Baptists may need to take a second look at their evangelism ethics, a professor of pastoral theology and ethics believes.

Some forms of evangelism may not fit with a Christian lifestyle, according to Terry Rosell, professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Shawnee, Kan., and program associate for disparities in health and healthcare at the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo.

Rosell grew up participating in the traditional forms of evangelism, he said, and now feels “great chagrin, if not shame and embarrassment, for the things I’ve done.”

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in evangelism, he stressed—just that it needs to be done differently, with thought to Christian ethics.

“I’m concerned about issues of honesty and deception,” Rosell said. He referenced the use of door-to-door surveys many churches use as an evangelism tool. “If the intent is telling them something rather than gathering information, that is out and out deception—and that’s not good news.”

In his bioethics work, Rosell often hears of Christians coming into hospitals—sometimes deceptively—to try to “get conversions” among the patients.

“It’s preying upon the vulnerable,” he said. Patients are at their weakest, and many are lonely and welcome any human voice. Because of that, Christians often think they’ve had a successful conversion, when really a patient just wanted another human presence.

Not only does that evangelistic method prey upon the weak; it also makes a bad impression on doctors and nurses charged with protecting the privacy of their patients— especially when patients feel they can’t refuse someone who comes into their room uninvited.

Christians need to learn to approach evangelism with empathy, he said. “There are many virtues, and one is empathy—being able to feel with other people.”

In terms of a traditional “cold call” evangelism, the practice of showing up on a doorstep without prior warning or interaction, Christians should ask themselves what it feels like to be a potential convert.

“We have all been in this position,” said Rosell, whether approached by a political organization, other religions or a different brand of Christianity.

When asked what it feels like, “most would say ‘not good,’” Rosell said. “You feel like an object. It’s a salesperson approach. It doesn’t feel good to be treated that way.”

Instead of doing all the talking, Christians should listen, he suggested.

“In my pastoral care, I’ve found that what people need is someone who empathetically listens,” he said. “When someone really listens, that’s good news.”

Listening to other people also can earn a Christian the right to be heard, he added.

Jesus went about doing good—healing the sick, spending time with people, Rosell noted. His focus was being good news.

Visiting those in prison, caring for the widows and orphans—“that’s good news,” Rosell said. “I’m not so sure about some of what we do.”

When participating in evangelistic endeavors, Christians could ask, “If I’m one of those being ministered to, do I experience this as good news?”

“If you don’t have the empathy to answer that question, that is one lack of virtue already,” Rosell said. “You might not be a good evangelist.”

Rosell’s favorite example of good news evangelism is a couple from his church. Skip’s parents were the first to sponsor a Southeast Asian family coming to Johnson County in Kansas. Skip, as an adult son, offered to teach English as a Second Language classes to the Asian refugees. He ended up marrying one and raised a family.

Once their children were out of the house, the couple took early retirement, combined it with the inheritance from Skip’s parents and moved to the poorest part of Southeast Asia. They established a home there in a village and started helping people by cooking, making visits and giving money to doctors to care for the sick.

At one point, they were invited to the wedding of the proviencial governor’s son. While sitting next to the father during the wedding reception, the father leaned over and said, “You are good news to my people.”

“That’s evangelism,” Rosell said. And a church was started in the process. “All of the traditional goals of evangelism were accomplished—maybe more effectively.”

Some observers of church life insist the day of event evangelism has passed. They point to one-on-one evangelism as the only effective way to reach non-Christians today.

But does that mean event evangelism is dead? Some evangelists are stepping forward to say otherwise. They declare it is alive and well—and necessary to fulfill a biblical mandate.

“A lot of churches look at evangelists in the past and how evangelists have let them down. And they don’t want to use them,” said Eric Fuller, a 26-year old evangelist and member of Normandale Baptist Church in Fort Worth.

But according to a listing of spiritual gifts in the New Testament book of Ephesians, the evangelist is God’s gift to the local church, Fuller insisted.

“If these are gifts given to the local church and they are not used, then local churches are not able to be as strong and equipped,” he said.

Evangelistic events still are vital to church growth, said Jon Randles, veteran vocational evangelist and evangelism director for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. But they cannot be approached with the same methods used in the past, he stressed. American society in the post-World War II years was a fertile ground for evangelistic events.

“There was homogeneity in the culture where an evangelist like Billy Graham could advertise a little and everyone would come” to an evangelistic crusade, he said.

But after Vietnam, Watergate, and increasing political and social polarization, “the culture is not united,” and the old methods need to be reconsidered, he said.

Because of this, evangelists are encouraging pastors to identify people groups in their community and connect with them through an event like a concert, youth camp, men’s retreat or marriage seminar. Church leaders have to know their culture and community before they can plan an evangelistic event that will work, Randles said.

“You can’t just throw together an event and expect people to show up. One-size-fits-all will not work anymore. Prepare your people to work hard to build relationships, and you will have people come to know the Lord,” he said.

