What the ERLC is advocating for in government appropriations
By / Sep 28

With a government shutdown looming, Congress is scrambling to find agreement on how to fund the government before this year’s budget runs out on Sept. 30. If Congress is unable to pass the appropriations bills or a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to temporarily extend its current funding, the government will shut down until an agreement is reached.

Though this tedious and dysfunctional process must be completed each fiscal year, it is one with great importance to Southern Baptists because we care deeply about how our taxpayer dollars are being used. As ERLC President Brent Leatherwood wrote in his letter to Congress on this topic, “As a nation, our values and priorities are most clearly displayed through the allocation of our resources. It is our desire for those resources to be used in a way that promotes life, religious liberty, and the flourishing of all our neighbors.”

In light of those core convictions, the ERLC engages each year with the congressional appropriations process, highlighting both areas of concern and support to lawmakers. As negotiations are taking place, we want to make sure the voices of Southern Baptists will be heard.

How is the government funded?

Each year, Congress must move through the appropriations process in order to fund the government. The process should work like this:

  • The president submits his proposed budget process in the early spring,
  • then appropriators in the U.S.House of Representatives and Senate begin drafting each of the 12 appropriations bills that fund different parts of the government.
  • From there, these bills pass the appropriations committees, pass through both chambers, and then go on to the president’s desk for his signature.

All of this work must be completed by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, or Congress is forced to pass a short-term funding patch known as a CR. 

In reality, the president’s proposed budget is largely ignored, and when the House and Senate begin working on their versions of each of these 12 bills, they look vastly different depending on the party in power. Compromise versions of those bills are often combined into a large omnibus or a few smaller minibus bills that make it easier for Congress to pass the bills rather than voting on them individually. The last time Congress passed all 12 bills individually was 1994.

Why does this appropriations process matter?

As trillions of taxpayer dollars are allocated, it is important that we speak into how that money is spent. Without continued advocacy, this money can go toward things that Southern Baptists find objectionable, such as gender transition procedures and abortion at home and abroad. Many of the protections that prohibit government funding from going toward these things and protect consciences must be included each year as a policy “rider.”

As these bills move through a complicated process, there are significant opportunities for harmful provisions to be added in unnoticed or for important protections to be excluded. Consistent advocacy on these issues is essential to ensure the inclusion of important riders such as the Hyde Amendment.

How is the ERLC advocating?

Every year, the ERLC engages in the appropriations process. Our team does a comprehensive review of all 24 of these bills—the 12 House bills and 12 Senate bills. As we wade through thousands of pages of legislative text, we look for anything of concern. Specifically, we’re looking for issues where government funding could be going to an abortion provider or funding gender transition procedures or policies that could implicate the consciences of medical professionals or taxpayers. 

We also look for positive things that we can support, such as expanded protections for life or funding to promote international religious freedom. 

When negotiators are down to the wire and are trying to decide what gets into a final, compromise package, we want them to know the priorities of Southern Baptists and urge them to include what we care about. After we do our review, we make sure that those concerns and priorities are communicated to negotiators and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

What is the ERLC advocating for?

One thing that we were excited to see in both the Republican-led House proposed bills and the Democratic-led Senate proposed bills was the inclusion of longstanding life and conscience protection riders. These riders, such as the Hyde amendment, provide essential, baseline protections. For the last two years, they have been excluded from the initially proposed House and Senate bills. Though they were ultimately included in both fiscal year 2022 and 2023 appropriations, it is a victory worth celebrating that compromising these protections was not on the negotiating table this year.

However, even with these protections in place, the proposed House and Senate appropriations bills contain several things concerning to Southern Baptists such as increased funding for:

  • abortion providers at home and abroad,
  • “gender specific care” that can go toward abortion-travel,
  • and the United Nations Population Fund.

