Crisis in the Evangelical Church?

For over a month I’ve been turning over in my mind Matthew 4, where Jesus is tempted by the devil. Jesus was promised great power, and wealth, that he could have used to better the lives of the people. He refused. He knew the subterfuge and the danger of allowing such earthly bobbles to distract from the spiritual ministry which Jesus was about to launch.    

I’ve thought of that passage in light of the American presidential election which has created a crisis in the American Evangelical Christian community. It is a crisis that has its roots stemming back to the late 70s and early 80s when the Evangelical Church intentionally and aggressively aligned itself with the Republican party. Today, gaining the support of evangelical pastors and key church leaders is a critical early step for a Republican to be successful in a run for state wide or a national office.    

Since the late 1970s the evangelical community, which admittedly is my spiritual roots, has been steadfastly entwined with the Republican party. For decades they have vigorously spoken about the importance of the nation’s leaders such as the President, Vice-President, Speaker and Senate Leader, and Governors, being of solid upright character. Furthermore, the expectations that an evangelical vote Republican, that in many congregations if a person votes for a Democrat, the veracity and sincerity of their faith is questioned by their fellow worshippers. Such an expectation is so strong that there are Christian colleges that allow a student led Republican club on campus but will not allow Democrat club to be formed or operate.

Christians should be involved in politics and stand as candidates for all parties. The church and its leadership should speak to specific issues, particularly those directly related to morality, but without supporting particular candidates and parties. Because of the respect that they are given, clergy must be careful about stating their voting preference. A pastor who says to the press or congregation, “I’m just speaking as a private citizen, not on behalf of my ministry,” is being disingenuous as they know fully that most of those who are under their leadership will not only follow their lead, but tend to view it as the view of divinity.

When the church aligns itself with a party, it is compromising the gospel. When its clergy openly involved with a specific party on behalf of, or in association in some manner with their ministry, they enmesh the church with a process that ultimately tarnishes the church and its spiritual ministry. As has been evidenced again and again, when the church is in bed with a political party, the unfortunate result is the muting of the church's moral voice. The tendency for the church is to remain silent or speak in muted terms when the officeholder of one's party says or does something unseemly. Its clergy to remain silent on ills and bad legislation rather than speaking out against the party, thereby surrendering the obligation to speak truth forthrightly to officeholders. When the church and its leaders have remained silent so as not to damage the party, the church has accepted earthly power over its moral and spiritual ministry.

The church must speak to issues and help the whole community to come together, working with people to build consensus for the greater whole, not contribute to the broadening of division. To often politicking involves unseemly demonizing, obfuscation, and outright telling of falsehoods. What does it say about the body of Christ when its representatives remain silent because they do not want to damage their party and candidate.

The church is about building people up, thinking the best of people rather than demonizing, helping all to find grace, receive and give grace. In contrast, politics involves forging alliances and negotiations, and seeking ways to position yourself to look better while making those in the other party look as bad as possible. It is about the securing and holding of earthly power, pushing one’s agenda forward by whatever means possible.

Recent history demonstrates how a political position can quickly shift when the other side advocates a similar. In recent years we have witnessed major politicians and their parties attacking vigorously the very policies and legislation that they sought to advance before their opponents started embracing it and even improving it. Too often political positions are postures of convenience masked in language of moral conviction, but such conveniences can be fleeting.

When the church and its leaders cease speaking only to issues, and instead align themselves exclusively with a party, then the community of faith dismisses good policies and legislation out of hand because it is being advanced by the other side, and thereby the church hinders good governance. Further, the politically aligned faith community finds itself forced to switch positions when the party changes, and to demonize those upright and honorable proposals, which though they have shortcomings and flaws, can be honed and made stronger for the benefit of the community, state or nation, but is not because the church demonizes the idea instead of helping to hone the proposal. In so doing the church harms the cause of Christ and its moral integrity as it tows the party line.     

Today, as a collective whole, the Evangelical Church are facing a crisis because it crawled into bed with a political party. The presidential nominee of that party has demonstrated that he is long removed from the character and morality standard the evangelical community has long claimed as being so critical for the office of the presidency. He is a man who claims to be of faith, yet cannot pronounce II Corinthians correctly when even the most nominal church attendee knows to say “second Corinthians” not “two Corinthians”, and has stated on several occasions that he has not needed to ask God for forgiveness for anything in his life because he has not made mistakes.   

Donald Trump is steadfastly supported by evangelicals. This support is most clearly evidenced by the position of the largest evangelical college, Liberty University, whose leadership, staff and students gave their early endorsement, an endorsement that continues to stand even in light of recent reports and actions that do not speak well of his character. 

Has the Evangelical Church and their leadership sold their souls, and thereby diminishing credibility, to a man who has promised them that he will pick Supreme Court judges who will to the liking of Evangelicals?  Have they bought into a untrustworthy man’s promise to make their lives better, to give them full religious liberty while suppressing the same liberties of another religious group? Is that the way to secure freedom for the Christian faith? Has the Evangelical Church accepted the deal that Jesus rejected when the Devil offered him power to rule over the kingdoms of the earth? 

What message is the religious community's silence on atrocious ungodly behavior and bragging of sexual assault, invasion of privacy saying to the community? If there are more reports will evangelicals remain with him? What does it say about the state of the evangelical community when it advocates for a man who daily tells numerous falsehoods, has not guiding principle other than saying and doing what is needed in the moment to gain an advantage, who has used ethically questionable practices to make a buck, and who demeans and bullies people? And as they do, how will they credibly reconcile their endorsement with their proclaimed values of family values?

