How do (Canadian) evangelicals vote?

A new article from the online journal Church and Faith Trends examines Canadian evangelical voting “intentions” from 1996-2008. (The author notes that the data being used is taken from pre-election polls that indicate “voter intention” rather than actual “voting practice.”  i.e., We do not have access to data of for which parties evangelical voters actually end up voting, but pre-election polls about what a voter intends to vote surely tells us something important, even if some people change their mind in the voting booth!)

Among various observations, at least three in the study are worth noting:

1. Canadian evangelicals vote very much in accord with the larger regional trends, with only slight preferences given toward “right of centre” parties. The article breaks down voting preferences from four national regions (Western, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic) and shows that by and large, the evangelical vote is proportionally distributed amongst the major political parties relative to larger voting preferences.
2. The Liberal Party of Canada has seen a significant drop in evangelical support in the last four years, but not necessarily for reasons one might expect. That is, the author of the article argues that loss of evangelical support for the Liberal Party probably has more to do with ways in which the Liberals have alienated evangelicals than what right of centre parties (such as the Conservatives) are doing to gain evangelicals’ confidence.
3. Evangelicals who have left their support for the Liberal Party behind do not automatically go the Conservative Party, despite the fact that much of the mainstream media would like us to believe this. In fact, many evangelicals have thrown their support behind the NDP, Green Party, and in Quebec, the Bloc.
4. As one might expect, evangelicals do place “moral issues” (like abortion and same-sex marriage) high on their list of priorities as an election approaches. However, it is also true that, for example, in 2008 50% of evangelicals polled cited the “economy” as being one of the most important electoral issues.

So what do we make of all this?

On the one hand, this study clearly demonstrates that generalizations about Canadian evangelical voters at large are difficult to make. As the author notes, “Canadian Evangelical Christians do not vote as a bloc.”

On the other hand, the study also indicates that evangelicals vote pretty much like the rest of the populace, with only a small measure of them voting with greater preference for the right of centre parties. I don’t know whether that says something about the heterogeneity of evangelical political perspectives, or whether that says something about the homogeneity of the political platforms of the major Canadian political parties, all of which are, at the end of the day, clustered pretty much at the centre of the political spectrum. Evangelicals, in other words, vote across the whole spectrum of political parties because they are, after all, so much alike.

Of course, there are alternative parties for evangelicals to vote for. The Christian Heritage Party (CHP), for example, claims to be “Canada’s only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party.” Yet that does not seem to be enough to persuade evangelicals to vote enmasse for them. Why? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suspect that it is at least because most evangelicals would view it as nigh unto impossible ever to see a government formed under such a platform as the CHP. Or it might simply be that evangelicals, by and large, as interested as they might be in the so-called “moral issues” are also interested in the broader economic, international, health, and environmental issues. True, a party like CHP does in fact have a platform on some of these issues, but again, I suspect most evangelicals are wary of voting for these candidate because they are unconvinced that their vote would actually result in elected MPs, let alone a government.

The greater point, I think, is that evangelicals vote much like the general populace because we all have, to one extent or another, been duped into thinking that the best way to enact political change is accomplished through the exercise of political power. It seems to me that “getting elected” is the number one priority of every major political party these days. Their platforms are designed, in other words, first to get elected, and only secondarily to accomplish political ends. In this sense, we have actually moved backward in our political understanding toward a more hierarchical monarchist view of government. That is, the monarch traditionally “ruled” and had a council of advisers who were an extension of the accomplishment of his or her political political agenda. Similarly, it seems that much political maneouvering in Canada (and I suspect in an even greater way for our neighbors to the south) is about forming a government that can be a political extension of the party, rather than viewing parliament as a government and opposition which is meant to be a forum of what Oliver O’Donovan calls “public deliberation.”

