The authors of the 40-page report””a cross-section of evangelical leaders and Third Way staffers and consultants””acknowledge the difficulties involved in bridging the considerable political and cultural divide on such thorny issues. (Indeed, a leader of the National Right to Life Committee has called the Third Way approach “a political ploy to silence the debate.”) But consensus is possible, the authors argue””through better communication and a greater willingness to focus on common goals. Those goals include reducing the need for abortions through better access to birth control, and also by providing more financial support for would-be mothers who might otherwise abort due to financial concerns. One of the evangelical leaders who has endorsed the idea of working together is the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, pastor of the Orlando-based Northland Church, who also serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals. The former president of the Christian Coalition, who now preaches to a congregation of 12,000, talked with NEWSWEEK’s Eve Conant on the prospects of bridging the cultural divide as the 2008 election looms. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You are endorsing a paper that talks about bridging a gap between evangelicals and progressives. Does that mean that you are a progressive evangelical yourself?
Rev. Joel C. Hunter: It depends on the issue. I’m pro-life, I’m against the redefinition of marriage, and I’m against pornography and gambling. On issues related to compassion I’m more progressive””such as doing all we can for the environment, fighting poverty and the AIDS epidemic.
As much as I personally oppose the “third way movement”, it will be good if it can produce some practical results on a vexing issue like abortion.
“Those goals include reducing the need for abortions [b]through better access to birth control[/b]” – so abstinence is no longer an evangelical concern?
Much ink has been spilled on this, but one of the fundamental problems is [i]Roe v. Wade[/i]. It was an illegitimate case absolutely devoid of legal reasoning and imposed a “solution” on a people that knew better. It was all power and no law.
As long as [i]Roe[/i] remains the law of the land, nothing can get done. As many have observed, if Roe were abandoned it would not mean all abortion clinics would be shut down. People could finally begin debating these issues honestly. And perhaps we could reach some consensus.
[blockquote] “What is the good of telling a community that it has every liberty except the liberty to make laws? The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people.”
-G. K. Chesterton, Heretics[/blockquote]
#2 –Lesser of two evils?
#4 – given the epidemic rise of sexually transmitted diseases among younger Americans, diseases which birth control by drugs or condoms does not stop, I’m not sure it is the lesser of two evils. Preaching “safe sex” is NOT safe – any doctor will tell you of the astronomical rise in STDs in the past ten years – those years of the “safe sex” push. And STDs have long lasting effects.
#5-You’re not sure that teaching about safe sex and possibly getting an std is a lesser evil than killing a child?
Nate – #6 – sorry, I worded my post badly. Of course killing a child is worse. I meant that touting birth control as the highest good, as is done in many school programs and by the media at large, WITHOUT giving hard, factual information on STDs (of which several serious ones have no cure and some of which can cause sterility, death, etc.) as well as the failure rate of birth control is something that I hope the evangelicals are not buying into. The way it’s written in the article, it SEEMS as though the birth control area is one that the Christian evangelicals and “progressives” are agreed on, with no mention of abstinence. I hope that is only the writer’s perspective.
Branford:
I agree with you for the most part, though, I think that comprehensive sex ed. (teaching about abstinence & birth control) is the most desirable form of sex ed. There doesn’t seem to me to be anything gained from keeping folks in the dark about prophylactics. Conversely, not teaching that abstinence is the best form of birth control, etc. seems irresponsible as well. My bet is that this is the “middle ground” of which the writer speaks.