His statement caused me to think about the condition of our nation today. As I consider the data regarding the perceptions, values, behavior, and dreams of Americans, especially younger Americans, it seems clear that while we love the remaining freedoms and benefits of living in the United States, many citizens lack a real relationship with this nation and thus rebel against its rules and traditions. We are eager to take advantage of what’s available but are substantially less willing to sacrifice and invest for the good of the nation. The “common good” is a foreign concept to many Americans. Despite many politically correct speeches about “community,” “sharing,” “serving,” “tolerance,” and sensitivity, there often seems to be more lip service to bonding with America than behavior that supports it.

Think about the education our children receive these days. Gone are stalwart classes such as Civics or practices such as saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the national anthem. Perhaps in your area many community organizations that fostered a pro-country attitude or worldview have receded or closed down. Turn on the television or radio and you may encounter a mainstream media that seems more intent on challenging America’s foundations and heart than helping to build a sense of national spirit. Even in this year’s presidential campaign, when several candidates have spoken movingly about their love for our country, the response was to have their motives questioned, their personal lives attacked, and their sentiments dismissed.

I wonder how much longer the United States can withstand such a deficit of investment in upholding the foundations of our country, and thinking about the meaning of and commitment to the common good. And it is concerning that the two youngest generations of Americans seem to view society’s rules as barriers to overcome rather than legacies of love and wisdom.

As supporters and beneficiaries of those standards and historic commitments, I believe that America’s Christians have a special role to play in defending, conveying, and strengthening the foundations of our country.

Am I the only one who worries about our fading sense of loyalty to and connection with our republic? Do you sense that we have a problem regarding our individual relationships with the United States? How well do you think we, as Christians, are adequately protecting, explicating, and restoring the foundations of the U.S.? What else could we do? What have you done that you are proud of in this regard?

Having spent time at the Dream Center in Los Angeles while writing the book The Cause within You with Matthew Barnett, this phrase brought to mind the people I’d met and worked with at DC-LA, people who pour themselves into helping struggling people find God, themselves, and their God-given purpose for living. It is inspiring to be around such people, and uplifting to watch the mighty works that God does in and through the lives of those who give themselves fully to Him. They fit my notion of those who are devoted in very tangible and productive ways to a great and holy cause.

During the 30 years of research I’ve been blessed to conduct, it may seem curious that I never directly asked people to identify the single “great and holy cause” to which they are devoted. That question never occurred to me because the questions I have posed regarding purpose, meaning, influence, service, holiness, and the like have consistently revealed that very few Americans are devoted to any cause greater than their own well-being. Most people say they want to “make a difference.” Few people are willing to sacrifice and suffer on behalf of a cause that may be righteous and other-centered but also controversial, challenging, underfunded, or culturally invisible.

Forgive me if this seems like a rant. It’s not meant to be. After spending the last six years immersed in the research and personal struggles related to holistic transformation, as described in Maximum Faith, I know that transformation must start with me before I can hope to facilitate it in the lives of others.

So today I am challenging myself to produce a full profile of the “great and holy cause” to which I am devoting my life.

And I am asking you to do the same.

As a cautionary note, we cannot seduce ourselves into believing that simplistic and pious answers like “I am devoted to the cause of Christ” or “I am devoted to the advance of the kingdom of God” are adequate. Those are pleasant concepts, but what specifically is the heartbeat of our activity in such a grand pursuit? What do these sweeping expressions, like “the cause of Christ” or “advancing the kingdom” really mean – and look like? What, specifically, are you and I doing – today – that reflects our total commitment to a great and holy cause? This is the difference between mission (we are servants of God) and vision (the specific and unique calling He has gifted and prepared us for). Getting beyond mission to vision is where the rubber meets the road, and getting beyond vision to execution is where transformation becomes a reality.

In conducting the research for and then writing my latest book, Maximum Faith, it became apparent that the leaders of Jesus’s day struggled with evaluation, too. So Jesus gave them a simple solution: look for the fruit.

