Associated Baptist Press
October 9, 2008 · (08-97)
David Wilkinson, Executive Director
Robert Marus, Acting Managing Editor/Washington Bureau Chief
Bob Allen, Senior Writer
In this issue
Study: Younger evangelicals less conservative than elders (909 words)
Book says Southern Baptist women stronger than confession suggets (964 words)
Little framed in moral terms during presidential debate (627 words)
Opinion: Toward a more mature Christian vote (711 words)
Study: Younger evangelicals less conservative than elders (909 words)
By Robert Marus
WASHINGTON (ABP) -- A large study of religious Americans suggests that white evangelicals' views on gay rights may be shifting, rapidly, to the left.
The survey, which includes one of the largest samples of younger voters' political and religious views ever taken, indicates gay rights are quickly gaining ground among even the most religious of Americans -- and especially among the youngest voters.
It also suggests that contentious issues such as abortion and homosexuality will not be nearly as important in voting decisions this year as they were in the last presidential election. And it concludes that the Democratic presidential nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has made little headway in wooing white evangelical voters compared to his predecessor from 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
"Younger Americans, including younger Americans of faith, are not the culture-war generation," Robert Jones, head of the firm that conducted the poll, said in an Oct. 8 conference call with reporters. "On issues from gay and lesbian rights to the role of government at home and around the world, young Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals are bridging the divides that entrenched their elders and [are] ushering in an era of consensus in which the common good trumps the clash of ideologies."
Jones is president of Public Religion Research, which was commissioned by the left-leaning policy group Faith in Public Life to conduct the study. It included a sample of 2,000 voting-age Americans, with an oversample of 974 respondents age 18-34.
Echoing the results from a similar, but smaller, poll released the week before, the survey found that younger white evangelicals oppose abortion rights in numbers comparable to their elders.
However, they also are far more supportive of legal recognition for same-sex relationships -- whether through marriage rights or "civil unions" with rights and responsibilities virtually identical to marriage.
A slight majority -- 52 percent -- of white evangelical respondents aged 34 and under favor same-sex marriage or civil unions, compared to only 37 percent of all white evangelicals. Both figures are significantly higher than in 2004.
The generation gap is particularly striking on the issue of full same-sex marriage rights. Younger evangelicals are nearly 2 1/2 times more likely (24 percent to 10 percent) than the overall white evangelical population to support legalizing gay marriage.
That may be due, in part, to higher exposure among younger evangelicals to openly gay people. While just 16 percent of older evangelicals say they have a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian, 37 percent of their younger counterparts do. That figure is very similar to the 38 percent of all 18-to-34-year-old respondents who say they have a close relationship with an open homosexual.
Younger white evangelicals are also far less likely than their elders to consider themselves "conservative." Just under half identify themselves that way, compared to nearly two-thirds of older evangelicals.
Nonetheless, support for Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee, seems to be only slightly lower among younger white evangelicals than their elders. The survey showed that 68 percent of older white evangelicals support McCain to Obama's 25 percent. For younger evangelicals, the figures were 65 percent for McCain and 29 percent for Obama.
Both figures are similar to the support that President Bush garnered among white evangelicals as the GOP nominee in 2004.
McCain also enjoys a significant advantage over Obama among all voters who attend worship services weekly or more often. That lead is similar to the one that Bush held over Kerry in 2004.
But a significant shift has occurred in religious voters who attend religious services once or twice a month. Those voters narrowly preferred Bush over Kerry in 2004, but now 60 percent of them favor Obama.
Younger evangelicals also show far more openness to religious pluralism than their older counterparts. While only 30 percent of evangelicals over 34 say a person can be moral without believing in God, 44 percent of younger evangelicals agree with that statement.
Culture-war issues that were at the top of many conservative voters' agendas in 2004 also take a back seat in the latest survey.
Economic issues far outrank concerns over abortion and same-sex marriage as chief concerns in the election. That holds true even for white evangelicals, who did not rank abortion or gay marriage among the top five most important issues.
