The Kingdom, the Power and The Glory: but no Red Heifer

The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was a HARD book to rate, and so, as I’ve done once or twice before, I’m doing sub-ratings. These come from my dual background as a newspaper editor and a secularist with a graduate theological degree. And, I'm expanding on one issue from my original Goodreads review.

OK, subratings:

1. Conservative evangelicals in bed with Trump? (Note the word “conservative” and see below.) 3.5. The TL/DR answer that Alberta doesn’t expressly note (until the epilogue, spoiler alert)? Conservative evangelicals, or a large chunk of them, want to “own the libs,” like Trump. He says this indirectly, but no more than that, before that one aside in the epilogue. (That said, David French, Russell Moore and others appear to blow this as well, or else maybe they — and maybe Alberta, too — don’t want to admit that the desire to win, which Alberta does discuss, is that simple — and that crude. And, while more inchoate, was held long before Trump.)
Side note: Per my observation about Russell Moore last year, Christianity’s entanglement with politics in the US isn’t totally new either, per things like Teddy Roosevelt’s “Muscular Christianity.” And per that link, I have a more skeptical eye on Russell Moore’s past than Alberta does.

1A. Conservative evangelicals’ other problems, such as their version of the Catholic priests’ sex abuse scandal? 4.5. The interviews with Rachael Denhollander and Julie Roys and their legal and journalistic work, respectively, was very good. So was Denhollander’s speculation that whichever way the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Life Commission breaks on the sexual abuse database issue, it’s going to cause a denominational schism.

1B. In brief, Alberta's starting with the Reagan era is good, as he shows evangelicals' interest in politics — and per Falwell Sr. being focused on taking down Jimmy Carter — as being an early driver. Could have been explored more, namely, the degree to which evangelicals overlooked Reagan's religious failings, such as divorce, child conceived (tho not born) out of wedlock, consulting astrologers (contra legends, Ronnie, not Nancy, took the initial lead on this long before the presidency) and more, just like with Trump. Let's also not forget that the National Day of Prayer was pushed on Ike by evangelicals, and other related Cold War items. 3.25 for not more explicitly making these ties, especially the pre-Reagan ones. Alberta is sincere in his worries about politics overtaking evangelical Christianity today, but, whether he's actually less sincere, or he just didn't want to go into depth on this, he risks looking less sincere by not having explored these ties more.
Beyond the focus of this book, I suspect that my childhood Missouri Synod Lutheranism, without a formal schism, will have 10 percent of its congregations hive off over the next decade or so and that Matt Harrison will stop being able to even halfway thread the needle over the Lutefash issue.

And, speaking of not exploring ties more? ...

1C. Where’s apocalypticism and where’s Israel? I only thought about that at the end, but .... See point 5 and explication for more. 2.5 as a placeholder, but also lowered the rating on broader political commentary, especially re the issue of Israel. On apocalypticism and eschatology, no, not every evangelical has the same take, but, they’re all generally contra mainline Protestants, and Catholics and Orthodoxy’s, amillenialism. And, hellz yes, this influences their interaction with politics, and especially, in foreign affairs, Israel. (NO 1- or 2-star reviewer picked up on this; 3-star reviews were too many to read but I expect it was missed there, too. I'll expand on this, either here or at my blog sites.)

And, yes, this is the issue that gets expansion.

The Wikipedia page on millennialism is a good starter. For more on the three main options within Christianity, go to its pages on premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism.

Premillennialism has two different stripes, one ancient and the other modern. Both, though, believe in a literal millennium, a 1,000-year rule of Jesus on earth. They differ on things like where to place the "Rapture" (scare quote needed) and the "Tribulation" vis a vis the millennium as a whole, but have broad similarities. Overall, historic premillennialism is less literalistic than modern dispensationalist versions, though, and it's those that drive the folks like Tim LaHaye and his "Left Behind" set.

To be complete? Postmillennialism is, per Wiki, more of a catch-all. That said, all varieties believe Jesus' second coming will not happen until AFTER a millennial period, hence the "post-" prefix. How literalistic or not to understand that millennial period itself has a wide variety of stances.

