Explainer: Biden administration issues OSHA vaccine mandate
By / Nov 5

On Nov. 4, the Biden administration issued a COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The stated purpose of this rule is “to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination.” The intent to issue this rule was announced in September by President Biden, but the text of the rule was issued in November.

What is OSHA?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is under the Department of Labor. Established by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the agency’s mission is “to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for workers by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.” OSHA’s jurisdiction covers most private and public sector employers, making the vaccine mandate announcement one of the most wide-reaching to date. 

This is not the first time that OSHA has intervened in the COVID pandemic. In June of this year, they announced a rule requiring healthcare employers to provide protective equipment such as masks and gloves, ensure proper ventilation, and screen patients at risk for COVID. This emergency standard was limited to healthcare employers (because of the group’s high-risk factors), though additional optional measures were disseminated for other industries such as manufacturing, retail, and food supply chains. 

What is the proposed rule?

The rule states that “covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.”

In short, the rule requires employers with 100 or more employees to submit their employees to weekly COVID-19 testing and masking requirements, or the employees can opt to receive one of the three vaccines that are approved or authorized for the prevention of COVID-19 in the U.S.: Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson.

The OSHA rule will affect approximately 84 million private-sector workers across the country, including some 31 million who are believed to be unvaccinated.

It’s important to note that this rule doesn’t require an employee to receive the vaccine, but if they choose not to be vaccinated, they must undergo testing every week.  

What is the timeframe?

By Jan. 4, 2022 employees who work for employers with 100 or more people must be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and masking requirements. The rule was published in the federal register on Nov. 5, and it is open for public comments for 30 days. The ERLC will be submitting public comments to OSHA about this issue.

Are there religious exemptions?

There are three exemptions listed in the rule rule:

  1. For whom a vaccine is medically contraindicated;
  2. For whom medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination; or
  3. Who are legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal civil rights laws because they have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that conflict with the vaccination requirement.

While there are stated religious liberty exemptions, it is concerning that the ETS requires each covered employer to establish and implement their own written policy regarding religious exemptions. With this rule, each employer is effectively tasked with creating their own policies, and there will be thousands of different policies throughout the country, leading to inconsistent application and confusion. The proposed rule doesn’t offer any guidance for how to structure exemptions for objectors who have sincerely held religious beliefs.

How does this affect SBC entities?

On Nov. 5, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) and Asbury Theological Seminary, filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to challenge the OSHA rule. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of SBTS, stated that “it is unacceptable for the government to force religious institutions to become coercive extensions of state power. We have no choice but to push back against this intrusion of the government into matters of conscience and religious conviction.”

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, 

“the lawsuit The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, alleges that the Biden administration lacks jurisdiction to dictate employment practices to religious institutions, lacks constitutional and statutory authority to issue the employer mandate, and that the mandate failed to meet the required procedural hurdles. In short, the federal government cannot coerce individuals nationwide to undergo medical treatment, and it lacks authority to conscript employers to compel that result.”

Is this the proper role of the government?

This rule raises questions and concerns about limits of government regulation both in terms of public health and safety measures. While governments do have heightened responsibilities during a public health crisis, the state must not use public health emergencies to overstep and exert authority that the Constitution has not entrusted it with.

ERLC’s Acting President, Brent Leatherwood stated:

From the outset of the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have consistently argued that  guidance from elected officials and public health experts is the path to take in lieu of mandates –– particularly as it relates to religious entities. This proposed rule is not that. Some private institutions will raise serious objections to government overreach. The better route for the state to take is providing clear, consistent, and coherent counsel that our fight is against a deadly disease, not one another.

How will the ERLC engage?

The OSHA interim final rule is open for public comments through Dec. 6. As we have done on previous occasions with proposed rules affecting churches and religious organizations, the ERLC will submit public comments expressing concerns with the scope of the regulation on behalf of our convention of churches. 

How should Christians think about this?

The ERLC has emphatically stated since the beginning of this public health challenge that government officials should opt for providing guidance over mandates, while at the same time seeking to uphold the free exercise of religion. Elected officials and local health experts should be actively partnering with pastors and churches to serve local communities as this pandemic rages on.