Additionally, the House State and Foreign Operations bill excludes a longstanding provision known as the Lautenberg Amendment. The Lautenberg Amendment has provided an essential pathway for persecuted religious minorities from former Soviet Union countries, including many Christians, to find safety in the United States.

There are also several provisions in the proposed House bills that the ERLC is urging Congress to include in its final package. These include provisions such as:

  • Prohibiting funding for abortion providers;
  • prohibiting funding for gender transition procedures
  • prohibiting funding for abortion travel;
  • and reinstating important safety precautions for chemical abortion drugs.

Though it remains unlikely that all of these provisions would be included in a compromise package, the ERLC is continuing to advocate for as much progress to be made as possible in protecting life, caring for our neighbors, and upholding conscience rights.

What happens next?

Congress will continue to debate these individual appropriations bills while also considering short-term measures to avert a government shutdown. While a government shutdown looks likely, and it remains unclear how an agreement could be reached to fund the government, the ERLC will continue to advocate on behalf of Southern Baptists and make lawmakers aware of these concerns and priorities.

Abortion and gender ideology in the National Defense Authorization Act
By / Sep 15

Abortion and gender ideology have once again become a topic of discussion on Capitol Hill, this time in relation to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024. 

The NDAA is an annual piece of federal legislation that authorizes the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense (DOD) and other affiliated agencies. The NDAA serves as the principal mechanism through which Congress exercises its constitutional authority to “raise and support Armies” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” as stipulated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Some of the key components of the legislation in which abortion and gender ideology play a factor are the budget authorization, policy guidelines, and personnel matters. The NDAA specifies how much money can be spent in various categories. Beyond budgetary matters, the NDAA often includes policy provisions that guide the military’s conduct and regulations. The act also frequently addresses issues related to military personnel, such as payment or reimbursement for specific medical procedures.

National Defense Authorization Act Amendments related to abortion and gender ideology

In July, the House of Representatives passed a bill that included amendments related to abortion and transgender surgeries. The amendments include the following:

  • Prohibits the secretary of Defense from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.
  • Undoes the Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members to have access to abortion services.
  • Bans the Pentagon from paying for or reimbursing service members for abortion-related expenses.
  • Additional restrictions on abortion. 
  • Prohibits TRICARE from covering and the DOD from furnishing sex-reassignment surgeries and gender hormone treatments for transgender individuals.
  • Prohibits provision of gender-transition procedures, including surgery or medication, through the Exceptional Family Member Program.
  • Recinds the Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members to have access to gender-transition procedures. 

The Senate also passed a version of the bill in July that avoided making any changes to current abortion and gender-identity funding or policies. The two versions of the bill await a formal conference in the fall to reconcile these differences. The amendments on abortion and gender identity aren’t expected to survive the reconciliation process. No Democrat in the Senate supports those amendments, which means they cannot pass in the Senate. Even if they made it into the final bill, though, President Biden would likely veto the bill.

Other cultural issues addressed by House amendments are: 

  • a prohibition on drag shows and drag queen story hour, 
  • a prohibition on the display of unapproved flags (such as the LGBTQ+ Pride flag), 
  • and a requirement that DOD Education Activity schools are prohibited from purchasing and having pornographic and radical gender ideology books in their libraries.

Congress will begin negotiations this month and must complete the final version of the NDAA before the end of the year. In the meantime, the ERLC will continue advocating on behalf of Southern Baptists at every opportunity. 

We invite our fellow Southern Baptists to join us in praying for godly wisdom to permeate these negotiations, for lives to be saved through maintaining the current restrictions on abortion, and for opportunities to clearly articulate God’s design for gender and sexuality.

Pushing back on abortion and gender ideology in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
By / Sep 14

Each year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate must pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds and directs the functions of the United States Armed Forces and overall national defense. This bill typically includes issues such as the operations of military bases, the procurement of weapons, vessels, and aircraft, and revised training requirements for the members of military branches.

