsed by the University. I am often guilty of criticizing whenever I feel compelled, but not always giving credit when due. So here it is: To the Chancellor and his administration, I say kudos. This alum is proud of your ability to compromise and respect the integrity of your institution.

What are your thoughts, faithful readers?

Shifting Views on Same Sex Issues

Thursday, the Chicago-Sun Times released a story titled, "Gay marriage views all about age, region," which pointed out the shifts going on over same sex issues. The article cited the 22-year-long "Political Values and Core Attitudes" study conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which shows that public opinion over gay rights has changed significantly among the religious. This is especially true among younger Christians.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you who follow my blog. I have been noting this shift for some time. Last year, I appeared on PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly to comment on a PBS/Greenburg Study stating that 58% of young evangelicals say they support some form of legal recognition of same sex unions. Not long after, Public Religion Research and Faith in Public Life released "The Faith and American Politics Survey" stating that a majority of young evangelicals favor some sort of legal recognition of same sex unions. By all indications, evangelical opinion is shifting on this issue, like it or not.

That brings me back to the Sun-Times article in which I stated, "I don't think [recognition of same sex unions] is an issue that my generation will fight over, at least not with the tenacity that the previous generations did." I have gotten several emails telling me that I ceded too much ground, that I gave away too much information. But as the paragraph above illustrates, I am not saying anything new, but rather stating a fact that is consistent with at least three reputable, national surveys and my own conversations with younger Christians all across America.

I am personally opposed to a redefinition of marriage. Until the latter part of the 20th century, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for every civilizations for all time. To change the definition of marriage is to change the nature of marriage. Claiming that marriage should be something more than that is like saying red should now also include orange and yellow. Most marriages are imperfect and many are unstable, but the fact remains that a two parent household is the most stable environment to raise a family, and healthy families are a vital part of any healthy society. Our government should remain committed to supporting the most stable family situation possible--a loving home with both a mother and a father. If the rising generation buckles on this issue, and it seems we will, that will be a mistake.

At the same time, Christians should make sure that our support of marriage does not blind us to the injustices placed on many homosexuals in our society. For example, we should aggressively oppose workplace discrimination, and anyone (outside of religious organizations) who fires or refuses to hire someone simply because of their sexual orientation should be held accountable. I think Christians can be biblical and commonsensical at the same. I think we can live by our faith's teachings without becoming angry culture warriors. I think we should support traditional marriage while we look for ways to build bridges of reconciliation with those cultural groups that have often been the objects of our public disdain. What about you?

No Nukes for a Safer Tomorrow

Recently, I became a part of what I believe is one of the most important Christian movements in America. The Two Futures Project (2FP) is a non-partisan Christian movement seeking to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.  2FP does not call for America to disarm unilaterally, but rightly advocates for nuclear disarmament that is multilateral, verifiable, and irreversible.

As I stated at the official 2FP release, I believe nuclear weapons are unchristian. When necessary, wars should be fought by soldiers not declared on innocent civilians. Our God abhors the shedding of innocent blood. Nuclear weapons are only capable of widespread, indiscriminate killing and destruction of God's human and natural creation for generations to come. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are no longer an effective deterrant in a post 9/11 world. As nukes become more prevalent in our world, the chances of a terrorist gaining possession of one grows. And when a nation is attacked by a terrorist organization, there is often no one to bomb back.

Rather than unravel into a post of boring technicalities which you would almost certainly not read, I encourage you to digest the information on the website. (ALSO, WATCH THE VIDEO!) It is beautifully articulated by one of my best friends and the Director of 2FP, Tyler Wigg-Stevenson. Tyler has an incredible testimony that was recently published by Christianity Today and has done a wondrous job of outlining the path to a world free of nuclear weapons. His efforts have been endorsed by George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan and Cold War architect, as well as John Stott, Leith Anderson, and Bill Hybels. You can also join this effort by signing on via the website. I strongly engourage you to do this.

