Hey Ed,

Is your perspective that Evangelicals are not going to vote at all or that "they" just won't vote for Obama?

I am an evangelical Obama supporter and know hundreds, maybe thousands, of others. I think that what you really mean is that traditionally conservative white evangelicals that have regularly voted for Republicans won't switch and vote for Obama, but that's not what you said.

Your position also suggests that you have an alternative man of faith in John McCain. I am wondering what you are basing that on. Is he known for being ethical, moral, conservative, or even faithful? I don't think so.

You speak nothing on John McCain's stance on gay marriage for the past 20 years - which was one of many reasons James Dobson stated that "I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances"

How about these words form his conservative colleague in the Senate a few months ago?

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

My primary frustration with your perspective is that you simply shouldn't speak or even guess for evangelicals because we are much more diverse than your circle of friends and colleagues. We are not all-white, we are not all Republican, and we don't all share your perspective.

I am pro-life, but I'm against the death penalty (primarily because the idea of one innocent Black man being executed makes me sick to my stomach). I am against gay marriage, but think that it is the very laws of our land that make it difficult to keep it banned.

Since you are guessing, let me guess that you wouldn't support Barack Obama if he was pro-life and regularly spoke out against homosexuality. How often have you voted for a Democrat for President?

How many Black men have you voted for for elected office?

My guess is very few...if any at all.

-Shaun & Crew
www.ShaunInTheCity.com

Shaun,

I must confess I have no great enthusiasm for other candidates. So, evangelicals may stay home. I do not know. I am still praying myself.

However, I think Barna's research is correct-- those with evangelical beliefs (and Barna's list is hardly fundamentalist) are leaning strongly toward McCain. Are you disagreeing with his research? OK with me if you are, but I may be missing your objection here.

There are some evangelicals (you are among them, I assume), but not "many" (as I indicated) who will overlook some core evangelical beliefs.

Now, on to race. I must confess I find your comment offensive. I do not care about his race. I care about his positions on certain very important issues. Actually, I find his race to be a plus—I would love to vote for an African-American candidate.

In answer to your question, I have not counted the number of African Americans for whom I have voted. However, there are many since I lived in an African American community.

And, furthermore, I do not think that homosexuality and abortion are white Republican issues. They are moral ones. And, having planted a church in an African American community, I found few African American pastors who were not on the same page on these two issues.

You are welcome here, but be careful what you imply about my views.

Ed

Ed,

I share most of your concerns but after reading Shaun's responses it made me think. I actually don't know who I'd vote for. I have voted for a democrat in the past even though he is a Republican today. I am pro-life and anti-death penalty much for the same reason as Shaun.

I have a feeling by the next Presidential election there may not be a candidate on both sides that will have the Christian values we want. But what does that matter? We have had a Pro-Life Republican in office Since 1980 except for 8 years and Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned. Newt G. was as much a philanderer as Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

Here is my take. Ministers should stay out of politics and focus on life change through the power of Jesus. Politics gets us no where especially in churches.

Ed,

I have no interest in being offensive and apologize if I offended to. I won't apologize for ruffling your feathers any sooner than you apologize for ruffling mine with this article.

Barna's research says what it says. You say what you say.

However, after reviewing the research for myself, the 9 classifications of an evangelical would immediately lead me to believe that most of the people that fit that standard are older, white, traditionally conservative Republicans. If you know George, maybe he could clarify this for us and prove me wrong by telling us the average age, race, and political persuasion of the people that fit his definition for an evangelical Christian.

Again, what frustrates me is that you (and many others)choose to speak about how much you disagree with Barack's views on homosexuality, abortion, and your troubles with his relationship to His faith, but say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about McCain's core beliefs on these very things. You never mention any scandals that McCain has been involved with or his reputation for being ill-tempered and very profane - even on the floor of the Senate. Why not? You don't mention any issues of adultery with John McCain's first wife, his divorce from her, or anything about his core beliefs, but are so quick to question Barack Obama.

I am honestly just very stumped as to why that is.

John McCain voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. John McCain has said dozens of times that the issue of gay marriage should be left to states.

What makes you and others feel so positive about McCain's faith and so critical of Obama's? Some religious scholars have questioned whether or not McCain is even a practicing Christian at all, but this seems to be rather irrelevant. Why?

You did not respond to these and other issues that I expressed in my initial comment.

-Shaun & Crew

Your apology for "offending" me is, disappointingly, not a real apology. What you said was, and still is, inappropriate and offensive. Do not imply racial prejudice when you do not know me or my background. It does not help you or Obama when you advocate for him in that way.

On to your comments...

Ruffing feathers does not bother me... I do that every day! So, that is always welcome. Grin.

Now, regarding your comments about McCain, I am not enthused and share many of your stated concerns. However, my paths did not cross with McCain so I do not have such a blog post to make.

I think you do know that Obama has an uphill battle to reach evangelicals. Maybe you and the "maybe thousands" you mention will support him, but research shows it is an uphill battle. See here for a summary of some statistics on the subject.

My point remains. Those with evangelical beliefs are overwhelmingly not Obama supporters.

Off to some meetings... but will be back soon.

I agree with many of Shaun's reasons for supporting Obama. I am evangelical by belief (according to Obama) and know many that support him. (I am a part of a group of Wheaton Alumni for Obama on Facebook.)

I also agree with you that not supporting Obama should not be considered to be automatically racially based. There must be space for people to make a decision against supporting Obama because they have valid policy differences. (But at the same time acknowledging that some people won't vote for him based on racial reasons, not policy ones.)

I have to say that going back to homosexuality and pro-life, it is unlikely that McCain or the Republican party will do anything to move either issue. So why should those be of primary concern? Why not vote on things that will likely make a difference, i.e. health care, education, torture policy, international relations, just war, balance of powers among branches of government, etc.

You may have a valid point about the fact that many, if not most, Evangelicals will vote Republican. But at this point is seems more based on inertia (I wouldn't dream voting for a democrat type of reasons) than support for McCain.

The distinction between confessional evangelicals and those who merely claim to be evangelicals is a crucial one, I believe. It is difficult at best for me to understand how anyone who is really pro-life and against homosexual marriage could support a candidate (regardless of his or her race) that is so obviously and strongly for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage.

Shaun, Ed Stetzer and George Barna are researchers. The numbers they report come directly from participants and they simply report the numbers. So, in a very real and scientific sense, they are telling us what evangelicals believe because that's what evangelicals say they believe. They are, in fact, speaking for evangelicals.

Mr. Stetzer,

Having lived in an African-American community, why - in your opinion - are African-American evangelicals who share your values able to "stomach" voting for Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Rights politicians unlike most white evangelicals? We know that African-American evangelicals (I'm most familiar with Black Baptists) tend to be theologically conservative and thus thoroughly pro-life and usually anti-gay marriage. But their list of "social justice" issues has always extended well beyond abortion & homosexuality politics. It seems that *some* younger white evangelicals are beginning to realize what African-American evangelicals have known all along.

As an unrelated side note, it's a misnomer to call our public square, naked. Each day that passes, our public square is becoming increasingly pluralistic. Naked? Hardly. We just no longer have (or ever had) the type of public square that Richard John Neuhaus so desires. If we get down to it, I'm not sure evangelicals would be all that comfortable with Neuhaus's own thoroughly Catholic public square.