What is the religious community saying to its youth and the youth beyond its worship communities when its leaders and adult members explain away or accept ungodly behavior? If the world speaks against Trump's character, conduct and statements, and evangelicals remain strong for him when the world at large repudiates him, does that place the church in the place the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying one thing and doing opposite?  

I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters the guidance the novice demon Screwtape is given by his mentor demon, that he could dull the Christian or a church by enticing them blindly think that they are achieving a godly thing, give them that thing but with a load of evil along the way and attached to it. Screwtape is told, when that happens, the Christian's testimony, or the church's, is compromised and becomes more powerless. Are we not seeing such a process at play with the Supreme Court. 

The politician in question, Trump, for a politician is what he is and has been for years, has courted Christians while claiming to be a Christian. He has been embraced and enabled by large segments of the Evangelical Community. As this politician has claimed to be a member of the faith community and has actively sought faith community support using such a claim, then it is right to evaluate him on such a basis, and as an insider. Though others may wish to overlook the words of Paul to the Corinthian church leadership in I Corinthians 5, I will not.

I am disappointed that this narcotic man, who has appealed to the worse nature of the nation, is being viewed by large segments of the evangelical church as God's man for this hour, as a man worthy of their strong support.  The evangelical community explaining away or dismissing this man's statements that fuels division and openly empowers those in the white supremacy movement causes me to recall the condemning words of St. Paul to the church leadership in Corinth for not standing against a man who was having an ongoing affair with his step-mother, by noting that they remained silent to their shame and to the harm of the gospel even when the non-Christian community knows the affair is wrong. While I no longer view myself as a part of the evangelical community, it is my heritage and roots, one of which I'm becoming increasingly ashamed for belonging. 

I absolutely reject the fear of Supreme Court nominations as being righteous. I reject the promise of religious freedom for Christians from a man who will restrict the freedoms of others. Both are forms of idolatry and entrapments. If the Evangelical Church needs the Court, and a flawed earthly power, to save souls and empower faithful witnessing to the Gospel in both word and deed, then the Church has not only lost its credibility to speak on a host of issues, including morality, but is harming the gospel message. When the freedom of worship is denied or restricted to one group, we are all loose for we are only a step away from adding another group as we stand in the doorway to the room into tyranny of the majority. When the church supports a most ungodly man as if he was their earthly hero, then the gospel's power has greatly been compromised for the sake of earthly power, and history will judge harshly the American Evangelical church of this age.

And when Trump is in the White House, and his the debased nature of his character becomes glaring, and when he continue to attack the foundations of the nation, its electoral process, separation of powers, and the press, will the church speak out against him or remain silent? When his tempestuous character comes out, bullies people, and his countless glaring falsehoods become a growing mountain of national shame, will the church's leadership speak out, or remain silent because he is our man? I hope it is not the latter. If it is, it is to the church's shame!

Alma Mater Class Names Reflect Evangelical Mindset Changes

From the mid-1970s through to the mid-1980s America evangelicals underwent a highly significant change in how evangelicals saw themselves and in their interaction with the world. A shift in class names at my alma mater reflects how the evangelical mindset transitioned during this period.

As noted in an earlier blog, evangelical churches grew tremendously between 1966 and 1980s with a noticeable decline in mainline denominations. The growth corresponds with enormous social upheaval and stress. This was the period of the availability of the pill, desegregation, Vietnam and Watergate which caused the questioning of traditional social structures and authority, Roe v Wade, and the push effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Also, it was a period of tremendous economic upheaval that two major oil embargoes, gasoline and heating oil skyrocketing, gasoline rationing and odd-even gas purchasing days, and several years of double digit inflation.

Feeling validated by its numeric growth, the evangelical churches became increasingly militant in its language and interaction with the world. Its leadership was speaking how God had blessed them and that much greater growth was ahead. This was the age of mega conferences on church growth and the mantra of following the formula to growth that would double one’s church within 5 to 8 years. With the emergence of Moral Majority and other evangelical political groups this was the period when the evangelical church becomes wedded to the Republican party and the quiet mantra that a good Christian and being a Democrat was an oxymoron became more vocalized.           

At Asbury College (now Asbury University), an evangelical liberal arts college, has a traditions of giving each class a name. A clear transition takes place with the class names. Prior to the class of 1979 not a single class has a name that commonly carries strong religious connotation. Prior to the 1979 the classes were included Patriots, Cavaliers, Aztecs, Titans, Highlanders, Beavers, Eagles, Green Dragons, etc.

The Crusaders, the class of 1979, is the first class with a strong religious connection. If not for what followed, and what Freshmen were told during orientation in September 1975, the title could be viewed outside a non-religious context. During orientation the incoming Crusader freshmen were told that the class were named for the crusaders who defended faithfully the Christian faith and the holy land.

The class of 1980 was the Voyagers, a name not heavily laden with religious language and imagery as such. Starting with the class of 1981, with the exception of the 1988 Olympians, all class names carry a religious imagery and meaning, with names such as, Defenders, Overcomers, Victors, Heralds, Proclaimers, Seekers, Pathfinders, Anointed, Agape, Consecrated, Awakened, Ransomed, etc.

Was this a change triggered by the college's leadership? No, but it does reflect a change in evangelical views of themselves.
      

TRUSTed??

Senator Ted Cruz in his run to be the Republican presidential candidate has positioned himself as a sincere Washington outsider who wears his Christian faith not only on his sleeve, but across his chest too. He proclaims that he is a dedicated evangelical Christian by deep conviction and lives by its primary principals. His TRUSTed signs help him push his brand that as a practicing evangelical Christian he is trustworthy and upright. His approached served him well in Iowa, and likely play well in South Carolina.
In light of recent actions will his branding and his claims to be a committed evangelical Christian become the ground of his undoing? Evangelical Christians hold that professed faith is evidenced through one’s conduct and actions. While no one is expected to be flawless, Evangelicals hold one’s profession can be questioned if conduct consistently does not match faith statements.   

