Filtering by Category: Pro Life: Other,Pro Life: In the Womb
• Pro Life: Other, Pro Life: Outside the Womb •
Are Evangelicals Ditching the Death Penalty? | VICE | United States
President Barack Obama greets Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, during the Easter Prayer Breakfast in 2014 at the White House in Washington.(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) This story was co-published with the Marshall Project.
• Pro Life: Other •
Court Stops Execution of Mentally Ill Man Defended by Many Evangelicals
Court Stops Execution of Mentally Ill Man Defended by Many Evangelicals
Evangelicals divide over the death penalty, but leaders agree on the unusual case of Scott Panetti.
More than 50 evangelical leaders often at odds recently united, asking Texas to commute the death sentence of a mentally ill inmate who believes he is being persecuted for preaching the gospel. Scott Panetti's execution was scheduled for today. This morning, an appeals court delayed his death with just hours to spare.
Shane Claiborne, David Gushee, Lynne Hybels, Joel Hunter, Sam Rodriguez, Jay Sekulow, and other conservatives and progressives signed the letter, which states that Christians are called to protect the most vulnerable and that Panetti, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia since the 1970s and murdered his in-laws to “get rid of the devil” inside them, falls into that category.
“If ever there was a clear case of an individual suffering from mental illness, this is it,” says the letter, whose other signatories include author Brian McLaren, Billy Graham Center prison ministry director Karen Swanson, Evangelicals for Social Action co-president Paul Alexander, Wheaton College’s Applied Christian Ethics Center director Vincent Bacote, former North Park Theological Seminary president John Phelan, and National Latino Evangelical Coalition (NLEC) board member Danny Diaz. “Mr. Panetti is a paranoid schizophrenic.... He believes that he is being put to death for preaching the gospel, not for the murder of his wife’s parents.”
In the decade before he murdered his in-laws in 1992, Panetti, now 56, was hospitalized at least a dozen times for schizophrenia, manic depression, hallucinations, and delusions of persecution, The New York Times reports. During his trial, Panetti won the right to represent himself, and tried to subpoena Jesus, the Pope, and John F. Kennedy in court. His attorneys say he described his death sentence as “spiritual warfare.”
“These delusions are that the prison wants to kill him to prevent him from preaching the gospel on death row or telling others about corruption,” Kathryn Kase, executive director of Texas Defender Service which represents Panetti, told Time. “We’re not psychologists. We’re not mental health professionals. But we do know we’re seeing something really terrible happen.”
Earlier this year, a botched execution in April led to some evangelical outcry: NLEC president Gabe Salguero called for a change in capital punishment, while RNS columnist Jonathan Merritt pointed out for the Atlantic that “only five percent of Americans believe Jesus would support the government’s ability to execute the worst criminals.”
In 1998, evangelicals noticeably rallied to lobby for Karla Faye Tucker, a death row inmate in Texas who converted to Christianity while in prison, notes Mother Jones. After the 2011 execution of Troy Davis in Georgia, CT looked at the religious divide over the death penalty.
"This is the largest outpouring of support on a death penalty case we've seen from evangelicals, and you can see why, given the ridiculous nature of this case," Heather Beaudoin, a spokesperson for Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, told Mother Jones. "A lot of folks who signed this [clemency] letter might have given pause about signing on to a letter opposing the death penalty generally, but they think we have no business executing Scott Panetti."
The New York Times editorial board argued that a “civilized society” that kills Panetti “cannot pretend to be adhering to any morally acceptable standard of culpability,” and a Change.org petition organized by Victoria Panetti on behalf of her brother garnered over 90,000 signatures.
Earlier this month, Panetti’s lawyers filed for a stay on the grounds that the defendant’s mental state had deteriorated since 2007, the year of his last competency hearing. While Texas governor Rick Perry can commute death penalty sentences, he can only do so after a recommendation from the state Board of Pardons and Paroles, which voted Monday to continue the execution. In a 5-4 ruling last Tuesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the motion on jurisdictional grounds. More details about the case and the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling which blocked Panetti’s execution can be found here. RNS reports that the US Supreme Court—the final stop in cases like Panetti’s—is increasingly wary of the death penalty. In 2008, the Supreme Court mulled lethal injections as Christian support for the death penalty dropped.
