Professor Berlinerblau,

The analysis could be less perplexing if there was more rigor exercised when defining the population of interest.

If you are interested in "evangelicals" then why do you use statistics about self-described Republican, white, evangelicals or born-agains?

If the "evangelical" population is going to be self-described (i.e. self-identified) then you've already thrown rigor out the window. I wonder if the word "evanglical" has come to mean white traditionalist in the popular vernacular. It does seem as if you are thinking of evangelicals as a subset of Republicans. And why would identification of evangelicals be based on skin pigmentation rather than on a common religious perception? Also, are you using "born-again" as a subset of evangelicals or as a synonym? If you are having difficulty describing the population of interest then imagine the multiplication of divergent definitions as millions of self-described "evangelicals" enter the mix.

For the "Huckabee Perplex", the best one might say (using the Republican-White-Evangelical definition) is that "evangelicals" aren't voters who supported Mike Huckabee. One approach to resolving the "perplex" would be to use inductive reasoning to start with an identification of the common characteristics of Huckabee supporters and let that outcome describe the group that supports Mike.

Another approach would be to choose a rigorous definition of "evangelical" and conduct a survey to see who the rigorously defined group supported (and why).

The "Three Streams, One River" categorization of Christians divides the Christian population into three groups (including evangelical as one of the groups). The three streams concept was originally developed fifty years ago by a missionary bishop in the Church of South India, Lesslie Newbigin. In his book The Household of God, he compared the New Testament church to three streams coming together to form one mighty river. He labeled the three streams catholic, evangelical, and pentecostal. Interestingly, I wionder if Mike Huckabee's support was more likely to come from the Pentecostal stream (since he was very much supported by Kenneth Copeland).

Here are some characteristics of the three streams that might be relevant to political preferences.

Standards of Orthodoxy (What it means to be a Christian)

Catholic: “By their fruit you shall know them” (Matthew 7:1). Orthodoxy is measured by commitment to living out the Faith by sacrificial service, particularly to the poor.

Evangelical: “If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Orthodoxy is measured by profession of personal faith in Jesus Christ.

Pentecostal: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). The Pentecostal standard of orthodoxy is measured by the exercise of discernment rather than by objective criteria.

Authority

Catholic: The Catholic model is hierarchical. It values and respects the office of leader, despite any shortcomings in the incumbent.

Evangelical: The Evangelical model is congregational. It values autonomy and independence.

Pentecostal: The Pentecostal model is spontaneous. Follow the leader who has the anointing.

Structure

Catholic: Places value on centrally-organized and -led structures.

Evangelical: Wary of central organization. Prefers bottom-up, lay-led structures.

Pentecostal: To the Pentecostal, “structure equals stricture.” Preference is given to unstructured spontaneity.

A second categorization, the Renovare approach, includes "evangelical" as one of six (rather than three) categories:
evangelical
charismatic
contemplative
holiness
incarnational
social justice

Of course, a problem in using any of the groupings is that any given individual can be in more than one group. Christians aren't homogeneous, nor are they one-dimensional.

Does the "Huckabee Perplex" really matter enough that you would want to put a lot of effort into sorting through the complexities?

"So yes, there are liberal Christians out there who might like what Huckabee has to say about poverty and public education. But they are not Republicans."

That sounds mostly right. I've heard of some Christians whose party affiliation is based solely on the abortion issue. Could some of them be middle-roader evangelicals?

Tonio, this is very interesting analysis.

As you suggest, Huckabee embodies the peril of Biblical literalism -- it leads you to liberal as well as conservative places (unless you swallow the tortured rationalizations of people like Dr. Dobson.)

But my point was this: For the purposes of the GOP nomination, how many moderate/liberal Evangelicals Christians are actually out there? Somewhere between 3 and 300?

At very least, I would posit that the GOP evangelicals opposed to Huckabee's liberal positions outnumbered the "moderate" evangelicals upset by his positions on homosexuality and evolution by at least 10 to 1.

