Will Evangelicals Stand Up for Religious Liberty?
November 28, 2011
Robert Schwarzwalder and Julia Kiewit
Update: Please click here to see a clarification from the authors.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded vigorously to the restrictive and unworkable “conscience regulations” being imposed on health care providers by the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Department. The Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service has said “no” to allowing priests in the Armed Forces perform homosexual “weddings,” now that the historic prohibition on homosexuals in the military has been lifted. And most recently, eighteen Catholic colleges and universities banded together and, through the Alliance Defense Fund, submitted comments to HHS citing a violation of religious freedom regarding the interim final rules on preventative services.
We applaud the efforts of America’s Catholic leadership in defense of religious liberty. But we do so with a certain measure of consternation. As Evangelical Protestants, we wonder: Why is organized Evangelicalism so silent?
Where is the National Association of Evangelicals?
Where is the (Evangelical) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities?
Where are the editorials and feature articles in Evangelical publications?
At a time when our religious liberty is being eroded by an Administration that insists on forcing its anti-Christian policies on American public life, why are so many of our leaders shuffling their feet and staring at the ground?
Every Christian school in the nation that offers insurance to its employees or students will be affected by the 2010 health care law—as schools like the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Ave Maria University immediately recognized. While Evangelicalism does not have specific teachings on contraception in the way that the Catholic Church does, no Christian organization in the United States should be comfortable with the requirement that insurance must cover abortions. Since that is the intention of the Obama administration, why are Evangelical Protestant colleges and universities, and Evangelical leaders generally, not speaking out? Why are they not joining with Catholic leaders and institutions in opposition to these anti-religious liberty measures?
A university may be justified in wanting to avoid political controversies that could alienate students or donors. But there is no excuse for schools—or any Christian organizations—to ignore a debate that will have such permanent and negative repercussions on our country.
To be Christian is not to be anti-political or anti-cultural. Instead, it means understanding the truth of God’s Word so that we can discern how to shape culture and respond to politics. College campuses are places of education, and setting an example is an excellent pedagogical method. What better way to educate young students on Christian public involvement than by participating in the democratic process and engaging policy makers who shape the very choices we are allowed to make?
While ad hoc groups of Evangelicals have formed to fight the Obama administration’s efforts (e.g., the 2,000-strong Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty), those who should be leading our efforts nationally are quiescent. These leaders and organizations appear to be so embarrassed by what they regard as the excesses of political activism that they have become mute. But it’s time they spoke out.
Evangelicals may have missed this opportunity—the window for submitting comments to HHS regarding the rules on preventive services is closed—but the battle for religious liberty is far from over. Evangelical Protestants have stood by as Catholics have led the defense of our first freedom. It’s time we joined them in the fight.
Robert Schwarzwalder is senior vice president at the Family Research Council. Julia Kiewit is associate editor at the Marriage And Religion Research Institute.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.28.2011 | 8:06am
Felapton says:
I have always done my best to be a good, loyal, Catholic pack animal, but I have decided to skip this "religious liberty" talking point war. For one thing, I just can't see the Catholic Church as a persecuted victim here. For another, even if we were being persecuted, fed to lions, for example, the whole thing just sounds like a lot of complaining, and only sissies complain. This is the Church Militant, folks, can't we please try to act like it? It's just downright embarrassing (IMHO) to hear the Archbishop of New York going on like a six-year-old who didn't get cast in the school play; how we pitiable little religious victims are being persecuted, we're being discriminated against, we're being (gasp!) "bullied" by those terrible, frightening, intimidating secularists. Doesn't anybody else kind of want to puke?
Christ didn't say "pick up your welfare application and follow me." Preaching the gospel is arduous, frustrating and occasionally life-threatening. The special privileges the Church acquired under feudalism were a dubious bargain: the right to promulgate the faith in exchange for collaboration in exploitation of the working classes. Who doesn't shudder at some of the things the Church did in those centuries? We should be glad to be rid of government entanglements at a time when secular governments are squandering their credibility so prodigiously.
St. Lawrence was roasted to death on a grill, and he died giving thanks that he had been found worthy to suffer martyrdom. Just imagine what he thinks when he hears Christian bishops whining like a bunch of girly-men about having to pay for a little bit of (eminently fungible) health insurance.
Christ didn't say "pick up your welfare application and follow me." Preaching the gospel is arduous, frustrating and occasionally life-threatening. The special privileges the Church acquired under feudalism were a dubious bargain: the right to promulgate the faith in exchange for collaboration in exploitation of the working classes. Who doesn't shudder at some of the things the Church did in those centuries? We should be glad to be rid of government entanglements at a time when secular governments are squandering their credibility so prodigiously.
