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?

Loving our Neighbors...All of Them

I wrote an article that ran in USA Today this morning entitled "An Evangelical's Plea: Love the Sinner" calling evangelical Christians to begin treating our gay and lesbian neighbors more lovingly. The feedback has been intense with many positive affirmations coming from young adults and a few negative comments and emails from some older Christians.

This is actually the second time in less than a month that I have taken heat over this particular issue. I took a beating behind closed doors for an interview that appeared in an article entitled, "Reduce, Reuse, Religion." When the interview was conducted, I thought it was going to be about environmental stewardship and younger evangelicals, but I soon realized that it was primarily about gay and lesbian issues. The article's lead sentences state:

"Jonathan Merritt doesn’t want to talk about his own views on gay marriage or civil unions -- perhaps for good reason. Merritt is a young evangelical leader, a prominent writer on modern faith, and the son of a former Southern Baptist Convention president. The religious landscape of this country may be changing, but anyone who espouses equality could derail a future leadership role among evangelicals..."

The journalist seems to imply that I play my cards close to my chest because my views on gay marriage or civil unions could get me into trouble. In the sense that he means it, the implication is dead wrong; but in another sense, it is spot on.

My views are not controversial in that I believe a redefinition of marriage, much less the moralization of the homosexual lifestyle, runs in direct opposition to the teachings of scripture. I hold to the historically orthodox position. But, perhaps they are controversial in that I don't elevate homosexual practice above and beyond all the other sins in scripture like many Christians.

Homosexual practice is sin according to scripture, but so is gossip, lying, pride, most divorces and the many other "respectable sins" that run rampant in our church hallways. 33% of pastors say they have viewed pornography in the last year, and in 1996 at Promise Keepers event 50% of men said they had viewed porn in the week preceding the event. Are we speaking about our own sexual sins with the same frequency and veracity? If two people are co-habitating or getting an unbiblical divorce, we often turn a blind eye, but if a gay couple visits the church, they are often treated as if they have some sort of contagious disease. Truth be told, Christian treatment of homosexuals runs contrary to the teachings of love replete in scripture.

I have many gay friends who have suffered at the hands of evangelical Christians who spit venom at the gay community every chance they get. Like many young evangelicals, I am weary of the unloving, unsympathetic, uninformed speech directed at the gay community. It is time those who bear the name of Jesus Christ stand up and call our community back to a posture that reflects the teachings of the One we claim to serve.

What can we do to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay and lesbian neighbors?

Letter to Leith Anderson of the NAE

Late last week, Richard Cizik resigned as the Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) after 28 years of distinguished service. Richard is a man of great courage who embraces a broad, whole gospel agenda. Because of his hard work, issues like creation care, social justice, human rights and poverty became a part of the evangelical platform. Richard was a unifier and a personal friend.

Unfortunately, in Cizik's December 2nd interview with National Public Radio, he placed himself at variance with long-held NAE platforms--most notably, same sex civil unions. Though Rich said he had not changed his mind about traditional marriage, he was "shifting" on the idea of civil unions. Open mouth, insert foot.

Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to understand why Cizik resigned (or was forced to resign, it seems). The NAE must be allowed to require someone serving in such a critical role to speak in harmony with the stated agenda of both NAE and its membership. If Cizik had decided that he was shifting on the abortion issue, the reaction from NAE would have been identical and justifiable. As sad as it is, that's not the end of the story. 

After Cizik resigned, several media outlets including Baptist Press, which is basically the public relations department at the national office of the Southern Baptist Convention, ignored nearly 30 years of Cizik's notable service and instead ran stories calling him controversial and divisive. That isn't so bad when you consider that some on the right have actually called him "Satan's minion" for his strong environmental stance. 

This was a sad development for many reasons, including the message it sends to the world. As someone once told me, "Christians are the only animals who kill their own wounded." Richard Cizik is undoubtedly hurting, and though we must respect the decision made by NAE, our goals as his brothers and sisters should not be to further beat him down. 

It was in response to this and in an effort to see the continuance of Richard's work on a broad range of moral issues that over 50 evangelicals including myself wrote a public letter to Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. Signatories to this letter were from both the right and left; they were both democrats and conservatives; they were both young and more established. Other signatories included Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project, Lynne Hybels of Willowcreek Community Church, Brian McLaren, David Gushee, and Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. 

Our letter supports the right of the NAE to appoint spokespersons who support their stated platforms, celebrates Cizik's 28 years of faithful service, and encourages NAE to select a replacement "who will carry out Richard's vision of a broad Christian moral agenda" including the sanctity of life and compassion for the least of these.  

If you too want to sign this letter, you can do so at WholeGospelAgenda.org.

What do you think? Do you think NAE made a good decision? Do you support a broad moral agenda as described in this letter? What do you think about civil unions?

**Update: "Evangelical Leaders Seek Broad Moral Agenda in Cizik Replacement," Associated Baptist Press**

**Update: "Evangelical Faction Warns against Christian Right," WorldNetDaily**

Christians and Torture

I will never forget the way I felt while watching a Fox News snippet of Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club. "We have the ability to take [Chavez] out," Robertson told his nearly ancient viewership with a scowling contortion. "And I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I mean, I'm not the President of the Hugo Chavez Fan Club or anything, but I'm not calling for a navy seal to put a bullet in his head either.

I couldn't understand why one of the most vocal Christians in America would call for the United States to breach international law to murder an international head of state. Not only is it a crystal clear violation of Romans 13, it flies in the face of compassion, love, self-control, gentleness, meekness and other peaceful principles replete in scripture.

Fortunately, most Christians I know think Robertson was completely off his rocker. (What else is new?) Yet, I have also heard many self-professing Christians make comments about terrorists that express similar attributes. They comment that if we catch someone with known terrorist ties, we should "use any means necessary to get the information out of them," which is a nice way to say, "Let's torture them."

