Clash: Young evangelicals
While McCain meets with evangelical venerables like Billy and Franklin Graham in an attempt to smooth his awkward relationship with evangelicals, Obama seeks a demographic that CNN is now calling “an important swing voting bloc” —- young evangelicals.
They’re more pro-life than their parents, but they’re breaking with the religious right and the GOP. Some of them are more interested in the environment, the war, and health care than they are in gay marriage or stem cell research. Even decided voters can be difficult to categorize.
Diana Smith, 27, is a New York resident who is actively involved in her Presbyterian church. She supported Clinton but now she’s “slowly going for Obama.”
Her registration: Democrat, because she read they send out less junk mail. “I’m not like a clear-cut Democrat or a clear-cut Republican. But in this world they make you pick a party, so if push comes to shove I feel more close to Democrat I guess … but fiscally I’m very Republican.”
Her top three issues: The environment, poverty and health care, the issues she says affect her most and the issues she thinks Jesus would care about, too. “I know that Jesus said visit the sick, feed the hungry. … I feel like I’m not going against my faith by putting those issues at the forefront.”
Abortion: “I think that comes down to a woman and her doctor. … I’m very pro-life. I believe abortion’s killing and it’s wrong but I don’t think it’s the government’s place to step in and say you can’t do this,” until the baby can live on its own without its mother.
Gay marriage: She doesn’t think opposing it would be at the top of Jesus’ priority list: “Jesus never mentioned homosexuals at all.”
McCain: “More of the same.” She respects his competency and his military record, but “He’s older. He’s in his seventies. And at this point we need drastic change.”
Ben Stafford, 23, lives in Parma, MI, and even identifies himself as a Presbyterian, too. But he describes his politics as libertarian and he’s definitely not voting Obama.
His registration: Independent, although he once started a Teenage Republicans group and volunteered as a page at the 2004 GOP National Convention. Now he thinks the GOP has lost its commitment to Constitutional principles: “I’d rather work to advance ideas and principles of liberty than work to advance candidates who will become corrupted by the game of politics.”
His top three voting issues: Free market economics, abortion, and limited government spending.
His faith and politics: “I don’t like to use politics to advance my faith,” but he says his political beliefs come from reason and a Christian worldview. If we’re all God’s image bearers and are unique, “How can the government go around making decisions for us and trying to decide things for our lives?” he asks. “The depravity of man tells us that government can’t solve things for society no matter how hard it tries.”
His candidate: McCain. “I’m just not a big fan of him but I think he’s much better than the alternative. He knows nothing about economics. He’s limited free speech with the McCain-Feingold bill. He’s wishy washy on the Bush tax cuts.”
The religious right: “It appears they’re trying to accomplish their agenda through politics, not the church of Christ, which surprises and disturbs me. … They do seem really single issue and I think that turns a lot of people off. They want to pop the baby out of the womb and then they seem to stop caring about it. They forget about the next 70, 80 years of the baby’s life. .. There’s more to good government than abortion.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top32 Comments to “Clash: Young evangelicals”
Young folks even Evangelical Christians, although they don’t sound like evangelicals or Christians sometimes, are easy to fool, easily tempted , are naive and prone to socialism and liberalism. Hopefully they will grow out of it like normal people.
It’s worth praying for.
Report comment to moderator
“Comes down to the woman and her doctor..” What a novel idea! You mean the clinic abortionists are truly concerned with providing their “patients” with a full-range of options? Prenatal care etc?? Who knew??!
Llama, I agree with your assessmt. I still recall seeing scads of young folks in Little Rock after the 92 election of Clinton. The rock star euphoria was palpable.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Llama, these young people want very much to fit in with their secularist friends and are willing to compromise the firm faith and moral values of their parents.
I suspect that when these young get married and think about the well being of their children many of them will return to the firm faith of their parents.
Report comment to moderator
I sure hope I don’t grow out of “it” like a normal person (that is if “it” is idealism, not the Christian part).
To quote from Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton:
“When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office-boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this: ‘Ah, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.’ … What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen. They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.”
