WASHINGTON (RNS)—Economic recession has not led to increased attendance at U.S. houses of worship, according to Gallup pollsters.

Despite anecdotal evidence cited in high-profile media outlets, Americans’ worship patterns held steady in 2008, the Gallup Poll reported. Since mid-February, Gallup said, pollsters asked 1,000 adults a day how often they attend church, synagogue or mosque.

About 42 percent have said they go weekly or almost weekly, with no increase in September through December, when the recession tightened its hold on the U.S. economy.

Gallup also said there has been no significant change in the percentage of Americans who say they attend church about once a month, seldom or never.

“The available data on self-reported church attendance among American adults do not appear—as of mid-December—to support the hypothesis that on a societywide basis, the current bad economic times have resulted in an increase in Americans’ churchgoing behavior,” Gallup’s report said.

Pollsters conduct about 30,000 interviews per month on church attendance, which results in a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point for the surveys.

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Most American Christians believe at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life, a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reveals.

Even among evangelicals, who profess belief that an individual must be “born again” into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in order to be saved, nearly as many Christians said many religions can lead to eternal life—47 percent—as those who believe theirs is the one true faith—49 percent.

The survey followed up an earlier poll that found seven Americans in 10 believe many religions can lead to salvation, while less than one quarter say their faith is the only one that is true. Critics of that study questioned those findings, suggesting for many Christians, “other religion” might have meant a different Christian denomination instead of a non-Christian faith.

The new study asks those who say many religions can lead to eternal life questions about specific faiths. Sixty-nine percent said Judaism can lead to eternal life, compared to 52 percent for Islam, 53 percent for Hinduism, 42 percent for atheists and 56 percent for people with no religious faith.

“Responses to these questions show that most American Christians are not thinking only of other Christian denominations when they say many religions provide a path to eternal life,” the study found.

“To the contrary, among those who say many religions provide a path to eternal life, strong majorities believe that both Christian and non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.”

While white evangelicals are more exclusive in their beliefs about salvation than the general public, nearly two-thirds said it is possible for a Jewish person to go to heaven—64 percent. Roughly one-third said the same about Muslims and Hindus.

One in four evangelicals said atheists could attain eternal life, and one-third said it is possible for people with no religious faith.

Catholics—84 percent—and white mainline Protestants—82 percent—are most likely to say many religions can lead to salvation.

Evangelicals who attend church at least once a week are twice as likely as those who attend less frequently to say their faith is the only path to heaven—60 percent to 30 percent.

About one-third of Americans say one’s beliefs determine who achieves eternal life, while an equal number say it depends on one’s actions. A tenth of the population say it is a combination of belief and action. The rest say something else determines salvation, they don’t believe in eternal life or they don’t know.

The survey is based on results of telephone interviews of 2,905 adults conducted in July and August. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percent.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Two-thirds of Americans think religion is losing its influence on U.S. life, a sharp jump from just three years ago when Americans were nearly evenly split on the question, according to a new Gallup Poll.

Sixty-seven percent of Americans think religious influence is waning, while just 27 percent say it is increasing.

That perspective demonstrates a continuing downward trend, Gallup said.

But the 27 percent figure still is higher than the record low, set in a 1970 poll, when just 14 percent of Americans thought religion was increasing in influence.

People who regularly attend worship services are more likely to say religion is losing its influence; three out of four weekly attenders—74 percent—say religious influence is falling, compared to 24 percent who think its influence is on the rise.

At other times in American history, religion has been perceived by more Americans as having increasing significance.

In 1957, 69 percent thought its influence was increasing, compared to 14 percent who thought it was declining. Likewise, in 2001, three months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 71 percent saw an increasing religious influence, compared to 24 percent who said it was decreasing.

The latest poll also finds the percentage of Americans believing religion “can answer all or most of today’s problems” has reached an all-time low.

Slightly more than half of those surveyed—53 percent—held that view, while 28 percent say it is “largely old-fashioned and out of date.”

LAKE FOREST, Calif. (ABP) — Comments on the Saddleback Church website that the Bible does not permit a woman to divorce a physically abusive spouse have triggered concerns among advocates for victims of domestic violence.

The pastor of the Southern Baptist megachurch is Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life. Warren has been in the news of late as the surprise pick to deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.

Audio clips on a "Bible Questions & Answers" section of Saddleback's website feature a speaker who says the Bible condones divorce for only two reasons: adultery and abandonment.

The speaker is not identified on the page, but a spokesperson for Warren said it is Tom Holladay, teaching pastor at the church in Lake Forest, Calif.

