Obama proceeded to recite the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, with what Nicholas D. Kristof called a “first-rate accent.” Obama described this chant as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

This text, in one English translation, proclaims: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! … I testify that there is no god but Allah! … I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” These lines are known as the Shahada — from the Arabic verb, “to testify” — and reciting them, in public, with the intent of becoming a Muslim, is a crucial act in entering and then practicing the faith.

This is the kind of biographical detail that keeps complicating matters for journalists who try to make sense of the poll from the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicating that 18 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, as opposed to 11 percent in March 2009.

Only 34 percent of those polled said Obama is a Christian and a stunning 43 percent did not know his current religion. Among his strongest supporters, 43 percent of blacks and 46 percent of Democrats said he is a Christian.

These numbers are strange in light of Obama’s public testimonies about his conversion to Christianity, after years of spiritual struggle.

In his memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama confessed that as a young social activist he realized, “Rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away — because you were human. … I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. … Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

This was an open confession of faith, even if many conservative Christians choose to reject the liberal beliefs he has articulated through the years. During the campaign, the Rev. Franklin Graham asked Obama if Jesus was the only way to heaven. “Jesus is the only way for me,” he responded.

Meanwhile, the Obama team has had difficulty communicating a clear message about his faith history. Campaign aides, at first, said he had never been a Muslim, but later stressed that he had never been “a practicing Muslim.”

Obama’s family history is hard to describe. His father was a Muslim from Kenya who became an atheist. His stepfather was a Muslim who, in Obama’s words, was raised in an era in which Indonesia offered a tolerant approach to Islam that blended with “remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” His mother was raised as a Christian, but adopted her own mix of secularism and spirituality.

While in Indonesia, Obama attended what he has called a “Muslim” public school and also a Catholic school. At both schools, according to educators interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, his faith was listed as “Muslim.” School friends recalled that they often went to the mosque together.

Nevertheless, there is no single, definitive Islamic approach to questions about the role of birth and upbringing in establishing a person’s religious identity.

Franklin Graham was only partially right when he told CNN: “The president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. … His father gave him an Islamic name.” Graham added that Obama has “renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t.”

This view of Islamic tradition is much too simplistic, said Stephen Prothero of Boston University, author of “God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World.” There is more to this debate about faith and identity than DNA, he stressed.

“As a matter of jurisprudence, however, there is a presumption that a child born to a Muslim father is Muslim,” said Prothero, in an email exchange. “This needs to be followed up with ACTION, however. …

“Like Christianity, Islam is a matter of choice, not inheritance.”

   Send article as PDF to

But something different happened during this summer’s convention. In a jolting statement on the divorce crisis, leaders from America’s largest non-Catholic flock looked in the mirror and decided that their own sins were just as bad as everyone else’s sins.

“Studies have indicated that conservative Protestants … are divorcing at the same rate, if not at higher rates, than the general population,” stated the resolution, which passed unanimously. Other studies indicate that areas in which “Southern Baptist churches predominate in number often have higher divorce rates than areas we would define as ‘unchurched.’ “

In other words, Southern Baptists have “been prophetic in confronting assaults in the outside culture on God’s design for marriage while rarely speaking with the same alarm and force to a scandal that has become all too commonplace in our own churches.”

The convention urged its churches to walk their conservative talk by offering improved premarital counseling, by uniting in marriage “only those who are biblically qualified to be married” and by intensifying efforts to heal broken unions.

Press coverage of this text was next to nonexistent. Media coverage was light of a strong SBC statement on corporate sin and the environment, in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The convention also approved, after some emotional debates, a sweeping program to change key elements of its national structure and finances.

This is the stuff of national news, noted religion-beat veteran Jeffrey Weiss, writing for Politics Daily. The question is why this SBC gathering received so little attention, while gatherings in the 1980s and ’90s created waves of ink.

Back then, he noted, the “pressroom would be packed by wire service reporters, writers from large and not-so-large newspapers from across the South, and from most of the top 10 largest papers not in the South. This time, I can find evidence of exactly five representatives of the secular media in attendance. …

“Which leads to this question: Did the SBC get too much attention back in the day, or is it getting too little attention now? My answer to both: Probably so.”