The transformational journey is inextricably connected to the fruit we produce as we become closer to and more like Christ. As I explored the dynamics related to each of the ten stops that one must master to achieve wholeness on earth, I discovered that each stop correlates with specific types of fruit. Our goal is to become like Christ, integrating His identity and character but the means is not to strive to produce a life marked by such fruit. Rather the fruit is the evidence of our metamorphosis to a holier nature, a natural outgrowth of who we have become more than what we have learned to do. The distinction is critical but is often lost in the well-intentioned noise of our teaching, programs, and evaluation processes.

My research revealed that certain outcomes – behaviors, attitudes, desires – do not emerge until a person reaches a particular level of growth. For instance, those who are struggling with implications of sin and have not yet asked Jesus to forgive them (stop 3) bear overtly different fruit than those who have been broken of sin, self, and society, and have fully surrendered and submitted their life to God (stop 8). Knowing where a person is on the journey helps us to know what fruit to look for or expect. After all, you can’t naturally produce stop 8 fruit if you’re a stop 3 person.

My friend’s article reminded me how important it is that we measure the right things. To their credit, most churches voluntarily measure various outcomes. Unfortunately, most of what we measure is, frankly, irrelevant. Jesus didn’t die a painful death so we could fill our auditoriums and sanctuaries. He didn’t suffer unjustly so we could raise enough money to build out a 50-acre campus. He didn’t endure public humiliation simply to enable us to hire more religious professionals or add more programs to the ministry menu. His sacrifice was meant to prepare and motivate us to pursue the ultimate transformational adventure, enabling us to become intimate with Him and intimately like Him.

So if we look for fruit as the evidence of growth and advancing maturity – say, for instance, tangible evidence of love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, compassion, sacrificial service, truthfulness – then how do you measure such things?

Although I’ve been conducting surveys for 30-plus years, I think the best way to assess one’s transformational standing is through observations borne out of relational engagement. Americans usually over-estimate their spiritual maturity in surveys. Perhaps that’s a sign of our lack of humility, or simply ignorance about the true meaning and depth of genuine transformational outcomes. Rather than answering survey questions, conversation with and observation by those closest to us are more likely to provide the unfiltered and objective insight we need. After all, it’s much easier to claim personal growth and maturity in a survey than to bluff your way past those who know you best and love you enough to raise tough, pertinent questions and to give you truthful feedback. The people who know me best can capably discern whether I’m making progress in my journey to Christ-likeness, and what kind of fruit I’m really producing. Those same people are most likely to address my reality with a bluntness and compassion that I need in order to grow.

What have been your best – and worst – experiences in measuring people’s progress toward whole-person maturity? What do you measure? How do you measure it? What can you do to upgrade your evaluation process?

For most of my life I have sought to develop solutions to the problems that have caused human hardships while remaining personally removed from others’ pain and suffering. I have attempted to identify with people’s need by studying it but without experiencing it alongside them. Even through all the work I’ve done with homeless people over the years, it has been my wife who has gotten down and dirty in the midst of their pain, diving into their circumstances, while I studied it and sought to create prevention mechanisms or remedial options. I have glibly written off the difference in our approaches to her extroversion and my introversion, or to her management skills versus my analytic abilities.

Matthew’s bold and consistent action has caused me to see the error in my assumptions.

Some of my reticence to immersion in people’s crises can be traced back to my upbringing. My parents worked hard so I could go to good schools and learn how to be successful in the world. I was set up for and expected to get a good job, live a comfortable suburban life, and have the “privilege” of being insulated from economic and physical hardship. Our guiding life philosophy included ideas like every man for himself, get all you can while you can, work hard and enjoy the fruits, expect others to make their own way as you did.

Matthew, on the other hand, was not raised to pursue and expect comfort and pleasure, but to create or seize opportunities to serve others. The guiding philosophy of his life was that success is based on obedience to God and loving people in tangible ways.