"I wish there were a third [reason for divorce] in Scripture, having been involved as a pastor with situations of abuse," Holladay said. "There is something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says, 'If they abuse you in this-and-such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.'"

Advises separation and counseling 

Holladay said Saddleback's counseling ministry advises separation and counseling instead of divorce in abusive marriages, because it's the only path toward healing. "There's an abusive cycle that's been set up," he said. "Separation combined with counseling has been proven to provide healing in people's lives."

Holladay said there's nothing in the Bible that says a spouse must tolerate abuse. "There's nowhere in the Bible that says it's an attitude of submission to let somebody abuse you," he said. "That is not submission. So we recommend very strongly separation."

He defined what he meant by physical abuse.

"When I say physical abuse, I mean literally somebody is beating you regularly," he said. "I don't mean they grab you once. I mean they've made a habit of beating you regularly. You need to separate in that situation, because that's the only thing that's going to solve that."

Obama's invitation to Warren has been criticized from the left because of his opposition to gay marriage and from the right by Warren's fellow religious conservatives, who fear his prayer will convey approval of Obama's left-leaning social policies.

Views criticized 

But Saddleback's published views on domestic violence are what recently caught the attention of Because It Matters, a blog by a lifelong Baptist and abuse survivor who uses the pseudonym Danni Moss to give anonymity to her children, family and former in-laws.

The commentary "expresses a distinct lack of understanding about the nature, heart and spiritual roots of abuse," Moss said.

"I think he believes he is doing right and doesn't realize his ignorance or how much he is hurting people, so this is offered without personal judgment," she added. "But I also believe categorically that it is dangerous."

A women's-rights blog called The New Agenda called the views "alarming," especially in light of recent statistics showing a 42 percent rise in reports of domestic violence from 2005 to 2007. 

Attempts to reach Warren for his take on the controversy Jan. 8 were unsuccessful. Kristin Cole, a spokeswoman for Warren who works at A. Larry Ross Communications, confirmed the voice on the website is Holladay's, but said she does not know when it was recorded.

Holladay also fielded a question about whether a Christian spouse should remain in a "miserable" marriage.

"God sees you as one, and the Bible says they become one, and so the answer, the Bible answer, is yes," Holladay said.

Choosing your pain 

"I often say to people when they're facing this decision, really, you're choosing your pain in this moment, because it's going to be painful either way," he said. "If you stay in the marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. There's no way to not have pain."

Holladay said there is an "immediate feeling of freedom" after a divorce — but in the long run "there is lifelong pain in divorce."

"Does God expect me just to live with this pain?" he asked. "No, I think he expects us to ask him for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. He says we're one and as Christians, as believers, the Bible says a husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband."

"So if that's not happening," he said, "I think you have not only the right but also the responsibility to keep pushing for that, to not just settle for the pain."

(Editor's note: This story updates, replaces and corrects one issued by ABP Jan. 8, which incorrectly attributed the domestic-violence comments to Warren rather than Holladay. ABP regrets the error.)

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—In South Carolina, a district court temporarily has halted production of state-sponsored license plates that declare “I Believe” and feature an illustration of a cross, superimposed on a stained-glass window.

In Vermont, an appeals court is mulling whether a vanity plate featuring John 3:16 should be permitted on that state’s roads.

And in Arizona, a court has ruled it’s OK to give residents the option of having the words “Choose Life” on state plates.

The question is no longer, “What Would Jesus Drive?” Now, it’s more likely to be, “What’s on his license plate?”

Across the country, car license plates have become the latest battleground for church-state disputes and questions of free speech.

“It’s hard to draw a line between what is government speech and what is private speech when it comes to license plates,” said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington.

“Some people want to use their license plate to proclaim their beliefs, and that puts the state in an awkward position, because if they allow one message, then they have to allow others.”

The South Carolina case is one of the more unusual—and overt—examples of religious speech on a license plate. The “I Believe” phrase and accompanying artwork were adopted unanimously by the state legislature, prompting a lawsuit by the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of some Unitarian, Jewish and Christian clergy and the Hindu American Foundation.

“I know some may quickly label this as an anti-Christian suit, and I don’t think that that’s what is at issue,” explained Suhag Shukla, legal counsel for the Maryland-based Hindu group. “It was more the state endorsement of religion, and such a blatant endorsement of religion.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie sided with the religious groups, halting distribution of the plates while the legal process continues.

“Just as a reasonable, objective observer would likely conclude that the state of South Carolina was promoting tourism with the website address ‘Travel2SC.com’ on its standard-issue plate,” she wrote, “that same observer could reasonably believe the state is promoting Christianity through its legislatively created and DMV-designed and marketed ‘I Believe’ plate.”