Of course, the troubled state of the news business played a role. There are fewer journalists on the religion beat and there are fewer travel dollars to invest in covering subjects other than those most editors consider holy, such as politics and sports.

At the same time, the era of intense coverage of Southern Baptist life coincided with what journalists perceived as a major change in American politics — the growth of the religious right. Journalists took note when the nation’s largest Protestant body spoke out on abortion, gay rights, the ordination of women, Hollywood’s influence on families and the need for evangelism around the world, including among Jewish believers.

Hot buttons were being pushed, year after year.

“Atop those reader-friendly news hooks, we had the 25-year internal battle between what we always called ‘conservatives’ and ‘moderates.’ That fight ended with the conservatives in firm control of the denominational leadership and the moderates purged at about the same time the Republican Party was becoming increasingly defined by a publicly political conservative Christian base,” noted Weiss.

In other words, more politics.

These days, the SBC is primarily wrestling with issues of theology and polity, especially the culture’s slide into a post-denominational age in which people are increasingly moving into congregations that strive to avoid putting a brand name — think “Southern Baptist” — on their signs. People are drifting back and forth across hazy doctrinal lines that used to be clearly defined.

This is a giant story and, in part, is what that reorganization plan is about — granting more independence to churches, clergy and donors in an attempt to pull the old Southern Baptist tent a bit closer to contemporary megachurch realities.

Consider, noted Weiss, the news value of this dramatic plan to restructure “its organization and the way it funds missionaries — which was the main reason the SBC was formed in the first place. How dramatic? Imagine if your city decided it would let people send some of their tax money to those programs they particularly liked.”

Imagine that. That’s would be news, wouldn’t it?

   Send article as PDF to

Under the headline “Super Bowl Censorship,” it defended the Christian group’s right to buy a prime chunk of airtime, even if the ad focused on the decision by an ailing Pam Tebow to ignore her doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child — a son named Tim. Protests by the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and others, it said, were “puzzling and dismaying.”

“The would-be censors are on the wrong track,” proclaimed the Times. “Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about. … Viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.”

Where should Focus on the Family President Jim Daly place this memento? After all, it represents a major event during the final days of founder Dr. James Dobson, the child psychologist who over three decades built one of America’s most powerful radio franchises and evangelical ministries. Dobson’s farewell broadcast was Feb. 26th.

Daly, who became Focus on the Family president in 2005, is thinking about putting the framed editorial between two photos. In one, Daly is standing with President George W. Bush. In the other, he is standing with President Barack Obama.

“I’ll find a spot,” he said. “That would be a rather symbolic place to put it.”

Daly has worked for Focus on the Family for two decades, focusing on building a global audience of 200 million listeners. He is well aware that some loyalists on the legendary Focus on the Family mailing list — a major resource when raising money or inspiring grassroots support on hot issues — are worried about recent strategic moves.

Take, for example, Daly’s decision to attend an Obama White House conference on fatherhood. Some also questioned the decision not to fight CBS over the right to explicitly mention abortion in the Super Bowl ad.

“I don’t want to underestimate their concerns,” said Daly. “There are people who want to see more of the hard-hitting approach. The thing is, I’m not sure that approach still works today.”

While it’s impossible to say if Focus on the Family will take another Super Bowl plunge, the mainstream-media approach used in the Tebow family ad is a sign to what lies ahead, and not just because the Heisman Trophy winner will soon be playing in nearby Denver.

The goal all along was to use the brief advertisement to point viewers toward a longer version of the Tebow story at FocusOnTheFamily.com, said spokesman Gary Schneeberger. Thus, the crucial post-Super Bowl numbers were these — 92 million of the 106 million who watched the game told researchers they saw the Tebow ad. Among those who did, 6 percent said the spot and the furor surrounding it made them think twice about their beliefs on abortion. In all, about 1.5 million people went online to watch the more detailed Tebow feature.

Daly and Schneeberger insisted that there was no sneaky, brilliant strategy to hide the ad’s contents, other than their desire to keep pressure off Tebow as he prepared for his final college bowl game. Nevertheless, a giant media storm was triggered by an early report that Focus on the Family was planning a Super Bowl ad, coupled with a later wire-service story that the Tebows were involved. The result, said Schneeberger, was the equivalent of $32 million worth of free ink and airtime in national media.