Amillennialism? Anything the bible says about a 1,000-year period is figurative.

As Wiki notes in the main article, some early church fathers were Historical Premillennialist. Others may have been around that. Postmillennialism in any form had no real foothold among the ante-Nicene fathers.

But then Nicaea happened. And everything related to it, like the legalization of Christianity inside the Roman Empire, followed by it being made the official state religion by Theodosius II less than 60 years later. And, no tribulation or any other premillennial verschnizzle had happened. (This is why, in the bible, most scholars think II Thessalonians is apocryphal; it totally ignores Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" of 1 Thessalonians. See here for the difference between that person, the Beast of Revelation and the various antichrists of Johannine epistles.)

Amillennialsts say that there is no literal millennium, and that Revelation is just referencing the time between Jesus' ascension and his return. There will be no reign of the righteous or improvability of the earth before he returns, contra postmillennialism, nor will he return to start a 1,000-year battle with the powers of darkness, let alone look for a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem after a spotless red heifer is found or anything like that.

So, per Alberta's book, who believes what?

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox are strongly amillennial. So is the Lutheranism of my youth. So is traditional Calvinism, including Alberta's Presbyterianism. Ditto on Anglicanism and Episcopalianism. "Fundamentalism" within old mainline Protestantism, as well as more liberal views of theology and interpretation in mainline Protestantism, are at least on paper, still amillennial today.

Baptist groups, and the broader Anabaptist tradition from which they arise? Also generally amillennial.

That said, premillennialism in modern times is not a 19th-20th century American issue. Many Puritans held that, seeing themselves as a "New Israel." And, tying that to the "ingathering" and conversion of all Israel. (Paul may have been speaking literalistically in Romans. But, he was still wrong.) It really exploded among 19th century British evangelicals, where John Nelson Darby essentially launched what became modern dispensationalism, then exploded further here in the U.S. with Cyrus Scofield and his infamous Scofield Reference Bible. Its impact was expanded even more by being printed right before World War I. Although Baptists' history is amillennial, dispensationalism has a strong foothold there. It does as well among charismatic and Pentecostal types.

As for where we're at now? The 1948 establishment of the nation of Israel factors largely into many dispensationalists' thoughts, including, yes, rebuilding a temple and other things.

And, ALL of this, and how it affects modern evangelical or fundagelical politics, versus Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, and on paper, Alberta's childhood Presbyterians, is ignored by him.

2. Defining “evangelical”? 3 Alberta admits it’s complex, but, without using the word “fundagelical,” takes a pass in one way. See below. Let’s also not forget that “evangelical” arose in part as a “branding” term.

3. Biblical and early Christian interpretation, even within “fundagelical” culture? 2.5.

4. The above, outside that? 2.25

5. Broader political commentary? Rating based in part on overlapping past political coverage with Alberta: 1.75

A weighted average of all of the above, weighting more for the 1 and 1A gives 3.2 stars. An unweighted average is 2.8.

Summary: I think Alberta is sincere in his description — as far as it goes. Why it doesn’t go even further, on evangelical history, and the unmentioned elephant in the room, I don’t know. Get’s a gentleman’s C 3 stars. Because of his sincerity, and because at least one of the 1-star reviews is crap, this is a solid rating. But, if he writes another book just about evangelicalism, figure out his audience and pitch first. If he writes another book about evangelicals’ intersection with politics, and it doesn’t cover that elephant, don’t read it.

Early on, like Bart Ehrman’s Armageddon, Alberta appears to have a Marcionite view of the Old Testament. (Later, he talks about the sweetness of the New Jerusalem in Revelation, but ignores the amount of divine wrath there. He ignores Tertullian’s riff on Lazarus and Dives with Christians taking joy over the torments of the dammed.)

Also early on, Alberta indicates a belief in American exceptionalism, such as talking about America’s “miraculous” victory over Great Britain. Nothing miraculous about it when you recognize that Yorktown was a 75 percent French, 25 percent American, win, which doesn’t appear in Alberta’s narrative.

