NORTHFIELD, Mass. (RNS)—Five weeks after accepting a free, 217-acre campus in western Massachusetts, a for-profit Christian university has walked away from the gift.

Grand Canyon University of Phoenix, Ariz., faced millions in unanticipated costs as it moved to open its first East Coast campus in Northfield, Mass., President Brian Mueller said. So, rather than complete a property transfer from the billionaire Green family of Oklahoma, the university decided to dissolve the deal.

“We were willing to make a $150 million investment, but we really had trouble with the city of Northfield,” Mueller said. “Northfield was concerned that growing the campus to 5,000 students would alter the basic culture and the basic feel of the area.”

The surprise development marks the second time in less than a year that plans to give away the free, newly renovated campus have collapsed.

The Greens, who bought the property in 2009 with plans to give it to a Christian institution, initially offered it to the C.S. Lewis Foundation to launch a C.S. Lewis College on the site. But fundraising efforts for the college fell short last year. In January, the Greens began soliciting new proposals, and in September named GCU the recipient.

The other finalist to receive the campus was the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board, which later withdrew.

But Grand Canyon University got little local cooperation, Mueller said. Not only would the town not help cover $30 million in sewer and road upgrades, but it also reportedly called on the university to conduct an environmental impact study at its own expense.

“We were ending up having to cover the burden of all of that,” Mueller said. “It started to get overwhelming.”

As the Greens prepare to reopen the gifting process, the prospect of local opposition looms. Some residents protested earlier this year when Jerry Falwell's Liberty University emerged as a top contender.

“One thing that is anathema to any quick resolution is if there is another outcry locally in Northfield when the selection process begins anew,” said an email from Jerry Pattengale, a college administrator who is overseeing the gifting process for the Greens, who own the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain.

“While most communities nationwide are offering amazing abatements and have teams that roll out the red carpets for new businesses … many in Northfield basically shut doors or tried to.”

Formerly owned by Northfield Mount Hermon School, the 43-building campus carries symbolic importance for evangelicals since it was established in 1879 by famed evangelist Dwight L. Moody. Several Christian organizations remain interested in the campus, Pattengale said. Selecting a new recipient is expected to take at least a year.

Hobby Lobby President Steve Green said the family was “disheartened” by GCU's decision, but finds it “understandable” in light of the unforeseen hurdles. “Many groups have expressed an interest in the campus,” Green said. “We will begin a new search soon.”

RICHMOND, Va. (ABP)—Jim Somerville serves as pastor of a Baptist congregation in Virginia that—thanks to the Internet—includes people living in Austria, India and Slovakia, not to mention some guy in Iowa.

, 'I tune in online and consider First Baptist, Richmond, my church, and Jim Somerville is my pastor,'" he said, recalling a conversation between the Iowan and a Richmond church member.

Such accounts are relatively common at churches that use the Internet to share their services, Sunday school classes and other ministries. And the practice is nearly as old as the Web itself.

But faith leaders testify to a growing awareness the Internet may well be a virtual mission field in its own right. Baptist ministers, among others, now describe their Facebook and other web ministries in missional terms.

"I am less and less concerned about the institutional church and more concerned about the kingdom," said Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla. Burleson participates in the nondenominational, Internet-based EChurch.

"It is my theological view that this ministry is kingdom-oriented," Burleson said.

Some have ventured into web-based churching for functional rather than missional purposes. Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas began live streaming its 11 a.m. worship about six months ago to serve members who cannot make it to worship due to illness, vacations or business travel, Associate Pastor Mark Wingfield said.

It's also proven highly popular among faraway relatives who can watch a youngster sing in the youth choir.

"For some churches, it's probably missional, but for us, it's just helpful," Wingfield said.

Church members had requested the service for years, Wingfield said, but it was not launched until technical and volunteer resources were available to provide it.

All sorts of issues—from sound to lighting and camera quality—have to be mastered to avoid frustrating those who tune in online.

"It sounds like a really simple thing to do, but it is not," Wingfield said.

Keeping it simple was the whole idea behind EChurch, an online worship experience launched in March by two bloggers intent on reaching the unchurched.

"Worse than unchurched, it's people who just won't step foot in a church," said Dee Parsons, co-founder of EChurch and The Wartburg Watch, a blog that tracks Christian trends.

Parsons noted she and blog partner Wanda Martin discerned from posted comments the need for an online spiritual community for those who feel alienated from church. Some cited pedophilia and financial scandals, or feeling ostracized for questioning religious dogma, behind their unwillingness to enter churches.

EChurch is not a live worship streaming event, but rather contains prayers, Christian music of varying styles and an embedded video of Burleson preaching at Emmanuel in Enid.

The format allows participants to watch when they can and then to comment on the experience. The back-and-forth between readers tells Parsons EChurch is providing much-needed fellowship for its participants.