If I grow out of it, I hope it is how Chesterton did: not cynical of ideals but cynical of politicians.
Report comment to moderator
Life changes. I think the two profiles are fascinating for another reason — they show how one’s setting also sets the direction for one’s political allegiance. A young woman in New York sees a great deal of virtue in one set of policies (that amazingly lean one way), while the rural young man leans another way.
So who grows of what?
I may not like his libertarian principles (an understatement), but he is surely right about good government being more than abortion. That concern for good government can be the seed for some very interesting growth in the coming years.
Report comment to moderator
I liked this quote of Ben Stafford’s: “The depravity of man tells us that government can’t solve things for society no matter how hard it tries.
That’s so true.
Report comment to moderator
“Youth” is no excuse for the shallowness of thought from Diana Smith and Ben Stafford mentioned in the article. They’re 27 and 23, respectively. Among their errors, Smith trots out the lazy ol’ “Jesus never mentioned” argument, and Stafford is inexcusably unaware that there isn’t a town in this country that is any more than an hour away from some pro-life church or organization willing to provide extensive support to moms, children, or entire families. Oh, and “single issue” my #@@.
Report comment to moderator
YEAH (#7( nails it.
How do you respond to such stereotypical and prejudicial thinking? I tend to think it best to hit it head on.
Diana Smith buys the cheap and false stereotype that conservatives or Republicans are less personally concerned with helping the sick and feeding the hungry than liberal Dems. The evidence does not bear that stereotype out! She apparently does not notice the difference between talk about such things (which liberals do well) and actual personal action on behalf of the needy (where conservatives shine).
And Ben Stafford’s stereotypes regarding the religious right are mindlessly cheap. The religious right has never been a single issue group of concerned citizens. And Stafford’s charge that we don’t care about babies after they are born is a vicious lie without a shred of basis. But he’s heard liberals and media pundits say that and he fell for it, hook. line and sinker.
Report comment to moderator
Ben Stafford apparently does not like it when Christians use politics to advocate their ideals and convictions. Okay, which other category of concerned Americans does he want to back off from political activity? He doesn’t say. He apparently just wants Christians to clam it up and hide in their little Christian corners. Politics is about advocacy and why should Christians be excluded?
Staffard’s notion that the religious right turns a lot of people off, however, may be true. But so did Jesus, so much so that they killed him. Turning people off in this current culture may be the best evidence that the religious right is right!
Report comment to moderator
Christians should never be excluded, I agree with you there, Joel Mark. I’ve said so over and over. But Stafford is right in that limited quote that government can’t solve things. It can’t do what individuals are supposed to be doing. Your bolded statement is also true, but you understand that it may be necessary to turn people off and not compromise.
These are kids who base their decision on how much junk mail they get.
Report comment to moderator
Turning people off in this current culture may be the best evidence that the religious right is right!
Joel — that’s a pretty odd argument, since it then has no reason to admit errors. As the song goes, “nice work, if you can get it…”
Seriously, the real problem with the Christian Right is that it would rather be politically victorious than win people for Christ. Any politics that ends up turning people away from the Gospel cannot be judged healthy.
Much as I want my side to win, I want people to know Jesus more.
Report comment to moderator
I was going to say that Llama put this entire topic to bed with his post #1 but then I got sucker-punched by Kyle with his post 4.
Report comment to moderator
If y’all want a clue as to why younger evangelicals are turned off by the religious right, look into the mirror.
When younger evangelicals dissent from the Falwellian orthodoxy of older evangelicals, they are accused of being misguided, shallow, and as lacking faith. Not one of the above posts gives much credence to what these two 20-somethings have said. Attack. Attack. Attack. Since when is stubborn refusal to admit error a Christian virtue?
I agree that the responses lack polish and nuance. Nevertheless, these younger evangelicals point to flaws in the manner in which politics-obsessed older evangelicals’ have conducted themselves in the public square over the past 25 years. These younger evangelicals understand that it is futile to reduce policy debates strictly to a moral dimension. Moreover, they grasp that the central theme of Christian morality is not Victorian chastity.