There’s also problems with biblical interpretation and criticism elsewhere. Contra page 131, no Nero didn’t persecute Christians after the Great Fire and the Tacitus account is almost certainly an interpolation by a minor church father circa 400 CE.

The page before is an error that even a fundagelical should not make. Saul/Paul did NOT “supervise” the stoning of Stephen and the plain text of Acts never says that. What Acts 7:54-58 DOES say:

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit … 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

A few pages later, from that same Wheaton conference? Maybe part of why evangelicals think, wrongly, they’re being persecuted today is even more than conservative Catholics, they’ve swallowed myths of early Christian martyrdom that Candida Moss showed more than a decade ago simply aren’t true.

Much later, on page 386, this howler: “If these women had complied with the Jewish norms of the day, which forbade women from instructing men in public spaces…” then “it’s true that Paul wrote in one letter that women should not teach men.” Alberta never delves into the issue of inerrancy, nor the critical theology knowledge that Paul didn’t write those words in 2 Timothy, but a pseudonynomous author did circa 120 CE.

Yes, I know this is not a book of biblical, and ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Christian church fathers criticism. Nonetheless, with the exception of Saul/Paul and Stephen, getting these issues wrong, and continuing to wrongly hold them, especially combined with American exceptionalism (including as expressed by Alberta) means that evangelicals, whether they continue to try to be highly engaged politically or not, will in some way get their relation to politics wrong.

The idea of dividing the book into three sections, on “The Kingdom, The Power and the Glory,” riffing on the end of the Lord’s Prayer of today (that almost certainly was not part of the original, per textual criticism) was good. But, where was Augustine, specifically, “The City of God,” in the Kingdom section? He’s referenced in passing twice in the Power section by people Alberta interviews, and that’s it. MAJOR failure there.

Also? Not all evangelicals are conservative evangelicals and Alberta makes an error of omission here like many of his theological kin do. For example, Sojourners magazine, the people behind it, and the mag’s average readers? Nowhere mentioned in your book. (I checked the index; the Russian Orthodox Church, which is definitely not a US evangelical church, is mentioned five times, and Sojourners zero.) Per Wiki, the Sojourners Community that founded the mag started at Trinity Evangelical, and I’ll venture Alberta knows this. Alberta isn’t the only person to get this wrong. So does Fred Clark at Patheos, whom I suspect knows better, and who may be loath to identify himself as a “liberal evangelical” if he is one; The New Republic, which doesn’t; and others. Whether “liberal evangelical” is totally the right word for folks like Sojourners, I don’t know, but, at least, “moderate evangelicals.” And, Jimmy Carter still self-identifies as an evangelical, I think. And, what about academics in exegetical theology who accept historical-critical methodology in general but are on the conservative edge of it like a James McGrath? They’re not fundamentalists, not in a narrow sense.

There’s also the question of who’s an evangelical and who’s a fundamentalist? I consider the conservative Presbyterian church in which Alberta grew up, does have “evangelical” in its name, but? After all, “The Fundamentals” arose from within Presbyterianism, at least as far as the Stewart brothers who funded it. And, I consider the conservative wing of Lutheranism, whether the larger Missouri Synod or the smaller Wisconsin Synod (one of the events Alberta attends is at a Wisconsin Synod church) to be fundamentalist too. (These Lutherans, including my Missouri Synod pastor’s wife sister, hate being called fundamentalists, but it’s true, even if their fundamentals aren’t Presbyterian ones.)

There’s also the question of what the core audience is? If it’s conservative evangelicals, maybe it’s not long enough. If the general public? Too long. 450 pages in relatively small font and leading for todays hardbound book world is pretty long. See the top portion of my ratings.

There’s also a bigger background issue, via a question not raised by Alberta. And, Jeopardy style, I’ll provide the answer via Ed Abbey:

“Growth for growth’s sake is the theology of the cancer cell.”