I have trouble believing there are more than a handful of liberal Christians in the Republican party. Why on earth would they be part of something so feriously and uniformly right-wing as the GOP has been? (Along those lines, I've never understood the Log Cabin Republicans -- "I vote for you even though you say I'll burn in Hell for being gay")

So yes, there are liberal Christians out there who might like what Huckabee has to say about poverty and public education. But they are not Republicans.

Tonio:

T Boyer, it sounds like you are really describing fundamentalists and Bible literalists. The moderate evangelicals who believe that government can help people are also moderate in their religious beliefs. That may have been Huckabee's problem. He was advocating Bible literalism on gay marriage and creationism, and this may have been a deal-breaker for many moderate evangelicals. Likewise, the fundamentalists and Bible literalists were repulsed by Huckabee's moderate views on government. Perhaps he was trying to court both groups and ended up driving both away.

Jacques:

You raise some good points in this piece. I have briefly thought about them myself. For sure, evangelicals are evolving, mostly for the better, thank God.

I, for one, think that living your faith and preaching the gospel have nothing to do with politics and voting (see post: http://www.carlrollinsblog.com/id7.html).

There may be two other factors at work: 1) evangelicals didn't like some of his positions on helping the poor and other "blue state" issues; and 2) evangelicals didn't think he was for real.

I don't know for sure because I really don't follow electoral politics. However, the former possibility is far more troubling than the first. If true it just means that people of faith still have a long way to go.

"If substantial numbers of Evangelicals were truly moderate, as is often claimed, Huckabee would have done better. The Evangelicals I know thought of him as a liberal fool."

T Boyer, it sounds like you are really describing fundamentalists and Bible literalists. The moderate evangelicals who believe that government can help people are also moderate in their religious beliefs. That may have been Huckabee's problem. He was advocating Bible literalism on gay marriage and creationism, and this may have been a deal-breaker for many moderate evangelicals. Likewise, the fundamentalists and Bible literalists were repulsed by Huckabee's moderate views on government. Perhaps he was trying to court both groups and ended up driving both away. Perhaps his support came from voters who liked his stance in one area but didn't attach much support to his stance in the other area.

Hesthe-

Since you mentioned the 'bottle blonde' mentality around here. I also noticed the vacant stare as Sally said-

"This is the only place on the internet were you will find a discussion of religion and politics."

Sally shouldn't guess what she doesn't know..

I just finished watching the debate on the "Should Religion and Politics Mix?" Loved hearing Bishop Harry Jackson tell Jacques- "Oh my, you sound conflicted, Brother Berlinerblau." Here's the link again:

http://millercenter.org/public/debates/religion

Maybe Sally will start hosting a few debates..

Re: the video with Berlinerblau on Spitzer:

Sally, I know you've been blonde for years, but your remark that 50% of Americans must have committed adultery because 50% of Americans are divorced is really out in left field. I don't know whether your sociology or your mathematics is worse.

Jacques, you pose this as a mystery, but the answer is really quite simple: Huckabee was way too liberal for these folks.

He may have been a preacher, but he was guilty of the ultimate Evangelical heresy -- believing government can help people.

Anybody who talks to God regularly (such as Dr. Dobson) knows Jesus disapproves of the income tax, Social Security, public education and other such abominations.

Huckabee may have taken the proper positions on gay-flogging and teaching Genesis instead of AP Biology, but he read his New Testament way too literally when it came to compassion for other human beings.

If substantial numbers of Evangelicals were truly moderate, as is often claimed, Huckabee would have done better. The Evangelicals I know thought of him as a liberal fool. The Mormon was far more attractive because he said the right things about taxes, and also because Rush liked him.

TB

Alan Shapiro, it was Rhode Island which was populated by Baptists at that time which fought for the Establishment Clause to avoid persecution from the government. Secularists has nothing to do with that Ammendment.

