Evangelicals most in favor of Torture?!

If I asked you what the MOST religious people thought about the morality of torture, what would you say? If you're like me, you'd assume they'd be MOST against practices like waterboarding and torture in general. But according to a new Pew study indicates you'd be wrong, as Evangelicals and regular church-goers in general are more likely to think torture is morally-justifiable than the general population.

One analyst speculates this is due to the fact that the Christian worldview includes salvation coming from the excruciating pain of our savior. Somehow, I suspect the explanation is a little more complex.

Is "Evangelicalism" dying?

Hat Tip to Mod-Blog friend Nick for pointing out a very interesting commentary from the Christian Science Monitor about the Evangelical movement. The basic thesis is that "Evangelicalism" is dying and will see a collapse in terms of numbers, influence, and money in the next decade. This is blamed on an increasingly secular society and the failure of "evangelical" Christians to engage the larger culture.

WHY IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society...

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it...

Now, I am what most would call an "Evangelical." I am a bible-believing, born-again Christian who attends a church that believes the same and I take part in the larger "Christian culture" of music, movies, etc. I am not sure if the article writer is correct so much as I wonder if he is irrelevant. While I may be an "Evangelical," I have no particular love for any "Evangelical" culture. I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If that is preached by "Evangelicals" or "Orthodox" or "Charasmatic" or "House Church" people, I am satisfied. I will admittedly be uncomfortable with the worship styles of some others (I don't even raise my hands during singing). But "uncomfortable" doesn't bother me in looking at the future, so long as the Cross of Christ is preached.

What do you think?

Are Evangelicals swinging to the Left?

This is not the first time this topic has been raised here at Mod-Blog, but I believe it is the first time it has been raised at Salon.Com. It is certainly no shock to most Evangelicals that there are Evangelical Democrats. We all know them, and generally don't think any less of them even if we disagree. I think of the woman who walked out on a Sunday school lesson when a teacher talked about "wives submitting to their husbands," because she felt even though it was Biblical, that it was misleading in a day and age where wives beat their husbands. I think this is the most interesting quote.

You suggest that Democrats should really emphasize this desire to keep abortions rare. But do you think these efforts will appease evangelical voters who firmly believe abortion is wrong?

You're never going to win over all evangelicals, and I don't think anyone has suggested that. But 40 percent of evangelical voters are politically moderate, and when you dig deeper into that, you find that abortion is not their key issue. They're very willing to vote for a candidate who differs with them on abortion. We did a poll at Time in November on this and we found that when we asked people that very question -- would it be possible for them to vote for a candidate who didn't support their view on abortion? -- very high percentages said not only that they could but that they did vote for these candidates.

Those who are long-time readers know that most of us here are SOLIDLY Pro-life. We believe abortion is killing a baby. Some of us are willing to accept exceptions for the hard cases - rape, incest, life of the mother - and some of us are even willing to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate who otherwise reflects our views.

But I still find that Pro-Choice Democrats (and Pro-Choice Republicans) underestimate the importance of this issue, and don't understand why for so many of us it is a deal-breaker. "Abortion: legal but rare" is a nice slogan. But we are reminded of the surveys which show so many women (and men, unfortunately) view abortion as birth control, when they don't want to bother with a condom or a cold shower. Until the Pro-Choice community is willing to face this fact and deal with it, I do not see the Democratic party really cracking the Evangelical vote.

Hard Teachings: the "Gospel of Life" or the "Gospel of Life-After-Death"

I have been very thankful of late that God has brought me across a lot of Christians whose beliefs I am not only in disagreement with, but which sometimes shock me. In my earlier years, most of my "shocks" were constrained to my interactions with strict Catholics (salvation by works) and militant charismatics (salvation by speaking in tongues). I generally felt like the "enlightened" and "tolerant" one, because I could answer their arguments easily and show that my faith was superior and more thought out. They sometimes respected my calm, reasoned approach, and sometimes told me frankly that they thought I was damned. But generally, I walked away unchanged from the experience. But these recent "shocks" have been far more useful because (1) I walk away humbled and (2) the arguments are often those I can't easily answer.