Parsons believes their participants represent a specific population that otherwise is not being reached by churches or missionaries.

"The seeker churches are getting the seekers," she said. "These people are not seeking—they know what they believe, but they just don't want to come to church."

Burleson jumped at the invitation to have his sermons embedded at EChurch because that demographic needs ministry. "It's amazing," he said. "I have people contact me who said EChurch is restoring a little trust in the church."

In addition to the live streaming of its 8:30 and 11 a.m. services, First Baptist in Richmond also offers "Microchurch."

Through the church website, people can view the order of worship, suggested Scripture readings and watch the sermon. They are encouraged to gather with others as they do so, Somerville said.

Participants are encouraged to speak about the services, pray with one another and then have lunch together.

"I run into people all the time who said, 'I'm one of your Microchurches,'" Somerville said, adding that a format also exists for television viewers.

"It's another way we do what we can to bring heaven to earth."

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A majority of Protestant pastors plan to vote for GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, according to a new survey, but nearly a quarter remained undecided only a few weeks from Election Day.

Just 17 percent of Protestant pastors said they would vote to re-elect President Obama, with 57 percent favoring Romney and 22 percent undecided, according to a survey conducted by LifeWay Research. Based in Nashville, Tenn., the research firm is a branch of LifeWay Christian Resources, publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The results are remarkably similar to a LifeWay survey conducted in October 2008, which found 55 percent of Protestant pastors planned to vote for then-GOP nominee John McCain, 20 percent for Obama and 22 percent were undecided.

Among the Protestant pastors who will not vote for Romney, just 15 percent said his Mormonism factored in their decision. Six in 10 undecided pastors said their hesitation is not related to Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A LifeWay survey conducted in 2011 found 75 percent of Protestant pastors do not consider Mormons Christians.

"If agreement on matters of faith was a necessity for pastors' voting decisions, Romney would have little support from pastors," said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. "In fact, Romney's Mormon faith has led very few pastors to select a different candidate or remain undecided."

Party preference played a strong role in determining pastors' political choices, the survey found. More than 80 percent of Republican pastors plan to vote for Romney, and a nearly identical number of Democratic pastors plan to vote for Obama. Independents break toward Romney (47 to 16 percent).

The survey found significant differences between mainline Protestant and evangelical pastors. Two-thirds of self-identified evangelical pastors plan to vote for Romney, with just 9 percent backing Obama. Among mainline Protestants, 54 percent say they will vote for Romney, 28 percent for Obama, and 25 percent are undecided.

Regional and generational differences also played a role in voting preferences. Pastors in the Northeast (28 percent) are more likely to vote for Obama than Southern (14 percent) and Western (15 percent) pastors.

Younger pastors, meanwhile, are far less likely than their elders to vote for Obama. Just 14 percent of pastors age 18-44 say they will vote for the incumbent. They also are more likely to be undecided than pastors 55 and older.

The survey of Protestant pastors was conducted by phone Sept. 26-Oct. 3. Churches were selected randomly, and each interview was conducted with the church's senior pastor, minister or priest, according to LifeWay. For the full sample of 1,000 pastors, the margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Evangelicals back family planning. A coalition of evangelicals is calling on fellow Christians to support access to family planning across the world, saying it does not conflict with evangelical opposition to abortion. The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good released a 15-page document calling for "common ground" support of family planning and the health of mothers and children. The document emphasizes access to contraception prevents unintended pregnancies and reduces abortion, and it stresses the need to avoid "confusion of family planning with abortion" that has led some religious groups to oppose both.

Bhutan bans religious activity temporarily. Political leaders in Bhutan announced a temporary ban on all public religious activities ahead of the upcoming elections, citing the Himalayan nation's constitution. A notification by the Election Commission of Bhutan states religious institutions and clergy "shall not hold, conduct, organize or host" any public activity from Jan. 1 until the June election. Around 75 percent of the Bhutanese are Buddhist. Another 22 percent are Hindus, the only other officially recognized religion. Christians make up less than 2 percent of the country.

Young evangelicals at odds with their political parties. Most young evangelicals see a conflict between their faith and their political party, according to a snapshot survey from Sojourners, the progressive Christian group, which asked evangelicals under the age of 35 about their political views and civic engagement. The survey—of mostly single, college-educated evangelicals—showed 54 percent identified as Republicans, 26 percent as Democrats and 20 percent as Independents or something else. Of the Republicans, 65 percent said their faith convictions frequently or sometimes conflict with the positions taken by the political party they usually support. That was true of 83 percent of Democrats. Because the survey was based on only 161 respondents, Sojourners acknowledged the survey gives more of an impression of the group than solid scientific data. The margin of error of the survey is a relatively high plus or minus 8 percentage points.

