Explainer: HHS rescinds waivers that protect religious freedom
By / Nov 19

On Nov. 18, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Office for Civil Rights (OCR), announced the rescission of waivers issued by the Trump administration that protect the religious freedom and consciences of millions of Americans. Notably, HHS is rescinding waivers given to South Carolina, Texas, and Michigan, including child welfare agencies in those states.

Why does this matter?

This action is deeply troubling for faith-based organizations and people who serve communities in their states according to their religious beliefs. The waivers granted to these states protect the religious freedom of faith-based groups serving vulnerable children. 

We need more organizations serving children in foster care, not less. There are currently 423,997 children in the U.S. foster care system, and that number is likely going to continue to increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its affect on families. At a time when children need safe, permanent, and loving homes, the government should be ensuring that more providers can serve.

One of the states whose waiver is being rescinded by HHS is South Carolina, and this action will impact an organization entitled Miracle HIll.

Miracle Hill Waiver

In 2019 under the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a religious liberty waiver for South Carolina’s faith-based organizations following a request from South Carolina Gov. McMaster. The governor made the request when one such organization, Miracle Hill Ministries, was in danger of losing its funding because of an Obama-era regulation that applied to all HHS grantees. 

For almost 30 years, Miracle Hill served all foster children of any race, nationality, religious belief, sex, disability, or political belief and was responsible for finding good placements for 15% of the over 4,500 children in the South Carolina foster care system. Miracle Hill is clear that its sincerely held religious beliefs are what motivate their work in caring for the needy and vulnerable. They view their foster care services as direct obedience to the biblical directive to care for vulnerable children.

This waiver, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), granted protections for faith-based organizations in South Carolina and allowed them to continue receiving federal funding without compromising their religious principles and convictions.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia  that faith-based foster care and adoption providers, such as Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia, can continue serving children and families according to their convictions. In the Fulton decision, the court strengthened and clarified the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

The basis for the court’s ruling is a clause included in contracts by the City of Philadelphia that give city officials the power to grant certain exemptions. The city government said it has never given out such an exemption and had no intention of providing one to CSS based on their religious beliefs. While the Fulton case set an important precedent for faith-based child welfare providers, there could be lawsuits filed against HHS for this rescission of religious liberty waivers.

Americans have a Constitutional right to religious freedom, and our government must respect the First Amendment and people of faith who serve according to their deeply held religious beliefs.

HHS stated that they would “evaluate religious exemptions and modifications of program requirements on a case-by-case basis.” 

How is the ERLC involved?

Brent Leatherwood, ERLC’s Acting President, stated, 

“These actions not only prevent faith-based child welfare providers from serving vulnerable children in foster care, but they also reveal an animus toward people of faith. Instead of a government that serves the people, these actions show a government willing to target groups for their beliefs. This has the effect of further eroding trust at a time when government institutions can least afford it. Our public square cannot continue to sustain these sorts of reckless and arbitrary changes that are rooted in political ideology, especially those that punish faith-based adoption agencies and religious organizations. Children in need are the ones who end up suffering because of this unending political warfare. That must stop.”

The ERLC is advocating before the administration on behalf of the faith community.  As Leatherwood affirmed, “Every elected official must recognize that religious freedom is a cornerstone of the Constitution. Our government, therefore, has a duty to protect the rights of those who enter the public square with sincerely-held religious beliefs, not assail them. We have communicated our concerns about these moves to the Administration and we will continue advocating on behalf of the faith community on this important matter.”

The ERLC will always promote and defend the human dignity, religious liberty, and conscience rights of all people and religious organizations — within each administration, on Capitol Hill, and throughout the public square. We will continue to work to ensure that vulnerable children in our nation can find safe, permanent, and loving homes.

Inflation’s 30-year high, kids and COVID-19 vaccines, and Veterans Day
By / Nov 12

In this episode, Brent and Lindsay discuss inflation’s 30-year high, kids and COVID-19 vaccines, and Veterans Day. They also talk about a religious liberty case before the Supreme Court and the humility of three simple words. 

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. Inflation at its highest in 30 years
  2. Kids getting vaccines; Anti-viral drugs
  3. Veterans Day and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • The Dawn of Redeeming Grace // This episode was sponsored by The Good Book Company, publisher of The Dawn of Redeeming Grace .Join Sinclair Ferguson as he opens up the first two chapters of Matthew’s Gospel in these daily devotions for Advent. Each day’s reflection is full of insight and application and will help you to arrive at Christmas Day awed by God’s redeeming grace and refreshed by the hope of God’s promised King. Find out more about this book at thegoodbook.com.
  • Outrageous Justice // God calls us to seek justice. But how should Christians respond? Outrageous Justice, a free small-group study from experts at Prison Fellowship, offers Christians a place to start. Explore the criminal justice system through a biblical lens and discover hands-on ways to pursue justice, hope, and restoration in your community. Get your free copy of Outrageous Justice, featuring a study guide, videos, and a companion book today! Visit prisonfellowship.org/outrageous-justice.

Important Supreme Court cases to watch this term
By / Oct 5

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court began its 2021-22 term. For the first time in more than 18 months, the justices will be physically present in the courtroom for oral arguments. Justice Kavanaugh will participate remotely because he tested positive for COVID-19 last week. According to the Supreme Court, “Courtroom access will be limited to the Justices, essential Court personnel, counsel in the scheduled cases, and journalists with full-time press credentials issued by the Supreme Court.”  However, the court will provide a live audio feed for the October, November, and December oral arguments.