Ed,

This is where typed words on a screen, politics, race, and faith fall apart. Your being disappointed by my apology for it not being real is peculiar. I meant it and still do and you can't do anything about it. Nanny, nanny, boo-boo! (Smiles)

I would love to know if you could get the Barna research team to break down the age, race, and political persuasion of the 61% of "Evangelicals" that fit Barna's definition of alleged McCain supporters.

I think Obama's real uphill battle is overcoming racial prejudices and even political sterotypes - not with Evangelicals who shouted loudly that they didn't want anything to do with McCain until he won the nomination.

Thanks for the discourse and willingness to continue the conversation.

-Shaun & Crew
www.ShaunInTheCity.com

Hey Gregory,

As was suggested in one of the comments above, about 8 million African American voters identify themselves as Pro-Life and anti-abortion, but have regularly supported Democratic candidates.

You say, though, that you don't know how anyone that is "really" pro-life could vote Democrat.

What does being "really" pro-life mean to you? I am afraid that for far too many people it means voting Republican, speaking out against abortion on blogs like this, and identifying yourself with other conservatives.

I am VERY pro-life and for me that means adopting kids that nobody wants. I have done this. This makes my views REAL. For the vast majority of the African American community, it means much the same thing - caring for unwanted children, nieces, nephews, grandkids, and more instead of seeing them aborted.

That is real enough for me and is far more real than bogus political posturing over a bunch of leaders that aren't going to do much about abortion anyways.

We've had Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House and did we see an anti-abortion law pass? Why not? Did we see a gay marriage ban pass? Why not?

These are political footballs that politicians use to rile people up, but never plan on doing much about.

-Shaun & Crew

interesting.

i don't like either of them all that much, but i'll be voting for McCain. his experience makes him the better candidate.

Obama is the Jimmy Carter of the new century. he will ruin our economy, surround himself with bad counsel and destroy our foreign policy. let's not even begin the discussion on national security.

Shaun - what about the innocent WHITE man or HISPANIC man that might be mistakenly executed? why does race even matter? if you're against the death penalty then be against it FOR ALL MEN.

Adam,

At least I know where you stand?! Haha.

Over 80 wrongly convicted African American men have been released from death row or life sentences. For some reason, this just hasn't happened much with white or Hispanic men. Some experts think that it is possible that several dozen wrongly convicted Black men have been executed in the past 25 years. However, in the case that a man from any race is wrongfully convicted, I would never want ANY person of any color executed.

Ed:

I like and appreciate your post. I also think that Shaun brought up some interesting points about your process of evaluating Obama vs. the process of evaluating McCain. I have tremendous respect for your veiws and would love to see you handle McCain's candidacy from and evangelical point of view the way you handled Obama's.

Thanks.
B

I don't care if a candidate is white, black, striped or spotted.

What matters is 1, where he stands on the issues, 2, whether he has the experience and judgement to perform the duties of his office, and 3, if he or she is a person of character.

On the issues important to me - American sovereignty and security, energy independence, life, family -I prefer McCain's stance very clearly.

In the area of experience and judgement, there's no contest. McCain.

In the area of character, McCain's was forged and tested in the Hanoi Hilton. Obama increasingly appears to little more than an ambitious politician.

Ed,
I knew as soon as I read your original post this morning that you would be stirring up a hornet's nest . . . but I've never known you to daunted by the hornets!
I know you walk a fine line between researcher and political analyst, but since today you've fallen down on the side of the latter, how about an evaluation of the other parties we hear much of in Georgia: Libertarians and Greens?

Hey Ed,

I have to say I read with great amusement some of the comments to your original post.

What scares me about some of the comments above by the so-called "evangelicals", is their vernacular. It appears to me they might have possibly been attracted to the more modern "new age" philosophies. That new age stuff really has permeated itself into our culture so silently most people don't even realize it. I hear lots of folks often quote things that were more than likely spoken by L Ron Hubbard or Deepak Chopra than Jesus.
I always pray for our leaders to be sincerely influenced by the Almighty One, and I believe that every event since the dawn of time is part of a bigger plan. So I guess it really doesn't matter if it's Obama or McCain in the oval office, a true evangelical knows who is REALLY in charge!

Hey Paul,

Who above spoke with L. Ron Hubbard or Chopra-esque vernacular? I can't find it. Quotes please.

-Shaun & Crew

Ed (I feel odd calling you by your first name, but following the flow),

Thank you for your post. I truly enjoy your blog and the work you do.

I share the concerns you mentioned about Sen. Barack Hussein Obama as well as many others.

Such as the health care programs. And I personally desire education to be taken to a much more local level.

I have to ask others making comments why your initial response was that Ed must be racist or that he supported McCain?

I personally will abstain from voting for president this year unless McCain chooses a really great running mate (Pence for VP :) ).

I think part of the problem with racism in our country is that if someone makes an honest statement they are labeled racist. Calling people racist that are not only creates greater tension in society. So may I warn you to be very careful when throwing such labels around.

May I also add a couple exhortations from Scripture for the body of Christ that are important as we discuss politics.

We all know that all men in authority are their based on God's sovereign plan and their authority comes from Him.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

But I also exhort you to pray for those in "high positions." I believe many of us get so involved in tearing down those we disagree with that we forget that we are to be praying for these men as well.

1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Hello Jason,

Quick question Jason - what's John McCain's middle name? Google it fast brother - because I am sure you don't know it. Your use of Obama's middle name in the absence of using McCain's middle name is the EXACT same thing Ed is doing with this post - challenging Obama while throwing John McCain Nerf footballs.

Ed himself made it pretty clear from his post that he will not be supporting Barack Obama. I have no problem with that.

My beef with Ed is that he is very willing to challenge Obama publicly on positions and leave the candidate that he is reluctantly supporting alone on similar positions.

Make no mistake, Ed has this right, but I have seen the very same strategy employed time and time again by conservatives that want to have a strong critique of one candidate when the other candidate has planks in their own eye.

My statement was not that Ed is a racist, but that racism is real and will be a great hindrance to Barack Obama.

-Shaun & Crew
http://www.ShaunInTheCity.com

John Sidney (like Australia) McCain and I believe he is the third. If you'll notice I only used his last name.

and Shaun how often has Ed even blogged about politics? I can't remember once since reading the blog.

The point of this blog was because of his interaction with his people.

Shaun,

You are very quick to throw stones. It is pretty clear from your posts who you are supporting. At the same time you are challenging McCain to, but you are not saying anything against Obama. Why? Because that is not the point of your posts. Just like McCain is not the point of Ed Stetzer's particular post.

All he was doing was sharing an experience he had and then explaining the actions he took.

Racism is a problem for Obama, though hopefully not among Evangelicals, who are supposed to model their lives after Jesus. Hopefully Evangelicals, like myself, won't consider race an issue in this election. Hopefully they vote for their candidate based on their convictions and beliefs based on what is stated in Scripture.

At the same time you can age is going to be a hinderence to McCain.

Both candidates have their problems. But we Americans voted for these two candidates to face each other and so now we have to decide which one of these candidates, despite their problems, is best suited to run this country.

I am an evangelical who will be voting for the first time this year and I must determine which candidate best represents my convictions and the issues that I view as the most important. From the start these two candidates were not the candidate that I was going for. But these are who it came down to and because of that I must choose between th

I just cannot imagine that many evangelicals (as defined by belief) will vote for Obama.