CT has frequently examined the ethics of the death penalty, including how American capital punishment standards fall far below biblical guidelines, why early Christians refuted the death penalty, and why Christians don’t find bloodshed repugnant anymore. CT also published responses by three leading Christian ethicists on whether it’s biblical to be pro-life and support the death penalty, and asked whether execution can be merciful.
SOURCE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-front-center-joel-hunter-20141125-story.html
• Pro Life: Other •
That Scott Panetti killed his in-laws with a hunting rifle is indisputable. So is the fact that Texas plans next month to execute the man with a lengthy history of schizophrenia who defended himself at his 1995 trial dressed in cowboy togs and summoned John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ to testify. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, joined over 50 evangelical leaders who signed a letter to Texas Gov. Rick Perry decrying Panetti's execution. In an email interview, Hunter told the Editorial Board why he got involved. Excerpts follow. A longer version is online at OrlandoSentinel.com/opinion.
Q: The U.S. Supreme Court has frowned on executing the mentally ill. Why do you think Texas is pressing ahead on Panetti's execution?
A: Texas is a state that has not been sparing in executing those sentenced to death, but this case highlights the complexities of trying to implement the death penalty. Most Americans — even those who support the death penalty — do not want to see those with mental illness or intellectual disability executed. But what counts as mental illness or intellectual disability is debated, and we've seen those debates play out in both legislatures and the courts. In the Panetti case, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and leading mental-health professionals all have concluded that Panetti is severely mentally ill and, as a result, should not be executed. Unfortunately, so far Texas has not heeded the advice of the nation's and Texas' leading mental-health organizations and professionals.
Q: Panetti's lawyers say his execution "would cross a moral line." Do you agree?
A: Yes, executing Panetti would cross a moral line. Many of us have friends and family with mental illness, and understand that they do not always have full control over their actions. Their illness can render them "not themselves" in significant ways. We as a society are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable — the poor, the disabled, those with mental illness and intellectual disability. Jesus prayed from the cross, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Executing Panetti would go against Christ's plea, for the implication of an execution is that we're willing to discard the life of the disabled rather than protect it.
The mental-health community has been very clear that Panetti suffers from a 30-year history of schizophrenia. He was hospitalized more than a dozen times for psychosis and delusions in the years leading up to his tragic crime. He represented himself at trial wearing a cowboy suit. Given his condition and questions about his competence, execution would serve no constructive purpose but would rather destroy the life of a vulnerable individual. We do not believe God would condone this act of execution.
Q: How much should mental illness weigh in the tension between justice and culpability?
A: That's a difficult question. Mental-health experts and criminologists would agree that it can be difficult to find the right balance between justice and culpability. Obviously, we can't throw up our hands and say that it is impossible to make these judgments, because it is important to hold people accountable for crimes that they commit. We have to keep grappling with this issue and making sure that, as science and our understanding of mental health advance, this knowledge continually informs our criminal justice system. In Panetti's case it is clear that with his long well-documented struggles with severe mental illness, execution would be an unjust response.
Q: If not execution, how should Panetti be punished for his heinous crime?
A: Imprisonment is punishment, and it is a more appropriate response to the crimes that Panetti committed. Texas can incarcerate him and keep society secure without having to resort to an execution. Obviously, with the crime he committed and his long history of mental illness, life imprisonment would be a just sentence.
Q: Generally, what's your view of the death penalty?
A: I have moral objections to the death penalty, knowing the fallibility of our justice system and my being completely pro-life. The death penalty is ultimately incompatible with promoting a culture that recognizes the sacredness of all human life. Our nation would like to claim God's protection, but yet if we do not protect those who are most vulnerable, or who may later be found to be innocent, that is a difficult claim to make. I understand why other moral people would disagree with me on this issue, but for me, the death penalty in general is unnecessary, not a deterrent, and does not promote a culture of life and hope.
Q: Are you and the other evangelical leaders who got involved in this case in a ticklish situation, given that Panetti insists Satan is using Texas to prevent him from preaching the Gospel on death row?
