Explainer: States propose bills related to parental rights, gender identity, and sexuality
By / May 13

Florida recently passed legislation expanding and codifying parental rights in their child’s education. One of the most controversial sections of the law prohibits classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 

Critics have used this provision to frame this legislation as a “Don’t Say Gay” law. But supporters on both sides of the political aisle say such legislation is necessary because parents should be informed regarding what their children are taught about topics like homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender fluidity.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, and schools should not be keeping important information from parents,” said Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson. “Children belong to families, not the state.”

Since the passage of the Florida bill, more than a dozen other states have proposed similar legislation. Here is some of the legislation related to parental rights and LGBTQ+ issues in education:

Alabama: In April, the state passed an amendment that prohibits classroom instruction or discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through the fifth grade in public K-12 schools.

Arizona: A proposed bill in the legislature would allow parents to review the formational documents of any school student group or club involving sexuality, gender, or gender identity. Another bill had language stricken from its final version that would have prevented school officials from withholding or concealing, facilitating, encouraging, or coercing students into concealing a student’s gender identity or “requested transition” if it is “incongruous with their biological sex.” Parents also would have needed to give consent before students were asked questions on a survey about gender expression, perception, or stereotypes. 

Indiana: A proposed bill would prohibit any requirement for students enrolled at a state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. Another proposed bill would require parents’ written consent for students to receive sex education on transgenderism and would require parental consent for medical inspections or mental health treatment, including on counseling about gender transitioning issues, pronoun selection, and referral to other agencies that provide these services.

Iowa: A proposed bill prohibits curriculum provided to a student from including instruction relating to gender identity unless the school district or accredited nonpublic school obtains the prior written consent of the student’s parent or guardian. If a parent or guardian does not provide written consent, a student may opt out of instruction relating to gender identity. Another bill would require schools to give a week’s notice to parents before educators ask students which pronoun they prefer or before administering a survey on pronoun use and to send them the response upon request.

Louisiana: A proposed bill would prohibit classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindegarten through eighth grade and prohibit teachers, school employees, and presenters from discussing their sexual orientation or gender identity with students. 

Missouri: A proposed bill would prevent public schools from requiring students to engage in gender or sexual diversity training. 

North Carolina: A proposed bill would require any state employee to report to parents if a minor has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity, or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with their biological sex.

Ohio: A proposed bill would prevent, teach, use, or provide any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade, and prohibits students in grades four through 12 from being taught or having to use curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity in any manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Oklahoma: A proposed bill would prohibit public schools or libraries from holding or promoting books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.

Rhode Island: A proposed bill would also require children to be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender unless parent permission is given to change them.

South Carolina: A proposed bill would prevent any state-funded entity from subjecting minors under the age of 18 to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involve a number of “controversial and age-inappropriate topics,” including gender identity. The state has also proposed a bill that says a student, administrator, teacher, staff member, other school or district employee, or volunteer may not be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.

Tennessee: A proposed bill would prohibit the state board from approving textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promotes, normalizes, supports, or addresses lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.

Wisconsin: The governor vetoed broad-based parent’s rights legislation that included a right to determine the names and pronouns used for the child while at school.

How do we disciple our kids during the sexual revolution?
By / Apr 2

Earlier this week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Rep.) signed a bill into law that bars instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through the third grade. This bill, which has been dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents, has brought about intense national controversy. This is due, in large part, to the prominent role that sexuality and gender identity play in today’s cultural conversations, as well as the influence of the LGBTQ+ movement in all aspects of our society. Even as the bill was being debated in the Florida legislature, organizations and companies across the country rallied in support or opposition of the bill.

Acting ERLC President Brent Leatherwood, speaking about the bill, said, “For years, we have asked elected officials to prioritize the protection of children and to respect families in their policy-making. In general, this new law creates a framework for just that. Mothers and fathers absolutely should be the ones surfacing complex matters with their children for the first time, not someone outside the home.” But it seems that many in our culture believe that the state should encourage and teach these controversial and divisive subjects as early as possible, essentially stripping parents of their God-given responsibilities to raise their children to become wise, virtuous people.