Scientologist dentist fined. State labor officials in Oregon ordered a dentist to pay nearly $348,000 to settle allegations he threatened to fire a dental assistant unless she attended a Scientology-related training session. The Bureau of Labor and Industries contends Andrew Engel repeatedly "badgered" Susan Muhleman about the three-day conference, despite her concerns it would conflict with her Christian beliefs. He also turned down her request to attend secular training instead, investigators said. So, Muhleman quit AWE Dental Spa weeks before the conference and moved out of state to find a job. Muhleman said she was opposed to going to the Scientology conference but worried about losing her job at the height of the recession, when the local jobless rate was about 15 percent. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said the penalty will cover the woman's lost wages and damages as well as moving expenses and emotional distress.

—Compiled from Religion News Service

VALLEY FORGE, Penn. (ABP)—As values voters both left and right weigh in on special interests from immigration reform to same-sex marriage in an election season, a lesser-known religious coalition is speaking up for Americans with disabilities.

The Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition is encouraging congregations and other religious organizations to make use of a new questions-for-candidates resource available online. The questions, for both federal and state offices, ask candidates to clarify their stance on issues including employment, educational opportunities and healthcare for 8 million persons with disabilities who currently rely on Medicaid.

Curtis Ramsey-Lucas, managing director of resource development for American Baptist Home Mission Societies, is on the steering committee of the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition, a diverse, nonpartisan coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations seeking to mobilize the religious community to speak out and take action on disability policy issues with Congress, the White House and society at large.

In an issue of The Christian Citizen magazine devoted to the topic of disability ministry, Ramsey-Lucas editorialized that society is much more accessible and welcoming of people with disabilities and chronic health conditions than when President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.

Much work remains to be done, however, especially in the area of employment, Ramsey-Lucas insisted. Two-thirds of Americans with disabilities who want to work are unemployed or underemployed, a number that has not changed since ADA’s passage.

The magazine also features an essay by Dick Thornburgh, former two-term governor of Pennsylvania who served as U.S. attorney general from 1988 to 1991 under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

The article begins with a prophetic call to “do justice” in Micah 6:8 and describes Thornburgh’s own experience with a son who suffered extensive brain injury in an automobile accident and was left with intellectual disability in a car accident, and how it led him to combine his personal and political agendas when the ADA was signed into law July 26, 1990.

The magazine issue also reports about a statement of solidarity signed by Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu groups committed to working through their organizations and with others to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Ramsey-Lucas offered suggestions to help congregations move from accessibility to inclusion.

• Begin where you are and work incrementally. Rather than tacking on a “special ministry” for people with special needs, churches can begin by talking with individuals and families about what they need and want and then taking a good look at what the church already offers. Another expert suggested addressing not only the needs of those who currently attend but also those who may have stopped attending due to physical challenges.

• Cultivate an accessible attitude. Ramsey-Lucas said becoming a congregation that welcomes and includes people with disabilities means not only increasing accessibility of the facility but also changing attitudes. He cited New York psychologist Elizabeth Fell-DeWalt’s observation: “It is in the best interest of any church’s disability outreach efforts to invest time in preliminary self-examination and consciousness-raising around the issue of disability.”

• Foster connections. As a microcosm of the community, congregations can help connect church members who are employers with people with disabilities who are unemployed or underemployed. They can also create employment opportunities in the church itself.

• Educate and advocate. Ramsey-Lucas encouraged congregations to join American Baptist Home Missions Societies and other members of the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition to endorse and implement the Statement of Solidarity by the Religious Community Around Employment of People with Disabilities.

“These steps are only a few to consider as we work to expand opportunities for people with disabilities in our congregations and communities,” he concluded. “Others are suggested in the articles that follow. We hope you’ll be encouraged and inspired to respond as, together, we move from access to inclusion for people with disabilities in the common life of our congregations, communities and society.”

Since the earliest days of Christianity, followers of Jesus have wrestled with the demands of dual citizenship—as citizens of God's kingdom and of the nations of this world.

Jesus established the principle: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." But some American Christians, in particular, struggle with how to put the principle into practice.

About 10 years ago, theologian Marcus Borg said, "I'm convinced that for many Americans, their political loyalties run deeper than their religious loyalties."

Jim Denison, theologian-in-residence with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, agrees with Borg's assessment.

"For many Americans, politics are more relevant, personal and passionate than religious loyalties," said Denison, president of the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture.

Consequently, a significant number of Christians in the United States give greater allegiance to their nation than to the kingdom of God, Baylor University professor Greg Garrett asserts.

"Too many American Christians identify themselves first as Americans—self-reliant, hard-working individuals who aspire to a secular version of happiness that comes through acquisition and possession—rather than as Christians—other-directed, hard-working members of something larger than themselves who seek the joy and peace that comes from faithful service and love" Garrett writes in Faithful Citizenship: Christianity and Politics in the 21st Century.

