Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Obama Wins Big With Born-Again Christians
Ever wonder why Barack Obama agreed to go before an evangelical audience that was certain to be more hostile to him than to his opponent?
Maybe because he is a Christian who thought he could actually talk to other Christians.
Nah. That couldn't be it.
Bragging about being in the Jesus Club while giving Republican answers is far more important than being a true Christian. Ronald Reagan, still the Religious Right's most beloved president, proved that conclusively.
So what was Obama doing at Saddleback Church?
He was probing for weakness. That crowd looked like a Religious Right crowd, clapped like one, but according to the best evangelical pollster in the country, true Bible-believing evangelicals -- the kind the Religions Right depends on -- are outnumbered four to one by people who call themselves evangelicals but don't believe even the most basic tenets of traditional faith. That means that if Saddleback's audience was like the evangelicals most pollsters survey, true Religious Right evangelicals were outnumbered four to one.
Evangelical pollster George Barna, whom I'd be willing to bet won't be voting for Obama this November, is one of the few pollsters who understands evangelical faith well enough to measure attitudes and behavior in a way that has any real meaning. Instead of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, he asks questions about their beliefs.
Those who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also say they believe they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior are classified as born-agains.
To be classified as evangelicals, born-agains must meet seven other conditions
1. their faith is very important in their life today
2. they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
3. they believe Satan exists
4. they believe eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
5. they believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
6. they assert that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches.
7. the describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.
These nine questions are softballs for anyone familiar with the fundamentals of evangelical faith. On my faith days, I could meet those criteria. I'm not an evangelical, do not go to church and disagree with the Religious Right on something new almost every day of the week.
These questions don't include the bodily resurrection of Jesus, his virgin birth, his death as atonement for original and personal sin, the historical accuracy of the Bible, creationism, the existence of hell, or even the big sticking point -- that Jesus is the only way of salvation.
And here's the astonishing part: Barna looked all over the United States and couldn't find a city anywhere in which one out of four adults were evangelicals under that 9-point definition. Little Rock, Arkansas, came the closest.
His nine qualifications quickly rule out people who got saved 30 years ago and can't remember why, people whose mama used to go to church and so they claim it, and people who like the idea of being evangelical but haven't the faintest notion what it truly means. Barna's definition leaves in many progressive evangelicals, a lot of traditional Baptists and other evangelicals who will never toe the Religious Right line, but it's as good a measure of Religious Right strength as we're ever going to get. And it corresponds roughly with the 20 percent of self-identified evangelicals who say they are part of the Religious Right.
Barna's definition identifies only 8 percent of Americans as actual evangelicals. That 8 percent is still with McCain, and always will be. But notice this: even within that group support for McCain has dropped from 78 percent in June to 61 percent now. All other 19 faith groups Barna surveyed give Obama the lead by substantial margins.
And here's the big news:
For the first time in two decades, the born-again vote (a vote that less savvy pollsters lump together with the evangelical vote) is moving toward Democrats instead of Republicans. These Americans give Obama a 12-point lead, 43 percent to 31 percent. The born-again vote is the lion's share of the self-identified evangelical vote -- the big vote that everyone seems to be fighting over. That was the vote Obama was going after last Saturday.
It makes up 17 percent of the 25 percent of white Americans who self identify as evangelicals if you use the most common figure pollsters turn up. If you use Barna's studies, which show 40 percent of Americans self identifying as evangelicals, Obama is the favorite among 32 percent of Americans who consider themselves evangelicals.
There's a lot of churn in that vote right now, which is unusual in itself. That 17-32 percent of Americans who call themselves evangelicals but don't pass Barna's tests are mostly white Southerners and sometimes Midwesterners, cultural conservatives who've gone for Republican presidential candidates since Nixon wooed and won them in the 1970s. Many of them would be more accurately categorized as "the country music voters." They love God, mom, whiskey, guns and the flag -- not always in that order. Some of them even go to church. A lot fewer than you might imagine.
This is a shifting, squishy vote that likes Obama, but could like him more.
Anyone only reading the newspapers and listening to television will believe that Obama lost out Saturday. But delve deeper into that 25-40 percent of America, and you'll find born-agains, progressive evangelicals, emerging church evangelicals, post-evangelicals, "country music voters," and a whole raft of other persuasions.
The humble, reasoned, Bible-led Christian that Obama showed them Saturday may suit them very well.
Christine Wicker is the author of "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church." Her website is www.ChristineWicker.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a lifelong Democrat and adult convert to Chritianity, I have never been able to understand how a true Christian (and I'm setting the bar pretty low here by defining "true Christian" as anyone who studies, believes and attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ) could possibly support the neo-conservative agenda.
Jesus teaches us to love our enemies, and instructs us not to even enter a house of worship until our conflicts are resolved.
He teaches us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to house the homeless, to care for the sick, to comfort the imprisoned.
He teaches us not to pass judgment on our fellow man. He teaches us the fundamental value of forgiveness.
And above all else, He teaches us the supreme power of love.
Where lies the confluence of His teachings and the GOP party platform? I simply don't see it, and I know many other Christians who feel the same way.