Due to the politically divided nature of Congress, the two versions of the NDAA, one led by Republicans in the House and the other by Democrats in the Senate, vary on how federal funding can be used. As a result, Congress will need to meet, or “conference,” to negotiate the final form of the NDAA to be enacted next year. 

Congressional conference provides a unique opportunity for advocacy groups, such as the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, to voice concerns or support for provisions included in the NDAA as they begin the negotiating process.

Why is the NDAA important?

Through the NDAA, Congress allocates approximately $886 billion in taxpayer funds. In addition, the NDAA helps set what Congress views as legitimate uses of federal funding. Without proper language included in the NDAA, taxpayer dollars could be used to fund activities Southern Baptists fundamentally oppose.

One example of such an issue is federally funded abortion. The Department of Defense has announced plans to use federal funding provided in the NDAA to transport women who serve in the armed forces from military bases located within states that limit or ban abortion for the sole purpose of obtaining an abortion. This is justified as a “national security” issue to ensure women who become pregnant are not required to take a leave of absence during their pregnancy and while giving birth. However, this policy is really part of an overarching plan from the White House to prevent state abortion restrictions from taking effect whenever possible following the Dobbs decision.

Another example is the use of federal funding to cover gender transition procedures and other medication, such as puberty blockers. The Department of Defense spends roughly $136 billion annually on healthcare for employees and military personnel, and under the current leadership, the Department is extending such coverage to include surgical procedures and medication prescribed for gender transitioning. This is part of a federal policy designed to facilitate gender transitions under the guise of supporting the armed forces.

Language prohibiting the usage of federal funds for abortion-related travel and for gender transition procedures is included in one version of the NDAA, but not both. This means when the congressional conference begins, these prohibitions may be removed during the negotiating process.

How does this affect Southern Baptists?

As stated in the Baptist Faith and Message, Southern Baptists believe that God has ordained government for the purpose of executing justice, praising that which is good, and punishing those who do evil. Any federal funding of abortion or gender-transition services cultivates injustice by violating our consciences as taxpayers and by causing irreversible bodily harm to our neighbors.

Southern Baptists have historically supported these measures through the passage of our annual resolutions such as the:

What happens next?

On Sept. 14, the ERLC sent a letter to congressional representatives urging them to include language prohibiting the use of federal funding for:

  • Abortion, including abortion-related travel, and
  • Gender-transition resources, including both surgeries and medication.

Congress will likely begin negotiations in September and must complete the final version of the NDAA before the end of the year. In the meantime, the ERLC will continue advocating on behalf of Southern Baptists at every opportunity. 

We invite our fellow Southern Baptists to join us in praying for godly wisdom to permeate these negotiations, for lives to be saved through maintaining the current restrictions on abortion, and for opportunities to clearly articulate God’s design for gender and sexuality.

What parents should know about school gender identity policies
By / Sep 8

Do parents have a right to know if their child is socially transitioning to a transgender identity in school? The issue of gender identity policies in schools has become increasingly contentious, with parents correctly feeling they have a right to know when their child socially transitions at school, and many public schools arguing that schools have a responsibility to “protect” students by keeping that information from parents.

Social transition describes the process by which children or adolescents adopt the name, pronouns, and gender expression, such as clothing and haircuts, that aligns with a transgender identity. 

Social transition in school districts

Increasingly, school districts across the country are attempting to keep parents from discovering when such social transitioning is occurring at school—and they’re being supported by the federal courts. 

Maryland: In August 2023, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that three parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, lacked standing to challenge the school’s gender identity policy because they had not alleged their children were transgender in the first place.

The policy, which the Montgomery County Board of Education adopted for the 2020-2021 school year: 

  • permitted schools to develop gender support plans for students to ensure they “feel comfortable expressing their gender identity”; 
  • directs school personnel to help transgender and gender nonconforming students create a plan that addresses their preferred pronouns, names, and bathrooms; 
  • and bars staff from informing parents of those plans without a student’s consent. 