Christian citizens need to distinguish that which is good—American virtues such as hard work and personal responsibility—from the highest good—love for God and one's neighbor, Garrett insists.

"If we ask of our politicians and of ourselves what Jesus taught as our highest good—the love of God and of each other—we can most certainly achieve more peace, more justice and more happiness than we see now in a world seeking its own glory, in individuals glorying in their own selves. We can offer a broken world more wholeness, restore more respectful conversation to the political process and model in our entire lives the faith that too often we confine to private devotion," he writes.

"If your highest good is to love and serve God, you will orient your life in that way. But if your highest goal is security—that is, not to be so afraid, and to feel as though you somehow exert some control over a chaotic world—then your orientation will be very different. … When security is our highest good, we tend to live tiny, frightened lives that keep us from loving fully, living generously, extending hospitality to the stranger."

American Christians often fail to distinguish deeply held patriotic impulses from religious convictions, Garrett explained in an interview.

"It's easy to take the beliefs we hold dear about America alongside our sacred religious beliefs and get them confused," he said.

Ethicist David Gushee agreed, saying: "Some bleed Republican or Democrat more than Christian or Jewish or atheist. But it's even worse when Christians confuse Republican or Democrat with Christian or Jewish or atheist. That probably happens just as often."

Aaron Weaver, a doctoral student at Baylor University who blogs as "The Big Daddy Weave," remains convinced many Americans cannot separate categories of political loyalties and religious loyalties.

"The political and religious have been fused into a hyper-Americanized, hyper-partisan Christianity," said Weaver, a graduate fellow with Baylor's Academy for Teaching and Learning.

Weaver emphasizes the importance of responsible Christian involvement in the political system—which means engagement in political parties. "But this hyper-partisan Christianity that equates being a good Christian with being a member of a certain political party is what happens when party loyalty is put ahead of principles."

So, if Christians need to be involved in the political process but not manipulated into confusing partisanship with discipleship, how can they choose the right candidates who deserve their vote?

"The primary criteria should be relevant experience and performance history, political principles and related moral values, history of building a strong work team, leadership gifts, character qualities, temperament, verbal and personal self-discipline, and performance under pressure," said Gushee, professor of Christian ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University.

Matters of personal faith and doctrinal commitments only matter to the degree that they affect those criteria, he added. "Christians should not hesitate to vote for a person of a different sect or faith."

Weaver insisted Christian voters should focus on how candidates' proposed policies align with their own ethical principles and values.

"As a voter, I'm not concerned with Paul Ryan's ecclesiology or Joe Biden's view of baptism. But I am concerned with their respective understandings of social justice and what justice looks like in our pluralistic society," he said.

In evaluating the relative importance of issues and how candidates stand on them, Christians need to weigh several factors, Gushee asserted.

"I think it is important to consider whether such matters as whether one believes the Bible speaks clearly to an issue, the level of significance given to an issue in Scripture (and perhaps also Christian tradition), whether the matter falls properly under the jurisdiction of the federal government, whether the personal beliefs of the candidate are likely to affect what actually happens in governance, and whether the stated policy goals of the candidate are likely to be effective in accomplishing the principles they say that they stand for," he said.

Garrett approaches the question differently. He noted his position about evaluating candidates has changed over the last couple of years spent writing a blog about faithful citizenship for the website Patheos.com.

"If our political process is broken, I think it's because our decision-making process is broken," he said. "I've come to a point where I care less about a candidate's drop-dead policy positions and more about the candidate's willingness to listen to others."

Likewise, if Christian citizens want to see candidates practice civility, they should get their own houses in order.

"If we are truly Christian, we will be doing a better job of listening to each other, forgiving each other when that's necessary and not viewing those with whom we disagree as the enemy," Garrett said.

Humility should characterize faithful citizenship, he insisted

"Rather than reject the other person completely, we should come and reason together," he said.

President Barack Obama holds positions on hot-button social issues that put him at odds with many evangelical Christians. His challenger, Mitt Romney, served as a bishop of a church that many evangelicals consider a cult.

Add to the mix persistent—although often-refuted—rumors linking the incumbent to Islam, and this year's presidential election holds the potential to break new ground in terms of discussions about politics and religion.

"Never before in American history has the faith of both presidential candidates been so hotly debated," writes Jim Denison, president of the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture.

Denison, theologian-in-residence with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, recently wrote a paper, "The Faith of the Candidates," that specifically addresses questions about Obama's alleged ties to Islam and Romney's Mormonism.

"Obama has made history in a variety of ways, among them the fact that he was the first president not to be raised in a Christian home," Denison writes. "His biological father rejected the Islam of his birth, while his stepfather was Muslim more in name than in practice. His maternal grandparents, in whose home he spent many of his formative years, were Unitarians; his mother was an agnostic."