I just cannot imagine that any Evangelical who follows Christ's example, would vote for McCain or Obama. Simply put, Jesus would not soil himself with political compromises. Jesus would never choose the lesser of two evils.

I have beef with the fact that we are always labeling and dividing believers into categories. Whatever happened to just being "born again" believers? Why do we have to be evangelical if we really love Jesus and we believe in the bible and we meet the 9 criteria? Why can't we just be called Children of God? I have a pentecostal background and belief, so what does that make me? That was and is a disturbing aspect of mainline Christianity I absolutely loathe. I am not evangelical, I am a born again, son of God. Anyways...

This is the problem with the Church- we try to "make" people born-again by forcing them on our belief and moral system which only is relevant when one becomes born again. So for Ed to say-"I would share that Christianity is not something that is "true for me," it is true for all-- whether they know it or not."- is totally erroneous, incorrect, and why the average American is sick of "evangelical Christianity.". 1 Cor 2:14-15 clearly states (paraphrased) "the natural man can't comprehend the things of the spirit b/c they are incapable of understanding absent from the Holy Spirit." So, if that's the case then why are we trying to force our beliefs on unsaved people. Even in the Old Testament, the Law was only applicable to the Israelites, not the whole world. Not the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Amorites, Hittites, and etc. The same way that "Christianity" is only applicable to those who are Born Again.

This is the same thing as "skinning the fish before we catch it." This is functionally impossible and Mr. Stetzer himself advocates this in his articles on ways to effectively reach the unchurched.

Therefore, I think we shouldn't eliminate ANY candidate b/c of ONE stance that doesn't line up with "Christian" belief system. You have to realize that the other 50% of Americans are NOT christian and this is their country as well. So candidates have to govern the believers as well as the unbelievers. It's a terrible and painful routine to dance, but we have to determine who would make the best partner overall for America as a whole.

If we actually do more work in reaching out to the unbelievers of America, we wouldn't have to worry about forcing people to think like "evangelical Christians", they would already be able to comprehend!

I agree with Shaun King, let's look at both candidates fairly and evaluate both candidates' stances vs. the reality of their lives. Tomorrow, Ed should evaluate Joh McCain if he wants to be fair and neutral (b/c it reads like he didn't meet with Obama; so meeting with the candidate is not a pre-requisite.)

Peace and Blessings,

Bryson G. Baylor

Mr Stetzer:

I appreciate your article and stance on this matter. I also appreciate that you would stand your ground and not offer your support to a candidate that has quite a few holes in his "moral" game. Great post!!

Wow! Hot topic! I can undestand the frustration on both sides.

Shaun, I can understand your points on how these two don't seem any better than the other.

Ed, you well point out that your point of contention was the fact that you crossed paths with Mr. Obama and that led to this blog.

However, why do we as Christian Leaders continue to get involved in the political debates.

Shaun had an a great fund raising campaign using the internet. I was a bit envious seeing how he raised the funds so quickly. I as a church planters just seem to be fizzeling in that area. I was even going to donate my $20 until I saw he was an Obama supporter. Why did this give me concern? Because of the obvious abortion, homosexual and other fundamental reasons.

Would I have has the same issues had he been a McCain supporter...probably not. Why? because I too am accustomed to making spiritual decisions on those two major points.

The fact is, they are major and I cannot ignore them, nor can I understand how someone could support someone who does stand for those issues (pro-murder and pro-homosexual). At the same time, I realize that is not the only issues I should be concrened with. I have never been so naive' to believe that John McCain is a super Christian. None of these candidates want to say anything to offend a major portion of the US.

My greatest concern in watching this debate is the disturbing trend that many young, fad oriented church planters and leaders have relaxed their convictions on the basic teachings in the Word of God. I am convicted that many don't know what they stand for anymore and this political season reminds me that we often get more passionate about a political party than we do about radical relationship with Christ. I see many putting more faith in a man to fix their social woes than in a Savior to patch their shattered lives.

Hosea 4:6-9 may be more true than we want to admit, "My people are being destroyed because they don’t know me. It is all your fault, you priests, for you yourselves refuse to know me. Now I refuse to recognize you as my priests. Since you have forgotten the laws of your God, I will forget to bless your children. 7 The more priests there are, the more they sin against me. They have exchanged the glory of God for the disgrace of idols. 8 “The priests get fed when the people sin and bring their sin offerings to them. So the priests are glad when the people sin! 9 ‘Like priests, like people’ – since the priests are wicked, the people are wicked, too. So now I will punish both priests and people for all their wicked deeds."

In the end, Mr. Obama nor Mr. McCain will solve the social and moral decay of this great nation. Voting for a candidate simply because of their political party or ethnic race is just stupid. Believing that salvation is found in a man is ridiculous (I am saying anyone has stated this). Only committed and convicted Christ-followers who live out loud their convictions of Christ will positively impact this country.

If you do not believe the Bible, quit playing the political religion game and stop pretending you are a Christ-follower. If you do believe the Bible (the only basis for being a Christ-follower) then start living a committed Christian life and get off the blame game!

Wow! Hot topic! I can undestand the frustration on both sides.

Shaun, I can understand your points on how these two don't seem any better than the other.

Ed, you well point out that your point of contention was the fact that you crossed paths with Mr. Obama and that led to this blog.

However, why do we as Christian Leaders continue to get involved in the political debates.

Shaun had an a great fund raising campaign using the internet. I was a bit envious seeing how he raised the funds so quickly. I as a church planters just seem to be fizzeling in that area. I was even going to donate my $20 until I saw he was an Obama supporter. Why did this give me concern? Because of the obvious abortion, homosexual and other fundamental reasons.

Would I have has the same issues had he been a McCain supporter...probably not. Why? because I too am accustomed to making spiritual decisions on those two major points.

The fact is, they are major and I cannot ignore them, nor can I understand how someone could support someone who does stand for those issues (pro-murder and pro-homosexual). At the same time, I realize that is not the only issues I should be concrened with. I have never been so naive' to believe that John McCain is a super Christian. None of these candidates want to say anything to offend a major portion of the US.

My greatest concern in watching this debate is the disturbing trend that many young, fad oriented church planters and leaders have relaxed their convictions on the basic teachings in the Word of God. I am convicted that many don't know what they stand for anymore and this political season reminds me that we often get more passionate about a political party than we do about radical relationship with Christ. I see many putting more faith in a man to fix their social woes than in a Savior to patch their shattered lives.

Hosea 4:6-9 may be more true than we want to admit, "My people are being destroyed because they don’t know me. It is all your fault, you priests, for you yourselves refuse to know me. Now I refuse to recognize you as my priests. Since you have forgotten the laws of your God, I will forget to bless your children. 7 The more priests there are, the more they sin against me. They have exchanged the glory of God for the disgrace of idols. 8 “The priests get fed when the people sin and bring their sin offerings to them. So the priests are glad when the people sin! 9 ‘Like priests, like people’ – since the priests are wicked, the people are wicked, too. So now I will punish both priests and people for all their wicked deeds."

In the end, Mr. Obama nor Mr. McCain will solve the social and moral decay of this great nation. Voting for a candidate simply because of their political party or ethnic race is just stupid. Believing that salvation is found in a man is ridiculous (I am saying anyone has stated this). Only committed and convicted Christ-followers who live out loud their convictions of Christ will positively impact this country.

