WASHINGTON (RNS)—The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving a challenge to a Mississippi law prohibiting most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, a move that could have nationwide implications.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, revolves around a Mississippi law passed in 2018 that bans all abortions after 15 weeks “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality.” The ban was blocked by lower courts who argued it violated previous Supreme Court rulings.

The case centers on whether states are permitted to ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb and is seen as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The Texas Legislature approved a bill banning abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected, arguably as early as six weeks. The legislation makes an exception for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

The bill also empowers private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone helping a woman get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill into law on May 19.

New composition of the Supreme Court

Justices will likely hear the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case in the fall, marking the first time the conservative-leaning court will directly address the issue of abortion since Amy Coney Barrett was elevated to Supreme Court justice in October 2020.

Barrett, a conservative Catholic, twice voted in abortion-related cases before joining the Supreme Court, both times in ways seen as benefitting abortion restrictions. In 2006, she signed a newspaper ad opposing “abortion on demand.”

Two other justices appointed by President Trump—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—voted in a different case last year that could have closed two of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics. They were outvoted, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joining liberals in striking down the law in question.

But with Barrett replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg since then, the conservative-leaning court may not need Roberts’ vote should they decide to uphold the Mississippi law.

Pro-life groups encouraged

March for Life, the anti-abortion group that hosts an annual event of the same name in Washington, D.C., expressed support for upholding the Mississippi law in a statement.

“States should be allowed to craft laws that are in line with both public opinion on this issue as well as basic human compassion, instead of the extreme policy that Roe imposed,” read a statement from Jeanne Mancini, the group’s president.

Elizabeth Graham of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission said the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case “could be a generationally significant case for the future of abortion in America.”

“All Americans of goodwill want the state to protect their neighbors from harm, and yet, just as Jesus told us, we will argue among ourselves about who really counts as our neighbor,” said Graham, the ERLC’s vice president of operations and life initiatives.

“The question our nation must wrestle with is whether or not a child in the womb is, indeed, a preborn child and, therefore, our neighbor. As Christians, knowing the answer is not a reason to feel moral superiority, but to lament the abortion industry’s legal lies and to work to undo them. This case could be instrumental toward that end.”

Abortion rights advocates concerned

Abortion-rights advocates raised warnings about the threat to Roe.

The Supreme Court order “is an ominous sign and an alarming reminder that the threat to the legal right to abortion is imminent and real,” said Christian LoBue, chief campaigns and advocacy officer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “If Roe v. Wade were to fall as a result of this case, states across the country are poised to ban abortion.”

Lower courts struck down Mississippi’s 15-week ban. Based on Supreme Court precedent, a federal judge ruled in 2018 the law is unconstitutional because it prohibits pre-viability abortions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed the ruling the following year.

Alabama and Arkansas approved bans in 2019 and 2021, respectively, without a starting point in pregnancy. At least 10 states have enacted laws that prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which could occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Through the first four months of 2021, a total of 13 states placed into law 61 abortion restrictions, including eight bans on the procedure, according to a report issued April 30 by the Guttmacher Institute.

With additional reporting by Tom Strode of Baptist Press and Managing Editor Ken Camp.  The 5th paragraph was edited after the story initially was posted to note Gov. Greg Abbott’s action.

WASHINGTON (BP)—State Department officials sought to provide assurances the Biden administration will maintain the United States’ commitment to international religious freedom in commenting on the latest annual report on the issue.

In its 2020 report issued May 12, the State Department assessed religious freedom in nearly 200 countries and territories, with officials citing high restrictions on the exercise of faith in some countries and advances in religious liberty in others.

No ‘backing away’ from religious freedom

In comments to reporters upon the report’s release, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Dan Nadel, senior official in the Office of International Religious Freedom, signaled global religious liberty would not receive less attention than it did during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration’s “promise to the world” is it “will protect and defend religious freedom around the world,” Blinken said. “We will maintain America’s longstanding leadership on this issue.”

Religious liberty “is a key foreign policy” of the Biden administration, said Nadel, who has worked on the annual report in three administrations. “There’s no equivocation there, no concern about any perception of backing away.”

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said, “The abuses documented each year in this report should grieve us to the core, and yet, that is also why we should be grateful for the State Department’s work in shining a light on these issues.”

Moore said he is grateful Blinken called attention to the abuses occurring in China and Burma, as well as “specifically recognizing that in Saudi Arabia there is no legally allowed Christian church.”

Need for ambassador-at-large

“Yet, because this work is too important to leave to one report or announcement alone,” he urged the administration to nominate an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom “without delay. These perilous situations around the world demand an urgent and sustained response from the United States.”

On May 4, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., sent a letter—joined by a bipartisan collection of six other members of Congress—to Biden to request that he nominate an ambassador-at-large at his “earliest opportunity.”

Officers with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom—which makes policy recommendations to the State Department, president and Congress—also expressed gratitude for the annual report but called for strong policies to enforce its findings.