The previous term of the Supreme Court contained some important cases that advanced the cause of religious liberty in the United States. This term, the cases the court will be hearing and deciding could have major implications on both religious liberty and life issues. Here is a rundown of some of the cases we will be watching. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

In mid-May, the Supreme Court granted cert on a case reviewing a Mississippi law that would replace the ‘viability standard’ with a limit on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The issue the court will be deciding is whether pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitional.

Mississippi passed a law in 2018 titled the “Gestational Age Act,” prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks except in a medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality. According to the findings in the legislation, “an unborn human being’s vital organs begin to function at ten weeks’ gestation. Hair, fingernails, and toenails also begin to form.” And “at twelve weeks’ gestation, an unborn human being can open and close his or her fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb.” 

A doctor with Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the law and requesting an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). A district court enjoined Mississippi from enforcing the law, finding that the state had not provided evidence that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks. Additionally, the district court believed that the Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from banning abortions prior to viability. The case represents a significant opportunity for the pro-life movement as hundreds of proposed state laws protecting the unborn could potentially take effect.

The ERLC filed an amicus brief in this case, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the precedent set in the Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decisions that have prevented states from prohibiting abortion. The ERLC joined with other pro-life organizations on the brief, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. 

Oral arguments for Dobbs will be held on Dec. 1, 2021.

For further reading:

Carson v. Makin

Each state is required to ensure that they are providing every school-aged child access to a free education. The state of Maine relies on local school administrative units (SAUs) to ensure that children have access to free education. For private schools to be approved, they must meet the state’s compulsory attendance requirements, and it must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.”

Three families wished to send their children to private schools that were accredited, but did not meet the nonsectarian requirement because they are religiously affiliated. As a result, they were denied public financial assistance. They filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the “nonsectarian” requirement violates the Constitution on its face and as applied.

This case is a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a 2020 case in which the Supreme Court held that Montana could not cut families off from a scholarship program available to all because they wanted to send their children to religious schools. In Espinoza, a state constitutional provision in Montana prohibited state tuition assistance funds from being used for private, religious education. The court will take up a question that wasn’t answered in the Espinoza case — “Does a state violate the Constitution when it operates a program that provides students with money to attend private schools but bars them from attending schools that provide religious instruction?”

The ERLC filed an amicus brief, arguing that the government should not discriminate against religion or people who wish to send their children to religious institutions.

Oral arguments for the Carson case will be held on Dec. 8, 2021. 

Ramirez v. Collier

On Sept. 8, just hours before John Ramirez was to be executed for a murder in Corpus Christi, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the execution. Ramirez sued Texas prison officials in August for refusing to permit Dana Moore, pastor of Second Baptist Church in Corpus Christi, to minister to him when he is executed. This case deals with the question of whether the state can prohibit a pastor or spiritual advisor from offering audible prayers and spiritual touch to an inmate condemned for execution.

Brent Leatherwood, ERLC’s acting president, stated that “the high court should overrule Texas’ ban and allow this important and solemn moment of ministry to proceed. Religious freedom doesn’t end as you approach the moment of death, and we have joined a brief saying as much,” Leatherwood said in written comments. “The state has yet to make a compelling argument for why Pastor Moore, an SBC pastor, cannot minister to Mr. Ramirez in these final moments.”

The ERLC filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the freedom of a condemned Texas inmate to have a Southern Baptist pastor lay hands on and pray for him when he receives a lethal injection.

Oral arguments for the Ramirez case will be held on Nov. 1, 2021.

Brief the ERLC has joined 

In addition to the cases before the Supreme Court this Fall, the ERLC has joined a brief on Petition for Writ of Certiorari (asking the court to grant cert.)

Seattle Union Gospel Mission v. Woods

Seattle Union Gospel Mission is a nonprofit ministry that serves the homeless in King County, Washington, by providing food, shelter, legal services, and addiction-recovery support. They also share the gospel with the homeless they serve. Matthew Woods, a lawyer, applied to work at the legal clinic even though he didn’t to the mission’s religious requirements for employees — including attending church and embracing the mission’s biblical view of sexual relations. Woods wasn’t hired, and he sued. 

The mission’s religious convictions are the foundation for all the work they do, and they expect every staff member to share and live in accordance with the their religious beliefs. It is that evangelization that makes the mission so successful at the work they do. The question in this case is who counts as a minister for the purposes of the ministerial exception.

The ERLC engages our culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ in the public square to protect religious liberty and promote human flourishing. One of the ways we do this is by advocating for these things before the Supreme Court. While we’ve worked diligently and pray earnestly that the court will make decisions that uphold life, religious liberty, and the freedom of conscience, we ultimately place our trust in God to fulfil his plans and use the work of the ERLC along the way. As the psalmist declares, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Psa. 20:7 NIV).

The legacy of George W. Truett
By / Aug 30

On May 6, 1867, George Washington Truett entered the world in a rural farmhouse in Clay County, North Carolina, as the seventh child of Charles and Mary Truett. The family resided on a 250-acre farm just two miles west of the mountain village of Hayesville. The Truetts farmed half the land for crops, and the other half was mountainous, so young Truett’s boyhood was spent cutting down trees, splitting rails to make fence posts, and preparing the timber logs to be taken to the local saw mill. Throughout his adolescence, young George saw his need for a Savior, but not until he turned 19 did he make what he referred to as the “supreme decision” of his life. After a move to Texas with his family, he would accept the call to preach at the urging of his church in 1890, setting him on a path to assume the pastorate of First Baptist Dallas.

