If you’re interested in more of Christianity Today’s take on the election, make sure you read our coverage over at our usual Christianity Today site. Our latest articles include:

Declaring Victory | Evangelical Democrats claim credit, leading conservatives find plenty to blame. by Sheryl Henderson Blunt in Virginia (posted Nov. 8)

Speaking Out: Faith-Based Triangulation | Religious moderates propelled the Democrats to victory. by Joseph Loconte (posted Nov. 8)

Speaking Out: Good News for Democrats, Good News for Evangelicals | And Good News for the world. by George G. Hunter III (posted Nov. 8)

Focus on the Family Praises Democrats, Slams Republicans | Dobson says values voters stayed home after GOP abandoned them. by Ted Olsen (posted Nov. 9)

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 9, 2006 5:02PM

This will run in the next issue of CT.

69%
White evangelicals who voted for Republicans in this year’s midterm elections.
68%
White evangelicals who voted for Republicans in the last midterm elections.
Source: The New York Times/ABC News

2 of 3
Evangelical voters who say they approve of Bush’s actions on the Iraq war.
2 of 3
Non-evangelical voters who say they approve of them.
Source: The New York Times

51%
Weekly churchgoers who voted for Republican candidates
58%
Weekly churchgoers who voted for Bush in 2004.
Source: The New Republic

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 9, 2006 11:02AM

CNN has the interesting religion and pro-life breakdowns in the Pa. Casey-Santorum election exit polls. Casey won 36% of voters who think abortion should be illegal (given only the choice between legal and illegal), 28% of the voters who say it should be “always illegal” (given the options always/mostly legal/illegal) and 41% of those who say it should be “mostly illegal.”

Casey also won 59% of the Catholic vote, 41% of the evangelical/born-again vote, 29% of the white evangelical/born-again vote, and 2/3 of the non-evangelical/non-born-again vote (white and total). There seem to be two different figures for church attendance, and the numbers vary significantly.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 9, 2006 10:53AM

There is much counter-evidence against any Haggard Effect in Tuesday's election. The Denver Post notes:

Not only did Amendment 43, which defines marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman, pass by a double-digit margin, but a measure that would have created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples suffered a sound defeat.

(Haggard, by the way, did not take a position on the domestic partnerships initiative.)

Likewise, Republican U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a favorite among religious conservatives, won re-election.

"Musgrave is among the most vulnerable of representatives," political science professor Norman Provizer, told the Post. "And yet in a year in which many candidates who were viewed as (not) vulnerable were defeated, she managed to hang in there."

"Evangelicals apparently shrugged off pastor's woes," says a Post story by the indispensable Eric Gorski. The piece says that while many people wondered if there would be a "Haggard Factor," it didn't seem to emerge.

I still wonder if it did emerge in the 18th District Colorado House race, which I mentioned earlier. (Haggard had asked national evangelical leaders to help the Republican candidate, Kyle Fisk, who was formerly Haggard's right-hand man and is a pastor at one of New Life Church's daughter congregations. Haggard was "an issue" in the race long before last week's scandal.)

Was there a Haggard Effect in that race? The Democrat, Michael Merrifield, received 61 percent of the vote, with Fisk at 39 percent. That's pretty dramatic. But how dramatic? In 2004, Merrifield received 55 percent of the vote, with the Republican challenger getting 42 percent. But back in 2002, it was a squeaker, with Merrifield being elected to the seat with only 75 more ballots (0.004% of all votes cast) than the Republican. Was there a Haggard Effect in the Fisk race? It may be anyone's guess. And it may be that Colorado's horrendous voting problems played a greater role Tuesday night anyway.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 9, 2006 10:26AM

Though I don't care for politcs all that much--surprise, surprise--this live blog tonight has been nothing less that awesome, impressive, insightful--I'll spare you another 10 adjectives. Ted, Collin, Rob, et. al. thanks for doing this. Absolutely fantastic. A real service to the political and evangelical communities of our nation.

Posted by Mark Galli at November 8, 2006 12:30AM

FaithfulDemocrats.com has issued a press release declaring that Democrats won because "candidates, among others, showcased their religious convictions instead of hiding them — using moral and, indeed, biblical language to communicate their values."

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 8, 2006 12:29AM

Sorry folks, I have a full day of work tomorrow. I need to sign off, but I'll be eager to ask these questions tomorrow morning:

(1) How did Sen. Jim Talent's final vote totals compare to voting on the embryonic stem-cell decision? Do exit polls indicate the Democrats successfully turned stem cells into a values issue?

(2) Has Virginia become a blue state? What say this state's Religious Right stalwarts, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

(3) Did evangelicals actually matter in this election? Early polls indicate similar evangelical support for Republicans from 2002 to 2006. Can evangelical liberals find exit polls to make their case for a share in the Democratic victory?

(4) Did conservative Christians in South Dakota overreach with the abortion ban? Many rightly took credit for Sen. John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle in 2004. But now the abortion ban got overturned. Is that why such a small majority of South Dakotans voted to ban same-sex marriage? Many conservatives in this state would be better classified as Western libertarians.

(5) With so many Midwest and Northeast House Republicans losing, the party has become much more concentrated among Southern evangelicals. Does the party shift even further to the right as a result?