The key to event evangelism is building authentic, trustworthy relationships months in advance to earn the right to invite those friends to go to the event with you, Randles emphasized.

“People respond to relationships,” he said. “They always have, and they always do. You will have a period of time building relationships. You are doing that with the understanding to culminate the genuine relationship.”

Eventually, Randles said, when the Christian and the non-Christian develop a real friendship, the Christian can say: “Now come. I want you to hear what Jesus Christ can do for you.”

Biblical evangelism also includes discipleship, he stressed.

“Evangelism is hard work,” Randles said. “If you lead a person to Christ, then that is just the beginning. That is just the start. Now you have several years of discipleship to help that person deal with their baggage.”

Church members have the responsibility of being involved in the community before and after the event, but the evangelist does also, Fuller noted.

“I see a great need to be actively involved in each community that invites me to their church for a revival meeting,” he said. “People need to know that we care.”

“As an evangelist, I am extremely concerned and passionate about disciple-making. When we go into a community, we stress this importance (of discipleship). We will follow up on that particular church and the progress of those who placed their faith and trust in Christ during the revival week.”

Mike Woods, pastor of Coronado Baptist Church in El Paso, uses a two-year process of event evangelism to make authentic disciples who will reproduce themselves. Every other year, the church holds a four-day revival so church members can invite non-Christian friends to the services. They have seen success with this because the members have earned trust through relationships they formed during the previous year.

“We try to do anything we can to have people understand and see the vision to reproduce themselves,” Woods said. “When people come (to the church), we have two years to cultivate people towards Christ. Then they want to bring their friends to the event (so they can) learn about Christ.

“In the off year, we have a meeting that aims at deepening the spiritual life in our church. We have (speakers) come in and challenge us about a deeper walk with the Lord. It helps us grow as a body.”

Making disciples and using event evangelism has resulted in “solid conversions—people who don’t just have a conversion but who walk with God,” he said.

Another important aspect to event evangelism involves securing a speaker who has the spiritual gift of evangelism.

“How evangelistic events have failed in the past is that (a pastor) didn’t bring anyone different” than himself in terms of style and emphasis, Randles said.

“He brought in another teacher and leader just like him and not someone who is gifted to draw the net (to share the gospel). A pastor can get a person to a certain level (of spiritual understanding) with his gifting, but if you can bring a person in that knows how to draw the net, that person may come (to accept salvation).

“I believe it takes the hand of several people and several different events to get the Holy Spirit to bring that person to understanding.”

COLUMBIA, Mo.—Clyde Chiles has seen a lot of changes in evangelistic approaches in his 52 years as an active vocational evangelist. But he believes the message must not change, and evangelists always must demonstrate integrity.

Chiles, one of 30 evangelists elected to the inaugural class of the Association of Southern Baptist Evangelists Hall of Faith this year, believes event evangelism still has a place as an effective evangelism method.

As a 16-year-old boy, Chiles went forward to accept Christ at a Billy Graham crusade and was counseled at the altar by Graham associate Cliff Barrows, both of whom also were inducted into the Hall of Faith. A year later, Chiles sensed a call to vocational evangelism at a Youth for Christ meeting where Graham was preaching.

“Event evangelism is just one of several methods of reaching people for Christ, but it has always been my conviction that even in event evangelism, the personal touch is necessary,” Chiles said.

“It is my conviction that all evangelism is personal evangelism. Most people just don’t ‘drop in’ to a revival. Someone cared enough to invite and/or bring them. I believe that the role of event evangelism in the 21st century is the same as it has always been—to introduce people to the Savior.”

Even so, churches and evangelists must seek effective contemporary evangelistic approaches and strategies to reach people, he maintains.

“An unusual singing group, a professional athlete, magic or a block party, and all other means to ‘catch the eye,’ are good, but there is no substitute for the preaching of the word,” Chiles said.

As a revival preacher, he tries hard to involve church members in “getting outside of the church” to bring unchurched friends to evangelistic events.

He believes a popular misconception among some pastors, leaders and churches today is that evangelistic crusades are not relevant. But he begs to disagree.

“If we are not relevant, neither are pastors and teachers, because we are listed in Ephesians 4:11 in the same verse,” Chiles said.

“One of the big problems is that we have not honored one another’s calling and that God gave us to the church—his bride—for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry.

“To ignore the call of the evangelist is to ignore the teaching of the word of God.”

Chiles acknowledges churches do not call on vocational evangelists as frequently as they did a generation or more ago.

“Too many churches had crusades that failed because they planned for them to fail,” he said. “There was little prayer, little preparation and when very little happened, they said, ‘It does not work anymore,’” the veteran evangelist explained.

“I have found that today when God’s people pray and prepare, God opens the windows of heaven and pours out blessings that you can hardly contain. It still works,” he said.

