Posted on 07/10/2009 12:05:10 PM PDT by Theophilus
Kim is a 25-year-old Christian, a nurse who graduated from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. She voted for President Bush in 2004 and characterizes herself as pro-life. With just that information, it would be easy to categorize Kim as a conservative Republican. But in November, she cast her vote for Barack Obama. She was not alone.
Survey data shows that while fewer than a quarter of white evangelicals between 30 and 64 supported Obama, that number increased to a third for white evangelicals under 30. Kim’s reasons for gravitating toward Obama reflect those of a generation of young believers. Since starting her nursing career, Kim has developed a passion for the poor and perceives that Democrats have traditionally been more active in providing for their needs. She also says that her vote was more focused on issues where change is possible—such as poverty and global health issues—than on traditionally conservative concerns where legislative change is unlikely, like abortion and same-sex marriage.
Since the election of Barack Obama, pundits everywhere look for signs: Are evangelicals drifting to the left? Do evangelicals remain the largest voting bloc in the country? As pollsters disrupt dinner hours across the country, answers are still emerging. In the midst of debate about voting patterns and political power, one question has garnered much interest: Is there a generation gap among evangelical Christians when it comes to voting behavior? Kim gives us a quick answer: yes.
According to Newsweek magazine, “Following such high-profile do-gooders as Rick Warren and Bono, moved to action by global poverty and environmental decay, [young evangelicals] were supposed to turn away from their parents’ obsession with abortion and gay marriage and pull the lever for Obama.” Following the election, however, it became clear, writes Newsweek, that “The truth, as always, is a lot more complicated.” While exit polls and subsequent polling data show a shift of young white evangelical Christians toward Obama, determining why is tougher to evaluate, as is whether the trend will stick. As pollster John Zogby questions in Forbes, “Does the 2008 election … show a shift in policy attitudes among young evangelicals? Or is it just a response to one very eloquent and inspirational figure? The evidence one way or the other is far from complete and still developing.”
One thing is clear—voting evangelical Christians are a much more diverse bunch than has ever been acknowledged by the media or the politicians who woo our vote. As we more fully understand this range of political belief within the Church, the question we must address is this: How do we maintain unity and honor Christ despite our differences?
Endorsing a Broader Agenda
If Kim’s vote for Obama is part of a trend, what might account for the move of young evangelicals like her to the Democratic Party? Amy Black, associate professor of politics and international relations at Wheaton College, thinks much of the shift can be attributed to this generation coming of age during the George W. Bush presidency. “They will associate the Republican Party with an ongoing and increasingly unpopular war and with economic decline,” she says. But, she suspects that there are broader reasons than just a reaction against the Bush legacy. “I see my students resonating with a broader political agenda [than their parents],” she says. “They are very concerned about international issues such as the AIDS pandemic, religious freedom, and human rights … . This broadening of interests does not mean that other matters are no longer important—indeed, abortion remains a very significant issue for most of my students, but it is not the sole or central focus of their concerns.”
Jim Skillen has identified this gradually emerging trend through more than 30 years of teaching at Christian universities and as head of the Center for Public Justice in Washington, D.C. “As tolerance has become more important on the university campus, if you’re a young person in college—if you’re trying to get along with your neighbor—you don’t want to be in the middle of fights all the time [about abortion, the death penalty, homosexual marriage]. Instead, evangelical students who want to have an intensity of involvement choose issues that can’t be denied as urgent: AIDS, poverty, human trafficking.”
This generation has experienced pluralization like no other, agrees Greg Thompson, senior pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Charlottesville, Va. “Tolerance has become the dominant social ethic.” Therefore, the younger generation has a different view toward other nations and those with other belief systems. He explains, “Whereas fighting the ‘bad guy’ made total sense to those growing up during the Cold War, this generation values diplomacy. They say, ‘We have to live at peace with others.’” For Thompson, who is also pursuing a Ph.D. in religion and politics at the University of Virginia, this cultural shift explains the appeal of Obama among younger Christians. “It’s about ethos, not policy,” he says. “Obama embodies the ethic of tolerance.”
