One of the underlying themes in the media coverage of the current race for the Republican Presidential nomination has been the religious beliefs of the candidates themselves. But should it be? Do Americans really take issue with a political candidates religious beliefs?

LifeWay Research has just released new findings in which nearly 70 percent of American adults say their votes are impacted, either positively or negatively, by the religious conviction of a candidate. In fact, the research shows that a candidates religion can be more of a detriment to their campaign than a benefit. Nearly twice as many (30%) voters are less likely to vote for a candidate because of the candidate's religion than they are to vote for them (16%). USA Today featured the research in the wake of Newt Gingrich's win in this weekend's South Carolina primary.

When asked, "When a candidate running for office regularly expresses religious conviction or activity, how does that impact your vote?", 16 percent are more likely to vote for a candidate who regularly shares their religious beliefs, 30 percent indicate they would be less likely to vote for a candidate expressing religious activity, and 21 percent of Americans say it would depend on the candidate's religion. 

In fact, just 28 percent say it would have no impact on their choice of candidate.

"A good name is better than fine perfume" (Ecclesiastes 7:1). Wise words from a wise man. I imagine words that Newt Gingrich probably wishes he had considered a few decades ago and something we can all learn from today.

Do Newt Gingrich's failed marriages and adulterous relationships matter? Well, obviously, yes, or else people would not be talking about them. Recent events may have brought the issue to the surface, but the questions have been discussed for years.

The timing is certainly suspect. And, ABCNews is rightly being questioned about the timing and tone of their reporting-- on the eve of a primary when the accusations are so personal and hard to disprove. Yet, the issue remains because it is one of reputation, not just a random accusation.

Late yesterday, we learned word of the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. He was the brutal dictator of one of the most evil and oppressive regimes on the planet. 

George W. Bush included North Korea in his infamous statements regarding the "axis of evil." At the time, many scoffed at the term coined by speechwriter David Frum, however, it is an accurate depiction of the regimes that were mentioned.

To understand the enormity of evil that is in North Korea does not take much research. For example, as the people starve the regime lives in luxury and promotes a philosophy called Juche that puts man and the regime at the height of devotion. In the context of North Korea, juche is fostered as a religion. In fact, juche is classified by some as the tenth largest religion in the world with more followers than Judaism, Shintoism, and Scientology combined.

My tweet about President Obama seemed to garner a response from my colleagues in the Twitter-sphere and on my Facebook page, but not much beyond that.

Here is what I wrote while watching the opening toast of the first state dinner of the Obama administration in November 2009:

President's 1st words at his 1st state dinner pointed out that he celebrated a Hindu and then a Sikh religious event. Times have changed.

Here is the transcript from the New York Times:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good evening, everyone. On behalf of Michelle and myself, welcome to the White House. Aapka Swagat Hai. (Applause.)

Many of you were here when I was honored to become the first President to help celebrate Diwali -- the Festival of Lights. (Applause.) Some of you were here for the first White House celebration of the birth of the founder of Sikhism -- Guru Nanak. (Applause.) Tonight, we gather again, for the first state dinner of my presidency -- with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Mrs. Gursharan Kaur, as we celebrate the great and growing partnership between the United States and India.

I don't blog politics. I do look at religion, culture, and trends. This seems to be major religion news that reflects a broader trend. At first, I was surprised that my friends at Getreligion.org made no mention. But, then I realized just how much times have changed.

My guess is that, to most people, it is no longer news that President celebrates the traditions and festivals of other religions.

It might be helpful to have some background on the religious events the President mentioned.

First, the Diwali or Festival of Lights. Although commonly associated with Hinduism, this festival is actually celebrated by more than just Hindus, but also by adherents to Sikhism and Jainism. Wikiepedia explains:

In Hinduism, Diwali marks the return of Lord Raama to his kingdom Ayodhya after defeating Ravana (the Demon King, and also the demons KING) - the ruler of Lanka in the epic story of Ramayana. It also celebrates the slaying of the demon king Narakasura by Lord Krishna. Both signify the victory of good over evil. In Jainism, Diwali marks the attainment of moksa by Mahavira in 527 BC. In Sikhism, Diwali commemorates the return of Guru Har Gobind Ji to Amritsar after freeing 52 other Hindu kings imprisoned in Fort Gwalior by Emperor Jahangir. He was welcomed by the people who lit candles and divas to celebrate his return, which is why Sikhs also refer to Diwali also as Bandi Chhorh Divas meaning "the day of release of detainees".