“My message has never changed; my emphasis on prayer and preparation has not changed. … The only thing that has changed is the length of the revival.

“In my case, I do everything from a one-day crusade to a four-day crusade and have a plan for each. I have never made the size of the church an issue. God has led me into some of the smallest churches and some of the largest churches, and my gift has been blessed and used in any size church.”

Chiles has some advice for churches wishing to plan an evangelistic event and some counsel for evangelists just starting out.

To churches: “Pray that God will lay the evangelist for the particular type of crusade you want upon your heart. Some evangelists spend more time in areawide crusades and others in church crusades. Some minister to the church more than others. I have always felt that an evangelist should minister to the church and win the lost. I have been doing this for 52 years, and it does work.”

His counsel to beginning evangelists is practical and includes a checklist that requires honest hard work.

•“Build your ministry on return engagements, because if they invite you back, you have solved a few problems, rather than created some.”

•“Don’t quit!”

•“Have a plan that makes your ministry different.”

•“Stay in the word and pray much.”

•“Get acquainted with as many pastors as you can and listen to them.”

•“There is no room for an evangelist that has no integrity.”

Chiles is convinced every activity in a church—including human care ministries—should involve evangelism.

“Nothing should be done through the life of the church that does not lift up the message of Jesus,” the evangelist said.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (BP)—A single light bulb hangs from a roof beam, dimly illuminating the main room in Maria’s home in Floresta, a working-class neighborhood in Buenos Aires.

There’s nothing fancy about the place—a wooden table and some chairs, a cramped kitchen area, a smoky brazier that doesn’t quite take the chill off the night air. But it’s all Maria, an elderly widow, can afford, and she welcomes the home group each Saturday evening for Bible stories and conversation.

They sit around the table chatting, laughing and drinking steaming hot tea. The group includes several of Maria’s adult children, some friends—and Jason and Kelli Frealy, Southern Baptist missionaries from Longview. The Frealys’ 2-year-old daughter, Daniela, explores the room while the adults talk.

After Frealy tells Bible stories, everyone jumps in to discuss, debate and argue their meaning. Roberto, who introduced the Frealys to the others, challenges several participants to make a firm decision for Christ. Later, they pray for one another’s needs and drink more tea before dispersing into the night.

Could this group be a church in the making? The Frealys hope so. There’s no guarantee it will succeed, of course. Several of the original participants have stopped coming, but others remain faithful.

The door to meeting people in the group opened when Frealy befriended Roberto, a retiree. It was an unlikely friendship: Frealy is 28, Roberto 65. But both are former policemen. The Frealys invited Roberto, his girlfriend and his sister over for meals and wove Bible stories into dinner conversation.

One night, Roberto thanked them for their hospitality but added: “We don’t want your food. We just want to hear your words.”

“We just happened to be there at the time God had made them ready,” Mrs. Frealy said. “They asked for more. They kept coming. It was entirely God.”

The meeting switched to Maria’s home, and a group of relatives and friends began coming. What connects them, besides their hunger for God? Existing relationships.

“That’s one of the big differences between traditional church planting and the home-church approach,” Frealy said. “Traditional churches tend to reach out to their neighborhood. Home churches reach out to people within their circle of influence. You can have one person living on the fourth floor of a building in one neighborhood who invites someone from the sixth floor of a building in another neighborhood who invites a relative from the third floor of another building—and they all meet together in an apartment.”

He calls such groups “relationship circles.” They offer a way to cut through the suspicion, fear and locked doors that prevent Christians from connecting with people in Buenos Aires and other major cities.

“Sometimes driving in the city, I just pick out an apartment balcony and think: ‘Who lives there? How many people are in the family? What do they believe? What are their dreams? What are their hopes?’” Frealy said.

“What I’d like to see is home groups in these apartment buildings. It’s not geographical; it’s relationships. And it needs to be reproducible. Our idea is rapidly reproducing home groups that ultimately will be baptizing, practicing church ordinances and, hopefully, starting other groups.”

WASHINGTON (ABP) — A new poll says white evangelicals under 30 are just as opposed to abortion as their older counterparts, but more liberal in their views on same-sex marriage or civil unions for gays.

The survey, conducted for the PBS show Religion and Ethics Newsweekly , found that only 25 percent of white evangelical Christians in the United States believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. Another 46 percent support limits on abortion rights, while 25 percent believe it should be completely illegal.

The figures were similar among both older and younger evangelicals. But on that other hottest of hot-button issues in America's culture wars, homosexuality, the age groups differed significantly. One in four (26 percent) of white evangelicals aged 18-29 believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

That is two-and-a-half times as many as hold that view — only 9 percent — among their 30-and-older evangelical counterparts. Older white evangelicals are more open toward legal arrangements that provide most or all of the same protections and responsibilities as full marriage.

