ARLINGTON, Texas (ABP) — A prominent black Southern Baptist pastor says a Texas school district should explain why it did not allow President Obama's Sept. 8 speech on education to be shown live in classrooms, but is planning later in the month to send selected fifth graders to a similar message by former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.

The Arlington Independent School District was one of several across the United States that opted out of the live broadcast of the president's speech challenging students to take personal responsibility for their own education. Facing concerns on the part of parents and teachers that the speech might be used to promote a partisan political agenda, other districts responded by allowing individual schools to decide or to allow individual children to opt out of viewing the speech at their parents' request.

School officials in Arlington — a large suburb located between Dallas and Fort Worth — said students with appropriate parental notification could take a half-day excused absence to watch the president's address at an off-campus location like a home, church or community center.

One of those sites was Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington. The 4,500-member, predominantly African-American congregation invited students from both Arlington and the neighboring Mansfield Independent School District to watch the message at the church and offered free lunches to the first 100 students requesting them.

Veronica Griffith, minister of communications and special events at Cornerstone Baptist Church, said 160 students and more than 35 adults showed up for the screening.

Dwight McKissic, the church's pastor, said it should be up to parents, not school administrators, to decide whether or not students should hear the president's address. "No one should be forced to hear the message," McKissic said in a press release. "However, what parent, teacher or administrator would not want students to hear a message encouraging them to be persistent in succeeding in school and to be challenged to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning?"

Later McKissic learned the Arlington Independent School District had accepted an invitation to take 28 fifth grade classes to a Sept. 21 media event sponsored by a committee preparing for the 2011 Super Bowl to be played at Arlington's new $1.15 billion Dallas Cowboys football stadium.

Along with the former president and first lady, the program will feature "legendary Dallas Cowboys," along with business and community leaders from across North Texas. The event, being held to announce "the largest youth-education program in Super Bowl history," will give invited students free lunches and a T-shirt. Planners were also working to "secure a performance by a well-known recording artist to cap the festivities in high style."

McKissic responded with a second press release calling it a "blatant double standard" to not permit students to hear one message while busing them to hear the other.

"Why is it appropriate for students to hear from former President Bush on Sept. 21 at the Cowboy[s] Stadium, but inappropriate for the current president to address students while they remain on school campuses?" McKissic asked. "Why is President Obama's message considered to be an intrusion on the school day, a disruptive and unplanned class activity, a message 'not deemed appropriate' for students to hear or a message regarded as 'something students should not be exposed to?' Yet it is accepted as an appropriate message for students to hear from unnamed Dallas Cowboys, business and community leaders?"

McKissic said students and the public "deserve and need to have these differences explained." He said the double standard reveals "obvious duplicity" in the district's decision making.

McKissic is a former trustee at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. He resigned from the post in 2007 over controversy about a sermon he preached in the seminary chapel voicing disagreement with a new policy at the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board disqualifying missionaries who admit to using a "private prayer language" in their devotional life. McKissic said the experience — viewed by many as a form of speaking in tongues — was part of his own prayer life, and that he first experienced it while attending Southwestern Seminary as a student in 1981.

McKissic made news earlier this year when he called on the SBC to pass a resolution celebrating the election of America's first black president. The convention responded in June with a resolution applauding Obama's election as a sign of "our continuing progress toward racial reconciliation" while deploring many of his policies.

McKissic posted audio of a sermon he preached prior to Obama's January inauguration on the Cornerstone Baptist Church website comparing questions raised about the sincerity and legitimacy of president's faith to similar criticism directed toward Martin Luther King in the 1960s.

"Whenever a black man ascends to prominence and power, the political and political establishment tries to demonize that person," McKissic said. He quoted the late Jerry Falwell, who in 1961 questioned "left-wing associations" of Martin Luther King. "They were accusing him of being a communist and a socialist like they accuse Barack Obama of being a communist and socialist," he said.

McKissic went so far as to wonder if Obama's election might have been foretold in an obscure reference in Psalm 68:31 prophesying, "Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God."

"I don't believe Barack Obama would be president if God hadn't set him up to be president," McKissic said.

McKissic said many white preachers want God to judge America for abortion and gay marriage. McKissic said he feels strongly on both of those issues but believes that racism is also a sin, and God must judge America for that sin as well.

"If I were God and I wanted to judge America for her racism, slavery, unjust wages — all the inequities that have occurred in this country — what better way to do it than go get a direct descendant of Africa?" he asked. "I'm talking about a man whose daddy comes from Africa — a people you thought were going to be your slave, to pick your cotton. If I were God, and I wanted to punish you for racism, I would go to get an African, and put [that] man as your president."