Report comment to moderator
Points well taken, NJLawyer. I probably agree with a great deal of what Stafford believes, especially about limited gov’t. But the points where he is wrong are wierdly shallow and cheaply stereotypical.
Report comment to moderator
Harris, #11, wrote; “The real problem with the Christian Right is that it would rather be politically victorious than win people for Christ.”
Back that up, Harris. I think that is a cheap shot without the slightest verification. It is untrue. Just because the Christian right participates in advocacy politics along side other citizens, does NOT mean they care more about that than winning people for Christ. Yours is false dichotomy and you have no basis for such a cheap charge.
Harris wrote; “Much as I want my side to win, I want people to know Jesus more.”
Right, and I see no evidence that anyone or any leader for the Christian right feels any differently than you do.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi, It may be the case that young Christians lack good examples, but the 2 folks quoted here aren’t “youth.” A 23 year old should be able to think and articulate with more sophistication than Mr. Stafford. As for 27 year old Ms. Smith, haven’t you read your Jane Austen? I’m all for introspection, but these folks are spouting pages from the Liberal Playbook of Canards. I will grant that they appear to have been poorly taught.
Report comment to moderator
Back it up — let me try. But this is such a big topic. And my answers will necessarily be anecdotal. Here’s where I start: listening to those on the left in the context of the last two election cylces (’04, ‘06).
Listening, I heard a general distaste for religion, and especially for evangelical belief. When I let it drop that is who I am, there is a kind of shock “you sure don’t act like one of them.”
Blog evidence. Were you reading the liberal blogs, especially some place like Washington Pundit when Amy Sullivan wrote, you would encounter a stream of invective hurled at her for the very thought of something religious. What’s going on? It’s not just the perversity of the heart at play, it’s that it has seized –no, generalized– this politicized form of evangelical belief, and rejected its politics and the belief to which it is wed.
I read this rejection and my heart breaks; commentators I respect describe their path away from the faith of their college years: I look around and I see callousness toward an assumed politicized faith.
Atheism as blowback. On this line, recent analysis of the Pew report that something like 40 percent of self-identified atheists believe in God suggests that what in fact is being rejected is politicized version of God. This is the blow-back from a generation of cultural war.
Joel — do I think you will find the above convincing? Not really — it may be that I am wildly generalizing, as well; doing an injustice to conservatives. I may. My visceral dislike flows from a dark place. I find myself constantly wrestling with the teachings of God’s Word.
A serious tension with the Gospel. Political speech, and especially the political speech found on the web is often in serious tension with what the Gospel teaches about our speech. The easy rash words — why should any one think that misrepresenting the other side (as Dobson did last week), or using easy words like baby killer don’t have an impact on the other side? (or for that matter the easy smack down “you just don’t care” — just like I said). Jesus is very clear that what is said in the closet is shouted from the rooftops.
And what does the Bible teach? Peter tells us to speak with courtesy and respect; Paul in Colossians says that our speech should be seasoned with salt; James warns us about the dangers of the tongue; and Jesus confronts us with the fact that words flow from the heart, that to call your opponent a fool puts you at risk of hellfire (Matt 5.22).
The sick danger that so many of us in politics face is this: we can love our own words and invective too much. And here, I can only testify to my own life, this is something that I must die to.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Great comeback. Keep reading the stuff you’re reading and I’m sure you’ll bring wisdom with passion to people like Diana Smith. You won’t have to look far for them. You’ll probably always be in the minority by the way but don’t let that intimidate you. Humility found in reverence to God is sure anchor.
Report comment to moderator
This leftward drift of young evangelicals is nothing new. It is merely a new generation’s repeat of the social gospel movement of the mid 20th century that has led to the apostasy of so many of our mainline churches.
In the 1800’s strong Christian churches led the world in social concerns AND maintained the gospel message at the same time. They founded hospitals and schools, abolished slavery in the western world, founded children’s homes, fed the poor and the homeless in our cities, led important social reform movements, etc.