Separation of Church and State is a major doctrine of Baptists. Freedom of Conscience cannot be separated from baptists' principle. It's one of it's major pillars.

Religion did not destroy Europe. False religion did. And they are many.

I would suggest it is because they did not believe he had a fighting chance, which proved false, even though he did not win. I truly wish that people would vote their conscience than vote for pragmatic reasons. If this were so, I believe Mike Huckabee would have gathered a much greater percentage of the vote. The topic of illegal immigration is also very important to many Evangelicals. Regardless of the facts, I think Mike Huckabee was also perceived as weak in the area of immigration. I feel just a little annoyed with fellow Evangelicals over these two issues, but hardly as much as I am with the GOP. Mike Huckabee should have been supported much more, and I hope he runs again. If Evangelicals believe he can win, I believe, they will vote for him. This election he proved that he can win.

I think that the secular/religious divide should be shown more clearly. Certainly, each of us can believe what ever we want to; You can believe your nonsense if you let me believe my nonsense.
Also you can try to prove to me the validity of your position. But, in terms of making laws, what you believe must be filtered through our secular beliefs and structures. Religious belief in something is not sufficient reason for it to become law. When we try to take religious beliefs directly into law, we will have what tore Europe apart for centuries. That is why religion is the first thing in the first amendment; The writers of the constitution understood.

It was when Huckabee raised his hand and spoke against evolution that I got interested with him. A lot of evangelicals didn't hear it that's why they were not able to relate with him.

If he had used that moment as his paid ad on TV, it could have worked wonders. Many evangelicals are more sick of evolution than abortion. Abortion doesn't separate him from other candidates more than evolution does.

One of the mentors of Darwin thought that evolution would burn Europe. He was right and it did burn in WW1 & WW2. The third burning is coming and it will include parts of the U.S.

TIn the U.S, the burning would be most felt where Huckabee got the least vote. As the burning starts, check out the list.

Yo! Concerned the Christian Now Liberated!

How goes the Crossanization of Americans?

Got that book you're working on out yet? The one entitled, "Crossanized Christianity for Dummies"?
The evangelicals are breathlessly waiting for it.

Rumours has it that your Five Step Programme to deprogramme the born, bred and brainwashed cost US $ 500,000 per step.

Rumours has it that the Scientologists are protesting not only the cost and commercialisation of Crossanized Christianity, but also its forced brainwashing methodology.

Rumours has it that the Human Rights Watch are also monitoring the activities and methods of Crossanized Christians with regard to abuses and insults on believers' freedom to believe as a human rights.

Rumours also has it the Scientologists and the evangelicals are forging an alliance with them as the Anti-Crossanization Coalition.

I'm not with them yet. But I hope to get an invitation to the Celebrity Centre in Hollywood and meet Tom Cruise and John Travolta as inducements to join their crusade against alleged "insufferable" Crossanized Christians. They are sexier than any member of the Jesus Seminarians.

Take it easy pussycat :)

Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,

Interesting statistics. Interesting states. Interesting issues. I have no idea when that means too, but I will plunge in anyway. Did anyone really ask the evangelicals who don't why they won't vote for Huckabee?

For an outsider reading on and understanding on evangelicals as gleaned from On Faith panelists and readers who posted, evangelicals do sound like Taliban (for some) or the greatest moralistic generation in the US.

And, ah yes, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee seems to invoke the Civil War, the movie "Gone with the Wind", the song "Strange Fruit", Elmer Gentry, the Cuckoo Clan, er Ku Klux Klan with their Grand Master Dragon or Grand Dragon Master or whatever it is that sounds like the chief villian in a Hong Kong period/costume kung fu movie.

One is never sure if these states, save Missouri perhaps, is what is called the Christian heartland state/Bible belt states where evangelicals are at its most passionate and the Southern Baptist Church have its core constituencies. These states are also traditional poorer and less developed that other US states?