How should Christians think about religious exemptions for vaccination?
By / Sep 9

Flagging vaccination rates over the summer of 2021 combined with a sudden surge of the COVID-19 delta variant in recent weeks have prompted many businesses and organizations, and even some state and federal government entities, to implement vaccination requirements for employees. These requirements dictate that all employees, whatever their personal reservations might be, must be vaccinated by a specified date or else face repercussions ranging from required masking, testing, and isolation to different assignments to formal termination. (It should be noted that some versions of these requirements do allow for individuals to forgo the vaccine in exchange for submitting to routine COVID-19 testing.)

As an ethicist and attorney practicing religious liberty law, we have engaged in dozens of conversations over the past few weeks regarding vaccination mandates, as well as religious exemptions. Many Christians are considering the ethics and wisdom of these situations for the first time, fielding advice and anecdotes from a variety of sources. We would like to bring to the reader’s attention our perspective and experience on these important issues as they navigate these difficult questions. 

Religious accommodations

Unvaccinated employees may have any number of personal responses to a policy of vaccine mandates. They may feel the policy unnecessarily overreaching or discriminatory, or perhaps presumptuous and hasty. Some may feel concern or anger at being told how they must handle important and personal medical decisions. Reasons for refusal are wide-ranging, with some based on credible concerns and others being much more subjective. 

Currently in the United States, it is legally permissible for employers to require COVID-19 vaccinations so long as there are medical and religious accommodations available in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of federally protected classes, including religion, and provides that applicable employers must provide a religious accommodation to an employee who holds a “sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance” against a workplace requirement. Employers must grant the religious accommodation request so long as doing so does not pose an “undue burden” to the employer, either economic or non-economic. 

If faced with such a mandate, some Christians will likely consider objecting to vaccination requirements on religious grounds. In this type of situation, they would claim the requirements violate their religious beliefs and seek formal religious exemptions. Such a claim might be motivated by the belief that their constitutionally protected rights are being infringed upon and that their religious sentiments are sufficient grounds for refusal.

Identifying religious grounds

In our experience, the reasons appealed to by some evangelicals for refusing vaccinations are not, strictly speaking, religious, but personal, philosophical, or political. This includes objections that invoke religious beliefs in general terms, but upon further scrutiny, appeal to other factors. Some may, for example, express concerns about infertility, or the lack of longitudinal studies, or that their employer has simply violated their rights. But none of these reasons are overtly related with the individual’s religious beliefs. 

There are undoubtedly people of faith with relevant moral and, or, theological concerns that could merit religious exemption. This is why, when appealing to religious liberty as the basis for an exemption, Christians should proceed carefully. Seeking a religious exemption should very clearly rest on apparent and applicable religious beliefs.

Thus, a strong religious exemption would be based on recognized scriptural precept or a particular church or tradition’s confession or teaching. In its most robust form, such an exemption might rely on a provision within a church’s confessional statement explicitly forbidding vaccines or other medical interventions. The Amish or Jehovah’s Witness are examples. No such direct prohibition exists within wider Christian theology, but these religious groups are able to appeal to a unique teaching wholly adopted by their specific faith tradition.

Seeking exemptions

A relevant ethical question, drawn from scriptural teaching of the value of our bodies and treating them rightly, is whether vaccines harm the body. At present, there is little to no evidence that they do. Instead, data suggests that refusing vaccination risks severe illness and possibly death. At present, the unvaccinated are “29 times more likely to be hospitalized.” Furthermore, refusing vaccination could lead to others experiencing bodily harm as the unvaccinated are at increased risk of transmitting the virus to others. 

It is also important to remember that illegitimate appeals to religious liberty are perhaps the greatest threat to legal protections of religious liberty. Appealing to a religious accommodation that is not sincerely held and uniformly applied dilutes legal options to appeal to when religious liberty is genuinely threatened in the future. Whatever reasons a person may have for refusing vaccination, it is important to resist the temptation to endow those reasons with religious significance merely as a strategy for securing exemption from an employer mandate. Not every directive during a public health crisis represents a curtailment of religious liberty. As stated, the request for a religious exemption should rest on the foundation of a sincere and applicable religious belief.