One of those primary Evangelical values is the that a person of faith must support one’s church financially. That financial support should be more than a token sum. Most Evangelicals expect that support to be a tithe, 10%, of all one’s income. It is commonly held that if one does not tithe then one’s faith is rightly to be questioned by the church’s leadership. A friend of mine says that he is now favoring another candidate because now Cruz's character has come into question in his mind.

The public has been learning that Cruz has not been financially supporting his church. His statement that he had not been financially supporting his church ring hallow amongst those of who have evangelical roots. Saying that he was building his family’s cash reserves and establishing a family trust is problematic for the vast majority of households in the church have income below Cruz’s and if they did the same as Cruz over 95% of churches would be closed for lack of funds.

Will the news that Cruz has not been financially supporting his church create tensions in the eyes of evangelical voters and cause them to question his profession of faith?  Or will Evangelicals rationalize it, giving him a pass on his lack of tithing even though such a pass would not normally be given to others in their church who seek to be viewed as leaders?

Then just as the Iowa caucus were starting the Cruz campaign spread a rumor that Ben Carson was withdrawing. The same messages instructed their caucus precinct chairs to inform caucus attendees, particularly Carson supporters, that if they supported Cruz attendees would be wasting their votes. Anecdotal reports from caucus Evangelical attendees indicates that that numerous people changed their votes on the news and enlarged Cruz’s win.

Carson had no such plans to withdraw. On Tuesday, the day after the Iowa caucus, Cruz stated it was an accidental error and not something intentionally constructed and pushed by his team. We are all aware that rumors on the lips of one or two can take flight, sometimes creating havoc and destroying lives. Cruz offered an apology to Carson, an apology that was accepted.

Unfortunately, subsequent evidence contradicts Cruz’s Tuesday statement. Copies and the breath of the voice mails, text messages and emails indicate that the messages were not only intentional but were spreading downright falsehoods. The inner circle of Cruz’s team was involved. While Carson accepted Cruz’s apology, he is rightly put out if the apology was offered on false ground. Will Evangelicals now see Cruz as a typical obfuscating calculating Washington insider doing whatever he needs to say and do to win, a scheming chameleon changing to fit the terrain?

Will the TRUSTed brand be start some to wonder if it is not a sign that Cruz is the opposite of the sign?

Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

America's Religious Changes Impacting Elections

It is evident that the ethic profile of the United States is changing, but so is America’s religious profile.  In the 1950s church attendance across all denominations was strong, with three out of four Americans attending church services at least three times a year. In this same decade over 85% of Americans considered themselves to be “religious”. In the mid 60’s dramatic shift that lasted for a little over two decades commenced with the growth in the conservative Baptist and evangelical churches as people left mainline churches for conservative congregations.  

In August 2012 the Washington Post reported the number of Americans claiming to be “religious” had decreased from around 73% in 2005 to around 60%. That same article noted that atheists make up about 5% of the American public, up from around the 1% level of the late 80s.  

As noted in a past post, the evangelical church is in decline, a decline that will become starkly evident over the coming decade. Many evangelicals argue the decline is a result of a lack of religious fervor and conviction in their churches and society as a whole. They argue that the church and nation is decline because prayer has been taken out of the schools, gay marriage and rampant disregard for biblical teachings.

While lack of broad fervor may be a factor in the decline of the evangelical church, it is a minor factor. The two primary causes for the decline are entangled somewhat. First, the group that flooded into the evangelic churches between 1965 and 1985 as a reaction to social changes occurring in that era are aging rapidly. Their children and grandchildren are not attending evangelical churches at the same rate. While not the only cause, significant declines in attendance, particularly amongst those below the age of 30 follow on the heels of periods of strident political activity within the evangelical church.

My intent here is not to judge one way or the other the appropriateness of such action on a particular issue or set of issues. My intent is to note that there is a correlation between the evangelical church’s manifest fervor on particular issues and the younger generation remaining within or being attracted to the evangelical teachings. What is evident is that there was a cost to the evangelical churches the more they became politically engaged on a host of social, cultural and financial issues. It increasingly appears that their political activity has left those who came into adulthood since the early 1990s feeling that the evangelical church has no answers for them. While some of the younger generation are returning to mainline churches, for a more balanced approach, more often than not the younger generation are not looking to any organized faith for sucker and guidance.

Hence, the evangelical finds itself with an aging membership. In many congregations the largest age block are those over the age of 60. Attendance is slowly declining, and will become more rapid as their largest block of members start to enter nursing homes and pass away.     

This shift was evidenced in this past election, an election which on so many levels Romney should have won by a spread of at least 7. With this economy, if the values and the demographics of the late 80s and early 90s were in place Romney would have won easily. Then the evangelical church, the heart of the Republican base, was strong and the younger generation was still somewhat religiously connected.

November’s exit polls showed that those who claim to have faith of some manner but with no specific religious affiliation, called “nones” in the data, made up 12 percent of the electorate in 2012. This is up by 3 points from 2000 and double the 1980 level. Further, the number of people who say that they do not attend church or house of worship stood at 17 percent. The Republican base is shrinking.

 

That this level the “nones” make up a voting block as large as the Hispanic. These “none” broke for the Democrats by over 40%. If one adds into the mix the atheists, the voting block becomes more significant. The block will only grow.  America is becoming more pluralistic. Hopefully the Republicans can make the adjustment.  