“The people who didn’t approve of the ad that they had never seen ended up doing all of our talking points for us,” he said. “We didn’t have to say anything else.”

The key lesson, agreed Daly, was that it’s possible to “reach out and hold a dialogue” with an audience larger than the Focus on the Family mailing list. The Super Bowl project proved that the ministry could frame a message in such a way that “people outside of our niche had a chance to catch it and it does appear that some caught it. We think that’s progress.”

   Send article as PDF to

In that influential 1960 address, Kennedy boldly proclaimed: “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

“Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance … with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

And so it came to pass that — politically speaking — JFK begat the Kennedy dynasty, which begat Mario Cuomo, who begat Geraldine Ferraro, who begat Joseph Biden, who begat Rudy Giuliani, who begat John Kerry, who begat Arnold Schwarzenegger, who begat Nancy Pelosi and so forth and so on.

Looking back, it’s clear that Kennedy’s high-risk visit to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association changed Catholic political life. That’s why one of America’s most outspoken Catholic leaders recently seized an opportunity to deliver a very different message to another Protestant audience in Houston.

Kennedy’s speech was “sincere, compelling, articulate — and wrong,” claimed Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, at a Houston Baptist University forum on faith and public life. “His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”

The key, argued the archbishop, is that Kennedy did more than endorse the separation of church and state. He did more than plead for religious tolerance in the public square, after generations of tensions between Catholics and Protestants.

Ultimately, that Kennedy did was pledge to separate his faith from his personal conscience, thus building a high wall down the center of his own heart, mind and soul. How is it possible for Christians to do this, Chaput asked, when dealing with profoundly moral issues such as health care, immigration, abortion, poverty, education, religious liberty, family life, sexual identity and matters of war and peace?

“Real Christian faith is always personal,” he said, “but it’s never private.”

Political and religious leaders have been debating the meaning of Kennedy’s words ever since he spoke them. This was especially true during the 2008 presidential race when critics dissected the beliefs of several candidates who openly discussed their religious beliefs — such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and, of course, the future president, Barack Obama.

During a Fordham University forum on “The Kennedy Moment,” political theorist William Galston of the Brookings Institution said that the key to the 1960 address was the candidate’s bold insistence that his private spiritual views should not even be discussed because they “do not influence his views on public matters.”

Kennedy also endorsed a “separation between democracy and God,” noted Galston, former senior domestic policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. In fact, he used the word “God” only once, in a reference to the presidential oath of office.

This speech “could have been given by a nonbeliever. Indeed — deep breath — I rather suspect it was,” said Galston. “At the very least, there is no indication that JFK regarded the church as having any rightful authority over his public conduct.”

For Chaput, it’s impossible to concede that the teachings of the Catholic faith should have nothing to do with the public lives, vocations and actions of individuals who continue to call themselves faithful Catholics.

Nevertheless, 50 years after Kennedy’s speech in Houston “we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work or who even feel obligated to try,” said the archbishop.

“At least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy, the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don’t really believe. Maybe it’s different in Protestant circles. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I say, ‘I doubt it.’ “

   Send article as PDF to

That’s true in the current debates about health care, poverty and even gay marriage, he said, at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.

“Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary,” said Obama. “But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm, while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle — and I assure you I’m praying a lot these days — prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. …

“Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good.”

But while the president preached unity, this year’s National Prayer Breakfast was surrounded by controversy. There were signs this event on the semi-official Washington, D.C., calendar may no longer be able to serve as a safe forum in which a wide variety of religious and political leaders can unite their voices. The breakfasts began in 1953 and every president since Dwight Eisenhower has taken part.

Before the event, the leaders of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the White House and to Congressional leaders calling for a boycott. They also urged C-Span not to televise the breakfast. Meanwhile, a coalition of gay-rights activists and religious liberals announced a series of alternative “American Prayer Hour” events in Washington and other cities nationwide.

Both groups focused intense criticism on The Fellowship, the nondenominational Christian organization that sponsors the prayer breakfast and similar networking events in Washington and around the world. The key is that numerous Ugandan leaders are active in Fellowship activities in that country, including the politician who introduced anti-gay legislation that includes capital punishment for some offenses.

