Leading Evangelical Speaks Out With Rev. Haffner

Yesterday, Rev. Richard Cizik and I released an op ed column on our joint support for domestic and international family planning.

You may remember Rev. Cizik as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a position he became after Rev. Ted Haggard had to step down after being discovered having sex and buying drugs from a male escort.

Rev. Cizik has gone on to head a new organization, the New Evangelical Partnership, which is a coalition of more mainstream evangelical organizations committed to the common good. Here's a piece of part of what we said:

As religious leaders, we are both called to respond to the needs of the most marginalized, the most vulnerable, and the most likely to be excluded. Both of our organizations are committed to Goal Five of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, calling for improved global maternal health by reducing maternal mortality by three quarters and achieving universal access to reproductive health. Both of us are committed to helping create a just and equitable world where no woman will die giving birth to the next generation.

Although we hold differing moral values about abortion, we share a commitment that because life is sacred, it should never be created carelessly or unintentionally. That is why we both support the Title X family planning program, which helps avert nearly one million pregnancies in the United States annually. That is why we have a shared belief in international family planning programs, because we know that maternal mortality around the world could be reduced by more than 70 percent by improved access to reproductive health services. We support domestic and international family planning because we know it reduces neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, including deaths attributable to unsafe abortions--and it helps build strong families and lives.

As religious leaders, we are called to improve women's and children's lives. It is simply inconceivable to either of us that those who oppose abortion services also have voted to cut or eliminate family planning, prenatal care, mother and infant nutrition programs, and community health services. We stand together in calling on people of faith across the religious spectrum to stand up for the needs of low-income families and their children. We are pro-faith, pro-family, and pro-child.

As people of faith, we call on the U.S. Senate to reject the draconian and ultimately immoral cuts proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives. As religious leaders called by God to co-create a better world where all may flourish and thrive, we can do no less.

You can read the whole piece at www.washingtonpost.com/onfaith

Evangelicals' Theology of Sex -- Good News, If You're Heterosexual and Married

The National Association of Evangelicals just announced the publication of a new booklet, "Theology of Sex," as part of a new effort for dialog about the ways to reduce abortions in the U.S.

I'm delighted that they are taking seriously our call in our January report, Sexuality and Religion 2020, for denominations and religious institutions to talk about human sexuality in the context of their own faith traditions.

And this report does that. We couldn't agree more with the NAE's understanding that the Bible teaches us that sex is good, that "God established multiple purposes for sex" and that spouses must be committed to one another's sexual satisfaction. And I was surprised but gladdened to read about the NAE's support of family planning.

The report is indeed "good news" -- if you are an evangelical, heterosexual, married, monogamous adult.

Not so much if you are one of the 75 million single American adults, who are advised to express their sexuality only "in a chaste way." The report advises that homosexual behavior is sinful, that marriage is designed by God only for one man and one woman, and that cohabitation is indeed still to be considered "living in sin." I can't help but wonder how such pronouncements are going to help single evangelical adults -- both straight and gay -- live responsible and ethical sexual lives.

The authors of the NAE document emphasize an act-based sexual ethic, which privileges sexual intercourse in marriage as God's single intent for us all. Not only do I view "sex" as so much more than one act, I also believe that sexual diversity is part of God's blessing. At the Religious Institute, we call for a relational sexual ethic that accepts no double standards by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. You may want to read the theology section of our 2020 report at www.religiousinstitute.org/resources/study-guides.

Although the authors and I disagree in many ways about sexual theology and the myriad sexual messages in the Bible, I am pleased to see them breaking their silence about this central issue in people's lives. And although we have a different understanding of what their conclusion means, at the Religious Institute, we too "advocate a sexuality that is joyful, nonexploitive, respectful, and aligned with God's creative intent."

We look forward to the dialog.

Albert Mohler and Me: What He Said About Preparing Clergy on Sexuality

Rev. Albert Mohler didn't much like the report we released last week, Sexuality and Religion 2020: Goals for the Next Decade.

He's the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his bio says that Time magazine called him "the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement."

He had this to say:

Evangelical Christians will see this report as further evidence of the theological accommodationism and biblical revisionism that marks liberal Christianity.

He seemed particularly to delight in pointing out that we quoted the influence of queer and feminist theologians in our understanding of scholarship. I guess in his mind that's evidence we are subversive.

But, in an interesting twist, he also definitely got our call for ALL clergy -- regardless of theological or ideology inclination -- to be better trained and better prepared to deal with the sexuality needs of their congregations. That was a major emphasis of our report.

He wrote:

"Evangelical Christians will rightly reject about everything found in this new report from the Religious Institute, but they should not avoid its urgency in calling pastors and Christian leaders to teach and preach about sex and sexuality. It is not enough to know the truth and believe the truth, we are called to preach and teach the whole counsel of God -- and that includes all that God has to say about sex."

Am I naive to think that there might be common ground here? Rev. Mohler, you are the president of a major seminary. We'd be happy to help you assess how your curricula and seminary prepares your future clergy to do just that.