Lawsuits are pending challenging similar policies in other states. 

California: In July, a federal court dismissed a similar case brought against a California school district by a parent who alleged the district had violated her constitutional rights by failing to tell her that her child had asked to use a different gender pronoun. U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez said in his ruling: 

“The issue before this court is not whether it is a good idea for school districts to notify parents of a minor’s gender identity and receive consent before using alternative names and pronouns, but whether the United States Constitution mandates such parental authority. This Court holds that it does not.”

The states that do—and do not—require parental notification

School gender identity policies on informing parents about students who are transgender or social transitioning vary widely among school districts and states. Here are some states that have issued guidance on this issue:

  • Alabama: State law requires that no school staff shall “withhold from a minor’s parent or legal guardian information related to a minor’s perception that his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with his or her sex.” 
  • Arizona: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents. 
  • California:  While policies vary by school district, the state issued legal guidance issued by the California Department of Education, which expressly states schools may not disclose a student’s gender identity without the student’s permission. The California legislature also passed a law which makes the state of California a “safe haven” for minors to receive irreversible, sterilizing surgeries and treatments. The bill allows minors to act against their parents’ wishes and travel out of state for these procedures without parental consent.
  • Florida: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents. 
  • Idaho: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents. 
  • Indiana: State law requires schools to notify parents if the child changes their gender identity. 
  • Iowa: State law requires schools to notify parents if the child changes their gender identity. 
  • Kentucky: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents. 
  • Montana: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents.
  • North Carolina: State law requires schools to notify parents if the child changes their gender identity. 
  • Utah: State law promotes parental involvement, though does not require school staff to notify parents.

In states not listed, there is no state-level requirement to notify parents. 

What every concerned parent can do

Even in states that require notification, concerned parents should make a direct effort to determine whether their child secretly identifies as transgender at school. A simple way to do this is to access the student’s records and see if the child is using a different name or pronoun. Two federal regulations—the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment—require schools to provide parents with access to student records and federally funded instructional material until a child turns 18. 

Unfortunately, this is one of the few options available to all parents in the U.S. As Ryan Womack of Alliance Defending Freedom observes, “Parental rights are not always protected in every state or federal court as carefully as are other fundamental rights.” 

Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether public schools will be required to respect parental rights. 

Christian parents, in particular, ought to be vigilant and take the initiative to directly protect their children from the confusing and harmful gender ideology touted by the prevailing culture. The Bible is clear that parents should be the ones primarily responsible for instructing their children in the Word of God (Deut. 6), and this includes what Scripture teaches about sexuality. As Christian parents help their children walk in the way of wisdom, they point to the goodness of God’s design and encourage the flourishing of their families and communities. 

What does the Bible teach about gender and sexuality?
By / Sep 7

Welcome to the all-new ERLC Podcast! In this first series of our new format, we will explore the issues of gender and sexuality and discover what the Bible teaches us about these controversial, but important cultural topics. 

During this episode, you will hear from expert voices about:

  • What it means to be made in the image of God;
  • God’s good design for all people;
  • How the world was corrupted by the fall in Genesis 3; and
  • How to live out countercultural beliefs about these topics. 

While the format is new, our goal for the podcast remains the same. The ERLC seeks to help you think biblically about today’s cultural issues.

We’ve been listening to you to better understand the questions you’re facing and how the ERLC can help on matters related to gender and sexuality. 

On this updated format of the ERLC Podcast, we want to give you brief, informed, practical, and biblically-based answers to important cultural issues.

You are not the only one asking these questions. Just like you, we want to hold fast to the teachings of Scripture as we seek to raise our families, serve our churches, and love our neighbors in an ever-evolving and often challenging cultural landscape. 

We are glad you are here and look forward to walking alongside you as we challenge one another to think biblically and critically on matters of gender and sexuality so that we can live in the world, but not of it—all for the sake of the gospel.