More than one-third of older evangelicals (37 percent) support legal recognition of civil unions.  Nearly half of the older group (49 percent) said there should be no legal recognition of relationships between gays and lesbians, compared to 41 percent of those under 30.

The survey, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, also found that young white evangelicals are less likely than the older generation to vote for John McCain for president.

While support for the Republican nominee is solid among white evangelicals — 71 percent compared to 23 percent for Democrat Barack Obama — McCain’s support slips nine points among members of the under-30 group.

McCain still holds a winning margin among evangelicals aged 18-29, by a margin of 62 percent to 30 percent for Obama. Among evangelicals over the age of 30, support for McCain runs 73 percent compared to 22 percent for Obama. 

Younger evangelicals are also more likely to rate Obama the more religious of the two candidates — 20 percent compared to 13 percent of older evangelicals. Fewer than half of young evangelicals (48 percent) said McCain is more religious, compared to 55 percent of older evangelicals.

The poll also revealed a generation split among evangelicals about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, picked as McCain's running mate in large part to excite conservative evangelical voters. Nearly two-thirds of older evangelical women (65 percent) expressed warm feelings toward Palin, compared to 46 percent of those under 30.

McCain's favorability rating is also lower for young evangelicals. Slightly more than half (54 percent) of those under 30 give McCain a positive rating, while 68 percent of those 30 and older view him warmly. President Bush is far less popular among younger evangelicals than their older counterparts.

More than half of 30-and-older evangelicals (57 percent) view Bush favorably, while only 39 percent of those under 30 gave him a positive review — approval figures approaching his historic lows among the U.S. population at large.

The survey was conducted by telephone with 1,400 adults Sept. 4-21. Margins of error ranged from 3.1 percent to 5.5 percent, depending on age group.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin described homosexuality as “a choice” while sidestepping policy questions about it and several other divisive social issues in a television interview aired Sept. 30.

But the Alaska governor told Katie Couric of “CBS Evening News” that she is "not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships."

"One of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly," Palin said, when asked by Couric about homosexuality. "And she is not my 'gay friend,' she is one of my best friends — who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people."

Most gay-rights groups criticized GOP nominee John McCain for choosing someone with Palin's views as his running mate. "For Governor Palin to suggest that individuals randomly choose their sexual orientation based on nothing but a whim is wrong and it repeats the talking points of the anti-gay special interests which continue to control the McCain/Palin campaign and the Republican Party," said Jon Hoadley, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, in a statement.

"Preserving the definition of marriage" 

As a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin listed "preserving the definition of marriage as defined in our constitution" as one of her top three legislative priorities. She supported Alaska's decision to amend its charter to ban same-sex marriage.

She also said, during her gubernatorial campaign, that she disapproved of a recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state had to provide spousal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees.While Palin later signed legislation that enforced the decision, she said at the time that she would support a ballot initiative that would effectively overturn the court ruling by banning gay spouses from state benefits. While she vetoed a legislative attempt to overturn the ruling, she said at the time she was doing so only because attorneys informed her the law would have been unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, at least one pro-gay GOP group has expressed support for the Palin choice.  Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon released a statement shortly after McCain picked her Aug. 29, saying Palin is “a mainstream Republican who will unite the party and serve John McCain well as vice president. Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters.”

Complaints about the media 

In the Couric interview, Palin accused the media of misrepresenting her church's promotion of a Focus on the Family conference designed to help individuals overcome unwanted same-sex attraction through counseling and prayer. When the news of the conference broke a couple of weeks before the interview, some bloggers and other media outlets claimed that Wasilla Bible Church had “sponsored” the conference. In reality, it simply promoted the conference — held in nearby Anchorage — in the church bulletin. Palin attends Wasilla Bible when she is in her hometown.

Palin told Couric that when the media gets it wrong, "It frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and … be able to make up their mind on, about a person's values."

"But what you're talking about, I think, values here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can ‘pray it away,’ because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin," she continued. "And you know, I don't know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don't know what's prayers are going to be asked and answered."

Palin didn't say much when pressed by Couric on how she would handle public policy related to homosexuality and other hot-button social issues like abortion, global warming and teaching religious theories of the origins of life alongside evolution in public schools.

Pro-life policies 

She reaffirmed her view that human life begins at the moment of conception. Because of that Palin, who described herself as both pro-contraceptive and pro-life, told Couric she personally would not use "morning after" emergency contraceptives, which can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Palin has, in the past, said she opposed all abortions except those performed to save the mother’s life. Asked by Couric if it should be illegal for a 15-year-old raped by her father to get an abortion, Palin said she would "counsel the person to choose life" but added that nobody should "end up in jail" for having an abortion.

As recently as Aug. 29 Palin told the conservative magazine Newsmax she is a pro-life candidate. "I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential," she said. "The legislature should do all it can to protect human life."