A: We will be criticized for our views, but God calls on us to boldly and unapologetically defend life, which is exactly what we are doing in this case. Regarding Panetti's relationship with God, I cannot judge — only God knows the depths of his heart. Certainly, when you read the Bible, you will see that God redeemed people — David, Moses, Paul — after they had committed awful crimes. The heart of the Gospel message is that no one is beyond redemption, and that basic truth applies to those on death row.
• Creation Care, Culture Wars, Pro Life: In the Womb, Pro Life: Other •
I am one of those evangelicals who, in Professor Marcia Pally’s words, have “left the right.” As a former President-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, I resigned that position and all other positions that would box me into ideologies that were becoming insidiously narrow and negative. As a 64-year-old pastor, I may not yet be representative of my generation or profession in my political openness, but I am one of a growing number of white evangelicals who are making biblically-based decisions on an issue-by-issue basis, in a wider circle of conversations than ever. We are put off by the “hardening of the categories” that is stifling not only intellectually, but also spiritually. Part of this transition is cultural. As Professor Pally pointed out, it is not only a generational shift that naturally declares independence from traditional religious reactions (especially paternalistic ones). The transition is for others a distancing from the institutionalism of the church and the inelasticity of a movement that began as personally charitable but has become dogmatically xenophobic.
The greater part of this change, however, is a generic return to the original agenda of Christ. As the world becomes more complex and less predictable, we are seeing a “back to basics” trend. It is an expansion beyond a preoccupation with the more recent monitoring of sexual matters, to a more ‘whole life’ helpfulness. It is the turn from accusation to compassion, and it is much in keeping with the priorities and example of Jesus. His focus on helping the most vulnerable is also our concern. Thus more and more evangelicals are expanding the definition of pro-life. They are including in a pro-life framework concern with poverty, environmental pollution, AIDS treatment, and more. And issues like abortion are being expanded from focusing on only “in utero” concerns—increasing numbers of evangelicals now see prevention of unwanted pregnancy and support for needy expectant mothers as pro-life.
More evangelicals simply want to live our lives according to our spiritual values—unselfishness, other-centeredness, non-presumptuousness—so that when people see “our good works, they will give glory to our Father in heaven.”
Lastly, practically all sustainable change is relationally based. In an increasingly connected world, an increasing number of evangelicals are developing a broader range of relationships, both interfaith and inter-lifestyle. These make us think twice before we declare those who have different values as adversaries. As we “love our neighbor,” we want to cooperate in ways that express our own values while allowing others to express their own.
Professor Pally has established a masterful and nuanced summary of the change in the evangelical political voice. I hope that we will continue the dialogue.
FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2013/01/16/a-return-to-the-original-agenda-of-christ/
• Pro Life: In the Womb, Religious Freedom •
Joel Hunter was an unlikely ally of Barack Obama’s in the 2008 election. The Christian evangelical, who leads a mega-church in central Florida, had backed fellow pastor Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary that year. At Obama’s inauguration, Hunter found himself sitting next to Muhammad Ali in the 12th row.
Obama’s outreach to the faithful during the 2008 campaign—unprecedented for a Democratic candidate—paid off. He did 8 percentage points better than 2004 nominee John Kerry had among voters who worship weekly or more, although he lost regular worshippers overall to Republican John McCain. With strong support from minorities, Obama beat McCain by 9 percentage points among Catholics (who favored George W. Bush over Kerry by 5 points in 2004) and made smaller inroads among evangelicals such as Hunter.
Those gains are now in jeopardy, according to Hunter and other religious leaders fuming over the Obama administration’s requirement that church-affiliated institutions such as hospitals, schools, and charities cover birth control in their employee health insurance plans.
“The boundaries of religious freedom and identity are being trespassed,” said Hunter, who still writes weekly devotions for Obama and visited the Oval Office last week; he said he keeps his spiritual guidance separate from any policy recommendations he funnels to the president. “I do think this will have political repercussions in the religious community,” Hunter added. “This has the potential to be a breaking point.”
Obama’s Republican challengers certainly hope so. Newt Gingrich has accused Obama of waging a “war against religion.” Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic who has put issues such as abortion and marriage at the center of his campaign, used his victory speech after the Missouri primary to accuse Obama of steamrolling the First Amendment.