As a community organizer in Chicago, Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ, where he made a public profession of faith in Christ and was baptized. Since his election, Obama and his family have not joined a church in Washington, D.C., but have worshipped primarily at Evergreen Chapel at Camp David.

In books, public speeches and interviews, Obama repeatedly has declared himself a Christian who believes "in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Even so, critics have continued to label Obama a closet Muslim who has kept his faith secret but has worked to advance Islamic causes. Denison notes the leap of logic required to accept that premise.

"If Obama had become a Muslim and now professes to be a Christian, he would be an 'apostate' to the Islamic world. To Muslims, there are three kinds of people—fellow Muslims, infidels (non-Muslims) and murtadd, apostates who left Islam for another religion," he writes. "The last group is to be shunned; some would seek their execution as traitors to the faith."

Denison notes Obama holds some theological positions contrary to evangelical beliefs. However, he writes, "When people repeatedly and consistently testify that they have asked Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and become their Savior and Lord, believers should take them at their word."

Likewise, he notes deep disagreement with Obama's positions on gay marriage, abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research. "But President Obama is not the only Christian with whom I disagree on these issues," he writes.

Romney's Mormon faith presents evangelical Christian voters with a different set of questions, Denison notes: What do Mormons believe? Are they a cult? How would Mormonism influence Romney's presidency?

Mormon doctrine presents different views of God and Jesus than orthodox Christianity, relies on nonbiblical sources of authority and holds theological positions contrary to historically agreed-upon Christian doctrine.

"There is no question that Mormonism teaches a number of doctrines that are inconsistent with orthodox Christian theology," Denison writes.

He acknowledges some Mormons do not understand fully what their church teaches and may have asked Jesus to forgive their sins and become their Lord and Savior. He also points out Romney's service for two and a half years as a Mormon missionary in France and his longtime church involvement at multiple levels of leadership.

"In short, Mitt Romney has been fully engaged in Mormon practices his entire life. What the Mormon church officially teaches, we can assume he believes," Denison writes.

However, he notes, Mormon doctrine affirms "free agency"—the responsibility and right of each Mormon to determine his or her own beliefs—and Romney has a track record of independent thinking, having taken some political positions at odds with official church teaching.

"Judging from Romney's conflicts with Mormon leaders and his repeated affirmation of a free church in a free state, it seems that his Mormonism would not wield an undue influence on his policies or leadership in the White House," Denison writes.

Religious convictions influence a person's worldview, which provides the foundation for character and decision-making, he notes. At the same time, no candidate should be elected solely because of his faith or opposed solely on that basis.

"While I disagree with Mitt Romney's church on numerous points, I cannot identify any Mormon doctrines that affect directly the office of president," Denison writes.

"Romney's positions on key faith issues are likely to find support with conservative Christians. Many in more moderate or liberal traditions will reject some of his positions. But these positions are not uniquely the product of his Mormon beliefs."

Christians have a responsibility to make informed decisions as citizens, but their responsibility does not end once their ballots are cast, Denison insists.

"It is our duty not only to vote for the candidate whom we believe would best lead our nation, but also to pray for whoever wins this election," he writes. Christians should be "salt and light," regardless whether they agree with elected leaders.

Furthermore, Christians "are forbidden by God's word from slandering others, including our elected officials," he adds.

"Presidents retire from office, but the King of Kings reigns forever," he concludes.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C.—Just weeks before voters head to the polls in the closely fought presidential election, a resource developed by faith groups and civil liberties leaders offers guidelines to churches hoping to influence the political process without violating legal restrictions.

In a question-and-answer format, "Religious Expression in American Public Life: a Joint Statement of Current Law" addresses a range of issues, including whether religious groups can participate in the debate of public policy issues and what restrictions the Internal Revenue Code places on political activities of tax-exempt organizations such as churches.

Melissa Rogers

"While the drafters of this document may disagree about how the legal line should be drawn between church and state, we have been able to come together and agree in many cases on what the law is today," said Melissa Rogers, director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University School of Divinity, which coordinated the project.

Participants were Christians from the evangelical, mainline and Catholic traditions, including both the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Also involved were Muslim, Jewish and Sikh leaders.

"As the campaign cycle moves toward November elections, the statement provides helpful guidance for tax-exempt organizations about the IRS rules that apply to their political activities," Rogers said. "It also helps voters understand how the First Amend-ment applies to the political activities of religious individuals and institutions.

"The role of religion in public life has long been a source of controversy and litigation," she added. "We brought together a diverse group of experts on law and religion to clarify what current law has to say about these matters."

Disagreement with tax-exempt restrictions prompted some pastors to launch "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" on Oct. 7, in which they planned to endorse political candidates and mail the taped sermons to the IRS—a direct challenge which they hope will result in court decisions overturning the rules.

The Brookings Institution originally released the 32-page document in 2010 and re-released it in July.