If you do not believe the Bible, quit playing the political religion game and stop pretending you are a Christ-follower. If you do believe the Bible (the only basis for being a Christ-follower) then start living a committed Christian life and get off the blame game!

1. You go, Ed! (your first reply above)

2. Each election cycle, we get the best of a few poor choices for the position. Where are all the really great candidates--on either side, but especially the conservative one?

3. Pastors should stay IN politics UNTIL transformation takes place and there are more evangelical Christians who will vote for candidates with biblical values. Then, get out to focus on maintaining/accelerating that transformation.

4. I agree with others: Obama offers NOTHING, and certainly nothing new representing the CHANGE he and his followers talk about. Anyone posting comments here who thinks he knows what Obama DOES offer, please say so--because I'm not seeing it, except for the few specific and wrong stances that Ed mentions above (abortion, homosexuality, and what it means to be a Christian).

5. Research done right speaks for itself and deserves serious attention.

I can't quite get past our being aliens and strangers (Hebrews 11:13-16 and 1 Peter 2:11-12) and Paul's reminder to Timothy that no soldier let's himself get caught up in civilian affairs (2 Timothy 2:4). I spent over 10 years overseas with the military and while I always felt free to tactfully express my faith and values, I could not imagine endorsing any candidate. It would have distracted too much from my role in those places.
Which leads me to the matter of adding no barriers to the Gospel except the offense of the cross. I cannot imagine how endorsing candidates furthers our goal of making disciples. Proclaim the Truth, express your Word- and Spirit-informed values. But never let these temporal concerns get in the way of our eternally significant mission.
I've been wrestling with this since this morning when I read the original post and the first response. I know that for many this marks me as being horribly naive, out of touch and even irresponsible but under the circumstances I'm willing to risk it.

•I love the fact that anything controversial starts a healthy conversation.
•I agree with your main points. I have no issue with the fact that we, as Christ-followers, should question a candidate.
•I don't necessarily believe that Christians will stay home. Most likely, they will vote with 50% of their hearts. It's not a cut/dry election.
•I am having a tough time with the whole endorsement deal. Christians should not follow Dobson, Warren, you, nor I... when choosing with their own prayerful wisdom, who to vote for.
•I am excited that Warren chose to build bridges enough to get them onto the same stage and then ask them each questions. I think it does what endorsements of the candidates cannot do.... that is ...teach non-believers that believers are not brainless. Allow ownership. We own our own decisions before God Himself.
•I appreciate your post. Is a Christ-following life not supposed to be analyzed exactly as you did? Aren't Christians in politics at their heart, supposed to ask the question "How can we most honor God? and most care for other people?"

Sometimes the choice will be a republican and sometimes, maybe even, God-forbid, a Demo...
Thanks.

Shaun - "My beef with Ed is that he is very willing to challenge Obama publicly on positions and leave the candidate that he is reluctantly supporting alone on similar positions."

I agree.

But would you apply the same standard to yourself on those issues that you challenge McCain on?

Given God's use of even pagan kings to accomplish His will, what if we just fast and pray and then vote however he tells us, no matter how the candidate measures up to our standards?

As I read this thread, I believe that many are missing the point as to Ed’s original intent with the post. Especially Shaun - who should apologize specifically for effectively calling Ed a racist – which he clearly is not.

Perhaps some of us live in pockets of the culture which have a differing opinion from the research offered by noted statisticians and sociologists. But our anecdotal experience does not negate their scientific sampling of community sectors; such as Evangelicals. Sure, I know some Evangelicals who will vote for Obama, McCain, and even Nader. But that does not mean that Barna’s research is inaccurate on a larger scale.

The reality is that researchers have a better handle on the grander view of culture than those of us who only know our local communities (or have begun a Facebook group). Therefore, we should allow them some professional courtesy as they offer educated opinions on the state of affairs within the culture. Disagree as you wish and if you want a blog that offers your own opinion, then start it yourself.

It has been a long day at work and I have not had a chance to interact much-- though it looks you did not need me. Grin.

Let me remind Shaun, and anyone else who may be reading too much into this post, that this post is a reflection of my personal (near) encounter with Senator Obama and Barna's recent research concerning Evangelicals and what appears to be their general support for McCain. (If I am remembering correctly, evangelicals are the only religious group not going for Obama according to recent reports.)

It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive treatment on the candidates. As I said, I am not enthusiastic about any candidate, and am seeking God's direction as to how I should vote. When and if I get it some more clarity, I still won't make a public endorsement.

Shawn, I am about to move on but feel obliged to point out to you that you remain unrepentant for implying I make my decisions based on race. You wrote "How many Black men have you voted for for elected office? My guess is very few...if any at all."

Such presumption lacks grace and does not reflect the truth. And, when I pointed it out you said you were sorry if I was "offended," and then moved onto new comments about my opinions and Barna's research, rather than dealing with the issue.

As a pastor, I hope that is not how you teach your people to apologize. An apology takes ownership of the sin, and is made without qualification. I would once again point out that you are mistaken in your assessment of my character. The right thing is to apologize for your inappropriate words, not for me being offended.

Anyway, I will leave it there so that the conversation can move on.

And, I will add some more comments and replies soon. But, it has been a long day at work and then talking to my daughters about their first day in school... and tomorrow I have a very early flight.

More soon.

Ed

AndyF, Libertarians and Greens?

Like many Republicans and Democrats there is something to appreciate within both Libertarians and Greens, but no political party really aligns with the Kingdom of God. I think that is part of the problem with politics-- as a Christian, politics never get you where you really want to go.

A few months ago I wrote a post on my view of politics related to a USA Today story. I wrote:

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.

Paul M, I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. While "new age stuff" may have permeated our culture, I do not see it penetrating this comment thread.

Mr. Jason Vaughn, who gave you permission to call me "Ed?" grin Thanks for bringing Scripture into the comments.

R Hampton, people who love Jesus Christ will vote for McCain and Obama. I am not convinced that "many" evangelicals will vote for Obama based on Barna's research, but men and women who desire to exalt Christ will be voting, and voting for different candidates. Others will abstain in their attempt to follow Christ. Different strategies will be used in politics by God-fearing men and women, and we will do well not to doubt their salvation because of their choice.

Now I am really done for the night...

Good Evening Everyone,

When race, faith, politics, and blogging collide - messiness is bound to occur.

Before I bow out of this conversation for the sake of time, I want to continue to clarify my primary critique of the Barna research and Ed's endorsement of it.

I, too, am a published professional researcher and reserve the right to wholeheartedly disagree with its conclusions. All research (particularly that done by Barna) requires interpretation and it is very normal for disagreement to occur within research communities.

Here are my three points of contention that still remain:

1. The Barna research has the Evangelical Christian community evenly split within the margin of error (39-37) between McCain and Obama. This is very realistic and consistent with dozens of other polls conducted over the past 90 days.

Barna then applies 9 layers of belief for what it means to be an evangelical Christian and the support for McCain goes through the roof. Allow me to remind you that if you don't agree with all 9 of the layers, you are discarded from the SUPER-CHARGED Evangelical group that Barna Research has created.

My educated guess is that if we looked at the people that agreed with all 9 layers that they will be overwhelmingly white, older, traditionally conservative Republicans. I challenged Ed to get the details extrapolated by Barna Research. I will attempt to do so myself, but know that Ed has a fast track with them.

