After all, debates about the Bible and sexuality had rocked America’s largest Lutheran flock since it was born in 1988 through the merger of three older Lutheran denominations. Similar fights have caused bitter divisions among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Methodists and other oldline Protestants.

While the decision in the recent ELCA national assembly was a triumph for proponents of same-sex marriage, this media storm also focused attention on a question that often causes debates among liberal theologians and ethicists: What does the word “monogamous” mean?

The detailed social statement approved by the denomination does not specifically define the term, but states that clergy in same-sex unions should be held to the same standards as those in heterosexual marriages.

“This church teaches that degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment. This also suggests a way to understand why this church teaches that the greatest sexual intimacies, such as coitus, should be matched with and sheltered both by the highest level of binding commitment and by social and legal protection, such as found in marriage,” argues the document, which is entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

Thus, the Evangelical Lutheran Church continues to oppose “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual sexual relationships of any kind. … Such transient encounters do not allow for trust in the relationship to create the context for trust in sexual intimacy.”

It’s hard to define “monogamy” without discussing what it means for one person in a relationship to be sexually “faithful” to another, said the Rev. Kaari Reierson of the national ELCA staff. She was part of the task force that produced the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” document.

“When we talk about a ‘monogamous’ relationship,” she explained, “we mean that someone is supposed to be having physical, sexual contact with only one person.”

For some activists, however, “monogamy” is a fighting word.

As the national debates about same-sex marriage began to gain momentum a decade ago, the influential gay newspaper The Advocate stated this issue in a blunt headline: “Monogamy: Is it for us?”

This is not a new issue. As a gay United Methodist pastor explained to me in the early years of the AIDS crisis, few gay Christians embrace a “twin rocking chairs forever” definition of monogamy. Instead, they believe that it’s possible to be “faithful” to one’s life partner, while having sexual experiences with others.

The Episcopal Church’s first openly gay male priest went much further, questioning the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he called “sex-positive” theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

“My position on sexual exclusivity … is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a valid Christian marriage,” stated Father Robert Williams, whose controversial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He died of complications of AIDS in 1992.

A strict form of monogamous sexual fidelity, he noted, is “an option some couples choose. Others do not, and yet have lifelong, grace-filled, covenant relationships.”

The gay journalist Andrew Sullivan — a liberal Catholic — was equally blunt in his 1995 book “Virtually Normal,” arguing that, “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. …. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”

And in the ELCA? Several church representatives stressed that their leaders are still preparing the revised guidelines for clergy conduct, which may not be made public until the end of the year. However, Reierson said she believes they will strive to apply terms such as “monogamous” and “faithful” to the covenant relationships of both gays and straights.

Meanwhile, the current policy that “single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life” will remain in the guidelines, she said. This means no sex before marriage for all single clergy.

“I think what we have said is pretty clear,” she said. “I don’t see room in there for physical, sexual relations with another person outside of the covenant of a lifelong, committed relationship.”

Send article as PDF to

“We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality,” it said. “Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard.”

However, 21 bishops disagreed, publicly stating that gay sexual relationships were “no less a sign to the world of God’s love” as traditional marriages. These bishops — including the Rt. Rev. Edmund Browning, who was chosen as America’s presiding bishop six years later — warned that since “we are answerable before almighty God … we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses.”

It was the start of an ecclesiastical war that has dominated the 70-million-member Anglican Communion for decades.

Then again, this conflict may have started in the 1960s, when Bishop James Pike was censured for his “offensive” and “irresponsible” views questioning the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and other ancient doctrines. And in 1977 a high-profile leader — Bishop Paul Moore of New York — created a firestorm when he ordained a priest who identified herself as a lesbian.

It’s hard to understand this story without some grasp of this complicated timeline. However, news reports regularly chop off several decades, thus making it appear that these doctrinal clashes began with the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay, non-celibate Episcopal bishop.