Thinking back on the research I’ve done about the importance of how we are raised by our parents, I can see the huge impact of the expectations and worldview each of us was raised to embrace. We both had parents who loved us and wanted the best for us; what was different was the foundational worldview that our parents possessed, professed, and modeled.

Now, many years later, I supposedly know better. I am certainly blessed with knowledge and experience that by now should have redirected my thoughts, emotions and actions to mirror those of Jesus. But the old ways, ingrained during my formative years and practiced without challenge for decades, are mighty hard to shed. Despite good intentions those old and un-Christlike ways often emerge as my default response to opportunities to serve without prejudice or hesitation. Sometimes it takes exposure to a Christ-like servant, like Matthew, to bring the gap between Christian aspiration and personal behavior into clear focus.

Matthew has voluntarily and enthusiastically walked through the pain and struggles with numerous people who have endured the worst that this world has to offer: substance addiction, sexual perversities, economic deprivation, emotional devastation, mental illness, physical limitations, and so on. He has invited thousands of people to join him in jumping into that world of pain in order to partner in helping to love hurting people into a better place.

That was how Jesus did it, too. He was not the isolated expert waltzing into a scene, observing at arms-length, dispensing the solution, then leaving to solve the next problem. He recognized that the heart of the solution is tangibly expressing God’s love to hurting people, sharing in their misery and giving them hope – even if it’s not much more than the hope of not having to face the hardship alone.

Every hour that Matthew has spent on the streets or in people’s homes, moving through the difficulties with people, was time he could have spent at the office making critical leadership decisions. But after studying Matthew’s process and the nature of the Dream Center ministry, I believe that heart of the Dream Center is simply a reflection of the heart of its primary leader – one who is totally in touch with the pain and shattered dreams of the people that ministry seeks to serve. The Dream Center is effective without obsessing on efficiency because “success” is defined by expressions of love rather than clever programs, extensive buildings, growing attendance, or national reputation. Matthew is an effective leader because he serves; he doesn’t just enable others to come and serve. Again, that was the lesson that Jesus modeled for us.

I fear that as leaders we are too often able to send others into the battle to do the dirty work of loving the unlovable. As you examine your leadership efforts, are you in the trenches with those who need to be loved and helped, or are you outside that sphere of pain, working hard to create systems, policies, programs, content, and structures that address the situation without being personally engrossed by it? Is it necessary to achieve – and if so, how? – a balance between immersion and breadth of engagement?

If you are raising children, or influence those who are, think about these issues. The worldview and life expectations we pass on to children have a lifelong affect. What are we passing on to them? How will they embrace kingdom values if we do not plant them as the cornerstone early in life?

(By the way, please don’t complain that I am setting up Matthew as a unique servant of God. I realize that there are thousands of dynamic disciples of Christ who have surrendered comfort and prestige in order to better relate to and serve those in need; Matthew is not the only one. I am not campaigning to carve Matthew’s face onto Mt. Rushmore. I just happened to be fortunate enough to spend a lot of time studying what he does, why he does it, how he does it – and to have been kicked in the butt by the Holy Spirit through that experience. He was God’s educational instrument for me in those moments.)

1. Cast the vision, model the behavior, and give people complete permission to follow that lead. Like every Directing leader, Matthew generally doesn’t get bogged down in details.* He strives to motivate people to grasp the heart of the ministry (i.e., the central vision), the challenges facing the church, and to encourage people to do whatever God has placed within them to build value into that vision and activity. I have never seen a leader who is as willing to give people leeway to literally create the ministry as God leads them. It’s a very exciting process to behold because people feel completely empowered to fulfill the calling God gave them – and to experience the joy of adding value to the kingdom of God. That becomes addictive, in the most positive sense.