The President also mentioned celebrating "the birth of the founder of Sikhism." The Guru Nanak is the founder of Sikism. Again, more information can be found here about his birth and the legends surrounding it.

Regardless of whether you like President Obama or not, it seems like "news" to me that the President would make these his first words at his first state dinner. It seems news to me that he would mention his celebration of major religious events in two religions. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or independent, I cannot picture JFK or Ronald Reagan doing such a thing in their day-- and President Obama points out that he was the "first" to do these things in the White House.

So, times have changed. But, they have changed very quickly with President Obama's participation in the traditions of other faiths. The President made a point of it, but the news reports did not-- they were too focused on two party crashers.

Where are you, news hounds?

Cathy Grossman and USAToday writes about christian accountability groups. You can read the whole article here.

It begins with:

Does the Capitol Hill house on C Street -- home to several congressmen although it eludes property taxes by being listed as a church -- give prayer "accountability" groups a bad name? Should elected officials seek God in secrecy while hiding sins from public scrutiny?

The fact that such a group exists in Washington, D.C., combined with recent news about participants, makes it national news.

She explains what these groups are all about:

But millions of men and women belong to small prayer and accountability groups where they read and discuss Scripture together and hold each other to truthful living in God's name. Remember Promise Keepers, the men's group that hit a popularity peak in the 90's? It stressed accountability groups heavily and even if PK no longer packs stadiums for rallies, many of those small groups continue to enriching lives.

The question that Cathy address deals with secrecy in such groups and the honesty required. I explained, "Accountability groups are only as good as the truthfulness of their participants."

Cathy linked to my blog on accountability groups and questions. That blog is here. The USAToday story is here.

Here is the text of the blog to which the story refers:

A recent survey conducted by the Barna Group demonstrated some important differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" concerning faith, religion and spirituality.

Today we are electing a new president of our country, and while most seem to agree that change is needed, what that change should look like is hotly debated. I hope everyone gets out today and plays a part in this choosing our nation's leader. I believe it is civic duty and Christian responsibility.

Make no mistake, this election is different than previous elections for a number of reasons. One worth noting is that self-identified "born again" voters are split on which candidate will get their vote. Geogre Barna reports that,

...among born again voters there is a statistical dead-heat: 45% plan to vote for Sen. McCain, while 43% expect to cast a ballot for Sen. Obama. Even if Sen. McCain were to sweep the 10% who are undecided born again voters, he would fail to reach the 62% who rallied for President Bush in 2004.

Barna's research is careful to distinguish between "evangelical, born again Christians" and "non-evangelical, born again Christians," but things are changing even within the more conservative group (evangelical, born again). For example, in 2004 85% of these voters selected George Bush. But when Barna's research came out two weeks ago only 63% of the evangelical group said they are supporting the Republican candidate.

Most of the experts seem to believe Senator Obama will win this election, though it may turn out to be a closer race than many expect, and people of faith are playing a prominent role in all of this. Barna explains,

If the presidential election were held only among born again Americans, it would be a close contest. When the rest of the nation's voters are factored into the equation, Sen. Obama is staked to a commanding lead among likely voters, 50% to 37%. In large part this lead is due to the substantial support he receives among other self-identified Christians, that is, individuals who describe themselves as Christians but who are not categorized as born again. Among this group, 54% plan to vote for Sen. Obama, compared with 33% for Sen. McCain. This voting segment represents 36% of likely voters. (source)

So how are Christians to respond?

Well, I recently read a letter from a Methodist pastor posted at Ben Witherington's site. I found these two paragraphs helpful and insightful:

There is always - always! - a "contrarian" bent to the Christian political angle. After all, in the Roman empire the complaint filed against Christians was "they are turning the world upside down" (Acts 17). In a world that does not love the Lord Jesus, we will expect to find ourselves at odds with business as usual; we shun a judgmental spirit, but we do not refrain from making judgments. "The Church is not simply a 'voluntary association' that may be of some use to the wider public, but rather is the community constituted by practices by which all other politics are to be judged" (Stanley Hauerwas).