Rogers said it is the first resource to address such a wide spectrum of issues related to the role of religion in public life.

"As the nation debates the meaning of religious liberty, and what the law in this area does or does not do or should protect and prohibit, this guide can serve as a tool for civil and informed discussions," she said.

Among the issues the document addresses:

Q. May religious groups and people participate in the debate of public issues?

A. Yes. Religious individuals and groups, like nonreligious individuals and groups, have a right to participate in the debate on all issues that are important to political and civic life.

Q. Does the Internal Revenue Code place restrictions on the political activities of tax-exempt organizations, including tax-exempt religious organizations?

A. Yes. If groups wish to qualify for and maintain status as tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, they must not become involved in campaign activity for or against candidates for elective political office, and no substantial part of their activities may be spent attempting to influence legislation.

Q. May government officials' religious beliefs inform public policy?

A. Government officials' religious beliefs may inform their policy decisions so long as advancing religion is not the predominant purpose or primary effect of governmental action.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Nearly 90 percent of pastors believe they should not endorse candidates for public office from the pulpit, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research.

However, the survey also revealed 44 percent of pastors personally endorsed candidates but did so outside of their church role.

The survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors found only 10 percent believe pastors should endorse candidates from the pulpit. Eighty-seven percent believe—71 percent strongly and 16 percent somewhat—pastors should not endorse candidates for public office from the pulpit. Three percent of pastors are not sure.

For comparison, LifeWay Research found in a December 2010 survey 84 percent of pastors said they should not endorse candidates from the pulpit.

Differences emerged between pastors who consider themselves "evangelical" and those who self-identify as "mainline." Eighty-six percent of evangelical pastors believe pastors should not endorse a candidate from the pulpit, compared to 91 percent of mainline pastors.

The proportion of pastors who say they should not endorse candidates from the pulpit also varies according to political affiliation. Among pastors who call themselves Democrats, 98 percent believe political endorsements should not be made from the pulpit, compared to 90 percent of Independents and 82 percent of Republicans.

Regional comparisons show pastors of churches in the Midwest—91 percent—are the most likely to say pastors should not endorse candidates from the pulpit. This is significantly different from pastors in the South—84 percent—while pastors in the Northeast and West—both 89 percent—are in-between.

An amendment to the IRS tax code in 1954 prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from endorsing political candidates for public office. According to the IRS, "violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax."

The LifeWay Research survey also found fewer than half of Protestant pastors—44 percent—personally endorsed candidates this year outside of their church role. Fifty-two percent say they disagree with the statement, "I personally endorsed candidates for public office this year, but only outside of my church role."

McConnell noted only one-third of pastors strongly disagree that they have endorsed candidates outside of their church role.

"Clearly, most pastors have opinions on who the best candidates are, and those convictions may be heavily dependent on biblical principles," McConnell said. "However, very few pastors choose to make those endorsements from the pulpit."

Pastors of churches with fewer than 50 members are the most likely at 56 percent to say they had personally endorsed candidates for public office outside of their church role.

Pastors in small cities—49 percent—are more likely to say they had endorsed candidates outside of their church role than pastors in large cities—33 percent.

While there are no differences between evangelicals and mainline pastors, differences emerged among party affiliation. Self-described Independents—34 percent—are least likely to say they endorsed candidates outside their church role compared to Republicans at 51 percent and Democrats at 54 percent.

While there has been much talk about the beliefs of both presidential candidates during the current campaign, few pastors believe there has been too much focus on religion.

The survey revealed only 17 percent of pastors believe the election cycle has been too religious compared to 77 percent who say it has not been too religious and 5 percent who are not sure.

"Pastors do not see the election as a referendum on religion in the U.S.," McConnell said. "In fact, very few pastors believe this election cycle has been very religious at all."

Party affiliations again reveal differences in opinion on this issue. Among pastors who call themselves Republican, only 9 percent believe the election cycle has been too religious, as compared to 20 percent of Independents and 39 percent of Democrats.

Also, mainline pastors at 22 percent are more likely to believe the election cycle has been too religious, compared to 14 percent of evangelical pastors.

Questions were part of a telephone survey of Protestant pastors conducted in May. The margin of error should not exceed 3.1 percent.

PENDLETON, S.C. (ABP)—Courtney Krueger is so excited about coaching he barely can contain himself when asked about it.

Courtney Krueger, senior pastor at First Baptist Church of Pendleton, S.C., said ongoing coaching training has enhanced his pastoral ministry skills. (PHOTO/Courtesy of Courtney Krueger)

And it's not the leadership of the nearby Clemson Tigers that gets him so enthusiastic. Rather, it's the training he's nearly completed to become a certified professional ministry coach.

"It has opened a whole new world to me," said Krueger, senior pastor at First Baptist Church of Pendleton, S.C.