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 8, 2006 12:28AM

Unless I’m reading things prematurely, it seems to be shaping up to a complete rout of values-conservatism, and the white evangelical agenda—just as many have predicted. Someone check me if I’ve misread things. Since I’m about to sign off, I’ll wax curmudgeon for a few moments before I retire to the comforts of my bed.

As a Burkean conservative who identifies with a lot of the positions of values-conservatism (though not the self-righteousness of so many), I’m frankly relieved. Values-conservatives have been clumsy at articulating their views and inept at the political know-how to move their agenda forward at a national level.

True conservatism must concentrate on the little platoons of society; the local communities in which people live and work and worship and play. The D.C. life is pretty heady, but in the end, it’s the third temptation of Satan (Mt. 4) for most of us.

As I noted earlier, some Christian commentators have blundered theologically in assuming that party politics is the key to influencing society, and that we must throw our lot in with the most values-driven party to gain leverage. Humbug. That some Christians are called to serve in office or party politics is not disputed. Politics can be a godly calling like any other. But to attempt to rally evangelical voters in an attempt to battle the godless values of one party, to assume that every evangelical must be passionate about politics and vote the values line, that to do anything less is to “sin” and hand the country over to the godless and immoral—well, that’s close to a sin (idolatry) in my book.

At the risk of repeating myself, I really mean it when I say that worship is the most political thing we do as a body. Our weekly gathering is a regular announcement that a different Sovereign with different values reigns already, albeit in exile. And the promise is that he will establish his sovereignty again. In the meantime, it is in this Sovereign’s name that we go forth into the world, to feed and clothe the poor, to seek justice for the oppressed, to work for peace in a fractured world, and to tell others about the current and coming reign of this Sovereign—sometimes through party politics, sometimes through international diplomacy, sometimes through war, but mostly as we live as the body of Christ, as a harbinger of the coming political community.

“Yeah, yeah,” I faintly hear. “But what about that Virginia race, where the future of the country/the Supreme Court/conservative values/or whatever rests?”

And so it goes….

Posted by Mark Galli at November 8, 2006 12:23AM

Joseph Loconte and Michael Cromartie have an op-ed in Wednesday's Washington Post, saying that evangelicals don't want theocracy:

[I]it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few. As we recall from the Gospels, even Jesus had a few disciples who, after encountering some critics, wanted to call down fire from heaven to dispose of them. Jesus disabused them of that impulse. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals have dispensed with it as well. Maybe it's time more of their critics did the same.

Good points. But why is this running in the Post tomorrow--er, today--the day after Election Day? I'm not sure anyone within the last week was really predicting a theocracy wave today. This was the year of the "anti-evangelical vote," not the "values voter." And I remain unconvinced that evangelicals played much of a role today. They seem to have voted the same way they have for a long time--33% Democrat, 67% Republican. (2004 seems even more now to have been what they call an "outlier.")

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 8, 2006 12:15AM

Duckworth conceded about 45 minutes ago. So Roskam becomes one of the few Republicans to win tonight.

Posted by Mark Galli at November 7, 2006 11:40PM

I'll admit it. The list over at Evangelical Outpost is funnier than our fake poll today.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 11:39PM

Bill Kristol on Fox seems sure the Republicans have lost the Senate. He expects the remaining votes in Missouri will go against Sen. Jim Talent, an evangelical. That would also seem to bode ill for the effort to stem embryonic stem-cell research there. We'll see.

Meanwhile the House race in west suburban Chicago remains our only outstanding Race to Watch. The Republican, State Sen. Peter Roskam, an evangelical, campaigned hard against illegal immigration. Democrat Tammy Duckworth hit Roskam hard on his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research. This district may reassert its conservative credentials if it bucks the nationwide Democratic trend. Roskam is holding onto a two-point lead.

I still have an eye on South Dakota, where the same-sex marriage ban just can't get above 52 percent. Will South Dakota be the state with the lowest voter support for this kind of ban? If so, why?

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 11:36PM

Love the letters, folks. Wish we had comment tags. But really, we're not going to run 2,000-word responses on the blog. It's just not going to happen. Keep 'em to a couple hundred words--or better yet, a sentence or two--and we'll talk.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 11:25PM

Here's a lovely Election Day story. What makes it all the lovlier is that Rick Green is very outspoken about his Christian faith and currently works with David Barton's WallBuilders group making speeches about God and country.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 11:23PM

I had wondered earlier how well Focus on the Family / Focus on the Family Action would be able to respond to tonight's election results. They're actually doing really well. I'd say that among the Christian political groups on left or right, they have perhaps some of the most comprehensive coverage. I'm curious about how many people they have working on their site.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 11:04PM

After leading all evening, Sen. George Allen has fallen behind Democratic challenger James Webb. This is critical, because now the Democrats pull within striking distance of taking the Senate. That means Congress will come down to Missouri and Montana. Evangelicals who worry about judges know full well the Senate bears responsibility for confirming Supreme Court justices.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 10:59PM

Jim Wallis notes that Don Sherwood, Republican from Pennsylvania, just lost his House seat, just like pretty much every other Republican in Pennsylvania. But what Wallis really wants to talk about is Focus on the Family Action's giving Sherwood an 85% rating based on how he voted on legislation related to abortion, pledge of allegiance, stem cell research, and the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Wallis thinks that Focus on the Family Action should have looked at the person, not the issues.