Somehow, I find being pro-torture difficult to reconcile with the teachings of scripture, much less the ministry of Jesus Christ. Think about it. Jesus came to earth during a time when his part of the world was under the thumb of a notorious terrorist: Herod. Just like Bin Laden has injured all of us, Jesus had been severely affected by the terrorism of King Herod. It was likely Herod (or a member of his immediate family) who personally ordered the death of unknown numbers of children in an effort to kill the Christ-child. If that wasn't enough, Herod ordered the execution of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist. Yet, there is no record of Jesus ever speaking any malice whatsoever about this terrorist or any other. He wouldn't even open his mouth to save His own life and send the murderer Barabbas to a deserved crucifixion. I think this is significant, and simply adds to the many reasons that Christians must maintain a strong anti-torture position.

The actions that have taken place in the dark recesses of Gitmo and elsewhere are repulsive and should have every American who bears the name of Christ incensed. I certainly can't imagine "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" supporting cutting a terror suspect with scissors, much less urinating on them, trampling them, or throwing them into a bucket of excrement. Certainly this is not what justice looks like. Yet, these atrocities and more have occurred under American watch, if not order, and are delineated in detail in a recent Commonweal Magazine article,"The Secret Weapon: Religious Abuse in 'The War on Terror.'"

Where are the Christian voices on this? Where is the outcry? I encourage you to read this article and give it some serious reflection. When it comes to assassinations and torture, I don't care what Pat Robertson or any other "Christian" commentator thinks; I am certain Jesus is appalled.

What are 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? 

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.

Will Sarah Palin Tip the Young Evangelical Vote?

Eric Gorski of the Associated Press just released an article entitled "Younger Evangelicals Split Over Palin" in which I was quoted. As always, Gorski put together a pretty solid article with a great range of sources including leaders from the Emergent Church and authors like Gabe Lyons. (One correction: He said that I contacted the McCain campaign, but they actually contacted me.)

Perhaps the most brilliant quote in the whole article came from Gabe Lyons, author of UnChristian who said young evangelicals "aren't identifying as much with Palin's evangelicalism as with her emblematic role as everyday American--one of us, a normal, down to earth mom, parent, school volunteer," he said. "This isn't a faith response, it's a human response."

I think Gabe has made a good point. The reason so many of us are drawn to Palin is because we see her as the PTA mom who lives down the street. And that translates into trust, a critical factor in selecting to whom our votes will go. In that sense, McCain couldn't have chosen a better running mate.

What do you think of Palin? If you are drawn to her, what about her attracts you?

**Update: The McCain campaign has come back to schedule the conference call in an effort to reach out to the young evangelical vote.**

This morning, the New York Times released an article entitled "Taking Their Faith, but Not Their Politics, to The People," which touches on something I have been speaking about on this forum for some time: the de-emphasis of partisan politics in the American evangelical community. The article makes some interesting and truthful points stating that young evangelicals are still resolute in their support of the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage, but they are also broadening their support to include issues like the environment, human rights, and care for the poor and people with AIDS.

The Times piece features interviews by Darrin Patrick, David Gushee, my good friend Dean Inserra, the director of Acts 29 Network, and yours truly (that's me, in case you were wondering). I think it is correct in its analysis and fairly written. It is definitely worth a read.

Anyone want to chime in on whether or not you think this analysis is correct or agenda-driven?

How do you think evangelicalism will look differently in the next 5, 10 or -- years?

Trouble is brewing for the GOP as young evangelicals are continuing to leaving its camp. I sounded this alarm in my column in the AJC on April 18th entitled, WWJD? Vote for Obama, More and more young evangelicals say. It drew a heap of criticism even though the article was not an endorsement, but merely a cultural commentary based on a poll in Relevant Magazine. The poll asked younger evangelicals "Who would Jesus vote for?" and the number one response was Obama. But now I am not the only one playing that bugle.

The Seattle Times ran an article this week, Young, evangelical ... for Obama?, that says exactly the same thing. Interestingly, the article leads with Michael Dudley, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University and son of an evangelical preacher, who says, "I think a lot of Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for." A sentiment I believe resonates with many in our generation.

The article also cites a study by the Pew Forum showing that support for the GOP among young evangelicals has dropped 15%. While Pew reports that 19% of white evangelicals now vote democrat, only 5% of the 15% of evangelicals who have left the GOP now affiliate with the Democratic party. The others are what Shane Claiborne, author of Jesus for President, says are socially-conservative but globally aware. "I don't think it's a new evangelical left," Claiborne told the Seattle Times. "There's a new evangelical stuck-in-the-middle." These middle-dwelling Christ-followers are nomads, gypsies, wanderers in the land of the unaffiliated "independent" bloc.

This rise in independent voting among evangelicals is catalogued in detail in Marcia Ford's new book, We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter (Tyndale, 2008). The cover describes this group perfectly: "We are independent voters, neither Republican red nor democratic blue. Many of us are people of faith who are tired of partisanship in the church. We believe that together we can bring about radical reform by avoiding partisan politics and finding creative solutions to our nation's many problems. Starting now."

I predict this GOP exodus among evangelicals will continue unless, as I have stated, one or both of the parties adjust. If the GOP develops agressive platforms on issues like poverty, human rights and the environment or the Democrats can begin embracing non-negotiable issues like traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life, they will likely scoop up these evangelical misfits. Unfortunately, I don't see either solution happening anytime soon, which leaves many a young evangelical wandering in the wilderness for an indefinite period of time.

How do you feel about politics and the American political landscape?

Are you sensing this shift among your friends and peers?