Cultural pressure to conform 

Because of the organization’s ties to Florida, Disney CEO Bob Chapek came under incredible scrutiny and criticism for not being vocal enough in support of the LGBTQ+ movement by publicly denouncing this bill. Other Disney executives and lead creatives expressed outrage over the bill, claiming it would further marginalize and harm children across the state, with some even asserting that their mission as a company is to spread gender ideology and teachings to children through their creative work. A few days after the signing of the bill, some in prominent roles at Disney even went as far as to say that they are intentionally seeking to add more characters and narratives that will model these alternative lifestyles and promote the sexual revolution with its committment to complete moral autonomy.

Disney is one of the most influential companies in the world, especially as their work often captures the imagination of younger generations. The company is Florida’s largest employer, and through their streaming service, Disney+, they have a massive catalog of family content providing entertainment for millions around the world. For this reason, Christians need to be mindful of what they are saying and evaluate the messages being communicated through the lens of a biblical worldview — just as we should be doing with the products and services from other prominent companies. From plans to create more transgender characters to stories highlighting same-sex families, some in leadership at Disney are clearly seeking to form the moral imagination of our children in ways that are contrary to the biblical sexuality and marriage.

The worldviews communicated by this company and others like them have the potential to leave a lasting impression on children and families for a lifetime. And that should come as no surprise since the things that we are exposed to on a daily basis, whether social media, movies, or news, deeply shape how we view ourselves, our neighbors, and the world around us. Entertainment, much like technology, subtly yet radically alters our minds, including the things we find morally acceptable or objectionable. The things we are exposed to matter. This can be clearly seen in the normalization of same-sex relationships through the 90s which ulimately culminated in the consequential Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court decision, and in the ongoing campaigns from the private and government sectors to normalize a transgender lifestyle.

How parents can respond

For parents or children’s ministers, this can be an especially difficult and overwhelming reality to grasp. How are we to navigate these cultural issues and the onslaught of the sexual revolution with our children? How can we be salt and light in our world without withdrawing from the culture in which we’re called to be witnesses? 

First, we must see that the controversies surrounding this bill — those related to sexuality and gender — often center on a longstanding cultural tension between the rights of parents and the role of other powerful social institutions including the state, corporations, and cultural movements. Do parents have a right to know what their children are being exposed to, and do they have a say in what their children are taught, especially if those things are contrary to their religious or cultural beliefs? While businesses are free to express their beliefs in their work, parents also have the right and responsibility to raise their children in line with their deeply held beliefs — which may mean that some parents decide on other forms of entertainment and education or at least recognize the realities at play in the midst of the sexual revolution. 

Parents rightfully see the importance of raising up this next generation, but we must do so with a biblical vision of how God created every person, including our kids, in his very image. Parenting is not just simply a right to be wielded, but a responsibility to be cherished. We have been entrusted with this responsibility to nurture and train up our children in a world of competing worldviews. There is no such thing as a neutral or truly secular space, whether it be in entertainment or the public square. Everything communicates some type of worldview and every person espouses some set of moral values and beliefs.

This means that we cannot sit idly by while our children are discipled by the state, society, or even by a corporation like Disney — each with its own distinct cultural and ethical values. The worldviews that your family are exposed to each day matter because the truths we are being taught will inevitably shape every aspect of our moral framework. We must take responsibility for and think intentionally about the things that we allow our children to be exposed to — not out of fear, but out of a desire to steward our families well and raise them with a keen sense of discernment (Romans 12:2).

Second, parents must be ready to equip their children to see the beauty and freedom of the Christian sexual ethic which is rooted in the very creation of man and woman as image-bearers of the almighty God (Gen. 1:27). The cultural stories we are being exposed to each day through our entertainment choices are often contrary to the scientific and biological realities of being created as a man and a woman. Contrary to the moral autonomy championed by many today, we simply do not have the ability to choose our gender nor do we have the authority to alter God’s good design for sexuality rooted in the marriage of a man and woman. This created order is central to the Christian sexual ethic and must be part of how a parent “train[s] up a child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6).