Congressman Sherwood admitted cheating on his wife, and in 2004, his mistress, Cynthia Ore, called 911 accusing the congressman of choking and hitting her. The congressman denies having abused his mistress. He did, however, settle out of court a civil case that Ms. Ore brought against him for an undisclosed amount of money.

Silly me, I thought fidelity and faithfulness in our marriage relationships were also family values. And having your new mistress allege that you beat her up isn’t the best endorsement either. But James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Action isn’t too worried about little things like that; they have political power to hold on to. What was Jesus' biggest problem with religious leaders—hypocrisy was it? I guess he just didn’t understand the necessities of pro-family politics.

Would Wallis prefer that Focus on the Family focus on personalities rather than legislation? Should voters guides say: Warning: This congressman's girth suggests that he is guilty of gluttony. Warning: Rumors suggest that this candidate has a lust problem. Warning: This candidate has been divorced twice. Is that God's Politics?

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:54PM

Jason Bohm writes:

You guys got to get off Wolff Blitzer. MSNBC is where it is at, if you can stomach Chris Matthews.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:46PM

Many South Dakota evangelicals and conservative Catholics will surely be disappointed to hear that the widely publicized abortion ban has been overturned. This matches what polls have indicated for some time. The ban did not include clear exceptions for rape and incest, which even most pro-lifers (including President Bush) endorse.

But I wonder what to make of the data we have so far. Right now, with 40 percent of precincts reporting, 55 percent of voters want the ban overturned. But here's the interesting data--only 52 percent of South Dakotans have voted for a ban on same-sex marriage. This would be an incredible development if less than 60 percent backed the ban. So what's going on? Much of the western half of the state, an hour behind the east and much more conservative, hasn't turned in their results. Expect the numbers to shift pretty dramatically. But it doesn't look like the numbers will change enough to uphold the abortion ban.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 10:44PM

If there is a Haggard Effect, the race to watch probably won't even make national news. Haggard's former right-hand man, Kyle Fisk, is a candidate for State House District 18. Haggard had asked evangelical leaders nationwide to help Fisk out, and that news was locally reported as something that might actually damage the Fisk campaign. No doubt it might have been particularly damaging this week. Fisk's campaign, against an incumbent Democrat who won by a significant margin in 2004, has always been an uphill battle. But if Fisk loses in a landslide, it might be an indicator of something larger.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:43PM

No relation to politics tonight, but a woman died after being bitten by a snake during a service at East London Holiness Church, where they practice snake handling.

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 10:34PM

Eric Gorski is reporting on the Haggard factor in Colorado:

Haggard's accuser, Michael Forest Jones of Denver, was upfront about his hope that his bombshell less than a week before Election Day would influence the results of two measures: Amendment 43, which would enshrine marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman, and Referendum I, which would extend some domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.

Bob Loevy, a political scientist at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post, "The timing of this thing and the accuser's frankness about the fact he was thinking about the election, that could very well produce a reaction from the religious conservatives who will see this as something of an attack on them," Loevy said. "It could very well encourage them - if they were previously disheartened - to turn out."

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 10:24PM

CNN has projected a Democratic takeover of the House. This has looked increasingly likely for some weeks now. But this will be the evening's story now, barring an Allen loss in the Senate, which could also switch that chamber of Congress.

The evangelical story here will be whether some of the new moderates/conservatives can leverage their victories into influence with Democratic Party leadership. The moderate/liberal Republicans who lost tonight will testify to how difficult that can be.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 10:21PM

The consensus seems to be that all eyes are on conservative Democrats now. Examples:

"This election is a referendum on the Bush administration’s competence, not an ideological tide. The Democrats who are doing best — Casey in Pennsylvania, Ellsworth in Indiana, Heath Shuler in North Carolina — are moderate or even quite conservative." (David Brooks, New York Times)

"We could be seeing the creation of a more conservative House of Representatives than the one we have." -- George F. Will, on ABC, via Rod Dreher, who interprets: "He means that the liberal-to-moderate Republicans are being knocked off, and the Dems that are winning House races are more conservative."

More TK, I'm sure.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:21PM

Remember when Peggy Noonan criticized Bush's second inaugural address for its aim at "ending tyranny in the world"? WorldMagBlog, one of the night's more entertaining sources for religion-tinged lines in tonight's speeches, is abuzz with Ted Kennedy's line in tonight's acceptance speech calling the Democratic Party "the best hope of mankind on this earth."

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:17PM

For the U.S. House, nationally white evangelicals voted 29% Democrat 69% Republican
In the East, they voted 40% Democrat 59% Republican
In the Midwest, 33% Democrat 66% Republican
In the South, 25% Democrat 74% Republican
In the West, 25% Democrat 72% Republican

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 10:12PM

CNN has called yet another Democratic pickup in the House. But this goes beyond the housecleaning we've seen in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Former Washington Redskins and University of Tennessee quarterback Heath Shuler, a Democrat, defeated Rep. Charles Taylor in North Carolina. Here's what I can't wait to see--how will the Democratic leadership handle a Southerner who campaigned on a pretty conservative social agenda? This is certainly a race where we can see the moderate/liberal evangelical influence. If more races break this way, Nancy Pelosi might even face a moderate challenger for the Speaker's gavel.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 9:58PM

The headline at ABC News: "Losing Faith in the GOP | Early Exit Polls: Third of White Evangelicals Voted for Democrats" Marcus Baram reports:

Almost a third of white evangelicals voted for Democrats in today's election, according to early exit polls reported by The Associated Press. Most of them cited corruption as an important factor in their decision.

