Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Evangelical, and for Obama
The following piece was produced through OffTheBus, a citizen journalism project hosted at the Huffington Post and launched in partnership with NewAssignment.Net. For more information, read Arianna Huffington's project introduction. If you'd like to join our blogging team, sign up here If you're interested in other opportunities, you can see the list here.
This piece includes an OffTheBus podcast.
Speculation that disgust with the GOP could cause many evangelical Christians to stay home in 2008 has raised the possibility of Democrats "hunting for evangelical votes." Unfortunately, the discussion about this potential in the media and especially the progressive blogosphere has pigeon-holed evangelicals as people who only care about two things: banning abortion and opposing civil rights for gays. Many candidates are following suit by attempting to pander on those issues, although at least a few candidates show some awareness that a deeper connection could be forged with evangelicals by promising action on domestic and global poverty, health care, compassion for immigrants and other justice issues.
A couple weeks ago, when I was filing my last Obama story from a coffee shop, I noticed a college-aged, clean-cut man reading Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. A little later, I looked up saw him and a friend with their heads down and hands joined in prayer. When I later broke in to their conversation to find out more about them, I learned they they had been praying to kick off a planning session for an anti-poverty program for their church.
I asked about the Obama book, and both said they supported Obama more than any other candidate and had been looking for ways to get involved in the race. One of them agreed to an audio interview and has eventually agreed that I post it, but only anonymously, explaining that he doesn't want to get involved publicly in politics (I'll call him Matthew). You can listen to selections from the interview here:
OffTheBus Podcast:For a while now, I've been trying to convince many of my progressive friends that there's a huge and vibrant social justice movement rising now among evangelical Christians--but it's just too far outside of their picture of evangelicals for them to believe. Therefore, I got out my recorder to collect some hard evidence.
Before I began recording, Matthew and his friend explained that they were ardently anti-abortion but they both believed that criminalizing abortion would likely only lead to more abortions and more dangerous ones. They agreed with each other that education was one of the best ways to prevent abortion and that it seemed to them that Republicans were against that. Matthew's friend also asked, rhetorically, "Have the Republicans done anything at all that's actually prevented abortions?"
This "progressive evangelical" movement is based, above all, in the Bible. Millions of evangelicals are either recent converts to Christianity or grew up the children of recent converts. One consequence of that is they're reading the Bible with fresh eyes. Matthew said he's been a Christian only for a few years. That means that over these past few years he's almost certainly spent countless hours in Bible study groups, reading what Jesus actually said, not what Christian right leaders say he said.
He's closely aware of the debates that Jesus had with the religious right of his own day -- "The hypocrites," the Pharisees (the Rabbis who represented the religious establishment in Jesus' day) "who prayed out in public on the streets so that people could see them" -- and he's not afraid to apply that Biblical awareness to the politics of our own time. He says that candidates who pander in this day and age will gain nothing with him, but rather that, if they're Christians, they should just "hold true to being a Christ follower." According to Matthew's reading of the Bible that's about, "love...loving God and loving other people...loving yourself and loving your neighbor."
Among the current all-Christian slate of candidates, only a few are genuinely attempting to connect with Matthew's definition of Christ follower as someone who "loves the poor and the people who don't have a voice." Just going by his rhetoric, Mike Huckabee may be doing the best job of it. But neither Matthew nor his friend knew anything about him. Obama has said enough to convince them that he believes in the same Jesus they do. Hillary Clinton has also invoked Jesus as the God of the poor and the oppressed in the immigration debate as well as joining Matthew in equating today's religious right with the self-righteous Pharisees of Jesus' day.
However, while the votes of millions of these "progressive" evangelicals are theoretically up for grabs, there will almost certainly not be any organized effort to channel their votes as a block, the way there was among evangelicals in general in 2000 and 2004.
The above piece was produced through OffTheBus, a citizen journalism project hosted at the Huffington Post and launched in partnership with NewAssignment.Net. For more information, read Arianna Huffington's project introduction. If you'd like to join our blogging team, sign up here. If you're interested in other opportunities, you can see the list here.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Hey, everybody, check out Jim Wallis, editor of "Sojourners" magazine, at sojo.net. He co-sponsored, with Anderson Cooper at CNN, the presidential forums on faith and politics. Evangelicals whose politics are more liberal do get press coverage, but you have to look for it.
Evangelical = you are with me or against me - my way or the highway - regardless of how "progressive" they claim to be. Evangelicals, by definition, must convert others to christianity, even if that person is jewish, muslim, hindu, etc. No other religion is valid, nor is any secular (read non religious based government) approach.