I think a lot of Evangelicals have been duped by the GOP's pro-fetus rhetoric (they can't be called pro-life when they're executing prisoners and waging wars), and continue to vote Republican despite the fact that the government has failed to take even the most common-sense steps to reduce abortion (provide education and cheap contraception). This single issue clouds the vision of anti-abortion activists, so that they cannot see that the GOP agenda is, on the whole, utterly anti-Christian.
Amen and thanks for your words.
My daughter, who is deeply religious and considers herself and her husband to be evangelical, called me after the Saddlebrook event in a rage.
She said the first question...about moral lapses...was just plain silly. The only appropriate answer would have been "Do you want them in alphabetical or chronological order?" and McCain's instant response was a dead give away to pre-knowledge of the question.
It was later revealed that both candidates were given the first two questions in advance, but even then Senator Obama had to think about it. I know MY answer would have been "So many sins, so little time to enumerate them." The McCain flat answer "My first marriage" was so canned it still had a label on it.
One of the most important tenets of Christianity is humility. Senator Obama came across as the only genuinely humble Christian on that stage and I think the true evangelicals recognized that.
MSDoc,
Your daughter is a very smart woman! i have always believed that you have to be genuine to be believable and that is something that Obama does very well. In the eyes of some republicans, they believe that the can answer is the right one and lie if you have to get what you want and i got the impression that Obama was willing to give genuine answers vs. McCain who just want your vote and is willing to tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
KUDOS TO YOUR DAUGHTER FOR SEEING MCCAIN FOR WHAT HE IS, OBVIOUSLY THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT THIS YEAR BUT I HOPE SHE WILL AS I KNOW I WILL!
I completely agree about the humility. And that true evangelicals had to have recognized it.
As a thoughtful, moral, non-believer I felt that Obama did much better then the pundits claimed.
I felt he gave honest, thoughtful, details answers to the questions for the most part.
I felt that McCain came off as a phony that gave standard party answers and filled it out with campaign rhetoric and bad humor.
However, you can even group the born-agains into 2 categories: the older, more conservative traditional movement, or the more "emerging church" movement that dominates the 20 and 30 year olds. The former is harder for Obama to get; but the latter is proving far more excited about Obama than most.
What Obama really needs to these groups is exposure. The Saddleback forum was perfect; McCain answered faith with a stump "It means I'm saved and forgiven," and then went straight to talk about his POW experience (with a lifted story no doubt).
Obama, however, gave a well thought-out description of how faith is being saved, forgiven, and loved by God through Jesus - but also how that works out in daily life. His answer was thought-provoking, honest, and sincere; and spoken in a way that left you thinking that this man _definitely_ reads his Bible.
He quoted Micah 6:6-8 for goodness sake. I know many Christians who can't quote that, much less know what the book is about.
As a born-again believer who tries his best to share the love of Jesus with people, and believes that all people should be treated with respect, I'm voting Obama.
And I'm pretty certain most of the born-again Christians will too. We vote for character.
I thought exactly the same things. The familiarity with the Bible, the humility. Versus the pat answers and the utter lack of fresh answers or even anything to say about how his faith affected his life today.
Anyone might disagree with Obama but he came across as the real deal.
My sentiments exactly, and I said that on Mayhill Fowler's blog on this subject too.
Obama really took this forum as a Religious one, filled with real, humble, Christ loving Christians, and that's how he addressed them.
Of course the media no longer does any studied reports, but rather have a bloviated opinion based on their narrative, which never reflects the real story.
Plus, the next day, Rick Warren's bias towards McC, was thoroughly confirmed, making the possibility that he'd filled that room as he did deliberately, more likely, thereby explaining the hearty applause to warmongering from supposedly peace loving Christians.
As a Christian, I remain confident that TRUE Christians, be they Born-again or Evangelicals, appreciated Obama rather than the campaign stump.
I too have faith in the discernment of Christians. At least about some of them.
But I recently watched an attack on Obama that had a preacher assuring Christians that he knew Jesus would have wanted us to go to war with Iraq.
And I was filled with despair. So many evangelicals are so conditioned to agree with whatever their leaders say, that they will never even wonder, "How'd he know that?"
And they'll never think that his arrogance in making such a claim is excessive.
Senator Obama did well because he spoke from his heart- true Christians can tell the difference between heartfelt answers and pandering answers.
I lost all respect for John McCain when he started using POW at every chance, and when I learned how he left his crippled wife for adulterer Cindy.
I do not believe John McCain has the best interest of the country at heart. I feel he is the male version of Hillary Clinton - he feels he's owed and deserves the presidency.
I live in Los Angeles County
yesterday two goons showed up at my door asking me to sign a petition to change the CA State Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman
I said, "Oh, you guys are doing the Lord's work?"
they said, "yes, ma'am."
I said, "Then maybe you should stop obsessing over the bedrooms of consenting adults and get out there and help some suffering human beings."
not sure if they responded. the door slipped from my hand and slammed shut
You said and did the exact same thing I would have said and done.
KUDOS!
Applause!
It was clearly divine intervention. A miracle! Your hand was moved by the spirit? :-)
Good for you kellygrrrl. Happy slammin'.