The survey also shows that younger voters across religious groups are far more supportive of diplomatic efforts over military efforts than their elders. Younger voters -- and especially younger Catholics -- are also more open to government solutions to social problems.
"Younger believers -- including Catholics and white evangelicals -- are significantly more supportive of bigger government and expanding diplomatic efforts abroad," said Rice University sociology professor Michael Lindsay, a Baptist. "It's not surprising, therefore, that they are supporting some of the ideas put forward by the Democrats in 2008. It may very well be that in this election, the conventional wisdom about the 'values voters' -- who they are and what they want -- gets turned on its head."
The survey was conducted between Aug. 28 and Sept. 19. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent for the overall sample, and 3 percent for the oversample of younger voters.
The poll's sponsors said it may be more accurate than many other surveys because it included mobile-phone numbers, which younger voters rely on as their main residential number in numbers disproportionate to their elders.
-30-
Book says Southern Baptist women stronger than confession suggests (964 words)
By Bob Allen
CORVALLIS, Ore. (ABP) -- While professing to believe the Bible teaches them to submit to their husbands, Southern Baptist women tend to function as equal partners when it comes to most decision-making in the home, according to a new book by an author familiar with Southern Baptist women.
That is due in large part, says author Susan Shaw, to the fact that Southern Baptist girls are taught from a young age to believe they have direct access to God -- without any need for an intermediary like a husband or a minister.
Shaw, director of women's studies at Oregon State University, wrote God Speaks to Us, Too: Southern Baptist Women on Church, Home & Society, from the perspective of both an insider and outsider. She grew up Southern Baptist but now attends a United Church of Christ congregation.
She weaves her own experience with more than 150 interviews of current and former Southern Baptist women from various traditions and backgrounds.
"For years I had been intrigued by the contradictions in Southern Baptist women's lives," Shaw said in an e-mail interview. "They professed to be submissive, but they ran their families and churches. They were Southern women with all of that cultural baggage, and yet they were strong leaders, some even challenging cultural and denominational norms by being ordained and becoming pastors. So I wanted to explore those contradictions and complexities."
She concluded that while the Southern Baptist Convention's official positions might seem to make women subordinate, Southern Baptist women are, in fact, a rebellious bunch. The level of rebellion varies from ordained women -- who defy the decades-old Southern Baptist tradition that girls can aspire to be missionaries but only boys can be called to preach -- to stay-at-home moms who view their husbands as head of the home, yet exert significant influence on the direction of their families and churches.
Shaw said Southern Baptist women are a diverse lot, but one thing they share across the spectrum is belief in the Baptist distinctive often termed "soul competency" or "priesthood of the believer." Because of that belief, Shaw says in the book, whether or not a woman views herself as a complete equal to her husband or is assigned to a helper role, she answers only to God in matters of faith.
"The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer has significantly and essentially shaped the identity of Southern Baptist women," Shaw said. "Each woman I interviewed, without reservation, claims that God speaks to her, and, for many women, that belief has empowered them to challenge gender norms in Southern Baptist life. For all of them, that belief has allowed them to negotiate a very strong sense of [moral] agency, even among women who espouse submission" to their husbands or other male leaders.
Shaw said a lot of people would be surprised to learn that Southern Baptist women are stronger and more independent that their popular image might suggest. They know they have power, but they exercise it in different ways -- some through traditional ways and some in more feminist fashion.
"The bottom line, though, is if they feel like God is telling them something, then that's the way they're going to go," she said. "'God speaks to us, too' -- that's what they kept telling me."
In the book, Shaw profiles her mother as a typical Southern Baptist woman of her generation. She would say her husband is head of the house, but he would never make a family decision without discussing it with her first.
Shaw turns to her mother's Bible study group, nicknamed "the Clique," as an important focus group representing the older generation of Baptist women.