Religious liberty is precious and should be protected. And while each person is free to live according to their sincerely held beliefs, Christians, in particular, should consider the call of Christ when weighing our decisions. We are not our own because we belong to the crucified and resurrected Lord. We don’t possess ourselves but are ourselves possessed by him (1 Cor 6:20). In the context of vaccinations, this certainly includes seeking counsel, acknowledging the mounting evidence to the safety of vaccines, and contemplating the risks in refusing them, not only to oneself but also to one’s neighbor.

Views reflected in this article may not reflect those of their current or previous employers.

Explosions at Kabul airport, Pfizer’s approval, and the debate over masks in schools
By / Aug 27

In this episode, Lindsay and Brent discuss how Christians should navigate vaccine mandates, explosions at the Kabul airport, how many Americans remain in Kabul, ICU beds running out once again, colleges cracking down on unvaccinated students, Pfizer’s full FDA approval, masks in school, and one father’s response to mask mandates. Lindsay also gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Jason Thacker with “Why Christians should navigate questions of vaccine mandates and religious exemptions with wisdom,” Julie Masson with “3 ways parents can talk to their kids about Afghanistan,” and Jordan Wootten with “Explainer: Texas law banning abortion procedure upheld by court of appeals.”

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. ICU beds are running out again
  2. Colleges crack down on unvaccinated students as campuses reopen
  3. U.S. regulators give Pfizer vaccine full approval
  4. Texas father strips down over masks in schools
  5. Explosions rock Kabul airport
  6. 1,500 Americans remain in Kabul

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

Why Christians should navigate questions of vaccine mandates and religious exemptions with wisdom
By / Aug 26

Between the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in winter 2019 and the subsequent worldwide pandemic that has killed over 4.4 million, the astounding speed at which treatments and vaccines for this deadly virus have been developed is nothing short of miraculous. This speed is due in large part to the concerted and concentrated efforts by governments, medical providers, researchers, local communities, and pharmaceutical companies around the world. In the United States, Operation Warp Speed and other major government interventions have propelled the rapid, yet safe development of these life-saving vaccines as well as the incredible free and open distribution to all those eligible.

While some have raised specific concerns about the safety, timeline, or even the processes used in their creation, the evidence is clear that these vaccines are safe and effective. This was seen most recently in the announcement from the Food and Drug Administration in the United States which gave the first full approval to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Many of the pressing concerns and ethical quandaries have been addressed by medical professionals, as well as Christian ethicists, who support their use and wide distribution throughout society.

With COVID cases still on the rise across the nation due to the delta variant, low vaccination rates in many parts of the country, and the widespread free access to these medical marvels, many businesses and organizations — both in the private and public sector — are beginning to plan for or institute vaccine requirements in order to combat the severity of these outbreaks. Vaccine requirements have recently been announced for those in crucial fields such as healthcare, the military, schools, and other large organizations in recognition of the high-risk situations in which those in these fields operate and for the safety of all involved, including their families and individuals medically unable to get a vaccine. The decision to require vaccinations is serious and consequential — especially for those vaccines that have not received full FDA approval and are being used on emergency authorization.

Vaccines and negative tests

While some communities, businesses, and organizations have decided to require either some proof of vaccination or a recent negative test for access to specific services or amenities, a widespread federal mandate is still unlikely to be announced at this point. As businesses and organizations begin to think through requirements for vaccines, often in combination with negative diagnostic tests, it is important to remember how politically charged this entire situation has become. From rampant COVID-19 disinformation to the political scoreboard often being used to evaluate these public health decisions, any type of mandate will likely receive considerable pushback from some employees — whether spawning from true medical or religious concerns, or fears and misunderstandings based on misinformation. 