Some of the worst

In comments to reporters, Blinken cited the following as examples of countries in which about 80 percent of the world’s population lives with high or severe restrictions on religious freedom:

• Burma (Myanmar), where military coup leaders and others are “responsible for ethnic cleansing and other atrocities against the Rohingya people, most of whom are Muslim, and other religious and ethnic” people groups.
• China, which “broadly criminalizes religious expression and continues to commit crimes against humanity and genocide” against the Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and other religious and ethnic minorities.
• Iran, which “continues to intimidate, harass, and arrest members of minority faith groups, including Baha’i, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sunni and Sufi Muslims.”
• Nigeria, where courts still convict and sentence people to long-term imprisonment or even death for blasphemy against Islam.
• Russia, where government officials “continue to harass, detain, and seize [the] property of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as members of Muslim minority groups on the pretense of alleged extremism.”
• Saudi Arabia, which is “the only country in the world without a Christian church” despite the presence of more than a million Christians.

Bigotry of varied forms a continuing threat

Blinken pointed to Sudan and Uzbekistan as countries that have made progress on religious freedom. Sudan, which had been removed from the State Department’s list of the world’s worst violators of religious liberty, “repealed apostasy laws and public order laws that had been used to harass members” of religious minorities, he said. Uzbekistan released hundreds of faith-based prisoners, Blinken said.

Both Blinken and Nadel pointed to continuing reports of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate in the world.

Anti-Semitism is “on the rise worldwide, including here in the United States, as well as across Europe,” Blinken said at the news briefing. He also said hatred of Muslims “is still widespread in many countries, and this, too, is a serious problem for the United States, as well as in Europe.”

Nadel told reporters anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and “other forms of bigotry continue to be genuine threats.”

When asked about the persecution of Christians globally, Nadel said the State Department takes “those issues extremely seriously.”

The State Department is obligated by federal law to name within six months of its report its lists of the world’s most severe violators of religious freedom.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan panel of nine members, offered its annual report in April and made its recommendations to the State Department at that time.

The commission called for the addition of India, Russia, Syria and Vietnam to the State Department’s list of “countries of particular concern” that consists of Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

It recommended Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Turkey and Uzbekistan be added to current members Cuba and Nicaragua on the Special Watch List of violators.

The commission recommended the same list of “entities of particular concern:” Al-Shabaab; Boko Haram, the Houthis (Ansar Allah), Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM) and the Taliban.

U.S. embassies collaborate with the Office of International Religious Freedom to prepare the report each year.

DALLAS—Rather than engage in policy debates about immigration, former President George W. Bush said he wanted to “paint a positive picture”—quite literally—of immigrants that “rises above the noise” and humanizes a complex issue.

In a May 6 online event sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute, in cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and the National Immigration Forum, Bush discussed his new book, Out of Many, One: Portraits of America’s Immigrants.

The book features a collection of 43 portraits of immigrants painted by Bush, along with their personal stories. Proceeds from the sale of the book benefit organizations helping to resettle immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

Moderator Russell Moore, president of the ERLC, and Yuval Levin, director of social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, joined Bush for the online forum.

Bush described the basic principle informing his views on immigration—and more particularly, on immigrants: “All life is precious, and we’re all God’s children.”

“If that’s how you view immigration, then you don’t view people with a hostile eye. You view them with a loving eye,” he said.

Bush characterized the immigration system in the United States as “broken” and “fractured,” but he offered hope of “bringing people together” to seek solutions—even in incremental steps—to the problems surrounding immigration.

“I campaigned on immigration reform in 2000 and 2004, and nothing got done. … And nothing’s been done since,” he said.

In the years since he left office, immigration debate grew increasingly acrimonious due in large part to “a populist streak … that turns nativist at times,” he observed.

‘Immigrants enhance our culture’

People who “view immigration with alarm” forget about the benefits immigrants have brought to the United States, he added.

Bush said Ken Mehlman—former chair of the Republican National Committee and director of the White House Office of Political Affairs—approached him saying, “We need your voice” to speak about immigration. Bush declined, saying he purposely avoided criticizing those who succeeded him in the Oval Office.

However, when he proposed the idea of painting portraits of immigrants, Bush recalled saying, “That’s a really good idea.” In the process, he also told the individual stories of each of his subjects and how they have contributed to American society.

“We should not fear the erosion of a culture. Immigrants enhance our culture,” Bush said.

How the United States responds to immigrants not only is an issue revealing the nation’s character, but also is an issue with serious economic implications, he added. The “freedom to succeed” and the “freedom to realize potential” attracts immigrants who are creative, hard-working and entrepreneurial, he insisted.

“We benefit economically when people come to do work that needs to be done or when people bring an innovative sense of tomorrow with them,” he said. “And yet, the system doesn’t recognize that now. It’s antiquated, it’s broken, it’s complicated, and it’s confusing. And there’s too much anger.”

Move beyond anger and fear

Moving beyond anger and fear directed toward immigrants requires leadership, Bush asserted.

“It takes leaders willing to stand up and make the case of why one shouldn’t fear but one should welcome. … Frankly, there’s been a lack of leadership on the issue because it’s become too politicized,” he said. “It is a very hot political issue. And once an issue becomes politically hot, it’s very difficult to paint a positive picture that rises above the noise.”

Bush suggested reform of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—a program that allows work permits for individuals who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children—as a first step that could gain broad-based support.