Later in the sermon, McKissic chastised black teenagers for high dropout rates that he said dishonor earlier generations like the Little Rock Nine who faced threats and intimidation to improve educational opportunities for minority students.

"Folks paid a price for you to go to school and graduate," he said. "You ought to be ashamed of yourself."

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

Most U.S. Catholics ambivalent about Latin Mass. Two years after Pope Benedict XVI eased restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass, more than six in 10 American Catholics have no opinion on the return of the traditional liturgy, according to a new survey. The Mass dates to the 16th century but fell out of use after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. According to Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, one in four Catholics in the United States favors having the Latin Mass as a liturgical option, 12 percent oppose it and 63 percent have no opinion. Only one American Catholic in 10 would attend a Latin Mass if it were convenient, according the research center. Apathy is most prevalent among Catholics born after 1982, with 78 percent saying they have no opinion about Benedict bringing back the Latin Mass.

Lutherans lift ban on gay clergy. After a long and contentious debate, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to drop a ban on partnered gay clergy and committed to let people in same-sex relationships serve as leaders of the church. The ground-breaking decision is a dramatic change for the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination, which previously permitted openly gay and lesbian clergy so long as they remained celibate. Conservative Lutherans immediately encouraged members and congregations who disagree with the decisions to direct their money elsewhere.

Religious Right opposes health care proposal. Conservative Christian groups have ramped up opposition to health care reform. Members of the newly formed Freedom Federation, representing some of the largest conservative religious groups in the country, say they oppose taxpayer-supported abortion, rationed health care for the elderly and government control of personal health decisions—all of which they believe to be components of the health care proposals being considered by lawmakers. The Freedom Federation includes the American Family Association, the Church of God in Christ, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council Action, Liberty University and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Shuttle mission includes piece of missionary history. The latest flight of the space shuttle Discovery carried a piece of missionary history with it into outer space. On board Discovery was a piece of the plane used by members of Missionary Aviation Fellowship who were killed more than half a century ago in Ecuador by Waodani tribesman. Astronaut Patrick Forrester—a member of University Baptist Church in Houston who has served as a short-term missionary—contacted the Idaho-based ministry about carrying a memento from the plane that had been used by pilot Nate Saint and four other missionaries before their deaths in 1956. Their story was depicted in the 2006 movie End of the Spear. The item from the battery box of the plane was approved by NASA and will be returned to Missionary Aviation Fellowship with a certificate showing it was part of a space flight.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A Virginia jail will stop censoring religious mail after protests from civil rights organizations that clerks had turned Bible-quoting missives from an inmate’s mother into tattered strips of paper signed “Love, Mom.”

Rappahannock Regional Jail authorities agreed to change the policy after receiving a letter signed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Rutherford Institute, Prison Fellowship, the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Prisons may block writings that pose security threats, including hate speech and X-rated images, but must allow access to otherwise religious materials, according to several court rulings and federal law.

“They can’t treat religious materials like a knife or drugs or pornography,” said Eric Rassbach, national litigation director for the Becket Fund.

Jail officials said the censorship was not motivated by content, but rather due to a policy that prohibits inmates from receiving swaths of computer printouts, which had been used to clog toilets and otherwise harass the guards. The cut-up correspondence in question had included Christian material printed out from the Internet, marked up by the inmate’s mother.

The amended policy will allow such messages to remain unscathed, “subject to the condition that (inmates) can only retain mail in their cell that can be stored neatly within the storage bin of the bunk and is not a fire hazard,” Jail Superintendent Joseph Higgs Jr. wrote.

However, religious content clearly played a role in the censorship, Rassbach insisted.

“Prison officials should be aware that the Bible should not be censored as a dangerous item,” he said. “It’s something that can actually help them do their jobs, in terms of rehabilitating prisoners and bringing them back into society.”

SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (RNS)—For Jarvis Masters, his Buddhist journals bring peace from the panic he feels on death row in California’s San Quentin State Prison.

An article titled “Life in Relation to Death” by a Tibetan Buddhist lama helps him learn the Buddha’s ways. He wears a string of 108 beads, called a Mala, around his neck to help him concentrate on his meditations.

Masters, 47, adopted Buddhist practices shortly after he was convicted of murdering a prison guard 25 years ago and sentenced to death. Awaiting execution, he relies on the sparse copies of Buddhist materials in the prison’s visiting room to come to terms with his fate.

“Prisoners need to have access to whatever will help them become a better human being, to learn to love more, to forgive and to ask for forgiveness,” Masters wrote in an e-mail.