As individuals inquire about exemptions, it would be wise for businesses and organizations to encourage these members of their team to meet with their doctors and direct them to outlets with credible information on the life-saving nature of these vaccines. This is especially important as they make personal healthcare decisions that not only affect themselves but those they will interact with in public. Providing space for open dialogue, addressing concerns, and providing certain accommodations based on true medical or religious objections may also help to temper some of the politicization of these debates as we seek to prioritize the health and safety of our communities.

The gravity of religious exemptions

As the likelihood of vaccine requirements for certain aspects of society become more of a reality, many pastors and church leaders will also be involved in these decisions because people may seek religious accommodation in order to not take the vaccine. Certain faith groups and denominations have claimed religious exemptions based on sincere religious convictions for various medical interventions; have consistently argued over time against the use of vaccines; or may have certain moral objections to the COVID vaccines in particular. Yet, pastors and ministry leaders must be aware that some people may seek a religious exemption to these mandates not out of any direct or meaningful religious objection or issue of faith but out of a desire to disregard the mandates that have been common throughout our nation’s history and frequently upheld by the courts.

According to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an organization that has long advocated for religious freedom throughout our society, “(US) Courts have ruled for over a century that the government may require mandatory vaccines in certain circumstances. Religious objectors may be entitled to accommodations in some circumstances.” ADF also encourages anyone seeking these types of religious accommodations or exemptions from vaccine mandates to seek to determine whether one’s objections actually rise to the level of a religious objection, not simply a medical, social, or political objection. ADF states that “many people have medical or other concerns which do not rise to the level of an actual religious belief. A belief that taking a vaccine is unwise or could be harmful will normally be considered a medical or health objection, not a religious objection.” Defined claims to religious objection must be taken seriously, but claiming a religious objection is no guarantee that public or private entities will recognize it.

Pastors and ministry leaders need to take caution in counseling or even endorsing these types of exemptions because of the gravity of the moral and conscience-based issues involved. Not only can it be disingenuous to claim a religious exemption when one is not present, but spurious claims can also damage the integrity of other religious freedom assertions in the future and what level of trust religious organizations still have in society. 

Many denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, have long supported vaccines, advocated for their use, and even assisted in distribution. In recent decades, the International Mission Board has become one of the largest vaccine-givers — beginning with the ground-breaking polio vaccines in the 1950s — throughout the eastern United States. This is due to the necessity of vaccines in order to send missionaries across the world to share the hope of Christ to the nations.

Therefore, pastors and ministry leaders should proceed with caution if asked to give counsel or endorse a religious exemption claim to vaccine mandates. While this will come down to the discretion and wisdom of specific leaders, it is paramount that pastors understand the gravity of their counsel and the consistency of opposition. While ADF notes that it is “inappropriate for an employer to demand that an employee support their religious accommodation request with statements from the employee’s church or clergy” according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, pastor and ministry leaders will likely be asked in certain cases to defend or support a religious exemption based on social, political, or medical concerns. This can put the church and its leaders in difficult circumstances, especially in terms of ethical and integrity issues.

Standing for religious freedom and wisdom

The situation we find ourselves in today with COVID-19 is dire as many of our hospitals hit maximum capacity and medical professionals begin to suffer extreme exhaustion, putting a massive strain on the local healthcare infrastructure. Thousands upon thousands have lost their lives and many more lost their livelihoods due to the measures enacted to contain the spread of this unrelenting virus. And by God’s grace, we now have solutions in order to mitigate the widespread impact of this pandemic.

Pastors and ministry leaders have already been under enormous stress due to ministry in these chaotic times. The prospect of sorting through yet another pandemic-related dilemma is also daunting. Still, it is important to remember that approaching questions about religious liberty claims is something of deep consequence. We must not allow or give support to mere personal or political preferences masquerading as religious liberty claims. Indeed, doing so is not only morally disingenuous but also can do long-term damage to the credibility of pastors, churches, and Christian institutions in our communities. At the same time, pastors should graciously and patiently consult with those seeking such exemptions or accommodations in order to determine whether the request is predicated on sincere religious grounds. 