Another reality of this cultural revolution is that our children will have friends or classmates struggling with these issues. Christian cultural engagement is rooted in speaking truth in grace, modeling the fact that all people are inherently valuable as created in God’s image. This type of engagement will include seeking out ways to love our neighbors regardless of their beliefs and affirming their inherent dignity, even when we disagree with them. While this will look different for each family given their circumstances, we must remind our kids (and ourselves) that people are more than simply their sexual desires or how they feel about their gender identity. Our culture often promotes the lie that your sexuality defines your core identity as a person, but the Christian ethic reminds us our identities are actually tied to who God made each of us in his image. Our sexuality is rooted in how God made us and we do not have the authority to define our own realities. This truth is actually freeing since our dignity is not tied to what we do or how we feel, but who we are. Training our children to see the dignity and value of their classmates and friends, regardless of their personal beliefs, while also speaking truth in love is one of the greatest gifts we can pass on to this next generation.

As I recently wrote, Western culture is at an interesting crossroads today, representing an especially crucial moment for our kids and families. On one hand, our society champions complete moral autonomy under the guise of throwing off all moral boundaries and pursuing our own versions of realities at all costs. On the other hand, we all recognize that truth cannot actually be relative and that our moral choices have profound consequences for us and our society. We may seek to deny objective moral truths in the name of liberation and revolution, but these false notions of reality will not and cannot last.

Parents and churches must be ready to respond to the mores of the sexual revolution that will only leave precious image-bearers — especially our children — in its wake. The sexual revolution will not be able to deliver on its grand promises of liberation, and the Church must be ready to welcome those who have been deceived with open arms of dignity, respect, love, hope, and the truth of the gospel. So while there are some at corporations like Disney that seek to capture the hearts and minds of children through the stories they create, it is our responsibility to parent our children and raise them in light of a far better and truer story. Regardless of the lies they they are sold by the sexual revolution, our Creator has a better answer. And it’s through honoring him that we will find the joy and satisfaction that we’re made for.

U.S. intel on Putin, Biden’s gaffe, and the Florida gender identity education law
By / Apr 1

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss U.S. intel about Putin being misled, President Biden’s gaffe, and the Florida gender identity education law. They also talk about the new gender x passports coming out in April, what you should know about Biden’s budget proposal, and a Christian’s response during tumultuous times.  

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. U.S. says Putin being misled
  2. Biden’s gaffe and international diplomacy
  3. EXPLAINER: DeSantis signs Florida gender identity education law | Public Opinion Strategies Poll 
  4. New Gender X passports coming in April

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Dobbs Resource Page Prayer Guide | Right now, the Supreme Court is considering a major Mississippi abortion case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The ERLC and other pro-life organizations filed an amicus brief in this case urging the Supreme Court to overturn the disatrous Roe v. Wade decision. Members of our team also joined pro-life advocates on the steps of the Supreme Court when oral arguments were heard last December. As we approach the Supreme Court’s final decision in June of this year, it’s important for Christians to pray for this landmark case and begin preparing our churches to serve vulnerable women and children in a potential post-Roe world. Download our free prayer guide at ERLC.com/Dobbs.
  • Dobbs Resource Page | Many Christians are aware that an important case about abortion is being decided at the Supreme Court this June. But for many, this case is confusing and wrapped in a lot of legal jargon. The ERLC wants to help with that, so we’ve created a resource page that will help you and your church understand what this case means, what could happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and how your church can prepare to serve vulnerable women and children in the aftermath. To learn more about the Dobbs case and how you can pray, visit ERLC.com/Dobbs.

A conversation with Jeb Bush on education, COVID, and politics
By / Jun 2

Jeb Bush, the son of and brother of two American presidents, has his sights set on addressing the issue of education reform head-on through his Education Foundation, ExcelinEd, which he formed to improve education standards. His journey in the education field started with his experience in politics. “When I started running for office, I would tour the state and hear that the number one problem that people had was education training,” Bush said. This issue drove him to want to know more about the education system in the state of Florida, which hovers consistently at the bottom of the state education ratings. Bush also credits touring 250 Florida schools as a gateway to his understanding the enormity of the problem. 

Stepping into the education arena became a spiritual calling, as well. “God has given every child the ability to learn. Yes, they learn in different ways. But what we ought to say is that because this is a gift from God, we should organize ourselves around that to reach kids.” He granted a rare interview to the ERLC about his latest work. 

Why have you decided to address the issue of education? 

When I started running for political office, I would always ask questions about what the top priorities were. In the state of Florida, in 1987-88, every county, every economic development group that I spoke with would say education and training were the number one issues. So my first passion was really how we take a pretty poor education system at the time in Florida and make sure that we have a phenomenal business climate where people can rise up, businesses can invest, and people can flourish. I was convinced at the time that school choice had to be an element of that.