HERE IS WHY I THINK THIS CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED:

Ed, who adds his own layer of interpretation and politics to the Barna research concludes his original post by stating that he just doesn't believe that "many" Evangelicals will vote for Obama.

He doesn't clarify what he means by "many" and I simply disagree. I think hundreds of thousands, and even millions of evangelicals will indeed vote for Barack Obama. This is "many" by any measure.

Now - if Ed stated that he doesn't believe that many traditionally conservative, white Republican evangelicals will vote for Obama, I would agree. The comments on this blog confirm that.

I think the group that Ed/Barna call 9-Layer Christians are in fact the same Christians that I just described.

2. Ed is a Republican. It is my educated guess that he has been a Republican most of his life and that he has voted for Republican presidential candidates, US Congressmen, Senators, Governors, etc. most of his life. I could be way off!

That is perfectly fine. However, I find it to be slightly phony to state that you just can't find it in your heart to support Barack Obama because of his views on homosexuality and abortion if you rarely vote for Democrats for national office anyways. As was stated above, most people have deeply entrenched dispositions toward a particular party and lean toward candidates in that party no matter what.

3. Finally, I just find it particularly humorous to read the critiques of Barack Obama by Conservative Christians like Ed and many of you that have commented here. It was just a few months ago that Conservative Christians across the country (not just leaders like James Dobson) made loathing statement after statement about McCain because he has an entire career of being anything but conservative on a myriad of issues - particularly gay marriage (he voted against a constitutional ban and has stated time and time again that it should be left to states -which is, ironically, a core conservative value).

Just yesterday McCain gave a resounding endorsement of one of the men on his VP short-list, Tom Ridge - who has been very a strong, public Pro-Choice supporter his entire career.

What will you do then? What would you do if Rudy Giuliani was selected? He has marched in gay pride parades, dressed in drag and given more public support for gay marriage than Barack Obama ever has. What do you think about John McCain's most popular supporter and likely RNC speaker - Arnold Schwarzenegger?

He, too, is Pro-Choice and has helped advance the rights and advantages of gay marriage more in California than any governor in its states history.

In fact, both Rudy & Arnold are likely speakers at the RNC Convention.

I say these things to expose the hypocrisy in many of your comments. You are a Republican. Don't be embarrassed. Don't blame it on God or the Bible. Please don't blame your Republican-ness on Barack Obama.

Barack may have a Pro-Life running mate and McCain may have a Pro-Choice running mate. Either way, both parties have diversity within them and it is OUT-friggin-Rageous to cast me aside as your Christian brother, as some of you have done to me publicly and privately, because I support Barack Obama.

I love Ed Stetzer. I have most of his books and value the insight within them now as much as I did before he wrote this blog post.

For you to hate me or cast me aside is to hate yourself or cast yourself aside. I am you. I am a pastor. I am a church planter. I am a Christian. I love Jesus and have called on His Name through challenges that would make most grown men give up on life.

It is time that you, Ed, and all of us understand that you can be an Evangelical Christian and not agree politically on every candidate.

I love you all!

((((GROUP HUG))))

-Shaun & Crew
www.ShaunInTheCity.com

Ed,

I just posted my last comment before reading your final comment.

As many people have done in this emotionally charged post, you have read too much into my statement. I do not think you are a racist or make decisions solely based on race and did not mean such by my statement.

Again, I could be way off, but, from everything that I have read from you, I made the educated guess that you are a lifelong Republican. This is what caused me to believe that it was unlikely that you had rarely voted for an African American man. Drawing such a conclusion is not a suggestion of racism, it is a conclusion of fact.

The only African American in the entire US Senate (100 Senators) is a Democrat named Barack Obama.

No African American congressmen/women in the entire US House (435 members) are democrats and Tennessee, in spite of a very large African American population, has ZERO African American's in the entire House of Representatives.

Of the 50 governors, only one elected governor is an African American - Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

The only African American to ever come close to winning the position of Mayor of Nashville (your stomping ground) was Howard Gentry, but he lost to Karl Dean a a few years back.

Tennessee has never had a an African American governor or US Senator. In the entire history of the state, only two African American's have been elected to the US House and both of those reps were Harold Ford Sr. & Jr. who represented Memphis, but are no longer in office.

Now, this isn't because Black men and women haven't run for statewide and national office in Tennessee. When they have had campaigns, they have rarely had any measurable support from Conservative Christians - particularly in the metropolitan Nashville community.

What is my point in saying all of this? I say all of this to say that very few white, Conservative Christian leaders in the Nashville metro area have a history of voting for or publicly supporting African American candidates for major offices.

Beyond racism, this creates habits and trends that may run even deeper. People then make statements like you did and say that you would "like" an African American candidate, but simply cannot support the one that exists.

My wild guess is that had Rudy Giuliani, as pro-choice and pro gay rights as he is, won the Republican nomination as many once expected him to do, most Conservative Christian leaders in Tennessee would still find it in their hearts to vote for him....in spite of these beliefs that you have stated and others have stated on this blog to be incorruptible core values.

Why is this?

-Shaun & Crew
www.ShaunInTheCity.com

Wow I'm impressed. I've never known a man that could quote himself :)

BTW thanks for all the excitement today. I needed a topic for today's blog post.

Shaun wrote:
>> When race, faith, politics, and blogging collide - messiness is bound to occur.

I agree. All the more reason we Christians need to be careful when we speak of race so as not to impugn the motives of others.

In your most recent response to my objection, you cited Tennessee politics as an example. And, I am sure you are correct in what you say. However, I have only lived here for a year so I do not know. Again, your original comment was, “How many Black men have you voted for for elected office?�? The Tennessee history is fascinating, but again distracts from the simple point: you made an inappropriate statement. (Check my bio if you want to know where I have lived.)

I am ready to move on from that, but if you continue to post new comments with new rationale each time, I will simply point out that these words are not helpful: “How many Black men have you voted for for elected office? My guess is very few...if any at all.�?

However, I will take you at your word that “I do not think you are a racist or make decisions solely based on race and did not mean such by my statement.�?

Two other comments on the subject as hand:
Shaun wrote: >> For you to hate me or cast me aside is to hate yourself or cast yourself aside. I am you. I am a pastor. I am a church planter. I am a Christian. I love Jesus and have called on His Name through challenges that would make most grown men give up on life.

I do not think anyone here has indicated hate for you or cast you aside. I, and a large majority of those with evangelical beliefs, simply have great concerns about the issues I mentioned above.

My concerns are broader than those issues, but I can not move away from my convictions about the sanctity of life and marriage. I think you will find that most evangelicals (belief defined) agree.

And, please note in my comments that I am sure many Christians will vote their conscience in many different ways. My hope is that no one will say, “The only Christian way to vote is this way…�? I won’t

I do follow your blog about your church plant. I look forward to what God is going to do there. I like the name.

Shaun wrote: >> It is time that you, Ed, and all of us understand that you can be an Evangelical Christian and not agree politically on every candidate.

I do not think anyone would disagree. Of course, I can’t speak for everyone, but as I have scanned the comments, I do not see people saying that.

Ed

Big Daddy,

It is odd to call you “Big Daddy,�? but here goes.

That is a great question and I think one that gets at an important issue.

And, the answer is, “I don’t know.�?