Pastor of First Baptist Dallas

On Aug. 4, 1897, First Baptist Dallas voted 74 to 3 in favor of calling Truett as pastor. His youthful enthusiasm coupled with a wisdom and maturity beyond his years gave him instant appeal with the people. He and his wife Josephine were welcomed into one of the most established and notable churches in the state with a stately, brand-new, and beautiful sanctuary that still serves the congregation today. His starting salary was $1,800 a year — quite a sum in those days! 

Immediately, the people of Dallas accepted their new pastor with waves of optimism and expectancy filling the atmosphere of every worship service. Crowds swelled and new members joined the church in growing numbers. As the coming years unfolded, the reputation of the pastor and church extended far beyond Dallas; it was a nationally known ministry. For a period of time, the church was the largest in the world until its numbers were eclipsed in the 1920s by J. Frank Norris at the First Baptist Church in Fort Worth. Truett would remain at FBC Dallas for over four decades. He also served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention (1927–1929) and as president of the Baptist World Alliance (1934–1939).

George Truett and religious liberty

Two events catapulted George W. Truett onto the national scene and made him a household name among Christians in the United States. The first came in 1918 when President Woodrow Wilson requested that Truett spend a few months encouraging and preaching to the United States Armed Forces battling the Germans in the European theater. Truett readily accepted his nation’s call to “preach to the soldiers in the camps and in the blood-sodden trenches beyond the Atlantic.”

On July 31, 1919, Truett sailed from New York to England, eventually headed for the battlefields of Europe. He wrote in his diary, “The German Bastille must fall. . . . The Am [sic] people have their minds made up about this war, and they unhesitatingly believe that our Allied Armies are God’s instruments to right the greatest wrong in all human history.” Truett doubtless believed that the war was just and must be won at all costs.

In October, he arrived in France. For several weeks he spoke to the troops in the camps, in mess halls, and out in the trenches, as close to the front lines as chaplains were allowed to venture. The war revealed Truett’s true human spirit. He lived in the primitive camps with the men, ate their food with them, got wet and cold alongside them, and slogged through the mud and freezing winter temperatures to minister to them. He saw more than his share of suffering and death and wrote repeatedly in his diary of the “horribleness of war” and “the awful deso-lation of war on every hand.”

The second event that led to Truett’s fame was his famous address on religious liberty, delivered on the steps of the United States Capitol in 1920. In the midst of the early challenges of the 75 Million Campaign, Southern Baptists were in need of a word of encouragement as they gathered in the nation’s capital for their annual meeting in May 1920. Truett was chosen to represent the Baptist faithful in delivering a major address on religious liberty. He rose to the occasion. Fifteen thousand people gathered outdoors to hear his address from the east steps of the United States Capitol. The crowd was a who’s who of American dignitaries including Supreme Court justices, military leaders, cabinet officials, members of the Congress and Senate, ambassadors, and thousands of Baptist faithful who had traveled to Washington, D.C., for the annual convention. Robert Coleman led the crowd in singing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,” followed by several hymns, including “Rescue the Perishing” and “My Faith Looks Up to Thee.”

Without the aid of a public address system and without notes or a teleprompter, Truett delivered the most famous address of his long and illustrious career. He spoke of the past, the present, and the future, and he emphasized that the foundation of all religious liberty is found in the absolute lordship of Jesus Christ. Truett spoke of the incomparable apostasy that resulted from church-state unions and warned against such in America’s future. He viewed every state church on earth as a spiritual tyranny. Near the end of his remarks, he boldly proclaimed the exclusivity of Christ, stating that evangelism is the primary task of the church. He declared, “Salvation for sinners is through Jesus Christ alone, nor is there any other name or way under heaven whereby they may be saved.” This major address forever branded George W. Truett as the champion of the separation of church and state.

Truett’s legacy

Building proved the greatest of all of Truett’s attributes and lasting accolades. He built things that lasted. He built a great church. He started other churches in Dallas, such as Gaston Avenue Baptist Church and Cliff Temple Baptist Church, which grew into megachurches in their own right. The Baptist Standard, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Baylor Medical Center, the Relief and Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Buckner Orphan’s Home, and many other organizations all have one thing in common: George Truett was a vital factor in their founding or development. He served on the boards of each of these entities and helped raise vast sums of money for their support. His significant part in the founding of two of them, Baylor Medical Center and the Relief and Annuity Board, has changed the lives of millions of people over the past century. Biographers and historians have said that among George W. Truett’s greatest attributes was his keen ability not only to envision new and innovative ministries, but also to inspire the masses to adopt his vision and see it come to fruition. He built things, and the things he built have lasted over several generations.

This excerpt is adapted from the forthcoming book from B&H Academic, In the Name of God: The Colliding Lives, Legends, and Legacies of J.Frank Norris and George W. Truett.

Explainer: Federal court rules in favor of religious freedom rights of Indiana Catholic high school
By / Aug 16

Last week, in the case of Starkey v. Roncalli High School and Archdiocese of Indianapolis, a federal court in Indiana ruled in favor of the Indianapolis Archdiocese, upholding its right to “provide students and families with an authentic Catholic education.” Along with other recent positive rulings, this latest decision is yet another win reaffirming the rights of individuals and institutions seeking to exercise fidelity to their religious beliefs without government infringing on their constitutional rights. This decision is good news for religious schools, the faculty, and families who send their children to those schools.

What was the case about?

In August 2018, Lynn Starkey, a former co-director of guidance at Roncalli High School, informed school leadership that “she was in, and intended to remain in, a same-sex marriage in violation of her contract and of Catholic teaching.” Upon learning of Starkey’s same-sex marriage, Roncalli administration “declined to renew her employment contract on the grounds that her marriage violated Catholic teachings.” Alleging discrimination, along with a list of other infractions, Starkey then sued Roncalli and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis.