“This whole conflict is actually about the Bible and how you interpret it,” said the Rev. George Conger, a correspondent for The Church of England Newspaper. “The polite warfare has been going on for 30 or 40 years. The open warfare truly began in 1997, when the archbishops from Africa and the rest of the Global South met in Jerusalem and decided to let their voices be heard.”

In addition to events in the late 1970s, other crucial dates on this timeline include:

* 1989 — Bishop John Spong of the Diocese of Newark ordains the first homosexual priest who is openly living in a same-sex relationship.

* 1994 — Spong drafts his Koinonia Statement affirming the ordination of gays and lesbians living in faithful, monogamous relationships — with the support of 90 bishops. He also publishes his 12 theses for a liberal Reformation, rejecting belief in the transcendent, personal God of the Bible.

* 1996 — An ecclesiastical court dismisses heresy charges against Bishop Walter Righter, after another controversial ordination. The court says Episcopalians have “no clear doctrine” clearly forbidding the ordination of persons who are sexually active outside of marriage.

* 1998 — In a stunning defeat for the left, bishops at the global Lambeth Conference in Canterbury declare that sex outside of marriage, including gay sex, is “incompatible with scripture” and call for a ban on same-sex-union rites and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

* 2000 — Archbishops from Rwanda and Southeast Asia consecrate two American conservatives as missionary bishops, escalating global efforts to form an alternative structure for Anglican traditionalists in North America.

Since the consecration of Robinson, the Episcopal Church has made several attempts to appease the large, overwhelmingly conservative Anglican churches of Africa, Asia and other regions overseas. Meanwhile, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has attempted to calm nerves, while starting the process of creating a doctrinal covenant that he hopes will provide unity on issues of faith and practice.

However, early this week the U.S. House of Bishops voted — by a 99-45 margin — to allow dioceses to proceed with the selection of gays and lesbians for “any ordained ministry.” This effectively overturned a resolution passed at the 2006 General Convention that urged dioceses to refrain from consecrating bishops whose “manner of life” would offend other churches in the Anglican Communion.

“The key question is whether this is a national story or a global story,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the conservative Diocese of South Carolina. “The way most people tell this story, America initiates things and then the rest of the world responds. Then America responds and you repeat this process over and over.

“You see, America is at the center of everything. It’s the American church and its concerns that count the most. Meanwhile, Anglicans around the world are trying to tell a different story.”

Send article as PDF to

That was in 1981.

“Every time we turned around we were arguing about sex, and homosexuality in particular,” said Heidinger, who retired last week. “Frankly, I was already weary of it and that was a long, long time ago. We wanted to get on to more positive things, like missions and church growth. … Yet here we are years later, still arguing about sex.”

Two events defined that era. Colorado Bishop Melvin Wheatley, Jr., defied his colleagues in 1980 by rejecting a church policy stating that homosexual acts were “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Then, in 1982, he appointed an openly gay pastor in Denver. When challenged, Wheatley said: “Homosexuality is a mysterious gift of God’s grace. I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”

The most important word in that statement was “sin,” explained Heidinger. The fundamental issue at stake was whether United Methodists could find unity on basic doctrines — like whether sex outside of marriage was “sin.” This, of course, raised another issue: What does “marriage” mean?

Liberals kept quoting a statement added to the church’s Book of Discipline in the 1970s affirming “theological pluralism” as an essential element of United Methodist life. Then conservatives managed to have “theological pluralism” removed in 1988, and language affirming the “primacy of scripture” added.

“That started a lively debate about the role of doctrine,” said Heidinger. “Until then, it seemed like you could believe anything you wanted to believe and still be a Methodist. … Want to say the resurrection of Jesus is a myth? That was fine, because of ‘theological pluralism.’ “

Meanwhile, United Methodists were learning other complex and painful truths about their church, long been known as the quintessential Middle American flock.

In the mid-19th century, 34 percent of all believers in the country were Methodists. Then in 1968, the Methodists joined with the Evangelical United Brethren to create the United Methodist Church — with 11 million members. But by 2006, membership had fallen to 7.9 million, with staff cutbacks, gray hair and shuttered churches becoming the norm in many regions.