All this is to say that perhaps we (evangelicals and Canadians at large) have to be re-taught about why it is that we elect a government, and politicians need to be recalled to be reminded that their role is not ultimately to gain power, but together as government and opposition to deliberate political proposals in light of fundamental questions about the public’s common good. As long as politicians and political parties have as their main goal the attainment of political power, evangelicals (and all Canadians) will continue to vote on their perceptions of which party will serve me as an individual best, rather than on the basis of which political party and candidates are most likely to do a good job of critically assessing and judging political options in order to enact those measure which are truly best for the country’s citizens.

p.s. to 10 Commandments for Theological Students

I’ve had several requests for re-posting and use of the “10 Commandments for Theological Students” post. So I’ve slightly edited it and moved it to a separate page. You can link to it from the “Pages” sidebar, or simply go here.

P.S.S.  I’m not sure why the page title appears at the top above the regular posts. I simply want it listed on the right hand sidebar under “Pages.”  Does anyone know how to change that?

Sparrow Gardens R.I.P.

For those who are familiar with the Briercrest campus, today marked the beginning of the end of what fondly was known as Sparrow Gardens (a.k.a. the hockey rink). This building was built circa 1942 and was originally an air hangar on the Caron air base and has served as the center of hockey action at Caronport ever since Briercrest took possession of the airbase in 1945.

I walked past the old rink this morning about 6:30 am and everything was still intact, but these pictures taken about 6:00 pm this evening tell you what a demolition crew can do in a day!

Sparrow Gardens from North West

Sparrow Gardens from North East

Thanks for the memories and the faithful service, Sparrow Gardens!

Wacky weather

I just checked the national forecast for tomorrow. Regina’s forecast is a low of 5 Celsius and a high of 8. Yay. (That was a sarcastic “yay” in case you didn’t quite catch it). I was out for a walk this morning and wished I had worn gloves! It’s about 5 degrees out as I type…

But here’s the amazing thing: Tomorrow’s forecast (June 8/09) for Whitehorse, Yukon is projected to have a low of 12 and a high of 22–two degrees warmer than what is projected for Vancouver (20), and one degree warmer than Halifax (21)!!

So much for our Sunday School picnic outside today!

How to cure a fanatic

A friend passed on a neat little book entitled, How to Cure a Fanatic by the Jewish novelist and political activist, Amos Oz. I highly recommend it. It only takes about 30-40 minutes to read and contains two essays, originally delivered as lectures:  ”Between Right and Right” and “How to Cure a Fanatic.”

In the first essay, “Between Right and Right,” he argues that both parties in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute are “right”: both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate claim to the land, and the sooner they both see each other as at least partially right, the sooner real peace might be possible. As Oz notes, both Palestinians and Israelis view the land as the only place in the world they can legitimately call their own. Indeed, Palestinians and Israelis ironically are more alike than different because both are “hysterical refugees and survivors, haunted by dreadful nightmares.” Neither party has anywhere to go because they have been already chased out of everywhere else.   Consequently, Oz argues that the solution to the Palestinian/Israeli crisis is relatively simple, but very difficult to swallow. Using the metaphor of a divorce, he says, 

[This] is going to be a very peculiar divorce, because the two divorcing parents are definitely staying in the same apartment. No one is moving out. And the apartment being very small, it will be necessary to decide who gets bedroom A and who gets bedroom B and how about the living room; and the apartment being so small, some special arrangement has to be made about the bathroom and the kitchen. Very inconvenient. But better than the kind of living hell that everyone is going through now in this beloved country. (19)

Beyond the illuminating discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli question, the most important contribution Oz makes in this essay is his terribly important insight upon the word “compromise.” As he explains,

The word ‘compromise’ has a terrible reputation in Europe. Especially among young idealists who always regard compromise as opportunism, as something dishonest, as something sneaky and shady, as a mark of a lack of integrity. Not in my vocabulary. For me the word ‘compromise’ means life. And the opposite of compromise is fanaticism and death. We need to compromise. Compromise, not capitulation. . . [and] I should tell you that this compromise will be very painful. (8)