Indeed, per a biblical reference missed by Alberta, in Acts, Gamaliel says that if the movement by Jesus’ disciples is from god, it will succeed and if not it won’t.

Setting aside divine origins, for any organization that is convinced in a non-arrogant way of the rightness of its mission and ideas, focusing on growth for growth’s sake simply shouldn’t happen.

Then, there’s the general politics coverage.

On 298, Alberta repeats the canard (it is, Tim) that national Democrats generally support “abortion on demand.” Once again, he either knows better or decided not to know better.

Many, many Democrats in the House and Senate supported the Hyde Amendment, barring Medicaid funding of abortions, from when Henry Hyde first wrote it. That includes our current president, Joe Biden, while in the Senate.

Related and connected? Biden, as well as Clinton and Obama, failed to ask Congress as the start of their respective administrations, when Democrats controlled both houses, for legislation offering any federal protections for any portion of Roe that could be federally protected. Alberta knows that, too.

Also, at one point in the book, Alberta seems to treat with a half-sneer the idea in the Shrub Bush administration of looking for “moderate Muslims.” If he didn’t mean that, then, he needs to be more careful in how he describes Muslims in America.

Finally, in a BIG old issue that Alberta totally ignores? And that’s of new relevance since Oct. 7, 2023? At least on paper, the mainline Lutheranism of my youth still doesn’t cut blank checks to Israel. This, and apocalyptic thought in general, and how it fuels and festers fear, is an issue for both political coverage and the intersection of religion and politics.

Related? As I said in 2018 (maybe he’s gotten better) Alberta is not a smart / informed political writer, to put it politely, or he’s … well, he’s the same word as he is on Democrats and abortion, to put it somewhat less politely, or an l-word, to put it totally unpolitely, about Beto O’Rourke’s political stances. I interviewed Beto, per the background to that link, and during the 2018 Senate campaign general election race, not the Dem primary. Beto talked about "access for all," and said single payer was "one way to get there," but contra Alberta, that's not single payer. Period. He refused to cosponsor John Conyers' HR 676 in the House. And, he said he didn't like Sanders' similar bill in the Senate. Now, Alberta wasn't alone in drinking the Kool-Aid; so, too, for reasons of her own, did his primary opponent, Sema Hernandez. That still doesn't excuse Alberta.

==

Finally, sidebar observations. One two-star reviewer needs to actually read Alberta with an open mind rather than chastise. She won’t recognize herself in the mirror (nor allow comments). Another in the same vein.
And another:

The craptacular one-star review is by an apparent Gnu Atheist.

View all my reviews

Why demographics don't guarantee Democratic wins, part 172

Having lived a fair chunk of my adult life in black-plurality or black-majority areas, those green circles' locations, in general, do not surprise me. It's a bit sad. And, it has political ramifications. If the GOP did not have 50 years of perception, and reality, with the "Southern shift," of having a large anti-black element, it would be getting more black voters precisely because of things like this.

Click here for an explanation of the data source for the graph (it's the 2007 version of Pew's religious study; a new one came out earlier this month, but the raw data from it isn't yet available), the calibration of the graph and more.

In Southwestern states (counting Texas as Southwestern for this purpose), one should note the rise of various Hispanic evangelicals, especially Spanish-language Baptists, whether affiliated with the SBC or not. They're not specifically marked on this chart, but, for the sake of argument, I'll place them where the SBC is, roughly.

Update, Jan. 17, 2018: Expect more and more of them to come, AND to look at allying with the GOP, as evangelical religion continues to grow in Latin America AND to more openly ally with center-right parties there.

Speaking of Baptists, one sidebar. It's interesting that American Baptists, while more liberal-minded on evolution than their Southern Baptist kin, don't track any higher than them on environmental activism. I wonder if that holds true for other federal regulatory activism.

That said, once we get outside these two issues, black and white evangelicals don't totally track together:

In Grant’s version, evangelicals cluster together as advocates for small government in general who nevertheless want government to take a bigger role in promoting morality, while historically black church members cluster together as advocates for greater government action and greater role of government in morality. 