After decades of “thrashing around in denial mode, trying to find somebody to blame,” United Methodist leaders finally admitted “that our house was on fire,” said Bishop William Willimon of northern Alabama.

It was also painful to admit that United Methodists were worshipping in churches that disagreed on key matters of doctrine and church law, said Willimon, co-author of a mid-1980s study, “The Seven Churches of Methodism.” The bottom line: It was hard to find the ties that could bind the declining flocks in the “Yankee Church,” “Industrial Northeast Church,” “Western Church” and “Midwest Church” with those in the “Church South” and the “Southwest Church.”

Talking about the future is hard, when discussions of the recent past are painful.

“It’s a tribute to Jim Heidinger and other people like him that, when they first came on the scene, they were just the old-fashioned guys who wanted to hang on to church doctrines and traditions,” said Willimon. “But somewhere in the last few decades, the evangelicals turned into the people who were talking about wild ideas about how to change where the church was going. They’re the ones finding out what the growing churches across the nation are doing.”

Nevertheless, wars about doctrine and sexuality are far from over.

Progressives wield great clout in the seminaries, boards and agencies, stressed Heidinger. Yet in recent years, more than a third of the church’s clergy have studied at the certified, but not officially United Methodist, Asbury Theological Seminary. The other two-thirds are spread among 12 official seminaries. An alternative, evangelical Mission Society for United Methodists sends roughly the same number of fulltime missionaries overseas as the official General Board of Global Ministries.

But, for conservatives, the most important trends are global. Thus, 25 percent of the delegates at the 2008 United Methodist General Conference came from overseas. That may hit 40 percent in 2012, said Heidinger.

“When you ask United Methodists overseas — like in Africa — about the big issues, they don’t mind telling you what they believe,” he said. “That’s where the future is. That’s where the growth is, right there.”

Send article as PDF to

After several years of struggle, Father Theodore Hesburgh discovered a bond between his commission colleagues that transcended race and regional differences, noted President Barack Obama, in his historic commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.

All of them liked to fish. Thus, the president of America’s most famous Catholic institution — he served for 35 years — arranged for a twilight cruise on the lake at Notre Dame’s retreat center at Land O’Lakes, Wis.

“They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history,” said Obama.

Hesburgh mastered this kind of graceful strategy, as did another hero of Catholic progressives — the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. The president challenged the graduates to learn from their examples while supporting “movements for change both large and small.”

“Remember that each of us,” he said, “endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.”

Notre Dame’s president, Father John Jenkins, then underlined this link to the civil rights era by giving Obama a photograph of Hesburgh clasping hands in solidarity with the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whoever prepared Obama for this triumphant visit did a fine job, noted George Weigel, at National Review Online. The president “hit for the cycle” at Notre Dame, “mentioning ‘common ground’; tolerance and reconciliation amid diversity; Father Hesburgh; … problem-solving over ideology; Father Hesburgh; saving God’s creation from climate change; pulling together; Father Hesburgh; open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words; Father Hesburgh.”

But the speech also offered a provocative statement about Catholic faith and the public square, noted Richard Garrett, a Notre Dame law professor whose areas of research include Catholic social thought and church-state relations.

The president urged the students to have “confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised. … Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake.” But he also stressed that the “ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt.”

“It’s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what he asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own,” said Obama. This should “humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. … Within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles.”

It was hard not to connect this pronouncement with the renewed abortion debates that followed Notre Dame’s decision to grant Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree. In the end, 80-plus bishops publicly criticized this action, arguing that it violated a 2004 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy that stated: “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The problem with the Obama’s logic, explained Garnett, is that traditional Catholics argue that the sanctity of human life — from conception to natural death — is based on universal, rational principles of human rights, dignity and equality, not narrow, uniquely “Catholic” beliefs.

The bottom line: The church defended the same principles in the civil rights era.

“There’s a powerful move at the end of the president’s speech to suggest that the Catholic stance on the right to life — the stance of Notre Dame — is a matter of mere faith, and not a reasoned stance at all. … ‘Parochial’ is a very loaded word to use,” noted Garnett.