In the 60’s, peace activists proudly declared, “Make love, not war.” Resisting the uncompromising idealism of this slogan, Oz instead offers the slogan,  ”Make peace, not love.” In the context of the Middle East,  Oz is unconvinced that what Palestinians and Israelis need (as most liberal democratic idealist ‘outsiders’ think) are “greater understanding” of each other.  ”A little group therapy, a touch of family counselling, and everyone will live happily ever after” (7). Thus, Oz is convinced that combatants don’t simply need to go for coffee more often until they “understand” each other, nor will any amount of “dialogue” solve the problem. On the contrary, any distant or faint hope of them “loving” one another will require them to settle the claim–as painful as it is–and partition out the apartment for the sake of a compromised peace settlement. Then, and only then, he says, might there be a chance that some might be willing to “hop over the partition for a cup of coffee together.” (20) In short, Oz argues that peace does not come about through dialogue, but dialogue only is made possible once peace has been established. And peace necessarily means compromise instead of holding fast to ideological convictions that can never be attained in the real world. (In this regard, Oz seems to sound a lot like the Christian Realism of Reinhold Niebuhr who also resisted ideological forms of pacificism in favour of concrete solutions in the here and now.)

As far as this first essay goes, I can only follow Oz half-way, even if I  follow him half-way whole-heartedly. I can only follow him half-way because I think he confuses the idea of “peace” with the important concept of “compromise” that he argues for (and which I particularly like). In this sense, I see Oz’s concept of compromise as parallel to the biblical idea of “forgiveness” (rather than peace) which means, “clearing the obstacles to peace and reconciliation.” For Oz, peace means the absence of war and conflict, though that, I believe, is only the “half-shalom/peace” of which Scripture speaks. For peace, in Scripture, means harmony and fecundity, not simply the absence of conflict. But nevertheless,  I applaud Oz’s ordering: Reconciliation (or what I would call a true biblical sense of peace/shalom) must start with compromise–with agreeing to draw the boundaries and stop the fighting so that, eventually, we might begin to see the possibility to “go for coffee” and perhaps begin to see signs of true peace and reconciliation emerge.

The second essay, “How to Cure a Fanatic,” I think, is even better and easier to summarize. Oz observes that the “essence of fanaticism lies in the desire to force other people to change.” (57) And though he doesn’t come right out and say it in so many words, I couldn’t help but notice that fanaticism is therefore inherently paradoxical in that the very value or ideal for which the fanatic fights also becomes a tool in his or her hand to force that change upon the other. For example, “Do I know the anti-smokers who wil burn you alive for lighting a cigarette near them! Do I know the vegetarians that will eat you alive for eating meat.” And, we might add, “Do I know the pro-choice fanatics who will do everything to take away the choice of a child to live. And do I know the pro-lifers who will kill an abortionist to keep him from killing.” 

So what is the solution to fantacism? Oz refuses to dictate the solution, lest he fall into a fanatical stance himself, but he does suggest two things: 1) Humour; and 2) Reading good (though not all) literature. Why these two? In light of his suggestion that humour is a first line of defense against fanaticism, Oz says,

“I have never once in my life seen a fanatic with a sense of humor, nor have I ever seen a person with a sense of humor become a fanatic, unless he or she has lost that sense of humor. . . [but] humor is the ability to see yourself as others may see you, humor is the capacity to realize that no matter how righteous you are and how terribly wronged you have been, there is a certain side to life that is always a bit funny. The more right you are, the funnier you become.” (65)

As for the importance of reading (good) literature (and I suppose that qualifier “good” begs the question of how to sort out the “good” from the “bad”), Oz points out that literature “contains  an antidote to fanaticism by injecting imagination into its readers. . . [Though literature] cannot work miracles, it can help. Shakespeare can help a great deal. Every extremism, every uncompromising crusade, every form of fanaticism in Shakespeare ends up either in a tragedy or in a comedy. The fanatic is never happier or more satisfied in the end; either he is dead or he becomes a joke. This is good inoculation.” (62-3)

If in fact Oz is right (and I have a gut feeling that he is on to some pretty important things here), I would suggest that Christians might profit from reading their Bible as the divinely inspired “literary comedy” that it is. For after all, what is the Bible but a book that shows the lunacy of human hubris and fanaticism in the light of God’s gracious overflow of joy? (In this regard, see Psalm 2). And though I believe the Bible is more than just literature, it is certainly not less than good literature.