Religious Institute Condemns "Manhattan Declaration" As Unjust and Not Faithful

This morning the Religious Institute released the following statement in response to the Manhattan Declaration, a statement endorsed by Catholic Bishops and Religious Right Leaders Opposing Abortion and LGBT rights.

The Manhattan Declaration, endorsed by those who are most conservative in America's religious life, is once again a political call against women’s moral agency and the rights of lesbian and gay persons dressed up in religious language. These religious leaders would have us believe that they would be forced to provide abortions or bless same sex marriages against their religious principles when these rights are available. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious leaders across the spectrum support religious freedom, the right of each religion to determine its own rites and practices, and freedom of the pulpit. Mainstream and progressive religious leaders differ though in our belief that no single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion or LGBT equality, nor should government take sides on religious differences. We oppose any attempt to make specific religious doctrine concerning the rights of women and LGBT persons the law for all Americans.

Ten years ago, a multifaith group of religious leaders issued the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, a 500-word call for sexual justice that affirmed full inclusion of women and LGBT persons and a faith based commitment to reproductive rights. Today, the Religious Declaration has been endorsed by more than 3,300 religious leaders, including denomination and seminary presidents, from more than 50 faith traditions. Its positions on reproductive justice and LGBT equality reflect the majority opinions of American citizens, faithful and secular alike. Neither the Manhattan Declaration, nor the handful of Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders who created it, speak for most Christians, much less people of other faiths.

Common Ground on Abortion and Unintended Pregnancies

My regular readers know that the Religious Institute calls for a faith based commitment to reproductive rights and believes that abortion is a moral decision. You also know that I have repeatedly resisted those who claim that they are progressive but advocate for policies to reduce the number of abortions by 90 or 95% without both assuring access to safe and legal abortion services and advocating for sexuality education and family planning to avoid unintended pregnancies.

We've often felt like a lone voice in the religious community on this issue.

So, I want you to go over to the Christian Broadcasting web site and read this article by David Brody, their CBN News Senior Correspondent, on the proposed language on abortion for the Democratic platform. He reports that such evangelical and Catholic leaders as Joel Hunter, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo helped create it.

He's surprised that the language includes support for prenatal care, adoption, and parenting, AS IF pro-choice persons haven't always actively supported these issues. I have a 30 year history in the sexual and reproductive rights movement, and I want to remind CBN that such organizations as Planned Parenthood, NFPRHA, and SIECUS (which I headed for 12 years) have always supported options based pregnancy counseling for women with unintended pregnancies, that include having and raising a baby, adoption, and abortion services. The Religious Institute's Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision explicitly includes support for intentional parenting and removal of barriers that keep women from having children they desire.

Mr. Brody applauds what he sees as a change in the pro-choice position and that it is likely to reassure evangelical and Catholic leaders. No change, Mr. Brody and CBN, but I'm glad you like it. It's what the pro-choice movement has been about all along.

Premature Obituaries...

Over at Religious Dispatches, there are two blog entries today that look at the question of "Is the Religious Right dead?"

Having just finished reading both, I find my pulse racing, as sexual justice issues are once again pushed to the side, as problems to be solved to create an evangelical center rather than moral justice issues at the center of millions of people's lives. Laura Olson in her blog says that progressive religious voices "are afire with discussion of a different kind of marriage between religion and politics that emphasizes peace and justice issues instead of socio-moral concerns." I think she means the issues I care about: women, sexuality education, reproductive health and reproductive justice, full inclusion of LGBT persons.

My colleague Robby Jones quotes Dr. David Gushee at a meeting this week of Third Way:

"Abortion more than any other issue poses a problem in gaining the vote of centrist evangelicals. If a Democratic presidential candidate proposed a serious demand-side plan to reduce abortion by half over the next eight years, and invested real political capital in the effort, it would make a significant difference for centrist evangelicals.”

But that would mean supporting comprehensive sexuality education, defunding ineffective abstinence only education program, and providing family planning service, goals that many of the people who don't believe in women's right to make her own moral decisions about abortion don't support.

Robby Jones provides interesting statistics on how progressive evangelicals and evangelicals on the right differ dramatically on sexual orientation, abortion, and stem cell research. He writes:

A majority of left/center evangelicals support stem cell research, legalized abortion, and access to the morning after pill without a prescription. There is a remarkable 50-point gap between left/center and right Evangelicals on each of these issues. Importantly, more than 8 in 10 in the evangelical left/center want to find middle ground on abortion laws, while 6 in 10 in the evangelical right think there’s no room for compromise on abortion.

On gay and lesbian issues, while only a quarter of the left/center evangelicals support allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry, a near majority (49 percent) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, compared to only 11 percent of the evangelical right.

Jones concludes:

"...there is indeed a new evangelical center emerging. .. This new movement is no less evangelical than the right. But it promises to be less strident, less partisan, and less defensive; it also promises to be more creative and more willing to follow conclusions into unconventional places to work for the common good... the evangelical left/center—half of evangelicals and 13 percent of voters—has the real potential to partner with political progressives on a range of issues going forward in ways that defy the conventional wisdom of “the era of the Religious Right.”