The ethics group’s letter accused this organization — often called “The Family” — of being a “cult-like secret society with unknown motivations and backing” that preaches an “unconventional brand of Christianity focusing on meeting Jesus ‘man-to-man.’ ” The American Prayer Hour coalition simply called it a “secretive fundamentalist organization.” The New York Times noted that the group has no “identifiable Internet site, no office number and no official spokesman.”

However, some religious conservatives have also expressed doubts about The Fellowship. In an investigation of its property holdings in and around Washington, World magazine called attention to The Fellowship’s “muddy theology,” its “distain for the established church” and an emphasis on privacy that “grew into an obsessive culture of secrecy.”

Describing the participants in Fellowship events, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma told World: “Some of them are Muslims. Some of them are Christians. But they meet in the spirit of Jesus, so it’s not a denominational thing, it’s not even a Christian thing, it’s a Jesus thing.”

The ultimate issue is that this organization needs to admit that it exists and talk openly about its activities and goals, said journalist Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” It’s a sign of progress, for example, that many Americans who are active in the organization have rejected the Ugandan legislation and communicated their dismay to their contacts in Uganda.

When it comes to the National Prayer Breakfast, the Fellowship’s leaders “should go completely public,” said Sharlet, by email. They should “acknowledge their existence, the fact that this is their event, make their account of it accountable (it was not Ike’s idea), explain the process by which people are invited and … make explicit that this is about consecrating leadership to Jesus. Everybody is welcome, but it’s about Jesus.”

This kind of transparency might accelerate what already seems to be happening. Some leaders — on the left and right — might reject the big-tent approach offered by the National Prayer Breakfast and create their own events, which could focus on more explicit messages about faith and politics.

If the Fellowship’s leaders are truly “serious about what they’re about,” noted Sharlet, this “would be great by their lights. They would lose a lot of clout, but the prayer breakfast movement would at last become an actual movement, of many strands.”

   Send article as PDF to

According to a top strategist in the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, Sarah Palin believed that the decision to pick her as the Arizona Republican’s running mate was actually made by Almighty God.

Translated into the logic of an Associated Press report, this political theology sounded like this.

“In an interview with the CBS news magazine ‘60 Minutes,’ Steve Schmidt described Palin as ‘very calm — nonplussed’ after McCain met with her at his Arizona ranch just before putting her on the Republican ticket. … Schmidt said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming ‘one of the most famous people in the world.’ He quoted her as saying, ‘It’s God’s plan.’ “

The Washington Post headline proclaimed, “McCain aide: Palin believed candidacy ‘God’s plan.’ “

After this latest Palin firestorm it’s time to ask: “Why can’t journalists learn to understand how ordinary evangelicals talk?”

To make matters worse, readers have no chance to understand this private, second-hand quotation because it has been stripped of all context. There is no way to know if this snippet is the entire Palin quote or merely what Schmidt has chosen to share as part of the ongoing fighting between factions inside McCain’s failed campaign.

The big question: Did Palin say her nomination was part of “God’s plan for her life” or did she, as implied, dare to claim that it was part of “God’s plan for America”? Most press reports have implied the latter, linking her faith-based confidence with speculation that she will run for president.

This has made her an easy target for her critics — again.

“Palin isn’t a minister or priest. She isn’t a bishop. She is a celebrity,” noted Andrew Sullivan, on his Atlantic Monthly website. “When she says ‘it’s God’s will,’ she is saying, it seems to me, either that her destiny is foretold as a modern day Esther … or that it doesn’t matter what decisions she makes in office because God is in charge. So she is either filled with delusions of grandeur and prone to say things that believing Christians keep private out of humility; or she thinks she’s some kind of Messiah figure.”

However, anyone with a working knowledge of evangelical lingo will understand that what Palin probably said was that this stunning door onto the national stage was, win or lose, part of “God’s plan” for her life.

This is the approach that she consistently uses in her memoir, “Going Rogue,” when discussing the twists and turns in her life — from an unexpected chance to climb the political ladder in Alaska to the challenge of an unexpected pregnancy, leading to the birth of a child with special needs.

In other words, Palin believes in a God who is mysteriously working through the choices and events — painful and joyful — that have shaped her life. This is a perfectly ordinary belief among millions of evangelical Protestants and, truth be told, many other believers as well.

