I’m the pastor of an evangelical church in southern Missouri, the “buckle of the Bible belt.” Based on stereotypes and clichés, I should have been cheering the Pope recently when he blasted the use of condoms as having any helpful part to play in the fight to stop HIV/AIDS:

“You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” Pope Benedict XVI told reporters last week. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

Similarly, by virtue of my church affiliation, I should have been excited about John McCain’s choice for a running mate since Sarah Palin was a fellow evangelical who opposed most sex education programs being taught in public schools:

“The explicit sex-ed programs (those teaching more than abstinence-only) will not find my support,” Palin said in answering a questionnaire from the conservative Eagle Forum during her 2006 gubernatorial race.

After all, as Bible-believing evangelicals we ought to rally behind our religious and political leaders who make strong moral stands based on the teachings of Scripture. If God is against sex outside of marriage then teaching anything else as a viable alternative is less than God’s ideal and we can’t let that happen. And if the Bible teaches that parents are to bear the responsibility of teaching their children morality, then we shouldn’t be allowing teachers to instruct our children in the scholarship of sex education within the confines of secular institutions.

Unless it’s irresponsible and morally objectionable to take those stands.

Can we consider the possibility that it may be?

Tags: sex education, condoms, Pope, Sarah Palin