That's a change from the 2004 presidential election when 78 percent of white evangelicals voted for Bush and 21 percent voted for Kerry. That was a recent peak in evangelical attachment to Republicans.

In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, evangelicals constituted 23 percent of the electorate.

Today's early numbers seem to show that Democrats have been able to recapture some of that huge block.

In the 2002 midterm elections, almost 68 percent of evangelicals favored Republican candidates. In 2000, 68 percent voted for Bush and 30 percent for Gore.

Wait a second. A third of evangelicals voted for Democrats in this year's election? And two-thirds voted for Republicans in the last mid-term election? Barring any third-party shenanigans hidden in that data, doesn't this suggest that evangelical commitment hasn't changed much, and that the 2004 election was a special case?

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:58PM

With 47 percent of precincts reporting in Illinois, 11 percent of the votes in the gubernatorial race (now called for the incumbent Democrat, Rod Blagojevich) have gone to Green Party candidate Rich Whitney. Since there was no actual anti-abortion candidate on the actual ballot, I wonder how pro-life evangelicals voted in this one.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:45PM

Kevin Miller writes:

DeWine's loss in Ohio is not really an "amazing outcome." It was expected. As The New York Times reported three weeks ago: "Senior Republican leaders have concluded that Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a pivotal state in this year's fierce midterm election battles, is likely to be heading for defeat and are moving to reduce financial support for his race and divert party money to other embattled Republican senators."

Sure. But it was unexpected before it was expected.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:37PM

Love the LiveBlog; but how do you comment on any of these posts?

Actually, the reader did the right thing. E-mail us at letters@christianitytoday.com. Wish we had comments. But we don't.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:20PM

Beliefnet's Steve Waldman:

With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn’t lose site of this: Democrats this election have won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52%-47%. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57%-42% for the Democrats. In all likelihood this has little to do with social issues but rather illustrates Catholic dissatisfaction with the Iraq war.

(That last sentence might actually be from David Kuo rather than Waldman. Can't tell from the blog post.)
Collin noted earlier that it's best to compare 2006 to 2002 rather than to 2004. I'll look around for the Catholic numbers from that year.

Update: The Pew Research Center says there's a 12 percentage point change among white non-Hispanic Catholics since 2002. For total Catholics, it's 9 percentage points. The white evangelical change is 11 percentage points.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:15PM

After Sen. Rick Santorum graciously implored his supporters to cheer for Sen.-Elect Bob Casey Jr., he began his concession speech by thanking God. Which CNN promptly broke away from. Does anyone know what he went on to say?

Based on the glowing Santorum pre-obituaries written by David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, echoed on CNN tonight by Bill Bennett and J.C. Watts, I think we can expect Santorum to remain a prominent voice in the debate about religion and politics.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 9:13PM

Mara Lynch writes:

I realize that everyone is assuming that Cardin and O'Malley have beaten Steele and Ehrlich in Maryland (which may be the case), but I wonder if the huge number of absentee ballots are being considered. Due to the voting machine problems, supposedly 180,000 people (probably mostly Republicans) requested them.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:11PM

"Here are the lessons" from the wins of Casey, Strickland, and Brown, writes Jim Wallis:

When Democrats can run authentically as persons of faith, they can beat back the idolatrous claims of the Religious Right that God is only on their side. And when Democrats take a more morally sensible and centrist position on issues like abortion, they do better than liberal Democrats have done. These results are bad news for the “religious fundamentalists" who have far too much influence in the Republican Party, AND for the “secular fundamentalists” who have far too much influence in the Democratic Party. But it is good news for the majority of Americans who are alienated by the political extremes of right and left and are hungry for a new “moral center” for our public life. More good news may lie ahead tonight.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:09PM

If you had an R next to your name on a ballot in Ohio, this is a bad night. Is anyone happy with the Republicans there? Sen. Mike DeWine had pretty decent approval ratings. He wasn't exactly regarded as a hard-core conservative, as evangelicals may know from his reluctance to back the Republican majority pushing for conservative judges. His opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is about as liberal as you can get on all fronts. But DeWine could not overcome the utter collapse of his state party, bogged by corruption in the House delegation and governor's mansion. The vaunted Religious Right that CT reported about in Ohio has run into irate moderates, disenchanted economic conservatives, and an insurgent backlash from the Religious Left.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 9:07PM

Another of our "races to watch" has been called. In the Michigan gubernatorial race, Jennifer Granholm has fended off Republican challenger Dick DeVos.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 9:01PM

CNN says Democrat Sherrod Brown will beat Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in the race for Ohio Senate seat. An amazing outcome.