But from Protestant texts to Wiccan incense, state and federal officials are trying to determine which religious materials belong behind bars. Recent cases show freedom-to-practice laws are unevenly enforced, and advocates are fighting to ensure corrections officials uphold prisoners’ rights.

In Virginia, jail officials confiscated biblical passages sent from a mother to her incarcerated son; in Louisiana, a Bible lined with several hacksaw blades passed through security. Those cases, and others, have authorities struggling to decide whether current guidelines are too strict or not strict enough.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons policy states “inmates will be permitted to receive and retain publications which do not threaten security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or that may facilitate criminal activity, or are otherwise prohibited by law.”

Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, says religious freedom especially is important for inmates.

“Prisoners, more than anyone, would need the comfort and the hope that many people find in the exercise of their faith,” Hollman said. “Religion provides at least (the assurance) that people are connected to God.”

Last year, Congress passed the Second Chance Act, which allows the Bureau of Prisons to restrict only those materials “that seek to incite, promote or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity.” In March, Hollman and seven other religious leaders argued against a proposed change that would allow officials to ban materials that “could” promote violence.

Confusion over those rules once led bureau officials to ban megachurch pastor Rick Warren’s best-seller, The Purpose Driven Life, while the New Testament book of Acts—in which the Apostle Paul breaks out of jail—was allowed to stay.

“You can distort Bible passages to mean anything you want them to mean,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Officials need to take a deep breath and consider if there is any realistic danger.”

Other laws, including the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, attempt to standardize regulations for state and federal prisons. The problem, observers say, is not the law itself, but uneven enforcement.

“In the past, individual wardens could make these determinations, but consistency was an issue,” said Pam Laborde, spokeswoman for the Louisiana Department of Corrections. “A publication may be allowed at one facility and rejected at another.”

In the case at Rappahannock Regional Jail in Stafford, Va., officials are accused of confiscating a Christian magazine article and biblical passages sent from a mother to her imprisoned son. Authorities informed the son that the material was censored because of jail policies against “Internet pages” and “religious material from home.”

Although some say these are egregious reasons for censorship, jail officials say the policies are needed to ensure that documents are not embedded with undetectable drugs, such as an acid hit.

“Public safety is our No. 1 mission in the Department of Corrections,” Laborde said. “However, we strongly believe in an offender’s right to practice his (or) her faith.”

All corrections departments try to balance security with laws that demand the “least restrictive means” in censorship, Laborde said. When that doesn’t work, there is always an appeals process.

David Shapiro, an attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project, said appeals processes are tilted in favor of wardens, not inmates.

“Prisons can design almost any grievance systems they want,” Shapiro said. “If the prisoner doesn’t dot every  ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ and meet every deadline and step of that process, he or she loses the right to go to court. It enables prisons to operate with impunity.”

Christine Shimrock, a Catholic chaplain at Connecticut’s Lebanon Correctional Institution, said the warden determines how much latitude she has as the religious liaison between administrators and inmates.

If there is “a warden who doesn’t value religious programming, then you find yourself battling even the simplest requests guaranteed by law,” she said. But more times than not, “wardens are very, very careful about making sure that religious rights are honored in their prison.”

Even so, Barbara McGraw, a religion and social ethics professor at Saint Mary’s College of California, said religious accommodations for mainstream religions typically take priority over minority groups, such as Sikhs and Hindus. She recalls a state institution where lit candles were allowed only for Catholics, and when other groups complained, the institution banned candles for everyone.

“When religion is allowed, (practices) exposing the prisoner’s inherent ‘sinful nature’ are often favored,” she said—in other words, more Calvinist depravity than Quaker notions of reform and rehabilitation.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — Religious-liberty advocates added their voices Aug. 26 to the thousands mourning the death of longtime Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy after a battle with brain cancer.

Supporters of strong separation between church and state lauded Kennedy's longtime advocacy for a strong interpretation of both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses — the Establishment Clause, which bars government advancement of religion; and the Free Exercise Clause, which bars government infringements on the religious freedom of individuals or groups.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (Senate.gov).

The late senator “was a great champion of church-state separation,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a prepared statement. “It’s not just that he consistently voted to support that principle — he really got it. He deeply understood that only a high and firm wall of separation between church and state could protect our liberties. He knew the reasons why our Founders established church-state separation and why we need to preserve it. He got how church-state separation protects the rights of both religious and non-religious people.”