Value Voter Conundrum

The Republican primary race has been most interesting to observe as candidate after candidate postures themselves to court and please evangelical and tea-party voters. Given Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Mormonism is considered a cult and heresy, the evangelical Christians, and many tea-party members are facing a challenge as to which Republican candidate to support. I wish it were otherwise, but a canadate's religion still impacts a canadate's acceptability.

A series of non-Romney candidates have risen and then fallen. No doubt many statements are pandering in nature rather than firmly held core values. While the challenge is to keep from being fooled by shallow emotional appeals or false statements of piety, when “value voters” stress and emphasis religious piety, the typical chameleon politician will put on that mask.

Early flag bearers have been found lacking the necessary skills and balance to be President. Some have uttered views that sound right but lack an ability to argue their way out of a paper bag. Two who have balance and thoughtful positions are not considered as they lack the dynamism of an evangelical preacher that value voters prefer.

The latest non-Romney hope, Newt Gingrich and thrice married serial adulterer, is presenting a conundrum for the value voters who hold the sanctity of marriage so high, and living out those values tend to see it as one of the bedrock elements. Twelve years ago value voters and evangelical Christians lambasted Clinton, then called for his impeachment over the matter of being an adulterer. Clinton the example of what many evangelical preachers encourage from their congregants in such situations, the Clintons worked through matters and remained married, and Bill Clinton changed his life.

Gingrich is not only twice divorced but the manner in which he announced the end of his marriage to his two wives is highly troubling. Further troubling is that Gingrich’s first wife and children had to turn to their church for financial support for a period when he did not provide child support. Value voters are troubled further in that not providing child support goes to essential character and fathers not fulfilling financial obligation to their children is another major issue with value voters.

There is little doubt about Gingrich’s golden tongue. As one of the fathers of the current political climate of winning at all costs he put that tongue and his disarming smile to use in spinning things that sound thoughtful and intellectual. Gingrich is skilled in positioning himself to be highly appealing to Value Voters. But Value Voters are left wondering if what they are hearing is well contrived spin designed to seduce them.

Hence, these same voters find themselves in a box, they want to support Geingrich but doing so goes contrary to what they have argued in the past as being bedrock values.

For a host of reasons Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Adams were wise in noting that we must be take care not to align our faith with our religion.

At the end of the day, I hope that the Republicans will give the nation a viable choice. Unfortunately, I do not see much of the current slate of current or former front runners as a solid candidate worthy of my consideration.

Evangelical Church and Racism

Ever so slowly I'm working my way through Robert Putnam’s "American Grace", in which he examines the nature of religious life and its interaction with politics throughout the last one hundred years. Putnam’s work is filled with survey data, demographic trends and basic observations which gives one much food for thought. The work articulates in a coherent manner volumes of data confirms various of my observations and conclusions...one of which is that the evangelical church entering a period of significant decline. Also the book is making numerous new connections such as the correlation between religious attendence declines in young adults and the level of politically activity the evangelical church.

Putnam demonstrates that following WWII religious life in North America across all denominations underwent a dramatic increase. Soldiers returning from the horrors of war attended all churches at a much higher rate than prior generations. The mainline churches plateaued and then started to decline in the late 1960s, a decline that has only slowed in the last decade.

As mainline churches went into decline the evangelical and fundamentalist church grew (the two groups though similar are not identical). Interestingly the Canadian churches saw some of the same patterns as their American brother and sisters, but not to the same degree. The Canadian fundamentalist churches did not increase as much as the evangelical churches and the Canadians growth came in three surge waves versus the four and larger surges experienced by their American counterparts.

As the mainline church suffered dramatic declines that corresponded with each growth surge experienced by the evangelical church, the evangelical surge was primarily transfer growth. Hence, the evangelical surges were for the most part movement of existing church attenders than the “conversions” of unchurched “heathens.”

Putnam demonstrates that the surges in the American evangelical and fundamental churches corresponded with four sociological-political events; the birth control pill and sexual liberation, ERA/feminist movement of the mid to late 70s, civil rights movement, and the Roe v. Wade ruling. As mainline churches being less judgmental about the use of the pill and sexual liberation, they suffered lost of people and the more dogmatic evangelical and fundamentalist churches gained. Roe v. Wade and mainline churches talking about empowering women to become business and church leaders (an female ordination), drove another group of conservative leaning families out of the mainline churches to evangelical and fundamentalist churches that provided clear directives and kept the issues simple.

If one looked at it from a marketing perspective, a perspective evangelicals would reject, evangelical churches captured these families by shaping their message to appeal to those who need less equivication and more rigid frameworks. The evangelicals distinguished themselves by speaking against each of issues (ie: contraception is contrary to divine law, a woman’s place was in the home raising the family, women in the military on the front lines blurs the distinction between men and women, sex must be saved for one’s marital partner, etc.). Though the language and postions on various issues has changed, the evangelical buzz from that age continues to be part of its core language is that they stand for “traditional family” values and preach only the Bible.

Putnam’s data clearly indicates civil rights with the integration of schools and the office was also a major cause for the shift. While mainline churches marched with Dr. King and other civil rights activists, encouraged their members to support integration, evangelical leaders for the most part took a contrary postion. They not only shied away from advocated for civil rights but it was not uncommon to hear pastors and evangelical leaders speaking openly against civil rights or quietly despairingly of integration and reinforcing stereotypes. For the Canadian reader, this is the one element which was for the most part missing from the Canadian scene.