But Iowa? Is it not a midwestern state, and its economy agriculture based? And do evangelicals now find members there through denomination/religion/faith switching or are those from the Christian heartland/Bible states who migrated there due to better economic opportunities?

Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire are not quite traditional breeding grounds of evangelicals and more ethnically and religiously pluralistic than the traditional US Christian heartland/Bible belt states - more Hispanics, more Asians etc. Perhaps that is why the number of evangelicals willing to vote for Huckabee are less social issue orientated and more economic issue concerned.

Of course, in Utah, voting for Huckabee would be like a Shiite voting for a Salafist Muslim. LDS members also seems to be more highly educated, of a higher income group, and are already into social issues forever with family values of great importance. What Huckabee is saying is perhaps a yawn and what Mitt Romney was saying is more appealing.

Perhaps evangelicals tempered in their passion and enthusiasism for Huckabee due to primary worries not on social issues such as pro-choice, pro-life, gays, etc, but more on the economy. Perhaps they realise realise the broader picture in the political-economic-social landscape of America. Perhaps they see the limited appeal of Huckabee of focussing on the spiritual and moral driven aspect of faith and not on the practical aspect and functional thrust of faith in daily life.

Perhaps to focus on and support candidates talking on God's Law in tandem with social issues (abortion, gays) when there is great economic uncertainty is a singular waste of time. Evangelicals, like everyone, wants food on the table and a roof over their heads first and foremost.

Food is also the fuel for battle in the culture wars. A roof over the head is also the shelter to strategise, organise and bunker in the battles on social issues of the culture war. But right now, in this year, a couple of gays getting married is not going to boost exports of US corn. A woman performing abortion is not going to reduce US unemployment rates. It is not going to help evangelicals on their mortgages or to keep their jobs.

The evangelicals are not in a state of flux, but into first thing first i.e. who can assure their personal economic well-being. Huckabee it is not. After all, Huckabee is in a battle for God but not for a clear fiscal and economic policy and offered solution or remedy. Evangelicals as the army for God, can wage their own battles for God in the public square if they have the money which they may not, if the economy worsen and affects them like most.

Whoever said the religious sorts are blinkered by blind faith? The evangelicals do seem to know what they want and what they are doing.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

I had a couple I know vote for him because of the fair tax issue.

Perhaps much of Huckabee's support came not from evangelicals as a group, but from the subset of fundamentalists and Bible literalists. Evangelicals are much more diverse than Berlinerblau's column suggests. Did the exit polls include such questions as the voter's stance on Genesis?

ASH:

You against, "...immigrants and a willingness to raise taxes to balance the budget and provide needed services"?

You need Voodoo economics -lower taxes, increase spending for necessary services, police to stop illegal immigrants for example and balance the budget all at the same time.

Don't you long for the good old days when Regan spent more that all previous administrations going back to Washington and deluged the country in debt that will never be paid? Big daddy Bush called Reganomics Voodoo economics and he was correct -just about the only thing he got right.

Here's a plan you can live with, maybe. No taxes at all. No police or other law enforcement. Everyone gets themselves a gun. You can live with that just as long as you're the fastest gun so maybe you can live with it and then maybe not.

Don't you really mean remove my taxes and leave my neighbor to pay for everything? How can we raise all those unwanted bastard babies no abortion will bring without taxes?

I get it. Turn them over to the church and institute universal tithing to pay for their upbringing. I can live with the universal tithe as long as there's no law enforcement to collect mine.

It's all about power and who has it, church or state. Evangelicals are people so dumb they would turn the government, (done it with W) over to Devil representing preachers like Pat Robertson. Maybe a few of them are waking up?

Huckabee wasn't a "true conservative" the way that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney were. His message of social justice resonated with those Republican voters that were laid off, or living paycheck-to-paycheck. That's one thing that I respected about him, that he was sticking up for the "little guy". Unfortunately, think that he was sunk by that same message, as Ash mentioned.