While there are many hurdles that must be jumped to achieve this ambitious goal, a world free of nuclear weapons is possible. As Chuck Colson recently wrote in his BreakPoint column, we still have time to prevent nuclear disaster "but that commitment will only happen if the people insist on it. And for that, we need to be informed.” Take a moment to get informed, and then let me know what you think. 

(The 2FP website will answer many of your objections, so check it out first. Again, don't forget to watch the video.)

Iraq: Just War?

The Associated Press is now reporting that it has uncovered secret statistics held by the Iraqi government showing 87,215 Iraqi citizens have been killed since 2005 as a result of everything from "catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings." When tallied with records since 2003, it climbs to an estimated 110,600. (That number only includes "violent deaths.")

Here's some questions: Was it worth it? Would you characterize the Iraq War as a "just war?"

Related: See my article in Relevant Magazine's May/June issue entitled, Just War.

Weary of Obama's Lip Service

For some time, I have been promoting a common ground policy on abortion reduction. I first embraced abortion reduction because my progressive friends were prodding me to join with them to save unborn lives. When these individuals asked me to rally with them around such things as increased funding for adoption and comprehensive sexual education with an abstinence emphasis, I was happy to sign on. Other evangelicals like Joel Hunter, Sam Rodriguez, and David Gushee also signed onto this common ground agenda. 

I still support abortion reduction; that has not changed.

What has changed is the number of steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine the abortion reduction platform they have so boldly proclaimed. These steps are the subject of a new USA Today article by David Gushee entitled, "Mr. President, We Need More than Lip Service" and include: 

- Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy. Tragic, but expected. 

- Then, he revoked the "provider refusal" rule that protected healthcare workers' from violating their consciences. 

- Next, Obama nominated the radically pro-choice Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services. 

- Finally, the President boldly opened up the issue of stem cell research by repealing the bans that were in place. 

What happened to all the talk about "change?" It doesn't seem like much has changed to me.

"Mr. Obama, we need more than lip service on these crucial issues," Gushee said. I know others like myself stand with Dr. Gushee in expressing disappointment with these policies. We need a rapid change in direction from these policies, one that bridges the banks of the culture wars. The failure to make good on abortion reduction promises will breed animosity and division among those whom Obama has promised to unite. 

A Third Way on Climate Change

I believe that climate change is a reality, and I think humans are causing it. I am neither a "chicken little" alarmist nor an "ostrich" who thinks we should just ignore the evidence because it is all part of a "liberal agenda." I know this puts me at odds with many of my readers, and I am cool with that. If you've read this blog more than once, you probably realize that I don't shy away from the controversial issues.

It seems that almost every week I get an email from another climate change skeptic with a link to some weatherman living in Wyoming who says it all a hoax that the underground socialist movement has hatched in dark, smoky alleyways. While I read and respond to every email, I don't spend a lot of time arguing with people about the existence of or the causes of global climate change anymore. Perhaps most humorous is the fact that people are putting their trust in meteorologists to begin with. Weathermen have a hard enough time predicting the weather tomorrow. What makes you think they can predict 100 years out? Don't get me wrong. I think there are some very capable and well-intentioned scientists who disagree with the majority opinion. I just disagree with them.

I have been fully persuaded that something seems to be happening, and even if by some slim chance that it isn't, we should still act. Most of the things that would reduce the effects of climate change if it does exist are things we should be doing anyway--purifying the air, reducing consumption, protecting forestland, restricting the astronomical amounts of toxic gases that we are pumping into the air. I paraphrase Thomas Friedman: If global warming is a hoax, it is the greatest hoax that has ever been hatched. Who doesn't want healthy forests, clean air and water, and cutting edge green industries?

The big problem I have with the climate change conversation involves proposed solutions. Due to the fact that conservatives abandoned environmentalism long ago, the only ones proposing solutions to this very real problem are liberal policymakers. They are proposing a system called "cap and trade," which basically means that the government would place a cap on the amount of carbon emissions that industries would be able to emit through the selling of "carbon credits." If an industry developed a way to reduce their output, they could sell their carbon credits and make a profit. The problem is that all the money generated by this massive legislation would--you guessed it--go right back into the pocket of big brother.