Beth Parks, a spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, said the state has complied with the preliminary injunction, which directed the department to remove advertising about the plate from its website.

“The people who submitted the $5 pre-paid application … are receiving refunds,” she said.

Beyond disputes over state-sanctioned specialty plates, Vermont driver Shawn Byrne is waiting for an appeals court to decide if he can use letters and symbols on his own vanity plate to spread the gospel. He hopes to put “JOHN316,” “JN316” or “JN36TN” on his vehicle.

“Everybody knows when they’re driving down the road and they see a vanity plate that this person behind the wheel is speaking, not the state,” said Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, who defended Byrne at a recent hearing.

Already, courts have permitted individuals to speak through specialized plates with messages to “Choose Life,” sponsored by organizations such as the Arizona Life Coalition.

Arizona officials initially rejected a “Choose Life” license plate, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that policy amounted to viewpoint discrimination. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Arizona officials. More than a dozen states offer “Choose Life” plates, and more are considering them.

Texas lawmakers are considering a bill to create a “Choose Life” specialty license plate that would raise money for women considering adoption.

“The majority of Texans believe in the sanctity of life, and this license plate will give them a means to tell the world in a subtle but meaningful way, while providing support to pregnant women making the decision to chose adoption,” Gov. Rick Perry said.

Vanity plates appear on more than 9.3 million U.S. motor vehicles, according to a joint study by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the website LCNS2ROM.com, and officials say the interest in messages-in-motion is only likely to continue.

“People are certainly passionate about license plates,” association spokesman Jason King said. “They are vehicles for personal expression.”

ACLU sues over inmate’s right to preach. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a New Jersey prison inmate who was ordained behind bars eight years ago and now contends his religious freedoms were violated when prison officials forbade him from preaching. Howard Thompson, convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to 30 years to life in prison, was ordained as a Pentecostal minister in 2000 and preached regularly for other prisoners for years before corrections officials prohibited preaching by inmates in June 2007. Edward Barocus, legal director of the ACLU in New Jersey, said the ban is unnecessary and that preaching is an essential part of Thompson’s Pentecostal Christian faith.

 
Bush signs anti-trafficking bill. Religious leaders hailed President Bush’s signing of a bill that continues U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking across the globe. Two days before Christmas, Bush signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which aims to prevent and prosecute trafficking of humans in foreign countries and assist its victims. The bill, which passed both houses of Congress Dec. 10, is named after a 19th-century British abolitionist.

 
Alabama church named nation’s fastest-growing. Church of the Highlands in Birmingham, Ala., has been named the fastest-growing church in the United States by Outreach magazine. In the yearlong survey of church attendance ending in spring 2008, Highlands grew by 3,418 from the previous year—a jump of 72 percent—to 8,168. And in the months since, attendance has increased by more than 2,500 at its main campus and three satellite branches, said Pastor Chris Hodges, 45, who founded the church just seven years ago. Weekly attendance exceeds 10,000 and was 11,670 on Easter. Hodges, who grew up in Baton Rouge, La., as a Southern Baptist, leans toward Pentecostal theology, but Highlands is independent. In addition to the fastest-growing churches, Outreach magazine listed the 100 largest. Church of the Highlands ranked No. 71 on that list. At the top was Lakewood Church in Houston, led by Pastor Joel Osteen, which reported weekly attendance of 43,500.

 
Obama to use Lincoln’s Bible at swearing-in. President-elect Barack Obama has chosen the Bible used at President Lincoln’s first inauguration for his own swearing-in Jan. 20, inaugural planners announced. It will be the first time a president has used the historic Bible at an inauguration since it was used by Lincoln himself in 1861. The Bible, which is accented with gilded edges and bound in burgundy velvet, is part of the collection of the Library of Congress, along with the Lincolns’ family Bible. It originally was purchased by Clerk of the Supreme Court William Thomas Carroll. The Lincolns’ family Bible was not available at the time of Lincoln’s swearing-in ceremony because it was packed with belongings that were en route to the White House from Springfield, Ill.

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Backlash over comments about gay rights on a public-radio broadcast cost a prominent National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist his job.

Richard Cizik resigned as NAE’s vice president for governmental affairs after consultation with NAE President Leith Anderson and following criticism from some prominent conservative evangelical leaders over comments Cizik had made in an interview broadcast on the National Public Radio program Fresh Air.

While most of the interview dealt with Cizik’s strong stance in encouraging evangelicals to fight global warming—also controversial among some conservative Christians—host Terry Gross also asked him about same-sex marriage.