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 8:54PM

Those quotes are amazing, Collin. The Barabbas comparison is making my head swim, though. The Barabbas story is full of political importance. It's often at the center of these "Jesus and politics" books that I'm accumulating. Here, for example, is N.T. Wright:

[Jesus] died because he, the one who was reputed to be announcing Israel’s imminent overthrow, claimed to be the royal representative of the people of God. ... It is Luke, once more, who highlights this interpretation in his account of the Barabbas incident. In 23:25 he writes: “He [Pilate] released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.” Jesus dies, quite literally, the death meant for Barabbas (the point is repeated in the narrative of the two thieves, to which we referred earlier); and Barabbas is the one “whom they asked for,” the one whose acts of violent rebellion are taken by Luke as expressing the secret desires of the people. Jesus receives the punishment the Romans characteristically meted out to rebels. As if to emphasize the point, Luke follows this with the warning to the daughters of Jerusalem (23:27-31), in which Jesus identifies himself explicitly with the national aspiration: if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry? This is what the Romans do even to one not guilty of rebellion; how much more when the sons of the women at present bewailing him take up actual arms and fight for God and country.

I urge you to the whole quote in context. What that might actually mean for the Maryland race in specific I'm not quite sure right now. But I do know that Delman Coates's "“Barablicans" reference is probably greater evidence that we've de-politicized the Barabbas story than that Scripture is being forced into politics.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 8:53PM

Rebecca Barnes writes:

Here’s a race to provide some interest for evangelical Christians. Kentucky’s long-held Republican house seat may go to a Democrat. The Yarmuth v. Northup race will be a big change for the state’s representation. These two candidates couldn’t be any different: Yarmuth is on the board of Planned Parenthood, Northup is endorsed by Right to Life. That’s only one issue, of course, but Yarmuth is as liberal as they come with positions such as legalizing marijuana, lowering the drinking age, flag-burning, etc. Additionally, he has no record of interest in justice for the poor or marginalized.

While other states are turning blue with Democrats that are more moderate, Kentucky is offering a potential house member who may not even be able to dialog with moderate members of his own community.

Another point of interest from here in the Midwest/gate to the South is the Indiana race between Sodrel and Hill. Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg is an evangelical Christian who garnered a solid 5 percent of the vote. If moderate Democrats are a trend, as CNN’s panel is now bantering about, and evangelicals with an interest in poverty issues are a political trend, candidates such as Schansberg may be interesting to watch. He is also defying typical political definitions.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 8:35PM

Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin has held off to win a Senate seat in Maryland against a strong campaign from Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Any time you run a African American as a Republican (Steele), you're bound to see some really nasty rhetoric. These kinds of campaigning show we have a long way to go to fend off racism, even in our pulpits.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 8:31PM

“Lord willing, Congress will soon be in Democratic hands. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”
--Sen.Robert Byrd, D-W.V., quoted by WorldMagBlog.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 8:23PM

Howard Dean has told MSNBC that Bob Casey Jr. --who will be Sen. Bob Casey Jr.--will speak at the next Democratic National Convention. I probably don't need to recount how Gov. Bob Casey Sr. didn't get to speak at the convention because of his stance against abortion. I'm sure the intraparty politicking over what he'll say about abortion has already begun.

Now the buzz is that Rick Santorum--who will be former Sen. Rick Santorum--may speak at the Republican National Convention as a (current or former) presidential candidate. We'll see. Bill Bennett thinks so. I'm more skeptical about that scenario, though I do wonder what Santorum will do now.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 8:11PM

CNN reports that 36 percent of evangelicals in Virginia voted for the Democratic challenger to Sen. George Allen. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb opposed the ban on same-sex marriage that passed by a significant margin. James Carville might have made the most astute point of the night I've seen so far. While we're talking about evangelical voting on abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, etc., Iraq remains a hugely significant issue for everyone--no matter your religious beliefs. I don't see why evangelicals would be immune to the general public's disenchantment with America's progress in stabilizing that nation. Without a dominant born-again candidate on the ticket (Bush), when Republicans have delivered on some pro-life promises (Supreme Court nominees, partial-birth abortion), and when the same-sex marriage issue has somewhat receeded, Iraq has dominated the overall political conversation, even among evangelicals who by and large backed the invasion.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 7:57PM

Newsweek reports on the backlash among some evangelicals to the Religious Right. It opens with Dobson: "Dobson told his flock in a taped broadcast, they could not afford to stay home on Election Day. If they did, 'we could ... begin to have same-sex marriage in places all over the country.'"

Then to Adam Hamilton's church in Leawood, Kansas. "The religious right has 'gone too far,' says Hamilton. 'They've lost their focus on the spirit of Jesus and have separated the world into black and white, when the world is much more gray.' He adds: 'I can't see Jesus standing with signs at an anti-gay rally. It's hard to picture that.'"

Much more after the jump...

The story's thesis is: "From Dobson to Hamilton and through the geographical heart of the country runs a fault line that is increasingly dividing evangelical Christians in America in the first years of the 21st century, revealing the movement to be more complex, and more interesting, than the usual caricatures suggest. "

As if that sentence alone didn't sum up Newsweeks ignorance of evangelicals, there's more: "Can they [evangelicals] move beyond the apparent confines of the religious right as popularly understood, or are they destined to seem harsh and intolerant—the opposite of what their own faith would have them be?"

The story's premise is already off. The fault it describes has existed for a long time. The caricature of evangelicals is just that. Then come the usual suspects: Rick Warren, Randall Balmer, Richard Land and now David Kuo. Also fundamentalism and the Scopes trial and, somewhat surprisingly (to me at least), William F. Buckley Jr. make an appearance. Then follows a sweeping history of modern evangelicalism and the Moral Majority.