It may help to recall that, during the 2008 campaign, Charlie Gibson of ABC News struggled to understand another piece of evangelical-speak drawn from Palin remarks about the Iraq War.

The governor told a church audience: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending (soldiers) out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

However, in his interview with Palin, Gibson said: “You said recently, in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a holy war?”

Palin responded: “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

Gibson fired back: “Exact words.”

Not exactly. Palin was reminding the worshipers to pray that God had a plan in Iraq and that decisions made by America’s leaders would be consistent with that plan. She was not, as Gibson said, claiming that this was a certainty.

The bottom line: It may be time to circulate a basic “How Evangelicals Talk” phrase book that can be used in elite newsrooms, much like the one that journalists needed when Gov. Jimmy “born again” Carter first emerged on the national scene.

   Send article as PDF to

Even Obama’s fiercest admirers admitted that his best work for peace occurred at lecture podiums, where the new president offered more of the soaring, idealistic words that helped him rise to power. Nobel judges, in particular, had to be thinking about his June 4 address at Cairo University, in which he promised an era of improved relations between America and the Muslim world.

It’s crucial, he said, for Americans and Muslims to realize that their cultures “overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” Muslims and Americans must, for example, find ways to work together to defend religious liberty.

“People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart and soul,” he said. “This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. … The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. …

“Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.”

The Cairo speech — which included quotes from the Koran, the Bible and the Talmud — was the year’s most important religion story, according to a poll of mainstream reporters who cover religion news. The role of Obama’s liberal Christian faith in the White House race topped the 2008 Religion Newswriters Association poll.

Religious-liberty issues will continue to test the Obama team, as illustrated by the sobering numbers in a new “Global Restrictions on Religion” study released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. It found that citizens in a third of all nations — representing 70 percent of the world’s population — are not able to practice their religion freely, due to government policies or hostile actions taken by individuals or groups.

Among the world’s most populous nations, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan and India had the most intense restrictions on religion, especially limits on the rights of religious minorities.

The nations offering the greatest freedoms on religious practice were the United States, Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Here’s the rest of the RNA top 10.

(2) Faith groups were at the center of debates over health-care reform, which was the hottest topic in Congress for most of the year. The U.S. Catholic bishops consistently opposed the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, thus clashing with other religious groups that supporting an expanded government role.

(3) The role of radical forms of Islam in terrorism hit the news once again, due to the disturbing history of statements and actions of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the accused gunman in the massacre of 13 people, including a pregnant woman, at Fort Hood.

(4) George Tiller, an outspoken specialist in performing late-term abortions, was shot while ushering at his Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregation in Wichita. The antigovernment radical charged with the murder, Scott Roeder, had in the past supported the views of writers who argue — see ArmyofGod.com — that violence against abortionists is morally justified.

(5) Mormons in California were attacked by some gay-rights supporters due to their lobbying efforts on behalf of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage. Anti-Mormon protests led to vandalism at some Mormon buildings.

(6) President Obama was granted an honorary degree in law from the University of Notre Dame, despite protests that this violated a U.S. bishops policy urging Catholic institutions not to honor those who openly oppose church teachings on the sanctity of human life.

(7) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to ordain gay and lesbian pastors who live in faithful, committed, monogamous relationships, leading some congregations to start preparations to form a new denomination.

(8) The national recession forced budget cuts at a wide variety of faith-related groups — houses of worship, publishing houses, relief agencies, colleges and seminaries.

(9) Leaders of the Episcopal Church voted to end a moratorium on installing gay bishops, ignoring a request from the archbishop of Canterbury and many other leaders in the global Anglican Communion. The Diocese of Los Angeles then elected a lesbian as a new assistant bishop.

(10) President Obama’s inauguration rites included a controversial invocation by the Rev. Rick Warren, a controversial benediction by the Rev. Joseph Lowery and, at a celebration beforehand, a prayer by New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay, noncelibate bishop.

   Send article as PDF to

Nevertheless, it still makes news when believers vow to act on this conviction.

“Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” proclaimed a coalition of Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical Protestants on Nov. 20, in their 4,700-word “Manhattan Declaration.”

“There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. … King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.”

Thus, the declaration’s authors vowed to reject “any edict that purports to compel our institutions” to compromise on centuries of doctrine about marriage, human sexuality and the sanctity of human life. The text was written by evangelical activist Charles Colson, church historian Timothy George of the evangelical Beeson Divinity School and the Catholic scholar Robert George of Princeton University.