Evolution vs Creationism 

In the CBS interview Palin also backed away from a statement she made previously suggesting that both evolution and “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools. Asked if she believed evolution should be "taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories, Palin told Couric it "should be taught as an accepted principle."

"I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth, but that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district," she said. "Science should be taught in science class.”

Asked during a televised debate two years ago about teaching alternatives to evolution like creationism or intelligent design, Palin responded: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Palin later attempted to clarify those remarks, saying she meant there should be no prohibition on debating the issue if it comes up in class, but it didn't necessarily need to be part of the curriculum.

Global warming

In the Couric interview, Palin also said she doesn't know if global warming is induced by humans.

"There are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts," she said. "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities [for] changes in climate, because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."

Palin told CBS News she is not a member of any church, but she visits a couple of them when she is at home.

According to media reports, Palin was baptized a Catholic as an infant but began attending evangelical churches as a child with her mother. She was re-baptized at age 12 into the Wasilla Assembly of God by its then-pastor, Paul Reilly.

She attended there with her family on a regular basis until 2002, about the time she entered public service by running for lieutenant governor, when she switched over to Wasilla Bible Church. Political opponents at the time said she was trying to downplay her upbringing in the Pentecostal tradition, but Palin said the non-denominational church had a better children's program.

Wasilla Bible’s pastor, Larry Kroons, said Palin and her family have been attending there regularly for about six years. They are "attenders" but not on the membership roll, which he said is not unusual in Alaska.

Attends "literalist" churches 

As governor, Palin has occasionally attended Juneau Christian Center, an Assemblies of God congregation in the capital, when she is there attending to business. Before running for governor she frequently attended another Wasilla church, Church on the Rock, for about a year and has visited a few times since.

What all Palin's churches share in common, says Howard Bess, a retired American Baptist pastor in nearby Palmer, Alaska, is they are "rock-solid fundamentalist" in their theology.

"Her churches are literalists and into [biblical] inerrancy," Bess said in a recent e-mail interview.

Bess said he clashed several times over the years with Palin's allies on local culture-war issues like banning library books.

Bess said he worries how Palin's "Christian triumphalism" and belief in dispensational views of eschatology might play out on a world stage and has encouraged the media to take a closer look at how her churches' teachings influence her worldview.

"Sarah is a charming person," Bess said. "I have always considered her moral and ethical. However, since her nomination, I believe she is shaving truth and rewriting history."

— Robert Marus contributed to this story.

Read more

CBS News Palin interview on social issues

Social conservatives express delight at McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin (8/29)

ATLANTA—Most evangelical American Christians remained silent about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo for some of the same reasons European Christians 70 years ago largely failed to resist the Holocaust, ethicist David Gushee told a national summit on torture.

“The great majority of European Christians proved to be bystanders, neither helping the Nazis nor helping the Jews,” Gushee observed.
Similarly, evangelical Christians—particularly white southern evangelicals—failed to speak up when it became apparent American policy sanctioned the use of torture to interrogate suspected terrorists.

Gushee, professor at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, noted when governments misuse their power to harm people and violate human rights, they hold key advantages that discourage resistance:

° Information. Only a small number of people within the government know what its policies are and how they are implemented.

“Even in a society with a free press and a political opposition, there will always be a time lag between the development and implementation of secret government policies and the public discovery of those policies,” he said. “Thus, any resistance will always be playing catch-up and operating on the basis of less-than-complete information—often information purposefully distorted by the government.”

In the case of torture, two years passed between the time secret government interrogation policies were developed and abuses at Abu Ghraib became public knowledge.
“Once again, government had a head-start over those who would check its behavior and has retained an informational advantage as the Bush Administration has sought to keep its paper trail as hidden as possible,” Gushee said.

° Authority. Most ordinary citizens hold the presupposition “that the government has both the right and the obligation to undertake the policies it deems necessary to protect national security or advance the common good, and that citizens should trust government with that power,” he said.

That tendency proves even stronger among conservative Christians who believe the biblical text in Romans 13 grants the state a God-ordained right to exercise the power of “the sword.”

“This is related to a broader evangelical authoritarianism—especially in our most conservative quarters—that elevates the role of the man over his family, the male pastor over his church, the president over his nation and our nation over the rest of the world,” Gushee said.

“All of these authorities are viewed as having been put into place by God and as answerable primarily or only to God. The kind of checks and balances provided by democratic constitutionalism, the wisdom of other nations and international law are devalued.”

° Intimidation. Government has the power to impose high costs on anyone who resists its policies.

In the case of evangelicals, critics of the Bush Administration’s policies on torture “have been charged with everything from being soft on terrorism to being closet leftists to offering shoddy definitions of torture to being naïve for not realizing that is a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy requiring new kinds of policies,” Gushee said.

Many evangelical also fell into the trap of objectifying Muslims, he added.