Campaigning earlier this week in Colorado, front-runner Mitt Romney, said sharply, “We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s first right, a right to worship God.”
The issue is potentially advantageous for Romney, a Mormon who once held moderate positions on abortion and gay marriage, because it allows him to align himself with the social conservatives who have resisted his candidacy. (Both Gingrich and Democrats, however, have called Romney a hypocrite on the birth-control issue. As governor of Massachusetts, he enforced a rule requiring Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, after the Legislature overrode his veto of the measure.)
On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner put the dispute at the center of his party’s agenda, taking to the House floor to condemn “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.” He vowed to overturn the provision stemming from Obama’s sweeping health care reform plan. The fight over that legislation has already sorely tested the president’s relationship with religious leaders, who feared that it would allow taxpayer dollars to cover abortion.
To the extent that Republicans succeed in framing the current debate as one over religious liberty, the controversy over the so-called conscience clause could damage Obama at the polls. A perceived threat to religious freedom could pull more-casual churchgoers, who typically lean Democratic, closer to regular churchgoers, who tend to vote Republican, said John Green, a University of Akron political-science professor who specializes in the intersection of religion and politics.
In 2008, exit polls showed that the more frequently white Catholic voters went to church, the less likely they were to favor Obama. He got the votes of only 41 percent of white Catholics who attended church weekly or more; 47 percent of those who attended a few times a month; and 54 percent of those who attended a few times a year or never.
The relationship of religion and politics could influence the outcome of the 2012 election in battleground states with large Catholic communities, including Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Green added. “The real problem for the Obama administration would be if the [birth-control] issue moved some of those less religious Catholics,” Green said. “The issue might also move the regular Mass-attending Catholics to vote even more Republican.”
But if Democrats win the message war and frame the issue as a matter of public policy that involves women’s health and access to contraception, Republicans may find themselves on the losing side of the argument. In a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, 52 percent of Catholic voters agreed that employee health plans should cover birth control. The Obama administration is also touting a Guttmacher Institute study that found 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control.
“Obviously, this is not a war against the Catholic Church. I’m Catholic, and I don’t find that there’s a war against me at all,” said Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and a member of one of the nation’s most prominent Catholic families. “This is about women’s health and protecting the rights of all citizens. If Republicans want to fight about contraception being available for women, I think they will be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of women’s health.”
A Wall Street Journal column this week by three Democratic senators—Jeanne Sheehan of New Hampshire, Barbara Boxer of California, and Patty Murray of Washington—tied critics of Obama’s policy on contraceptive coverage to the decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. A massive public outcry forced the breast-cancer charity to reverse itself. “Once again,” the senators wrote, “they are trying to force their politics on women’s personal health care decisions.”
Young voters, women, and independents helped to elect Obama in 2008. If Republicans overreach on contraception, those voters will help offset any support the president loses from religiously devout voters, who lean Republican anyway. But if the GOP succeeds in wrapping the issue in the mantle of religious liberty, Obama will struggle to rebuild the diverse coalition that put him in the White House.
• Pro Life: Other •
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson stunned "700 Club" viewers Tuesday when he said divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's disease was justified.
Robertson, chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network and former Republican presidential candidate, said he wouldn't "put a guilt trip" on someone for divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's disease, calling Alzheimer's itself "a kind of death."
The remarks sparked outrage throughout religious and medical communities.
"I'm just flabbergasted," said Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the 15,000 member Northland Church in Orlando, Fla. "I just don't know how anyone who is reading Scripture or is even familiar with the traditional wedding vows can come out with a statement like that. Obviously, we can all rationalize the legitimacy for our own comfort that would somehow make it OK to divorce our spouse if circumstances become very different or inconvenient. ... That's almost universal, but there's just no way you can get out of what Jesus says about marriage."
Hunter, who is also a presidential appointee to an advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, said Robertson's words could lead people to interpret typical marital woes as proof that the spouse they married is symbolically dead, and they are therefore free to move on.
"Obviously, you could do this for anything. ... My husband watches and plays video games and so he has left the marriage and it's kind of like a death," he said. "It's not death and so we can't start describing things as death that are really not death and we have to stop trying to mischaracterize what scripture says for our own convenience."
Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman that calls for faithfulness in the best of times and the worst of times. Quoting Corinthians, Kropp said "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. You can't quit your own body with Alzheimer's so you shouldn't quit your husband's or wife's body either."
Doctors and social workers who work with families affected by Alzheimer's disease were similarly dismissive of Robertson's advice.
"To condone abandoning one's spouse in the throes of this mind-robbing illness is absurd," said Dr. Amanda Smith, medical director at the University of South Florida Health Alzheimer's Center in Tampa. "While Alzheimer's certainly affects the dynamic of relationships, marriage vows are taken in sickness and in health."
An estimated 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease – a figure expected to rise sharply as baby boomers enter their older years. And about 80 percent of Alzheimer patients who live at home are cared for by family members.
Robertson's comments came after a viewer asked what advice he should give a friend who had been seeing another woman since his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her," Robertson said.
But the Rev. A.D. Baxter, a social worker with Cole Neuroscience Center at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, said care from a loved one is irreplaceable.
"When being cared for by a spouse, the love of that spouse is often what enables a person with Alzheimer's disease to continue on and not feel abandoned," said Baxter, adding that caregivers need support, too. "Many believe a true friend does not abandon in the time of need."
Alzheimer's Strains Relationships
The progressive symptoms of Alzheimer's can put stress on relationships, leaving caregivers to cope with the loss of intimacy and other aspects of adult romantic relationships, said Dr. Jason Karlawish, a professor of medicine and medical ethics and assistant director of the Penn Memory Center in Philadelphia.
"There's no question that this is an issue," said Karlawish. "But to a spouse who's struggling with this kind of issue, I would want to say after the patient has left this world, you want be able to look back and say you treated that person with dignity."
New technologies are making it possible to diagnose Alzheimer's disease earlier, while patients have the ability to understand the road ahead of them.
"I think this highlights the need for couples and families to have discussions early in any illness, and preferably before illness strikes so that person's decisions and preferences are known and respected," said David Loewenstein, a clinical neuropsychologist at University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine.
Robertson's advice was for a male caregiver. But sometimes it's the patient who wants to start a new relationship.
"I have seen both caregivers and patients enter into new relationships during the course of dementia. How they choose to handle it is up to them. All parties dealing with this disease suffer to some extent and deserve to find happiness," said USF's Smith. "Ultimately, the decision for any couple to divorce, for any reason, is a private and difficult one."
Some couples stay married but form new relationships, too.
"There are many spouses who are devoted to the affected person with Alzheimer's, and yet form new relationships as they also care for their spouse," said Darby Morhardt, a social worker and director of education at the Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease Center at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. "It's hard to negotiate living with Alzheimer's disease but dictating what's good and bad is not useful.
"Every person needs to make their own decisions and to consider all parties involved. I sincerely hope the good reverend never has to have Alzheimer's to experience his advice first hand."
Tim King, spokesman for the Christian organization Sojourners, said Robertson's controversial statement was encouraging in at least one regard.
"I'm actually encouraged to hear someone like Pat Robertson say we're not really in a position to judge another person," King said. "I can't imagine the difficulty that a spouse would have to see someone go through that type of change and transformation. ... I don't know anyone who is in the position to judge another type of person who is having to make those type of decisions. It should never be taking lightly; it should never be an easy decision. Dealing with marriage is serious and making a big decision like that should be hard."
A representative for Robertson's network told the Associated Press that there would be no further comment on the matter.
FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersCommunity/pat-robertson-alzheimers-makes-divorce/story?id=14526660
• Pro Life: In the Womb, Public Square, Pro Life: Other •
Part 7 in a series of teachings from Dr. Joel C. Hunter about how to approach today’s issues biblically, respectfully and effectively.
Evangelical leaders have identified the greatest moral issues facing America today and topping the list is abortion. Moral relativism and mistreatment of others followed closely behind.
Evangelical leaders have identified the greatest moral issues facing America today and topping the list is abortion.
"The moral scandal of abortion tops my list…not because murder is worse than other moral evils, but because of the massive numbers of this killing field and intentionality of so many to put self-gratification, greed and political advantage above life itself," said Jeff Farmer of the Open Bible Churches in Des Moines, Iowa.