Don't get me wrong, I support capping carbon emissions. I even support the government imposing the caps. But simply funneling the money back into government to create and fund more programs is counterproductive and will not stimulate an already weakened economy. Don't be fooled--this legislation will become a reality unless conservative environmentalists can speak loudly for an alternative solution.

A common ground solution may be "cap and dividend," a legislative solution laid out in GOOD Magazine's article, "The Third Way: Carbon Cap and Dividend." Cap and dividend does corrects the mistakes of cap and trade by setting more realistic caps on emissions and taking all the money generated and returning it to the taxpayers. Capping carbon emissions will certainly result in higher energy costs. Paying the dividends to everyday individuals offset this increase while working toward a healthier life, a more vibrant creation, and a more sustainable lifestyle. If you care about environmental problems and the world's poor that are hit the hardest by these problems, I would encourage you to give this solution some serious thought.

If you had a chance to read this article, what are your thoughts?

Update: ABP Article on ERLC and Cap and Trade

Ultimate Hope is Not Political

Steve Monsma, a senior research fellow at the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College and author of Healing for a Broken World, recently received a brochure from an evangelical organization. The pamphlet stated,

With strategic partnerships in Washington, D.C., it [the organization] is able to be proactively involved in the effort to reclaim America for Christ. Whether delivering petitions; encouraging constituents to respond to critical legislation with letters, faxes, phone calls, and email; fighting for qualified judicial nominees; or registering voters; the [name of organization] aims to provide a megaphone for the collective voice of Christ's church.

Reflecting on this, Monsma comments, "There is a problem here, is there not? How, according to this brochure, is America to be reclaimed for Christ? Not by Christians preaching the gospel, not by winning their neighbors to Christ, not by Christian husbands and wives creating homes of mutual respect and love. No, it is by political means: petitions, constituent pressures or public officials, working to affect the judicial nomination process, and voting. It is assumed that America can be led back to Christ by political means. But this cannot be right. Whenever in history the church has tried to advance the gospel by political means, the church has been corrupted and the gospel dishonored."

This story was brought to my mind after some recent comments on this blog. I am reminded that over the last quarter century, many Christians in America have developed the belief that our greatest responsibility is to affect change as citizens of an earthly nation. But even a cursory reading of scripture reminds us that first and foremost we are citizens of a heavenly kingdom, and our ultimate responsibility is to live as one devoted to the Ruler of that realm. It is unfortunate that so many people get red-faced and wound up in an effort to mobilize Christianity into some political force to fulfill their duties as followers of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, our duties are fulfilled when we live like Jesus--preaching the Gospel, serving the sick and poor, and feeding the hungry. 

We have a responsibility to be involved in the political process of this great nation, and if you have followed this blog for very long, you know I take my civic responsibility very seriously. We should rise up to oppose injustices and make good use of our political system. Yet, I am increasingly concerned by the number of Christians who go well beyond this. They fly into an apoplectic panic over political disagreements, reactively fling weak arguments like horseshoes on Independence Day, and demonize any who dare to disagree. We of all people should know that ultimate hope is not found in the hallowed halls of Washington, but in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps if we spent more time mobilizing people to serve others and share Christ, our communities and even our country would realize the change we so badly desire. 

Just my thoughts. What are yours?

Washington Post on Obama and Abortion

Over the past few weeks, I have written a few posts about the new twist in the abortion debate. I am starting to feel like all the political peeps that I can't stand because they only talk about abortion and gay marriage and ignore everything else. Yet, I am still typing, so let's give it a run. 

As the pro-choice President takes the reigns of our fragile country, Barack Obama has attempted to navigate the shark-infested waters of the abortion issue with surgical precision. Obama is speaking about abortion in a way that is meaningful to pro-lifers and sensitive to the realities of the issue. 