I created Floridians for School Choice, the group that advocated for vouchers. We brought Polly Williams, an African American, very liberal state senator from Wisconsin to promote the idea of what she did in Milwaukee. The first voucher program was in Milwaukee. As a candidate in ‘94, and certainly in ‘98, when I went to visit 250 schools, I learned so much. My views didn’t change, but I learned how to advocate these pretty provocative ideas in a way that wasn’t threatening. I put a human context around it. Then I got to be governor, and I got to implement the things that I said I wanted to do. It was a joy of a lifetime.

After I left politics, it was through the Foundation for Excellence in Education that I continued to be involved with an incredible team of 55 to 60 people. We work in 40 states, and we advocate meaningful reform, empowering parents to make choices for their kids rather than systems and bureaucracies; high expectations; real accountability; ending social promotion in third grade; early childhood literacy; and trying to change high schools so that kids graduate college and/or career ready. 

Is this a spiritual calling for you?

It’s at the heart of my spiritual beliefs. You start with the premise that God has given every child the ability to learn. They learn in different ways. Not every kid learns at the same speed or can reach the same levels of aptitude, but this is a God-given gift that every child gets. So, rather than excuse why kids can’t learn, we ought to say this is the gift from God. We also need to organize ourselves around these kids in a different way to ensure that they reach their God-given abilities. That doesn’t sound too crazy to me. Basically what else is there to be doing in life?

It’s been a great passion of mine, but it’s also been a great frustration because we haven’t moved the needle as fast as we should. The world’s moving at a faster pace than it was in 2000. It’s moving at warp speed right now. And all this disruption, culturally, economically, socially, and politically, requires young people to have a foundation from which they can thrive. And right now, too many kids don’t have that.

When you were governor of Florida, how did you see change take place? 

When I became governor, we increased our graduation rate every year. I think it’s at 85% right now. Now, I think we need to raise the bar. I think we need to constantly be pushing the system to assure more and more kids are college and/or career ready. But, we’ve had big progress because we’ve had higher expectations for our children, and we’ve empowered parents in Florida . . . . My attitude is: let’s focus on children and students. We need to empower parents to give them the information they need to make informed decisions and have high expectations for every school. They are respected whether they’re a traditional public school, a charter school, a private school, or a parochial school. With high expectations for every kid, you’re going to get a better result. 

How has COVID-19 disrupted the education system, and what advice would you give to leaders? 

In March, we were all sent home. If you’re living in poverty and couldn’t afford the $40-per-month for broadband or one of the service providers for high-speed broadband, you’re out of luck. If you didn’t have a device to be able to learn on, you’re out of luck. And so we’ve been advising governors to direct some of this discretionary money toward dealing with this digital divide issue. It is ridiculous that we have a digital divide in this country. We are the most advanced country in the world technologically. I read somewhere that 400,000 teachers didn’t have access to high-speed broadband. How could they teach if they’re at home? So, that’s one thing. 

The second thing I’d say is, as is the case with every policy in my mind, at least we should have a bias toward action — not a bias toward sitting in the fetal position saying, “This is overwhelming, and we can’t do anything about it.” A bias toward action means we should do everything possible to to open our schools and to keep them open in a safe way. So, I’m proud of the fact that Florida led the way in getting schools back open. Because we have big school districts, our governor, education commissioner, and most of the superintendents had a bias toward action. They were the first of the big school districts to act. They were the first to open, and they’ve not closed. And the fact is that we haven’t had a huge outbreak of COVID in our schools.

The learning gaps that started in the spring semester of last year . . . [are] going to hit low-income kids the hardest, and those gaps will grow. There should be a bias toward action, particularly for low-income communities, to make sure that they have access to the same quality education that more affluent families have right now in our country. 

You have an influential last name. What if somebody’s last name is not Bush? What advice would you give them about getting involved? 

We’re a bottom-up country. The best ideas come from the bottom-up, and the best advocacy comes from the bottom-up. And the best means by which you can make a difference is from the bottom-up. So first and foremost, if you’re a parent, get involved in your school. If you have school choice programs that are in your state that are under attack, protect them, defend them, and advocate for them. 