Abraham Lincoln told the truth about "sides" who boast of God: "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered... The Almighty has His own purposes." Knowing this, we treat each other charitably, and look to God for something better: "With malice toward none; with charity for all... to bind up the nation's wounds - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

We're about to choose a new leader for ourselves, and, regardless of who wins, some American Christians will be frustrated and disheartened. This is a difficult election for many Christians, but it should not-- it cannot-- eclipse our mission. And while politics and presidents can connect to the outworking of our faith, God uses the preaching of the gospel in word and deed to bring redemption to the broken, forgiveness to the sinful, hope to the lost and the real "change we need." It is not an elected official who will transform the country, but the grace of God at work in his church-- that is what changes lives, transforms cultures and turns cities upside down.

November 4th will come and go, but our mission remains the same, and our hope remains secure. That's change we can believe in.

I hate to post on top of a morning post (see here for some thoughts on our Love/Hate relationship with the world), but we just released some new research.

See here.

Some excerpts:

Only about half of Protestant pastors say they plan to vote for Republican John McCain in the upcoming presidential election, but McCain still holds a substantial lead over Democrat Barack Obama, for whom less than one-quarter of pastors polled indicate they will vote...

LifeWay Research found that 55 percent of Protestant pastors plan to vote for McCain compared with 20 percent for Obama. A full 22 percent are undecided.

Evangelical pastors are significantly more likely to support McCain than their mainline counterparts. Sixty-six percent of self-identified evangelicals plan to vote for McCain while 13 percent are for Obama and 19 percent are undecided.

Only 36 percent of mainline pastors plan to vote for McCain. Thirty-seven percent support Obama, and 24 percent are undecided.

"Protestant pastors are strongly for McCain, though that changes when you look at mainline versus evangelicals," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research. "Mainline pastors reflect the American setting - they are split between Obama and McCain. Self-identified evangelical pastors are overwhelmingly for McCain."

Stetzer added that given the late date in the campaign, "there are a surprising number of undecideds."

There is more at the story here.

A few things were surprising to me:

1. Self identified "mainline" pastors not more pro-Obama (they were split).
2. A sizeable minority of pastors are still undecided.
3. A majority of pastors endorsed candidates outside of their church role.

Please take a look and share your thoughts below... I may not be around to interact, but when I am sharing political news (rather than mission news) that does not seem to stop a good conversation. :-)

Click here for the full release and the graphics.

Some excerpts from the story:

According to a survey released by LifeWay Research, Americans believe churches should not campaign for or endorse political candidates and pastors should only endorse candidates as private citizens outside of a church service...

"There is a longstanding and publicly affirmed view that the pulpit is not the place for politics, particularly endorsements," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research. "It would appear this view is still widely held in most sectors of society."

When asked for their level of agreement with the statement, "I believe it is appropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office," 59 percent said they strongly disagree while 16 percent somewhat disagree...

When it comes to how churches use their resources, Americans believe overwhelmingly that churches should not use those resources to campaign for candidates for public office.

When asked to respond to the statement, "I believe it is appropriate for churches to use their resources to campaign for candidates for public office," 85 percent disagree including 73 percent who disagree strongly...

When the topic turned to whether churches that publicly endorse candidates should lose their tax-exempt status, a slim majority agree and differences appear along many of the same lines. (Churches that campaign or endorse candidates in violation of IRS prohibitions have been threatened with losing their tax-exempt status.)

Thirty-eight percent strongly agree and 14 percent somewhat agree "that churches who publicly endorse candidates for public office should lose their tax exemption." Twenty-five percent strongly disagree, 17 percent somewhat disagree and 6 percent are not sure.

"Americans overwhelmingly want pastors to stick to faith and not political endorsements," Stetzer said. "However, they are less certain that they want the government to strip them of their tax exemption. A majority do think such churches should lose their tax exemption, but a significant minority does not. Americans don't want churches in politics but they are not as certain they want the government in the churches."

Details here.

What do you think? What does your church do and not do? Why?

Politics
The Bible says we should be slow to speak. Good idea. Something I said on Twitter while watching the RNC was picked up by Brian Ayers - and he is encouraging me to run for office in 2012 with Sarah Palin. It's probably a good match in some ways, though I am afraid she would beat me in a hunting contest.

But we do share a sense of style. It looks like we shop at the same store for our glasses (Lenscrafters, I am guessing). But I'm not sure where Brian get's the idea that I am smaller than Palin. And why am I hiding behind her?

Missionaries
When some people think of international and cross cultural missionaries they conjure up unrealistic images super-saints. Here's a video that shows a more honest picture of those who have gone into West Africa; who they were before life on the mission field, and who they are now.