Though he unashamedly supports the "right of women to choose" whether or not they will undergo and abortion, he claims to believe strongly that we should work to reduce the need for and occurrences of abortions in the United States. Furthermore, he openly supports sexual education with an abstinence emphasis. On this, we can agree. 

Obama's actions, however, don't seem so promising. First, there is his Pre-Presidential record on abortion, which is abysmal at best. Then, there is his transition-time appointments:

-Dawn Johnsen: Former Legal Director for NARAL will serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

-Tom Daschle: Recently withdrawn nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services who led the fight against the partial-birth abortion ban in the Senate. 

-Melody Barnes: Former board member at Planned Parenthood who worked for the Center for American Progress will serve as White House Domestic Policy Director.

-Ellen Moran: Worked for Emily's List, a pro-choice political action group, will head up the White House communications team.

-Jackie Norris: Former board member at Planned Parenthood will serve as Chieft of Staff to the First Lady.

Finally, there is Obama's one actual move on the issue: a repeal of the Mexico City Policy, which will open up federal funding for international organizations who provide abortions and family planning. According to a recent Gallup Poll, the repeal ranks as the most unpopular of his actions as President, by far.

Today, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, "Obama tries to appease both sides of the abortion debate," which outlined the tensions involved here. I am one of those evangelicals who really believes in the sincerity and heart of this administration, but I remain skeptical about Obama's ability to build and cross the bridge. If he fails to do so, it may mean a break down of trust for those evangelicals who are trying their best to find common ground on which to join him.

"Many of us feel like we've stuck our necks out with our constituencies," I told the Washington Post. "He will have done us a great disservice if he does not come through."

Thoughts?

Calling for an End to the Culture Wars

If you wanted to sum up the political climate in America in one word, you might call it "divided." Or maybe, "partisan." Or perhaps, "polarized." Each of these descriptions would be optimistic. Over the last 25 or more years, Americans on the left and the right have become deeply entrenched with a "culture war" mentality. Christians are no exception, and in many cases have led the charge. 

Today, however, there are many coming together who consider themselves to be centrists. I consider myself to be a part of this group. We reject the divisive "culture war" mentality, which seeks to demonize and destroy rather than listen and learn. We want to see a unified America made up of people who must sometimes lovingly disagree, but who seek to build bridges of common ground when possible. It was out of this spirit that I met with others yesterday to release the "Come Let Us Reason Together" governing agenda.

This agenda puts forth solutions to some of our country's most pressing issues, and it has been affirmed by many evangelicals and progressives alike. There are four policy points outlined:

1. The abolition of torture. Americans must employ the Golden Rule and never compromise human dignity... starting now!

2. Abortion reduction. While we must still advocate for the abolition of abortion, in the meantime, we can join with pro-choice advocates to employ proven strategies to reduce the number of abortions occurring. This includes supporting pregnant women and new families, providing comprehensive sexual education with an abstinence emphasis and contraception for low-income women, and supporting adoption. 

3. Immigration reform. We must secure our borders ... period. But, we must also abide by the biblical mandate to love the stranger and the "least of these." We need to provide an earned path to citizenship for many who are already in this country and keep families together. 

4. Employment rights for gays and lesbians. While the Bible clearly teaches that heterosexuality is God's ideal, the Church is rarely if ever exercising our obligation to love our gay and lesbian neighbors. No American should be denied the right to earn a living, but this MUST include an exemption for churches and religious organizations. 

This comprehensive governing agenda was released yesterday, and was signed by many progressive and evangelical leaders. I joined others (including Sam Rodriguez, Joel Hunter, David Gushee and Tyler Wigg-Stevenson) in DC for a press conference, a meeting with members of Congress, and a meeting with the Obama Transition Team. It was covered by many news outlets including the following stories:

Associated Baptist Press: Liberals, evangelicals call for common ground agenda on abortion sexuality

U.S. News and World Report: Liberals and evangelicals unite to advise Obama

Washington Post's On Faith: Christians Find Common Ground  on Abortion, Gay Rights

Hear me clearly: The culture wars must come to an end. The divisiveness produced by people of faith must be rejected. The common good must be pursued through cooperation between people of mutual goodwill. And when we disagree due to deeply held convictions, we must do so with humility, grace and love. 