I’m a huge advocate of local involvement — community involvement — to be able to make a difference in changing policy. If you notice, politicians do listen to people when they come and say, “Don’t take this away from me.” So, my advice is to be involved in your child’s education. If you don’t have children, be involved in the school. Be a mentor in religious institutions that have been fortified because they’re receiving this kind of support.

What advice would you give to President Biden? 

I do what I’ve done with every president which is pray for their judgment, their discernment, and their health, because when presidents succeed, we all succeed. And I think that’s the first thing we ought to do — to encourage our president. Pray for him, and pray for public leaders, whether we agree with their policies or not. That’s a noble tradition in our country. It’s a sign of strength, not weakness. 

The second thing I’d say is I’d bet that the top-down approach doesn’t work . . . . There are lots of things that could happen, but if the mindset is we’re smarter than you and we don’t trust you, we’re going to get ugly results. And so my hope is that the president will trust the decisions made at the local level more than what typically happens from D.C., and try to envision what the world will look like in 2030, not what the world looked like in 1980.

Do you miss politics? 

That’s a great question. I don’t want to sound like a politician cause I’m not, but the answer is yes and no. I miss the challenges, particularly in emergencies. I miss being able to serve when people really need the help of the government. I don’t miss the politics of politics, which is dangerously poisonous right now. 

I’m totally blessed in life. I have five grandchildren, all close to perfection, as you can imagine. My wife and I are about ready to celebrate our 47th year of marriage. Wow. My reform education foundation is flourishing. My business is flourishing. My health is great. I don’t miss politics. I worry about our country a lot. And I hope our politics do change for the better — where we’re more loving, more conciliatory, and don’t think people who disagree with us are our enemies. 

Should the government regulate social media?
By / Jun 1

On Monday, May 24, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a new bill into law regulating content moderation and online governance in the state on social media platforms. This bill is the first state bill to become law on these issues, with other states including Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Utah currently considering similar legislation. 

DeSantis championed the bill as a collaborative effort at the press conference where he signed the bill into law, highlighting how these major social media companies have inconsistently applied their often ill-defined content moderation policies or have not been transparent in the application or design of those policies.

What is in the bill?

The Florida legislature passed SB 7072 Stop Social Media Censorship Act the week before, which includes multiple provisions curtailing content moderation in the state, such as empowering the state election commission to impose fines — up to $250,000 per day if a statewide candidate is banned from the platforms, with lesser fines for candidate of local office. 

The bill contains other major provisions like prohibiting the platforms from taking “any action to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast” and forbidding the removal of content from news outlets above a certain size. It also empowers Floridians to sue these platforms as individuals if they believe that content moderation standards or policies have been inconsistently applied to them. The stated intent of the bill is to regulate the powerful social media companies that some argue have unfairly moderated content and users on an ideological basis, often interpreted through a partisan lens.

DeSantis tweeted, “Floridians are being guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley power grab on speech, thought, and content. We the people are standing up to tech totalitarianism with the signing of Florida’s Big Tech Bill.” The governor decried that these “Big Tech” companies act as a “council of censors” and mentioned that they should be treated like common carriers. 

Similar arguments were made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April concurrence released alongside a decision on a 2017 lawsuit brought concerning President Trump’s blocking of individual users on Twitter. Of note, the Florida bill would not apply to Trump’s permanent suspension from Twitter and the indefinite ban from Facebook, which has been a controversial decision recently upheld by the newly created Oversight Board. The Florida bill only applies to candidates for state office, but its wide-ranging effects will likely be seen throughout the rest of the nation.

Big Tech censorship

Social media and the outsized influence of technology companies on our public discourse is one of the rare bipartisan points of agreement in society today. But there is little agreement on the particulars. Progressives traditionally argue for more content moderation, especially with the growing influence of misinformation, fake news, and hate speech online. Conservatives, though, have long argued for less moderation due to the notion that conservative speech and values have been unfairly taken down or suppressed — with some users being banned or even specific social media platforms being shut down completely, simply because of the prevailing ideological agenda in Silicon Valley.

These debates are often categorized under the moniker of “Big Tech,” which is designed to signify the outsized influence and ubiquity of these media platforms in the public sphere, though the term fails to account for some of the largest “big tech” companies in the United States, including Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Verizon, and others. It also is focused on American companies, excluding tech and media giants such as Tencent and Alibaba of China who have concerning records on free speech and religious expression due to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. The term is specifically intended to include companies like Facebook, Alphabet (Google/Youtube), and Amazon, as well as companies with much smaller user bases that have enormous influence in the digital public square, such as Twitter.