Then under the dual atheistic onslaught of evolution and Marxism, the mainline churches faded in the 20th century. Too many church leaders chose compromise with atheistic evolution, allowing their spiritual foundation of God’s word to be become riddled with doubt in the minds of the people. Thus spiritually crippled, the church was in no position to counter the Marxist grab for government power as they trumpeted worldwide their dishonest propaganda concern for the poor. So, in the minds of many, the Marxists moved ahead of the church in its concern for mankind.
In response, mostly what the mainline churches did was to say, “Me too!” with a social gospel of government action devoid of spiritual content. But, as far as a deluded society is concerned, who wants a crippled runner-up when you can have the “real thing?”
The young evangelicals today seem to be doing the same thing our forebears did in the 20th century. If you want to see where it will take them, just look at the dying mainline denominations like the PCUSA, the Methodists, United Church of Christ, the Episcopals, etc. After years of gradual compromise these mostly apostate churches now tolerate/accept abortion, homosexuality, evolution, multiple paths to god, atheistic socialism/Marxism, various brands of liberation theology, and even question the divinity of Christ.
In this comparison I am making, a big difference is the speed of the process of compromise. Today’s young evangelicals already have a well worn trail to follow and, like lemmings, many of them are well on their way down the same road of 20th century apostasy. And Barack Obama is welcoming them with a smug smile and open arms.
However, on this subject, I see two big differences in the last century and this century. What their ultimate effect will be is hard to tell. Many faithful Christians are working hard in these areas AND maintaining the gospel message at the same time.
First, there is a much stronger and better researched reply to atheistic evolution than was available in the early 20th century. Today’s Christian need not bow for one second to the false claims of modern atheistic, evolutionary science. Second, there is a whole century of bloody evidence that Marxism/socialism is a diabolical and utter failure. It is not the answer to mankind’s problems. A government of Marxism/socialism only makes the problems a thousand times worse.
Today’s young evangelicals need to apply their abundant energy to helping faithful churches combat atheism in all its forms. We need to help faithful churches broadcast the gospel message. We need to implement, INDEPENDENT OF GOVERNMENT, the genuine concern of faithful churches for justice and relief of the oppressed. Obama’s deceitful government Marxism is not the answer; he offers a pathway to hell, not heaven.
Report comment to moderator
This gives me hope that the next generation of evangelicals may actually embrace a Christianity that’s about more than abortion and homosexuality and manipulating the political system.
Kiyoshi made an excellent point in #13 and except for one response rejecting it wholesale, (#16), none of you have addressed it.
It is apparently utterly inconceivable to most of you that there might be any issues other than the sexual ones that evangelicals should be concerned about. Oh yes, and making sure the “Marxists” don’t come to you looking for a contribution to feed the hungry and clothe the needy.
The crusty old guard is slowly fading into their much-deserved irrelevance.
Report comment to moderator
And by the way, if you old guard respond to the younger group with the kind of sneering, dismissive condescension you’re showing here, you will only cement them in their views.
So, go for it.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… I just noticed that I said I wanted to grow out of Christianity when I meant I wanted to grow out of “not sounding Christian.”
Anyway, one more Chesterton quote that I think explains a lot of what’s going on in politics:
“The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I understand what you and Kiyoshi are saying; some criticism is deserved, sure. But, when given the chance to articulate the outworkings of their Weltanschauung, they tripped out of the gate. Really, I haven’t heard the “single issue” thing since the early nineties, your attempt to apply it notwithstanding. I could go with them when they state a few of their broader ideas: “Watch how I live,” one of them said–what really matters is when the rubber meets the road. Fine. Let me point to the ubiquitous crisis pregnancy centers and Christian charity groups who would care for any and every individual Mr. Stafford has in mind but about which he seems to be entirely ignorant.
Ms. Smith dismisses the balance of Scripture because, supposedly, “Jesus never mentioned” some stuff. It would be “condescending” to excuse that kind of trivial dismissal simply because she is “only” 27 years old. It probably says nothing to you, but I think there’s a good chance Ms. Smith would have a hard time explaining the Biblical doctrines of, say, justification or atonement. It’s far more important that Christians, young or old, be able to apply Scripture to all of life than to merely spout platitudes regarding a few ethical concerns of modern political culture.