He isn't alone in either his training or enthusiasm. Observers say the coaching craze is spreading rapidly from its beginnings in the corporate world to just about every sector of society—including churches. And they add it isn't a fad.

"Its effectiveness is what's causing it to spread," said Dock Hollingsworth, executive director for the Center for Teaching Churches at the McAfee School of Theology.

In explaining the concept, advocates usually begin with what coaching isn't.

"It's not therapy," said Rhonda Abbot Blevins, associate pastor for congregational life at the Community Church at Tellico Village in Loudon, Tenn.

Rhonda Abbot Blevins leads a children's service at the Community Church at Tellico Village in Tennessee. Blevins is undergoing training through McAfee School of Theology to become a ministry coach. (PHOTO/Regina Elgin)

It's also not mentoring, spiritual direction or pastoral counseling, although gifts needed in those activities can overlap with coaching, she said.

Like Krueger, Blevins is undergoing training funded by the Lilly Endowment in return for coaching McAfee School of Theology graduates who enter full-time congregational ministry. Hollingsworth heads the program at McAfee.

"Coaching is geared toward action," Blevins said. "If I were to coach you, it would be you deciding your goals, and then I work with you to identify practical action steps."

Those action steps are identified by asking a series of questions based on the assumption that only the student knows the answers, Krueger said.

"We stay away from leading questions—this isn't a lawyer thing," he said. "You are asking questions, and you have no idea what the answer is."

That the process works for seminary graduates is borne out by anecdotal evidence and by the Lilly Endowment's continued willingness to put money behind the process, Hollingsworth said.

McAfee received a $2 million grant seven years ago that included providing ministry coaches to seminary graduates who enter full-time congregational ministry. That was followed by a $1 million grant given years later, Hollingsworth said.

Susan Rogers, pastor at The Well at Springfield in Jacksonville, Fla., talks with church members before a recent door-to-door neighborhood visitation. Rogers is using her McAfee ministry coaching training also to start a side coaching business. She hopes the income will take financial pressure off her small church.  (ABP PHOTO/Jeff Brumley)

Participating graduates are assigned a coach who provides a one-hour monthly session for two years.

Hollingsworth defends the approach against those skeptical of it as the latest gimmick, asserting it would have come in useful early in his career.

"We did need it when we were coming along, we just didn't get it," he said.

Nor is coaching meant to replace mentoring relationships between older and younger ministers, he said, adding the two ap-proaches can complement each other.

"A coach is trying to ask the right kind of provocative questions and be a collaborative brainstormer," Hollingsworth said.

Other Baptist-affiliated organizations are using the approach, too, including The Center for Congregational Health and the Pastoral Institute in Columbus, Ga. The institute is providing the training for the coaches in the McAfee program.

"The coaching bug is in a lot of places right now in Baptist life," he said.

Coaching experts acknowledge the profession is met with doubt, and they say that's in large part because it's an unregulated activity.

Anyone can call himself a coach—life coach, executive coach, ministry coach or whatever—and charge money for it, said Janet Harvey, 2012 global president of the International Coach Federation.

But for more than a decade, self-regulating agencies like the ICF have developed standardized training and certification, and coaching is becoming increasingly recognized as a legitimate profession, she said.

The trend began in corporate America with the advent of executive coaches and now is being adopted by religious groups of different faiths and denominations, Harvey said.

In 1998, the organization had 5,000 certified members, and today there are 20,000. There also now are about 8,500 certified coaching instructors.

The pay can be lucrative, according to an ICF study. The median fee for a one-hour session in the United States is $160, and the average fee is $214 an hour.

The coaches in the McAfee program do not charge the seminary graduates, but they are free to use their skills in their own congregations or inside businesses.

That's a crucial part of the deal for Susan Rogers, pastor of The Well at Springfield, a Baptist church plant in Jacksonville, Fla. Rogers already is building a client base in the community, and she hopes her coaching eventually will provide enough income to sustain her as her small congregation grows.

Others pastors she knows are being trained, or thinking about it, for the same reasons, she said.

But it's more than money, she added. Helping two or three people a day sometimes is rewarding personally and is beginning to fit into her overall calling to be a missional pastor—inside and outside of a congregation.

"I'm on a coaching high right now," she said after a recent session in which a client achieved a new insight into her relationship with God. "It brought home for me that this is also an avenue for ministry."

BETHESDA, Md. (RNS)—The number of Americans who say they have no religious affiliation has hit an all-time high—about one in five American adults—according to a recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Labeled "nones" because they claim either no religious preference or no religion at all, their ranks have hit 46 million people. Much of the growth is among young people—one in three U.S. adults under 30 are now considered nones.

The report also found the number of self-described atheists and agnostics has hit a peak—13 million people, or 6 percent of the U.S. population. That's a rise of 2 percentage points over five years.