“A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage,” Gross said. “But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?”

"Shifting" on gay marriage question 

Cizik responded: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

Anderson said that response “did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents. Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”

The resignation came after an attempted clarification by Cizik and mounting protests from Religious Right leaders. The Washington-based Institute on Religion & Democracy called for Cizik to be replaced as the chief public-policy spokesman for NAE, which claims tens of millions of members in more than 40,000 evangelical congregations nationwide.

Cizik “has moved NAE away from its traditional social conservatism towards issues of the left, especially global warming,” the IRD statement said.

Cizik has received criticism from those on the far evangelical right before. A group of prominent conservative religious leaders, including Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, tried unsuccessfully last year to get Cizik disciplined for his activism on global warming. More recently, he was criticized—along with other centrist evangelical and Catholic leaders—for involvement with an attempt at Muslim-Christian dialogue.

Cizik’s resignation ends a 28-year career as NAE’s chief public-policy representative. His activism on global warming and other issues have earned him—and the NAE—an increasingly high profile among politicians and journalists seeking to understand evangelicals.

Anderson praised Cizik’s tenure in the NAE statement. “Over the past three decades, he has been a tireless advocate for a broad variety of issues important to the evangelical community, including passage of anti-persecution legislation, laws against human trafficking, nurture of family life, protection of children, justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable, sanctity of human life, opposition to abortion on demand, peace and the restraint of violence in our world, creation care and others,” he said.

Letter asks NAE to broaden agenda 

Fifty-nine evangelical leaders signed a letter requesting that whoever is chosen to replace Cizik at the NAE carry on the commitment to a moral agenda broader than opposition to homosexuality and abortion.

In a letter to Anderson, the evangelical leaders expressed gratitude for Cizik’s “broad Christian moral agenda that has helped define American Evangelicals’ public witness.”

The letter from evangelical leaders acknowledged the NAE’s right to choose its own spokesperson, yet urged that Cizik’s replacement support “a broad Christian moral agenda” including not only the family and right to life but also human rights, peace and the environment.

Baptist signers included David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights; Jonathan Merritt, spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative; Carey Newman, director of Baylor University Press; and Glenn Stassen, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary.

MUSKEGON, Mich. (RNS)—A top-ranking Republican plans to call for a new federal inquiry into an alleged CIA cover-up in the 2001 military attack on a small plane in Peru that killed an American missionary and her infant child.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said the attack that killed Veronica and Charity Bowers can be traced to a reckless CIA-sponsored drug interception program that already had downed numerous other planes.

Hoekstra also asserted the CIA may be responsible for a widespread cover-up designed to hide embarrassing details about the Bowerses’ deaths and similar incidents in the skies over Peru between 1995 and 2001.

A new report from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson accuses the agency of running a reckless air interception program for illegal drugs and ignoring regulations and procedures designed to protect innocent air travelers.

That type of disregard for procedure might have led to the unnecessary downing of several private planes during the six-year life of the Narcotics Airbridge Denial Program, culminating with the Bowers tragedy, Hoekstra said.

“To say these deaths did not have to happen is an understatement,” said Hoekstra, who represents the Bowerses’ hometown of Muskegon.

“The CIA knew about repeated serious issues with this program but took no corrective action, which could have prevented this needless tragedy. Making matters worse, the inspector general found continuous efforts to cover the matter up and potentially block a criminal investigation.”

The CIA has admitted proper procedures were not followed during the April 20, 2001, attack on the missionary plane carrying the Bowers family, Hoekstra said.

The attack, by a Peruvian Air Force jet, resulted in the death of Veronica “Roni” Bowers, 35, and the Bowerses’ 7-month-old daughter, Charity. Her husband, Jim Bowers, the Bowerses’ young son, Cory, and pilot Kevin Donaldson survived.

The couple had been working in Peru with the Pennsylvania-based Association of Baptists for World Evangelism when the attack occurred.

CIA officials claimed the tragedy was an isolated incident, and its air interception program had been operating smoothly and legally to that point.

Hoekstra, however, said the report suggests about 10 other private planes were shot down over Peru in the years prior to the Bowers tragedy.

In many of those incidents, strict federal procedures for identifying, following and trying to make contact with suspect planes were routinely ignored, and at least some of those planes may have been shot down without cause, Hoekstra said.

By the time the Bowerses’ plane flew into the danger zone, disregard for the rules apparently was standard operating procedure, he added.

So the Peruvian military plane that shot down the Bowers plane may have been doing nothing different than it had in the past—shooting and killing without proper warning or justification, Hoekstra said.