With the traditional Christian right still focusing primarily on abortion and gay marriage, some young believers feel a disconnect. Black says, “As key spokesmen—what I call the ‘old guard’—pass away and many of the organizations they founded close or dwindle in size, these leaders and organizations are fading from the political spotlight. The evangelical organizations with the numbers, energy, and prominence in today’s politics are much more likely to emphasize a broader political agenda than those from the previous generation.” And while Obama’s staying power may be limited, Black predicts that the broadening of the evangelical political agenda is a long-term trend.
Rejecting Polarity
Precisely because they feel limited by the traditional Christian political agenda, young people, “who are tired of listening to people yelling at each other from the extremes,” gravitated toward Obama, suggests Skillen. The under-40 evangelical community is rejecting the old-style methods of political debate, agrees Mark Rodgers, a former staff director for the Senate Republican Conference, writing in unChristian: “I believe that one of the key reasons they are rejecting the religious right is not that they fundamentally differ on issues like abortion and marriage (yet), but in part because they are uncomfortable with its perceived narrow and limited agenda and its unpopularity among the cultural elite. It is as much the perception of a sin of omission (the issues not addressed) by the religious right that is causing them to disaffiliate as it is a sin of commission (the tactics or positions).”
A disdain for ugly political rhetoric has alienated not a few Christians—of all ages—from the political arena. In an age when Ann Coulter proclaims the evil nature of Democrats while Janeane Garofalo accuses the Republican Party of being a sanctuary for dumb and mean people, even the youngest of ears may have difficulty hearing voices of reason above the inflammatory partisan warfare. It’s not just TV pundits fighting amongst themselves—the Church is a combatant as well. “We have almost wholly adopted the mindset of conflict, polarization, and power struggle that characterizes the larger political climate,” mourns Thompson.
Will Hinton, a political activist since his 1980s high school days who now blogs about politics, says, “During the formation of the religious right, we wanted to ‘speak the truth’ in love. But we were so concerned with speaking the truth that the ‘with love’ sometimes felt tacked on.” Skillen adds that an emphasis on political dogma by some Christians has left young people, often searching for meaning and direction, feeling empty. “If you only have an interest in passing along fundamentals, you’re not really helpful to young people who are trying to figure out what they think about the world and what to do with their lives.”
Recognizing a Broader Problem
Young people are not the only ones who reject a one-size-fits-all political identity for Christians. Michael Spencer, who blogs about politics as the “Internet Monk,” writes, “I have known for a long, long time that evangelicals are a diverse bunch. That diversity is shifting generationally, but it has always been there. We all weren’t Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham, and we always knew this was the case. The media, both mainstream and Internet, has misportrayed evangelicals for decades. They have decided to make Dobson and Robertson our spokespersons, when millions of evangelicals want nothing to do with either of them.”
In her book, Beyond Left and Right, Black writes, “Ironically, at the same time elected officials are growing more polarized, the general public charts a much more moderate path … . Even those voters within a party camp are typically more idealologically moderate than the elected officials who represent them.” With the media reinforcing our worst tendencies, Black warns that extreme polarization can remove us from authentic Christianity. “At its worst, allegiance to party can overshadow allegiance to Christ … . If you find yourself wondering, ‘How can he be a true Christian and think that way politically?’ partisanship has probably gripped your life too strongly. Far too much of the contemporary religion and politics debate creates implicit expectations that “good” Christians ally with one political party or the other, in effect using a party platform instead of the historic creeds of the church as the mark of true Christianity.”
Political polarization not only affects how some young Christians vote, but also how many young people view Christianity. In their book unChristian, Gabe Lyons and David Kinnaman write that the perception of young people aged 18-35 is that Christians are too involved in politics. They write, “Christians need to be aware of their reputation in this arena, not only because it influences their political engagement, but because it affects their ability to connect with new generations who are innately skeptical of people who appear to use political power to protect their interests and viewpoints. This perception may not always be accurate, but it contributes to outsiders’ mistrust of Christians.”