Religious liberty is fundamental to the Christian faith and American life. It is a right that our government is designed to recognize and uphold, but also a right that must be guarded and respected given other deeply concerning religious freedom violations we have experienced over the years. As we continue to address questions about vaccines and mandates, Christians should strive to base our decisions not on politics or hearsay but on sound biblical reasoning and the best information available.

The latest in Afghanistan, Haiti, and COVID-19 boosters
By / Aug 20

In this episode, Lindsay, and Brent discuss the latest in Afghanistan, the earthquake in Haiti and the need for aid, COVID-19 vaccine boosters, states banning mask mandates, and Texas’s ban on second-trimester abortion. Lindsay also gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Jill Waggoner with “A Prayer guide for the people of Afghanistan,” Jordan Wootten with “Explainer: Federal court rules in favor of religious freedom rights of Indiana Catholic high school,” and Leeann Poarch with “What 1 Peter can teach us about living in a hostile world: Justice, love, and submission to authority.”

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. Evacuation of up to 80,000 lags as U.S. bolsters control of Kabul airport, but Taliban controls access to it
  2. ERLC, others urge Biden to protect, resettle at-risk Afghans
  3. Haiti quake death toll tops 2,000 as anger grows over lack of aid
  4. NAMB- Send Relief
  5. U.S. health officials recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters 8 months after second shot
  6. States banning mask mandates could face civil rights probes
  7. Texas ban on second-trimester abortion procedure upheld by appeals court

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

How Christians can combat the dangerous reality of (COVID-19) disinformation
By / Aug 2

In early 2020, we simply didn’t know what we didn’t know about COVID-19 and the impending pandemic. As of today, over 4.2 million lives have been tragically lost worldwide. Wild theories, mask mandates, experimental treatments, and origin stories abounded as our society tried desperately to gain ground against this silent killer. As we sought answers, many of us naturally turned to social media and its instant connectivity to share and learn more about this virus. Yet, those very platforms were littered with misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories — which are themselves reflective of the divisions we face throughout our social order.

Even as the platforms sought to label and remove much of this misleading and fake content, it became increasingly clear that identifying what was what became increasingly difficult since so much was unknown about this pandemic. And while we know so much more than we did last year, these challenges of identification and moderation did not relent even as the widespread deployment of vaccines began and a sense of normalcy returned. If anything, these challenges became more difficult given the polarization surrounding the life saving vaccines, the rise of COVID variants, and yet another wave of infections sweeping across our nation and the world.

In the last few weeks, there have been countless headlines about the fight against COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation, largely because of renewed calls for meaningful action to mitigate the spread coming from congressional leaders, the U.S. Surgeon General, and even the Biden administration. Many of these calls are directed at major social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It’s argued those who run these platforms aren’t doing enough to curb the spread of manipulations online, especially during a worldwide health crisis. 

While social media obviously aids the spread of misleading and false information, calls for more moderation often fail to account for the difficulty of combating this and the divergent opinions on how to do so. They also fail to see how these issues fall under a larger cultural narrative on both sides of the ideological divide. Responses to this pandemic have become a microcosm of some of the larger issues in the digital public square, such as the limits of free speech and the efficacy of truth.

What is mis/disinformation?

While conspiracy theories and disinformation may have become a household term in recent years, they are not entirely new concepts. Mentioning these terms tends to elicit deep and powerful emotions, often stemming from the polarization and division that we face today. Much of this polarization is due in part to decades-long disputes over the public nature of ethics, the role of faith in the public square, and breakdown of trust in institutions. Cultural narratives have been built around these issues and are tough to shed, especially during tense times such as a pandemic.

Misinformation broadly refers to the spreading of misleading information — whether it is simply missing context or is blatantly false. While disinformation refers to the intentional manipulation and distribution of facts, often for personal, corporate, or state gain. Conspiracy theories function as grand disinformation narratives based on some type of secret knowledge used to explain conspiratorial and often corrupt behavior by powerful figures in society. They are often designed to exploit the existing fissures in society and widen the gap between certain social, religious, and political groups for personal or social gain.