What led to the favorable ruling?

Ultimately, the court made its decision based on an important legal doctrine –– one favorable to the Archidiocese. Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated that it’s a matter of “common sense: religious groups have a right to hire people who agree with their religious beliefs and practices.” The long-standing consensus of the Supreme Court (and lower courts) has been and, with this ruling, clearly remains that “the Constitution forbids secular courts from interfering in important personnel decisions of churches and religious schools.”

As outlined in a case detail produced by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “As Co-Director of Guidance at Roncalli High School, Lynn Starkey was responsible for communicating the Catholic faith to students and families, and advising students both practically and spiritually as they discerned their vocational path at and after Roncalli,” a fact that necessarily invoked the principle of the ministerial exception.

The ministerial exception was one of the most significant factors at play in this case for several reasons: Roncalli High School is a private religious school; Starkey had a consequential role in advising students according to Catholic orthodoxy; and “Every administrator, teacher, and guidance counselor at Roncalli High School signs an agreement to uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church in both their professional and private lives.”

What is the ministerial exception?

The ministerial exception is a constitutional protection that bars the government from applying employment discrimination laws to religious organizations. To allow the government to control the hiring practices of religious organizations would infringe on the Free Exercise rights of religious organizations to operate independent of government involvement. Though the ministerial exception is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is grounded in both religious clauses of the First Amendment.

In its June 2020 decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morissey Beru (in which the ERLC filed an amicus brief cited in the court’s ruling), the Supreme Court held that there is no rigid formula to determine if the ministerial exception applies. Rather, the court looks at a variety of factors surrounding the individual’s employment including, but not limited to: official title, religious training, religious credentials, a source of religious instruction, and whether the duties played a role in teaching the religious organization’s message and conveying its mission.

In contrast to the recent ruling in DeWeese-Boyd v. Gordon College, in which it was decided that the ministerial exception did not apply, the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana concluded, “Starkey qualified as a minister, and that the ministerial exception bars all of Starkey’s claims.”

What’s next?

The ministerial exception has been central to a slate of recent court decisions, a precedent, at this point, that shows no signs of abating. In fact, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty currently has pending a second, similar case defending Roncalli High School, the same Catholic high school involved in the lawsuit described above. 

The ERLC applauds the Indiana court’s decision to reaffirm the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ constitutional rights and its prerogative to operate according to its deeply held religious beliefs, and the bearing that has on all other religious persons and institutions. Based on the number of recent favorable decisions, we are encouraged by the overwhelming number of rulings that continue to side with the cause of religious liberty.

As always, the ERLC remains committed to promoting and defending the religious liberty and conscience rights of all people and religious organizations.

Why Roger Williams contended for our first freedom
By / Aug 12

Though Baptists love to claim him, Roger Williams was a Baptist for about 12 minutes. 

Hyperbole aside, the founder of Rhode Island and the ardent advocate for religious freedom did in fact live out his days as a “seeker” — he did not believe any church, this side of Christ’s return, was pure. He rejected, therefore, the formation of any church and did not attend church himself in his latter years. His views on both theological and political matters made him a constant target of civil authorities in the 1600s — a time where church and state, though distinct threads, were nevertheless intertwined in a mutual pursuit to fashion a godly community. 

Why, then, should Roger Williams hold such a special place in the hearts and minds of modern Baptists? It comes down to his pre-Enlightenment support of total religious freedom. By total, I mean a comprehensive freedom that encompassed not only orthodox Protestants, but Catholics, Muslims, and even atheists. He wrote in his 1652 work The Bloody Tenet Yet More Bloody that “Jews, Turks, Antichristians, and Pagans,” were “peaceable and just . . . notwithstanding their spiritual whoredoms.” In the mid-17th century, Williams’ views scandalized his readers. Parliament ordered his books burned, and theological leaders in England like Thomas Edwards, took direct aim at Williams’ views, calling them blasphemous and pernicious. Indeed, Williams’ most famous interlocular, John Cotton, wrote a letter from the Massachusetts Bay Colony to a minister back in England, decrying Williams as an obstinate rabble rouser — a “Sheba of Bickry,” who “blew a Trumpet” of sedition and separation.

Religious liberty as a means for evangelism

Williams blew the trumpet of soul liberty. He crafted a theological and natural law defense of religious freedom with which Baptists can and should resonate. Indeed, Williams, though not a Baptist himself, stood in a stream of Baptists who defended the rights of conscience. Williams’ ideas imbibed those persecuted Baptists who came before him — figures like Thomas Helwys and John Murton, whose works on religious freedom in the early 1600s proved formative on Williams in the 1640s and 50s. Williams, furthermore, was a source for Baptists who came after him. Most notably, Isaac Backus and John Leeland frequently mentioned Williams as an important voice in their own ideological commitment to religious liberty — Backus himself cited Williams at length in his campaign to disestablish the state church in Massachusetts.   

The cornerstone of Williams’ support for religious freedom, however, came down to an issue of salvation. That is to say, Williams framed the question of whether or not there should be religious freedom around how one came to saving faith. Williams believed that true conversion necessitated the volitional choice to confess one’s sins, repent, and believe in the gospel. Only adults, or at least those who could provide evidence of their regeneration, were candidates for baptism — another controversial view during Williams’ day. Given these soteriological convictions, Williams found it utterly horrific that any civil society would attempt to enact an enforced religious orthodoxy. God, by Williams’ contention, never endowed any magistrate or government an authority over the conscience. Throughout his works, Williams pointed to the natural product of established religion. He wrote during the Thirty Years War, a religious conflict that claimed the lives of nearly 8,000,000 people. He also wrote during the English Civil War, another religious war that killed a higher percentage of the English population than World War I and World War II.