“It is clear to me from the nature of conservative evangelical discourse about Islam and terrorism that many evangelicals after 9/11 perceived Islam as an intrinsically dangerous religion and Muslims as the enemy of both America and Christianity—as the international cultural ‘other,’” he said.

Resistance requires shaking off inertia

David Gushee, Christian ethics professor at Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, tells participants at the National Summit on Torture why he believes most white evangelicals in the South remained silent when they learned about the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo—and why he believes they need to speak out now.

People who resist injustice face clear disadvantages, Gushee noted. Potential resisters must notice something is wrong or someone needs help; discern the significance of what they notice; and move from inertia to action. That demands a heightened sense of personal responsibility, a conviction that action will make a difference, the ability to execute an action plan and network-building skills to sustain resistance.

“Despite a biblical record full of the demand for justice and the affirmation of human dignity; despite the commitment to justice and human rights of the Radical Reformers; despite the 19th century evangelical reform groups that fought for abolition, women’s rights and the rights of workers; despite the Catholic social teaching tradition with its careful theology and ethic of justice; despite the Christian liberation movements and civil rights movement anchored in the black church; and despite the justice witness of many other faiths, late 20th century white evangelicals have often acted as if justice and human rights are strange, alien, irreligious concepts imported from the Enlightenment,” Gushee said.

“This has left us with weak antennae for sensing injustices in society—or for that matter, in our own churches. What an incredible tragedy that evangelicals lost touch with their own tradition and with the broader Christian tradition, and with such horrifying implications.”
Evangelicals—particularly high-profile leaders—were slow to notice torture as a moral issue and reticent to criticize an administration they had supported, he added.

“If our faith’s leader can’t figure out that waterboarding and freezing people to death is immoral—people who have been disarmed, deprived of protection from international law and the U.S. Constitution, defenseless against their abusers, made in the image of God, loved by Jesus Christ and sacred in God’s sight—we need some new leaders,” Gushee said.

Interfaith perspective noted

In a panel discussion that followed Gushee’s address, an African-American Protestant, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim and a Roman Catholic offered perspectives from their faith communities.

American policy carried out in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is consistent with the same attitude that allowed racism to flourish in the South, said Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel at Moorehouse College.

“Torture is the new lynching,” Carter said.

Mohammed Elsanousi, director of communications and community outreach for the Islamic Society of North America, stressed many Muslim-Americans failed to speak out against terrorism out of fear of being associated with terrorists.

Brian Walt, founding executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, underscored Gushee’s observation about seeing Muslims as “the other.”

“How we deal with ‘the other’ is the litmus test for our religious integrity,” Walt said.

Roman Catholic teaching declares torture “an intrinsic evil,” said Cathleen Kaveny, professor of law and theology at the University of Notre Dame.

“Even so, in the United States, Catholic voices against torture are far more muted than they ought to be, and the response of the faithful has been lukewarm at best,” she said.

Catholics should draw on the same passion for the sanctity of human life that has energized opposition to abortion as they deal with the torture issue.

Given the Catholic affinity for iconic imagery, she suggested the image of the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus has provided a compelling visual for right-to-life advocates. She suggested a similar emphasis on the iconic images of Mary on Good Friday, watching her son being beaten and crucified, could provide a similar visual expression for the torture issue.

“Every man who is subjected to extraordinary rendition is some mother’s son,” she said.

ATLANTA—Concern about human rights means biblically grounded compassion for oppressed people—not a selfish desire to protect one’s own property or prestige, Baptist ethicist Glen Stassen told the National Summit on Torture.

“It has been the defenders of the unjust status quo and unequal privileges who have said: ‘Christians should not push for human rights. Human rights are selfish,’” he told the interfaith conference at Mercer University.

“My theme is that human rights are about caring for those who can be victimized by the more powerful.”

Stassen, the Lewis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, insisted human rights are rooted in the Bible and in religious teaching that predated any Enlightenment emphasis on possessive individualism.

He urged churches—particularly in the free-church Baptist tradition—to reclaim their heritage.

“Human rights are our baby, coming from the struggle for the right to religious liberty—well before the Enlighten-ment,” he said.

Richard Overton—one of the earliest Baptists, alongside John Smyth and Thomas Helwys—articulated a call for human rights during the free-church struggle for religious liberty in Puritan England, he noted.

Writing in 1645, Overton urged full religious liberty for all people, economic justice for the poor and expansion of civil liberties—including “the right not to be arbitrarily arrested nor forced to incriminate oneself; the right to speedy trial; the right to understand the law in one’s own language; equality before the law; and the right of prisoners not to be starved, tortured or extorted,” Stassen noted.

Christians care about human rights because it is a teaching grounded in the Gospels. Jesus cared about people, Stassen insisted.

“He cared for people with so much compassion that he confronted the authorities over the wrongs they were doing,” he said.

Jesus confronted religious authorities over four types of injustice, Stassen noted:

• Greed. “Human rights emphasizes the positive right to life as having the basics needed to pursue a life’s calling.”