The party of the inclusive needs to be open to everyone. There are evangelical Obama supporters out there. Most of them come at it from an environmental angle because they are basically nice people and pollution is mean. You can't really love others and convert them if there is no Earth left.
So many of them are basically nice people. Just the nicest people. They really want to do good. And they try hard to do it.
The idiot factors that the cable news "reporters" used when they talked about how Mccain did so well with the questions and crowd never really focused on how he answered the questions and what he really said. They focused it seems on the applause level for each question. I will never believe that Mccain did not cheat and find out the questions so he could put together his answers such as they were. Most of the "meat and potato" in Mccains answers were not thoughtful answers so much as was the typical "storytelling and laugh provoking" he does in his townhalls. His answers did not really relate that closely to the questions so much as they were deflecting off of the real issues. Most of all I would hope that the people who attended and watched didn't do so to be entertained and laugh but to really get to know the stance of the candidates and what/how they answered serious questions. Above all the issue which I have and we all should ponder is what was a man who built an empire instead of a church doing asking questions as if he was a reporter? When was the seperation of church and state produced here instead of pandering to the right side of the street? The church is not in the top three: Congress, Supreme Court and the Executive Branch.
Although my most right-wing Southern Baptist relatives weren't completely won over, they were all favorably impressed by the fact that Senator Obama treated the event like a serious conversation, pausing to think and give carefully considered answers as opposed to McSame who glibly spouted prepackaged talking points. Even when people don't necessarily agree with a politician, they appreciate one who speaks to them like adults.
yes my sentiments exactly roshni, it seems that all the pro lifers in the govt only care about embryos, once it leaves the womb its open to all sorts of assaults from lack of adequate health care, to sub standard education, poor nutritional resources, violence from parents and peers. and then if it manages to survive all that theres the war where they can either get maimed or worse. they are hypocritic dogs those neocons. and bushit said GOD WANTED HIM TO BE PRESIDENT how phoney, since when does GOD need the supreme courts help.
I'm a Christian, but not a fundamentalist. I thought Obama did great at the Saddleback forum, although I winced at the "above my paygrade" comment. I knew he meant God, but I knew Republicans would have field day with the specific words. I found McCain's comments to be simplistic and jingoistic, so I was shocked that pundits found him to have "won" the night. It is demoralizing that pundits decide it is positive when politicians speak to Americans as if they are children and display evidence that they are incapable of complex thought.
Pundits are incapable of complex thought. I have a bit more hope for everyone else.
Exactly my thoughts. Also why would Christians favor a candidate that promoted a war that was against the teachings of Christ.
McCain was publicly pushing a war with Iraq, Iran, and and Syria the day after 9/11, six months before Bush pushed the war
Amen!
I found it fascinating that McCain was able to do a forum on faith and mention Christ so little. He always managed to take any question and lead it back to the alter of McCain. It was pretty clear who he looks up to.
I thought Barack came off as an intellectual man who feels deeply about his relationship with Jesus. What more could a Christian want?
After all, when we stand before God we stand alone. We don't stand side by side with an evangelical army. So its about your personal relationship with God.
Obama did well.
More inportantly he stated that Jesus died for his sins. Something John McCain did not do. But, I'm sure that evangelicals just let that go over their heads.
Thanks for another great post and a wonderful piece of thoughtful analysis. It is easy to forget that one of the early champions of the evangelical cause was William Jennings Bryan. Not exactly a conservative.
The evangelical / born-again Christians is a confusing discussion. There is not a standardized definition evangelical / born-again.
What are the other types of Christians?
The definition Mainline Protestant provides a good description between the spectrum of Christian beliefs:
"The mainline (also sometimes called mainstream) or mainline Protestant denominations are those Protestant denominations with a mix of moderate and liberal theologies. The hallmark of the mainline churches is moderation. Their theologies tend to be influenced by the Historical-critical method and culture at large, consciously or not. Ministers and members of mainline churches generally are comfortable with inclusive language translations of the Bible.
They tend to be open to new ideas and societal changes without abandoning what they consider to be the historical basis of the Christian faith.[1] This places them to the left of the evangelical churches. They have been increasingly open to the ordination of women. They have been far from uniform in their reaction to homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, though less dogmatic on these issues than either the Roman Catholic Church or the more conservative Protestant churches. Mainline churches take no set view with regard to military service " all provide chaplains to the United States armed forces and none are historically peace churches except the Church of the Brethren " but express reservations about aggressive use of military force for any reason."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_(Protestant)
I agree with you about the distinction being confusing.
We probably ought to simply call those Barna calls evangelicals, fundamentalists. That is what they are. Take a look at my website if you're interested in the definition of a fundamentalist Christian according to Christians who began the use of that term. www.christinewicker.com.
I probably should have used the term fundamentalist when I wrote "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation."
But....
Fundamentalist has become such a loaded term that it seems unfair to use it.
So Barna uses born agains and evangelicals. I use Religious Right evangelicals. Some people use conservative evangelicals.
It is confusing. Perhaps it's just another example of the "liberal" press kowtowing to the right.
Loading comments…
Posted August 22, 2008 | 09:00 PM (EST)