Citing these conflicts, Williams argued that coerced religion, at best, created a church of hypocrites. At worst, it ended in violent revolution. 

Instead, Williams argued that religious freedom was not only biblical, but part of God’s creational design. Men and women were to respond to the gospel summons of their own accord through the process of sharing the gospel. People did not truly repent of their sins when coerced by the civil sword of the magistrate — that, according to Williams, stifled the work of the Spirit. Instead, persuasion, reasoning with the unconverted, and an open dialogue without the fear of retribution were not only the surest means to procure societal peace, but also the means through which people could come to a saving knowledge of the Savior. 

Williams disclosed in his 1644 work, The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, that the concern for evangelism nourished his belief in soul freedom. Indeed, Williams wrote, “He that is a briar, that is a Jew, a Turk, a Pagan, an Antichristian today, may be, when the Word of the Lord runs freely, a member of Jesus Christ tomorrow, cut out of the wild olive, and planted into the tree.” This was his hope and aspiration — that God’s Word be liberated from the fetters of coerced religion so that men and women, likewise freed from establishment, could respond in true faith to the gospel summons. 

In other words, religious freedom was, for Williams, a means to a greater end. He did not contend for soul liberty so that he could be left alone to his own devices or to never face the realities of religious persecution. Instead, he fought for religious liberty because of a soteriological conviction — because of a gospel conviction. 

Modern Baptists and the public square

Williams had a lot more to say about religious freedom, but this concern for evangelism that undergirded his advocacy is especially important for Baptists today. In a recent article I wrote for Public Discourse, I argued that conservatives must resist the temptation to foreclose on the public square and political engagement. Conservatives seem weary of engaging with liberals, arguing that liberals are no longer concerned about seeking the truth or engaging in meaningful dialogue. Our hyper-partisanship seems to tribalize us, entrenching us in unreasoned allegiances and an unwillingness to engage with our political rivals. A large majority of Americans are now dissatisfied with democracy altogether, and a sizeable minority of Americans — 1 in 6 — now favor military rule. 

My points in the Public Discourse piece were directed at political issues — but I sense that significant similarities exist between disgruntled conservatives who no longer wish to engage with liberals and evangelical Christians, who, similarly, have retreated into the comforts of our own tribes. Thus, our advocacy, as Baptists, for religious freedom, has less to do with the common good and evangelism and more to do with our desire to be left alone. 

Roger Williams has much to teach us here. 

We are in an evangelistic emergency, and I fear that Christians — Baptists included — have surveyed the public square and our political moment and surrendered our core commitment to evangelism and preaching the gospel. Like conservatives, we are ready to wash our hands of those on the left — or those we wrongfully deem unsavable. We contend for liberty, but only so that we can just be left alone. When Williams, however, staked his life on religious freedom, he did so with the expressed intent of evangelism. By setting up Rhode Island as a place for people distressed of conscience, Williams pursued those whom he thought had deviated from the truth. Rather than hanging Quakers, he engaged them, toward the end of his life, in theological dialogue. He wanted to convince them of the truth — and he was able to do so because in Rhode Island, the Word of the Lord ran freely. 

This did not mean that Rhode Island was a conflict free, perennially happy place. Williams noted the frequent and bitter disputes between the various religious groups that took up residence in the colony. William Arnold, one of the colony’s leading figures, deplored the civil calamites that besieged his community, stating that liberty of conscience served as a “pretense,” which invited “all the scum” to come and take up residence. Liberty, as it turns out, is messy. 

But religious freedom was, indeed, remains worthy of our defense, and not so that we can just retreat to a quiet and private life. We strive for this freedom for the common good, so that places like Sunrise Children’s Services (a Kentucky Baptist Convention foster care ministry) can continue to be there for the orphan and the abused child without sacrificing religious convictions. 

More than the common good, we contend for this first freedom — this soul liberty — for the reasons Williams did. When the Word of the Lord runs freely, and when we preach that Word, those who today are lost, might tomorrow be saved. 

Explainer: Department of Justice drops lawsuit against University of Vermont Medical Center
By / Aug 6

As American culture continues to transform, one of the areas of particular concern for communities of faith is the preservation of religious liberty and all its applications. From the pew to the public square, people of faith have long enjoyed accommodations allowing them to act according to their conscience, abstaining from actions that would violate their deeply held religious convictions, for instance. This has long been a hallmark of life in America.

But recent actions by the current administration threaten to undermine these fundamental exercises of freedom. The Department of Justice, on July 30, dismissed a lawsuit filed by its Civil Rights Division against the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) which stated that UVMMC, in forcing a staff member to participate in an abortive procedure despite her stated moral objections, violated “the federal anti-discrimination statute known as the Church Amendments.” What proved to be a clear violation of the law by UVMMC ended with “no admission of guilt, no injunction, no corrective action, no settlement,” resulting in what Roger Severino says is “effectively a full pardon” for the organization. The ERLC joins Severino and the team at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in decrying this outrageous development. 

What was the lawsuit about?

On Aug. 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights issued a Notice of Violation stating that “after a thorough investigation and prolonged attempts to resolve the matter,” it was determined that UVMMC “violated the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-7) by forcing a nurse to assist in an elective abortion procedure over the nurse’s conscience-based objections.” 

