Posted on 11/16/2004 6:55:51 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Commentators are making much of the fact that exit polls showed 23 percent of voters in the presidential election described themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Supposedly this heralds the arrival of a leviathan voting bloc of far-right Christians devoted to repealing the twenty-first century. Yet the majority of Christians could be called born-again, and the majority of Christians--including most conservative Christians--are open-minded and good-hearted. Let's calm down, please, from this Christians-under-the-bed alarmism that has followed the reelection of George W. Bush.
First, the term "evangelical." The American population cannot have more than one or two percent true evangelicals--that is, Christians who actively work to bring converts to their faith. There may be larger numbers who attend churches where the term "evangelical" is used approvingly or that have the word "evangelical" in their formal denomination name, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But the number of true evangelicals, i.e., those who evangelize, simply is not that great. Nor are evangelicals necessarily political conservatives. Jimmy Carter is a true evangelical, having gone on missionary trips and knocked on doors, and is also a political liberal. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is centrist; it does not, for example, maintain that the Bible is inerrant. Yes, true evangelicals tend toward political conservatism, especially in the South. But you can find evangelicals who are pacifists, who strongly oppose the death penalty, who believe that Christians must not serve in government positions, and who hold other beliefs that don't fit the standard caricature of the "Christian right."
Next, on being born-again. I am born-again, as is my wife and oldest son; my two younger children are not. That means my household is 60 percent born-again--much higher than the exit-poll average for the United States! In my case I was immersed in a pool of water, having been raised as a Baptist. In my wife's case she was raised a Catholic, and although the Catholic Church generally avoids the term "born-again" owing to its Protestant connotation, the symbolic infant baptism most Catholics receive grants them the new life in Jesus that is promised by the Gospels. In my 15-year-old's case, he took the confirmation class at the Presbyterian church our family attends, knelt, and had a cross placed around his neck; this brought him into the body of Christ, where his soul will be eternally redeemed. When their times come my younger children are likely to wish to receive the cross; then my household will be 100 percent born-again. But this would not give you the slightest clue about how the adults voted or the children are likely to vote.
Of course, many people use the phrase "born-again" to mean a traditionalist, fundamentalist, or zealous Christian. But this is just one of several possible meanings of a much-misunderstood expression. A person may be born-again if baptized a second time in adulthood, washing away sins and conferring a second chance to live a good life. But a person may also be born-again simply by observing Christianity and experiencing the new life in Christ that scripture promises to everyone.
Theology aside, were politically conservative Protestant Christians some kind of steamroller force in the presidential election? Surely they were a significant bloc. But see this analysis by Steven Waldman of Beliefnet, the leading ecumenical news organization, and John Green of the University of Akron, today's top academic authority on religious demographics in politics. Waldman and Green believe moderate Christians and Catholics played just as much a part in George W. Bush's victory as did conservative Protestants. Lots of tolerant, moderate people must have voted for Bush, or he could not have won 51 percent of the popular ballot--since the majority of Americans are tolerant and moderate.
What share of the U.S. Christian community today is right-wing? A useful tool is this web archive maintained by Preston Hunter, a Texas computer programmer, which has thousands of links to studies of religious demographics and religion in politics. (Did you know that four U.S. vice presidents were Dutch Reformed? You can find that type of nugget on this web site.) According to Hunter's tables, a total of 20.7 percent of Americans belong to Baptist, Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, Assembly of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, or charismatic churches, these being the denominations most affiliated with political conservatism. Another 16.5 percent of Americans belong to Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, or United Church of Christ churches, these being the mainstream Protestant denominations. Some members of the first grouping would not be conservative: Most Baptists, for example, are Southern Baptists, but there are also American Baptists, who are intensely Christian from the devotional standpoint but are centrists politically and oppose the Southern Baptists on many issues. And some members of the second grouping would be conservative: Right now the big news in Episcopalianism is the development of a breakaway movement of congregations that are much more traditionalist than the mainly liberal Episcopal leadership. But by and large, the first grouping of Christian denominations would have mainly conservative members while the second grouping would mainly not have conservative membership. And the first grouping is only somewhat larger than the second.
Now throw in that the largest grouping of Christians in the United States is Catholics, at 24.5 percent of the population, and the picture really becomes complicated. Catholicism is a such a large, old, and catholic movement that it enfolds many major strains of politics. Within American Catholicism can be found everything from ardent anti-Roe factions to ardent antiwar factions; everything from demands for Latin-only traditionalism to demands for Dorothy Day-inspired social activism. Catholicism covers the entire political spectrum. And it does not stop at Roman Catholicism; there is for example the Liberal Catholic Church, which rejects the authority of Rome and offers communion to any believer.
Many John Kerry supporters or George W. Bush opponents are angry about the results of the election and want to pin the blame on some sinister force. Politically conservative Christianity seems a good scapegoat because most of the media doesn't understand it. But politically conservative Christianity is not some unstoppable force--my guess would be that in today's United States, there are two politically moderate or liberal Christians for every one politically conservative Christian. Surely it has been bad for American political debate that, on September 11, the nation was attacked by an enemy issuing religious threats; this now seems to cause us to see the world in terms of religious threats. God-fearing conservative Christians are no threat, though some of them can, I'll admit, be pretty exasperating.
Thus, the 'progressive' left goes after the religious right with the same logical consistency that used to drive accusations that the Freemasons were poisoning the wells.
Easterbrook should stick to football. He doesn't really understand any more about football than he does about politics, but at least his TMQ column is somewhat entertaining.
Please. This "church" has maybe 2500 members.
And Jehovah's Witnesses, like Unitarians, are not Christians in any historical sense, since they believe that Jesus was only a creature.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not centrist but rather liberal. It has been at the forefront of the ecumenical movement.
I think the writer needs to study this a bit more. He is making an assumption here, if not trying to redefine the actual term 'Evangelical Christian' to suit his argument. Of course, we know that this is a common method of the enemy, to define the terms of their argument, even if it is wrong.
My fiancee worked as a choir director at a liberal American Baptist church for a while. The pastor there told the congregation not to see the Passion because of what he read about it's supposed anti-semitism in the New York Times. I'm not surprised that mainline protestant denominations are in decline.
And you don't need to knock on doors to spread the Gospel message - you can witness the faith in a multitude of ways.
Easterbrook's TMQ column on ESPN was ended months ago for anti-semitic comments.
The author confuses the 23% of values voters with evangelicals, as well as being factually wrong on other key points. Maybe his facts are fake but accurate.
But, with all this talk of the evils of Christianity (other than the no-rules Episcopals), haven't we talked for years about the strength and cohesiveness of the "black churches" in delivering the black sheep to the dems in every major election? Why is religious influence on political decision good when dems are involved but bad when non-liberal-progressive-radicals are involved?
Excellent question. One that leftisit Christ-bashers wouldn't want to take up for very long.
His column can now be read on NFL.com.
President Bush received 62% of the regular church going voters. Kerry received approximately the same percentage of the NON church attendees. Run these numbers in a computer and see where they fall out.
IMHO, this guy doesn't have a clue!
Oh, okey-doke.
According to this author, Muslims qualify as "Evangelical".
I say the "Passion of the Christ". It struck me as being pretty much in line with the Bible. It was a whole lot closer to Biblical fact than "Jesus Christ Superstar" was. It didn't strike me as being anti-Semite. For believers, it just shows that this was God's plan and the Jews and Romans were tools in this plan.
"And Jehovah's Witnesses, like Unitarians, are not Christians in any historical sense, since they believe that Jesus was only a creature."
Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Word was "a" God (ref John 1).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.