“So it appears that Obama agrees with what Father Hesburgh believed in the 1960s, but does not agree with what Pope Benedict believes today, which implies that one set of convictions is based on reason and one is not. But from the Catholic perspective, both of these stances are rooted in the very same universal truth.”

Send article as PDF to

Consider this hypothetical landmine: Would it be discrimination for a Christian AIDS hospice to refuse to hire a worker who believes AIDS is a sign of God’s wrath?

Ponder these scenarios. Can a Muslim school fire a teacher who converts to Christianity? Can a Jewish pre-school discriminate against a job applicant who is active in Jews for Jesus?

Wait, there’s more. Is it job discrimination for an evangelical shelter for parents and children to refuse to hire someone who rejects centuries of Christian teachings on sex and marriage? How about forcing a Catholic hospital to hire doctors and nurses who reject the church’s doctrines on abortion?

These are the kinds of questions swirling around the White House as Obama tries to find a way to embrace a wide variety of religious groups and the faith-based ministries they operate — while rejecting some of the ancient doctrines that guide their work.

“There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same,” said Obama, at the National Prayer Breakfast in which he promoted his Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next — and some subscribe to no faith at all.

“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.”

Then, citing a variety of faith traditions, he said one law can bring unity, which is “the Golden Rule — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”

The audience said, “amen.” But church-state lawyers and packs of social activists began murmuring about the details. There are, after all, secular and religious groups that believe President George W. Bush’s team erred when it allowed many faith-based ministries to receive government funds, while hiring only employees who affirmed their doctrines and mission statements.

These tensions remain, because Obama has decided — for now — to allow this practice to continue, while stressing that the Justice Department will review complaints on a case-by-case basis.

The ground is moving. For decades, a guiding principle of church-state law has been that state officials must avoid becoming “entangled” in doctrinal questions that allow the government to favor some faith groups over others.

In his prayer breakfast speech, the president said his initiative would not “favor one religious group over another — or even religious groups over secular groups.” But will some ministries get to hire according to their doctrines, while others will not, with the government separating the sheep from the goats?

“I really don’t have a clue” what the case-by-case language means, said Stanley Carlson-Thies, who worked with the Bush White House and now leads the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. “I think they are trying to get out of the fix they’re in. Obama’s people have told so many religious groups that they’re not going to hurt what they do. Yet they have also told groups on the other side, ‘Of course we stand with you. This is discrimination and we’re not going to allow it.’ “

As recently as the 1990s a broad coalition of church-state experts — from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Christian Coalition — managed to work together on some crucial religious liberty issues. The goal was to promote free speech, freedom of association and “equal access” for believers and nonbelievers in the public square.

But today, driven by conflicts over gay rights, the spotlight is on what candidate Obama consistently called “religious discrimination.” The White House must choose between armies of religious believers who follow radically different sets of doctrines.

In the end, it’s impossible to separate the power of faith from the doctrines and traditions that inspire these believers, said Carlson-Thies.

“The faith is where the passion comes from, it’s where the witness is,” he said. “It’s clear that the president admires many of these faith groups and the work they do. The question he faces now is, ‘Do you want to work with them or not?’ “

Send article as PDF to

The odds were also good that the Religion Newswriters Association would pick the White House race as its top news story. But there was a problem. There were so many faith-based issues in play during this election year that America’s religion-beat specialists had trouble deciding which of these hot stories was No. 1.

In the end, this was the winning item: “Controversial sermons delivered in recent years by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright surface, resulting in pressure on Barack Obama, who eventually withdraws his membership in his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago. Meanwhile, John McCain rejects the endorsements of evangelists John Hagee, a critic of Catholicism, and Rod Parsley.”

However, it’s important to note that this RNA poll was held before two other stories broke, each demonstrating why it will be hard for the Obama administration to find middle ground in America’s wars over religion and public life.

The first was the resignation of the National Association of Evangelicals official Richard Cizik, who drew fire when he endorsed civil unions for gays and lesbians and hinted that he was willing to compromise on gay marriage, as well. In an interview with National Public Radio, the veteran lobbyist said: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining traditional marriage, I don’t think.”