Explainer: How bans on transgender athletes protect fairness in women’s sports
By / Aug 25

In recent years, there has been a growing debate surrounding the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. After a wave of initial support for making such accommodations, the tide is turning. A Gallup poll finds that a larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity—26%, down from 34%.

During this same time period, an increasing number of sports associations and states have recognized that bans on transgender athletes are necessary to protect the integrity and fairness of women’s sports. Here is what you should know about the issue.

What are bans on transgender athletes in sports?

Bans on transgender athletes in sports refer to policies that prevent people who identify as transgender from participating in sports that are consistent with their gender identity. The bans are most commonly applied to biological males who identify as transgender (transgender women). Few biological women who identify as transgender (transgender men) have sought access to competitions against male athletes. 

Why are such bans on transgender athletes necessary?

There are four primary reasons such bans are needed. 

To uphold biological reality.

God created male and female as distinct and complementary sexes. Biological differences between males and females are to be honored and cherished rather than used to gain an unfair advantage. By upholding biological reality, we can ensure that women’s sports remain a space for female athletes to compete on equal footing.

To ensure fair competition.

A key reason why such bans are needed is because biological differences between males and females can provide an unfair advantage in certain sports. Male puberty can result in physiological advantages such as increased muscle mass, bone density, and lung capacity, which can impact athletic performance. By allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports, it is argued that the level playing field for women is compromised. Maureen Collins, writing for Alliance Defending Freedom, has highlighted about a dozen examples of how women have been disadvantaged by competing against men.

To protect women’s opportunities.

Girls and women should have equal opportunities to excel in sports without facing unfair competition. Title IX, a federal law in the United States, was designed to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women. Allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports limits the opportunities available to women, as scholarships, records, and other achievements may be dominated by transgender athletes.

To preserve the integrity of women’s sports.

Maintaining separate categories for males and females is essential to preserve the integrity and essence of women’s sports. Women’s sports have historically provided a platform for female athletes to showcase their skills and achievements, and allowing transgender women to compete undermines this tradition.

Bans on transgender athletes in girls and women’s sports are necessary measures to protect the sanctity, fairness, and opportunities of women’s sports. Christians should uphold biological reality, protect women’s opportunities, and preserve the sanctity of women’s sports by supporting such bans.  

Where are such bans on transgender athletes currently in place?

As of August 2023, 23 states in the United States have enacted laws to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity

These bans apply to both K-12 and collegiate level sports teams. The states with bans on transgender athlete participation in college sports include:

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in enforcing bans on transgender athletes in West Virginia, affirming the constitutionality of such restrictions.

In April, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that would bar transgender women and girls from participating in athletic programs designated for women. The bill has no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate or being signed into law by President Biden. 

However, Biden’s Department of Education proposed a rule change that—while not allowing a blanket ban—would give universities and K-12 schools the discretion to limit the participation of transgender students if they conclude that including transgender athletes could undermine competitive fairness or potentially lead to sports-related injuries.

Which sports organizations ban biological males from competing against girls and women?

In 2022, the Union Cycliste Internationale, the governing body for cycling, announced a testosterone limit of 2.5 nmol/L for biologically male cyclists who want to compete with women.

Around that same time, FINA, the governing body for swimming, barred biological males from competing in women’s events.

World Rugby also has a complete ban on biological males competing in international women’s rugby “because of the size, force- and power-producing advantages conferred by testosterone during puberty and adolescence, and the resultant player welfare risks this creates.”

Earlier this year, World Athletics (WA), the governing body for track and field and other running competitions, implemented a policy that biological males who went through male puberty can no longer compete in women’s events at international competitions. WA also ruled that to compete as a woman, athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD), who have congenital conditions that cause atypical sex development, must have a testosterone level below 2.5 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) for at least 24 months before an international competition.