Well, not everyone can be as tolerant as richard dawkins or sam harris.
As for agnostics and atheists, you also have common bonds -- humanism being one -- with progressive people of faith and we welcome you, do not seek to "convert" you, and above all, are not afraid of dialoguing with you -- in fact, many of us have been you and regardless have our own struggles with the limits of human perception and knowledge. All the great mystics of every age and faith have recognized the limits of their own minds and theologies and sought to transcend them, not institutionalize them. Questions of God and man are a quest, not a done deal. And there is no conflict with science. In fact, the truly mystical love science. There are however, well-grounded arguements for the limits of rationalism by mystics and others whom I lump together and label here as "progressives" for convenience -- and conversely, an extreme pendulum swing into irrationality by fundamentalists in reaction to the extreme rationalism of the modern age which some atheists represent. Agnostics and mystics are more closely aligned in that they recognize the limits of their knowing and not knowing. Progressive people of faith can and should counterbalance the extremes of the religiously fearful (and domineering due to their fear). Likewise we can and should counterbalance the kind of "fundamentalist atheism" that is equally rigid and reactionary.
What mystics describe as "personal experience of God" can be so fleeting that mystics themselves have trouble holding on to "faith," so we well empathize, not criticize or condemn those who have not had such experiences. And it seems that such experiences can be key -- it IS hard to know (or even "believe") that any non-material/mental/spiritual plane or being(s)exist without this experience.
Or perhaps, without an experience of ghosts...
"What mystics describe as personal experience of God" can be so fleeting that mystics themselves have trouble holding on to "faith"...
Good point. In fact, this is likely how the whole Christian experience got started. People of 1st century Judea had to have some way of explaining what they (apparently) saw in this man called Jesus, so they turned to the Old Testament, particularly Isiah, to interpret their experience. What followed was Paul's writings and the synoptic gospels.
Thanks for a great post, Zack. Gives me more hope. As do the many progressive people of ALL faiths that do exist, contrary to what the reactionary and regressive in ALL faiths --and their critics -- would have the world believe.
But until progressive people of ALL faiths become more vocal, active and effective in countering the distortions of fundamentalism in their religions and STAND UP for the common core of humanism at the heart of ALL faiths by challenging fundamentalists in the private and public spheres at every opportunity and with perseverance, then WE abdicate our own voices and powers for positive change.
The GOP has cultivated and exploited fundamentalist Christians for over 20 years, mobilizing them into a base that has kept them in power. In the process, much racial, economic and religious prejudice has been nurtured and institutionalized. But the arguements against these things are compelling when THEY ARE HEARD. The Dem and Indie parties would do well to cultivate moderates and progressives of ALL faiths in America and encourage their activism because this "base" IS bigger than the 30%ers and is hungry for candidates who don't shy away from, pander to or denigrate it.
How is this a matter of progressive believers vs. fundies? We have moderate Christians galore in the Democratic party. In fact, some of them are quite well-known, and highly vocal and visible--Obama, the Clintons, Gore, Carter, and Edwards. For instance.
As for cultivating moderates of all faiths, what would cause you to think that base isn't already quite active? Bush barely won both elections--therefore, I doubt that the moderate Christians (or those of all other faiths) stayed home. Otherwise, where the heck did all the Dem votes come from?
I don't believe the Republicans are really against the things they say they are against. Everything they do and say is an excuse for taking corporate bribes. That's the only part to conservatism they've lived up to. The pro-business part. For their bribes corporations of all kinds are permitted to economically and financially gang-rape the American people. That's all the Republicans stand for. The Lie and the Bribe.
Yup, generalizing what evangelicals are doing may be a bad thing. But, it seems that these, let call them, real christians tend to be a quiet bunch. While, lets call them, not real christians, tend to be a vocal bunch. Ultimately, the real christians, in my opinion, follow the not real christian belief systems. And when out political leadership panders to christians they leverage the not real christians that influence the real christians. For full disclosure, I do not think that magical events should influence someone to do something good. After all magical events, in my opinion, are just magical and do not happen.
Ohhhhhhhhhh-kay....
We should never pander to the religious: Buying a single vote of theirs is not worth the associative price.
I'm an unbeliever.Was having discussion with a evangelical at work.We were talking about Bush.He figured ol' Mr W was an OKAY guy cause he believed in the Lord.At one point he says I oughta check out the Sermon on the Mount sometime.I must say if you never have.Go for it.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7110.asp
Anyway in the end I convinced my friend that Bush was no kinda christian.Like Jesus said.