Report comment to moderator
“The crusty old guard is slowly fading into their much-deserved irrelevance”
Come on, STEVEG,(#20&21)…your statement quoted above betrays your own hypocritical attitude against the “older generation” of Evangelicals!!
I have suddenly found myself to be the age known as your “crusty old guard”…but the mistake young Evangelicals are making is that they do not realize that just 40 years ago …I WAS YOU! My crowd “ushered in” moral decline in the US like had never been experienced before. Is it possible that the “crusty old guard” has made all the mistakes, and are simply trying to “sound the trumpet in Zion”??
Yes, we need to drop the “Christianese” language which is absolutely wasted on the “younger genration”…but NO…we must never stop reminding
an ambitious,yet inexperienced 15 to 30 yr. olds that we have BEEN THERE, done THAT already…and it doesn’t work, and indeed slowly erodes the moral fiber of our society!
Report comment to moderator
“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state
governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
– James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10 January 1794)
These so-called “young evangelicals” need to be told that it is primarily the duty of individuals and churches to care for the needy, NOT the government. Of course, if they read their Bibles they were already know this.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm…let me see if I get this one…it’s wrong but the government shouldn’t step in? Should child molestation be legal? Hmmmm..
Jesus never mentioned “homosexuality”?? Do Christians worship many gods? I thought there was only one God: Jesus Christ. Wasn’t He present in the OT times? Hmm…. By the way, no where in Scripture is arson mention, nor is it even alluded to…Does this mean I can burn someone’s house down?…Hmmmmm
I pray that Americans will begin to put some more thought in their religion beliefs and study Scriptures and theology a little bit more. I believe eternity is worth it, don’t you??
By the way…where in Scripture does Jesus say to take from the rich and give to the poor? Wasn’t that Robin Hood who said that? Hmmm….
Report comment to moderator
Bravo Michael Martin!
To support your view (the ending esp.) In one of his speeches Obama said: “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth” http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/ Period. What other evidence we need? This is a 100%-communist thinking.
Report comment to moderator
test
Report comment to moderator
To support Michael Martin’s view. In one of his speeches Obama said: “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth” Period. What other evidence we need? This is a 100%-communist thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Lutheran1983: Jesus never mentioned “homosexuality”?? Do Christians worship many gods? I thought there was only one God: Jesus Christ. Wasn’t He present in the OT times? Hmm…. By the way, no where in Scripture is arson mention, nor is it even alluded to…Does this mean I can burn someone’s house down?…Hmmmmm
Hmmmmmm … no. And what a silly thing to say.
Arson is theft. When you burn down someone’s house you are taking it from him. So it’s wrong according to the Bible, unambiguously.
You also invoke Jesus being God in the OT, so we’re back to that issue of what commandments of God in the OT still apply to Christians today. Is homosexuality wrong because Leviticus says so? If so, then why do we not also follow Deuteronomy 25:5-10. And if Deuteronomy 25:5-10 doesn’t apply anymore because “Jesus fulfilled the Law,” then why do you insist that other parts of the Law still do apply?
Go hmmmmmm some more and let us know.
Report comment to moderator
re:#30
SteveG,
I’ve explained this to you before. Maybe you’ll “get it” this time.
“The Law” was given to Moses for the Israelites to live by.
More than 400 years before that, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their evil deeds.
Long after God gave The Law to the Israelites, God intended to destroy the city of Nineveh for the evil deeds of its inhabitants, but when they heard Jonah’s proclamation of doom, they turned from their evil deeds, and God spared them. They were not Israelites and knew nothing of the Law of Moses.
There are deeds that have always been evil, even apart from “The Law of Moses”.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Eusebius notes that the different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are because of that passage in Deuteronomy.
Joseph had two Fathers: “Jacob begat Joseph” in Matthew, while Luke says Joseph was “the son of” Heli. Jacob and Heli were half-brothers with the same Mother, and Heli died leaving his wife childless, so his brother (half-brother) Jacob “begat” Joseph, who was then considered to be Heli’s son.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!