2. Planning can take you only so far; great leaders must be willing to flex. Church leaders typically say that God is in charge, but when God intervenes in unforeseen ways through people or circumstances, a common tendency is to resist alterations in favor of the plans we had created and prayed about. Control and trust emerge as big issues: we neither trust God nor ourselves to get it right, so our fallback position is to remain with the original plan. Matthew’s approach is different. He embraces his own limitations, the fluidity of the world (and the battle taking place within it), and the sovereignty of God. Consequently, he is willing to allow his expectations to morph as God sees fit. The final outcome does not always look like he had planned or expected, but it sure advances the kingdom – and makes him look pretty smart in the process.

3. The most important tool of a great leader is his/her ears. After watching what happens at DC-LA, and recalling something that various leaders revealed when I was writing Master Leaders, it has become obvious than an irreplaceable key to leadership success is the ability to listen. As a leader, your ears must be fine-tuned to God’s voice as well as that of the people you serve with, the people you serve, and the culture in which you serve. Listening is a developed skill. Having the heart to then apply what you’ve heard takes discernment, courage and wisdom. Matthew takes the time and makes the effort to listen. He may not always interpret what he hears correctly, but he is always willing to hear what his four constituencies have to say and does his best to follow through on what he has heard.

I’ll continue this discussion next time. What do you make of these ideas? I think you’ll see how they facilitate effective leading as you follow Matthew’s learning curve in The Cause Within You. Working with Matthew and his team has impacted me deeply. The stories told in the book – and Cause is a book of stories about how God has changed numerous lives through the permission-based leadership that Matthew provides – should motivate everyone to get in the game for Christ.

* This concept is drawn from my earlier research indicating that there are four dominant leadership aptitudes: Directing, Strategic, Team Building, and Operational leaders.

“It is a great matter to live in obedience, to be under a superior and not to be at our own disposing. It is much safer to obey than to govern. Many live under obedience, rather for necessity than for love; such are discontented and do easily repine. Neither can they attain to freedom of mind, unless they willingly and heartily put themselves under obedience for the love of God. Go whither thou wilt, thou shalt find no rest, but in humble subjection under the government of a superior. Many have deceived themselves, imagining to find happiness in change.” (Kempis, Thomas à. The Imitation of Christ. New York: Walker and Company. 1987. Pages 23-24.)

Besides echoing the sentiments of 1 Timothy 3, à Kempis raises a fundamental question that often gets ignored: What is the role of a leader? I have argued for years that leaders are responsible for directing, motivating, mobilizing and resourcing people to pursue a transformational vision. And while such assertions ignite general agreement, the truth is known by an examination of the fruit.

The leadership fruit that Americans cherish is typically different than the noble and deeper outcomes that à Kempis recommends. Our culture prizes action above reflection and restraint, resulting in many dubious and superficial choices. In business, good leadership is commonly equated with producing a profit. Effective governmental leadership is often deemed to be that which generates grand policies, provides public comfort, and minimizes partisan bickering. In education, progressive leadership seems to be about image, expanding enrollment, increased revenue, and faculty awards. Even in Christian families, our studies show that parents generally view conformity and achievement as the marks of success for their children.

But à Kempis intimates that great leadership is about enabling people to experience peace of mind. Such peace is ultimately a spiritual reality more than a physical condition. If it is true that Jesus was the greatest leader of all-time – and what leader has ever produced a more significant and enduring outcome? – then we must note that a significant component of His legacy was providing His people with the tranquility that comes from the joy and freedom of a restored relationship with God.

In other words, a great leader endows people with a vision of the future that transforms their physical situation and potential contribution through the content of their dreams and desires. For the leader to facilitate peace in the minds and hearts of followers he/she must have their full trust, earned by embodying integrity and godliness. And that leader’s authority comes not from a charismatic personality or administrative competence but from a deep connection with God. The importance of that relationship cannot be overstated; after all, you cannot give – or help others to have – what you neither understand nor experience.

A great leader, therefore, enables people to experience lasting and deepening peace with God. He enters into a compact with the people to help them advance in their quest for genuine transformation. Look at the leaders around you – and, maybe, at yourself if you claim to be a leader. How well do people understand the transformational vision being promoted? How well do they own it? How consistently are they advancing it? How much peace do they have?