What is the Equality Act?
By / Jun 27

Last week, the Equality Act was once again introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate for consideration. This legislation intends to expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code. Last Congress, the Equality Act passed in the House, but the bill died in the Senate. 

The ERLC affirms the full dignity of every human being. At the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Messengers passed a resolution to “reaffirm the sacredness and full dignity and worthiness of respect and Christian love for every single human being, without any reservation.” But the Equality Act does not advance the cause of human dignity. 

If passed, the Equality Act would punish faith-based charities for their core religious beliefs about human dignity and marriage and would undermine decades of civil rights protections for women and girls. The alarmingly detrimental consequences of the bill pose a significant threat to the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of Americans who honor God’s design for sexuality.

What does this bill mean for religious liberty?

This bill would substantially undermine religious liberty protections in the United States. America has long been a place where people with different views and beliefs have lived at peace alongside each other. Though America has not perfectly lived up to this ideal of a shared nation, it was central to our founding as persecuted religious minorities sought safe harbor in this land. Though cleverly named, the Equality Act is out of step with that American ideal. Equality cannot be achieved while eliminating other basic, fundamental freedoms. Of particular note, the bill would essentially gut the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a bill which passed with broad bipartisan support and was signed by President Clinton.

By undermining RFRA, the Equality Act would force faith-based child welfare organizations to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs or be shut down by the state. The state-forced closures of such agencies is especially detrimental at a time when multiple crises—including the post-pandemic effects and the ongoing opioid epidemic—have led to increases in the number of children in need of services.

What does the bill mean for women and girls?

Most strikingly, the Equality Act undermines decades of hard fought civil rights protections for women and girls. Single gender spaces, such as locker rooms or shelters, would no longer be protected by law. This departure from a legal understanding of gender as male and female makes women and girls vulnerable to biological males being in their private spaces. For example, shelters for those women and girls escaping domestic abuse or homelessness would be forced to house biological men who identify as female. This legislation disregards the privacy and safety concerns women rightly have about sharing sleeping quarters and intimate facilities with the biological opposite sex.

Another example of the harm this legislation poses to women and girls is in athletics and academics. Since 1972, Title IX has advanced women’s sports and scholarship in remarkable ways. If enacted, the Equality Act would threaten female competition as both areas would then be open to biological males as well.

Are there pro-life concerns in the Equality Act?

Yes. The Equality Act would be the most pro-abortion bill ever passed by Congress. It would redefine the term “sex” to also include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” This language would roll back federal law that protects the consciences of pro-life nurses and physicians who object to participating in abortions because of their deeply held religious or moral beliefs. These conscience protections carry decades of bipartisan consensus—a consensus that no person should be compelled to participate in an act they believe to be gravely immoral. The Equality Act would also jeopardize the longstanding Hyde Amendment that protects federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. There is nothing equalizing about forcing Americans to fund abortion through taxpayer dollars.

How has the ERLC been involved?

The ERLC has worked tirelessly to defeat this bill. We have partnered with a broad coalition of more than 85 faith-based nonprofits, religious entities, and institutions of higher education to highlight the dangers of the Equality Act. We have raised these concerns with members of Congress and the administration through coalition letters and countless meetings with members, administration officials, and their staff. We have also engaged in public advocacy against the bill by producing a suite of resources to inform Christians and the broader public about the pernicious threat of the so-called “Equality” Act.

What’s next?

In the prior Democrat-led House, the Equality Act passed 224-206, with three Republicans joining all 221 Democrats. In the 118th Congress, Republicans narrowly hold the majority seats, but the bill is unlikely to make it to the floor for a vote. Two of the three Republicans who voted in favor of the bill are no longer in Congress, which makes it even more difficult for Democrats to force a vote on the bill. Another obstacle is Speaker McCarthy’s commitment to unifying the Republican majority’s voice in the House to present a strong front before the American people. 