While they accept the language of male headship, they do not view themselves as powerless in the home. "Man is the head," one member of the Clique comments, "but woman is the neck that turns him."
They aren't afraid to disagree with their pastor and to tell him so. They may believe that only males should be pastors and deacons, but it is common knowledge that without women, the average Baptist church could not function.
Shaw said women who espouse submission still view themselves as equal to men in God's eyes. They see submission based on role, not value, and as a choice they make, not a requirement imposed on them. And they don't see male authority as all-encompassing.
"It's a recognition that at some point in a marriage relationship wives and husbands are going to disagree, and at that point, they believe, the wife's role is to give in to the husband's authority," she said. "But on the whole, what they really practice is a partnership, with give-and-take."
Shaw grew up attending a Southern Baptist church in Rome, Ga. She earned master's and doctoral degrees from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was ordained as a minister and taught eight years at California Baptist University. She left the Southern Baptist Convention about 13 years ago, following significant controversy between moderates and fundamentalists over issues such as women's ordination and the proper role of pastors.
Conservatives ultimately won, and by 2000 they had changed the confessional document of the nation's largest Protestant faith group to discourage women pastors and teach that each wife should "submit herself graciously" to her husband's "servant leadership."
Shaw said Southern Baptist women's views are shaped as much by generation as anything else.
"Older women are much more progressive than most people might think," she said. "Women who came of age during the women's movement are more likely to identify as feminist, or at least see feminism as an important development of the '60s and '70s. Some younger women are more conservative than their mothers and grandmothers, but other younger women are on the forefront of progressive social and theological change."
-30-
Little framed in moral terms during presidential debate (627 words)
By Vicki Brown
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Economic woes and national security dominated a second presidential debate that offered little new information for undecided voters, including those looking for a values-based hook on which to hang their presidential choice.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama hammered for reform on Capitol Hill, while Republican John McCain emphasized his record throughout the town hall-style debate, held at Belmont University Oct. 7.
The questions posed, drawn from the group of 80 undecided voters assembled for the live debate and from thousands of queries submitted via the Internet, provided few opportunities to offer faith-influenced responses. Of the two candidates, Obama more frequently framed his responses in moral terminology.
When asked if health care should be treated as a commodity, Obama emphasized the federal government's "moral" responsibility. "Health care is breaking budgets," he said. "We have a moral commitment and economic imperative to repair" the current system.
If elected, the Illinois senator has proposed to work with employers to cut workers' health-care costs by 25 percent. He insisted that individuals would be able to keep their plans or buy the plan they wish. Part of his plan would allow the government to act as the "group" to make it easier for those without health insurance to get lower rates on private plans.
McCain said Obama's proposal amounts to "government mandates," setting limits on the insurance plan individuals could choose and taxing employers who do not provide health coverage for employees.
The Arizona senator's plan calls for a $5,000 tax credit that McCain said will provide increased funds for 95 percent of Americans to "shop for the best plan," including shopping across state lines.
The two differed sharply on health care's place in the economy. Health care is a "responsibility," McCain said, while Obama declared it a "right" for all American citizens.
McCain said Americans should have affordable, available health care. A federal tax credit would give them the economic power to make responsible insurance decisions, he said.
Obama declared that in a country as wealthy as the United States, individuals should not face bankruptcy because of rising health-care costs. "There are no mandates" in his proposal, he said. "But it's true that you are going to have to make sure your child has insurance. It's true that I think it's important for the government to crack down on insurance companies."
The call for morality also surfaced when questions turned to defense and military issues. "We have moral issues at stake," Obama responded when asked whether the United States should step into foreign conflicts that do not directly affect U.S. security.
"If genocide and ethnic cleansing is happening and we stand idly by, that diminishes us," he said. "But there is a lot of cruelty in the world."
Calling America the "greatest force for good in the world," McCain -- like Obama -- acknowledged that the nation doesn't have the capacity to right every international wrong. U.S. leaders need the ability to determine where resources would make the most impact on improving human-rights conditions, he said.