Blessed are the peacemakers, between neighbors and between nations, who have a peaceful mind to resolve human discrepancies. They should be the treasurers of divine peace from above in order to provide this peace for others who shall be sons of God.
Why the Dems aren't going for these people is beyond me.The principles set down in the Beatitudes are a cornerstone of western civilization.They are at the heart,I think, of the goodness of America.
The liberal response here is pretty predictable - the relief and gratitude that the picked-on kid feels when the play ground bully (evengelicals and other assorted fundamentalists) seem to be playing nice. My guess is you'll be disappointed by them when it comes time to vote fourteen months from now.
Zack Exley is the man
Obama 08
I have also asked, what have Republicans done about abortion except to use it as a wedge issue? Nothing!!!
I am not pro-abortion. I just think it makes more sense to keep the government out of making personal decisions for people who are capable of making their own decisions, with the help of their doctor.
If you REALLY want the evangelical votes you'll have to aquire them the same way Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove got them.
BUY them with 1/3rd of Ryan White AIDS funds, for "faith-based" organizations with ZERO qualifications in medicine or pandemics and who have aggressive HATRED for one of the at-risk populations, (gay men.)
If young women get infected with HIV/AIDS or die from ignorant abstinence only pledges, which fail in 85% of Senior High school girls who make abstinence pledges..."stuff" happens.
Zack, you keep amazing me with great, uplifting reports each time I read your post. You do a good job and have distinguished yourself from the rest of the trashy garbage peddlers out there who pass for bloggers or reporters these days. Any one of them reporting this story would have twisted it out of shape, worse than the crooked CNN, CBS, AP, NYT, NP and all these hitmen that pass for mass media. Afterall, not all Evangelicals are not nutcases. Senator Obama knows this and, amazingly, it is one other reason the Senator is a uniter. He sees the good in everyone of us. Thanks Zack. Good job.
Thanks!
The good thing about starting a dialogue with evangelical Christians is they're intelligent, and good communicators because they are always walking in Christ. Every opportunity to share the message is taken very seriously. The truly articulate can take Bible-based belief and translate it into a more secular, or classical exposition of truth.
A public discourse is valuable because it can take the rough shod ones, genuine in their convictionss, and model more constructive and articulate ways to "share the light". I'd be an interested spectator.
"However, while the votes of millions of these "progressive" evangelicals are theoretically up for grabs, there will almost certainly not be any organized effort to channel their votes as a block, the way there was among evangelicals in general in 2000 and 2004."
I'm sorry - perhaps I missed something in the interpretations here, but how can an evangelical be "progressive"?
An evangelical, by their own definition, believe in the absolute accuracy of the bible.
That is 'catholic', not 'progressive'.
An evangelical, by their own statements, say that the only way to salvation is through a man called Jesus Christ.
That is Christian, not progressive.
Now, can you please explain that oxymoron again of a "progressive evangelical"?
Well, if someone supports helping the poor, fair wages, benefits, universal healthcare and a clean environment because "The Bible Says So" (or whatever) they'd be supporting progressive beliefs, right?
In fact, I know there is a growing group of evangelicals that, for example, believe in fighting global warming because they believe they are protecting God's creation, etc.
So while *I* don't personally believe in that line of reasoning, I'm happy with the conclusion.
The "Believers, go home" attitude I wrote about--in person!
How can an evangelical be "progressive," you ask? Easily, judging from the examples cited in the article--precisely because the "progressive" adjective is being applied to political, vice religious, views. Proof that religion and politics are two different areas, and that beliefs in one area need not dictate beliefs in the other.
Unless, of course, we stereotype from the Moral Majority model.
Not that the Bible provides much of a voting guide, anyway. My copy of that document, for instance, says not a word about abortion.
So, here we have data that goes against the standard stereotype of evangelicals as Moral Majority members. Is the proper progressive response A) an open-minded "I didn't know that! Interesting," or B) a reiteration of the standard stereotype?
I say, A. You?
I always thought of "progressive" evangelicals as something like the ivory-billed woodpecker - there have been reported sightings, but nobody's sure they really exist. If real, I would certainly welcome them into the tent, but we'd have to agree there'd be no discussion of how scripture relates to politics. Politics - and government - should remain forever secular, which is not the same thing as amorality. Sacred texts are primarily liturgy, not history, and are susceptible to a wide range of self-serving interpretation. If we keep God in the church and home and out of the halls of government, that leaves more time to study the Constitution. It also prevents sectarian division - anyone thinking "Iraq?"
Loading comments…
Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:32 PM (EST)