And while the "nones" are growing, Protestantism is on the decline, shrinking from 62 percent of the religiously affiliated in 1972 to 51 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. Catholics held steady, at about one in four Americans.

"These are continuations of longer trends in American religion," said Greg Smith, a lead researcher on the study, as he and colleagues presented the findings to the 63rd annual Religion Newswriters Association conference. "I think it goes without saying these are pretty significant changes in the American religious landscape."

That carries some pretty significant political implications, too. The study shows that "nones" lean heavily Democratic—75 percent voted for Barack Obama in 2008, about the same percentage of evangelical Christians who voted for John McCain.

John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, said the Pew survey showed the unaffiliated have become a large and important constituency of the Democratic Party—perhaps larger than black Protestants, who turned out in large numbers to support Obama.

"It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party," Green said. "If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties and sharper divisions within" the parties.

The unaffiliated are also increasingly liberal on social issues—another finding with major political implications. Nearly three in four say abortion should be legal, compared to 53 percent of all Americans. A slightly smaller number (73 percent) favor same-sex marriage (compared to 48 percent of all Americans).

Researchers also found almost two-thirds (65 percent) of the unaffiliated think it is not important for a president to have strong religious beliefs (compared to 29 percent of the general population), and 54 percent say it makes them "uncomfortable" when politicians talk about religion.

Ryan Cragun, an assistant professor of sociology who specializes in the nonreligious at The University of Tampa, said the study's findings offer clear warnings for both political parties.

"The point politicians need to get is that it is time to stop pandering to the religious because there is a growing percentage of the population that does not want to hear that stuff," Cragun said. "It is time for them to realize that they are going to be left behind if they do not do that."

Still, claiming no religious identity does not mean an absence of religious beliefs, the report found.

The majority of "nones"—68 percent, including some who say they are atheists—say they believe in God or some form of higher being. Half say they feel "a deep connection with nature," and 20 percent say they pray every day.

Why do the nones continue to grow? Smith attributes it to the natural replacement of older, more conservative generations with younger, more liberal ones, as well as a worldwide rise in secularism among developed nations.

Another interesting twist to the study's findings is how broad-based they are.

"The change is occurring among both men and women, those with college educations and those without, within several income levels and in all regions of the U.S.," said Cary Funk, another of the study's lead researchers. "The growth does tend to be concentrated among whites, with no significant change with blacks and Hispanics. "

The survey was conducted by digging deeper into material gathered by Pew and other organizations from 120,000 respondents between 2007 and 2012, and from the General Social Survey, with data dating to 1972.

Restrictions on religious freedom tighten. Religious believers throughout the world face a rising tide of restrictions, according to a study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. In the one-year period ending in mid-2010, 75 percent of the world's population lived in a nation with high or very high restrictions on religious beliefs or practices. Pew tracked religious freedoms denied by government and cultural authorities. A previous Pew study on the subject found 70 percent of the world lived under religious restrictions. The study covered 197 countries and relied on 19 sources of information, including the U.S. State Department's annual reports on religious freedom.

Scientology not a religion, most in U.S. believe. Most Americans do not believe Scientology is a real religion, according to a recent poll by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair. The survey, conducted by CBS News, found 70 percent of Americans say Scientology is not a true religion; 13 percent believe it is; and 18 percent either don't know or don't care. Out of more than 1,000 people polled, Christian Americans were even more likely to question Scientology's status as a religion—79 percent of evangelicals, 74 percent of Protestants and 72 percent of Catholics surveyed responded they did not think Scientology is a religion. L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction author, established Scientology in 1952.

Poverty rate stagnant. According to newly released U.S. Census data, median household income declined in 2011, and the poverty rate remained mostly unchanged from 2010, at 15 percent. The federal government defines poverty as annual income of $23,021 for a family of four. Jim Wallis, president and CEO of Sojourners, a progressive Christian group based in Washington, D.C., said the new data indicate the Circle of Protection around the poor he and other Christian leaders launched last year remains necessary. Advocates asked both presidential candidates to state on the record how they plan to tackle poverty.

Gameday godliness? No problem. Most Americans don't mind professional athletes expressing their faith on and off the field, according to a new study. A poll conducted by Grey Matter Research and Consulting shows 49 percent of Americans see athletes' public expressions of faith favorably, 32 percent don't care, and 19 percent take a more negative view. More than 1,000 American adults were polled about public displays of religion among professional athletes. Americans are most supportive of opposing teams praying together after games, with 55 percent of all Americans viewing it positively. But responses to statements such as "God really gave me strength out there" or "I kept believing, and God let me hit that home run," are viewed negatively by 26 percent of respondents. While regular churchgoers are more likely to support religious expression, between 30 percent and 41 percent of that same group had either negative or neutral feelings toward open religious expression on the field or on the court, depending on the action.

—Compiled from Religion News Service