Evangelicals would argue that their different message was not a marketing decision but as being faithful to the preaching of the Word. I concur that it was not a marketing choice. Yet as on all but abortion the evangelical church has changed its message significantly on each of the three areas, faithful preaching of the Word rests on shaky ground. Even on abortion the mainline church membership and pastors have as diverse positions just like the evangelical members and pastors. Rather than marketing and faithfulness to the Word as being the cause, the root is that evangelicals (and fundamentalists) are naturally disposed to being more politically conservative and that in the two decades of significant social shifting, the more conservative elements in the mainline churches found greater identification with their more conservative evangelical friends. Hence, in turbulant times the strength of bent of one's politics tended to determine where one worshipped.

As noted, the Canadian scene was different regarding civil rights. Not only did I not experience despairing comments about race relations in my evangelical congregation, its leadership spoke that equality between races was a biblical principal. Our congregation was not alone as high school friends in other evangelical churches were hearing the same message. Hence subtle despairing comments I heard in my Kentucky dorm and heard at the college from my peers, and some faculty, was perplexing. Though the college leadership acknowledged that integration must happen, its steps were measured least they offend their more conservative alumni and funders.

Today I understand the issues more fully than I did then, that racism was part of the American evangelical and fundamentist scene throughout the 60s, 70s and early 80s. It was more blatant in the 60s and more subtle later, and though rarely as blatant or as widespread, thirty years later it still exists in a subtle manner. Though the majority of the criticism and caricatures of President Obama does not involve racism, one has to be void of sight and intelligence not to understand that some caricatures and criticism are racist in nature and motivation, and that too many of those individuals fill leadership positions in a fundamentalist or evangelical church on Sunday.

As remanents of racism continues to linger as a part of the evangelical church I was not surprised by this story about an evangelical church voting to ban an interracial couple from membership and participating in a worship service… http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-03/church-interracial-ban/51607194/1

The United Nations and the United States Being a Christian Nation

Within the American evangelical church for more than two decades there has circulated the claim that the United Nations no longer considers the United States to be a Christian nation. This claim is used to bolster the sermonic statements that the United States is in a period of moral decline, so much so as goes the argument that even the United Nations, a secular group, cannot recognize the United States as being Christian.

Any preacher or Christian leader who makes such regarding the United States is either showing that they are uninformed and are uncritically repeating false statements they have “heard” and accepted as being true. In other words, they are engaged in the same activity, spreading rumors and fear mongering, that they proclaim from the pulpit as being wrong. If the preacher/Christian leader is not uniformed and accepting uncritically the statements, and truly know what they are talking about, then they are willfully misleading their listeners. I prefer the former than the latter.

While it is true that the United Nations does not list the United States as a Christian nation, the same body does not list Iran or Saudi Arabia as Islamic nations or India as a Hindu nation. The United Nations has never changed the religious classification of any nation as it does not make such judgments. When the United Nations was being established in 1944 the founders recognized that the body should not evaluate the nature or quality of the nation’s religious activity, or make any such judgments in any form.

As to the changing religious life of the United States, it has evolved over the decades and will continue to evolve in the coming years as it does in every nation. The degree to which the general citizenry is more or less “Christian” is a highly subjective value judgment. That said, surveys over the decades by Pew Research and Faith Matters clearly indicates that the number of people claiming faith in keeping with traditional evangelical definitions is in decline.

In a few subsequent posts I will note some trends in religious life. Is there a decline in religiosity and spiritual faith? Maybe there is a decline, or it may be a shifting way of defining faith, just as the older generations in the 50s and 60s were concerned about lack of religious respect and spirituality from the teens to 30 yr olds of that era due to the manner in which they were dressing, being willing to go to movies, going out to eat at a restaurant on Sunday after church, going for a swim on Sunday or even put gas in their car…all of which the older generation felt were violations of keeping the Sabbath holy and contrary to holy living.

Failure of Maryland's Same-sex Marriage Legislation

For the three weeks a same-sex marriage bill moved the Maryland legislative process. When it passed the more conservative Maryland Senate many observers expected it to pass by at least eight votes in the House of Delegates. A week ago the bill faltered and last Friday it was functionally killed when it was deferred back to a House of Delegate committee where it will die in a matter of weeks when the current session expires. It was a significant defeat for advocates who hoped Maryland would become the sixth state plus the District of Columbia to approve of same-sex marriage.

Generational replacement, the passing away of the older generation and being replaced by the younger, has brought about a shift in support of same-sex marriage. In the late 90s years ago over 62% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage, but with the passing away of the WWII and post WWII generation being replaced by the Gen Ys a shift is occurring. Only a small minority of Gen Ys are opposed to same-sex marriage and even fewer are against laws that protect sexual orientation as a discrimination class. Even baby-boomers have shifted their views in the last fifteen years, going from 70% against to 55% against. Hence, today, a slight majority of adult Americans, and an even greater majority of citizens of Maryland, support same-sex marriage legislation. Generation replacement will rapidly broaden that gap over the next two presidential election cycles.

The failure of the same-sex legislation is a sign that a highly visible and powerful unconvinced minority retain the upper hand in Maryland. Evidence indicates that claims by evangelical Christians that Christians have little political power is a false claim. Though the number of those who regularly attend church services is in the minority, it is easily argued that the church wields far greater political power today than ever. And most of that political power rests in the hands of the overwhelmingly fundamentalist and evangelic church who were joined in this fight by the overwhelmingly African American Church and the Catholic Church, all of whom hold that any marriage not between a man and woman is an anathema.