Your thoughts?

My Support for "Come Let Us Reason Together" Governing Agenda

Below is a transcript of the statement I gave at the "Come Let Us Reason Together" press conference at the Third Way headquarters in Washington, DC:

I support the "Come Let Us Reason Together" governing agenda put forth by Third Way because of my desire to see people of faith work across division of disagreement in the pursuit of common goals.

As a committed Southern Baptist, I know all too well the "culture war" mentality. It is a mentality that often speaks without listening, divides rather than unites and promotes destructive partisanship. At the same time, I am proud of the unwavering moral stances that conservative Christians, including Southern Baptists, have taken. We remain committed to important issues like traditional marriage and protecting life from conception. Yet, conservative Christians must also live out other tenets of our faith including compassion, charity, human dignity and the pursuit of peace. Therefore, I support this agenda because I am a Southern Baptist, not in spite of the fact.

We should maintain our convictions on those matters where conscience demands that we part ways. However, we must accept the promise that people of mutual goodwill can find shared values and goals. For far too long, we have allowed the common good to be sacrificed on the altar of our disagreements.

Two policies in the agenda have been at the center of some of the fiercest disagreements, but even here there is room to work together. First, while I support making abortion illegal, we must vigorously seek to reduce the number of abortions actually occurring. This includes supporting efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies, assisting pregnant women and new families, and supporting adoption. It is easy to call one's self "pro-life." The difficult thing is to put feet to our faith and begin working with real people in real communities to see that faith made tangible, and lives saved.

Second, I affirm the freedom of religious expression and the rights of religious institutions to have their values reflected in their hiring practices. But I can also support a policy that ensures that gays and lesbians receive equal treatment in the workplace. To me, scripture is clear that God's ideal is heterosexuality, but this policy gives conservative Christians an opportunity to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay and lesbian neighbors.

I count myself a member of a group becoming known as "the younger evangelicals." We are a group who has turned away from self-serving partisanship, and we are a generation calling for a rapid infusion of civility and grace into a political culture where faith has often produced divisiveness. Today, Christ-followers spanning may generations hold hands in pursuit of the common good. May God bless our spirit of cooperation.

Diplomacy at The Expense of Liberty?

It seems like every day another news story reports an effort to mend US-Muslim relations. Who can forget the uproar when Rick Warren and over 300 others signed "Loving God and Neighbor Together,"  a letter penned by Yale University's Center for Faith and Culture, which sought to create dialogue between Muslims and Christians? I remember Baptist Press demanding that one Southern Baptist professor give his rationale for signing that letter. In fact, they published his rationale alongside another article, drawing on the comments of Al Mohler who called the letter "troubling." The problem people had with the Yale letter was that it capitulated on foundational Christian beliefs in an effort to be gracious. 

In this case, I think that Mohler et al. were justified in their criticisms. As much as we desire dialogue with any disenfranchised group, whether they are Muslim or Mormon or gay, we cannot sacrifice who we are as Christ-followers simply to achieve conversation. Conversation for the sake of conversing is neither profitable nor a good use of one's time. We must be true to ourselves as we seek to engage others who are at variance with our religious beliefs. 

Perhaps that is why a more recent attempt to bridge the Muslim gap troubles me. This time the effort came by way of a document, "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World," which was signed by 33 American leaders meeting at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund conference center. Participants included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, author Steven Covey, American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney and an assortment of professors and former government officials. The one participant representing an evangelical group was Richard Land, President of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. 

The most glaring problem with this effort is that while they rightly emphasize diplomacy as the primary tool for bringing peace and encourage the civic participation in governance, they completely ignore the gross oppression of religious liberty in the Muslim world. It is impossible to comprehensively address Muslim relations without addressing religious oppression. As one commentator stated in the December 13/20 issue of WORLD magazine, "[The report's rhetoric] sounds good, but the report skips questions of religious liberty--and without that fundamental freedom, "democracy" will merely mask tyranny."