Thompson echoes this concern: “We are perceived by our neighbors to be primarily about the task of political domination. That is, we are understood not primarily in terms of the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God, but in terms of the American culture wars … . And the tragic and deeply unChristian net result of this is that civic life becomes for us not a place in which we seek to love our enemies, but in which we seek to triumph over them.”
Seeking another Way
So, if Christians are alienating nonbelievers because of our political involvement, does that mean that they should disengage from the process? Not an option, says Thompson. “The Christian vision of the world—of loving God and loving neighbor—are inescapably public acts.” This vision encompasses our involvement in civic life. Instead, what is called for is a recovery of “civic love,” argues Thompson—whether we’re talking politics over the neighbor’s fence or over the back of the pew. “Even more important than our positions on public policy, or our decisions for political candidates, is the need to recover a deeply Christian view of civic life, to have our impoverished imaginations renewed,” says Thompson. “For what we want to be is not partisan machines fueled by sound-bites and mutual agitation, but Christian citizens … who live in the civic sphere for the glory of God and the good of their neighbors.”
Whether we’re struggling to understand a daughter’s more liberal viewpoint, or sharing a concern about legislation with an elected official, how Christians conduct the dialogue can be as important as what we say. “The essential task is engaging in politics with the goals of loving God and loving neighbor first and foremost in our minds,” says Black. “In Christian charity we can work to demonstrate that a different kind of politics is possible, one that invites conversation and transformation, not condemnation of the other side … . We need to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit as we engage in politics.”
Starting with Ourselves
What better place to begin to cultivate that Christian charity than within our own church walls? With the homogenous nature of many churches, it’s all too easy to surround ourselves with those who share our preference for red or blue. Yet, the best way to develop a better appreciation for the nuances of political belief is to spend time talking with—and listening to—those who embrace differing viewpoints. “In our churches, homes, and families, we need to create safe spaces for people to express and explain their differing opinions and honestly listen to one another,” says Black. “Far too many people enter conversations about politics with closed minds and hearts. We need to enter into discussions with humility, loving one another enough to genuinely listen and seek mutual understanding.”
This is especially true for building bridges of understanding across generational divides, says Skillen. “Older people need to take the initiative—in homes, churches, Christian schools—to invite young people into a conversation in a way that is not threatening. They need to communicate that they are not there to critique or talk them out of their positions, but just want to understand.” He says, “Only if there is understanding will young people feel free to express themselves. It won’t come from didactic teaching and analyzing issues.”
American etiquette eschews talk of religion and politics, but it is exactly these topics that help us best understand one another. “Politics can be very controversial, but people need a safe place to talk about these things,” agrees Hinton. “People of a younger generation are seeking more informal gatherings built around relationship. They’re not looking for a lecture.” Nor are they looking for trite answers to multi-dimensional problems. Thompson says moving beyond oversimplification of the issues is part of the solution. “We have to do more creative thinking, understanding that the world is insanely complicated,” he says. “We have to jump into the mystery.”
Changing Our Tone
Practically speaking, Black outlines several questions to consider when discussing policy alternatives with those who disagree, focusing on a willingness to listen to other perspectives and demonstrating love and respect:
• Why do you believe that this particular solution is best?
• When did you first learn about this policy? What in particular captured your attention?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of going this route?
• Has this solution been tried before? If so, what happened?
• What biblical principles inform your support for this policy alternative? What biblical principles potentially conflict with it?
If we’re honest, this type of dialogue doesn’t typically characterize the current tone of our political discourse. It’s much easier to argue with the liberal on TV or talk amongst ourselves about those far-right fanatics. But as Christians, we are called to love one another and—like it or not—that includes our most fervent political enemies. Is it possible for Christians to change our tone? If Christians from every generation were to radically live out the calling to love in the political realm, perhaps a watching world would see not our quest for power or our desire to win at all costs. Perhaps, instead, they would see Jesus.
Click here to listen to Richard Doster's interview with Greg Thompson, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville, Va., as they discuss politics and the generational and cultural factors that divide Christians.
Susie Fikse is a freelance writer and member of Intown Community Church in Atlanta.
In the second paragraph asserts that Kim has a passion for the poor:
Kim has developed a passion for the poor and perceives that Democrats have traditionally been more active in providing for their needs.