The Los Angeles Times offered an especially brutal evaluation of the text, claiming that it offered a “specious invocation of King” and that its logic was ultimately “irresponsible and dangerous.”

But the editorial board reserved its strongest words for the Catholics bishops who signed, asking if they considered “how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don’t like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?”

So far, 19 Catholic bishops and archbishops have signed, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and the Catholic shepherds in Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix and Pittsburgh, among other cities.

At mid-week, the project (ManhattanDeclaration.org) had attracted about 230,000 endorsements, including those of famous evangelicals such as Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, Evangelicals for Social Action Director Ron Sider and Bishop Henry Jackson, Jr., a Pentecostal leader in the Washington, D.C., area. Orthodox leaders who have signed include Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen of the Orthodox Church in America and Wichita (Kan.) Bishop Basil Essey of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese.

Responding to claims that the declaration is merely a partisan attack on President Barack Obama, Colson noted that it states that in the Roe v. Wade era, “elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to the ‘Culture of Death.’ ”

On sexuality, the document stresses that some people are “disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. … We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness.”

While nothing in the Manhattan Declaration is truly new, arguments about its call for civil disobedience will help draw sharper lines between traditional believers and the powers that be in an increasingly diverse and secular America, said Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., senior editor of the Christian Bioethics journal at Oxford University. He is professor emeritus at the Baylor College of Medicine and a philosophy professor at Rice University.

“This document is the product of a political coalition, but it’s not political in the same sense that the tax code is political,” said Engelhardt, who is advising several Eastern Orthodox leaders who are studying the text. “This is political in the sense that these Christians are working together on certain issues that have moral and public implications.”

The reality is that its authors believe there are “certain God-ordained truths” that continue to have authority and weight in American life, he said. The big question: Are they right or wrong?

“You could make a case,” concluded Engelhardt, “that anyone who recites the Nicene Creed, or anyone who believes that God has established any requirements for how we are supposed to live our lives can now be called a Fundamentalist in the context of this secular culture. … That is what this debate is actually about.”

   Send article as PDF to

A journalist was chasing Wasilla Bible Church members in the aisles, trying to convince somebody, anybody, to dish about his flock’s most famous church lady. The craziness had started as soon as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the GOP’s nominee for vice president.

Suddenly, there were satellite dishes out front and worshippers were trapped inside, trying to escape to the safety of their cars in the parking lot.

Kroon tried to control the chaos, telling journalists they were free to participate in worship services, but not to film or interrupt them. The pastor also asked them not to “fish for interviews” as members arrived or departed. He thought these rules were enough. He was wrong.

“We can look back and say, ‘Whoa. We really should have done this or that differently,’ ” said Kroon. “I was naive enough to think this wasn’t going to affect us — but it did. We ended up scrambling to get from day to day. We had that deer in the headlights look for quite a while.”

Wasilla Bible Church leaders encountered professionals from the New York Times, CNN, Time, Fox, the major television networks and just about everyone else — from America and around the world. Flocks of alleged journalists arrived from every corner of the World Wide Web, as well.

After hurricane Palin, Kroon met with management consultant James Stamoolis and prepared some tips for clergy who struggle with media attention — wanted or unwanted. Some of those tips are relevant again in Wasilla, since Palin’s faith plays a big role in her new “Going Rogue” memoir. Here’s a sample, drawn from a talk with Kroon.

* Never accept an interview without confirming a reporter’s identity and his or her current employer. Just because someone has written for the Associated Press doesn’t mean that he isn’t currently a blogger for PalinIsADummy.org or something like that.

* Help reporters understand that private communications between clergy and the faithful are, in fact, privileged and guarded by the same kinds of laws that shield reporters and their sources.

* Keep contact information for community leaders — such as telephone numbers and email addresses for church elders — in a firewall-protected section of your congregation’s website. Post contact information for staffers who are prepared to handle media requests in a timely manner.

* Ask if reporters or producers have experience covering religion news. Some journalists sincerely want factual information that will help them cover a story fairly and accurately, while others “are in a hurry and they simply want what they want. You may think you’re helping them understand who you are and what you believe, but they just want a good quote and then they’re moving on,” said Kroon.