While some misinformation and disinformation is easy to spot, other examples are notoriously difficult to identify and stop. The technical capabilities of the last couple decades with the internet and social media have made the believability of these manipulations of truth more widespread, particularly as public trust continues to fray. Social media was originally designed to connect various people around the world and champion free expression. But it also tends to thrive on the lack of context, nuance, and complexity, making it deleterious to our public discourse.

Given the intensity and dangers of misinformation online, many social media companies have sought to minimize its spread and even remove it from public sight entirely, citing the negative effects on public discourse and even our physical health. Given the complexity and gravity of the issues at stake, it is slightly ironic that many calls to curb the spread of misinformation online never actually define what it is, nor talk about how to balance the call with issues like free speech. And when definitions are given, they become increasingly divisive and disjointed as platforms seek to implement these policies. 

In an age of expressive individualism based on the idea that the individual is to determine their truth or the state of reality, whose truth is actually truth? Is there a standard and widely accepted definition of reality? Who is to decide? And who gets to decide who decides?

After President Biden called on Facebook in particular to curb the spreading of this false information online — where some reports indicate that 60% of COVID related misinformation came from just 12 individuals — Facebook responded that they had already taken action on all eight recommendations from the Surgeon General about what is considered misinformation and what is within the limits of free speech. This balance is notoriously difficult to strike, though, since very few actually desire unfettered and absolute free speech online because of the immense issues it can cause to public order and community safety. Content moderation is a key feature of social media because without any type of moderation, these platforms would simply be unusable, unsafe, undesirable, and unsustainable. But at the same time, this does not mean that content moderation is without ideological bias or within the appropriate scope. The questions are: Where is that line drawn? And who should draw the line?

Drawing the line

The line of disinformation and free speech is notoriously difficult to identify in our digital age due in large part to the ambiguities surrounding what actually constitutes truth. Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center wrote, “Misinformation is often in the eye of the beholder, especially when it comes to political speech.” This sentiment is regularly espoused by many across the ideological perspective as a way to argue against certain forms of content moderation due to the ambiguities of defining it. The challenges are especially prominent with COVID-related misinformation and disinformation because of how little was known earlier on about the virus — including treatments, origins, and even the vaccines themselves.

While it is increasingly popular in our post-modern society to champion your personal truth and discover yourself under the auspices of expressive individualism, this pursuit is fundamentally at odds with a Christian understanding of truth and ultimate reality. Thus, it is imperative that Christians stand against these mischaracterizations of reality, regardless of how truth is abused or misused by others throughout our society. We believe in a transcendent reality, a fundamental basis for truth, and ought to reject claims to “truth” that are often more defined by retaining or gaining social capital than they are about Christ himself.

Misinformation and disinformation are not truly in the eye of the beholder, unless we deny the ability to actually discern truth. This is difficult to implement in a world driven by sound bites, instantaneous news, constant outrage, and the onslaught of information we are exposed to without any real hope of actually processing. But these challenges shouldn’t keep Christians from engaging in this space and standing against the rising tide of disinformation.

Navigating these manipulations of truth

It can be difficult to know how to move forward in this age of misinformation and disinformation — especially during a deadly pandemic. Christians are a people of truth and should have nothing to do with spreading falsehoods (Eph. 4:25). And wisdom calls us to slow down in a society that prizes efficiency over reality and to evaluate the words we speak or share online so that they carry the fragrance of Christ (James 1:19-20). As we seek to develop a public theology and ethic for the digital age, we must remember that in a society ravaged by sin, certain allowances and trade-offs must be made in order to champion the rights of all people to freely express themselves, but in a way that upholds the safety and well being of all people. Here are a few steps we can take toward that goal. 

First, we must keep freedom of speech front and center in these debates. This is particularly important given the power of these tools over our public discourse. It is far too easy and convenient on social media to publicly mock or denigrate those on the “other” side of the ideological or religious spectrum. This is a perennial problem throughout society. People from across ideological perspectives fall prey to these lies or willingly promote them in order to attain status or notoriety.

In our secular age, it is common for those without explicitly religious claims to function as if science explains all things or that secular ideals are somehow non religious in nature, even though many conclusions in science — especially moral claims — are accepted by faith as well. Everyone operates inside some set of social values that are not inherently founded upon empirical evidence. Even those who believe in a purely materialistic or naturalistic worldview have a set of beliefs that must be taken on faith.