Lynn cited Kennedy’s fierce opposition to a famous attempt by his former colleague, the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), to push through the Senate a constitutional amendment enabling government-sanctioned school prayer. He also noted Kennedy’s crucial opposition to failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who was opposed by many religious-freedom activists because of his support for government endorsements of religion.

But, Lynn added, “At the same time, Sen. Kennedy was a consistent supporter of the free exercise of religion and deplored any effort to chisel away at this cherished right of the American people.”

Don Byrd, who blogs for the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said the scion of America’s most famous political dynasty was a “lion of religious liberty.” He cited a famous speech on church-state relations that Kennedy delivered at Liberty University (then known as Liberty Baptist College) in 1983.

The event paired two of the most disparate figures in American political life at the time — Liberty founder and chancellor Jerry Falwell, whose Moral Majority was then racking up conservative victories across the nation, and Kennedy, an icon of the political left.

“Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised I was invited to speak here — and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation,” Kennedy told his audience on that October day. “They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College.”

Kennedy’s Catholicism alone might have put him out of sync with Liberty’s fundamentalist Baptist roots. But the senator was often at odds with his own church, usually over the very issues on which Falwell would have joined forces with Catholics — embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Ted Kennedy, at center, was raised with a strong emphasis on faith by his very large Irish Catholic family (Senate.gov).

Nevertheless, in his address at Liberty, which he titled “Faith, Truth and Tolerance in America,” Kennedy pleaded for respect among differing religious groups.

“I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith,” he said. “But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?”

While advocating for a robust separation of church and state, Kennedy insisted, this “cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.”

“The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith,” he continued. “They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible…. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.”

The vision Kennedy held out was of an “America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion or angry division.”

Jerry Falwell Jr., son of the elder Falwell who died in 2007, was in his third year at Liberty when Kennedy gave his speech.

“When he spoke … he was well received and, even though the students did not agree with much of what he said, they were polite and kind,” the younger Falwell, now the school’s chancellor, wrote in a recent issue of Liberty Journal.

Falwell said the Massachusetts senator joined his family for dinner in their Lynchburg, Va., home and that ties between Kennedy — famous in the Senate for his bipartisan friendships — and the Falwells continued long after the speech.

“I applied [the next year] for admission to the law school at the University of Virginia, where Kennedy had attended,” said Falwell. “He volunteered to write a letter of recommendation for me. I am sure the faculty was surprised to see a Kennedy recommending a Falwell, but I guess it helped because I was admitted.”

Later, said Falwell, Kennedy asked Jerry Falwell to pray with Kennedy’s mother, then nearly 100 years old and in frail health. And in 2005, “when my father was hospitalized with severe pulmonary edema, one of the first letters he received was from Kennedy,” said Falwell. “The letter was heartfelt and encouraging, wishing my father a quick recovery.”

–Robert Dilday is managing editor of the Virginia Baptist Religious Herald. Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — Religious anti-torture groups said the Aug. 24 release of a partially declassified 2004 CIA report on treatment of terrorism suspects justified their critique of Bush administration policies on detainee treatment.

But they also said the decision by the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to probe alleged CIA interrogation abuses doesn’t go far enough in pursuing those who authorized and oversaw harsh treatment of terrorism suspects in United States custody.

“The [CIA] inspector general’s report adds to the condemning facts already known about detainee abuse in U.S. prisons and facilities by describing threats of imminent death made against detainees and the staging of mock executions in order to coerce confessions or gain intelligence,” said a statement from Evangelicals for Human Rights reacting to the report’s release.

“Its description of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment employed by CIA interrogators in the years following the horrible attacks of 9/11 clearly shows torture,” the statement continued. “This is a moral failure by our nation as we have disregarded the tradition of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln of treating detainees, in all manners of war, with fairness and even respect.”

The partially declassified report — which the Obama administration was forced to release in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit — was written by the CIA inspector general’s office in May 2004 and detailed how U.S. officials and contractors treated terrorism suspects in the frantic intelligence-gathering period following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The report revealed several examples of tactics that went beyond even the harsh techniques for which Bush administration lawyers had provided controversial legal justification. They included:

— Telling detainees that their family members would be hurt or killed unless they complied with interrogators.

— Staging mock executions to convince suspects that they could be killed unless they provided requested information to interrogators.

— Excessive use of the waterboarding tactic, where the sensation of drowning is simulated. One high-value suspect — al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — was waterboarded a total of 183 times, according to the report.

— Menacing one detainee with a power drill while he stood naked and hooded.

The same day that the report was released, Attorney General Eric Holder announced he had appointed longtime federal prosecutor John Durham to begin a preliminary investigation of several alleged CIA abuses of detainees or terrorism suspect, including some that ended in death.