Many churches I have worked with or observed struggle to discover how to facilitate such relationships. I received a powerful reminder in the “how to” over the past few months through one of my life passions: music.

In August I attended a Styx concert with a fellow musician. In November I saw the Carl Palmer Band up close and personal with a good friend who is a drummer. This month I attended a performance by bluesman Walter Trout, accompanied by a good friend who is a guitarist. In each case, our excitement over the shared experience drew us closer together. Because the guys who accompanied me to those shows are all active musicians, the events gave us a lot to enjoy and discuss. Our show-related conversations covered everything from the expected – quality of performance, stage presence, sound system details, song selection, audience engagement – to more esoteric, artist-type banter such as the guitar models used, the effects boxes relied upon, subtleties of the sound mix, picking techniques, band cues, and so forth.

Do these common moments have any lasting value? More than I expected. For instance, a few years ago I flew to London and met a friend from Florida there to see Cream’s reunion concert at Royal Albert Hall. That friend and I have stayed close ever since then. Two years ago I flew to Chicago to see Clapton’s daylong Crossroads Festival, a showcase for Eric’s favorite guitarists. My drummer friend met me there and the experience has been a long-term point of discussion as well as fond memories. Last year I flew to New York to see the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s 25th Anniversary show, featuring Jeff Beck, U2, Springsteen, and others. Again, that night has been a topic of conversation with the friend who flew in to meet me there, a shared bit of music history that brings us closer together.

Shared experiences – and the special moments that flow from them – are a cornerstone of marriage. They are also crucial in the formation of healthy business partnerships, vital congregations, effective parachurch ministries, influential movements, and significant community groups. When people share a passion for something, many of the typical relational barriers are minimized or eliminated. Genuine bonding happens.

Most churches in America are struggling today – if not numerically, then transformationally. The lack of accountability in people’s lives is just a symptom of the real problem. That problem is the absence of dynamic, frequently-shared experiences – and not necessarily the kinds of experiences we orchestrate in the “big show” environment.

Should we continue to believe that the 30-second stand and greet module built into the Sunday service is a genuine or meaningful relational time? Does having 100 people gathered in a church building simultaneously singing predetermined songs at the back of someone else’s head really constitute a shared worship experience? Is church membership synonymous with belonging? Do we struggle to raise money for ministry because people are selfishly “cheating God” or because they do not feel ownership of the ministry due to having had so few times of genuine connection with God and people in that ministry? Is it wise to believe that because people attend a small group they have developed relationships that facilitate accountability? (Note: our survey decisively says “no.”)

Have you witnessed any creative ways of fostering real accountability for which there is valid evidence of positive results?

That is an interesting argument. It makes some sense: if you think this is a great nation and love the perks of living here, then be willing to pay for the privilege. Its basic economics: you pay more for a better product or service.

Without rejecting Mr. Miller’s sentiment, I was disappointed that the editorial did not place the recommendation in context by raising the issue of how much is too much–either too much government or too much tax. After all, if you agree that your appreciation motivates you to pay a higher tax rate, then where does the line get drawn? Are you ungrateful if the tax rate is raised by another two percentage points? By twenty-two percentage points? Given the crushing debt load the country has taken on in the past few years under both Republican and Democratic leaders it is feasible that an argument could be made to raise the existing tax rate to just about any level proposed by desperate government authorities.

The discussion about tax rates, though, masks a deeper leadership issue. Leadership is about vision; vision is about defining the future; defining that future is about anticipation of outcomes and impacts. A great leader is not one who proposes a big vision; a great leader is one whose big vision has been thought through and can reasonably be shown to have positive consequences if fully and properly executed. Exploring potential scenarios if particular strategies are embraced – that is, asking the “what if” questions – is one of the necessary practices of great leaders. Too often I get the sense that our leaders have looked at today but not tomorrow; our policies and actions are short-sighted, protecting them from the immediate threats but possibly creating many more for the future.