No matter one’s ideological perspective or worldview, mocking, jeering, and looking down on our fellow image-bearers is unbecoming and should be seen as completely anathema to what it means to follow Christ. This condescension exacerbates the growing polarization of our society, driving members of the public further away from one another. Free speech not only helps to uphold the dignity of all, but it also can help bridge the growing divides in our society. So often these manipulations of truth thrive in environments that seek to eliminate them from public discourse with a heavy hand because they can use that suppression as fuel to spread faster since some will claim that these lies must contain some level of truth that your enemies simply are trying to cover up.

An additional danger with disinformation is that many in our society tend to use that label on the speech we simply don’t like regardless of what truth may actually lie within them. We see a similar trend in the ever widening definitions of hate speech that seem to be more about stamping out dissidents than pursuing physical safety or truth. But this doesn’t mean that free speech trumps everything else, especially during isolated seasons like a public health crisis. A balance must be maintained, but that can only happen when we recognize how our narratives of culture drive how we see one another.

Second, we must begin to seek out information and insight from sources other than social media. Although traditional sources of news are often ideologically biased as well, these news organizations and periodicals do have some level of accountability that is often absent of random users on these platforms. Even some of the most blatantly partisan sources have issued retractions, apologies, or set the record straight on the past spreading of misinformation. Recently, I read a helpful book by Jeffrey Bilbro that helps Christians practically navigate news consumption in our daily lives. Much more can and should be said about our media consumption habits and Bilbro’s book is a helpful place to start.

As Christians, we must strive to verify the information we share online, for the sake of our neighbors and the way in which we represent Christ to the world around us. It is unbiblical to speak in ways that are contrary to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) and to spread misleading information in order to gain a political edge. In reality, it is also a rejection of Christ’s atoning work on our behalf; if we are people changed by the gospel, then we should reflect Christ throughout our lives, especially in how we interact online. Truth will always be better than any short-term gain from misinformation.

Olivia Rodrigo at the White House, protests in Cuba, and religious freedom wins
By / Jul 16

In this episode, Josh, Lindsay, and Brent discuss the record number of drug overdose deaths in 2020, Oliva Rodrigo visiting the White House, anti-government protests in Cuba, two religious freedom wins, and the winner of the 2021 All-Star Game. Lindsay gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Andrew Bertodatti with “What is life like in the U.S. for an immigrant: One man’s journey from religious persecution in Pakistan,” Lieryn Barnett with “3 ways to be intentional with your singleness,” and Heather Rice Minus with “A new documentary sheds light on reentry after prison: A New Day 1 covers the hopes and hardships of formerly incarcerated individuals.”

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. CDC says drug overdose deaths hit record 93,300 in 2020
  2. Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts
  3. Pop star Olivia Rodrigo visits White House to urge young people to get vaccinated against Covid-19
  4. One reported dead in anti-government protests in Cuba
  5. Capitol Hill Baptist Church, D.C. settle religious liberty suit
  6. Appeals court protects church freedom in employment decisions
  7. American League wins 2021 All-Star Game

Lunchroom

Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Love your church: This engaging book by Tony Merida explores what church is, why it’s exciting to be a part of it, and why it’s worthy of our love and commitment. | Find out more about this book at thegoodbook.com

Fertility drops, Trump and the Facebook oversight board, and a conversation with Elizabeth Graham
By / May 7

In this episode, Josh, Lindsay, and Brent discuss a big dip in U.S. fertility rates, Biden’s July 4th vaccination goal, COVID-19 in children, mask mandates on planes, Trump Facebook ban, Amy Bockerstette’s college title, and the Malian woman who gave birth to nine babies. Lindsay gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Alex Ward with “Why reading classics can help us answer age-old questions: An interview with Karen Swallow Prior,” Jared Kennedy with “Conversations about gender should begin with humility: Helping parents navigate hard topics with their children,” and Rachel Lonas with “Why it’s important to value neurodiversity in the Church: And three ways you can help.” Also in this episode, the hosts are joined by Elizabeth Graham for a conversation about life and ministry. 