This well organized religious coalition targeted a dozen or so Delegates saying that if they voted for this legislation, that regardless of their record on other issues, their churches would work to defeat their reelection bids. The coalition was so persuasive that one of the sponsors of the legislation who has long argued that same-sex marriage is about civil rights, and that gay couples do not devalue hers or any other heterosexual marriage announced that she would be voting against her own bill.


We should not fool ourselves in thinking that legislators are highly principled people who take noble stands on issues, stick to them, even if it puts their reelection at risk. Before we fault them for being willing to posture themselves for the next election, it has always been and will remain thus in a democracy because that is what we ask the electorate expect.

Partly due to generation replacement and partly due to the younger baby-boomers rethinking their views and becoming increasingly turned off by the evangelical church, the trend is for a growing number of voters supporting same-sex marriage. While the majority of the electorate will support such legislation, the power of the church as evidenced in these last weeks in Maryland will make it problematic for such legislation to be successful in other states.

While such power may provide comfort for evangelicals, it may be a false comfort in the longer term. Religious surveys by the Pew Research Center and Faith Matters indicate that demographic change, changes in religious activity as well as generational disenfranchisement from the church and the reason why they are disenfranchised, indicate that the evangelical church is on the verge of a significant decline.

Conservative Church and Divorce Rates

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post this deals with a response to troubled marriages and divorce within the church, particularly within the evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Joanne in her commented noted several divorces whereas Barb was not aware of any. I know little about this division, but I am aware of eight divorces within the division, and there are not many large congregations.

We need to ask ourselves why the evangelical and fundamentalist churches have the highest divorce rates, rates that are about 50% higher than those who admit that they are agnostics and atheists. Part of the issue lies with why so many believe Dr. Tom Ellis’s laughable claim that only 1 out of 39,000 who receive premarital counseling, attend church regularly and pray together experience divorce.

Such a claim assumes that those who are saved and led by the Spirit are virtually immune from divorce. Such thinking leads to the belief that if the marriage is in trouble, then there is something spiritually wrong with one or both of the marital partners. Faith in Christ and divorce are viewed as mutually exclusive. Hence the prescription is prayer, confession of sin and all will be well. This is dangerous thinking.

Such dangerous thinking sows the seeds of marital problems. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists live in the real world. They are not immune from temptation. They are not immune from interpersonal conflicts and tensions created by thoughtless actions of the other. To claim that marital tensions, arguments and other issues should not happen in a godly marriage brings a strong social pressure to put on a false face and deny that there unresolved problems within the marriage. Such denial creates an environment for a problem to fester and grow, to become attached to another unresolved problem and become magnified.

If one is part of a church that holds such dangerous thinking, is such an environment conducive to approaching the pastor to receive counseling? Of course not. Further, if a pastor and church holds that the divorce rate is as small as Ellis’ claims, why would a pastor prepare himself/herself for such counseling moments which would rarely occur during his/her professional career? Even if one felt that the divorce rate was less than 2%, such a pastor would not likely give much attention to marital counseling skills and knowledge sets.

Feeling awkward and fearful in acknowledging a problem brings alienation. In such an environment, most couples whose marriages are at risk would likely drift to the fringes of the church, or even leave the church as separation approaches.

Though evidence is to the contrary such individuals such as Ellis dogmatically hold that the biblical models of the family provide a protective marital bond that the secular models cannot own. They cannot accept that atheists have such a low divorce rate.

Why would atheists have a lower divorce rate than those claiming to be Christians? The studies have not examined the issue to any significant degree. Is it possible that those who stand outside the church have more honest and realistic expectations of their marital partner and their marriage as a whole. Is it possible that atheists may well see marriage as a partnership that involves active work, honest communication, mutual respect and affirmation, and are not as deeply offended when their partner offends them? Is it possible that lacking the “religious denial" baggage they are more freely admitting and addressing issues earlier, working out their problems and creating the foundation to forgive one another more freely without dismissing or dealing with their conflicts through the use of empty platitudes we too often find being tossed around in the church?

Saying and believing, "Just take it to the Lord in prayer" or "Surrender the matter into the Lord's hands and He will work it out," or "You just confess you sins and you will find peace", etc. tends to allow a couple to avoid dealing with a problem. Marriage demands ongoing work, open honest communication, respect and facing issues in a forthright and upright manner.

It is overdue for the conservative branch to open its eyes, to look at the data, to admit the truth of what is happening within the marriages conservative Christians, to move beyond empty platitudes, roll-up its sleeves and help families deal in meaningful ways with everyday life issues.

The Difference Faith Makes in the Divorce Rate

When I was in college, a confidential survey was conducted by a Christian grad students at the University of Kentucky as part his PhD. He was studying whether faith made a difference in moral conduct. The survey focusing upon conduct over the past year and was being conducted at three evangelical colleges and five secular colleges. The short questionnaire asked about sexual activity from petting to intercourse, academic cheating, and the consumption of alcohol and drugs.

The survey was conducted in the spring with the results tabulated in the summer. The college said that they were going to make announce the results in the fall. The following fall, no results were announced not because the surveys were not tabulated but because the results shocked the administration. They were expecting to see a significant difference in the conduct of their students, and those who claimed to be evangelical Christians versus the “secular students.” The difference existed somewhat with regard to alcohol and drugs, but those differences could be explained away as being the impact of the college’s rules and somewhat segregated life.

I learned later that they administration was stunned that their students reported being engaged in academic cheating at a higher level than students on the secular campus. Also they were disappointed that their students were just as active sexually as their peers at the public universities. It appeared that Christian faith was not making a moral difference in the lives of their students.