In response to these findings, “the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division”, on Dec. 16, 2020, “filed a civil lawsuit in Vermont federal court against the University of Vermont Medical Center” for its egregious act of discrimination. 

In the Justice Department’s press release, referring to the aforementioned “Church Amendments,” the statement declares that “that statute prohibits health care entities like UVMMC from discriminating against health care workers who follow their conscience and refuse to perform or assist with abortions.” The statement goes on to call UVMMC’s actions “an indecent coercion that violates everything this country stands for,” a “shocking and outrageous attack against the right of all people in this free country to follow their conscience,” and stating, “the U.S. Department of Justice will not stand for it.” 

Why was the lawsuit dropped?

Shockingly, though, the newly appointed Justice Department had a dramatic change of mind, deciding to “stand for it,” after all. 

According to Severino, the Department of Justice’s and HHS’ unusual step of dropping “a duly authorized lawsuit after it has been investigated and filed” is attributable to the newly elected and appointed administration. Since the violation, investigation, and eventual lawsuit all occurred under the previous administration, and seemed headed for some sort of lawful resolution, it is difficult to explain this move in any other way.

What happens next in this case?

Because the case was voluntarily dropped by the Department of Justice, it appears that no further action will be taken. As Severino pointed out, there was no admission of guilt, no order of injunction, no recommendation for corrective actions or measures, and no settlement awarded to the victim in this case. Furthermore, the victim herself has little-to-no legal actions at her disposal “due to nuances around private rights of action.” 

As such, the University of Vermont Medical Center will continue to receive federal funds “despite it having been found by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to have violated the law.”

What’s at stake in this case and others like it?

Considering the language used by Eric Dreiband, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, “everything that this country stands for” is at stake in a case such as this. 

Flagrant forms of discrimination like this against persons of faith are a direct violation of federal law, as the HHS Office for Civil Rights articulated in its Notice of Violation. Moreover, it is a transgression against one of the most fundamental human rights, freedom of conscience. If the outcome of this case is indicative of this administration’s intentions toward people of faith, then it signals a blatant disavowal of America’s most foundational and cherished liberty. 

Christians should stand ready to involve ourselves in the work of preserving and expanding conscience-protections on behalf of all people of faith, ensuring that religious and civil liberties continue to enjoy robust protections.  As always, the ERLC is committed to working on behalf of Southern Baptists, the broader Christian community, and all people of faith to defend these fundamental rights. 

Are there forthcoming legislative remedies?

In terms of expanding conscience-protections, specifically in the field of healthcare, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), in January 2019, introduced the Conscience Protection Act, an effort “to protect healthcare providers, including health care professionals, entities, and health insurance plans from government discrimination if they decline to participate in abortions,” which he then reintroduced on Feb. 23, 2021.

Whereas, in the event of a situation like that which occurred at UVMMC, where conscience-protections were clearly violated, “the only recourse is to file a complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights,” the Conscience Protection Act “provides doctors, nurses, and other health care workers permanent protection from being discriminated against by employers if they choose to follow their conscience and do not wish to perform, participate in, or provide an abortion.” As Lankford says, “Many entered health care to protect life; they should not be forced to take a life to keep their jobs.”

The passage of this bill would be a commendable step toward protecting the rights of conscience for those employed in the healthcare industry, and it’s one that the ERLC wholeheartedly supports. 

It is likely that cases similar to the one at UVMMC will continue to pop up as culture trends in a secular direction, but legislation like the Conscience Protection Act would ensure that robust and necessary protections are guaranteed for conscience-bound healthcare workers who find themselves in morally objectionable situations. 

4 important SCOTUS cases for life and religious liberty
By / Jul 28

The ERLC engages our culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ in the public square to protect religious liberty and promote human flourishing. 

One of the ways we do this is by advocating for these things before the Supreme Court. The most recent term of the court contained some important cases that advanced the cause of religious liberty in the United States. Additionally, the court has granted cert (agreed to hear the case) for some important cases pertaining to the issue of life and religious liberty next term. 

SCOTUS: Looking back to last term

Below are a few cases of importance from the previous term that were wins for religious liberty.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia that faith-based foster care and adoption providers such as Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia can continue serving children and families according to their convictions. The ERLC called the decision a “decisive win for religious liberty” when it was announced.

In 2018, a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer informed the City of Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services that two of its private foster care agencies, including CSS, would not work with same-sex couples as foster parents. The city investigated the allegation, which it considered a violation of the City’s anti-discrimination laws. When the agencies confirmed their religious views on marriage as essential for placement — although no same-sex couple had ever attempted to partner with CSS — the department ceased referring foster children to them and demanded they change their religious practices or close down their ministries. 

The plaintiffs in this case were Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch, foster moms who wanted to continue caring for children in need. Fulton and Simms-Busch filed a lawsuit on behalf of CSS claiming the Philadelphia government had violated their rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses, as well as under Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Protection Act. The lawsuit asked the courts for an order requiring the city government to renew their contractual relationship while permitting CSS to maintain their religious convictions. In July 2018, the district court denied the request, and the case was immediately appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the court ruled against CSS and refused to protect the agency while its litigation proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that the City of Philadelphia infringed Catholic Social Services’ free exercise rights by refusing to renew its contract with CSS on the basis of the City’s agency contract and citywide Fair Practices Ordinance. These ordinances were in conflict with CSS’s core beliefs related to marriage and sexuality, and Philadelphia provided no religious exemption for CSS or groups like CSS.