The CIA “told us this was the first time that anything happened out of the ordinary, that all guidelines in the past had been meticulously followed, and that was a lie,” Hoekstra said.

“Every shoot-down prior to this, they never followed the rules as meticulously as they should have.”

The two Peruvian pilots who shot down the Bowers plane spent 10 months in prison in their native country but never were charged with a crime. The U.S. Justice Department also declined to bring any criminal charges following an investigation.

“If there had been accountability in the program, if there had been respect for procedures and adherence to the law, the Bowers (family) never would have been shot down,” said Hoekstra, who recently shared the new information with Jim Bowers.

“It was the senseless killing of a family, done by an agency that wasn’t following the rules.”

Hoekstra, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the initial investigation of the tragedy, said he now realizes CIA officials who testified before his committee and answered his personal questions may have been lying or concealing part of the truth.

Hoekstra said he would call for a new federal inquiry of the now-defunct drug interception program, the Bowers incident and the alleged CIA cover-up.

“We need to follow up as aggressively as we can,” Hoekstra said. “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.”

A statement issued by the CIA indicated the agency is taking the inspector general’s report seriously.

“As soon as Director (Michael) Hayden got the inspector general’s report in late August, he read it and recognized the seriousness of the matter,” the CIA statement said.

WASHINGTON (BP)–President Bush signed into law Dec. 23 a bill to strengthen efforts to fight human trafficking in the United States and other countries.

The president signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act during an oval office ceremony attended by supporters from Congress and the coalition that worked for the measure's enactment. Among those attending was Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).

"It's a tremendous victory," Land told Baptist Press after the ceremony. "I think all of us who were there were pinching ourselves that this bill actually got passed. The later in the day this got in this administration, the more unlikely [it was to become law]. We all were delighted and surprised.

"This bill will significantly assist the United States government in impeding the trafficking of women and child for sexual purposes," he said. "It's a tremendously important new tool available to law enforcement officials in prosecuting those who traffic in human flesh. It will make a real difference to the victims of sex trafficking."

Both the House of Representatives and Senate approved the bill without objection Dec. 10.

Enactment of the legislation followed a lengthy, contentious debate over competing pieces of legislation. Activists in the diverse, anti-trafficking movement strongly favored a measure approved overwhelmingly by the House last December over one proposed in the Senate. In the end, Congress passed a new bill more closely resembling the House version.

A majority of those trafficked across international borders are victims of sexual slavery or exploitation, though trafficking also includes forced commercial and domestic labor, as well as coercive recruitment of children by military forces.

About 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked across international borders each year, according to the Trafficking in Persons Office. This does not include millions of victims who are trafficked inside their own national borders, the office says. About 80 percent of the transnational victims are females, and as much as 50 percent are minors.

The trafficking office has estimated as many as 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States each year.

The legislation, supporters say, will:

— Significantly increase the ability of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office to thwart sexual and other forms of trafficking overseas;
— Strengthen prosecution efforts against trafficking in the United States;
— Increase punishment for traffickers;
— Enhance protections for trafficking victims in this country;
— Empower U.S. attempts to halt the use of children as soldiers in other countries;
— Require the Justice Department to produce a model law for states to use in investigating and prosecuting trafficking;
— Clarify federal law cannot be interpreted to consider prostitution as an acceptable mode of employment;
— Authorize a presidential award for exceptional efforts in the fight against trafficking.

At one point in the disagreement over the competing bills, Land and 13 other advocates for the House version warned Bush his own Justice Department was threatening to tarnish his legacy in the battle against trafficking. The Justice Department led opposition to the House-approved legislation while supporting a Senate version the ERLC and other anti-trafficking coalition members considered weaker.

Calling the Justice Department "out of step with your bold stance against slavery and human trafficking," Land and the others urged Bush in an August letter to bring the department into compliance with his policy goals and to provide unwavering support for the House-passed bill.

The Justice Department reportedly contended its opposition to the House measure was based on prosecutorial limitations placed on it by states' rights and a lack of resources.

Wilberforce, the English legislator after whom the new law is named, was an evangelical Christian who led the effort in Parliament year after year to outlaw the British slave trade, a campaign that finally succeeded early in the 19th century.

Compiled by Baptist Press Washington bureau chief Tom Strode.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — President-elect Barack Obama's surprise pick of Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration Jan. 20 isn't the first time the ceremonial prayer has created controversy.

Eight years ago Kirbyjohn Caldwell, senior pastor of Windsor Village Methodist Church in Houston, drew criticism for closing the benediction at President Bush's first inauguration with: "We respectfully submit this humble prayer in the name that's above all other names, Jesus, the Christ. Let all who agree say, 'Amen.'"