"It's best to know when we can make a difference," he said. "We must do whatever we can ... but we must recognize our limits."
Both senators agreed that the United States should halt Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons. They also agreed that, should Iran attack Israel, they would deploy U.S. troops to the region without first securing U.N. Security Council approval.
The televised debate focused a national spotlight on Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. With 4,800 students, it is one of America's fastest-growing Christian institutions of higher learning. For 56 years the university was affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention, but that relationship ended last November with settlement of a lawsuit over who gets to elect Belmont's board of trustees.
-30-
Opinion: Toward a more mature Christian vote (711 words)
By David Gushee
(ABP) -- The United States is in trouble. Even our presidential candidates, trained to project confidence and strength, now admit that we face profound challenges.
Everyone agrees that we are in the worst financial crisis since the Depression. Our problems are dragging other nations down with us this in this globalized economy. There is no more pretending. We are really hurting.
Those defined as evangelical Christians make up about one-fourth of the electorate. For many of the most devout evangelicals, this election -- like every election -- is about abortion.
For some, it is about their comfort and sense of identification with the conservative evangelical faith of Sarah Palin.
That's not good enough. We need a more mature Christian vote.
For almost 40 years, evangelical leaders have been organizing their troops to vote on the basis of faith-and-values considerations.
Conservative evangelical leaders wanted political candidates who sent signals of their Christian devotion and who promised to advance the cause of family values, understood primarily as opposition to abortion and homosexuality.
Politically liberal evangelical leaders wanted political candidates who sent signals of their Christian devotion and promised to advance the cause of peace, social justice and environmental activism.
Right now, what all Americans should want is a president (and a Congress) that can save America from collapse. As both presidential candidates conceded in Tuesday night's debate, our current crisis imperils not only the economic well-being of every American but also our standing in the world as a great power.
Voting primarily based on religious comfort levels or stalemated culture-wars issues is a luxury that we simply cannot afford right now. In retrospect, it was a luxury we never could afford. We've been rocking along while our nation's economic foundations were slowly rotting, and our national leadership was proving singularly inattentive.
Both candidates during the Oct. 7 presidential debate articulated a mainstream American perspective. Their goals are to fix the economy and to continue to project American power around the world in a way that advances our national interests and ideals. They realize that the latter depends on the former.
They appear focused mainly on these two problems and are not spending much time on religious or cultural issues. Most people will probably vote based on which candidate they think has the better approach and the better skill set for addressing these economic and foreign policy challenges.
This seems sensible right now. If the sun is about to set on the American superpower, let it not be because we were too busy debating gay marriage or the relative merits of Barack Obama's and Sarah Palin's pastors.
I hope that most Christians have not forgotten that God has purposes that transcend those of any nation, that great powers have forever risen and fallen in human history, and that the fate of Christ's church is not dependent on that of any nation.
It may be that America is in for a painful season of suffering and retreat. We may have to turn inward to recover our economic footing. We simply may not be able to afford such a massive military. We may have to leave the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians, and everyone else to their fate as we try to avoid national bankruptcy. We may end up with our power eclipsed by China, or with multiple equals in a multi-polar world. This may happen despite the best efforts of whomever gets elected as our next president.
Wouldn't it be a fitting irony if we are forced to become the more humble nation that George W. Bush said so long ago we should be? A nation more like other nations, unable to rely on its massive military to throw its weight around, forced to depend on international structures of cooperation and mutual security, forced to talk to its adversaries rather than threaten them, with most of its attention fixed on trying to meet the basic needs of its own citizens?
I will be voting this November primarily based on the main issues facing our staggering nation. I will leave the cultural issues to our families, churches, and civil society. And I will find peace in the thought that God's redemptive mission on the planet does not depend on the preservation of American wealth and power.
-30-
-- David P. Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University.
Answer: Edomites. (Obadiah 1:1)
Posts