St. Lawrence was roasted to death on a grill, and he died giving thanks that he had been found worthy to suffer martyrdom. Just imagine what he thinks when he hears Christian bishops whining like a bunch of girly-men about having to pay for a little bit of (eminently fungible) health insurance.
11.28.2011 | 8:55am
A.M. says:
Hopefully, this legislation and related debates would fulfill the words - 'all things work well for those who love God and are called according to His will .'
It is somewhat surprising that Evangelicals and such , with their supposed love and grasp for the scriptures have not taken in better , the meanings of polluting of the temple , of the holy vessels and what follows ..would not the root of such blindness be , the anger /hatred against The Bride - The Church and The Father - Moses figure who has been entrusted to tend and feed !
There is the feast in the Book of Daniel , with the hand writing on the wall , when the temple vessels were brought forth for profane use - with the prophetic warning of being numbered , weighed and divided .
Let us hope that all who care about sacredness of human lives and hearts would see the writing and join together, to weigh in against the profaning of what is to be holy , pleading for His mercy , for conversion of all who are blind !
It is somewhat surprising that Evangelicals and such , with their supposed love and grasp for the scriptures have not taken in better , the meanings of polluting of the temple , of the holy vessels and what follows ..would not the root of such blindness be , the anger /hatred against The Bride - The Church and The Father - Moses figure who has been entrusted to tend and feed !
There is the feast in the Book of Daniel , with the hand writing on the wall , when the temple vessels were brought forth for profane use - with the prophetic warning of being numbered , weighed and divided .
Let us hope that all who care about sacredness of human lives and hearts would see the writing and join together, to weigh in against the profaning of what is to be holy , pleading for His mercy , for conversion of all who are blind !
11.28.2011 | 10:45am
rjt1 says:
As I understand it, the Obama provisions will legally oblige Catholic institutions and individuals to go against their principles. It is not "whingeing" to point this out. The government is encroaching; this is the thin end of the wedge - better to act now while you still have a chance. That's what it means to be militant.
11.28.2011 | 11:30am
Howard Kainz says:
Evangelicals have specific teachings on abortion, but not on contraception. But these two issues are intimately connected. As Don Roberto mentions in his comment above, the pill can be an abortifacient. And if a couple has a "right" to non-procreative sex, what happens to this "right" in cases where contraception doesn't work? Those who insist on this "right," which is bestowed neither by nature nor by God, will have no problem with abortion.
11.28.2011 | 12:33pm
AKO says:
Hey Robert and Julia,
You mention Catholic leaders in your article, but who do you think the main Catholic leaders to reach out to would be?
You mention Catholic leaders in your article, but who do you think the main Catholic leaders to reach out to would be?
11.28.2011 | 12:55pm
pentamom says:
Frankly, most evangelicals don't pay much attention to the NAE anyway.
A better question may be, why aren't X, Y, and Z Protestant denomination, that sometimes are in the habit of speaking on public issues, saying anything? The SBC, for example?
My own denomination, the PCA, is one that does so such things. But at least in our case, the reason is clear (if probably not very compelling to outsiders): the denomination only exists in its corporate form that would allow it to initiate such a public statement once per year, in June. Only the General Assembly can speak with a single voice representing the denomination, and the General Assembly only exists 4 days a year. We don't have the mechanism to address things that come and go quickly.
That's not to say it's actually something I'd expect them to speak on, unfortunately -- but if they did, it would come about seven months from now, as a protest of an established policy.
A better question may be, why aren't X, Y, and Z Protestant denomination, that sometimes are in the habit of speaking on public issues, saying anything? The SBC, for example?
My own denomination, the PCA, is one that does so such things. But at least in our case, the reason is clear (if probably not very compelling to outsiders): the denomination only exists in its corporate form that would allow it to initiate such a public statement once per year, in June. Only the General Assembly can speak with a single voice representing the denomination, and the General Assembly only exists 4 days a year. We don't have the mechanism to address things that come and go quickly.
That's not to say it's actually something I'd expect them to speak on, unfortunately -- but if they did, it would come about seven months from now, as a protest of an established policy.
11.28.2011 | 1:48pm
Michael Bender says:
You are quite right; Evangelical Churches have been effectively defanged by the Left, and it's quite serious. Forget birth control, even abortion is out of bounds as an Evangelical Church interest; but no so for the individual members and that's where the power to fight will come.