Also on Aug. 24, the White House announced an elite new terrorism interrogation unit, comprised of personnel from several agencies and housed at the FBI. And the Justice Department’s special task force on interrogation policies — formed pursuant to a group of Obama executive orders from January that also undid Bush administration policy on many terrorism-detainee practices — announced its recommendations to the White House.

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture released a statement that said the CIA report detailed “horrific abuse” and calling for a more comprehensive inquiry into possible torture than Holder’s investigation.

“Our country will not end this sordid chapter of American history until we understand the full nature of U.S.-sponsored torture and put safeguards in place to make sure that U.S.-sponsored torture never happens again,” the statement said. “It is our responsibility to assure that future generations of Americans grow up in a country that does not torture.”

The CIA report was one of the documents that then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited as confirming that his administration’s interrogation tactics had produced information that prevented future terrorist attacks.

The report said that the overall CIA interrogation program had produced some valuable information and that “detainee reporting has become a crucial pillar of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.” However, the inspectors added, whether the controversial interrogation tactics or more traditional ones produced that information “is a more subjective process.”

Evangelicals for Human Rights — of which Baptist ethicist David Gushee is the director — also renewed its previous calls for a more comprehensive inquiry “so that the world will again see the United States as a nation that lives up to the highest calling of any nation, and all faiths, the call to truthfulness and justice for all people.”

The statement concluded: “Torture is always morally wrong, without exceptions, even if it produces information.”

–Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Previous ABP stories:

Religious leaders call for inquiry into U.S. use of torture (6/16)

Faith groups draw volunteers. Faith-based organizations attract more volunteers than any other type of organization, according to a recent survey by the Corporation for National and Community Service. More than one-third of the country’s almost 62 million volunteers served through religious organizations last year. The  report showed adults over the age of 65 and youth who regularly attend religious services are more likely than general volunteers to serve in faith-based organizations. The report is based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics and provides the most comprehensive data assembled on volunteer trends and demographics.

Religious freedom panel watches India. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has put India on its watch list, citing the country’s “inadequate” response to recent waves of violence toward religious minorities. In 2002, when organizations related to the Hindu Nationalist party were on the rise, India was designated a “country of particular concern”—the commission’s most condemning category—but has since been removed from that list. With attacks against Christians in December of 2007 and into 2008, the commission’s attention has been called back to India. The panel reported inadequate police and judiciary response to the violence and the subsequent displacement of 60,000 or more Christians in August and September of 2008.

Christian schools report closures. A Colorado-based organization of Christian schools reports more than 200 schools closed or merged in its last fiscal year. As of June 30, 186 schools had closed and 16 had merged, according to the Association of Christian Schools International. That’s up from an average of 150 school closures  the association has reported in previous years.

Court OKs animal sacrifice at home. A Santeria priest can continue to sacrifice animals in his North Texas home, a federal appeals court has ruled. Jose Merced of Euless was told in 2006 he needed a permit to slaughter goats, sheep and turtles in his house, rituals he said he had been performing 16 years without incident. Merced sued the city, saying that it had violated his right to practice his religion. Euless officials cited potential health concerns over the animal sacrifices. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the city had inhibited Merced’s ability to practice Santeria. The court established that Merced’s only available ceremonial space was in his house, due to the lack of Santeria temples in the United States. Euless authorities said the city plans to file for a rehearing.

Senate confirms Vatican ambassador. The U.S. Senate confirmed a Cuban-born theologian as the ninth U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Miguel H. Diaz, 45, will be the first theologian and the first Hispanic to serve as American envoy since Washington established formal diplomatic ties with the Holy See in 1984. Diaz has taught theology at the College of Saint Benedict and St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn., since 2004.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—While a sour economy and rising costs make it harder for small businesses to afford health coverage, one group of employees is especially vulnerable—clergy.

Many denominations provide health care for ministers, but pastors of small and independent churches can be hard-hit by rising health care costs.
Some clergy latch on to their spouses’ health care, or take a second job that offers insurance. But as the job market tightens, even those secondary solutions are hard to come by.

For ministers, health care reform has become personal.

“So many churches are small and too many pastors are uninsured,” said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

“As clergy age with the rest of America’s population, we may see a growing list of pastors entering retirement with bankrupting medical bills.”

According to an NAE survey last year, 80 percent of respondents said they receive health insurance outside of their church.

At the time, Anderson called it a growing problem for American pastors and churches. A year later, not much has changed.