In the end, it was impossible for the association’s leaders to ignore those crucial words, “I don’t think.”

Then, soon after that controversy, Obama was criticized by leaders on the secular and religious left for selecting another high-profile evangelical to give the invocation at his inauguration.

The Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church had also made cautious statements suggesting a willingness to compromise on civil unions. However, Warren drew fierce attacks from gay-rights supporters due to his strong support for California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which defined marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The rest of the RNA top 10 looked like this:

(2) Led by Obama’s example, Democrats reach out to religious voters. At a crucial stage of the campaign, Obama participates in a debate with John McCain moderated by Warren and held in his megachurch sanctuary. Conservative Christians are given a few moments in the Democratic National Convention spotlight.

(3) The selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as the GOP vice presidential nominee energizes evangelical activists, who are excited by her defense of unborn children — both in her personal life and in public policies. Many religious conservatives reluctantly back McCain.

(4) The California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, but voters in November — including a large majority of African-Americans — approve a constitutional amendment enforcing a traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage also fails at the polls in Arizona and Florida.

(5) Pope Benedict XVI makes his first U.S. visit, drawing massive crowds in Washington and New York. The pope also meets with a few Catholics who had been sexually abused by clergy and openly addresses their concerns from the pulpit.

(6) Backed by Anglican traditionalists in Africa, Asia and Latin America, conservatives alienated from the U.S. Episcopal Church appeal to the Anglican Communion to create a parallel jurisdiction — the Anglican Church in North America. This open split follows decades of doctrinal fighting in the Episcopal Church, including the consecration of a noncelibate gay priest as a bishop five years ago.

(7) India is rocked by terrorist attacks, including a three-day siege in Mumbai that results in the deaths of almost 200, including an American rabbi and his wife at an Orthodox Jewish center. Authorities pursue links to radical Islamists in Pakistan. Meanwhile, fatal attacks on Christians in the eastern state of Orissa continue during 2008.

(8) The Chinese government makes strategic moves to suppress Buddhists seeking Tibetan independence in an attempt to stage peaceful Olympics games. Still, some demonstrations mar rites to pass the Olympic torch.

(9) Religious groups are hit by effects of a struggling economy and begin to face declines in offerings, forcing many to cut staff and expenses while the need for social services increases nationwide.

(10) Chaledean Archbishop Paulos Rahho is kidnapped and murdered in Mosul, Iraq. Meanwhile, Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups continue to trade attacks. Reports of stability increase toward the end the year, including the return of some persecuted Christians to their homes.

Send article as PDF to

But the bishops had to vote on Ex Corde Ecclesiae (“From the Heart of the Church”). After all, they had been arguing about this papal document throughout the 1990s, trying to square the doctrinal vision of Pope John Paul II with their American reality. Rome said their first response was too weak, when it came to insisting that Catholic schools remain openly Catholic. Finally, the bishops approved a tougher document on a 223-to-31 vote.

Soon after that 1999 showdown, someone “with a good reason for wanting to know” emailed a simple question to Russell Shaw of the United States Catholic Conference. Who voted against the statement?

“There was no way to know. In fact, the Vatican doesn’t know — for sure — who those 31 bishops where,” said Shaw, discussing one of the many mysteries in his book, “Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church.

“The secret ballots were destroyed,” he noted. “These days the voting process is even more secret, since the bishops just push a button and they’ve voted. Even if you wanted to know how your bishop voted, or you wanted the Vatican to know how your bishop voted, there’s no way to do that.”

Professionals have learned to read between the lines of debates held in the open sessions that the U.S. bishops choose to schedule. Outside those doors, insiders talk and spread rumors. Some bishops spin the press and others, usually those sending messages to Rome, hold press conferences, publish editorials or preach sermons. But many of the crucial facts remain cloaked in secrecy.