11.28.2011 | 2:09pm
Ben Blackhawk says:
Apparently Felapton doesn't get it. What the HHS guidelines require of us Catholics is not to 'pay for a little bit of health insurance,' but to cooperate in abortion and contraception. And I realize even most Catholics (if polls are believed) do not feel pangs of conscience cooperating in contraception, but abortion?
Schwarzwalder and Kiewit don't rehash all the details of the HHS ruling in the piece above as they should be well-known by now, but Felapton doesn't seem to know that the federal government is mandating that we all pay for abortions and contraception when we pay our health insurance premiums. The Church is not asking for a handout from the government or any special privileges. We are asking not to have to cooperate in evil by paying for things which are against our moral code.
Couldn't the bishops be seen as prophetic for proclaiming early warnings about the loss of these so-called "special privileges?" The 'privilege' not to pay into a plan which funds the pill, RU-486 and direct abortion sound like the 'privilege' of not having to offer incense to idols.
Schwarzwalder and Kiewit don't rehash all the details of the HHS ruling in the piece above as they should be well-known by now, but Felapton doesn't seem to know that the federal government is mandating that we all pay for abortions and contraception when we pay our health insurance premiums. The Church is not asking for a handout from the government or any special privileges. We are asking not to have to cooperate in evil by paying for things which are against our moral code.
Couldn't the bishops be seen as prophetic for proclaiming early warnings about the loss of these so-called "special privileges?" The 'privilege' not to pay into a plan which funds the pill, RU-486 and direct abortion sound like the 'privilege' of not having to offer incense to idols.
11.28.2011 | 2:41pm
Michael says:
Reformers used to be fond of being cobelligerents when it came to a common enemy. We don't sacrifice our convictions but we fight a force that affects all of us. Evangelicals have--in mass--withdrawn from the public debate for fear of of losing their 501c3 exemption (making donations a tax deduction for the donor) or more often, "we don't want to be 'too political.'" Some Evangelicals have been vilified for being pro-life & pro heterosexual/monogamous and rather than speak the truth and stand firm, we wither. The NAE is essentially a web cite. They lost their way a decade ago. Evangelical Universities have become more liberal than we want to admit. Most have caved. Faculty too often lead the way with the "tolerance mantra" and "academic freedom." At our current trajectory, the very same liberal voice within Evangelicalism will erode to stifle them. By that time, it may be too late.
11.28.2011 | 2:52pm
Sophia Mason says:
Felapton:
To expand on the comments of rjt1 and Ben Blackhawk ...
No, I don't want to puke. This issue is not merely a "'religious liberty' talking point war". It happens that, since the official Roman Catholic teaching opposes abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity, a lot of Catholics in the health services professions are put into a dilemma by Obamacare. But it is not just an exclusively Catholic issue; it is an issue that all people of good will, even honest secularists, should worry about--and Catholics know this.
The Catholic Church is not a persecuted victim, and reasonable Catholics are not saying it is. The victims are all those people who work within any profession related to health care, child services, etc. Obamacare essentially tells these people: "We don't care what your conscience says. You can think abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity are wrong, but you will have to associate yourselves with those activities anyway--or you can get out of the business of providing health care, adoptions, etc." Actually, to take it a step further, the REAL victims are all those people who could have been helped by religious health services providers, but who are now unlikely to receive counseling and assistance that is in line with the natural law. Some of these people, due to a (hopefully temporary) shortage of health care providers, may not be able to receive any help at all.
It certainly would be nice if Catholic, Evangelical, and other religious health care facilities (like a lot of small Catholic institutions of higher education that I could name) could be free from government entanglements; and I would fully support their attempts to move in that direction. But the simple fact of the matter is that if an institution has been foolish enough to accept government moneys, weaning itself off of them can't be an overnight job. And if the government thought it was OK up until to give money to groups they are now denying funds, for the simple reason that those groups operate according to the religious consciences of their members, I think it is reasonable to protest. If you don't like the tone some of the bishops have taken, so be it. Find your own tone, but don't dismiss the issue.
And, incidentally, the correct phrase isn't "good, loyal, Catholic pack animal." What you really meant to say must have been "I love the Church Christ founded and am obedient to it, my faith always seeking understanding."
To expand on the comments of rjt1 and Ben Blackhawk ...