When I lived in Buffalo we were planting a church among the urban poor in a predominantly African-American community. The Christians there (who would easily fit Barna’s definition of an evangelical) were solidly Democrats.

I grew in friendship with one African-American pastor who mentored me a bit. He said a few things that I remember. One was, “I get involved in politics because in my ministry I spend all day pulling people out of the river-- drowning or even dead.�? [We ministered near each other during the early days of the crack epidemic in inner-city Buffalo, so he was exactly right.] “At some point, you have to go up the river, see who is throwing them in, and make them stop.�? Carl Henry could not have said it better.

He was also staunchly Democrat. Most of our local politicians were Democrats (in most races, the Democratic primary was the real contest and the general election was just so they could make it final!)

I asked my pastor friend how he could “stomach�? (not the exact words) voting for a people that stood against so many of his (and his communities) values on moral and life issues. He said something like, “Republicans talk all day, but it is Democrats who are trying to help me save my neighborhood.�? I could not argue.

He had no use for Republicans (and Christians) who talked about morality, but never helped the poor, fed the homeless, and cared for the sick.

That was about the time when we had the big “Operation Rescue�? and pro-life rallies in Buffalo. He said they were “pro-life until the baby was actually born.�?

We had a great friendship but he always made fun of me and said I was his (only) favorite conservative and he did not know why I was planting a church, to use his words, “in the hood.�?

And, might I add, he wondered how I could “stomach�? voting Republican (for Governor that year, if I recall correctly).

His words impacted me and they still do.

Thanks for dropping by. I read your blog and am glad you could come over and visit here.

By the way, it might be helpful to know the charateristics that Barna uses to determine if someone has evangelical beliefs.

It is from here: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17

“Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

I am off to catch another plane to talk church planting in Virgina. Back tonight.

Be nice while I am gone. ;-)

Shaun!

Nice. I have to say... you have some balls.

First of all. I agree with Shaun (mostly), and I am a supporter of Obama, (does race matter? no) More importantly I am a full supporter of Christ. I think we all are!

I originally wanted to stir something up here, because it can be fun but, in reality, Shaun's views are awesome, and I agree. But also Ed's views are his own. And if he feels those are the correct views then sobeit. (amen) (And I think we have the same glasses) Power to Ed for actually having a steadfast belief. At least he is not "luke warm"

Though, I DO wish we could talk politics without fear mongering and "terrorist suggestions" towards Obama. Regardless of your views on him, his race or his Political or Christian Stance, he is a good person with REAL PASSION. I just really wish we could look past his middle name, or his last name... It's just a name.

What we do to the least of man, we do to him.... I know it's just words, but, try to remember how hurt you have been by words before, Christ can be hurting that much, and that, my brothers and friends, makes me sad.

God bless you all!

I have read the comments and see the dialogue from the Obama supporters as reflecting the theology | mindset | rationale of certain Christians. The rationale goes something like either choosing the lesser of two evils or that the candidate, percentage wise, aligns more with my personal beliefs or that the certain positions of either candidate will not make any significant difference. In particular, many Christians espouse the comment I think captures some of the philosophy. It was:

I think we shouldn't eliminate ANY candidate b/c of ONE stance that doesn't line up with "Christian" belief system.

I challenge the truth of that philosophy. I ask: "Is there any position that a candidate could hold that would disqualify he or she from your support or vote"?

If the answer is no, then in a race between Adolf Hitler and The Beast, one would end up voting for Hitler (assuming you thought he was less evil than the Beast). Is that where Christians have come to? After all, how did the people of Sodom get to the place they did? How did the German people get to the place they did? Didn't they trade the lives of Jews and others in exchange for other issues that they thought were equally important such as economics {you fill in the blank}?

I teach that we should not vote against our prayers. The irony -- or rather hypocrisy -- in claiming that one is "pro-life" but voting for someone who will not protect the unborn is clear. Why pray "God, save the unborn babies" when God would say "Hey, excuse me but why are you praying against abortion when, by your actions, you are doing precisely the opposite in voting in someone who is acting against what you believe?"

So if you vote for a candidate who will not act to protect the unborn, don't kid yourself -- you're not pro-life. I certainly don't think that the unborn child would think of you as a friend, would she? "I love you little unborn babies but sorry little buddies, I am voting for someone who won't protect you. You'll understand there were other issues that were more important."

Back to my question of disqualification: if the answer is yes, if there are some positions that are not negotiable and would disqualify the person from your vote, what are they?

Abortion and homosexual marriage are two of them. If the candidate doesn't have those two issues right, they are disqualified from consideration of my vote.

Hey Linus,

What would you have done if Rudy Giuliani was nominated since he is pro-choice and has promoted gay marriage and rights so strongly in NYC?

What if McCain selects Tom Ridge as his Vice President? Tom is strongly Pro-Choice and would be President if anything ever happened to McCain.

Would you not support Arnold in any major government capacity since he is Pro-Choice and has supported gay rights in so many ways?

I understand your litmus test. I really do. I just think it has some chinks in its armor.

-Shaun & Crew

As an evangelical who happens to be white, I can honestly say that I would love to vote for an African American in the presidential election. Unfortunately, I can't cast my vote for Obama because of some core convictions I have. For me, if a person believes it's OK to take the life of an unborn baby simply because they are an inconvenience, that tells me all I need to know.

Several people have made the point that although we've had pro-life presidents, we've not seen a change in regards to Roe vs. Wade. And that's true. But the only way we're going to see that changed is by having a president who will appoint constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. (No matter what you think of George W., I believe one of his greatest legacies will be his Supreme Court nominees.)

Our next president may have to fill one or more vacant spots on the Supreme Court (those justices aren't getting any younger), and the balance of power on the bench could tip greatly in either direction. The thought of having a court weighed heavily with more justices like Ginsberg and Souter is, to me, not a very pleasant one.

I have no idea what kind of nominees McCain would select, but I have a pretty good idea what Obama would do. I'm not crazy about either candidate, and I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting for McCain as the lesser of two bad choices.

Now if an African American like Michael Steele or J.C. Watts was running against either of our current contenders, they'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

Just my two cents. I've enjoyed this discussion.

As to my reference to the new age vernacular, after reading several of the posts, you can always tell just by how some views are presented that they have been influenced (whether they know it or not) by "new agey" ideology. As time goes by, I witness more and more people really being fooled by this kind of nonsense. It's not direct quotes I was referring to, but it's the overall feel in their content. If this is still hard to quantify, then please accept my apology for not conveying my concerns clearly enough.
I guess it's just my "karma" HA!!

Andy,

Since the name thing was a reference to me I wanted to clarify that I used his middle name cause I think it is interesting. I also use John Sydney McCain III because I think it is really overly posh.

Jason, Sorry if you felt like I was calling you out. You used John Sydney McCain III on your second comment, but only referred to him as McCain on your first. I found it interesting that is all.

As for this argument, it's ridiculous. Really it is. I wonder why we have to use the "lesser of two evils" in this world. I wonder why that is what we settle for. And when we do, why is it at the presidential level, but not nearly as much anywhere else?

It really makes me wonder about the integrity of our "christian" population. Why are we all so content with what we have instead of using our values, beliefs, and love for one another to make a change.

Would Jesus be involved in this debate? No, I think he would tell one of those long stories that we would have to have theologians decifer years down the road. and then we would all feel really dumb for not getting it the first time.