Take for instance this post from a "reformed Christian" (and he doesn't mean the classical definition). This Christian went to a funeral of a teen killed in a driving accident, where he faced a eulogy given by an evangelistically-minded pastor who used it as an opportunity to reach out to those who would not normally see the inside of a church, and gave a gospel message. My reaction would have been "Well done. Take every opportunity to present the gospel." His reaction, "This man is trying to deny the family their right to grieve, and is preaching a gospel of death." Wow.

Click on thru, if you are up to a challenge to the "Evangelical" view. But be aware there is some strong (some would say profane) language, due to the emotions involved. I originally hesitated to post this, because I knew it would disturb some and because I feel the poster is wrong on many points. But I think it is a useful article for illustrating the kinds of hard questions we really need to be thinking about and ready to answer for ourselves.

"Holiness Highway" = Interstate 35? Oh, my.

I am considered by most objective observers to be one of those strange beasts called an "Evangelical." I believe the Bible (Old and New Testament) is the inspired Word of God, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He died and was raised to life on the third day, and I enjoy wearing t-shirts with overtly Christian slogans on them. But even I am not sure what to make of the claims that a group of "Evangelicals" believe Interstate 35 is the highway of holiness prophecied in Isaiah 35. Apparently, Pat Robertson did a major piece on it (which is not a recommendation to me, based on our past posts about false prophets).

And a highway will be there;
it will be called the Way of Holiness.
The unclean will not journey on it;
it will be for those who walk in that Way;
wicked fools will not go about on it.
Isaiah 35:8 (NIV)

Even as a man of faith who believes in prophecy, I simply fail to see any connection. Why not one of the many Route 35s around the world? I have to hope that I am missing something. If there is anyone out there from this group who reads Mod-Blog, I'd love to hear from you in the comments section explaining it.

Progressives Wrestle with Evangelicals

A lot of people know that most of us here at Mod-Blog - a place dedicated to giving both sides of the issue - lean to the Right. How can a MODERATE blog be populated by people on one side of the spectrum? The answer has always been that we respect both sides, and try to tell both sides of the story. And not let either side get away with unexamined foolishness. And one area where a lot more engagement is needed is in the foolish "Red State vs Blue State" mentality in politics right now.

That is why it was nice to see this blog written by a Progressive Christian trying to reach out and understand Evangelicals. If those terms are unfamiliar to you, let me try and boil down the difference to its essentials. Progressives focus their faith around social action - especially around helping the poor. If anything gets in the way of that, it can be laid aside. Evangelicals focus their faith around the Bible, and its inerrancy and inspiration. If anything disagrees with the Bible, it can be laid aside. Now, both groups love Jesus, view the Bible as important, and want to help the poor and needy. But their different emphases lead to radically different priorities, methods, and allies. And perhaps most importantly, different cultures with different jargon. Ask an Evangelical and a Progressive what "God's Word" means, and you'll get a very different answer.

Click here for the blog author's attempt to lay out why he built the blog. He is a Progressive Christian who previously had been dismissing the Evangelical movement. I think his goal is the same as ours - to understand both sides and as much as possible bring them together... no matter what our own political leaning may be.

When your child's faith is not your own

This article was first presented to me as evidence of the intolerance of evangelical Christians. It is based on a letter written by an atheist to an advice columnist about dealing with his daughter's fears that he was going to Hell

When I try to explain my beliefs (that I don't believe in God or a higher power), she cries. I am certainly not trying to deny her mother the right to take her to church, but I don't want to cut my two weekends a month with her short to take her back to her mother's to attend church. Nor do I want her mother telling her that I am going to hell.

But the advice columnist's response was excellent and balanced.

What I am trying to say is, the way to help your daughter grow is not to debate the existence of God. It is to go to church with your daughter and experience what she is experiencing.

You can argue about who is winning and who is losing. But at least watch the game.

Read on through the article. It is a good read and provides insight into both sides of the religious divide.

I hate to say "I told you so", but...

...the Republican party is finally starting to confront the Elephant in the Room for the Rudy Guiliani campaign. His pro-abortion past is catching up with him, as some Evangelical leaders are threatening to go Third Party.

For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.

You may recall I said that I could not vote for the Mayor, despite my respect for him, from Day 1. I doubt that I am among the more extreme members of the anti-abortion wing.