The Florida bill immediately drew criticism from across the ideological perspectives, but for very different reasons. More progressive outlets mocked the bill for its blatant disregard for free speech and spoke of a plethora of lawsuits to be filed challenging the constitutionality of the bill. The Washington Post interviewed Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who “described the bill as bad policy and warned that some of its provisions are ‘obviously unconstitutional’ because they restrict the editorial discretion of online publishers.”

Goldman also pointed out that the Florida bill may run afoul of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is designed to shield these companies from litigation over third-party content on their platforms. Section 230 was enacted in 1996 on a bi-partisian basis to encourage these platforms to moderate content under “good faith” policies, removing content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Conservative and free speech attorney David French argues, “the bill’s provisions compel private corporations to host (and also promote through application of their algorithms) speech they would otherwise reject. Not only do these provisions of state law conflict with (Section 230), they violate key First Amendment precedents that grant private citizens broad protections against compelled speech, protect the independent political speech of private corporations, and protect all Americans against vague and overbroad statutes.”

While some conservatives support the intent of the bill, they spoke of the overly broad nature of the bill and the interesting carve outs for certain companies operating in Florida. The carve out is for “any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex.” This would exempt Disney and Comcast/Universal from these new moderation and content rules, even as they operate in the mass media space.

Other noted conservatives such as Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Andrew Walker of Southern Seminary argue that this bill is needed in order to ensure access to all political speech, similar to the common carrier regulations on television, radio, and print media. Walker notes that in a world of competing visions of the goods, certain rights can and should be curtailed in the pursuit of the common good of access to information, especially political speech. It should be mentioned that while this access to political speech is a public good, we also should call our public and civic leaders to higher standards of truthfulness and decorum given the role and responsibilities they have by nature of their position in society.

Though this debate isn’t actually over access to all political speech in general but particular access to speech that is deemed by these companies as inciting violence or spreading misinformation that negatively affects the common good of safety and truthfulness. 

But there is a concerning track record of these companies labeling certain religious and social beliefs as inherently bigotted and hateful, in particular issues surrounding transgenderism and human sexuality. As a people who claim an objective understanding of truth and human nature, we must be cautious to not label speech we disagree with as misinformation, which is common throughout our increasingly polarized and tribalistic society. Misinformation is not in the eye of the beholder, even if it has become a partisan tool.

The role of government in seeking the common good

As many noted public and political theologians have argued, the government does have a role in protecting the rights of citizens and the common good but up to a point. David VanDrunen argues in his recent book, Politics After Christendom, “every human community and institution must reckon with the degree of diversity it will embrace, or at least tolerate. No institution can stand completely open.” The question about the role of government in these debates is to what extent should the government be involved and what degree of toleration will be applied when disparate views of the common good and human dignity clash in the digital public square.

Does it actually serve the best interest of the public if a politician or user pushes misinformation to the extent that it actually leads to violence? Does the good of safety ever outweigh the good of free speech? Is free speech actually an instrumental good whose goal is to push back on the over reaching hand of government instead of private entities with their own speech rights? Obviously governments are accountable to the public in ways that the technology industry isn’t, but are we comfortable with that level of power over private entities and speech residing with the government, especially if those in charge may change with the next election cycle?

These are complicated questions that are often layered in partisan politics and talking points that need to be addressed in a nuanced and careful manner, particularly by those in the conservative movement. Many of these exact questions have been debated for decades by those specializing in content moderation and digital governance, well before many of these flashpoint issues arose to public awareness. 

While I am unable to expand on each of these issues in this essay, it is important for Christians to understand the nuance of this debate and the potential ramification of these decisions to the common good. One of the key areas of work to be done is building out a public theology for the digital age, which includes a policy oriented advocacy effort with these influential companies rather than simply relying on the government to dictate and set the rules.

While the coverage of this Florida bill has primarily focused on access for politicians, it is much broader than that and will have far-reaching implications on the relationship between the government, the people, and these companies who provide these platforms for society. The bill actually is reminiscent at certain parts to the privacy laws implemented in the GDPR and CCPA giving individual citizens the right to sue these companies for violating their “rights”. In the case of GDPR and CCPA, it’s the often ill-defined right to privacy grounded in the unfettered pursuit of expressive individualism, and in the case of this Florida law, the unfettered pursuit of free speech. Though, all rights must be balanced in this broken world and oriented to the good, the problem is that our society and the larger world have very different visions of the good. 