About Elizabeth

Elizabeth Graham serves as Vice President of Operations and Life Initiatives for the ERLC. She provides leadership, guidance and strategy for life and women’s initiatives and provides oversight to other strategic projects as needed. Additionally, she directs the leadership, management and operations for all ERLC events. Elizabeth is a graduate of the University of Tennessee and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is married to Richmond, and they have a son and a daughter. You can connect with her on Twitter: @elizabethgraham 

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. U.S. fertility dips to its lowest rate since the 1970s
  2. Biden sets goal of fully vaccinating 160 million Americans by July 4
  3. Children Now Account For 22% Of New U.S. COVID Cases. Why Is That?
  4. Pfizer vaccine expected to be approved for children ages 12-15 by next week
  5. TSA Extends Mask Mandate Aboard Flights Through Summer As Travel Increases
  6. Trump Facebook Ban Upheld by Oversight Board
  7. Amy Bockerstette to Be 1st Athlete With Down Syndrome to Compete for Collegiate Title
  8. Malian woman gives birth to nine babies

Lunchroom

 Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Brave by Faith: In this realistic yet positive book, renowned Bible teacher Alistair Begg examines the first seven chapters of Daniel to show us how to live bravely, confidently, and obediently in an increasingly secular society. | Find out more about this book at thegoodbook.com
  • Every person has dignity and potential. But did you know that nearly 1 in 3 American adults has a criminal record? To learn more and sign up for the virtual Second Chance month visit prisonfellowship.org/secondchances.

Prince Phillip’s death, a no-hitter in Chicago, and a farewell to Gary Lancaster
By / Apr 16

In this episode, Josh, Lindsay, and Brent discuss the death of Prince Phillip, Russia, the shooting of Daunte Wright, the court ruling on Down syndome abortion, current FDA recommendations on the J&J vaccine, and the no-hitter thrown by Chicago pitcher. Lindsay gives a rundown of this week’s ERLC content including Chelsea Patterson Sobolik with “Explainer: What you should know about the debate in Congress about the Born-Alive bill,” Andrew Bertodatti and Lamar Hardwick with “How can churches be more inclusive of disabled person?,” and Jill Waggoner with “How learning about trauma changed my life: Learning from The Body Keeps the Score.” Also in this episode, the hosts are joined by Gary Lancaster for his farewell episode. 

ERLC Content

Culture

  1. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, dead at 99
  2. US sanctions Russia over hacks
  3. Russian troops massing on Ukrainian border
  4. Officer who fatally shot Daunte Wright charged
  5. Court ruling on Down syndrome abortion law praised
  6. FDA recommends pausing J&J vaccine after 6 reported cases of blood clots
  7. White House says J&J pause will not have “significant impact” on vaccination plan
  8. Duke University to require vaccinations for fall semester
  9. No-hitter thrown by Chicago pitcher
  10. Turner’s cheesy HR makes LA 1st to 10 wins

 Connect with us on Twitter

Sponsors

  • Every person has dignity and potential. But did you know that nearly 1 in 3 American adults has a criminal record? On Sunday April 11th , we invite you to join Prison Fellowship for a special service focusing on the power of second chances. To learn more and sign up for the virtual Second Chance Sunday service visit prisonfellowship.org/secondchances.
  • Stand for Life: At the ERLC, we stand for life. Our work to save preborn babies and care for the vulnerable is vital to our work. Believing that abortion can end in our lifetime, will you join us as we STAND FOR LIFE?

Russell Moore on the ethics of the COVID-19 vaccines
By / Mar 12

How should we think about the ethics of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine? Russell Moore joins Jeff Pickering, Chelsea Patterson Sobolik, and Travis Wussow to explain why it is ethical to take this shot. And specifically for pro-life Christians, taking the vaccines will help preserve life and end the pandemic suffering.

The round table also reflects on the one year anniversary of the pandemic and what it all means for the church going forward. 

Resources from the Conversation