There is a popular slogan that says, "The family that prays together, stays together." It is widely reported within the evangelical church that the divorce rate amongst Christians who attend church regularly is lower than those who do not, and that within the church, Evangelicals have the lowest divorce rate. Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Council on the Family as stated,"...born-again Christian couples who marry...in the church after having received premarital counseling...and attend church regularly and pray daily together..." experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent.

The figures quoted by Dr. Ellis appear to be impressive, but the figure is false. At the best his claim involves bold creative counting, such as the church that claims to have never had a member be divorce expelling people and withdrawing membership when the couple separate. Another shocking explanation is summarily and arrogantly dismissing that those who divorce were “not truly Christians" in the first place. At the worse, Dr. Ellis’ claim is a dishonest and bold fabrication used to hide what he knows as being true, that faith and regular attendance at church does not inoculate one from divorce, and that an argument could be made that it increases the likelihood of divorce.

In its survey on the subject the widely acclaimed evangelical Barna Research Group has found that the divorce rate within the church is higher than it is amongst atheists and agnostics. Further, Barna found that the divorce rate amongst Evangelicals to be higher than within any other segment of the church.

Evangelical and fundamentalists.... 34%
Baptists.... 29%
Mainline Protestants.... 25%
Mormons..... 24%
Catholics..... 21%
Lutherans.... 21%

Jews.... 30%
Atheists/Agnostics..... 21%

Other surveys have the divorce rate amongst “born again” Christians at 27% and those claiming to be Christians but not claiming to be “born again” as 24%.

Say It Is Not So Tiger!

Tiger Woods confession of an affair has stunned many. Jesper Parnevik who along with his wife introduced Woods to his wife Elin said, “I really feel sorry for Elin, since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him. We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably need to apologize to her.”

In preparation of this blog I read a quick sampling of about 140 comments posted by followers of the story. A good number of comments, about 25%, are saying that it is a private matter and it is none of our business what takes place within the Woods family and marriage. No doubt Tiger and his wife agree with those sentiments. Yet, he is a high profile celebrity who has not just made tens of millions of dollars by winning tournaments but from commercial endorsements and presenting a wholesome persona. He has sought to keep his family and personal life private, but when one enters a high profile position, an element of privacy disappears. The higher one’s profile becomes the less privacy one will have. And nothing like a tabloid scandal will bring attention of the press who make huge profits by covering, and even pumping up, a salacious celebrity scandal.

Few comments I have commented, far less than 10%, have argued for her staying with him. For every one who takes such a position there are eight or nine times that number who say that Elin should divorce Tiger. Many say that he cannot be ever trusted again. The assumption is that if he cheated once he will cheat on her again.

It is fair to say that a good number of people will criticize her for trying to redeem their marriage. Jenny Sanford, wife of disgraced South Carolina ex-governor Mark Sanford was commended by many in the church for asking her husband to move out of their home and for taking the first steps to divorce him. She is hailed as for taking a moral stand against wrong.

Those who commend Jenny Sanford tend to be the same voices who condemned Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards for remaining with the husbands. These women raised the ire within significant segments of the conservative branch of the church for forgiving their husbands publically (and privately?), seeking to work through the rough times and to redeem their marriages.

Commending Jenney while condemning Hilary, Elizabeth, Kobe Bryant’s wife, and others who have sought to salvage their marriage bothers me. Those who condemn Hilary et al. need to not only get a life but also take a look at their own beliefs. Is there not a disconnect between what is preached in the Gospels and the Letters about redemption, forgiveness and restoration? Or are we saying that infidelity, whether by the man or the woman, is such an unforgiveable sin that all hope is lost for the marriage and that like Humpty Dumpty it is destroyed beyond repair?

If the answer to the above second question is “yes”, then why are Christian bookstores filled with pastoral aids and marital counseling aids regarding rebuilding marital relationships after infidelity? Are these books, a significant number of which are published by conservative printing houses, for show? Again, if the answer is “yes”, then let’s stop the hypocrisy by no longer publishing such books, having seminaries and other pastoral training programs training pastors for such moments, and cease expecting the clergy of the church to even attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

If the consequences of the “yes” option are unpalatable and we say “no” to the above question and affirm that there is hope, then why do members of the conservative church (evangelical and fundamentalist branches) condemn Hilary, Elizabeth, et al. at a higher rate than do other segments of our society. Hence my personal disappointment in the conservative church and in the church’s leadership for not speaking positive of Hilary and Elizabeth who in the heat of the public eye seek to redeem their marriages. They need to be commended, not condemned.

Just under one in five men are unfaithful to their wives. Before we speak negatively about men, most of the women with whom those men are unfaithful are women who are married to other men. Infidelity happens both within and outside the church. It happens to people who claim sincere faith. It happens to pastors, and even a giant of the faith like King David was not immune. It always has happened and always will happen.

Tiger Woods has not disappointed me. Whose who say "Say it is not so Tiger" need to get a life. Though he is a fantastic golfer, Tiger is not super-human. He is not divine. Jesper Parnevik’s comment is troubling. If Parnevik thinks that there is a special plain where one becomes immune he could well be headed for trouble. There is not level of spirituality or character to makes one immune. Since the beginning of time infidelity can happen to people of any character if they do not carefully guard their heart and mind.

Woods’ statement states that he is far short of perfect. He is true on that point, neither am I or any reader of this blog. I am content to allow them privacy and space, to allow them to work through their issues. They have enough tensions without me or others being voyeurs into their home. If Elin and Tiger work to salvage their marriage, I will celebrate and commend them.