While it is unlikely the bill will be passed in this Congress, its continued appearance presents a larger, on-going threat to human dignity and religious liberty. The ERLC will continue to highlight how the Equality Act erodes fundamental freedoms and undermines the ability of Americans of diverse beliefs to work together for the common good.

SBC Becomes First Denomination to Address Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies, Guiding ERLC
By / Jun 14

NEW ORLEANS, La., June 14, 2023 —The Southern Baptist Convention became the first national denomination to pass a definitive statement on the ethics of artificial intelligence, which will become the cornerstone of the ERLC’s advocacy on this issue. 

Other significant resolutions were voted on and overwhelmingly affirmed by the messengers of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination during its annual meeting June 13-14 on the topics of immigration and gender transitions. 

The SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission will remain a strong voice for dignity on issues of artificial intelligence, immigration and gender, as the resolutions supported the current positions advocated by the organization. 

Brent Leatherwood, president of the ERLC, commented below on each of the three resolutions and how they related to the ERLC’s mission to assist churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel. 

On Artificial Intelligence

“Our resolutions committee deserves all the appreciation we can muster for crafting this first-of-its-kind resolution for any denomination or network of churches. Artificial Intelligence has been a hot topic, both in Washington and on the international stage. This resolution comes at an opportune time and proves once again that even when it comes to the leading edge of emerging technologies, the Bible, as always, gives us principles to guide us in uncharted waters.” 

On Wisely Engaging Immigration

“Our convention of churches has consistently called for a secure border and for immigrants to be treated with dignity. This resolution once again asserts our commitment to these twin principles that should never be pitted against one another. It rightly calls on our nation’s officials to come together and create solutions to solve our immigration crisis.” 

On Opposing ‘Gender Transitions’

“As the Baptist Faith & Message states, gender is a gift and is an essential part of the ‘goodness of God’s creation.’ It is not fluid, self-defined, or subject to the whims of a prevailing culture at odds with biological reality. This resolution rightly affirms those state governments that have taken steps to protect children from becoming pawns in the sexual revolution through harmful interventions and surgeries. At the same time it confirms the SBC will continue to be a strong voice advocating against these exploitative efforts that render far too many children and young people vulnerable.”

The ERLC has long advocated for human dignity, life, religious liberty and marriage and family. To learn more about our work and current priorities, visit erlc.com. 

ERLC joins in supporting parental rights and opposing radical gender ideology in schools
By / Jun 2

Who should decide whether a child should be allowed to identify as transgender? 

In numerous locations across the country, school administrators are saying that they should be the ones to decide—and that they can keep such information from parents. That’s why over the past year, the ERLC has signed onto three different amicus briefs relating to issues of parental rights, transgenderism, and radical gender ideology in schools. 

Two of the cases are currently in federal appeals courts while one is being heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In all three cases—

—the school districts violated parental rights by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth, without providing parental notification absent a student’s consent.

Amicus briefs

The ERLC is joining with other groups in contending that such policies violate the rights of parents in two principal ways.

  1. First, their fundamental right to direct the care and education of their children includes the right to decide where the child will attend school, but the school policy improperly denied them critical information to inform that decision.  
  2. Second, by withholding such sensitive information when school officials, in their judgment, suspect parents might be insufficiently supportive, the school effectively labels those parents as abusive of their children, without affording them any due process protections as provided by both statutory and constitutional law.   

The amicus brief is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. An amicus brief is a learned treatise submitted by an amicus curiae (Latin for “friend of the court”), that is, someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. 

While it’s impossible to know how any particular amicus brief influences a justice or their decisions, such briefs are frequently cited in court rulings, showing that they can have an effect on legal outcomes. 

Joining with state conventions

In two of the cases, the ERLC is joining the amicus with, among other groups, the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention.

In the third case, we are joining with the Baptist Convention of Iowa.

When appropriate, the ERLC wants to come alongside our state conventions and bolster their work promoting sound public policy and pushing back on policies that are harmful to our communities. What happens in these three cases can have national implications, so we want to advocate on an issue—transgenderism—where the SBC has clearly spoken.