“It’s so complicated,” Anderson said. “You take all of the variables of church sizes and denominations and you multiply that by all the laws and insurance plans. It’s difficult to find a plan for anyone.”

Layoffs and downsizing at churches have left many clergy members at risk because religious institutions are exempt from buying unemployment insurance, he noted.

Simeon May, chief executive officer for the National Association of Church Business Administration, said many pastors have seen the value of their 403(b) plans—the nonprofit employee’s equivalent of a 401(k) savings plan—drop dramatically in the recession.

In a 2006 NACBA survey of its members, only 26 percent of full-time ministers and their dependents were fully covered.

Many pastors cannot afford to pay out of pocket for their own plans. Denominations, too, face difficulties footing the bill for group plans, particularly when premiums rise as church staff ages.

“It was an ongoing problem before the economy tanked because it was just difficult for small churches and individual churches to get affordable health care,” May said.

Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America, said “solo pastors”—those leading a church by themselves—are finding the most difficulty.

“Ministers are just like everyone else having to deal with the economic downturn (and) the stark realities of the present situation,” Taylor said. “They find the same problems anyone would to try to find some way of having health care coverage that is sufficient and also affordable.”

Some solutions lie in cooperatives such as Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor said, where pastors of all denominations pay for each other’s medical bills.

However, some younger ministers opt out of these plans, finding cheaper rates on their own. This places a larger burden on other pastors to make up the difference for the cooperative premiums.

Some denominations—including the Conservative Baptist Association of America, as well as the Church of the Brethren—have dropped health insurance plans for their clergy, in part because of rising premiums.

Scarce funding for public education may offer churches an opportunity to work more closely with public schools in their neighborhood.

That’s the assessment of Diane Smith, children’s ministry specialist at the Virginia Baptist Mission Board, who is developing a ministry she calls “1:1—One Church, One School.”

“Many schools are experiencing cutbacks in staffing, resources and budgets,” she said. “Our school staffs are being asked to do more with less.”

Working with public schools gives congregations a chance to work with children and families, and to minister “outside the church house,” she added.

A 1:1 ministry starts with a conversation with a school’s principal, Smith said. Among the talking points to be made:

•Ask, “How can we help you in your job of educating our children?”

•Make a commitment that you will not “religiously influence” students or staff.

•Promise to work within the boundaries determined by the school administration.

•Commit to conducting criminal background checks on all people who participate in the endeavor.

•Ask if the church can “adopt” the school faculty and staff and “treat” them at various times of the year – for instance, providing snacks in the teachers’ lounge.

A 1:1 ministry could include several facets, Smith noted:

•Eating lunch with a class or student.

• Reading to students.

• Tutoring.

• Assisting office staff.

•Assisting media center staff.

•Providing after-school playground watch.

•Helping teachers and students plant and cultivate a vegetable or flower garden.

•Offering “Friday backpacks” filled with food to be given to students who staff and teachers know will not have adequate food during weekends. The backpacks are returned by the students on Monday.

“It’s very important to keep the commitments made to the staff regarding religious influence,” Smith said. “Our schools are required to work within specific legal limits and we need to support that.

“Bottom line is—be helpful and be kind,” she said. “Sounds like a Bible verse, doesn’t it?”

WASHINGTON  (RNS)—Facing incendiary charges that health care reform would finance abortion and euthanasia, President Obama on Aug. 19 appealed to religious groups to help sell the plan and debunk critics’ “false witness.”

“I’m going to need the help of all of you,” Obama told a conference call and live webcast that attracted an estimated 140,000 people. “I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.”

The “40 Minutes for Health Reform” call, organized by the Washington-based group Faith in Public Life and supported by 32 religious organizations, was part of a campaign to get clergy and congregants actively involved in promoting health care reform.

The president used the call to decry what he called “misinformation” and “divisive and deceptive attacks” in the ongoing debate.

“There are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” he said.

Obama called the idea that the legislation would include “death panels” to determine whether elderly patients live or die “an extraordinary lie.” He said it was “not true” that the plans represent a “government takeover of health care” or “mean government funding of abortion.”

“These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper,” he said.

At the same time, conservative groups, including leading Christian activists, ramped up their continued opposition to the reform package, which they insist could ultimately lead to taxpayer-funded abortions or rationing of care for the elderly.

Just two hours before Obama’s call, Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action, unveiled a second ad that says money that could be used for surgery for the elderly would instead pay for abortions. Their tag line is: “Our greatest generation denied care. Our future generation denied life.”

Perkins said there was a lot of “gnashing of teeth over our first ad” but he stood by its claims.