For further reading:

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

In March, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can be held accountable for past violations of First Amendment freedoms. The 8-1 ruling in a case entitled Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. held that a “request for nominal damages” may be used to establish legal standing to address a previous violation of a constitutional right. The ERLC argued “it is a fundamental harm for the state to infringe upon a person’s right to religion or free expression” in its brief submitted to the Court for the case and applauded this decision for affirming that view.

In 2016, Chike Uzuegbunam, then a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, talked with interested students about his Christian faith and distributed literature on campus grounds. A campus police officer approached Uzuegbunam and informed him that the college had a policy in place that prohibited the distribution of religious materials unless they were within two designated free speech areas. 

After acquiring the necessary permit to speak in one of these zones, Uzuegbunam was again asked to stop by the campus police because another policy limited speech within those zones that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” The officer told Uzuegbunam that his speech violated these policies and threatened him with disciplinary action should he continue. Due to these events, both Uzuegbunam and another student who shared Uzuegbunam’s faith, Joseph Bradford, stopped speaking about their faith in these so-called “free speech” areas.

Both Uzuegbunam and Bradford sued college officials for enforcing these policies, arguing that the restrictions constituted a violation of their rights under the First Amendment. The students sought both injunctive relief and nominal damages. The request for injunctive relief — a legal order that would suspend the policy — was dismissed as college officials chose to discontinue their policies rather than defend them. However, the students continued to press their claim for nominal damages — a small sum of money sought in order to secure a legal judgement in a case — which was heard before the Supreme Court in January of this year.

This case is an important case in the areas of free speech and the free exercise of religion in an area with little case law on this topic — college campuses. As a public university, Georgia Gwinnett College should have allowed Uzuegbunam to express his views freely. Instead, they sought to deny his First Amendment right to free speech until he graduated, at which point they changed their policies and argued that the case should be dismissed as moot (i.e., dismissed by the court because the policy has been rescinded and there was therefore no longer a live controversy between the parties). In requesting “nominal damages,” Uzuegbunam argued the university should not escape accountability and retain the ability to restore the problematic policies after his graduation. 

Students like Uzuegbunam do not give up their civil liberties when they decide to attend public colleges and universities. Until now, these schools were able to infringe the rights of students through these controversial policies, only to change the policy at the eleventh hour or wait for the student’s graduation. Uzuegbunam’s case will allow the federal courts to provide relief for students for the first time.

For further reading:

SCOTUS: Looking ahead

Below are a few cases that the Supreme Court has granted cert on and will hear oral arguments on this autumn. These cases could have major implications on the issue of life and religious liberty.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

In mid-May, the Supreme Court granted cert on a case reviewing a Mississippi law that would replace the ‘viability standard’ with a limit on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The issue the court will be deciding is whether pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitional.

Mississippi passed a law in 2018 titled the “Gestational Age Act,” prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks except in a medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality. According to the findings in the legislation, “an unborn human being’s vital organs begin to function at ten weeks’ gestation. Hair, fingernails, and toenails also begin to form.” And “at twelve weeks’ gestation, an unborn human being can open and close his or her fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb.” 

A doctor with Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the law and requesting an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). A district court enjoined Mississippi from enforcing the law, finding that the state had not provided evidence that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks. Additionally, the district court believed that the Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from banning abortions prior to viability. The decision in this case could have implications for the protections of the unborn.

Oral arguments for the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case will be scheduled for later this term.

For further reading:

Carson v. Makin

According to the facts of this case, “The State of Maine relies on local school administrative units (SAUs) to ensure that every school-age child in the state has access to a free education. To be an “approved” school, a private school must meet the state’s compulsory attendance requirements, and it must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.”

Three families sent their children to private schools that are accredited but do not meet the nonsectarian requirement because they are religiously affiliated. The schools aren’t approved by the State of Maine, and the families did not qualify for tuition assistance. They filed a lawsuit stating that nonsectarian” requirement violates the Constitution on its face and as applied.

The question this case will be deciding is whether the state violates Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction.

Oral arguments for the Carson v. Makin case will be this October.

For further reading:

ERLC and coalition of religious liberty organizations file brief before the U.S. Supreme Court requesting protection against unconsitutional discrimination against religious entities

Arlene’s Flowers

Lastly, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court refused to grant cert to Arlene’s Flowers.

In 2013, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, made news for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage. While she never refused to provide flowers for her LGBT customers, Stutzman’s conscience would not allow her to use her artistic gifts in a way that would celebrate something that she believed was wrong. 

Forcing Stutzman to make flowers for the celebration of a same-sex marriage is, in essence, a form of compelled speech, which violates her freedom of speech and religion. Her case has been circulating in the courts for years. Here is a helpful timeline from Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing Barronelle, 

“In July 2017, ADF petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Barronelle’s case. In June 2018, the Court sent the case back to the Washington Supreme Court, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider her lawsuit in light of the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In June 2019, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against Barronelle a second time. ADF attorneys have once again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case.”

It is extremely disheartening that the Supreme Court declined to grant cert to this important case.

For further reading:

While we’ve worked diligently and pray earnestly that the Supreme Court will make decisions that uphold life, religious liberty, and the freedom of conscience, we ultimately place our trust in God to fulfil his plans and use the work of the ERLC along the way. As the psalmist declares, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Psa. 20:7 NIV).

Explainer: Biden administration to nominate Ambassador for International Freedom
By / Jul 20

Speaking via video at the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Summit this week In Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the Biden administration plans to nominate an ambassador-at-large for IRF in the coming weeks. This vital position has been left vacant since the Biden administration took office and plays a crucial role in the global religious freedom movement.