In fact, the concept of anticipating consequences is a germane challenge regarding taxes. Let’s suppose the “rich” were to pay tax rates roughly four points higher than those in force today. Would that solve the economic issues facing the United States today? If not, then what? And how will the maximum tax threshold of any particular group of taxpayers be determined?

Anticipating long-term consequences is a necessary practices for church leaders, too, as they seek to address the needs of not only their congregation but also those of their entire community. Exploring our impact on the future is one component of giving competent leadership while also displaying our love and concern for others. As you examine the kind of leadership your community of faith is providing, how well does it anticipate the future in light of its biblical mandate and core values?

On the one hand, we live in a time when more and more people think of themselves as leaders – more than six out of ten adults say they fit that description. This is probably egged on by the “everybody is a leader” nonsense that some people teach. What a happy day it will be when serious trainers of leaders realize and communicate that leadership is not something you choose to do, it is a calling that God gives to some; that relatively few people are called to this challenge; that those who are called are discernible by the gifts and abilities they are given by God so they may succeed in fulfilling the calling; and that godly character is one of the prerequisites for receiving and maintaining that calling.

On the other hand, we have been witnessing a revolving door among leaders, perhaps as a reflection not of the public’s fickleness, but of the absence of the calling, character and competencies that enable one to succeed in leadership in their times of intrusive media scrutiny, public micro-management, unreasonable performance expectations, and widespread skepticism and cynicism. As you explore the downfall of many of these so-called leaders, you find several things in common. One is the absence of vision, which is a clue that the “leader” is merely playing a role without the requisite substance. Over the years I have made it a practice to study the vision that propels people in leadership positions forward, and have found a galling paucity of vision among those attempting to lead. In my experience, a majority of those who seek the chance to lead are simply pandering and posing in order to get the platform to pursue outcomes that are peripheral to the needs of the public they seek to represent – not necessarily bad outcomes, but certainly not the critical results that the audience they serve deserves.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that a recent Pew study discovered that about three-quarters of Hispanics in America are unable to identify America’s primary Hispanic leaders – that is, the people who best represent their needs and interests in this multicultural society. With all due respect, the most frequently named Hispanic “leader” – recently appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor – is hardly the kind of leader that the Hispanic community needs at the forefront. I do not mean that she is not skilled, intelligent, or trustworthy. The issue is that her position precludes her from providing frontlines leadership. Justices are discouraged from publicly speaking out on issues, do not organize people to fight for causes, typically write about matters of policy and social substance (other than Court opinions) only after they retire, and maintain a low public profile. By the way, Justice Sotomayor topped the list even though she was mentioned by only 7% of Hispanics.

Hispanics are not alone in struggling with this leadership vacuum. A recent study among registered Republicans revealed that six out of every ten party members were unable to identify who they believe is the true leader of their party. While we’re at it, let me note that Christians are in the same boat. Past Barna Group studies found that both Protestant pastors and individual Christians are generally unable to agree on individuals – other than Jesus Christ – whom they believe are providing significant leadership to the Christian body in America.

It is not hard to list a plethora of reasons why people are unable to identify leaders. But one of the reasons that may get too little attention is that we have ceased to understand what a genuine leader is. It is not someone who has a title, training, tenure, or even popularity. It goes back to the marks of leadership that we can readily distinguish: a clear and compelling vision, upstanding character, commitment to serving people, skills that facilitate progress, a track record of accomplishment in leadership situations, ability to attract a competent team of leaders to work with, a history of openness and accountability, and a blend of courage, confidence, wisdom and humility.

I think there are more of these kinds of leaders out there than the media would have us believe. We encounter them every day in business, government, churches, schools, non-profits, and families. And how great it would be to begin highlighting the good ones, and being able to support and learn from them.