Likewise, a “rational labor policy” that would provide a way for migrants to enter the country legally to work would enhance border security, because they no longer have to “sneak across the border,” he said.

Turning to the issue of asylum, he also recommended appointing more judges capable of granting asylum, as well as working on ways for asylum-seekers to receive that status at consulates within their countries of origin.

Immigration reform “ought to be an issue dear to all religious people,” Bush said.

“It seems to me in the recent past that churches—particularly white evangelical churches—have become political instruments,” he said, calling for “a religious awakening” and “revival of mission.”

WASHINGTON (BP)—Evangelical Christian and other advocates for refugee resettlement applauded President Biden’s increase of this year’s admission cap after objecting to his much lower goal less than three weeks ago.

Biden announced May 3 his revision of the refugee admissions ceiling to 62,500 for the 2020-21 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. He had signed a presidential determination on admissions April 16 that kept the goal for this fiscal year at 15,000, the ceiling established by the Trump administration in its final year.

Criticism of what refugee advocates called a broken promise by Biden swiftly ensued, and the White House said later the same day the president would establish a final, larger admissions cap for the fiscal year by mid-May. Biden announced in February the ceiling would be 62,500 for this year and 125,000 for the 2021-22 fiscal year.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, expressed gratitude for Biden’s revised goal.

“This action is the first step in bringing admissions back to the historical average and our nation back to our own ideals as a beacon of freedom,” Moore said. “There are real people facing slaughter, including persecuted Christians and other imperiled religious minorities, and this decision means that we will soon be able to welcome and protect them as our new American neighbors.”

Eric Costanzo, lead pastor of South Tulsa (Okla.) Baptist Church, said in a release from the National Immigration Forum he is grateful the president “listened to the voices of hundreds of evangelical pastors and leaders asking him to keep his promise to resume and increase resettlement of refugees who are deeply loved by Christ and are to be deeply loved by his church.”

‘A necessary first action

Jenny Yang, senior vice president of advocacy and policy for World Relief, said Biden’s new decision “is a necessary first action.”

“There is much work still to be done to rebuild the resettlement infrastructure and restore refugee processing,” she said, but World Relief looks forward to partnering with the administration in that effort.

World Relief is an evangelical organization that works with the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees, many of whom are Christians and other religious adherents persecuted for their faith.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom welcomed the change. The revision “supports the dignity and human rights of the unprecedented number of people worldwide who have been forcibly displaced by religious conflict or persecution,” USCIRF Chair Anurima Bhargava said. “Providing a safe haven for more of these refugees this year protects religious freedom and is consistent with American values.”

‘Rebuild what has been broken’

While announcing the revised admissions ceiling for this year, Biden said in a written statement the “sad truth is that we will not achieve 62,500 admissions” for 2020-21. The new cap, however, will “reinforce efforts” to reach the goal of 125,000 next year, he said.

“We are going to rebuild what has been broken and push hard to complete the rigorous screening process for those refugees already in the pipeline for admission,” Biden said.

Biden’s shifting goals followed four years of record-low ceilings established by President Trump—from 45,000 refugee admissions in the 2018 fiscal year to 30,000 in 2019 to 18,000 in 2020 and 15,000 in the current year.

In the decade prior (2008-17), the United States welcomed an average of about 67,000 refugees each year, according to the Pew Research Center. The number of admissions often is less than the ceiling. The record high for the cap and admissions is 232,000 and 207,000, respectively, in 1980, Pew reported.

The United States’ reduction in the ceiling has come at a time when conflicts in multiple countries have resulted in massive numbers of refugees. As of mid-2020, an estimated 26.3 million people were considered refugees, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. More than 80 million people, including 30 to 34 million children, were forcibly displaced, the UNHCR reported.

Only 2,050 refugees were admitted to the United States through the first six months of the 2020-21 fiscal year, the International Rescue Committee reported in April. At that rate, the total of 4,100 for the year would be the smallest in U.S. history. Because of Biden’s failure to act earlier, the travel plans of more than 700 refugees approved for resettlement were canceled, according to organizations that support refugee resettlement.

The United Nations has defined a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” according to its 1951 Refugee Convention.

The federal government’s resettlement of refugees is distinct from its efforts on the Mexican border to address the waves of children and adults seeking asylum in this country.

Refugees must pass a stringent screening process that includes multiple biometric and biographic checks and an interview before being eligible to enter the United States, according to 2020 guidelines by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The processing time before refugees enter this country averages 18 months to three years, World Relief reported.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Evangelical Christian Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, urged his fellow evangelicals—many of whom have resisted the COVID-19 vaccine—to get the shot and encourage others to do the same.

“It’s not just about this decision for yourself; it’s also about the opportunity to do something for your neighbors,” said Collins at a webinar called “Evangelicals & COVID-19 Vaccine” on April 27. “Brothers and sisters, this really is a love-your-neighbor moment.”

Collins was joined on the virtual panel by Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore and Christianity Today President Timothy Dalrymple. The event was hosted by Wheaton College’s Humanitarian Disaster Institute.

The co-hosts of Tuesday’s webinar, Jamie Aten and Kent Annan, who co-direct the disaster institute, recently started an “Evangelicals for COVID-19 vaccines” petition after research showed that white evangelicals were less likely to pursue vaccinations than other groups of Americans.