* It may help to post information about your denomination or tradition, including frequently asked questions about worship, media relations, how the congregation is governed and the meaning of unique terms (such as “born again” or “charismatic”) that newcomers will encounter.

* Understand that a two-hour interview may be reduced to 20 seconds and that the journalist decides what goes in that soundbite. So avoid lectures and focus on the key points that you must make to explain your congregation’s point of view. It’s also important to remember that silence is the reporter’s problem, not your problem.

* In the Internet age, there is no reason that a pastor cannot — as a condition for talking to a reporter — insist on the right to record and transcribe an interview. That way, the professionals on both sides of the transaction know that they are on the record and the results, if needed to clarify a point, can be posted online or emailed to a publisher.

Kroon stressed that he was truly impressed by many of the journalists, especially with their commitment to accuracy and fairness. They wanted to get the story right. But others arrived in Wasilla with their minds clamped shut. They came to get the story that they already knew that they wanted to write.

“Pastors need to understand that there are really good reporters and there are some really bad ones, too,” he said. “You also have to understand that even the really good ones are going to push you to your boundary lines. That’s what they do.”

   Send article as PDF to

This has been a consistent pattern in recent surveys and it can be seen in most pews, from conservative evangelicals to liberal mainline Protestants, said Greg Smith, senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. This pattern is especially clear among American Catholics.

“The people who attend worship services more often are going to be opposed to abortion and those who rarely or never attend are going to support legalized abortion,” he said. “You go once a week? It’s going to be about two-thirds against. Rarely if ever? It’s about two-thirds in favor. …

“That division is still there. But the big news is that both of these groups have been moving in the same direction for the past year or so. We’re seeing support for abortion rights weakening across the board.”

A new Pew Forum survey found that the percentage of Americans saying they believe abortion should be “legal in all/most cases” fell from 54 to 47 percent during a single year. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases” rose from 40 to 44 percent. The “undecided” camp grew from 6 to 9 percent of those polled.

“The nation remains pretty evenly divided,” said Smith. “However, what we can see is that support for legalized abortion is weakening in many groups and it’s stalled in others. … How much people practice their faith is a crucial factor in this.”

Support for abortion rights remains high among American Jews, but the latest Pew survey showed a drop from 86 percent in favor a year ago to 76 percent now. Support among Americans with no religious affiliation at all fell from 71 percent in favor of legalized abortion to 68 percent.

One of the most dramatic shifts came among members of white mainline Protestants — liberal churches that have consistently supported abortion rights. The numbers were especially dramatic when church attendance was factored into the equation, noted Smith.

Support for abortion rights among mainliners who attended church once a week fell from 54 to 42 percent, while support among those who said they attended less often than that fell from 68 to 60 percent.

To no one’s surprise, opposition to abortion rights among evangelical Protestants remains high, but the numbers have risen even higher in the past year. Church attendance is a major factor, with 79 percent of white evangelicals who worship once a week saying abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases.” A year ago, 73 percent took that stance. Among white evangelicals who go to church less often, opposition to abortion rose a dramatic 12 percent — from 47 to 58 percent.

The contrast between regular and occasional worshippers was also dramatic among white Catholics. Opposition to abortion rights rose from 57 to 67 percent among Catholics who reported going to Mass once a week. Among those who said they attended Mass less often, support for legalized abortion declined slightly during the past year, from 65 to 62 percent.

These numbers are logical because Catholics who are active in the church are exposed more often to sermons, prayers and ministries that incarnate church teachings on the sanctity of human life, said Deirdre McQuade of the pro-life office at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Those who are less invested in the sacraments — attending church, receiving the Eucharist and going to confession — may have less access to the truth about life, and fewer resources to believe and accept it,” she said.

In the end, stressed Smith, this survey underlines two realities. First, there is little evidence that America’s debates about abortion are fading. Second, it’s clear that religious faith and practice remains one of the most crucial dividing lines on this issue.

“It’s important to realize that millions of Americans see themselves as caught in the middle” on abortion issues, he said. “Take those mainline Protestants, for example. Even though it seems that their support for legalized abortion is weakening, they probably see themselves as moving from one position in the middle to another position in the middle. They may be changing what they believe, but not very much.”

   Send article as PDF to