Of course, noted Shaw, few leaders of powerful institutions enjoy discussing their crucial decisions — let alone corporate or personal sins — in public. When Catholic insiders complain about “clericalism” they are confronting a problem that affects all hierarchies, from government to academia, from the Pentagon to Wall Street.

“It’s a kind of elitism, a way of thinking and behaving that assigns to the managerial class a superior status,” he said. “They are chiefs and everyone else is an Indian. They set the agenda. They always make the final decisions. They get to tell everyone else what to do.”

Of course, there’s truth in the old image that puts the pope at the top of an ecclesiastical pyramid, with ranks of clergy cascading down to the pews. Catholicism is not a democracy and there are times when leaders must keep secrets. That’s “a truth,” said Shaw, but it is “not the only truth,” since the whole church is meant to be knit together in a Communion built on a “radical equality of dignity and rights.”

Part of what is happening, he explained, is that some bishops are protecting a “facade of unity” that hides their doctrinal disagreements with the Vatican. While Shaw believes the bishops are more united with Rome now than they where were about 25 years ago, some bishops may be pushing for more and more closed “executive” sessions as a subconscious way to protect themselves.

Take, for example, the brutal waves of scandal caused by the sexual abuse of children and teens by clergy. For several decades, argued Shaw, the bishops have been afraid to openly discuss “the causes of the dreadful mess — nasty things like homosexuality among priests, theological rationalizing on the subject of sex and the entrenched self-protectiveness of the old clericalist culture.”

That’s the kind of scandal that creates global headlines. But, for most Catholics, more commonplace forms of secrecy shape their lives at the local level, said Shaw.

Consider another story reported in Shaw’s book, about a woman who quietly confronted a priest after a Mass in which he omitted the creed. When he failed to acknowledge the error, she said, “Father, you teach your people to be disobedient when you disobey the Church.”

The offended priest was silent. Then he leaned forward and whispered, “You know what honey? You’re full of it.” The priest walked away, giving the woman and her husband what appeared to be “the single-digit salute.”

Truth is, said Shaw, “clericalism is often alive and well at the local level. That’s the kind of secrecy and dishonesty that really cuts the heart of many local parishes, destroying any hope for real Communion there.”

Send article as PDF to

The dispassionate telephone voice is going to ask about abortion and then about same-sex marriage. Finally, the pollster will want to know how crucial these wedge issues will be on election day. And is there any chance they might change their presidential options?

“There is this internal debate going on. … Evangelicals are reluctant to say that they’re focused on these two issues, even though all of the evidence shows that they still are,” said David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group in Ventura, Calif., which is known for its defining niches inside American Christianity.

“The key is that a rising number of evangelicals are adamant that they are not going to overlook social justice issues. They want to find a way to combine their concern about abortion and family issues with other moral and social issues that really matter to them. The question is whether that’s possible in American politics, right now.”

It’s easy to see this dilemma in between the lines of recent surveys.

In a 2007 poll, the Barna researchers found that nine out of 10 evangelicals said abortion is a major problem, which meant that this issue was “still far and away” their most pressing concern, said Kinnaman. Meanwhile, nearly eight in 10 evangelicals said they were very concerned about issues linked to gay rights.

However, evangelicals who participated a new Barna survey split down the middle when asked if they thought their peers would focus primarily on the big two social issues when voting. On one side, 48 percent said it was true that evangelical votes would be driven by abortion and sexuality, while 45 percent disagreed. Meanwhile, 55 percent of non-evangelical Christians and 58 percent of non-Christians were convinced that these hot social issues would drive the votes of evangelical voters.

What about all of those news reports that some evangelicals — symbolized by the Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church and a host of other label-shunning younger leaders — are trying to pursue a broader social agenda?

Kinnaman noted that only 28 percent of evangelical participants in the new survey thought that members of their tribe would give other social issues, like poverty and the environment, short shrift. In a sign that this wider-agenda debate has legs, 69 percent of evangelicals polled disagreed with that statement.

Outside the evangelical camp, 46 percent on non-evangelical Christians and 54 percent of non-Christians thought that evangelical voters would “minimize social justice issues.” These same two groups were convinced — by 57 percent and 59 percent — that evangelical voters will continue to push American life to the political right.