Who are some of the leaders – not by virtue of position, but as recommended by their calling, character, competencies, vision, performance, and commitment – who have impressed you? What have they done that has made that impression upon you? Surely we can all point to alleged leaders whom we have found to be disappointing, or even counterfeits – people more interested in the position, perks and power than in serving people with humility, justice and righteousness. We don’t need more attention cast upon those who are not getting the job done. Instead, focus on those whose behavior you believe deserves some credit. What did they do that set them apart from the rest? What can you and I learn from their example?

1. Republicans should not be crowing about their “victory.” For the most part, they were not elected because they are favored by voters; they won because voters wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Democrats. Both of the major parties have an overwhelmingly negative image among voters. And most voters do not like the candidates they have to choose from, regardless of the party represented.

2. After being subjected to weeks of mud-throwing and unscrupulous campaign tactics, I cannot help but think that we hold politicians in such low regard – and have such contempt for the work they do – because of the ugliness of the campaigns they run. Does a person of character stoop that low? Does the Golden Rule have no applications to the political process? How did Americans lose such respect for people, for themselves and for the political process that we have allowed such garbage to become the norm? I suppose it’s no different than how we have allowed a faceless contingent of media executives to dictate what decency means in media content. Why don’t we demand a more dignified process?

3. For those who believe that this election will bring better policy outcomes during the next two years, think again. All that happened as a result of the 2010 election is that we pretty much guaranteed a lack of significant legislative progress for two years. Congress will be gridlocked worse than New York City at rush hour. The President will begin running his re-election campaign … today. And certainly we can expect the 2012 election to be the ugliest yet. Both parties will be desperate. They will break the record for campaign expenditures, doing everything within their power to buy whatever seats they can by frittering away obscene amounts of money. No amount of party, candidate and PAC spending, though, will eliminate the public’s disappointment in its elected leaders, and its frustration with the political process.

4. Despite what the pundits have been saying recently, party identification is still critical for candidates. In campaigns in which so much misinformation is bandied about, the issues are so complex, and endorsements mean less than ever, party ID has become a simple (if imprecise) means of determining whom to vote for. Consider this: 95% of registered Republicans voted exclusively or mostly for Republican candidates, and 92% of Democrats voted exclusively or mostly for Democratic candidates. In an ADD culture, where distractions are the norm in our daily experience, labels help cut through the clutter, enabling people to make decisions.

5. Young people, as expected, did not show up for this election. Based on their behavior in other facets of life as well as their attitudes toward the political environment, my view is that their interest in politics and government is based on personalities more than policies. They turned out in 2008 because they were drawn to Mr. Obama (an exciting, young, black, energetic, articulate, charismatic person) and they loved the thought of playing a significant role in a social revolution of sorts. 2010? There wasn’t much that appealed to them. Without a national race to galvanize their attention and passion, they were nearly 40% less likely to vote this year than two years ago. (Among all voters, 18% were 18-to-29 in 2008; just 11% were in that age group this year.)

6. The Protestant community stayed true to form in 2010. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported conservatives and Republicans; non-evangelical born again voters were more evenly divided, but leaned Republican to a greater extent than was the case in 2008. (In that election, 48% supported Mr. Obama – serving as a major reason why he prevailed.) Black Protestants overwhelmingly supported Democrats. Skeptics went with Democratic candidates by a 2:1 margin. The only noteworthy shift was among Catholics, who returned to the Republican side of the ledger to a greater degree this time. Catholics voted exclusively or mostly for Republicans by about a 3:2 margin. That’s a reversal of their behavior during the past four years. However, their choices were driven largely by economics, not by moral or theological considerations.