Aten recently disclosed that he has been receiving threats for his stance.

With vaccine hesitancy among some white evangelicals becoming a cause for concern for public health officials as well as Christian leaders, the scientific and religious leaders discussed ways to boost interest in vaccinations, rather than point blame at those who have not yet rolled up their sleeves. About 480 participants tuned into the Zoom discussion.

‘A gift that has to be unwrapped’

“I think God gives us a chance to learn the truth,” said Collins, who has spoken at other events to raise confidence and involve faith leaders in supporting vaccination initiatives. “I think those who do seek this honestly will see this as a potential gift but a gift that has to be unwrapped.”

Other evangelical leaders have also taken steps to encourage vaccinations.

At a briefing last week, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy identified National Association of Evangelicals President Walter Kim as one of the influencers who have agreed to be part of the administration’s new “We Can Do This: Live” public education campaign.

Responding to concerns about the “warp speed” of the development of vaccines, Collins acknowledged that the term “might not have been a wise choice” but said he was overjoyed at the efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which he initially “dreamed” would be 60 percent or 65 percent effective.

“When the data really was unblinded in early December, and the answer was 95 percent efficacy, with no evidence of a safety problem, I have to say I cried tears of joy,” he said. “It was an answer, even beyond what I had almost dared to pray for.”

He also voiced his confidence in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, whose use was paused temporarily after a small number of people who received that shot developed rare blood clots.

“This is not just a typical blood clot in your leg kind of thing that happens a lot to many of us,” Collins explained. “This was a very much more rare and specific kind of clotting disorder, and so far it has been identified in exactly 15 individuals out of 8 million people who received the J&J vaccine.”

Citing the “nongovernment experts” who assessed the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Collins said such a risk is “clearly very, very low” compared with the risk of contracting COVID-19, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 590,000 Americans.

Collins noted his 19-year-old grandson and 21-year-old granddaughter had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

‘A very difficult balancing act’

Asked how to advise pastors whose churches are divided over the vaccines, Moore counseled patience with those who are reluctant to receive the vaccine because they still are learning about it—as well as those caught up in conspiracy theories. He suggested focusing on congregants’ hopes—of returning to in-person worship or of taking mission trips again.

“It takes an equilibrium, it takes a patience with people who are having some trouble while at the same time, not holding the rest of the congregation captive to what someone read online, what someone is talking about on Facebook right now,” Moore said. “That’s a very difficult balancing act.”

Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke later about moral and theological concerns raised about the vaccines, particularly questions about possible ties to abortion.

“There’s not a concern here about anyone being involved somehow morally with abortion by taking any of these vaccines,” he said. “The Vatican’s spoken to that, and others have as well.”

Dalrymple mentioned that some of the political divides about the vaccine may be bridged by noting the Trump administration accelerated the development of the vaccines, while the Biden administration can be credited with speeding their distribution.

“It’s really an amazing example of bipartisan accomplishment, and I think there’s adequate ground for us to find a win in it for our own political tribe, and not see this as, ‘Well, this is something that some other group is trying to impose on us,’” Dalrymple said.

Collins also spoke of personal victories related to the COVID-19 vaccinations that “people who are a little on the fence” can consider, giving the example of being able in recent weeks to have dinner again in his home with his wife and another couple after they were all fully immunized.

“It was, like, really exciting and a little weird,” he said. “We took our masks off, and we sat at the same table. And we said grace together, and we prayed, and we broke bread. At the end of the evening, we hugged each other. It was such a sense of being liberated from this cloud of uncertainty and fear that has been over all of us.”

Jack Jenkins contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention loosened the agency’s social distancing recommendations on April 27, announcing that fully vaccinated people who wear masks can safely attend many indoor events such as worship services.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky made the announcement during a White House press briefing, where she outlined a number of indoor activities people who wear masks and have received vaccines against COVID-19 can participate in safely—including worship services.

“As we gather more and more data on the real-world efficacy of vaccines, we know that masked, fully vaccinated people can safely attend worship services inside,” she said.

Walensky also said masked, fully vaccinated people can safely go to an indoor restaurant or bar, and “even participate in an indoor exercise class.”

The CDC continues to recommend that fully vaccinated people use masks for indoor activities such as singing in an indoor chorus, going to a movie theater or eating indoors at a restaurant. As for outdoor activities, the CDC generally only recommends masks among fully vaccinated people if they plan on attending a crowded outdoor event such as a concert.

According to the CDC, people are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after they receive the second dose of the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. They also are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which only requires one dose.

“The examples shown today show that when you are vaccinated, you can return to many activities safely, and most of them outdoors and unmasked—and begin to get back to normal,” Walensky said.

Officials were quick to note they still recommend widespread mask use for people who are not fully vaccinated, and that many activities remain unsafe for those without the shots. A slide accompanying the announcement categorized many activities as “less” or “least” safe for people who are not fully inoculated against COVID-19.

Attending a full-capacity indoor worship service or singing in a chorus, for instance, were among the actions designated as “least safe” for unvaccinated people.

Also, the CDC stressed that even vaccinated people should continue to take precautions such as generally wearing masks during indoor public settings, avoiding “large-sized” indoor gatherings and wearing “well-fitted masks when visiting indoors with unvaccinated people from multiple households.”