This leads to very different approaches to solutions for the rise of these platforms and their influence in the digital public square. Even amongst conservatives, there are radically different understandings of the role of government, free speech, and regulation. But we must keep in mind that while there are differences in approach, many of those involved in these debates have the same overall goals. Demonizing or outlandishly mocking friends will not push the conversation forward or achieve the goals of balancing these freedoms in the digital public square. The differences often lie in engagement, rather than the content of the actual issues. 

Need for policy-oriented engagement

While this debate continues, two areas of involvement are crucial from Christians: we need a more robust public engagement on these moderation policy issues and a way to rally together for a common change. One element of this vision for the digital public square is significant investment in key institutions that are equipped to work with the policy and moderation teams at these companies, instead of simply opting for social media activism. 

This means earning a seat at the table through long-term nuanced and thoughtful engagement on particular policy issues such as privacy, hate speech, violence, international governance, and more. Historically, this is exactly how the conservative movement has seen such progress on issues such as abortion, free speech, and religious freedom. These policy issues typically involve NGOs and think tanks devoted to governmental affairs. But what if these institutions took a similar approach to the technology industry by building our teams to organize engagement and develop resources to better inform these companies on faith perspectives and common good accommodations in a pluralistic society?

Instead of defaulting to a government that must step in to solve all of our problems, we need to seek policy-oriented solutions and common good accommodations if we are to see true and lasting change in better policies that better reflect the diversity of thought on some of the most important issues of the day and champion free expression for all.

ERLC’s Psalm 139 Project Places Ultrasound Machine at Mosaic Sexual Health Clinic in Tallahassee
By / Oct 13

NASHVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 13, 2020—The Psalm 139 Project, a pro-life ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, placed an ultrasound machine at Mosaic Sexual Health Clinic, a new facility opened by A Women’s Pregnancy Center in Tallahassee, Fla. as a part of its mission to save lives.

The Psalm 139 Project focuses on aiding pregnancy resource centers by securing ultrasound machines. Since its inception, the Psalm 139 Project has provided 24 ultrasound machines for pregnancy care centers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico. 

Elizabeth Graham, ERLC vice president of operations and life initiatives, commented on the significance of the ultrasound placement machine. 

“The Psalm 139 Project allows the ERLC to raise money for life saving ultrasound machines, where 100 percent of the proceeds go towards the purchasing, training and placement of a machine in a pregnancy resource center. Each placement allows abortion-vulnerable and abortion-determined women to get a glimpse of the life inside their womb. We are thankful for our partnership with Mosaic Sexual Health Clinic and A Women’s Pregnancy Center and the wonderful work they are doing to rescue babies in Tallahassee. We have seen, firsthand, the positive effect these ultrasound machines have on saving preborn lives and will continue to place machines in pregnancy resource centers and women’s health clinics around the country.”

Jamie Brown, executive director for A Women’s Pregnancy Center, commented on the Psalm 139 Project’s ultrasound placement. 

“Women come to Mosaic Sexual Health Clinic often terrified and confused as they face an unexpected pregnancy. Thanks to the Psalm 139 Project’s generous donation of a brand new ultrasound machine, we can gently show them their children for the first time. The moment they see their child, everything shifts in their hearts. Now they have a child, not just a problem. Planned Parenthood, our next door neighbor, charges $100 for their clients to see their ultrasound. We let them see for free. Thanks to the Psalm 139 Project for providing this stunning opportunity to show our clients life. Many children are being rescued from abortion because you care.”

Dean Inserra, pastor of The City Church in Tallahassee, Fla., and local ministry partner at Mosaic Sexual Health Center commented on the placement. 

“As a local church, we are first and foremost called to the mission field of our local community. A Women’s Pregnancy Center is a vital part of ministry in Tallahassee and receiving the gift of an ultrasound machine from the ERLC Psalm 139 Project greatly increases the effectiveness of ministering to some of the most vulnerable in our community. The Center is literally next door to Planned Parenthood, so the advancement of equipment and technology is essential for the flourishing of the center and their ministry. As a church we are thrilled to partner with both the ERLC and A Women’s Pregnancy Center.” 