At Bush's second inauguration in 2005, Caldwell was more inclusive, modifying his closing to: "Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."

Franklin Graham also offered the invocation at the 2001 inauguration in Jesus' name, drawing rebuke from non-Christians. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz called it "particularistic and parochial language" that "excluded tens of millions of American Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics and atheists from his blessing." Graham said the backlash was evidence that "there are factions of society today that hate God and everything that He stands for."

Atheist Michael Newdow, best known for his fight against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, sued unsuccessfully in 2005 to block prayer at Bush's second inauguration, claiming that inaugural prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Invoking God's blessing has been a part of the presidential inauguration ceremony since 1789, when George Washington added the words "So help me God" at the end of his oath and proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where the Senate chaplain read from the Book of Common Prayer.

Modern tradition started with FDR 

The prayer was moved from the church to the Senate chamber for the 1937 inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Every inauguration since has included prayers by one or more clergymen invited by the president-elect.

For years Billy Graham was a fixture of inaugural prayers, befriending every president since Eisenhower. Unable to attend the first inauguration of George W. Bush because of illness, Graham sent his son as a substitute to deliver the invocation in 2001.

Joseph Lowery, an icon of the civil rights movement and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, is scheduled to pronounce the benediction at Obama's inauguration, but garnering most of the attention is Obama's selection of Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., for the invocation.

The high-profile invitation particularly upset supporters of gay rights. Warren has compared homosexuality to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. He also spoke on behalf Proposition 8 a California referendum to ban gay marriage, which homosexuals regard a civil right.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of three openly gay members of the House of Representatives, said he was "very disappointed" by the choice.

"Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage," Frank said. "But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause."

Choice called "chilling," "divisive"

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote in the Washington Post that inviting Warren "sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans" and "makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too."

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called it "a divisive choice, and clearly not one that will help our country come together and heal."

Obama defended Warren's selection by saying there will be a "wide range of viewpoints" presented at the inauguration. "We're not going to agree on every single issue," he said, "but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common."

Warren commended the president-elect for "courage to willingly take enormous heat by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn't agree on every issue" and called it an effort "to model civility in America."

While Warren differs with Obama on homosexuality and abortion rights, they share values like fighting AIDS in Africa. Warren took heat from fellow religious conservatives for inviting Obama to speak at a conference on the subject at his church in 2006.

Some evangelicals not happy, either 

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily expressed "profound and abject revulsion" at Warren's acceptance of the invitation to ask God's blessing on Obama's policies, which he called "evil."

"Yes, we are commanded to pray for our leaders," Farah said. "But there is no suggestion in the Bible that we are ever to be used as political pawns by praying at their events — especially when they are promoting the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings."

Warren's selection also disappointed the religious left, who say his non-partisan image belies a social agenda in lockstep with the religious right. Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State called Warren "a kinder, gentler Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt."

Don Byrd, who blogs on church-state issues at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said regardless of their stances on controversial issues, he hopes both Warren and Lowery "manage broad, all-inclusive, non-sectarian approaches to this solemn occasion that should be for all Americans" and if Obama wants to offer a specifically Christian prayer with the religious leaders that it be done before or after the public event.

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

LEAWOOD, Kan. (ABP) — A Baptist pastor thinks he has a solution to the dilemma about whether it's more appropriate to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" in secular settings like department stores.

Mike McKinney submits that tensions that flare between Christians and secularists this time of year aren't about "taking Christ out of Christmas," as some religious observers believe, but rather because Christians have allowed their holiday to become too secularized by blending the celebration of Christ's birth with non-religious symbols like Santa Claus.

McKinney, pastor of Leawood Baptist Church in suburban Kansas City, is calling for a "reformation" of Christmas by separating secular and sacred aspects of the holiday.

McKinney says Christians and non-Christians alike would benefit from recognizing they are in fact celebrating two different holidays — one a religious commemoration of Christ's birth and the other a winter festival marked by hustle and bustle with secular roots.

Fixing Christmas 

McKinney wrote the booklet titled Fixing Christmas for Everyone: A Plea for the Reformation of the Christmas Season proposing an un-blending of the "winter holiday" and "birth of Christ" traditions.

"It is simply not right to sing 'Silent Night' and 'Jingle Bells' as if they belong to the same holiday," McKinney says. "It is not right to honor the birth of Christ the Lord and to celebrate the arrival of Santa Claus the jolly old elf within the context of the same holiday."