“Generally, for vaccinated people, outdoor activities without a mask are safe. However, we continue to recommend masking in crowded outdoor settings and venues, such as packed stadiums and concerts where there is decreased ability to maintain physical distance and where many unvaccinated people may also be present,” Walensky said. “We will continue to recommend this until widespread vaccination is achieved.”

It’s unclear how the recommendations will impact individual houses of worship, which typically are beholden to state laws as well as internal policies that can differ by denomination or regional group.

Religious groups were among the first to shift their policies when the pandemic began to escalate last year: When an Episcopal rector in Washington, D.C., tested positive for the virus in March 2020—one of the first in the city to come down with COVID-19—the local diocese quickly suspended the use of wine during Communion and drained baptismal fonts.

While the CDC suggestions are guiding principles and not formal federal restrictions, debates over local worship restrictions have raged throughout the pandemic. Despite mass-transmission incidents taking place at worship services and many religious groups shifting to online worship, some faith leaders refused to stop worshipping in person. Some were arrested, and others have sued local and state governments over the restrictions.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Dr. Basim Khan notices the change in his patients when they appear for an appointment after they’ve received the COVID-19 vaccine from a community clinic linked to his Neighborhood Health nonprofit in Northern Virginia.

“It’s been emotional for them, after all these months, feeling that there’s hope that their life’s going to get back to normal,” said Khan, executive director of the health center, which as of April 20, has vaccinated 29,000 people through its clinics, with 85 percent being people of color, including Hispanics, African Americans and Asians.

One of the keys to getting people in the door to get vaccinated has been enlisting local faith leaders, Khan said. He has reached out to clergy in Fairfax and Arlington counties and marveled at their response.

Some religious leaders have opened their houses of worship as additional clinics for COVID-19 vaccinations or acted as go-betweens, referring people who have had limited opportunities to get COVID-19 shots in their arms.

“When a lot of people who’ve gotten vaccinated received a call from someone in their church, it was a powerful endorsement of the vaccination effort,” Khan said.

Fewer vaccinations among Blacks and Hispanics

The collaboration of religious officials with health care professionals—from both nonprofit and for-profit companies—has been a crucial driver in efforts to increase access to vaccinations among populations that have had disproportionately higher levels of sickness or death from the coronavirus.

An April 21 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation said—as has been the case in previous weeks—“there is a consistent pattern across states of Black and Hispanic people receiving smaller shares of vaccinations compared to their shares of cases and deaths and compared to their shares of the total population.”

It noted Black people make up 19 percent of the population in Virginia, 21 percent of the COVID-19 cases, 25 percent of the COVID-19 deaths but have received only 14 percent of vaccinations.

Neighborhood Health, which serves 40,000 often low-income and uninsured patients in multiple clinics, set up seven separate COVID-19 vaccination sites. Four are in religion-related sites, including a seminary, two Baptist churches and a hall of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. With 5,000 people getting vaccinated per week, about half are receiving shots at the faith-related locations.

In an effort to be sure to reach underserved populations, the community health center has not opened its vaccination clinics to the general public. Instead it worked with dozens of partners, including religious organizations—such as evangelical, Mormon and Muslim communities—and other nonprofits to get referrals. Neighborhood Health then schedules the referred people, who might have had difficulty registering for a vaccine appointment.

“Some of the churches that we’re working with have reached hundreds of patients and really just done extraordinary work in trying to find people for us to vaccinate,” Khan said.

Seeking to reach vulnerable population

For-profit health care corporations, such as national drugstore chain CVS, have also been linking with religious organizations to build the number of people—especially people of color—who get COVID-19 vaccines or get tested for coronavirus and other ailments.

“We have an extensive network of community-based leaders across the country, including faith-based organizations that we’re working with to reach vulnerable patients, with a particular focus on Black and Hispanic populations to help them make a COVID-19 vaccination appointment,” a CVS Health spokesperson told Religion News Service.

Just as is happening on the global scene, U.S. health professionals are drawing on the expertise and connections of religious leaders who know the particular barriers that are preventing people in their communities from getting vaccinated. Armed with that knowledge, they jointly seek to increase the rate of COVID-19 vaccinations.

“Right now, we are also working with nonprofits—particularly in the faith-based space—to establish vaccination clinics that allow us to be agile and responsive to our partners’ and communities’ needs,” the CVS Health spokesperson added.

For some health care organizations, working with houses of worship is an extension of their everyday operations with communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

Reducing health disparities

Kathlyn Wee, CEO of UnitedHealthcare Community Plan of Maryland and D.C., said her region has been part of UnitedHealth Group’s “STOP COVID” effort that has worked with disadvantaged communities across the country.

It has supported COVID-19 testing started first at a Black church in Southeast Washington, which led to a partnership with FiveMedicine and the Leadership Council for Healthy Communities, both of which were seeking to reduce health disparities.

“We were essentially able to get the tests to a location and to a group of residents in the district that were underserved,” said Wee, whose regional division works primarily with African American people who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.

“FiveMedicine saw a much higher positivity rate for the site that we ran at the Pennsylvania Avenue Baptist Church than they saw on average for the other locations in the city,” she said.