How the SBC has spoken

In 2014, messengers of the SBC passed a resolution on transgenderism. That resolution

  • noted that “Some public schools are encouraging parents and teachers to affirm the feelings of children whose self-perception of their own gender is at variance with their biological sex”;
  • expressed the SBC’s opposition to efforts to alter one’s bodily identity (e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery) to refashion it to conform with one’s perceived gender identity;
  • and stated the SBC’s opposition to “all efforts by any governing official or body to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy (Isaiah 5:20).” 

The position was taken out of love of neighbor and a concern for human dignity. As the resolution states, “we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good always, welcome them to our churches and, as they repent and believe in Christ, receive them into church membership (2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Galatians 5:14)” and “we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers of Almighty God and therefore condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against them.”

While all children, including those struggling with gender dysmorphia, should be treated compassionately, parents should be providing that counsel and care—not school administrators. Unfortunately, radical gender ideology is often being furthered in schools without the consent or in conflict with the wishes of parents. We believe that parents should have the right to know what is being taught to their children and any decisions that their child is making in regards to gender and sexuality.

ERLC calls on the Department of Education to reject transgender proposal
By / May 19

Recently, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) proposed a rule change concerning education programs and school activities that receive federal financial assistance.

On April 6, the ED released a proposed rule under Title IX anti-discrimination laws to “clarify” the participation of transgender students in school sports. The proposed rule focuses on sex-related eligibility criteria for male and female athletic teams, specifically advocating for the recognition of gender identity rather than biological sex in determining team eligibility.

ERLC has joined several organizations and scholars in voicing opposition to the proposed rule change, arguing that it undermines the original intent of Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 

The intention of Title IX was to provide equal opportunities for both men and women seeking to participate in educational institutions and extracurricular activities that receive federal funding.

The law has been instrumental in advancing athletic opportunities for girls and women. As  Hannah Daniel, ERLC’s policy manager, said, “Since the passage of Title IX over 50 years ago, women and girls have been afforded new opportunities for advancement in education and athletics.”

However, this new rule establishes that federally-funded schools may violate Title IX if they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their claimed gender identity, but it also offers some vague and narrow circumstances where banning transgender athletes could be acceptable.

The ERLC’s letter

In response to the rule change, ERLC President Brent Leatherwood submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Education expressing concerns about the proposed rule. Leatherwood argues that the rule violates the original intent of Title IX, which was enacted to provide equal opportunities for women and girls. ERLC believes that the proposed rule, which would require schools and universities to adopt gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of athletic competition, will undermine the purpose of Title IX. This change will also force women to compete against and share bathroom and changing facilities with biological males.

In the letter, Leatherwood raises concerns the ERLC has about the proposed rule’s impact on the biblical truth of binary sexes and biological realities. He argues that the rule would expand beyond these truths and conflate “sex” with “gender,” a shift that hinders the good and flourishing of our neighbors and discounts the human dignity of their fellow citizens. Leatherwood notes,

A refusal to account for biological, sex-dependent differences will legally enshrine inequality in sports by changing the very law that sought to achieve equality in the first place. If the proposed change is accepted, the law created to protect women from discrimination and provide them equality would discriminate against them and make them more unequal than ever before, as they would now be forced to compete and share facilities with biological males, who have distinct physical differences than females.

ERLC is urging the ED to retract the proposed rule so that the original intent of Title IX—to protect women and girls in athletic endeavors—may be realized. The ED is obligated by federal law to respond to each comment before finalizing the rule.

The proposed rule change has sparked a significant concern about the Biden administration’s efforts to undermine the original intent of Title IX. As the discussion continues, it will be crucial for Christians to pray that such efforts will be thwarted and to lobby ​​the federal government to consider the potential effects on all students and the future of athletics in educational institutions.