As an evangelical in TN who supported McCain, I can tell you that a primary reason I didn't support Huckabee was that I didn't want another big spending Republican in office to run up the debt. McCain was the only canidate (outside of Paul) in the Republican field who even seemed interested in spending cuts (and the interest wasn't stellar either.) McCain also holds to some of the same positions that evangelicals value, like being pro-life. I don't really care that he lashed out against the religous right, I'm not a supporter of the religous right. I'm a conservative and an evangelical, but I don't line up with Dobson, Robertson and all the rest. If I think they are going to screw up the country (like I felt with Huckabee) I'm not going to support them.

Just a note, Jaques:

http://begthequestion.info/

Than you for helping to destroy the meaning of words, one article at a time.

spiderman2:

Never give up. There's a fire extinguisher in heaven. Lead enough people to hell so Lucifer can raise a big enough army to defeat Michael and the heavenly host. Then you can put your God's fire out and with a little bit of luck yours too.

Here's pulling for you but don't look for any help. I'm not like other people. I can't stand pain.

1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Praise and honors for the non participants

Evangelicals are skating past 3. They know who the guilty parties are but can't bear to mention them by name yet. So they're about to do 5. McCain will get their support the way the Democrats get labor's support without overt help for labor's causes -just we know you're there and we love ya sort of thing.

The likely outcome for the future is a less predictable set of red states with a move in the direction of the old solid Democrat south lost to the civil rights movement. Has something to do with the fact that all issues are economic even abortion and especially gay marriage -taxes = money -married couple tax advantages presuming there are any.

No income equals no income tax has become a blessing for many prior seekers of lower tax rates.

Ash:

Great comment. I couldn't have said it better. George W. Bush typifies the hypocritical Christian who either has no idea what the (probably mythical) Jesus actually said or chooses to ignore it. Although some statements are contradictory, Jesus was arguably in favor of redistributing wealth to the poor. And Jesus never said a thing about abortion. Yet, somehow, large proportions of fundamentalist Christians always vote against higher taxes and rail against pro-choice politicians. Plus, they are in favor of prayer in the public arena, even though in Matthew 6:5-8 Jesus explicitly states that one should pray in private, not in public. Go figure.

Bgone wrote: " Don't forget that Lucifer won for a while followed by the biggest loss of all time".

Maybe that's exactly the reason why Huckabee lost. The win is coming later after that "biggest loss of all time". My guess is that that biggest loss will occur 8 years from now -- no more liberal candidates nor liberal voters.

The Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia recently held a debate on the question, Should Religion and Politics Mix? The debaters were Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Jacques Berlinerblau of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University on one side; and Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries and Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church on the other. Please listen-

http://millercenter.org/public/debates/religion

In the past evangelical candidates thrived on hype and hype alone. That got them elected but then what did they do? Absolutely nothing beyond continuing the hype. At best they found someone to blame for why nothing happened, no ban on abortion for example.

That's called disillusionment. And. In the mean time the bread box got raided by ants. Maybe righteousness is a luxury paid for with discretionary dollars?

Overlooked is - http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that comes from the buckle of the Bible belt. Did the exit pollsters ask about that? Everyone knows about it but no one talks about it? That old Lucifer has a way with people alright. Don't forget that Lucifer won for a while followed by the biggest loss of all time.

It's not really a great mystery, in my opinion. A large proportion of evangelicals and conservative christians (two categories which have become highly intermingled) are primarily me-first conservative voters. As much they rail about abortion and their values, they're more concerned about taxes and immigration - as in no taxes and no immigration. Religion, as usual, is just a veneer to sanctify their often ugly political principles. Though he spoke differently on the campaign trail, Huckabee's record as governor showed a tolerance towards immigrants and a willingness to raise taxes to balance the budget and provide needed services.

Just go to rapture ready or similar sites and you'll find dozens smearing Huckabee for these reasons. Makes me personally glad to see christian conservatives divided like this, since it ended the campaigns of several evil little theocrats.