Is there any surprise that Bono makes an entrance?

Newsweek makes some vast assumptions. "To a large degree, the evolution is generational; evangelicals who voted Republican over the past 30 years had parents who were Democrats." So the generation of evangelicals younger than the baby boomers will return to their grandparents' voting habits?

Newsweek then reveals it's ignorance. "Evangelical" is no longer equivalent to "fundamentalist." It was only ever equivalent to those who didn't know evangelicals.

It's good that the magazine is paying attention and trying to understand the movement. But the "evangelicals are learning their lesson after failing in politics" thesis doesn't quite hold. There have always been evangelicals who disagreed with Dobson's politics. And those who did have never had the million-member mailing list that Dobson has. And they still don't.

Over the past few years, evangelicals have leaned more heavily toward a president they trusted, one who claims to be one them. Now, evangelicals tilting back. But abortion will prevent any flip flop toward Democrats. Gay marriage has the potential to do the same.

Still, the movement has always been "more complex, and more interesting, than the usual caricatures suggest."

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 7:55PM

"The only category among religious voters that Blackwell won was among those who say they attend church more than once a week," reports the Associated Press. "They favored Blackwell over Strickland 57 percent to 41 percent."

That strikes me as interesting, but I have no idea of its significance. My gut suggests that while Blackwell was the favorite among many religious conservatives in the state, he should maybe have done better among the churchgoers. What say you?

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:42PM

In one of CT's Races to Watch, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. has defeated Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Two years ago after Democrats suffered across-the-board defeats, they circled this race. Political observers widely expected Santorum would lose, but it bears mentioning that one of Time magazine's top 25 evangelicals will not return to his leadership position in the Senate. It will be very interesting to watch Casey's voting record in the Senate, to see if he can become a champion for Religious Left values issues and maintain a meaningful pro-life record.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 7:39PM

Only tangentially related to tonight's election is breaking news that James Dobson has decided not to be part of Ted Haggard's counseling team after all. His involvement on the team was just confirmed yesterday, so this is a pretty speedy turn. "Emotionally and spiritually, I wanted to be of help - but the reality is I don't have the time to devote to such a critical responsibility, Dobson said. "Ted and his family will be better served by someone whose energies and attention are not tugged on in quite so many directions."

I'm sure we'll discuss whether there was a "Haggard Effect," especially in Colorado, once the polls close in that state. If they ever close. Glad I'm not in one of those three-hour lines.

Back to Focus for a moment. That's a snazzy new website they just launched. I'm watching the organization's special election site here . Wonder how the loss of their main spokesman, Paul Hetrick, will affect the organization's ability to respond to tonight's election results.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:37PM

Tennesse, like Virginia, has voted to ban same-sex marriage. It looks like more than 80 percent have voted for the ban, similar to the 86 percent who supported a similar ban in neighboring MIssissippi in 2004. The result does not surprise, as both Senate candidates supported the ban in a conservative Southern state. Traditional marriage amendments remain undefeated on the state level. I would have been much more interested to see how Illinois voted, had that initiative gained enough signatures to make it on the ballot.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 7:31PM

Better than her "legislate sin" comment was her quote after voting today, as she said the election results are up to God. "I’ll do the best I can, honor him, and the results are his.”

Since we're apparently being watched by several of those "young, restless, and Reformed" types tonight, let me solicit comments about the sovereignty of God in political elections. Is God's sovereignty more on display in the vote of thousands of people than it is in the ballot of each voter? Are tonight's results any more "God's" than, say, Katherine Harris's statement on legislating sin?

Yeah, I'm deliberately stirring the pot. The letters queue is too quiet. Address, for those who didn't see it, is letters@christianitytoday.com

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:23PM

But it looks like Florida decided to legislate sin after all.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:12PM

"Constitutional amendments and referendums on same-sex marriage, in addition to a hotly contested gubernatorial race, are the main reasons folks here say they came to vote," CNN reports from Denver. And they're waiting three hours to do so.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:06PM

So the exit polls show that voters are most concerned about: corruption (42%), terrorism (40%), the economy (39%), and Iraq (37%). I wonder if there will be as much hand-wringing over what voters meant by "corruption" as there was over "values" two years ago.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 7:01PM

Thought religion and politics was in the U.S. were too closely aligned? Check out Keya's Agano Party. "Agano (Kiswahili for Covenant) and another three parties sympathetic to Christian ideals are seeking to have "200 people of integrity" voted into parliament in next year's general election."
Evangelicals, Penecostals, the Presbyterian church like the idea, but Methodists, Anglicans, and Catholics don't. "The Church is supposed to be the conscience of society. When Kenyans are misled, it should provide guidance, but not take leadership," the Rev. Wellington Sanga, the secretary of the Methodist Church of Kenya.