Since when has the Democratic Party ever been a charitable organization? I contend that Kim's passion may be for assuaging her guilt.
Kim also thinks that legislative change on same-sex marriage is unlikely, even as legislatures around the country vote on it and courts legislate on it.
She also says that her vote was more focused on issues where change is possible—such as poverty and global health issues—than on traditionally conservative concerns where legislative change is unlikely, like abortion and same-sex marriage.
It cannot possibly be true that change on same-sex marriage is unlikely. The issue is being defined and decided right now!
I have a lot more to think and say about this article. What do you think?
I think there’s a whole bunch of goats on the loose in the churches.
The ignoramus cited in the article is Biblically illiterate and given over to “do gooder” feelings. She talks about solving world problems in the same way the World Council of Churches has for a century. Nothing new here.
This is globalist propaganda.
Like so many other liberal luntics, “Kim” is going to go bananas thinking that she can end all of the poverty in the world. She’d have better luck working on changing the rotation of the Earth to a clockwise direction.
I’d say it’s more likely that Kim , because of her age, still believes in and is influenced by the media.
Give her some time to realize the disconnect between what she is told and what she sees.
It’s likely the next three years will be more than adequate. ;o)
“To be young and not be a liberal is to have no heart...”
You know the rest.
I think she is someone who is confused about the roles of the state and the Church,
and has not received proper doctrinal training about her proclaimed faith.
Also, I believe for all the “passions” she claims to have,
she simply voted for “the cool black guy”, and didn’t think any deeper than that.
I think white America was guilted into voting for Obama, plain and simple.
I think Kim, basically, is a moron. Like all the other “undecided” morons who put the fraud Obama over the top. I hope she realizes what she and her ilk have done to the USA, and she should pray that she does not become a victim of Obama’s horrendous agenda.
But, then again - and I know this is a way to bring real bad karma down on me - I find myself hoping that things get worse economically and that the “Kims” of the US reap what they have sown in their ignorance.
While there is not necessarily a “one size fits all” Christianity, there are basic Christian tenants (doctrines) concerning Truth and morality, God’s morality, the only bedrock morality around, man’s “morality” pivots with the breezes like a windsock, we call them “ethics”.
One cannot ignore these basic tenants of faith, they, like God’s morality, are bedrock issues. Jesus said that He is the ONLY way to the Father. Period. Now, try and schmooze that over to your Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., etc. friends or your orthodox Jewish friend, you’d better know what you’re talking about.
“Evangelical” Christians, quite simply, are those who evangelize, who present the GOSPEL, it’s not a clique, it’s not a club. If one claims to be a CHRISTian, then he/she is one who believes that Christ is who He said He is and works to follow his teachings, not what one “feels” is right. It’s clearly laid out in Scripture but one must be discerning of course and when speaking to others concerning your faith, we are to present it with a Christian love and humility, not swat someone across the face with your 5# Bible.
Liberals love to yap about “empowering”, well, Christianity IS empowering and quoting the most misused, misquoted quote of all, “...and the Truth shall set you free” but she’d better study that a bit because I’ll bet you that the next question out of her mouth is “but, but, what is truth???”.
Kim, you want to help the poor? Well then, knock yourself out and get with it, don’t depend on a political party to do those things, the onus is on you anyway, not the club you belong to. There are many more things in this article that need parsing. I see too many “Christians” totally emmersed in “the world”, being OF the world, not just in the world, they are indistinguishable from the others, there’s a lot of “God talk” out there, very little doing. And we are not to give up on abortion and same-sex issues just because they seem deadlocked.
Kim is the typical idealistic young person with little experience and apparently believes the lies of politics (helping the poor, “social justice”, etc., etc.), she needs to look closely at good churches, the work they do is phenomenal, also other ministries out there, there are many who truly do the Lord’s work. She also needs to push the “go” button and start doing that herself.
My wife is an ER Nurse with 30 years of experience. When a liberal talks to her about socialized medicine. She askes "Are you willing to wait 6 weeks or more for a consultation"? "If you are 80 years old, are you willing to be told you can't have bypass surgery because the government says it is too expensive and your not of enough value to it?"