McKinney says there is nothing wrong with singing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or "Frosty the Snowman" in December — in fact he enjoys much about the season — but they simply don't have anything do to with Jesus Christ.

He says he is alarmed at how comfortable that both Christians and non-Christians have become with how Christmas is observed in America.

"Lots of folks are comfortable with blending Jesus with Santa, the Nativity with the North Pole, Angels with Elves, and Shepherds with Reindeer," McKinney says. "I am not!"

He says the mingling of secular and sacred is behind the conflict that arises every year over holiday greetings in the marketplace. The word "Christmas" is technically a religious title associated with the Christian faith, he reasons, so non-Christians can rightfully ask what winter shopping has to do with Christianity.

McKinney says for centuries Christians have commemorated the birth of Jesus Christ in their homes and churches with traditions, carols and Bible stories. Until fairly recently, he says, many Christians began their holiday on Christmas Day and followed it with 12 days of festivities ending with Epiphany on Jan. 6.

Many of the images now associated with the Christmas season didn't come along until the last century. The story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer appeared as part of a Christmas promotion in 1939 by Montgomery Ward and became even more popular when Gene Autry released it in song in 1949. Frosty the Snowman joined the Christmas lexicon in a song written and performed in 1950. A 1957 book by Dr. Seuss How the Grinch Stole Christmas introduced another character now affixed to the holiday.

McKinney says Christmas in the United States has evolved into a highly secularized and commercialized winter festival supporting various stories, traditions, characters and activities. Christians have adapted to the trend by ending instead of beginning their Christmas on Dec. 25.

In fact, he says, the phrase "Merry Christmas" no longer carries religious connotations in the public marketplace, but rather refers to a massive winter holiday season celebrated by people of all kinds.

Two separate holidays 

"We truthfully have two separate and distinct holidays," he writes. "We should admit it and do something about it!"

McKinney says Christians and non-Christians together could "reform" the Christmas season by "slight modifications in our thinking and practices." He says doing so would benefit everyone, and no one has to lose anything.

"I suggest we separate the 'Winter Christmas' traditions from the 'Christian Christmas' traditions," he suggests. "I believe the two traditions can be 'unblended' without harming either. They can exist side-by-side in ways that can affirm both."

McKinney says people of all faiths would benefit from a clear distinction between a non-religious winter holiday and a highly religious Christian Christmas. He proposes the term "Christmas" be used only by Christians in a religious sense, while the secular celebration be renamed a "Winter Holiday."

The Winter Holiday would continue to begin many weeks before Dec. 25, enjoy the non-religious elements now associated with Christmas and end with post-Christmas sales on Dec. 26.

The Christian Christmas would follow preparation through Advent, begin Christmas Day, and continue into the New Year.

McKinney says Christians could choose to observe one or both holidays, while many non-Christians would be relieved to have the issue of Christ removed from a secular holiday.

McKinney said in an email he first went public with the idea two years ago, but didn't prepare the booklet until this year.

Last year he went on a radio talk show popular in Kansas City and talked with listeners both pro and con for two hours. He was recently interviewed for an upcoming article in the Kansas City Star.

McKinney said he has received emails from clergy supporting his idea since it received mention two weeks ago in a newspaper columnist's blog.

McKinney said Leawood Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, is learning to think of Dec. 25 as the beginning of the Twelve days of Christmas.

The church brings out decorations on Christmas Eve and leaves them up through Epiphany. Many small groups and Sunday school classes have their Christmas parties after Dec. 25.

"We strive to think of Dec. 25 as the beginning of our sacred holiday and with the idea of spiritual renewal carrying the spirit of Christmas (Christ) into the New Year," McKinney said.

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—Eleven percent of the people who participated in a LifeWay Research survey said they or an immediate family member are the primary full-time caregiver to an elderly parent or a special needs child, a statistic also shown in two other national studies.

About 14 percent of American children under age 18 have special health care needs, according to the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. That survey defined children with special health care needs as “those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition” and require health care beyond the amount required by children generally. Presumably, not all children included in the survey require full-time care.

The National Center for Health Statistics reports 36 out of every 1,000 Americans 65 and older live in a nursing home while 277 per 10,000 require home health care.

What do the findings from LifeWay's survey reveal?

According to the LifeWay study, marital status and race signal the most significant differences in people’s status as primary full-time caregivers. People who are unmarried and living with a partner (18 percent) are acting as primary caregivers for elderly parents or special needs children far more than either married people (11 percent) or single people (9 percent).

The online survey was conducted this fall using a national sample of Americans representative of the U.S. population in terms of gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, income and region of the country. The survey used an online panel weighted to be representative of the population. The sample size of 1,580 provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed +2.5 percent.