Meanwhile, some Americans are getting confused and even angry about all of this, even though they admit that they know little or nothing about evangelicalism.

According to surveys by Ellison Research of Phoenix, 36 percent of Americans polled indicate that they have no idea “what an evangelical Christian is” in the first place. Only 35 percent of all Americans believe they know “someone very well who is an evangelical,” while a stunning 51 percent are convinced they don’t know any evangelicals at all. On the left side of the aisle, some critics have grown hostile.

One of the surprises of a new Ellison study is “how much abuse is aimed at evangelicals,” noted company president Ron Sellers. “Evangelicals were called illiterate, greedy, psychos, racist, stupid, narrow-minded, bigots, idiots, fanatics, nut cases, screaming loons, delusional, simpletons, pompous, morons, cruel, nitwits, and freaks, and that’s just a partial list. …

“Some people don’t have any idea what evangelicals actually are or what they believe — they just know they can’t stand evangelicals.”

For political activists, the reason all of this matters is easy to see. In the new Barna survey, 59 percent of American adults are convinced that the decisions made by evangelical voters will have a significant impact on the upcoming election.

“Many Americans are convinced that evangelicals are some kind of a political bloc,” said Kinnaman. “If you look at things that way, then this really is all about politics instead of religious beliefs and doctrines. … Some people think evangelicals are part of a political movement that is held together with religious rhetoric and that’s that.”

Send article as PDF to

She led the International Concerns Committee of her denomination’s executive council, helped create her diocese’s Global Women’s Fund and has worked as a consultant on issues of cultural sensitivity. In some circles, she is known as the bishop who dared to rap during a “Hip Hop Mass” a few years ago in the Bronx.

“My sistas and brothas, all my homies and peeps, stay up — keep your head up, holla back and go forth and tell it like it is,” proclaimed the bishop, in her benediction.

Thus, the diminutive, white-haired assistant bishop was an unlikely figure to inspire bold, angry headlines during the recent Lambeth Conference of bishops from the global Anglican Communion. This 20-day gathering had been carefully planned by the archbishop of Canterbury and his staff to focus on prayer, Bible study and small-group sessions called “Indabas” — a Zulu term for tribal meetings — in private settings that did not include journalists.

It was especially important not to inflame already painful disputes between Third World traditionalists and liberals in the United States, Canada, England and elsewhere.

Then, during planned discussions of domestic violence, Roskam spoke out on an unlikely topic — bishops who beat their wives.

“We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do,” argued Roskam, in The Lambeth Witness, a daily newsletter for gay-rights supporters in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. “The most devout Christians beat their wives. … Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult.”

The key, she added, is that, “Violence against women, and violence against children for that matter, is violence against the defenseless. With women, it goes hand-in-hand with misogyny.”

The New York bishop’s accusations rocked the conference, which was already tense due to the absence of about 280 conservative bishops — many from Nigeria and Uganda — who declined to attend due to the presence of U.S. leaders who backed the 2003 consecration of the openly gay and noncelibate Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Only 617 Anglican bishops pre-registered and some of those failed to attend, according to a report in The Living Church magazine. Thus, nearly a quarter of the bishops in attendance came from the small, but wealthy, U.S. Episcopal Church.

The most damaging part of Roskam’s pronouncement was her tone of moral and cultural superiority, noted commentator Riazat Butt. It was easy for bishops from the Global South to read between the lines and find painful traces of colonialism.

“What bishops should be … concerned about is her insinuation that a non-white culture leads to domestic violence and that white, western culture is too civilized and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur,” argued Butt, in The Guardian. “Roskam fails to recognize that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.”

The whole episode brought back memories of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, when a rising tide of African and Asian votes helped produce a pivotal resolution — the vote was 526 in favor, with 70 opposed and 45 abstentions — stating that sex outside of marriage, including gay sex, is “incompatible with scripture.”