Just don't expect that reproductive health and justice and full inclusion for LGBT persons, including marriage equality, are going to be among those issues. The extreme Religious Right may be losing some of its momentum, but for those of us who support sexual justice, it's not time to let down our guard.

News from the Weekend: Teens, Sex, and a Premature Obituary

Over the weekend, there was a lot of sexuality-related news:

*The Georgia Supreme Court commuted the prison sentence of Genarlow Wilson. You may remember that he is the young man who has served two years for having consensual oral sex when he was 17 and she was 15, but was sentenced to 10 years.

*The Maine State Attorney General is now investigating the Portland School Board's decision to provide birth control to middle school students and not reporting those students as victims of sexual abuse.

*And the New York Times magazine once again declared the death of the radical religious right.

Both the Georgia and Maine situations indicate how confused the culture is about adolescent sexuality and sexual offenses. Surely, we all agree that there need to be laws protecting children and teens from being abused by adult sex offenders. Let me be absolutely clear: I do not believe that children and teens can ever give consent to adults who want to be sexual with them. But, do we want teenagers going to jail for having consensual sex with each other? Or, to have to report two thirteen years olds, who although by almost any standard are not emotionally or spiritually ready for intercourse, to the department of family services? And if not jail, what might be appropriate punishment?

It seems to this minister and mom that this is where communication with your children comes in and good sexuality education programs. I heard Mr. Wilson this morning on the Today Show say that teens need to know what the state law is about consent, and indeed, I'd add they need opportunities to discuss what it means for a relationship to be consensual. In Maine, I continue to believe that health professionals should act as health professionals, counseling on delay and involving families, but offering services to teens who need them. Let's let the clergy and parents provide the moral lessons.

As to the New York Times, as I said when Jerry Falwell died, reports of the death of religious conservatives is premature. As someone who advocates for the rights of women and LGBT persons, it's not time to celebrate.

More "Reasoning Together"

I've received a number of emails off line about yesterday's post on "Come Let Us Reason Together" and I've now had the time to read the paper carefully several times.

First, here's the link directly to the paper: http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/feature/upload/2007/10/Third%20Way%20report.pdf Apparently, some of you couldn't get to what I posted yesterday.

And I do encourage you to read the paper -- slowly and carefully. The authors say that they are "writing primarily for progressives who too often have an impoverished understanding of Evangelicals." If that's you, this presents a good history, up-to-date polling data on attitudes and voting by Evangelicals, and I think some encouraging data about how half of evangelicals are progressive or moderate on social issues (I think the one fifth, one third, one half formula is very helpful.) I also think that the section on "shared principles for the role of religion in the public square" is very useful, especially for those of us who work with people whose religiophobia protests public engagement by religious leaders.

Second, I misspoke in yesterday's email about the role of some organizations -- I now know for sure that colleagues at Americans United and HRC were asked for review and comments, and the Union of Reform Judaism's President was included in a list of supporting statements. Nevertheless, (and please Third Wave correct me if I'm wrong), pro-choice religious organizations were not interviewed, quoted, read, or consulted for the section of the report on these issues.

Indeed, had this report been titled and promoted differently, I might have easily recommended it to you as what one supporter identifies it is: "a response to progressives about evangelicals." Had the report been labeled as an effort to find common ground for "those who consider themselves progressive and evangelical" with those who are conservative evangelicals (which indeed is what it seems to be), I would have hailed it as a vital first step. Both one of the authors and a staff person from Faith in Public Life have written on a faithbloggers list serv, partially in response to my post, that this is only a first step and that they know that they didn't present the history, polling data, or wide range of views of progressive religious people on these issues.

But, then why promote it, as the subtitle and the press releases suggest as "A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Progressives and Evangelicals" while acknowledging that you are aiming it at a particular audience. Does Third Way have a report planned to help evangelicals understand US? Because surely the history of the progressive movement for social reform, the attitudes of progressive and mainstream religious people, and the movements for sexual and social justice would be equally enlightening to the evangelical movement.

But, let me take their conclusion at face value: they say that this report offers "first steps across that [the cultural divide] bridge." It is indeed important to seek common ground, and I believe that there is vast mainstream support for the vast majority of sexual justice issues. Just for starters, Americans of all types of backgrounds support sexuality education, HIV prevention, the availability of contraception, safeguards for children on the Internet, the need to strengthen families, stem cell research and the civil rights (including employment rights) of gays and lesbians in large majorities. At the Religious Institute, we've participated in some very exciting common ground efforts on reproductive rights (and I'll be sending that report on to the folks at Third Wave) and our Open Letters provide solid theological support for sexual justice.

We believe that there is common ground and a need for respectful dialog and engagement. We don't believe that we are part of a "cultural war" but rather responding to people's deep need and hunger for sexual healing and justice. Third Wave, we look forward to talking with you about your planned next steps and how to bring religious professionals who are progressive on sexual justice issues into your conversations -- and next reports.