That cooperation has been followed by initiatives with an additional half a dozen churches that have provided 2,900 COVID-19 vaccines by the end of March.

UnitedHealthcare has provided those sites with supplies, such as nonperishable food boxes and health and safety kits that included masks and hand sanitizer.

“The food boxes that we’ve done at all of the sites is because we’ve seen tremendous levels of food insecurity, and that’s an issue that impacts people’s health,” Wee said of food that was delivered to the churches through a partnership with a local food bank.

Meeting needs comprehensively

Pastor Charles W. McNeill Jr., whose D.C. church was one of the recipients of testing and of food boxes in cooperation with UnitedHealthcare, said the partnerships are proving beneficial not just for COVID-19 testing and vaccinations but for meeting other needs. Beyond the food boxes, some community members have received health screenings that have led people to get mental health counseling as they deal with the stresses of the pandemic.

McNeill, who is also the faith community liaison for Prince George’s County, Md., and Wee both said there are plans to further develop partnerships among faith and health professionals as vaccine eligibility has expanded to people 16 and older across the country.

“What we’ve done surrounding COVID in the last year has been the most significant initiative that we’ve done in partnership with faith-based community organizations,” Wee said.

“Everywhere where we’ve seen that we have a faith-based partner that’s really able to help us attract the folks that we want to support, we’ll continue to build on that and go back to those partners and try different things,” she said.

WASHINGTON (BP)—Evangelical Christian and other advocates for refugee resettlement in the United States are waiting to see if the Biden administration will fulfill its latest commitment, following what they described as a disappointing failure by the president.

After receiving criticism for inaction, President Biden signed a presidential determination on refugee admissions April 16. However, the president kept the goal for the 2020-21 fiscal year at 15,000, the ceiling established by the Trump administration in its final year. Biden’s determination came after he had said in February the goal would be 62,500 for the year, which ends Sept. 30.

Southern Baptist ethicist and religious freedom leader Russell Moore said the decision “to keep the unprecedentedly low ceiling on refugee admissions is dismaying and inexplicable. A broken political promise is one thing, but this broken promise will cost the lives of many fleeing slaughter.”

Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said Biden “should rethink this decision immediately.”

The administration apparently did just that after supporters of increased refugee resettlements decried the announcement. A few hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Biden is expected “to set a final, increased refugee cap for the remainder of this fiscal year by May 15.”

Because of the “decimated refugee admissions program” left by the Trump administration and the burdens on the refugee resettlement office, Biden’s “initial goal of 62,500 seems unlikely,” Psaki said in a written statement.

Jenny Yang, senior vice president of advocacy and policy for World Relief, said on Twitter after Psaki’s statement, “There’s no doubt [Biden] broke his promise on raising the #refugee ceiling and now we’re in a ‘wait and see/prove it’ mode to see actual follow through from the [administration].

“The [administration] needs to earn back our trust that they will follow through on their statement today to lift the cap in May,” Yang said.

The “walk back” by the White House does not change the fact the cap of 15,000 “remains in place for the foreseeable future” and “the resources to resettle 62,500 refugees are still there,” she said.

World Relief is an evangelical organization that works with the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees, including many who are persecuted for their faith.

Refugees must pass stringent screening

The United Nations has defined a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” according to its 1951 Refugee Convention.

The federal government’s resettlement of refugees is distinct from its efforts on the Mexican border to address the waves of children and adults seeking asylum in this country.

Refugees must pass a stringent screening process that includes multiple biometric and biographic checks and an interview before being eligible to enter the United States, according to 2020 guidelines by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The processing time before refugees enter this country averages 18 months to three years, World Relief reported.

Biden’s determination followed four years of record-low ceilings established by President Trump—from 45,000 in the 2018 fiscal year to 30,000 in 2019 to 18,000 in 2020 and 15,000 in the current year. In the decade prior, the United States welcomed an average of about 67,000 refugees each year, according to the Pew Research Center. The number of admissions often is less than the ceiling. The record high for the cap and admissions is 232,000 and 207,000, respectively, in 1980, Pew reported.

The United States’ reduction in the ceiling has come at a time when strife in multiple countries has resulted in massive numbers of refugees.

By the numbers

As of mid-2020, an estimated 26.3 million people were considered refugees, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. More than 80 million people, including 30 to 34 million children, were displaced forcibly.

In early February, Biden issued an executive order designed to rebuild the refugee resettlement program and announced he would raise the ceiling to 125,000 in the 2021-22 fiscal year that will begin in October. Evangelical and other refugee resettlement advocates commended the actions. He also indicated to Congress the cap for this year would be increased to 62,500 from 15,000.

The president still had not signed the necessary determination on the cap by April 11, when the International Rescue Committee said its analysis showed a record low of only 2,050 refugees had been admitted to the country through the first six months of the fiscal year. At that rate, the total of 4,100 for the year would be the smallest in U.S. history. Because of Biden’s failure to act, the travel plans of more than 700 refugees approved for resettlement have been canceled, according to organizations that support refugee resettlement.

Leaders of the Evangelical Immigration Table, which advocates for refugees and a just immigration system, expressed disappointment with the delay by the Biden administration a few hours before the president announced he had signed the determination.