7. Do not lose sight of the fact that Americans are typically pragmatic and logical. That translates to being very middle-of-the-road in their political thinking. They have shifted slightly to the right during the past two years, but that has been mostly with regard to economic matters, and even that repositioning has not caused them to lose their centrist orientation. Accordingly, this election was not really about ideology; it was about survival for the present and hope for the future. Millions of Americans have lost their optimism about the future and voted yesterday in ways designed to restore it. They do not consider themselves politically astute or ideologically pure. They consider themselves economically worse off than they were two years ago and do not foresee that changing in the immediate future. Their vote was their mechanism for protecting whatever economic stability they presently possess, and to hopefully communicate that they do not want their children to live with overwhelming debt and financial struggle for the duration of their lifetime. Essentially, they want no more and no less federal government services than they absolutely need in order to get by. With the notable exception of a significant minority of the public who are liberal Democrats committed to substantial government intervention related to social conditions, Americans remain more comfortable with the private sector handling their needs.

8. Having observed Mr. Obama during the past two years, it appears that he believed his eight-point margin of victory over John McCain was a “mandate” to radically redefine the role of government as well as the nation’s political tenor. It seems to me that the election results of 2010 are a correction to that view. Even if people were voting for “change they could believe in” back in 2008, it was also change they did not understand the financial and global ramifications of at that time. Now, more fully apprised of those implications, they have indeed voted for change they can believe in: a return to a less aggressive federal government.

9. The Hispanic vote remains one of the most sought after – and elusive – votes in the electoral game. Although they represent 15% of the population, in 2006 just 8% of the votes cast were by Hispanics, and the number was exactly the same in 2010. At some point this refusal to exercise the right to vote will hamper the gains Hispanics hope to experience in this society. Such consistently low turnout can only hurt them.

10. These past two elections drive home a significant point for leaders: when the public provides permission to lead, the window of opportunity to act and to act appropriately is limited. One of the best indications of that is the complete flip-flop among “independent” voters. In 2008, 52% of independents backed Mr. Obama. This year, that dropped to 39%. If someone is chosen to lead, he/she must get on with it, in ways that reflect the heartbeat of the people, not the whims of the leader. Leadership is not about pursuing the leader’s dreams; it is about representing the people’s best interests and clearest expectations. Immediacy, urgency and competency are critical components necessary to defuse the rampant skepticism and mistrust that characterizes the American political scene.

11. One of my greatest fears is that we may see an escalation of violence in the U.S. in the near future. Why? Look at the combination of conditions and attitudes present. High unemployment and under-employment. Rising taxes with the threat of additional increases in order to diminish an overwhelming national debt. A declining level of public services, and the perception of diminished quality of services. The widespread, nearly universal belief that the public is regularly lied to by its elected representatives. Two out of three adults say the nation is on the wrong track. Three-fourths are angry with the federal government. The same proportion disapproves of the job the Congress is doing. For more than two consecutive years nine out of ten adults have argued that the national economy is in bad shape. A large majority believes that Washington is deaf. Growing numbers of Americans believe they are in a no-win position. They prefer business to provide more services than government. Yet they don’t trust big business, and small businesses are struggling more than at any time in the past fifty years – largely due to forces controlled by the government and big business! Even though they want less government, Americans also have greater needs and fewer resources. What’s a citizen to do? At some point, people become sufficiently fed up with the system that they take more aggressive measures. Time is of the essence for our political leaders to shape up. The people’s patience is running thinner than many assume – or have bothered to notice.

12. My sense was that churches played a very low-key role in the 2010 election. That is extremely unfortunate. Americans are dying for guidance, especially from people whom they trust. Many pastors were scared to participate in the political process, unaware of the extensive rights they have to discuss candidates and policy matters from the pulpit with their congregants. Various political and non-profit organizations have caused tens of thousands of pastors and other church leaders to be fearful about engaging people in political discussions and activity through the local church. In other cases, pastors claimed to be too busy to engage in the political process, or insufficiently knowledgeable about political issues and candidates, or fearful of dividing the congregation by raising such matters. The Christian body needs leaders who will lead them in all dimensions of life, not just regarding theological matters on Sunday morning. Choosing to avoid the electoral process in relation to all but the safest of activities is exactly what has landed America in the moral and spiritual condition it is in today.

END.