He said his organization worked to amend legislation to ensure that taxpayer-funded abortions would not be included. “They were all voted down, primarily on party lines,” he said.

Despite denials by the president, a new poll indicates that a significant percentage of Americans believe the health care plan is likely to permit use of federal funds for abortions.

An NBC News poll released Tuesday showed that 50 percent of respondents said it was likely that taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for women to have abortions; 37 percent thought it was unlikely and 13 percent were not sure. Asked if the government would “make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly,” 45 percent said it was likely, compared to 50 percent who said it was unlikely and 5 percent who were not sure.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—When President Obama named his choices for his administration’s two top medical posts, he chose people of private faith and public acclaim whose positions may put them out of lock step with fellow believers.

Francis Collins, 59, Obama’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, has differed from fellow evangelicals by supporting evolution and embryonic stem cell research.

Surgeon General nominee Regina Benjamin, 52, is a Roman Catholic who attended Catholic schools and was awarded a papal medal but, according to the White House, agrees with the president on “reproductive health issues.”

Obama’s choices reflect his hopes to “break the mold” of Washington politics and forge an administration with a wide range of perspectives, said Emilie Townes, associate dean of academic affairs at Yale Divinity School. In fact, she said, the choices of Collins and Benjamin demonstrate “big tent” evangelicalism and Catholicism.

“They’re going to be able to speak to a variety of people about a variety of issues,” she said. “They’re not going to be lambs to the slaughter or ideologues. They’re pragmatic people who understand how to get things done but also bring a vision for something more than just how things have been done.”

Philip Clayton, a theology professor at Claremont School of Theology in California, agreed. “Both choices reflect Obama’s pragmatic idealism,” he said.

Although Collins and Benjamin are known most for their scientific accomplishments— he headed the Human Genome Project, and she was the first African-American on the board of the American Medical Association—they have each publicly addressed their personal faith.

“When as a scientist I have the great privilege of learning something that no human knew before, as a believer I also have the indescribable experience of having caught a glimpse of God’s mind,” Collins said at the 2007 National Prayer Breakfast, during which he described his transition from atheist to believer.

Regina Benjamin, a community doctor from rural Alabama, was nominated by President Obama to be the next surgeon general. (PHOTO/RNS/Courtesy Dept. of Health and Human Services)

He authored a book called The Language of God and more recently started the BioLogos Foundation, which aims to bridge divisions between science and religion. BioLogos officials said Collins would step down from its leadership if confirmed.

“Church was always a very important part of my life,” Benjamin told Catholic Digest in 2007. “I believe I am carrying on the healing ministry of Christ. I feel obligated to help continue his works.”

In the rural community of Bayou La Batre, Ala., Benjamin runs a medical clinic, which does not perform abortions. The 2008 MacArthur Fellow is a board member of the Catholic Health Association and has done missionary work in Honduras.

Still, the nominations of Collins and Benjamin have drawn some criticism.

While groups like Focus on the Family hailed Obama’s selection of an evangelical for the NIH post, its newsletter noted that anti-abortion proponents cannot completely affirm his stances, “particularly since he supports destructive human embryonic stem cell research.”

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, initially gave Benjamin a ringing endorsement, saying, “Her tireless and selfless efforts are a model for all physicians.” But he opposed any possible support she might give “mandated abortion coverage” in pending health reform legislation.

Catholic leaders from her native Alabama say they have not heard Benjamin voice support for abortion rights.

“She is a practicing Catholic and faithful and, to the best of my knowledge, in all those questions that have arisen so far, there has never been a conflict in her practice and in her conversation with regard to what the church expects of medical practitioners,” said retired Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb of Mobile, Ala., who nominated her for the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice papal medal she received in 2006.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher, who taught Benjamin as a student at Morehouse School of Medicine, said it is inappropriate to expect a surgeon general to act on religious beliefs.

“While the religion of the surgeon general may very well influence his or her … approach, the message has to be the public health science,” he said. “It’s not a religious message. It’s a public health science message.”

Some scientists, including University of Chicago ecology professor Jerry A. Coyne, have expressed qualms about Collins. “I’d be much more comfortable with someone whose only agenda was science, and did not feel compelled to set up a highly publicized website demonstrating how he reconciles his science with Jesus,” he wrote in his blog.

But others familiar with Collins’ work say there’s no reason to fear his faith.

“Francis is first and foremost a scientist, and he adheres to the highest standards of research and scientific integrity,” said Ted Peters, author of Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. “These standards are shared with people of different religious faiths as well as others who have no religious faith.”