But I don't know. Maybe he would say, "No! don't vote for that left winged man. He's FAAAR to left for us. That would ruin our Wonderful Nation of the U.S.A"

What's that you say? Jesus wasn't American? That can't be true... It just can't!

Don't know about the left-right analogy re: Jesus.
"My kingdom is not of this world" is about as apolitical as you can get.
I'm wrestling with the question of whether our attitudes toward government have become idolatry. Fill in the blank: My ____ shall supply all my needs...
We've heard the song so we may say God but like the ancient Israelites there's that entity that seems so much more accessible.
All my experience tells me that the local Church can be flexible and responsive in a way that no bureaucratic system can ever be. The answer isn't for us to lean more heavily on inefficient man-made systems but for the Church to stand up and be the Church.

And furthermore, if you don't agree with something, why do we have to make a Law about it. Why don't we follow the laws of Jesus. (I am guilty of this too) Is it easier to avoid Sin if we know that there are earthly penalties? It doesn't make sense to me.

Sure, people are going to have abortions, it's SAD, really really SAD, but MAYBE if we were models of Christ, and our love were to shine over this ENTIRE country, (Even the poor parts) Maybe that is when and where the changes you are willing to fight for will happen. I think we would all(including myself) be pleasantly surprised on how far a little love will go. This bickering, and back and forth rhetoric is not the answer. So.. With that said I love you all, and I hope my point is valid.

Good day!

WHERE oh where are the women on this post? *Sigh*

Since both "sides" are saying that Lord is Lord over all and theirs is the kingdom of Jesus I hope that it does not matter too much who we vote for. I hope that means that in each of our personal lives we treat every person as Jesus and we reach out with God's love to our neighbors as enemies. It is true, neither Barrack Obama or John McCain are coming to save, that was Jesus's job, and it is our jobs as Christ followers to live that out. "Go and make disciples."

That being said, there are going to be issues on both sides that are more highly personal to each individual, regardless of whether or not they classify themselves as an Evangelical. Perhaps we can use research and our interpretations of the Bible to decide what we think should be more personal to so-called Evangelicals, but we can't always. I know that after my two-year stint as a public school teacher working with predominantly illegal immigrants, my perception changed and my heart greatly softened to certain issues. So, we cannot judge where we haven't stepped in others shoes and we shouldn't point out the speck in others eyes before checking out the plank in our own, if we are faithfully walking in the way of Christ.

I do think discussion about these issues as Christians is healthy, but after all the back and forth I wanted to share my *hopefully* peaceful two cents.

To correct myself, to our neighbors AND enemies. :)

To Ed,

I am sorry. The phrase in which I asked you how many Black men you have voted for in your life and the conclusion that I came to was a poor choice of words that I regret.

Now, let's not get all sappy, I meant everything else and still disagree with you and hope that Barna Research will provide us with the following (I emailed them):

In the study you referenced, out of the 1,000 people, how many people met the criteria for Evangelical? What is the age, sex, race, political affiliation, and geographic location of the ones that met the criteria?

If we can get that info, I would like to continue this discussion on an academic level.

Take care,

Shaun & Crew
www.ShaunInTheCity.com

Does it really matter what race they are? Shaun, why do you constantly bring up race in this issue. I have read all your posts and they all come back to that issue. I just don't understand why.

Mr. Stetzer laid out what Barna meant when he said 'evangelical.' And I don't care whether someone is white, black, yellow, or stripped those characteristics should be evident in every true Christians life.

I am not saying they have to vote for so-and-so, but it is pretty evident that the group of people that Barna described is voting that way. And the research stands either way. According to that criteria, the majority of those people are voting for McCain.

It doesn't matter what color they are. What matters is, is that is the criteria that Barna used, and that criteria, whether you believe it or not, is true.

It's not just true for me, it's not just true, for Ed Stetzer. It is True with a Capital T.

Someone who is a Christian should have their faith close to them, they should share their faith with others, they should believe their faith is possible through grace alone, they should believe Jesus lived a sinless life, they should assert the Bible is 100% accurate, they should describe God as all- knowing, all powerful and perfect who created the universe and still rules it.

That should be characteristics of all Christians, although I know that it is not. But the research still goes. For the people who believe that- many of them will be voting for McCain.

I know you have heard this many times but I have not been fond of McCain or Obama from the start. There was only one candidate that I really liked and he did not win the nomination. Because of this I wondered who I would vote for for a while. As of right now, it will be McCain, because like many other's I cannot vote for someone who is not Pro-life and who does not uphold Marriage as it should be.

McCain has a past record. I realize that. I am not stupid and I research the candidates. But I have to take him at his word that he is now Pro-life and he is against homosexual marriages.

Now I said I am not completely decided and I mean it. If he chooses a running-mate that I don't agree with on the two main issues that I view as most important then I cannot vote for him.

If that is the case I will not vote for McCain or Obama. Who knows maybe I will write in a name. I know that it will either be McCain or Obama in the White House but I cannot vote for someone I disagree with but I also view it is my responsibility to vote.

If someone ends up in the white house that I disagree with on the two main issues I think are most important than I will continue to do what I do everyday- lead by example and speak out and hope and pray that change happens.

Hey Matt,

Let me be plain and clear. I am not bringing race into this issue, it is already a part of it.

Ed says that he doubts "many" evangelicals are going to vote for Obama. Over 90% of African Americans support Obama. The majority of African Americans are evangelical Christians.

This is enough to constitute "many" to me.

-Shaun

Okay. The statement still stands. Our country has many different races in it. And there are many evangelicals in all of those races. So when polled together the majority lean on the side of McCain.

So on the contrary. You brought race into the discussion when there was no need for it.

I am back after a long day at the pastor's conference... More on that soon.

Andrea wrote:
>> WHERE oh where are the women on this post? *Sigh*

I love that you are here to fix that problem! Thanks for coming by.

>> I do think discussion about these issues as Christians is healthy, but after all the back and forth I wanted to share my *hopefully* peaceful two cents.

Me too.

Thanks for adding some more helpful insights.

Ed

Shaun wrote:
>>I am sorry. The phrase in which I asked you how many Black men you have voted for in your life and the conclusion that I came to was a poor choice of words that I regret.

Brother, thank you. I forgive you.

>> Now, let's not get all sappy, I meant everything else and still disagree with you

It's a deal. Grin.

>>and hope that Barna Research will provide us with the following (I emailed them):
>> In the study you referenced, out of the 1,000 people, how many people met the criteria for Evangelical? What is the age, sex, race, political affiliation, and geographic location of the ones that met the criteria? If we can get that info, I would like to continue this discussion on an academic level.

I would be interested in the same questions... so let me know.

Thanks for dropping by. As I posted on your blog, who would have thought a church planter would be this opinionated? Grin.

Ed

It feels like the conversation is winding down. Thanks for dropping by.

It is interesting to see the enthusiasm in the conversation... perhaps that is a portent of things to come. I don't know.

If Rick Warren asks the questions he discussed in the Green Room at Liberty this week, it should help clarify where the candidates stand on many important issues. I will be praying-- and ask that you also pray for Rick and both candidates.

All evangelical (and others) eyes should be on Saddleback this week.

God bless,

Ed

Man, I've got my own opinions on this, but I'll save them for now.

I just want to say that this blog now officially rocks! I've really enjoyed reading this post. Up until now I would check here irregularly, but I'm going to have to add this site to my favorites after that.