Countries like Libya, Algeria, and Iran openly suppress the expression of liberty among Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. In places like Sudan where 1.5 million Sudanese have been martyred for their faith in the last 15 years, we have seen the results of unchecked suppression of religious liberty. Opposing this sort of atrocity is at the core of what a Christ-follower should be, and we cannot and should not check that at the door in the name of dialogue. 

Christians must never compromise our stance on religious freedom. We are a people on mission, and each year we send missionaries to closed countries where they risk their lives for the gospel. In the case of Southern Baptists, we must be careful that the "Relgious Liberty" in "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission" remains an integral and fundamental part of our public witness rather than a mere afterthought. I think we can and must do a better job of loving our Muslim neighbors while demanding that they pursue civility and freedom in places where they enjoy governmental control. 

Your thoughts?

The Uncertain Future of Evangelical Voters

Beginning in the spring of this year, I began noticing a changing wind among my young evangelical peers with regard to points of interest and how that translates into actual votes. I have written on this several times both on this blog and in several publications. Today, I published an article for Newsweek / Washington Post On Faith entitled, "The Uncertain Future of Evangelical Voters."

This piece is different in that it explores the young evangelical trend in the context of our current political transition.  I write that both parties have an opportunity to capture tomorrow's evangelicals if they can articulate specific values in a meaningful way. Will that ever happen? I don't know. For now, all eyes rest upon the President-elect to see if he will make good on the centrist promises he made to younger evangelicals while campaigning or simply govern the way his past record indicates--far to the left of most evangelical Christians.

Thoughts?

Polls Confirms Young Evangelical Shift

A new exit poll reveals that support for Barack Obama among younger evangelicals doubled when compared to John Kerry in 2004. Among the findings was this staggering fact: only 49% of young evangelicals now identify as "conservative" and over half favor either same sex marriage (24%) or civil unions (28%).

After reading the Faith in Public Life press release containing this information, I immediately thought back to an article I published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution back in April of this year titled "WWJD? Vote for Obama, More and More Young Evangelicals Say." I remember the emails I got telling me that I was crazy. People couldn't believe it, and more than one commented that even though young evangelicals said they would vote for Obama, many would change their minds when they actually stepped up to cast their ballots.

Undoubtedly, this should translate into a wake-up call for Republicans and blood in the water for Democrats. If the President-elect delivers on his promises "such as seeking real solutions on abortions, abolishing nuclear weapons, ending torture, caring for the poor, and stewardship of creation then the myth that Christians are a reliable partisan base will vanish in our generation," commented Tyler Wigg-Stevenson of the Two Futures Project in today's press release.

Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson is right. Perhaps Obama will deliver on his promises. Perhaps the young evangelical shift will continue. Either way, we can all agree on this: things are about to get interesting.

Developing...

I commented on this new data in Chris Quinn's article, "Obama Shifted Some Church Voters," in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Check out the article and let me know your thoughts. 

Do you feel there is some general relief even among solid Republicans that we can put the Bush era behind us? 

A New Generation of Religion and Politics

My recent interview with PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly has been posted on their website and is titled "Jonathan Merritt: A New Generation of Religion and Politics." Rather than add a bunch of commentary on this post, I would rather you go check it out for yourself and let me know your thoughts. Where do you agree with me? Where do you disagree? Do you you think I am crazy?

The full spot will begin airing this weekend, and is based on a new survey of young evangelicals being released. You can find some of the details here. The full PBS segment on younger evangelicals includes B-roll footage and narration as well as other's opinions.

On a side note, you will notice that I am wearing a To Write Love on Her Arms shirt for the interview. TWLOHA is an amazing organization that deserves a minute of your time. Check them out.