Posted by Rob Moll at November 7, 2006 6:54PM

Looks like an ordained minister will be the next governor of Ohio. That'd be current Congressman Ted Strickland, who gradated from Asbury Seminary and has a plaque of Micah 6:8 on the wall of his D.C. office. He was the Democrat running. We covered the race earlier--actually, we covered the role of Rod Parsley's "Patriot Pastors" movement in the race earlier. Eager to hear Parsley's response.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 6:54PM

A judge has ordered all Kane County, Illinois, polling locations to stay open 90 minutes later than planned, due to problems with the electronic voting system. I'm sure that there could be some interesting Christian reflection here on our dependence upon technology, and the effects of our culture's demand for ever-increasingly speedy results. But I don't have time to reflect on that, because I need to read 1,000 different blogs every five minutes right now,

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 6:43PM

Exit polls from Virginia indicate that 30 percent of voters who backed a ban on same-sex marriage sided with the Democratic challenger. This may seem noteworthy, but many African Americans who vote Democratic maintain conservative views on marriage. CNN has determined that this ban has passed.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 6:14PM

I'll keep my eyes on CNN with Bill Bennett and J.C. Watts representing Republicans across from Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala. Certainly we'll hear about issues near and dear to the Religious Right with these two conservative stalwarts providing CNN analysis.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 6:06PM

Any pundit talking about today's initiative votes defending marriage without referencing today's news that Britney Spears has filed for divorce (this after an earlier annulment) just isn't being banal enough. Personally, I think she timed it to dispirit evangelicals, particularly in the south, so they wouldn't vote today... Too bad we've already posted today's poll.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 5:54PM

Colson’s argument is, to me, mostly right. That is, in the normal course of human events, “Only by continuing to fight for our beliefs … can we achieve the kind of moral reform and protection of human rights that Christians throughout the centuries and in every culture work for.” When it comes to large, sweeping social justice, it is politics and war (politics when talking breaks down) that actually makes large social organisms (states) behave more justly.

And in one sense, Christians can never “fast” from politics. Not even the Amish do that, if we understand “politics” in its larger sense, of working with others in community to figure out how we live together in that community. Even if we don’t vote, we are deeply embedded in “politics.” Even when we immerse ourselves only in the life of the local church—that church, by being situated in a community, is being political: it is attempting in its own way to shape the community’s values, even its very life. This is why I’ve argued in the pages of CT that the most political act of the Christian is corporate worship, wherein we point to a Reality—and are shaped by that Reality--that aims to transform our lives, our communities, our world.

“Blessed be God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and blessed be his kingdom forever,” begins the Anglican liturgy. If that is not a political statement, I don’t know what is.

By implication, however, Colson seems to imply that to not vote is “to abandon the battle on behalf of the sick and the suffering, the prisoner and the unborn.” I would guess that upon reflection, he might nuance that a bit. For even in a democratic society there are countless ways to battle for the sick and suffering besides voting. I doubt that Mother Teresa ever voted in an Indian election. Even if she did, her legacy on behalf of the sick and suffering was hardly her voting record.

Posted by Mark Galli at November 7, 2006 5:22PM

We should learn a good bit about this election soon after polls close at 6 p.m. EST in Indiana and Kentucky. House districts in these evangelical-heavy states will give some hints about whether the Democrats will sweep into power, slink into power, or somehow blow a perfect storm of Republican mishaps. These are the exit polls I want to see: Which values did these heartland evangelicals vote? Did they stick with opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage? Or did concerns about Iraq, the economy, or scandal trump the 2004 Republican gameplan?

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 4:32PM

Yeah, we don't have those fancy "comments" that all these newfangled blogs have these days. But it's not that we're not interested in what you readers have to say. If you want to respond to what we're talking about, e-mail us at letters@christianitytoday.com. Oh, but please no letters about why this blog needs comments capabilities.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 4:31PM

Several people attacked David Kuo's Tempting Faith, or at least the timing of its release, as an effort to get evangelicals not to vote for Republicans (or worse). They will be interested in his urging evangelicals not to vote for Democrats reaching out to them. "For evangelicals preparing to vote, a caution to remember that voting for Democrats who are speaking pretty to you isn't the answer either," he writes on his Beliefnet blog.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 4:09PM

Actually, I see now that Dobson, at least, has gone further than just saying that it's a sin not to vote. The Wall Street Journal quotes him at a St. Paul rally: "If you can find a politician who understands the institution of the family ... it would be a sin not to vote for him."

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 3:54PM

Since people still have some hours before the polls close, perhaps we should discuss the question of whether it’s a sin not to vote. The statement has been made by a number of conservative leaders lately: Richard Land, James Dobson, and most recently Charles Colson. (Colson, by the way, was wrong in his Breakpoint broadcast to suggest that David Kuo’s call for a “fast from politics” included a call not to vote. Kuo’s book has many problems, but that was not one of them.)

Not to vote, says Colson, would be “to abandon the battle on behalf of the sick and the suffering, the prisoner and the unborn:” Which raises the question:

Would those who don’t have time to vote today because they’re working at a homeless shelter or some other ministry sinning?

What most struck me is that Colson’s argument assumes that voting is a hostile act. To vote he says, is ” to fight for our beliefs.” It’s a “battle.” I always considered voting something more defined by unity (the nation comes together to choose its leaders and agrees to abide by the majority’s decision ) than by division (we’re choosing one candidate over another). I find it interesting that pacifist Anabaptists who refuse to vote generally don’t similarly consider voting to be a battle, a fight, or a war. But they do have strong reasons for not voting. As John Roth wrote:

Voting, after all, is not just a “right.” It is also a “rite”—a ritual of identity and loyalty binding the individual to the nation. Abstaining from presidential elections could signal to our children and to the global church that our first loyalty is to the worldwide fellowship of Christian believers, not to the nation-state.