No, I don't want to puke. This issue is not merely a "'religious liberty' talking point war". It happens that, since the official Roman Catholic teaching opposes abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity, a lot of Catholics in the health services professions are put into a dilemma by Obamacare. But it is not just an exclusively Catholic issue; it is an issue that all people of good will, even honest secularists, should worry about--and Catholics know this.
The Catholic Church is not a persecuted victim, and reasonable Catholics are not saying it is. The victims are all those people who work within any profession related to health care, child services, etc. Obamacare essentially tells these people: "We don't care what your conscience says. You can think abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity are wrong, but you will have to associate yourselves with those activities anyway--or you can get out of the business of providing health care, adoptions, etc." Actually, to take it a step further, the REAL victims are all those people who could have been helped by religious health services providers, but who are now unlikely to receive counseling and assistance that is in line with the natural law. Some of these people, due to a (hopefully temporary) shortage of health care providers, may not be able to receive any help at all.
It certainly would be nice if Catholic, Evangelical, and other religious health care facilities (like a lot of small Catholic institutions of higher education that I could name) could be free from government entanglements; and I would fully support their attempts to move in that direction. But the simple fact of the matter is that if an institution has been foolish enough to accept government moneys, weaning itself off of them can't be an overnight job. And if the government thought it was OK up until to give money to groups they are now denying funds, for the simple reason that those groups operate according to the religious consciences of their members, I think it is reasonable to protest. If you don't like the tone some of the bishops have taken, so be it. Find your own tone, but don't dismiss the issue.
And, incidentally, the correct phrase isn't "good, loyal, Catholic pack animal." What you really meant to say must have been "I love the Church Christ founded and am obedient to it, my faith always seeking understanding."
11.28.2011 | 4:16pm
Citizen Jerry says:
The Evangelicals haven't stood up for religious liberty for the same reason most mainline Protestant churches haven't. Over the decades, the termites of secularism have been busy eating away at the foundation. A church that refuses to stand up for righteousness will soon collapse, a curse brought upon themselves.
11.28.2011 | 6:32pm
AKO Webmail says:
"It certainly would be nice if Catholic, Evangelical, and other religious health care facilities (like a lot of small Catholic institutions of higher education that I could name) could be free from government entanglements"
So true. I think there should be a stronger "Separation of church and state" as well.
So true. I think there should be a stronger "Separation of church and state" as well.
11.29.2011 | 1:21am
Corey says:
As usual, the comments here miss the mark when it comes to "evangelicals." I say "evangelicals" because only very rarely do people seem to actually be talking about real evangelical Christians when they hold forth. Protestant denominations, in general, have a less strict hierarchy than the Catholic Church (this should be obvious) which doesn't allow them the same ability to speak for all of their members. But even if they did, as some have noted, mainline churches would not be speaking out because they've succumbed to liberal theology. Those who are now called evangelical (that is, those who believe in the "five fundamentals:" the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture; the virgin birth; the bodily resurrection; the historical reality of Christ's miracles; and that Christ died for our sins) are far more likely to agree with Catholics on social issues. However, evangelical churches aren't necessarily even a part of a larger denomination. They are often stand alone congregations. This makes it even more difficult for "evangelicals" to speak as a group.
So it isn't that evangelical churches are sucumbing to the "termites of secularism" in the same way as some mainline churches. It isn't even that larger evangelical denominations, like the SBC, aren't saying anything. Indeed, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (which is the public policy arm of the SBC) has had much to say about conscience protections.
Others have been closer to the truth: official evangelical church bodies try to stay out of most political controversies of the day; and most lack the institutions with which to speak noticeably with the voice of all their members. So Catholics can count on evangelicals to stand with them on issues like this, but what they cannot count on is anyone noticing (unless the opposition is perceived as coming from a more nebulous "religious right").
So it isn't that evangelical churches are sucumbing to the "termites of secularism" in the same way as some mainline churches. It isn't even that larger evangelical denominations, like the SBC, aren't saying anything. Indeed, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (which is the public policy arm of the SBC) has had much to say about conscience protections.
Others have been closer to the truth: official evangelical church bodies try to stay out of most political controversies of the day; and most lack the institutions with which to speak noticeably with the voice of all their members. So Catholics can count on evangelicals to stand with them on issues like this, but what they cannot count on is anyone noticing (unless the opposition is perceived as coming from a more nebulous "religious right").
11.29.2011 | 9:52am
Joe Brooks says:
Evangelicals, and other Christians, are largely AWOL in the Culture War we are increasing shedding the traditional values of the Church. So, perhaps its not that we are AWOL, but that we are picking the wrong side.