Earlier this year, the Psalm 139 Project also placed an ultrasound machine at Care Net of Las Cruces in Las Cruces, New Mexico that is used to offer support and care for clients making a pregnancy choice for life. 

One hundred percent of financial contributions donated to the Psalm 139 Project go toward purchasing ultrasound machines and providing training for workers. Tax-deductible gifts may be made to ERLC, 901 Commerce Street, Nashville, Tenn., 37203. Learn more at psalm139project.com. 

Saving lives in Florida, one ultrasound at a time
By / Sep 30

Over-churched and under-reached.

That’s how pastor Dean Inserra described his city of Tallahassee, Fla.  

“There are a lot of church buildings, but not a lot of people in the churches. Christianity around here is much more cultural than it is convictional,” he explained.

The Sunshine State’s capital city is also host to two major colleges: Florida State University and Florida A&M University. And this gives the local Church multiple opportunities to reach the “under-reached” in that area.

But not in the way we might think when we think of college ministry.

Between both schools there were approximately 3,000 reported pregnancies last year. Statistically, 40 percent of pregnant college students have abortions.

Inserra’s wife, Krissie, is the former Campus Coordinator for A Women’s Pregnancy Center, a local crisis pregnancy center. As a liaison between the center and the two colleges—a worker on the front lines of the pro life movement—she brought home story after story of the fight for the sanctity of life. Krissie now cares for her newborn at home while Briley Cotton, another City Church member, is the new coordinator.

Inserra and his 2,000-member congregation, City Church, responded and decided it was time to roll up their sleeves, open their wallets and put hands and feet to their conviction that every life matters.

Like several other established churches in the area, City Church began supporting A Women’s Pregnancy Center through monetary donations that fund the purchase of ultrasound machines.

Inserra wants the Church to find more ways like this to be actively, tangibly pro life: “I have always been passionately pro life. Sometimes we need to figure out what it means and how we should carry that out. As a Christian, I want to be able to put feet to that position and make a difference.”

And the difference has been astounding. From January through June of 2014, 120 women were given ultrasounds. Of those women, 53 of them were abortion-minded prior to the ultrasound. After the ultrasound, 35 of those abortion-minded women chose life for their unborn babies.

Inserra is energized and encouraged by these results.

“It is mind blowing to see how many women chose life because of the ultrasound experience. It is a game changer because no one can deny what it is; when you see the baby, you see it’s a life,” he explained.

City Church supports the center by participating in other efforts, such as their annual Walk for Life, fundraising banquets and general volunteer work.

Inserra said his church also offers a helping hand and assurance to the moms-to-be: “We tell these moms, ‘we will walk alongside you and be here for you. We will help you raise this baby or we will help you place this baby for adoption. We care about your baby and we care about your soul.’”

The ministry goes beyond the woman and the baby. A men’s ministry was started to reach the fathers of these unborn babies.

“A woman is more likely to carry the child if the father is on board. One of the reasons a woman walks into an abortion clinic is because the guy is telling her to do it. In her mind, she is going to raise this baby all by herself,” Inserra explained.

“If the baby’s dad can get on board, the mother knows she has support. And then lives can be saved.”

As a believer that abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time, Inserra urges the younger generation of believers to see it for what it is—and to be vocal and active.

“I see a generation that seems to be all about social justice: wearing this bracelet and liking that cause, but they seem to be largely silent about this issue,” he said. “Crisis pregnancy centers across the country are actually ground zero for social justice.”

Referring to abortion as “our generation’s holocaust,” Inserra looks to 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 as the motive to speak out and take action on behalf of the unborn.

“We are compelled by the work of Christ—the love of Christ—to care about the most vulnerable and least of these. And the most vulnerable and voiceless are the unborn children,” he explained.

“As gospel-believing people we will speak on behalf of the unborn. We are going to be people who are about justice. And you cannot be about justice unless you start there.”

Inserra is hopeful that more in the Church will see abortion as a gospel issue rather than a political issue. He wants to see the power of the gospel infiltrate the abortion industry and change lives.

“We have seen the gospel restore broken people who have come into the center. They finally realize that the blood of Jesus covers not just our sin in part, but the whole. I’m not banking on a court reversal of Roe v. Wade