What does the Ambassador for IRF do?

The ambassador for IRF was created by the landmark International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 that established the Office of IRF at the State Department and the Commission on International Religious Freedom. The ambassadorship is a Senate-confirmed position and is charged with being the “principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of State Regarding matters affecting religious freedom abroad.” The IRF Ambassadorship has always been the focal point for the U.S. government to address violations of religious freedom around the world — particularly through their annual reports.

During the Trump Administration, the IRF Ambassadorship was held by former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Under Ambassador Brownback, the IRF movement took a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy than ever before. The IRF office held the inaugural 2019 Ministerial to Advance International Religious Freedom — the largest civil society event ever held by the state department — created an IRF alliance with 32 other countries, and played a pivotal role in declaring China’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims as a genocide in the final days of the Trump administration. 

What does Secretary Blinken’s announcement mean?

Secretary Blinken’s announcement is a welcome development for IRF advocates. The announcement comes within six months of the Biden administration coming to power, roughly the same timeline as the Trump administration. 

Biden’s decision to appoint an IRF ambassador this early in his administration tracks with other positive decisions that the administration has made regarding international religious freedom issues. Only two days after being confirmed as secretary of state, Blinken stated that he supported the Trump administration’s decision to designate China’s actions against the Uyghurs as a genocide. These developments confirm what IRF advocates have been hoping for — that religious freedom would continue to play an important role in U.S. foreign policy.

The announcement also signals that IRF continues to be a bipartisan issue. At the IRF Summit where Blinken announced the plan to nominate an IRF ambassador occurred at a three-day summit helmed by Trump-appointed former Ambassador Brownback. Over the course of the conference, efforts toward bipartisanship were noticeable. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke (via a video statement) in the same plenary session as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Additionally, the event’s honorary co-chairs were Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, both Democrats, and two Republicans, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and U.S. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey.

What will happen next?

As Secretary Blinken stated, the Biden administration will announce its nominee for the ambassadorship in the coming weeks. After that, the nominee will have to go through the Senate confirmation process. Typically, Senate confirmations can last two to three months, although the process for Ambassador Brownback took over six months. 

The IRF office is one of the most effective government institutions for protecting religious minorities around the world, including persecuted Christians. The ERLC will continue to collaborate with leaders in the United States government and the international community to advocate for international religious freedom to remain a top U.S. foreign policy priority.

Explainer: Federal Court strikes down discrimination against religious student groups on college campus
By / Jul 19

In a unanimous decision, the federal court for the 8th Circuit held that administrators at the University of Iowa are violating the First Amendment by removing Christian, Muslim, and Sikh student organizations for choosing student leaders who share the group’s mission and values. The court’s ruling of InterVarsity v. University of Iowa follows a series of recent decisions that uphold the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and specifically rejects skewed applications of anti-discrimination policies based on a leader’s viewpoints. 

What is this case about?

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has thrived on the University of Iowa’s campus for 25 years with the mission of “courageously proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior, engaging in discipleship around Scripture, and loving people of every ethnicity and culture.” The University of Iowa chapter of InterVarsity has been recognized for its excellence in community service and student engagement, but on June 1, 2018, the university threatened deregistration for violating nondiscrimination policies. 

It is only logical for an organization’s leaders to share its beliefs and priorities, and the process of determining a leader’s position based on his or her ability to further a group’s mission has never been deemed “discriminatory,” at least not under the law. After InterVarsity responded with a reasonable appeal and explanation, the university deregistered the group and barred it from operating on campus. The university went as far as to say the group was engaging in discriminatory activity by simply “encouraging” students to live by a shared mission. Thirty-eight other student groups, mostly religious, were deregistered that summer for noncompliant leadership requirements. Becket sued the university on behalf of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on Aug. 6, 2018, and InterVarsity v. University of Iowa was decided unanimously in favor of InterVarsity on July 16, 2021.

What is the significance of this case?

This case protects students and organizations from differential treatment based on university officials’ viewpoints. Universities are spaces for the competition of ideas, but at the University of Iowa, administrators imposed their own opposing views on religious groups. Political and ideological groups, sororities and fraternities, and sports clubs, who used similar vetting processes for leaders, were left untouched. The 8th Circuit left no room for discussion about the constitutionality of this oppressive strategy. Hopefully, the uncontested decision sends a clear message to other university, college, and high school administrators that a public institution must remain a place where students learn and share ideas independent from a leader’s preferential control. If educators at the University of Iowa want a closed environment, they should look for a job at a private institution. 

What does this mean moving forward?

According to Becket, this the third case of its kind in recent months (InterVarsity v. Wayne State and BLinC v. University of Iowa). The increase in religious freedom cases communicates a couple of important messages. First, constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, and freedom of association are being challenged frequently, especially on college campuses. Secondly, lower courts are following the lead of the current Supreme Court and hearing cases related to these foundational freedoms in an effort to clear up any gray areas with increasing enforcement of antidiscrimination policies in public institutions and municipalities. 

Ultimately, today’s decision affirms students’ First Amendment rights while attending public universities and denies leaders of any public institution the ability to define discrimination based on personal views. According to Becket, “the Court communicated the extremity if the University’s overreach, saying it would be “hard-pressed to find a clearer example of viewpoint discrimination.” Nondiscrimination policies are meant to protect, not to create a new form of oppression based on who the person in power wants to accommodate.

The ERLC continues to stand for the religious liberty of all in the U.S. and throughout the world and will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is honored and protected.

ERLC intern Anna Claire Noblitt contributed to this article.