-Matt

P.S.
Ed, are you coming back to Criswell College anytime this fall or spring? Really enjoyed your speaking last semester in chapel and would love to see you back again.

"The majority of African Americans are evangelical Christians."

Just because someone claims to be an evangelical Christian does not make them so.

The real question is whether or not one has been born again and is in reality a disciple/apprentice of Jesus.

I doubt seriously whether a majority of any race is truly Christian!

Leland,

You have gone into something different altogether. We are debating the validity of a poll done by Barna Research - not the percentage of each race that will actually make it into the pearly gates.

-Shaun & Crew

Shaun,

What does "& Crew" mean. Is there a group of you posting?

Just wondering.

I haven't read all of the comments, but I just want to say that I appreciate the post. It's a challenge for Christians to know how to vote when none of the candidates truly share all of our Christian values. I remember how distraught I was during the 2000 election. A Christian friend reminded me that we were electing a president not a pastor. It helped me to put things in perspective.

In the current presidential race, I am disappointed that we do not have better candidates from which to choose, but I find myself leaning toward McCain -- not because he is white or Republican, but because I believe he will make more decisions in support of my values than Obama would. In addition, I believe that his military and foreign affairs experience are of great value. I believe he has wisdom, based on life experience, that goes far beyond Obama's ambition.

This is something I will continue to pray about up until election day. I will pray for clarity and guidance as I exercise one of my most valued rights as an American. And regardless of the outcome of the election, I will pray for whomever is elected -- he will need it, and it is our duty as Christians.

Day wrote:
>> And regardless of the outcome of the election, I will pray for whomever is elected -- he will need it, and it is our duty as Christians.

Me too, Kay. Thanks for reminding us!

Ed

Shaun & Crew and Other Readers:

Just saw an interview of Rick Warren about the debate upcoming. Suggest watching it when it's aired on TV; afraid all will see your candidate (and the other) for who he really is, or Rick won't either ask about what he said he would or will let the candidate/s get away without answering (but Rick said that, as a pastor, there are things about which he can't compromise). Could be a make or break debate for the candidates if each really needs the vote of evangelical Christians in order to win (certainly need the support whether will acknowledge it or not).

"Truly, if you are an evangelical Christian, no political party should be able to fully represent you because you are doing something counter-cultural."

Pulled from this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403446_2.html?sid=ST2008081500141&s_pos=

Sums up my feelings to the tee..

Shaun and other readers,

I owe you an apology. As I was reading a moment I was convected that I did use Obama's middle name in an effort to draw out certain emotions. This was trivial and unnecessary.

A apologize and repent of this action.

Shaun

And what was the answer to my question about if there was any issue that would disqualify a voter from your vote? If so, what is it and why?

I am not sure that I have one single, non-negotiable issue for any political candidate. I have these for my theology and for my church, but I'm not seeking any spiritual guidance from Obama or McCain. I judge the candidates in this race and in other races on a plethora of issues, values, ethics, vision, and more.

Like I heard Rick Warren said yesterday, "I'm not just pro-life - I'm whole life." I want to see how a candidate will impact people in our country and beyond from birth to death and everything in between.

Be sure to watch the candidates with Rick Warren tonight on CNN.

-Shaun

Shaun

Surely you are not serious. You are sure that there is no possible issue that would categorically disqualify the candidate? I want to be fair with you before I test that position but I don't think you have thought that out to its logical consequences....

Watching Rick Warren's Obama/McCain debate right now. By far, McCain has the better answers--answered better, too!

Linus,

Our discussion about my views is rather off topic for this blog entry. However, I did indeed mean what I say. I have very strong personal views, but do not feel like a candidate has to have one particular agreement with me to vote for him or her. I'm pro-life, but the candidate does not have to be pro-life. Barack mentioned it tonight. Abortions have remained steady and even increased in spurts throughout the Bush presidency in spite of his very strong "pro-life" views.

I want to know what we can do to prevent abortions, promote motherhood, make adoption easier, etc.

I am against war in most instances and have been against the Iraq war from the start, but I don't have to have an anti-war candidate.

I am a strong, Christian pastor, but I'll take a step further -I'd vote for a Muslim. Heck, I'd vote for a Muslim woman. Heck, I'd vote for a Muslim woman that wears a burka. Heck, I'd vote for a Muslim woman that wears a berka and actually got sworn in with a Koran if I thought at that moment that that particular Muslim woman was the best person for our country and our world.

I'm one wild and crazy guy!

-Shaun

Shaun

Couple of questions. You say you are pro-life. What does being pro-life mean to you?

Second question: explain to me why you think abortion is evil.

Hey Linus,

You have officially hijacked this blog post to make it about my political views bro! I am sad to announce my official retirement from this blog post. Although young men are known to un-retire, it is (currently) official until I get the research from Barna to debunk the original points that Ed made.

Maybe (I doubt it) I will talk about some of these issues on my blog, but emailing me would be better.

Take care,

Shaun

I thought the dialogue would be informative and educative for everyone. Your current response notwithstanding. I'll take this underground with you.

Shaun,

I must disagree. You hijacked this thread and made it about your political views when you first attacked Ed and what he said.

While I don't believe Ed's intent was to ruffle feathers with his post, you state that yours was.

You questioned Ed's views on race and politics and made some really bad assumptions.

No one here called you names or questioned your motives, though I'm not sure I'm the only one who thought "what a jerk" when they read your post.

So now you that have our attention and our curiosity you want to "retire"?

Why not stay and keep the dialogue going? What better forum than one that has "traditionally conservative white evangelicals" as its readers to have this discussion?

Larry

I've met enough evangelicals who are voting for Obama that I was inspired to design and print 100 "Evangelicals for Obama" car magnets! I am pro-life (not just pro-birth) and am voting for Obama because I believe his administration will address the problems that lead women to terminate pregnancies.

I am an Evangelical Christian and I am voting for Obama.

I am voting for Obama because I admire his principles, his dignity and his committment to change. I like the fact that he wants to help the middle class with tax reductions and health care. I admire his ability to stay steady and focused during this fierce campaign.

Of course, I don't agree with all his views. I am Pro Life and I would never consider abortion.

However, having been abused as a child, I am awestruck by the idea that the government feels they have the right to dictate to incest and rape survivors their choice during dire circumstances.

No doubt this issue is full of anguish and despair and one can only hope that the LORD is right there, guiding their decision to choose life over the alternative.

But what is the alternative? To vote for McCain and Palin? These "Christians" candidates are the ones that are not just throwing stones; they are actively planting seeds of fear and racism with their passive aggressive comments about Obama being a terrorist. That is not just ugly; it is dangerous.

How can we, as Christians, rationalize this kind of behavior? How can we support Sarah Palin who is the primary one slinging insults and insighting deepseated hostility?

And why are we not voting for Obama? Is it really because he is not Pro Life? Or is it because Obama is black; because he is not "Christian enough"; because he doesn't think like "us" and talk like "us" or because we think that he might be a Muslim?

I have very definite points of view, as we all do. But I can only hope that I never consider my views as the only one that I will appreciate and honor.

If we, as Christians, were living the perfect life and abiding by all of the LORD's laws and principles, it would be one thing. But where is that person?

I will vote for Obama...not because he is perfect...but because is loves JESUS and he has integrity.