To learn more visit www.gowestafrica.org/cardboard

BTW: If you know an SBC-affiliated 20 something guy or gal, the West Africa mission has a fully-funded (insured and salaried) 2 year mission experience with their name on it! (They have a real need for guys especially because in some of the cultures in Africa guys can go places women are not allowed.)

I am still here in Chicago relaxing with my beautiful bride, but the world of politics goes on without me.

Ryan Burns sent me a picture of the building so prominently featured in the recent film, The Dark Knight. But, instead of Batman, he put my ugly mug up there... so, I will take this is a symbol that I am watching over the city of Chicago today. Or, at least watching it... as watching "over" is work and Donna and I are on day 3 of our anniversary trip. No work today!

In case you are interested, I have been uploading a ridiculous amount of pictures to the Twitter feed as my Chicago Architectural Boat show turned into a Blue Angels air show yesterday.

But, a couple of things came to mind this week about politics and I had to add them this Saturday morning. You can't be in Chicago and not think about politcis-- the city slogan might be, "Vote early and vote often."

So, since my brief foray into political analysis was so well received last week, I will do it again.

Speaking of the post last week, people are still in the conversation there at the earlier post, so feel free to drop by.

On to the post at hand...

First, be sure to watch the Rick Warren interviews of the McCain and Obama tonight. If the questions he asks are anything like what he shared in the Green Room at the Innovate Church conference this week, it should be interesting and clarifying for many evangelicals.

Second, Jonathan Merritt called me Thursday night about a story coming out the next day on the Washington Post. Well, it really did come out-- big. It was above the fold, front page, cover story. Read the story here.

I think this section is a good summary of the whole story:

For Merritt, the decision comes down to combining the values his father taught him and those he has discovered along the way. The more he talks about McCain and Obama, the clearer it becomes that he is dissatisfied with both. In a freelance column published recently, he wrote: "If Democrats begin championing the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage, they may capture some of the powerful Christian voting bloc; if Republicans can develop an aggressive platform on issues like poverty and the environment, they can reverse the erosion of their evangelical base."

Now, the usual suspects are already calling Jonathan a bad person for daring to think for himself... but I am glad his voice is out there. And, I am glad to hear of his concern for life and morality, in addition to his concern for other important issues.

My analysis is not that younger evangelicals are abandoning the core evangelical principles I mentioned earlier, but they are broadening their concerns to include other issues. It appears to be a both/and rather than an either/or.

Of course, this line is key, "If Democrats begin championing the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage." I believe that will be key for most evangelicals. These are, and will remain, essential concerns for those who hold evangelical beliefs.

Third and finally, the Dallas Morning News has some interesting analysis here:

A Pew poll published last month shows that Obama is doing worse among white Evangelicals than John Kerry was at this point in 2004, or Al Gore was in 2000. (Obama's got 25 percent, versus Kerry's 26 percent, and Gore's 28 percent). This is extraordinary considering how much better a candidate Obama is, and how Obama has made his faith a big part of his campaign.

and here:

It's certainly true that McCain is not doing as well as Bush was at this point in 2004 or 2000. McCain's got 61 percent of the white Evangelical vote, versus 69 percent for Bush in '04, and 65 percent in 2000. The difference? Three times as many Evangelicals (12 percent) are undecided this year as in June 2004.

It will be interesting to see how the evangelical vote goes... and I will share other data and analysis along the way. LifeWay Research is even considering doing our own poll if we can add to the conversation.

And, while I am on politics, I thought this picture (taken at the Innovate Church Conference last week) would express my feelings well.

Off to have fun in Chicago... once the wife is back from shopping.

Today, we MUST eat deep dish pizza and one Chicago style dog.

Senator Obama and I were at the same hotel a couple of weeks back (you saw pictures if you followed the Twitter, including this one here). A mutual friend tried to set up a meeting between us. Obama is targeting younger evangelicals and I tend to move in that space. The conversation went back and forth between "his people" and my friend.

The end result was that they were open to a meeting if I would make an endorsement.

Well...

I would have listened to Senator Obama respectfully, agreed with him on some issues, and then shared that as an evangelical Christian I hold certain values that are at odds with what he has stated. There are some areas we agree, but there are some major views that are simply impossible for me, as an evangelical, to stomach. And, I could not make such an endorsement.

For example, I think it matters deeply that children in the womb are protected and valued--and that is not a political issue, it is a life-or-death issue.

In addition to being what evangelicals consider a sin (and I recognize that is a harder case to make in the naked public square), I think that affirmation of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle is unhelpful to society and hurtful to the individuals involved.