"It is a sad irony that the United States, a nation that has the greatest percentage of self-professing Christians of any nation in the world, may also be one of the most morally hollow nations, as well. According to a Pew Poll on Religion and Public Life, over 75% of Americans call themselves a Christian of some denomination. Yet, only 56% say their religion is an important aspect of their lives. Let that in consistency sink in for a mo me nt. Large portions of people who call themselves Christians do not consider their faith to be an important aspect of their lives.
I disagree with the conclusions reached by atheists, but I see their logic. I can track their thought pattern from point A to point B. But, this statistic leaves me dumbfounded. Its one thing to deny the existence of a Supreme Being and live a materialistic life based upon the now, upon satisfying only your own needs or tending to the worldly needs of your loved ones. That behavior is consistent with one’s belief system. However, to profess a belief in God, as 75% of us claim to, but to relegate Him to an afterthought, a secondary concern, is borderline blasphemy."
Excepted from The Four Pillars of the Kingdom
Available now on Amazon in Kindle and paperback formats.
http://bit.ly/joesbookshelf
"It is a sad irony that the United States, a nation that has the greatest percentage of self-professing Christians of any nation in the world, may also be one of the most morally hollow nations, as well. According to a Pew Poll on Religion and Public Life, over 75% of Americans call themselves a Christian of some denomination. Yet, only 56% say their religion is an important aspect of their lives. Let that in consistency sink in for a mo me nt. Large portions of people who call themselves Christians do not consider their faith to be an important aspect of their lives.
I disagree with the conclusions reached by atheists, but I see their logic. I can track their thought pattern from point A to point B. But, this statistic leaves me dumbfounded. Its one thing to deny the existence of a Supreme Being and live a materialistic life based upon the now, upon satisfying only your own needs or tending to the worldly needs of your loved ones. That behavior is consistent with one’s belief system. However, to profess a belief in God, as 75% of us claim to, but to relegate Him to an afterthought, a secondary concern, is borderline blasphemy."
Excepted from The Four Pillars of the Kingdom
Available now on Amazon in Kindle and paperback formats.
http://bit.ly/joesbookshelf
11.29.2011 | 11:34am
Chuck Anziulewicz says:
Throughout this column there seems to be the assumption that all Christians are united in opposing marriage equality for Gay couples, and that is simply not the case. Yes, I would admit that MOST evangelicals oppose Gay marriage, and the Vatican has wasted no time in demanding that Catholic priests toe the official party line against performing weddings for Gay couples. It also goes without saying that, despite the repeal of DADT, no clergy will ever be forced to officiate at a wedding ceremony for a Gay couple.
But not all Christian denominations and churches feel the same way. In the city of Charleston, West Virginia (where I live), there are FOUR churches (Methodist, Episcopal, Pentacostal, and Metropolitan Community) that are openly welcoming and supportive of Gay individuals and couples. Do THEY have "religious freedom" to conduct weddings and holy union ceremonies for their Gay congregants?
But not all Christian denominations and churches feel the same way. In the city of Charleston, West Virginia (where I live), there are FOUR churches (Methodist, Episcopal, Pentacostal, and Metropolitan Community) that are openly welcoming and supportive of Gay individuals and couples. Do THEY have "religious freedom" to conduct weddings and holy union ceremonies for their Gay congregants?
11.29.2011 | 1:20pm
Russ Neal says:
It's because modern Evangelical leaders and pastors, following the Rick Warren Church Growth model, are obssesed with making the enemies of Christ "like" them. You will not find one pastor in 100 who will speak out on these issues in church or in public. How many letters to the editor on these issues have you seen penned by an Evangelical pastor?
11.29.2011 | 1:26pm
Joseph R Yungk says:
Why is it that nobody even has a glimmer of consideration for others' religious freedoms such as the soldier who the priest is there to minister to or the gay man who does not follow your religion?
We all have religious freedom not just catholics.
We all have religious freedom not just catholics.
11.29.2011 | 11:15pm
Linda says:
" no Christian organization in the United States should be comfortable with the requirement that insurance must cover abortions.""
The above statement is not factual. There is no requirement that insurance pay for abortion.
The above statement is not factual. There is no requirement that insurance pay for abortion.
11.30.2011 | 8:54am
John Hinshaw says:
Glad Felapton thinks St. Lawrence's torture and murder is an appropriate approach to Christian involvement. Must be from New York, where most pack or herded animals live.
God grant that more conservative Christians recognize the threat to religious liberty (and to culture and the family) posed by Obama and his libertine-atheist ilk.
†