• Exclusion. “Human rights emphasizes the human right to community.”

• Domination. “Human rights em-phasizes the rights to liberty and to the means to check and balance unjust authority.”

• Violence. “Human rights emphasizes the right to life.”

“They are not four arbitrary types of injustice; they are deeply grounded in the prophetic tradition of God’s own caring for the powerless and the deprived and the oppressed,” Stassen added.

“They are based in God’s caring, and in God’s own realism about who needs standing up for in a world of greed, oppression, domination, exclusion, violence—a world of sin.”

And nations are as prone to sin as individuals, he insisted.

“The temptation to sin is the greater the more powerful you are, and our nation is very powerful,” Stassen in-sisted.

“So, we badly need the check and balance of humility enough to listen to other nations, to restore international cooperation, to respect international law.”

ATLANTA (ABP)—Nearly two decades ago, Dianna Ortiz says, Guatemalan security forces abducted her and took her to a clandestine prison where she was gang-raped; burned more than 100 times with cigarettes; forced to cut another woman with a machete; and suspended by her wrists over a pit full of dead and dying men, women and children.

“This past has awakened again, both here and now,” Ortiz said of the experience, in remarks prepared for a summit of religious leaders in Atlanta.

“The smells of burning flesh and decomposing corpses, the mutilated bodies of children, the policeman’s cratered face and button-like eyes devoid of feeling are returning. I have no wish whatsoever to return to that prison in Guatemala; nor do I wish to hearken back to how I felt as I cried to a silent and deaf God. Yet, it all does come back.”

The American Catholic nun went to the Guatemalan highlands in 1987 as a missionary to indigenous Mayan people. What she experienced at the hands of right-wing government officials—and a fair-skinned accomplice, identified only as “Alejandro,” who she said was obviously an American—in 1989 nearly destroyed her faith.

Ortiz experienced what she called “the radiant face of God” in the first two years of her missionary work, teaching Mayan children in their own language.

“We are nearly blinded by the glorious colors, shining from heaven’s door,” she wrote. “But now, try to imagine a dark shadow falling across that face of God—eclipsing it, obliterating every sign of it. Hope is gone. Belief is gone.”

Ortiz had been scheduled to be one of the speakers at the summit on torture and U.S. policy. Although she was unable to attend because she was testifying in a torture trial, Ortiz provided her prepared remarks to summit participants.

Crises of faith are among the many long-term consequences victims of torture suffer, said Doug Johnson, executive director of the Center for Victims of Torture.

“Whatever we do learn about the impact of torture must be placed in the context of what we know about the impact of intense traumas, and particularly human-induced traumas,” Johnson said. “We’re getting a clear idea that there is a biological effect that is induced by intense traumas—not merely a psychological one.”

For example, even mild forms of torture—forcing victims into stress positions for long periods of time or sleep deprivation—can have subtle physical side-effects that only manifest themselves years later, Johnson said. And the psychological effects not only can be profound, but also long-lasting.

“We know, for example, that survivors of the Holocaust … still have high rates of clinical depression and suicide 50 years after the fact,” Johnson said. He noted the sin of torture visits itself on subsequent generations, as well—children and even grandchildren of Holocaust survivors also have higher rates of suicide and depression than the general population.

Johnson’s organization provides psychological treatment to survivors of torture at clinics in Minnesota; Washington, D.C.; Guinea and Sierra Leone. He said some effects of torture are so profound they can fundamentally change the personalities of the victims.

And the often-stated purpose of torture—to gain information—is almost never achieved by physical or psychological coercion, both Johnson and Ortiz said.

Ortiz, who founded an organization of torture survivors, said simply destroying the victim and their community is torture’s true goal.

“Torture is an attempt to obliterate a person’s personality, to turn him or her into a quivering mass of fear, cowering in some corner of the world afraid to look for the dawn,” she said.

“It is not something we, the tortured ‘get over.’ It is something we live with the rest of our days. It is forever strapped to our backs.

“It constitutes a permanent invasion of our minds and our souls. Someone in uniform; a scream; the smell of a cigarette; the sound of someone whistling; the sight a dog; the sound of keys rattling; cutting a piece of meat with a knife—any of these may continually threaten a return to that past which walks so closely behind us.”

Evangelicals for Human Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Center for Victims of Torture have drafted a declaration of principles its members want to see the next president include in an executive order on prisoner treatment, torture and cruelty.

Officials who have signed the declaration include two former secretaries of state—George Shultz and Madeleine Albright—as well as three former secretaries of defense—William Perry, Harold Brown and William Cohen.

The document also has been endorsed by national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sen. John Glenn, Sen. Sam Nunn, 38 retired military flag officers, former CIA officials and numerous religious leaders.