In an April 16 written release from the evangelical coalition, Moore said: “Rhetoric is no refuge for the persecuted—we need action. We know the program is a secure and thorough process by which America can serve as a beacon of freedom and safe harbor for the oppressed, including persecuted Christians and other imperiled religious minorities. President Biden must make good on his word and any further delay is unacceptable.”

Four Black professors from major universities and divinity schools found fault with the way some conservative white evangelicals have condemned critical race theory.

Critiques of critical race theory offered by certain white American evangelicals sound more like “parroting some shorthand stereotypical caricatures” than an honest assessment based on reading primary sources, said David Goatley, associate dean and director of the office of Black studies at Duke Divinity School.

‘The depth of intellectual bankruptcy’

“The critiques that I read sound to me as critiques coming from people who have not read the material, and I think that it is the depth of intellectual bankruptcy,” Goatley said.

Goatley and three other Black scholars delivered the online Walter B. and Kay W. Shurden Lectures on Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State, sponsored by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

During a question-and-answer session following their presentations, moderator Charles Watson Jr., director of education at the BJC, asked the lecturers how they deal with critical race theory in their classrooms and how they would respond to those who condemn it.

‘A control-the-population’ kind of action

Teresa Smallwood of Vanderbilt University Divinity School said the approach some conservative white Christians have taken toward critical race theory represents “the same illogic that would contend that Antifa was in charge of the Jan. 6 insurrection” in Washington, D.C.

“This is not a critical analysis. This is not an intellectual analysis at all,” Smallwood said.

Rather, it reflects what previously was known as “a dog whistle, but the dogs are all out now,” she said.

“This is a control-the-population kind of action: ‘Get your Negroes in line,’” she said.

When white Christians completely dismiss critical race theory, it demonstrates a “utilitarian ethic of ‘let’s do what’s going to make us happy,’” Smallwood asserted.

Honesty demands that Americans recognize the key role race has played, and having a critical theory that examines race is “imperative” to provide a framework for discussion and for shaping public policy, she insisted.

‘To think the United States is to think race’

Nicole Myers Turner of Yale University said critical race theory offers a way to help understand life outside one’s own perspective and experience.

“There is so much to be said for trying to understand the world not through your own eyes but through the eyes of someone else,” Turner said.

Anthony Pinn of Rice University succinctly summarized the importance of having a critical theory for exploring race: “To think the United States is to think race, and to deny that is to tell a lie.”

None of the participants specifically mentioned the Southern Baptist Convention’s Council of Seminary presidents, but the six presidents released a statement last November declaring critical race theory and intersectionality incompatible with the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

That sparked back-and-forth discussion with leaders of the SBC’s National African American Fellowship, and some prominent Black Baptist pastors announced their plans to leave the SBC due to the seminary presidents’ statement.

Four Black scholars offered perspectives on religious freedom informed by the experiences of African Americans during a lecture series sponsored by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Nicole Myers Turner of Yale University, Teresa Smallwood of Vanderbilt University Divinity School, Anthony Pinn of Rice University and David Goatley of Duke Divinity School delivered the Walter B. and Kay W. Shurden Lectures on Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State.

“Religious liberty has been white too long” was the theme of the online lectures, presented April 14.

Turner examined how recently freed 19th century Black Baptists defined religious liberty in ways that offered a critique of racial inequality.

Religious freedom as soul liberty

“For them, religious freedom was about fundamental soul liberty, and that was what they had to protect and wrestle away from the system of inequality that had so long denied enslaved people their fundamental humanity,” she said.

She focused on Fields Cook, who was born into slavery on a King William County, Va., plantation in 1817.

At an early age, Cook “came to understand the grievous sin of the institution of slavery, namely that it denied enslaved people the right to pursue their soul’s salvation just because they were slaves,” Turner said.

In time, slavery denied Cook the opportunity “to pursue his soul’s highest calling, to become a minister of the gospel,” she said.

“Slavery dealt its severest spiritual blow by denying Fields and other enslaved people the freedom to follow God and tend to their souls’ salvation,” Turner observed.

In a brief memoir Cook began writing at about the time he purchased his freedom, he began to critique slavery as an institution that denied enslaved people religious liberty.

“Fields Cook’s narrative and critique of slavery offers an entry point for redefining religious freedom through the eyes of freed people,” Turner said. “From Fields’ account, religious freedom was soul liberty—the freedom to live out one’s calling without hindrance.”

As Cook told his personal story, he used religious freedom to critique racial inequality “that denied enslaved and freed people the fullest and deepest expression of their humanity because of their status as slaves,” Turner added.

Religious freedom and political critique intersected in the Black churches formerly enslaved people founded, Turner noted.

Fields Cook and other freed people “infused their post-emancipation activities with a sense of purpose, challenging inequality and injustice where it existed and securing for themselves soul liberty,” she said.

The veil as a deep symbol of religious freedom

Smallwood used the veil in the Jerusalem temple—torn from top to bottom at Jesus’ crucifixion, as recorded in Matthew 27:51—to symbolize Black Americans’ experience with religious freedom.

“Deep symbols permeate the theological and biblical landscape as markers for meaning and purpose,” Smallwood said. The veil serves as a symbol both of what is hidden and what is revealed, she added.