Females (14 percent) are caregivers for elderly parents or special needs children more often than males (9 percent), according to the LifeWay Research data.

Neither education nor income level make much difference in a person’s likelihood of being a full-time primary caregiver to a child or parent. There is also no significant difference based on region of the country. However, people most able to outsource care to others—individuals making $100,000 or more—actually provide full-time care just as often (13 percent) as other income groups.

Eighteen percent of Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders are primary caregivers for elderly parents or special needs children, compared with 14 percent of blacks, 11 percent of Hispanics and 10 percent of whites.

Age and gender also are factors that correlate with differences in caregiving status. Those age 65 and older (6 percent) care for an elderly parent or special needs child less than any other age bracket. Fourteen percent of people ages 35 to 49 are primary caregivers, as are 12 percent of those ages 25 to 34, 12 percent of those ages 50 to 64 and 10 percent of those ages 18 to 24.

'Hands and feet of Jesus' or not?

“This research should open our eyes to the number of people in our churches and communities that are looking for people to be the hands and feet of Jesus,” Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, said.

“Many American church leaders and members that I know reject the idea of increased government involvement in establishing universal health care. But, for the most part, the American church continues to ignore the emphasis that Jesus himself placed on the poor and the sick. We disregard James’ exhortation to not forget the widows and orphans. Until caring for the sick and the poor becomes as cool as church planting and rapid church growth, the church should not be surprised when the government steps in to do our God-called work.”

What can churches do?

Too often church members are hesitant to provide support for people who are primary caregivers to an elderly parent or a special needs child, usually because they don’t know what to do.

Carmen Leal, author of The Twenty-Third Psalm for Caregivers, noted various ways churches can support the growing numbers of caregivers in an e-mail newsletter produced by LifeWay Research:

• Assume that most caregivers won’t ask for help. “Instead, have a plan in action to find out if basic needs are being met due to the onslaught of medical bills and the possible loss of income,” Leal wrote. “Suggest that the church benevolence fund can offer limited help and guide the caregiver through the application process.”

• Find the caregiver an advocate within the church. Leal noted many people in a church won’t have the experience or skill set to establish a ministry for caregivers, but they could advocate for one person. This person can help the caregiver access resources inside and outside the church such as helping him or her connect with a Bible study group or finding local community assistance programs such as the Salvation Army and the United Way that might help pay for items such as utilities, groceries, and other needs,” she wrote. It’s important, Leal said, for a person in the advocate role to work hard at keeping the caregiver connected with others in the church rather than taking on all of the needs of the caregiver. “In taking on too much personally, it would be very easy for the advocate to become overwhelmed and then to simply drop out of the picture for the caregiver—potentially doing more harm than good,” Leal wrote.

• Create a church culture that “finds a need then meets it.” After David’s diagnosis doctors suggested a 5,000-calorie a day diet to help with his rapid weight loss,” Leal wrote of her husband’s battle with a neurodegenerative disease. “His loss of swallowing ability led to a feeding tube and the need for supplements such as Ensure or Boost. The best thing my home church did before we moved was to set up an opportunity for members to bring six packs or cases of Ensure to church for us. “Others clipped coupons to help defray the cost of purchasing Ensure. This simple act of kindness kept David alive and allowed me to use our money to buy groceries for growing teens,” Leal said.

• Track resources that are available to families in financial need. Church members with an interest in ministering to caregivers should be familiar with resources that offer free or reduced cost prescription drugs, vision and dental care, Leal said. Such resources include pharmaceutical patient assistance programs such as RX Assist or NeedyMeds.org and vision assistance programs such as Vision USA or Eye Care America. “Be aware of the caregiver’s ever-shrinking world and make calls and visits,” Leal also wrote. “There are also many communities online so the caregiver can connect with others.” ther advice Leal offered includes helping caregivers learn about where to find free or inexpensive household items such as Habitat Resources or freecycle.org. Also, help caregivers learn more about the diseases they are dealing with, such as by directing them to the National Alzheimer’s Association, the American Cancer Society or another applicable group.

• Provide an old computer and basic computer skills. If caregivers don’t have a computer, there may be a church member who has upgraded their equipment and would be willing to donate their old desktop or laptop to a homebound caregiver needing online support, Leal said. Perhaps most importantly, Leal said, churches should not overlook the spiritual needs of a caregiver or of the one needing the care. Personal visits and prayer are the minimum a caregiver should expect from their faith community, she noted, and one of the most crucial matters to address is whether the person in need is trusting Jesus for salvation.

With additional reporting by Erin Roach