(I count the AME as "evangelical" by focusing on the M, not the E.)

For people who think demographics will thus magically guarantee Democratic party success in the future, this is why I have said before and say again: Think again.

That includes people who think "most Hispanics are Catholic." Actually, only 55 percent are. Of the Protestant Hispanics, more than 70 percent are evangelical. And, among those Catholic Hispanics, if their immigrants, they likely are more conservative on social issues than US Catholics, anyway. Definitely, a large chunk of those evangelical Protestant Catholics are Latino immigrants. And, more and more of Hispanics are from those Protestant-explosion areas of Latin America south of Mexico.

I've written about this plenty of times before, most notably here, with detailed graphics, most notably the one at right.

Key takeaway from that "here" link? Hispanic Protestants, in Bush-Kerry, broke almost as much for Bush as did white evangelicals, as that graphic shows, at right, with original story here.

Pew offers more information of relevance. The biggie is that a little less than half of Latinos are Catholic and a full one-fifth are evangelical Protestant.

I've also covered somewhat related issues, namely, the idea that minorities may look more to Washington and less to Austin for help in general.

But that graphic above is the biggie, and is reinforced by the one at right. A growing number of Hispanics are evangelical Protestants, and are likely to vote Republican. Catholic Hispanics may have different concerns than other Democrats. And religious "nones" may be tuned out to politics as well as religion.

(Dos Centavos claims Latinos nationally are moving further left on the two hot button social issues. Without links in the piece, I remain a bit skeptical. Sorry.

Now, per a blog post by Perry, which is where I found that Dos Centavos link, yes, the leading group within Hispanics or Latinos is still Mexicans, and certainly in Texas. But, sub-Mexican Latinos, that is, from further south in Latin America, is a rapidly growing portion of Latinos. And, the evangelical Protestant explosion from that part of Latin America has made some inroads in Mexico, too.)

Anyway, back to all these differences.

Again, if you're Texas or national Democrat type, please, think again. Don't assume Hispanics are Catholic, and don't make other assumptions related to that. I mean, if you've lived in this state for any amount of time, especially if you've gotten off the main drags in big cities, you can see plenty of churches with names like "Primera Iglesia Bautista." Folks, those churches aren't inhabited by Anglos, and in case you can't figure out that last word readily enough, they ain't Catholic.

And also don't assume that Hispanics, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, are going to agree with all white liberal Democrats on social issues; don't assume that Hispanic Catholics dine at the same cafeteria as white liberal cafeteria Catholics. And, if they're immigrants, unlike African-Americans, they have no expectations of socially activist governments in general.

Now, it's true that many of the Hispanics from further south than Mexico are illegal immigrants and can't vote. But many already have kids born here the USofA who will soon be old enough to do so, if not already. And, many of them, like their parents, are still involved with the local Primera Iglesia Bautista.

Carrying assumptions about Hispanics, especially recent arrivals, is part of how Democrats are continuing to lose elections in Texas.

Let's also not forget Maslow's hierarchy of values. For immigrant Hispanics living in colonia-type conditions, clean running water, an indoor flush toilet, and a secure job that pays at least a few cents above crap, long before they worry about gay rights or even reproductive choice.

I don't recall Wendy Davis, or previous Democratic gubernatorial candidates, campaigning in the Valley on these issues. Until they do, they probably won't draw much enthusiasm.

Finally, on a different demographic, Slate's Jamelle Bouie says Democrats shouldn't lean too hard on the age demographic either.

Sin-corrupted writing for evangelicals

My college alumni association's newsletter prompted this.

A classmate of a relative, for his denomination's monthly magazine, has an article about "Sin-Corrupted Sex," focusing on (by Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic/Episcopalian count) the Sixth Commandment.

Well, ignoring the first two as god-oriented, and setting aside the issue of whether any Christians besides Seventh-Day Adventists are getting the Third right (yes, the book of Hebrews talks about people meeting on the first day of the week, but neither Jesus, nor Paul, is ever recorded as promoting that), there's seven human-oriented ones.