The often-hawkish Land, Dobson, and Colson have repeatedly demonstrated that they disagree with Anabaptists on any number of issues. But are they really willing to say that Anabaptist Christians like Roth are sinning? A Christian journalist friend of mine refuses to vote because he wants to "avoid the appearance of evil" and wants to avoid "taking sides" with the candidates and political parties he covers. Seems to me that's an honorable effort, not a sinful one.

The "civic duty" argument seems to fall apart since the U.S. government has not in fact made voting a civic duty. If the state made it mandatory, as is the case in Australia, then it might be some kind of sin to avoid doing so (Rom. 13). But American laws granting the right to vote imply the right not to vote. Once you take away that argument, you're left with all kinds of messes. If it's a sin not to vote even when the state grants you the right not to, then is it also a sin not to vote when the state does not grant you the right to vote? Are 17 year olds sinning by not going to the polls today?

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 3:14PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is leading somewhere around 14 percent in the polls for his re-election campaign. Might he need all 14 points? Or will he actually get a boost with yesterday's Dallas Morning News front-page story, "Perry believes non-Christians doomed"?
Summary and commentary after the jump...

Brief summary: Perry went to John Hagee's church Sunday, and Perry preached a sermon that included the sentence, "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." Reporters asked if he disagreed with the sermon. Perry said no. Later, pressed further on the issue, Perry said:

I don't know that there's any human being that has the ability to interpret what God and his final decision-making is going to be. That's what the faith says. I understand, and my caveat there is that an all-knowing God certainly transcends my personal ability to make that judgment black and white. ... Before we get into Buddha and all the others, I get a little confused there. But the fact is that we live in a pluralistic world but our faith is real personal. And my Christian faith teaches that the way is through Jesus Christ.

I don't see the word doomed in Perry's response, actually.

One of Perry's opponents, Kinky Friedman, responded, "He doesn't think very differently from the Taliban, does he? Being obsessed with who's going to heaven and who's going to hell is kind of a pathetic waste of time."

There's been some changes with the Taliban lately, but last I checked, the Taliban disagreed on a few points made by both Hagee and Perry. Specifically: all of them.

The News apparently disagrees that the question is a pathetic waste of time, and asked every candidate whether Perry was wrong not to condemn Hagee about his comments on hell:

Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who attended Sunday services at Harmony Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, said she disagreed with Mr. Perry. "There are many ways to heaven. We're all sinners, and we're all God's children," she said. "God's a uniter." Democrat Chris Bell said that a state leader should take more caution. "God is the only one who can make the decision as to who gets into the kingdom of heaven," he said. Mr. Bell declined to say whether he agrees that only followers of Jesus can go to heaven. "I'm a Christian," he said. "Rick Perry certainly is entitled to his beliefs, but when you're in public office, you need to respect people of all faiths and denominations." Asked whether Mr. Perry was wrong, Mr. Bell said: "The voters will have to decide that."

Texas is the only state where residents get to vote on who goes to hell.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 1:22PM

Beware, indeed, Collin. But while 11 percent is big, 1 percent (or -1 percent) might be even bigger. I've searched in vain for the actual link to the October New York Times/CBS poll that so many people have referred to (best guess is that it's some variation on this), but it is widely referred to as showing evangelicals preferring Democrats to Republicans by a 42% to 41% margin. (Which, one assumes, is within the margin of error, but still...)
Other polls are closer to what you've noted: WorldPublicOpinion.org says evangelicals are voting 56%-41% for Republican congressional candidates. Newsweek says 60% to 31% Republican.
I guess the numbers that matter most will be those exit poll figures.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 11:34AM

No doubt white evangelical support for Republican candidates will drop today compared to 2004 and 2002. But be wary of those polls showing a 20 percent decrease from the astounding 78 percent who backed President Bush in 2004. Midterm and presidential elections already differ dramatically in turnout, fundraising, national focus, etc. How much more, then, will evangelical support change with President Bush not on the ballot, given the affinity so many have felt with him? John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life made this point as we talked about Christianity Today’s “Four Races to Watch.” According to Pew polling, 68 percent of white evangelicals voted for Republican candidates for Congress in 2002. October 2006 polls show that 57 percent of white evangelicals will back Republicans. No doubt this 11 percent drop could cost Republicans the House and maybe even the Senate. But the change also illustrates that President Bush and the 2004 election should be regarded as more of an anomaly than the norm.

Posted by Collin Hansen at November 7, 2006 11:19AM

It’s not because no one else is offering commentary on tonight’s results. And it’s not because we’re tired of talking about Ted Haggard. (Okay, it’s not only because we’re tired talking about him.) But most places talking about today’s election will be focusing on politics. We want to find out what today’s votes mean for American Christianity. Are evangelicals’ priorities changing? Are evangelicals as “dispirited” as some claim? Are many voters today motivated by antagonism toward the Religious Right? Is this the Religious Left’s moment? We’ll be asking these questions as we look at tonight’s results and the media coverage of them. We’ll also be checking in with some of the others religious blogs tonight, and rounding up responses from Jim Dobson to Jim Wallis.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 7, 2006 10:52AM