And, since Senator Obama has spent much time talking about his faith, I would share that Christianity is not something that is "true for me," it is true for all-- whether they know it or not.

It would seem that other evangelicals share some of my concerns about Obama. Barna gives some helpful insights and, I believe, gets it right in his analysis here.

Understanding Evangelicals

One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person's religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people's core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

I cannot imagine that many evangelicals (as defined by belief) will vote for Obama. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but he is so at odds with key evangelical beliefs on issues evangelicals hold dear. Simply put, I do not believe that many active evangelicals will vote for a candidate this far to the left.

I do know that many self-identified Christians will (and Barna gives a helpful breakdown by type). I have heard their rationale and do not find it convincing.

Don't miss the post I just put up about ministry to people groups, but moments ago the Pew Forum sent me their new research release. Click below for their press release. Click here for more information.

A recent study by Lifeway Research demonstrates the differing perspectives on current events and hot button issues between Joe Public and Southern Baptist pastors. From global warming, to physician-assisted suicide, to embryonic stem-cell research church leaders are seeing things differently than average American.

Be sure to check out a summary of the study and the presentation. The research also shows who our pastors are likely to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Can you guess?

Ergun Caner, of Liberty University, called last Friday and we talked about the Evangelical Manifesto. It seemed a bit odd to see his name on the document considering he taught at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. We talked again today.

Whatever you think of the manifesto, Ergun's name sticks out like Joel Osteen at a John MacArthur's Shepherd Conference.

I recently wrote about the Evangelical Manifesto.

On the morning it released, I received a call from one of the key people behind the manifesto, Darrell Bock. Darrell is Research Professor of New Testament Studies and Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary. He was quoted in my local paper this morning.

This morning, I had a nice talk with Darrell about his intent (and the intent of the document).

I have read the document and find it compelling in many ways. Would I change some things? Of course. Does it say some important things? Definitely.

As I mentioned in the USAToday story, I was concerned it would be "spun" to say Christians should not be involved in politics. That was not the intent of the signers, but some have tried to spin it that way.

Darrell mentioned his radio dialogue with Denny Burk. Denny has just posted links to the interviews here. Their focus is on what some call "single issue" politics.

Darrell shared the following with me that addresses some of the intent of the document. He will soon release to other blogs but gave me permission to share it with you:

Should Christians be involved in politics? Yes.

Are Evangelicals too identified as a partisan political bloc? Yes.

Can Christians still be involved in politics and social action and yet more clearly articulate a gospel message? I hope and believe we can.

As a matter of fact, the growing evangelical understanding of the Kingdom reminds us that we must be involved. (See Russell Moore's helpful, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective, for a helpful analysis. Or, Carl Henry's Uneasy Conscience, for an earlier perspective.)

Today, USA Today weighs in on the subject. This story was tied to the publication of an Evangelical Manifesto, a document I am assuming I will like (based on who is endorsing and the theme). The website is here.

We had just completed some research (to be released on the LifeWay Research website today) on the involvement of Christians in politics, so we ended up in the story. I don't speak much of politics, but the research connected well, so here are a few of the comments I made to USA Today (they cited some of them):

The data tells us that a minority of Americans, and a smaller minority of Christians, are concerned that Christians are "too involved�? in politics. The more liberal and secular one is, the more concerned you are--which is not surprising. But, the majority of Americans (and a large majority of Christians) do not share the concern that Christians are too involved in politics.

I am one who agrees that evangelicals need to be known for what we are for--showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only just what we are against. But, in regards to public policy, it is a both/and, not either/or.

You cannot stand for justice and be told you cannot speak of Jesus, nor can you love God and His word and not care for unborn children, the abused, and social justice.

Christians need to speak prophetically to all parties, not be beholden to one. If evangelicals are seen as a voting bloc of the Republican Party, I am concerned. If Christians are told to leave their faith outside the public square, I am more concerned.

Religion will always be an issue in politics. However, as evangelicals we need to not try to moralize the unconverted-- our primary mission is to convert the immoral-- other sinners like us.

Simply put, you cannot have a proper view of the Kingdom of God and not care about society. And, part of caring about society involves advocating for social policy that protects those needing protection and promotes the public good. Maybe part of the problem is that we have been known for advocating polices rather than serving the hurting in the name of Jesus.

We need both.

Update: I have read the document (and talked to some of the Charter Signatories), and I am impressed.