Sin-corrupted children? That said, the Fourth Commandment was written by priests leading a society of patriarchal goatherds. Evangelicals would never talk about sin-corrupted fatherhood, sin-corrupted child or spousal abuse, etc.

Sin-corrupted murder? Well, a few evangelicals might dodge around things like the murder of Wichita, Kansas abortion provider Dr. Tiller. A lot more of them might dodge around just war and lying into war issues related to President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Sin-corrupted theft? Most evangelicals would surely never write about things like wage and hour theft by employers.

Sin-corrupted false witness? Oh, no, evangelicals, at least white ones, would steer clear of bearing false witness about calling inner-city minorities "thugs," calling all people on public assistance "lazy" or "frauds" or "cheaters" or "drug abusers," etc.

Sin-corrupted wife-coveting? The patriarchy of husband-coveting not being mentioned would not be addressed.

Sin-corrupted slave-coveting? Ahh, the last of the commandments. But, since the Civil War was not about slavery, there's no need to talk about coveting here.

'Ugly evangelical Americans' — I hope Haiti has a 'hanging judge'

And, in the middle of earthquake recovery, the government finds both the means and the cojones (what's the French for that?) to throw the book at the child-stealing Idaho Baptists.

How directly the numbnuttery of Pat Robertson and his ilk on Haiti's "pact with the devil" is on this issue, and how much this is just general, "ugly evangelical American" evangelism gone awry, as with the Michigan gun scope maker, the missionaries in Afghanistan a few years ago, or whatever, I'm not sure.

But, "ugly evangelical Americanism" it is, indeed.

Would that President Barack H. Obama would find some cojones to condemn this, too.

Update, Feb. 4: It turns out Laura Silsby, the head of the Idaho Baptists, has a history of legal woes back home. A Christian missionary committing fraud? Not paying wages?

Update, Feb. 14: Hmmm... One of the Baptists' lawyers may be a suspect in an international child trafficking cartel. More to follow, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald notes the 'wingers utter hypocrisy on this case and any actual or alleged human rights violations of the Baptists as they are being detained.

Bush OK with evolution

The Preznit, after eight years of giving off vibes that he's a young-earth creationist type, and having actually said in the past that schools need "teach the alleged and nonexistent controversy" about evolution, now says...

He thinks evolution, theistically guided is real. His YEC religious right friends ain't gonna like this one!

On the coffee table – ‘God in the White House’

Randall Ballmer, though an editor at large at the evangelical “organ,” Christianity Today, is not your stereotypical “conservative knee-jerk Republican evangelical.” Far from it. He’s also a professor of religious history at both Barnard and Columbia, and a visiting professor at Yale.

In short, he knows his stuff. And, in this book, his “stuff” is exposing the hypocrisy and vacuousness of Presidential church-state mixing. While much of his dirt-turning is focused on the GOP presidential side, he doesn’t let Clinton’s religious claims versus some of his actual practices go unscathed, either.

Anyway, to the highlights of the book. Here it is at Amazon.

Jimmy Carter? Likely the most decent, moral and religiously active president of the last 50 years. Yet, ditched by the Religious Right.

And, not because of abortion. But, because the Religious Right wanted segregated Southern private schools to keep tax exempt status, even as they saw the handwriting on the wall for Bob Jones University.

That’s the biggest debunking of conventional wisdom you’ll find in this slim volume.

Normally, I don’t five-star books this size, but, this one is on the 4/5 star border and deserves the bump.

Randall Ballmer does an excellent, nonpartisan job of looking at how faith and presidential politics have mixed from the 1960 campaign, in which John Kennedy defended the right of a Catholic to run for the White House, up through George Bush’s talking about the immorality of abortion without doing anything about it, while claiming moral stature for torture.

That, then, leads to one of two highlights of this book.

Ballmer lists sample questions the mainstream media should have asked presidential candidates of the past, both liberal and conservative politically or religiously, both Democratic and Republican. Specifically, these are follow-up questions the MSM should have asked presidential candidates of the past after particular faith-based statements.