Text of the declaration follows:

Though we come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life, we agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise and un-American. In our effort to secure ourselves, we have resorted to tactics which do not work, which endanger U.S. personnel abroad, which discourage political, military and intelligence cooperation from our allies, and which ultimately do not enhance our security.

Our president must lead us by our core principles. We must be better than our enemies, and our treatment of prisoners captured in the battle against terrorism must reflect our character and values as Americans. Therefore, we believe the president of the United States should issue an executive order that provides as follows:

The “Golden Rule”—We will not authorize or use any methods of interrogation that we would not find acceptable if used against Americans, be they civilians or soldiers.

One National Standard—We will have one national standard for all U.S. personnel and agencies for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners. Currently, the best expression of that standard is the U.S. Army Field Manual, which will be used until any other interrogation technique has been approved based on the Golden Rule principle.

The Rule of Law—We will acknowledge all prisoners to our courts or the International Red Cross. We will in no circumstance hold persons in secret prisons or engage in disappearances. In all cases, prisoners will have the opportunity to prove their innocence in ways that fully conform to American principles of fairness.

Duty to Protect—We acknowledge our historical commitment to end the use of torture and cruelty in the world. The U.S. will not transfer any person to countries that use torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Checks and Balances—Congress and the courts play an invaluable role in protecting the values and institutions of our nation and must have and will have access to the information they need to be fully informed about our detention and interrogation policies.

Clarity and Accountability—All U.S. personnel—whether soldiers or intelligence staff—deserve the certainty that they are implementing policy that complies fully with the law. Henceforth all U.S. officials who authorize, implement or fail in their duty to prevent the use of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners will be held accountable, regardless of rank or position.

For more information, visit www.nrcat.org, www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org or www.cvt.org.

Debate over the morality of coercive force would be served better if everyone involved quit using the word “torture” altogether, said Daniel Heimbach, professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

“The problem here is that in hotly debating the ethics of so-called ‘torture,’ one side strongly—and rather self-righteously—objects to any ‘immoral use of force,’ while the other side is most often in fact trying to defend nothing more than ‘morally justified use of force,’” said Heimbach, research institute fellow with the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“But, of course, ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ use of force are by definition completely different things, and there is no real disagreement as to the ethical substance of the issue.”

The real questions are when, how and under what circumstances is the line crossed between morally justified and unjustified use of force, he insisted.

“Neither side in the torture debate is defending immoral use of force, and neither side is saying coercion should never be used, under any circumstance, no matter how mild. All to say, we should stop using the word ‘torture,’ which is so emotionally inflammatory opponents cease communicating, and should use other language that states more clearly and exactly what is truly opposed and defended,” Heimbach said.

Both sides in the debate should be able to find common ground by starting with the acknowledgement that coercive force is a “graduated continuum” that extends from mild discomfort to painful death, he asserted.

“For those able to set aside emotion for the sake of moral clarity, answers for how anyone finds the moral boundary separating justified from unjustified use of force are answered by applying principles of just war,” he said.

Just war principles—such as proportionality of ends and means, probability of success, last resort, proper authority and no essentially evil means—would provide reasonable guidelines for determining whether moral boundaries are violated, Heimbach suggested.

“I strongly agree it is always wrong to apply force immorally, and if that is what … (is meant) by ‘torture’ then I do indeed strongly oppose torture—immoral use of force—under any circumstance and urge everyone else to oppose it as well,” he said.

“But I also agree that using coercive force is sometimes morally justified under circumstances that meet principles of just war restraint.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Many Americans no longer see heaven as an exclusive destination, according to a new survey from Baylor University.

When researchers polled U.S. adults about who—and how many—will get into heaven, 54 percent of respondents said at least half of average Americans will make it through the Pearly Gates.

More than a quarter of those surveyed—29 percent—said they had no opinion about the fate of the average American, a figure that mirrored those who thought “half or more” of nonreligious people would make it into heaven.

Researchers found 72 percent of respondents said at least half of Christians will make it into heaven, but the figures were lower for other faiths—Jews at 46 percent, Buddhists at 37 percent and Muslims at 34 percent.

The study, based on data collected last fall, also revealed that while 11 percent of the national sample said they had “no religion,” they may not correctly be termed “irreligious.”

Researchers found 20 percent of those reporting “no religion” said they have attended church, 56 percent said they had prayed, and 32 percent said they prayed “several times a week or more.”

Among other findings, the survey showed:

•Widows and widowers are some of the biggest tithers, with 17.6 percent giving 10 percent or more of their income to the church, compared to 8.6 percent of nonwidowed people.

•People attending mega-churches—with more than 1,000 in the congregation—are more likely to tithe, attend worship services weekly and believe heaven and hell “absolutely” exist.

•Worshippers who attend stricter churches—those tending to differ from secular society on issues such as abortion and homosexual behavior—are more likely to tithe, attend worship services weekly and share their faith with others than people who attend less strict churches.