fbpx
Articles

Explainer: Department of State undermining work of faith-based foreign aid providers

/
March 28, 2024

Last week, the ERLC joined public comments with other faith-based organizations in response to two Department of State proposed rules that would undermine the vital work being done by faith-based international aid providers. These rules would place new restrictions on foreign aid contractors and foreign aid grant recipients, requiring them to adhere to hiring standards that do not allow them to consider sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in the hiring process in order to remain eligible for foreign aid funding.

In doing so, the Department is forcing these aid providers to choose between their religious beliefs and their ability to live out the tenets of their faith through helping the underserved.

What is foreign aid assistance?

Foreign aid assistance comprises less than 1% of the annual federal budget (about $40-60 billion annually) and is typically administered through grants or federal contracts. These grants and contracts seek to promote U.S. interests in foreign affairs in issues by:

Since the early 2000s, these funds are viewed as intrinsically tied to national security; through supporting these programs, the U.S. government is able to influence and reach communities that are otherwise rendered inaccessible.

What is the scope of these proposed rules?

These proposed rules will have far-reaching effects, with implications both for international aid and for U.S. foreign policy. For example, the 50 largest faith-based foreign aid grant recipients received roughly $613 million in federal funding in 2023. These groups operate in more than 100 countries to provide services such as:

As the ERLC points out in our comments, based on the way these proposed rules are written, the Department does not appear to recognize the burdensome and negative effects these proposed rules will have both for the religious liberty of these organizations and for the individuals that they serve.

How do these rules impact the religious liberty of these faith-based organizations?

Many faith-based organizations implement hiring standards in alignment with their beliefs. This may include only hiring individuals who believe in biblical marriage and who identify with their biological sex (as opposed to undergoing a “gender transition”). Hiring staff members that reflect the religious beliefs of an organization is a long-standing pillar of religious liberty protections.

The proposed rules would render such organizations ineligible unless a waiver or other religious liberty protection is applied.

Doesn’t the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provide protection for these faith-based organizations?

As the ERLC states in our public comments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does apply to these proposed rules. However, by not providing clarity on this issue, the Department is opening the federal government up to ultimately settle this question through litigation. The interim time during which the federal government is engaging in litigation will still deter recipients from applying by calling into question their eligibility.

As one example where the Department has provided a lack of clarity, the Department problematically limits applicable religious freedom protections as “expressly” provided in federal law. Since RFRA applies to all of federal law, the protections it provides are not considered “expressly” stated; the Department is implying that there is another threshold that these groups must meet to receive religious liberty protections.

While the two proposed rules do provide for waivers to be applied, it’s unclear when these may be applied and what criteria officials are required to take into account. For example, the waiver for grant recipients is applied at the discretion of the grant officer and does not require the officer to consider any extenuating circumstances (such as local laws and ordinances), only the interests of the United States government. Additionally, the contract waiver provides very limited circumstances that should be considered when awarding a contract waiver.

What changes should the Department of State make to these proposed rules?

In our public comments, the ERLC joined other groups including the Christian Legal Society, Samaritan’s Purse, and the Accord Network in requesting that the Department enact revisions to these proposed rules. The recommended revisions are summarized as follows:

  1. The Department should develop and implement a process for review and a consistent acquisition approach to implement these rules.
  2. The Department should provide clarity on religious liberty protections through adding clarifying paragraphs, creating a categorical religious freedom exemption, and removing the phrase “expressly permitted” when discussing religious freedom protections in federal law.
  3. The Department should clarify the scope of these rules, since it appears that the Department believes these changes to have a minimal burden on these organizations.

We hope to see the Department revise these rules and ensure faith-based organizations are able to continue providing vital services to their communities around the world.

Allison Cantrell

Allison Cantrell serves as a policy associate in the ERLC’s Washington, D.C. office, where she assists with representing Southern Baptist policy initiatives. Previously, Allison resided in Florida, where she worked at the Governor’s Office and graduated with her Master’s in Demography at the Florida State University. Read More by this Author

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24