Read John Calvin in 2009

Are you interested in reading John Calvin’s Institutes in 2009? Princeton Theological Seminary has set up a reading schedule to follow along which you can access here. While you’re at it, you might want to check out the helpful Calvin primer entitled, So, You Want to Read John Calvin? over at Der Evangelische Theologe.

mathematics and theological role models

An Oxford researcher by the name of Dr. Iphu B. Leevit has been studying the relationship of mathematics and theology. His study revealed that there is a sub-conscious mathematical element to an individual’s theological preferences. In order to demonstrate this, he came up with a simple mathematical formula that will reveal which theologian you are most likely to follow as a “theological role model.” The key to this working, of course, is that you answer the first question with what immediately comes to mind. If you don’t, the final result may be skewed.

So go ahead and try this simple exercise. Make sure you do all the calculations correctly and don’t “peek” ahead at the answers before finishing. 

1) Pick the number which first comes to mind between 1-9.

2) Multiply that number by 3. 

3) Add 3.

4) Multiply the answer by 3 (it’s ok if you have to use a calculator…no one will know!)

At this point you will get either a 2 or 3 digit number

5) Add the 2 or 3 digits together to get your final answer.

 Now with that number in mind, click here to see who your THEOLOGICAL ROLE MODEL is. Then enter the password “test” to see results. Quite astounding, isn’t it?

Protected: theological role model list…

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

A.W.O.L(ing).

Those of you who are kindly following Theommentary should be aware that I need to go temporarily AWOL–Absent With Out Leav(ing).  That is, though I will likely be pretty quiet in coming weeks, know that I haven’t gone anywhere, nor have I forgotten about Theommentary. But with a book deadline bearing down and the end of a sabbatical fast approaching, I need to hunker down as much as possible to stay focused on my book project for now. I may pop in on occasion over the next few weeks, but otherwise, things will likely be pretty quiet at Theommentary. My plan will be to re-engage, especially on the 1 John project, in the New Year. 

However, I do want to wish you all a wonderful season of Advent and Christmas. May the light of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John 1:5-7) shine brightly in your hearts, homes, and churches, and especially into this dark world where so many today deny his name. Remember that the word of the season is Emmanuel–God with us! This is the Word of Life that we still need desparately to hear.

Reformation Day!

I sent this out earlier to the Briercrest community. I thought I’d post it here as well.

P.S. Apparently scholars debate whether in fact Luther actually did post the theses as the story goes. But even if the the story is “apocryphal,” it is still the case that October 31 IS Reformation Day in the Church year.

———————————-

For those who have forgotten what day it is today, let me remind you that it is Reformation Day. It was on this day 491 years ago, on October 31, 1517, that Martin Luther posted his “95 Theses” on the Church door at Wittenberg–an act which Luther surely could not have anticipated would result in what we now call the Protestant Reformation.

Recently, some (such as eminent evangelical historian Mark Noll) have been asking whether the Reformation is over, especially since there is a much greater willingness amongst Catholics and Protestants to work together for the cause of the Gospel, and since many of the old schisms that used to divide us seem to be closing. For example, though not everyone yet buys into all the conclusions of the 1999 “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, it is nevertheless true that the differences between Catholics and Protestants are not nearly as great as they used to be, even on this fundamental doctrine which was at the centre of the original Protest. Add to this the reality that the last pope (John Paul II) and the current pope (Benedict XVI) have sounded more “evangelical” in our ears than ever, and one wonders whether the Reformation really is over. 

However, major differences still do exist and we are still quite a way from saying that the issues raised by Luther and the reformers which followed him so many years ago are no longer relevant. What we can affirm today, though, is that God by his Spirit is continuing to work to reform and renew his Church, the body of Christ. As outwardly the challenges to being a faithful Christian in our country today seem to be increasing, we can be thankful that Jesus is building his Church and nothing, not even the gates of Hades, can prevail against it, even though it continues to be ever in need of reformation, indeed, transformation, into the image of Christ the Lord and Head of the Church.

Happy Reformation Day!