A Dark Moment For the Evangelical Church

As you may be aware from an earlier post that in October 2008 Ted Stevens, the Republican Senator from Alaska, was convicted on seven felony counts. Though many in his party encouraged Stevens to withdraw his reelection bid, he did not do so. The day after the election is appeared that Stevens would win a narrow victory, but when the absentee ballots were included, Mark Begich won a narrow victory with 150,728 votes as against 147,004 for Ted Stevens.

Prior to the charge and conviction Stevens was assured of victory. Clearly the public turned, and rightly so, against him. According to exit polls, independents who make up 46% of the population voted heavily for Begich (53% versus Stevens 40%...7% would not say). Those who are moderate in their ideology (about 46% of voters) went strongly for Begich, 57%, versus Stevens at 37%.

If independents and those who are moderate in their views heavily went to Begich, and such groups make upon a significant block of voters, how in the world did Stevens come so close to winning?

The answer is that a large social group of voters who made up 26% of voters voted for Stevens by 68% versus Begich at 26%. The group that voted for Stevens almost three to one are evangelical Christians. That’s correct, evangelical Christians, the group that preaches justice, ethical behavior, accountability as well as the importance of social and family values supported Stevens more strongly than any other social group!

It keeping with their belief system, evangelical Christians should have been amongst the first to cry for Stevens’ resignation and the social group least likely to vote for him. Instead, most evangelical pastors remained silent or issued statements of support for Stevens. They dismissed his unethical conduct as not being truly unethical or illegal. The evangelical believers, the same group that ranted and drove for Clinton to be impeached for having oral sex with an intern and then lying about it, is willing to explain away and dismiss political graft, kickbacks and bully tactics.

What message is sent to the non-believer and skeptic by such a heavy vote? Yes, clearly there is a disconnect between what born again Christians claim are critical values and their actions in the voting both. Not only does the evangelical message about accountability, ethics and family values starts to ring hallow to those outside the faith so does the claim that the Spirit of God guides and directs their lives and thoughts. The skeptic is left to conclude is that either the claim is false or that a holy God directed them to vote for an unethical convicted criminal. With the latter, it does not give a favorable picture of God. Clearly, to their shame Alaskan evangelicals voting so strongly for Stevens does not speak highly of the evangelical message and evangelicals in general.

Conservative, Strict-constructionist Judiciary

As noted in my earlier post of November 10 I noted that in America the far political right holds that government has a narrow role to play in society. As part of their argument they frequently speak out about the need to eliminate “judicial activism”, that is, the courts by their ruling expanding civil liberties. They heatedly argue for a strict understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not within an evolving civil context but within the original setting. They hold that it is a travesty to read into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights issues not envisioned or addressed by the Founding Fathers.

Until recently have been somewhat perplexed by the strength of this narrow understanding of the role of the judiciary within the religious right who like Dr. Dobson openly call for the President and Congress to appointment “conservative, strict-constructionist judges.” They want judges who will strike down rulings laws that expand civil liberties, impact personal and corporate property and trade rights that are not in keeping with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Three issues drive their viewpoint,
1. Abortion
2. Gay rights and marriage
3. Broadening of the definition of the separation of Church and State which has led to the removal of the Lords’ Prayer and prayer in general from schools and the public square.

In all three areas the courts issued created rulings that permitted abortion, accepted the gay lifestyle that citizens are free to pursue rather than imprisoned as sexual perverts, and recognized the rights the validity of non-Christian faiths without being confronted daily in government settings by government sanctioned Christian worship and expression.

Many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would freely nod in agreement that the courts have been prime movers in these areas. Hence, their stand against judicial activism makes sense, at least within a narrow context of just these issues over recent decades.

Their position puts the conservative strict-constitutionalist in a position of affirming that the courts were:
1. Correct in upholding the Dred Scott ruling and that slavery is an acceptable practice.
2. Wrong is upholding and expanding child labor laws.
3. Wrong is upholding minimum wage laws that helped to break the cycle of indentured servitude to their employers.
4. Wrong in its rulings such as Brown vs. the Board of education that integrated public schools.
5. Wrong in ruling after ruling of civil rights cases that eliminated segregation
6. Wrong in helping to define and uphold truancy laws.
7. Wrong in issuing rulings that eliminated laws that institutionalized the mentally handicapped.
8. Wrong in issuing rulings that allowed the mentally and physically handicapped to attend the same public schools as their neighbors rather than “special schools.”
9. Wrong in invalidating legal contracts with children that were not signed by the parents.
10. Wrong in granting Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent and be interrogated only with one’s lawyer present).
11. Wrong in allowing those who appear before the court to have a translator when they do not speak English.
12. Wrong in addressing in firm terms lynching and other forms of rush to judgments by the public.
13. Wrong in defining due processes that we now all value as part of our judicial system.
14. Wrong in defining slander and issuing other statements that affect the public safety of others, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, as not protected free speech.

A host of other issues could be added to above list. While the modern strict-constructionist would distance himself/herself from issues on the list, by the very nature of their static view of justice, they are against each of the civil rights issues in the above list. If one is a strict-constructionist, one cannot pick and choose what rulings are judicial activist rulings were appropriate or not appropriate.

Even though the courts may issues rulings with which I do not agree, I am pleased that our judicial system recognizes that society progresses and evolves, and the laws need to be understood afresh within that changing context. Though we hold our Founding Fathers in respect, a dynamic view of the judiciary recognizes that their views and writings are not divine writ. They may have been insightful, but they did not envision our contemporary society with its plethora of issues, nor are their views without flaws that subsequent generations have had to address.

I am pleased with a dynamic posture of the judiciary for a fixed view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not justice. A static posture is blind legalism which as the decades pass creates an unjust judicial system that lacks wisdom.