**Update: The whole television report has been posted on PBS' website.**

**Update: The following email was sent out today from Marc Andreas, who serves as VP for the top US adoption agency, Bethany Christian Services:

Dear Friends of Bethany,

Here's a link to a short 3-minute video of national expert Jonathan Merritt that does an excellent job of representing the philosophical shift going on in the younger evangelical community. This is having a significant impact on our marketing strategy as we reach out to new adoptive families, foster families, donors and volunteers in the greater church community. Our message of global orphan care resonates very strongly with this younger audience. Thanks for being a partner with us as we reach out to help the more than 143 million orphans around the world.

(The only problem I have is that he calls me a "national expert." More like "national troublemaker.")**

Better Days...

We are less than three weeks away from choosing a new President, from choosing a new direction, regardless of which candidate is victorious. And looking back on the last eight years makes me long for days when our political system gave us something to get excited over. Though I was too young to remember it, I long for days like when Reagan was President.

I long for days when people are truly proud to be Americans, with no disclaimer, reservations or caveats. I long for a President who, when massive struggle or scandal arises, is respected enough and wise enough to solicit even the advice of a member of the opposing party (like Reagan did following Iran Contra). I long for a time when we actually feel like tomorrow will be better than today, when we can spend Saturday on autopilot knowing that those in Washington are working overtime with our best interests in mind.

None are perfect, but Reagan came closer than most.

Peggy Noonan, one of the most beautiful speech writers and wordsmiths of the last 50 years, reflects on the last eight years in her newest book, “Patriotic Grace: What It Is and Why We Need It.” In it she says, “By the end of the O’s, the end of the Bush era, I think this could be said: What began with love ended in dissention. The greatest political passions were funneled into opposition, not support. Democrats on the ground were left longing for change, and Republicans for Ronald Reagan.” I think she is too modest. I think the longing she speaks about reaches well beyond the Republican party.

Though I have only the vaguest of memories of the beloved era, I feel confident in my desire. I long for the next Ronald Reagan.

Don't you...

**Update: For that matter, I long for a John F. Kennedy.**

Have Your Thoughts Heard by a National Audience

This weekend, I was interviewed by PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly and today my contact there sent me an email with information on how you can add your thoughts. The producers are currently collecting the political insights of young evangelicals (18-29 years old) by asking them to send in a 2-3 minute video clip stating their attitudes and views on religion, politics and America's role in the world, and the readers of my blog sounded perfect to them.

You can record this with a webcam, cell phone camera or a real video camera if you have one. The quality of the video is not important. The best videos will be posted here during halloween weekend (irony?) alongside a story about young evangelicals that will be broadcast nationwide.

Here is the information they are looking for:

"My name is ___I am___ years old and come from ___ "

(Talk naturally and openly. Use interviews with your friends, music,whatever you want.)

An idea of the sort of things we're interested in hearing about:

What are the most important election issues to you this year?

Are your political views different from your parents? How?

To what extent are your views on humanitarian issues--working on human rights, poverty and disease--an extension of your religious beliefs?

What do you believe are the biggest problems facing the world today? Howshould the US be engaged in world affairs?

When and where should the US intervene in the world?

Do you think poverty, disease, torture and global warming are pro-life issues? Why?

Have you ever gone on international mission trips?

Let us know how theyhave influenced your views on issues like persecution, war, genocide,poverty and disease.

The video clips must be sent no later than midnight on Wednesday, October 29th. Just go to yousendit.com, a website that allows you to email large files. The email address is hanleypj@gmail.com. If you have any questions, write to Missy Daniel at danielm@religionethics.org.

As you know, I firmly believe that conversations create the change we need in culture. This is a perfect way to insert your voice into a conversation with a huge audience. I am interested to see who participates and what was said. Comment and let me know.

Nothing Changes at the "Non-Townhall Townhall"

If you watched the debate last night and managed to stay awake during the whole thing, you probably felt like I did: LAAAAAME! The questions were softball, the moderator was boring and the answers were nothing short of talking points. 

Check out my reaction for RelevantMagazine.com entitled, "McCain & Obama Face Off." Let me know if you agree with my analysis and let me know if you have anything to add. Also, if you are looking for a little reported story regarding the debate, check out this column from the New York Times about John McCain leaving early.