Abortion, moral relativism and mistreatment of others almost came in a three-way tie as the top concerns among America's evangelical leaders, according to the survey released Monday by the National Association of Evangelicals.
While abortion has traditionally remained a major moral concern, the recent push by Congress for health care reform and the possible coverage of abortions with federal dollars have prompted new opposing efforts and louder voices among prominent evangelical leaders.
Pastors such as Joel C. Hunter from Florida and groups like the Evangelical Church Alliance have released statements urging members of Congress not to violate the sanctity of human life in allowing abortion to be funded by tax dollars.
Following abortion, moral relativism was listed as the second greatest moral issue facing America. NAE board member Ron Carpenter said the problem is "a non-belief in Absolute Truth which permeates every other arena of our society.”
Many of the surveyed evangelical leaders cited the Old Testament passage Judges 17:6 (“every man did that which was right in his own eyes”) as they identified moral relativism as a major concern.
Mistreatment of others was third on the list.
"The greatest moral issue in America today is our blindness and silence to injustices here and around the world," said Sammy Mah, president of World Relief, according to the report on the survey. "Social ills like poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, human trafficking, and so many more are rooted in injustices that must be fought."
Other moral issues named by evangelical leaders included secularization, homosexuality and pornography.
The Evangelical Leaders Survey is a monthly poll of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Evangelicals. They include the CEOs of denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations including missions, universities, publishers and churches.
Audrey Barrick Christian Post Reporter FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://bit.ly/5UNrJP
My goal is to lead Christians in becoming completely pro-life (John 10:10), protecting the vulnerable inside and outside the womb and sharing eternal life with them. We must protect the vulnerable from harm, starting with the baby in the womb (Matthew 18:10). To do this, we must offer a full range of approaches: from personal to legal, from prevention of unintended pregnancies to medical, financial, personal and spiritual support, including options for adoptions in our support for pregnant women. Our ultimate goal encompasses both the eventual elimination of abortion and the demonstration of Christ’s love through our care for mothers and babies (Psalm 127:3). We must also work to protect the vulnerable outside the womb, protecting the most vulnerable (the poor and least insulated) by reducing the disease, displacement and death that comes from pollution (Psalm 72:13). Christians are, also, given the charge of caring for the sick and promoting the full range of healing in this world (John 14:12). From epidemics such as AIDS, to individual sicknesses, to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual disabilities, we are to be agents of His healing and love.
Furthermore, our treatment of all people must take into consideration that they are made in the image of God. Therefore they are to be treated with respect and dignity. Jesus summarized this in what we now refer to as the “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12). We should not use or oppress anyone (Luke 4:18). All people are created equal and can choose their religion (Joshua 24:15), and the way they will live their lives. We must work for human rights and religious freedom for all people.
Because God loves justice, and because we are commanded to live a simple lifestyle of doing justice (Micah 6:8), we must stand against different forms of exploitation, systems of advantage for only particular groups, and discrimination based upon circumstances beyond one’s control. We are blessed in order to help the disadvantaged to advance to the place where they help others (Luke 12:48b).
We are to give to those who cannot help themselves as a matter of immediate compassion and eternal reward (Luke 16:19-25).
As we expand the agenda into other areas of moral importance—caring for vulnerable people outside the womb as well as inside it—we will motivate and mobilize many, like never before. More importantly, we will be obeying God's Word and putting it into practice.
By Michelle Boorstein and Kimberly Kindy, Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, February 6, 2009 - President Obama yesterday announced the creation of his faith-based outreach office, expanding its agenda beyond funding social programs to work on policies aimed at strengthening family life and reducing abortion.
Obama's office leaves in place rules that allow faith-based groups receiving federal funding to hire only people of their own faith, but White House aides said the hiring rules would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis when there are complaints and that the Justice Department will provide legal assistance.
Obama's move more fully formalizes the partnerships between the federal government and faith groups that first began under President Bill Clinton and was expanded by President George W. Bush. But where Bush used the faith office primarily for funding programs -- drawing criticism that he was mainly assisting his political supporters -- Obama said he wants to use the office for policy guidance, as well.
Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast at the Hilton Washington yesterday, Obama said the goal of the initiative "will not be to favor one religious group over another -- or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line our Founders wisely drew between church and state."
The president created a 25-member advisory council and named 15 of its members yesterday, including several high-profile evangelicals -- the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of a Florida megachurch, and the Rev. Frank S. Page, president emeritus of the Southern Baptist Convention -- as well as representatives from secular nonprofits, which largely had little association with Bush's faith-based initiative. The council members are to advise the faith office on policy but will not play a direct role in allocating federal grants. The office will be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal who worked on religious issues for Obama's campaign.
The office will be more involved in policy planning than it was during the Bush years, White House aides said. They said the top priorities for the office will be interfaith relations, strengthening the role of fathers in society and reducing poverty. The office also will help develop policies aimed at reducing the number of abortions, though no specifics were offered.
Obama kept in place, however, much of the legal structure for the office created through executive orders by Bush. The 11 faith-based offices Bush established in different agencies and a faith liaison in the public outreach office will continue. Paul Monteiro will be the religious liaison in the Office of Public Liaison, the White House said yesterday.
DuBois said the faith-based office will employ about 50 people. Despite speaking on the campaign trail against the Bush administration's approach -- including on hiring and proselytizing -- Obama wants "to create a process to look at this in a way that can withstand scrutiny and takes into account views on all sides," DuBois said in an interview yesterday.
Three members of the advisory council -- Page, the Rev. Jim Wallis and World Vision President Richard Stearns -- have heightened concerns among church-state separatists. The Southern Baptist Convention, which Page led, says that it is discriminatory for the government to prevent its members from sharing their faith with others. And Stearns's organization received funding in the Bush years while saying it should not be forced to hire non-Christians.
Faith-based nonprofits received federal grants totaling more than $10.6 billion during the Bush administration, said members of the former White House staff.
Some religious groups argued at the time that they could use taxpayer-funded program to help people out of poverty and addiction by teaching them about God and salvation. And yesterday, some advocates of church-state separation said Obama should not have left the Bush legal structure in place.
"He is expanding the Bush administration's faith-based initiative without putting the most important safeguards in place. The president has created a more powerful office with a greater ability to shovel federal taxpayer dollars to religious groups, but civil rights protections are being deferred for later study and decisions," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Ira C. Lupu, a George Washington University law professor who has written on White House faith-based initiatives, said it was wise for Obama not to move too fast. As a candidate, Obama "hadn't looked at the issue carefully," Lupu said. "I think as a first move, handing it to lawyers is good. But it doesn't avoid that he'll have to deal with this eventually."
Staff writer Jacqueline L. Salmon contributed to this report.
Find this article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020500834.html?sub=AR
Dr. Joel C. Hunter is the Pastor of Community Benefit at Action Church, a multi-site congregation based in Winter Park and his one-minute daily devotionals can be heard worldwide on Z88 radio. He is the Chairman of the Central Florida Pledge campaign; a call to action for residents of Central Florida who are tired of hateful discourse and want to create a safe and inclusive community for all. The pledge asks residents to commit to treating all people with kindness and respect, especially those with whom they disagree. To learn more: https://www.centralfloridapledge.com/
He is a nationally and internationally known advocate for the poor, the marginalized, and those dealing with disabilities. He served a three-year term as the Chairman of Central Florida’s Commission on Homelessness. And, after 32 years as the senior pastor of Longwood, Florida’s Northland Church’s congregation of 20,000, he spent five years leading a non-profit in networking with churches and local charities to locate available resources and benefit the struggling in our community. Orlando Magazine highlighted his efforts naming him as the #1 most powerful voice for philanthropy and community engagement. And listed him among “Orlando’s 50 Most Powerful” six years in a row.
Approaching today’s challenges in a biblical and balanced manner, Dr. Hunter is neither partisan nor politically oriented, but often relates to public officials in a pastoral role; he served as a spiritual advisor to President Obama during his eight years in office.
Dr. Hunter has served in leadership roles of the World Evangelical Alliance, serving more than 600 million evangelicals, and the National Association of Evangelicals, serving more than 40 denominations and thousands of churches.
Married for 51 years to his wife, Becky, he is the father of three sons, grandfather of seven, and great-grandfather of two.