Robert John Russell, director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif., said there’s no difference between elected officials serving as people of faith in a government position than what will be asked of Collins and Benjamin.

“If you get someone who’s exemplary in their profession and they are comfortable with their own faith stance and can be appreciative of other faith stances, then that’s an added value,” he said.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — A number of religious leaders are backing an effort to defuse the contentious debate over abortion with common-ground solutions that reduce the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting women who might otherwise abort for economic reasons.

Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio, a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, have introduced legislation titled "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Pregnant Women and Parents Act."

More than three dozen faith leaders and organizations from across the political spectrum announced support for the bill, which seeks to redirect decades of debate away from abortion rights and toward the reasons women have abortions.

"It emphasizes not the 10 percent of the issue, where we continue to differ, but the 90 percent where we all agree," DeLauro said at a Washington press conference announcing the bill July 23.

Supporters range from NARAL Pro-Choice America to Florida Pastor Joel Hunter, a one-time president-elect of the Christian Coalition.

Concerns about bill 

Several Baptists submitted statements of support, including Frank Page, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who told the Associated Press he has concerns about the bill but that he tentatively supports it.

David Gushee, an ethics professor at Mercer University and regular columnist for Associated Baptist Press, said from his pro-life perspective it is "regrettable" the bill does not challenge legal access to abortion, but that it sends "a new kind of message" on abortion — providing "genuine choice" by meeting economic of economic and health-care needs of women who otherwise might feel they have no choice other than to terminate their pregnancy.

"Pro-life Americans should support this legislation because of the very many creative and concrete ways it addresses the real-life circumstances that families face in relation to preventing and dealing with unintended pregnancies," Gushee said. "In a time of economic crisis in our nation, more and more women and families are already being driven to abortion. This is terrible but true."

Melissa Rogers, visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School, said the bill signals that one chapter is closing and a new one is opening in the abortion discussion.

"For decades, many Americans have been locked in a debate about abortion," Rogers said. "The problem has not been the debate — it is an important one that should continue. The problem has been that, all too often, we have been so focused on areas of disagreement that we have failed to look for areas of agreement."

New approach 

Jonathan Merritt, national spokesman for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, said young evangelicals take protecting unborn life just as seriously as their predecessors but bring a new approach to that commitment.

"Valuing results and eschewing combative rhetoric, we embrace a comprehensive approach that reduces abortion by preventing unintended pregnancy through means such as comprehensive sex education with an emphasis on abstinence, supporting pregnant women and families, and expanding adoption," Merritt said.

Glen Stassen, a professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, said provisions in the bill are similar to a teenage parent program in which his wife formerly worked.

Stassen said the program provided training by nurses in prenatal nutrition and childcare, as well as how not to get pregnant again. It also provided contraceptives. Social workers helped the young women plan their future. The program also included a childcare nursery, an OB/GYN clinic and community support.

Stassen said just 1 percent of the pregnant girls in the program had an abortion, compared to the usual rates of 75 percent for teenagers younger than 15 and 39 percent for those ages 15-19. With the support and training they received, he said, almost none of them got pregnant again until after they graduated from high school, and far more of them finished high school than in schools without access to the program.

Need for healing 

"Our polarized nation needs healing," said Stassen. "I plead for uncommon decency and mutual respect in discussing and working together to achieve the healing we need."

The bill says 49 percent of all pregnancies in America are unintended and that, excluding miscarriages, 42 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. It says low-income women are four times more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy than their higher-income counterparts.

The bill summary says it aims to reduce the need for abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place through comprehensive education and after-school and other programs, increasing support for family planning services under title X of the Public Health Service Act and Medicaid and services that provide health care services, information about pregnancy and other supportive services for pregnant women and new parents.

Reflects consensus 

Congresswoman DeLauro said at the July 23 press conference the legislation "reflects real and principled consensus" among both pro-life and pro-choice groups.

"For too long we have allowed our differences to divide us on this contentious issue," she said.

She said the bill "aims to break a stalemate that has impeded forward progress on reducing the need for abortion in this country" and to "turn down the volume on the culture wars that have plagued our attempts to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the past."

Co-sponsor Ryan described the legislation as "historic."

"I believe that this is such a divisive issue that when we agree and find common ground on the abortion issue that there is no issue under this dome that we can't solve together if we're all willing to lead and we're all willing to compromise and we're all willing to take the best deal that we can get and move the ball down the field," Ryan said. "And we have done that on this issue."

Not everyone is on board, however. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council argued that instead of reducing abortion, the bill would actually increase federal funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.