In these sample questions, Ballmer said the MSM should have asked Bush just how he squared abortion talk with lack of action, or how Clinton squared Baptist piety with Monica Lewinsky. That fact, right there, belies one current three-star rater, and others to come, who claim Ballmer doesn’t know what he is talking about just because his definition of “evangelical” isn’t limited to “conservative, Republican-voting evangelical.”

The second special area is major religion-related speeches of modern presidents, from Kennedy’s legendary talk to the Houston Ministerial Association, to LBJ’s “Great Society” speech, on to Ford’s defense — with his mentioning of the role of prayer and faith — in his pardon of Nixon, through Carter’s “crisis of confidence” (NOT “malaise”) speech, Reagan on the Statue of Liberty centennial, Clinton on presenting Billy Graham the Congressional Medal of Honor, and George W. Bush on 9/11.

That said, while I wish the MSM would do just the follow-up work Ballmer cries for, it doesn’t ask that depth of follow-up questions in fields in which it might theoretically have more knowledge, so I’m not holding my breath here.

CBN thinks Obama can make real evangelical play

No snark and no cynicism at this Christian Broadcasting Network page. Yes, the media empire of Pat Robertson has at least one person, David Brody, who has an appreciative eye as a political analyst for the start of Obama’s serious election outreach to evangelicals, which is going to get a trial run in the Kentucky primary next Tuesday, and also has an appreciative eye for what Obama brings to the table as a Christian presidential candidate:

I know the conservative policy purists will say that Obama is liberal and therefore Evangelicals won’t buy his “Evangelical speak”. Not so fast. Remember, many people vote based on an emotional connection to a candidate or if they can relate to that person. Obama may need to work on this perception that he is “elite” but when he talks about Jesus and the Bible and the fact that he’s a sinner, it makes him more real and in the process, more electable too.

Also, Brody makes no attempt to “tag” Obama with Jeremiah Wright or anything else.

If Brody’s straight-up perception of Obama from the conservative evangelical world is anywhere near a correct assessment, this will indeed be a boost for him over McCain.

When Republicans fight: don’t you love it?

So Mitt Romney is blowing a gasket because Mike Huckabee asks: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Of course, it’s a lie. Jesus and Joseph Smith are brothers, according to Mormons. (C’mon, we all know that.) And Jesus had multiple Mormon wives — Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus. (C’mon, we all knew that, too.)

Given the, not rough edges, but more willing rough elbows of the Huckabee campaign, a claim this blunt doesn’t surprise me at all. Huck’s shown he’s willing to get the brass knuckles out. (Sidebar: doesn’t this say something about Arkansas politics and politicians?)

And, sure, Huck is speaking in “code words” to evangelicals. But, Mitt, did you audience-test your “JFK speech” in advance of giving it? I can’t believe you really thought that it would tamp down rank-and-file conservative evangelical skeptics, let alone outright critics, to give such a speech without actually talking about Mormonism. OK, so you didn’t see the Huckabee Surge™. But, if this was supposed to be a pre-emptive speech, you should have anticipated something like this.

Frankie Schaffer bails on the GOP? WOW

More formally known as Frank, and the son of the early-movement highly influential conservative evangelical philosopher-theologian Francis Schaffer, Frank wrote the Morning News to announce he was officially throwing away his GOP membership. Seems to be a lot of that going around recently.

What pushed him over the line was the Sen. George Allen robo e-mail all but calling challenger James Webb nine kinds of pervert.

The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom.

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies. …

My wife and I have reached the tipping point. We plan to go to town hall to dump our Republican voter registration and reregister as independents. I don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of.

When you lose someone like this, you know you’re in trouble. And, though many run-Bush-up-the-flagpole-and-salute hardcore conservative evangelicals (not to mention fundamentalist ostriches) will march blithely on, many other evangelicals will not. They’ve just been looking for a voice telling them it’s OK to get off the GOP bandwagon.