The Anglican primate of Scotland said that particular resolution left him feeling “lynched” and was the result of Third World bishops trying to “Islamify Christianity, making it more severe, Protestant and legalistic.” One outspoken American bishop complained that many Africans have “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity.”

Now, a decade later, a female bishop from a liberal diocese in America provided new evidence that these kinds of cultural stereotypes are hard to bury.

This kind of guilt-by-association game is not going to ease tensions in the Anglican Communion, noted Archbishop of York John Sentamu.

“I have never beaten my wife, although I can’t talk about other people,” Sentamu told the London Times. “There is a danger of stereotyping people because of the culture they come from and assuming they must surely be doing it. … I hope Bishop Catherine has got figures and numbers and people. Because if not, she is in danger of causing an unnecessary rumpus.”

Send article as PDF to

The services are based on “A Rite for the Celebration of Commitment to a Life Together” which is used in the Diocese of Massachusetts.

“A priest may bless a same-sex civil marriage or preside at and bless a same-sex union. … The same liturgical rite is used,” say the guidelines. “In the presence of God and the couple’s Christian community, the rite includes a declaration of the couple’s intent to join their lives together and a celebration of their commitment to a life together.”

This is precisely the kind of rite that has infuriated so many conservatives in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

But the sound that Anglican insiders heard the other day was nervous coughing in England. U.S. Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori has decided not to let gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the mother church sit safely on the sidelines while traditionalists take shots at her flock.

What about those same-sex union rites?

“Those services are happening in various places, including in the Church of England, where my understanding is that there are far more of them happening than there are in the Episcopal Church,” she recently told the BBC.

What about New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who is living in a same-sex relationship? According to Jefferts Schori, Robinson is under attack for being honest.

Bishop Robison, she said, is “certainly not alone in being a gay bishop, he’s certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop. He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who’s open about that status. … There’s certainly a double standard.”

What we have here is an attempt to pull British bishops out and into open combat with conservatives in Africa, South America, Asia and other parts of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion. The presiding bishop has played the England card in a high-stakes game of ecclesiastical poker inside the Church of England.

The tensions were already rising, as Canterbury prepares for its once-a-decade global Lambeth Conference of bishops, this coming July 20-Aug. 3. Conservatives are planning their own Global Anglican Future Conference, June 15-22 in Jerusalem.

Thus, it was symbolic that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently presided at a closed-door Eucharist in London for the Clergy Consultation, a support network for gay Anglican clergy, seminarians, monks and nuns. The Times of London offered this detail: “Secrecy was so tight that a list of names attending was sent to Lambeth Palace with orders that it be shredded as soon as Dr. Williams had read it.”

Meanwhile, a few liberal activists have focused on the leader of the one U.S. diocese that has — so far — voted to cut its ties to the national church.

Citing a disputed interview from more than a decade ago, backed with hostile testimonies, blogger Lisa Fox of Jefferson City, Mo., claims that San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield has repeatedly “outed” himself as an ex-homosexual.

Yes, it’s time to publish names, Fox said.

“When a cleric uses his closet as a sniper’s nest, he deserves to have a light directed upon his deceit and duplicity,” wrote Fox, at her “My Manner of Life” weblog. “For the life of me, I still do not know how those gay-lesbian bishops — especially the ones on the ‘progressive’ side of the spectrum — can look themselves in the mirror each day.”

Schofield, meanwhile, insists that he has been misquoted. The 69-year-old bishop does have an unusual background, since he has both taken a monastic vow of celibacy and been a leader in the charismatic renewal movement, with its emphasis on spiritual gifts such as healing and prophecy. He also supports ministries for those who struggle with sexual-orientation issues.

“I always thought I would be married,” the bishop told Virtueonline.org. “In my early days of the priesthood, I was an Oblate of Mount Calvary that required annual vows be renewed. By 1966, I was convinced that married life was for me. On November 17, 1966, however, in a life-changing encounter with the Lord, I responded to his request to live a single life for Him.”

Schofield also answered the question that others will soon face.

“I am not a homosexual,” he said. “I have never been in the homosexual lifestyle.”

Send article as PDF to