After these two, she usually hits them up with "are you willing to pay three times as much or more, for less professional services?" This usually gets folks attention.
Yes, she assures them. The government will have to relax the standards to get enough doctors to meet the "Free" demand (which we will actually pay through the nose in taxes). With competition down, doctors can slow down and the government won't want to let go of the few who will take government salaries".
At this point, folks usually give her an "Oh". She could, of course, ask them "Are you willing to give up Second Opinions if the govenment says they are too expensive?"
Kim voted for Zero ‘cause she’s an idiot. She really thinks that setting up the poor as permanent clients of the political elites is helping them? She’s impressed by Zero’s time as a community parasite, his big accomplishment being that he helped remove asbestos from the projects? It’s still a ghetto, and will remain so till the end of time or until the country stops listening to the con artists of the left.
A Christian, a nurse, pro-life, conservative Republican-——she cast her vote for Barack Obama.
Now all she is is a fool and she doesn’t represent any of those alleged beliefs in good standing.
Eph 4:28 tells us how to best help the poor. INDIVIDUALLY.
28If you are a thief, quit stealing. Be honest and work hard, so you will have something to give to people in need.
Evangelicals...yes, but not overwhelmingly so.
The idea that the media, the left...and even the GOP would perpetuate this fallacy is baffling to me. Especially with the GOP itself...pandering (maybe that's not a good word...perhaps "overly accommodating") to the religious right on some very divisive issues that are not part of classic conservative principals.
Conservatives used to be centered around the Bill of Rights...inclusive of the 10th Amendment...reduced regulation, spending and taxes, national defense etc. and didn't have much to say on the burning social issues.
All the money thrown at the problem since the economic focus shifted from exploring space to "taking care of the problems right here at home" has not lessened the problem one bit--if anything, it has made for more poor people.
Even worse, the systematic removal of the concept of right and wrong and supplanting that with a misguided concept of "tolerance" has, in the absence of public mention of God, led to an absence of clear standards of behaviour.
He explains, “Whereas fighting the ‘bad guy’ made total sense to those growing up during the Cold War, this generation values diplomacy. They say, ‘We have to live at peace with others.’” For Thompson, who is also pursuing a Ph.D. in religion and politics at the University of Virginia, this cultural shift explains the appeal of Obama among younger Christians. “It’s about ethos, not policy,” he says. “Obama embodies the ethic of tolerance.”
This is indicative of the wishy-washy mental mush which passes for 'tolerance' which is in fact an absence of strong beliefs on any issue. When you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. Or, as someone else put it: "I would rather ye be hot or cold than lukewarm."
It is the lukewarm, non-confrontational "why can't we all just get along" mentality which will have Western Civilization living in squalid dhimmitude if we do not wake up and stand up for what we know is right.
WWJD?
Who purged the moneychangers from the Temple?
While forgiving of sinners, He did say "Go forth and sin no more." There was more to the story than not casting the stones, and I think that part is being left out.
While we are free to embrace the sinner in Christian forgiveness, we are not free to embrace the sin.
Where any "evangelical" who voted for Obama was led astray, is that a vote for the man is a vote for his policy, not just a vote for the sinner, but the sin as well. How any self-professed evangelical Christian could vote for someone who has publicly embraced the slaughter of infants in the womb and leaving the survivors of that to die unattended is beyond me.
What happened to "Be ye not deceived"?
The younger gen is very confused - even those raised in the Church. Most of them believe in God...but no longer believe God (His Word) or read it. Having lost their plumb line, everything gets defined as “relative.” Hence, they think Obama represents “tolerance.” Of course, he doesn’t (he’s as hardcore partisan as they come) - but he talks a good game. AND, they don’t realize that “tolerance” is a very low standard - not the standard Jesus had.
That’s right MrB, you’re better at this than I am and I thank you for that. I stumble around and my memory is fleeting...
Not to worry. Obama is the young generation’s Carter. He’s about to teach them a lesson in feel-good politics that they’ll never forget.
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.