Smallwood cited Dogged Strength within the Veil by Josiah Ulysses Young, professor of systematic theology at Wesley Theological Seminary, to describe the torn veil as “a deep symbol of religious freedom” for Black Americans.

“The tearing of the veil from the top is evident most prominently where African Americans mastered every rationality, communion and convention known to American life to the point of conquering the highest offices in the land,” Smallwood said.

“Demonstrably, the veil is torn from the bottom when we consider that African Americans have been pinned to the ground by knees on their necks, pressing the very breath of life from their bodies. And yet, the death which ensues shifts the atmosphere in policy and culture around the nation and the world. …

“In effect, it is this deep symbol of religious freedom that catapults veiled subjects to a place of unveiling where liberative connections are made for African American humanity’s wholeness and healing.”

The torn veil allows access to God, the source of power and freedom, Smallwood asserted.

“The ground has shifted, and the veil is torn, because we have learned as a people to operate in the power of the Spirit, and that is religious freedom,” she said.

‘How does it feel to be a problem?’

Pinn explored a question initially raised by author and activist W.E.B. Du Bois regarding Black Americans. “It’s a question that guides the cultural constructions that mark the life geography of Black communities: How does it feel to be a problem?”

From their earliest days in what became the United States, sold as enslaved people on the auction blocks, Blacks have been dehumanized and marginalized, he said.

Black Americans have responded by appealing to religion, which Pinn broadly defined to include a variety of expressions and ways of wrestling with life’s greatest questions—both inside and outside conventional religious organizations.

Black religion is a “poetic encounter” that takes language and deconstructs it “in order to free it to speak a different truth,” he said. As examples, he cited hip-hop artists Tupac Shakur, Queen Latifah, Jay-Z and Kanye West.

“Here you get these artists reconceiving and rethinking moral and ethical obligations in a way that centers life, and they do this without ignoring and without denying the messy and tense nature of our collective dealings,” Pinn said

“From my vantage point, this is important stuff—that thinking in this much broader way that recognizes there are tensions, inconsistencies and conflicts within the ways in which Black folks have wrestled with those fundamental questions gives us a greater sense of the contours and the content of liberty and freedom.”

‘Where one sits determine what one sees’

In the concluding lecture, Goatley directly addressed “white siblings” who are engaged in discussions regarding religious liberty.

Too often, religious liberty conversations in the United States have been dominated by white leaders on the extreme right or extreme left, speaking in ways “incongruent” with the experiences and beliefs of many Black Americans, he asserted.

He commended the BJC and its “reasoned” approach to religious liberty as holding greater “potential for partnership” with a broad spectrum of Black leaders, because it values both freedom of religion and freedom from religion without antagonism toward religion.

However, Goatley urged the BJC and likeminded groups to engage Black leaders in conversation before setting agendas rather than seeking their approval after the fact. Furthermore, he called on them to seek out a variety of Black voices—“not only the voices that are comfortable, but diverse voices that challenge, that test, that question.”

“White religious liberty leaders need to be cautious about assuming that, however well-thought and however well-argued, your perspective can speak for all. Where one sits determines what one sees,” he said. “And Black vision for religious liberty will enhance life for everyone.”

WASHINGTON (BP)—Federal courts recently delivered victories to student faith-based groups that were kicked off state university campuses for requiring their leaders to be Christians.

Wayne State University in Detroit violated the First Amendment rights of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship by revoking its status as a religious student organization, a federal judge in Michigan said in an April 5 opinion.

On March 22, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled administrators at the University of Iowa were personally liable for violating the free speech and expressive-association rights of Business Leaders in Christ.

Southern Baptist religious freedom specialist Travis Wussow said the cases “highlight just how far outside the bounds of the Constitution these university administrators were acting in both cases.”

“I’m glad that these federal courts ruled what is plainly obvious—that government officials cannot target students and discriminate against their groups because they are religious,” said Wussow, general counsel and vice president for public policy of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“Such double-standard viewpoint discrimination is as incoherent of a policy as it is injurious to a university community. I know firsthand how valuable a Christian campus ministry is to one’s college career and character formation.”

The court opinions are the latest regarding the clash between the rights of campus religious groups to limit leadership to those students who affirm their beliefs and the anti-discrimination policies of universities.

In recent years, schools such as Vanderbilt University and California State University have removed religious groups from official recognition because of their faith-based requirements for leaders.

‘Exactly what the First Amendment protects’

In his opinion, federal judge Robert Cleland said Wayne State’s Board of Governors and two of its administrators violated InterVarsity’s “rights to internal management, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly,” as well as the free exercise of religion and establishment of religion clauses of the First Amendment.

“[T]he ability of religious groups to select leaders who in fact agree with the religion is exactly what the First Amendment protects,” Cleland wrote in his 83-page opinion. “No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause.”

Cleland ruled the two Wayne State administrators who are defendants were liable for all of InterVarsity’s claims except the one regarding freedom of assembly.

InterVarsity, which has been at Wayne State for 75 years, welcomes all students as members but limits its leaders to those who affirm its statement of faith. When InterVarsity sued Wayne State in 2018, the school restored it as an official student organization but did not revise its non-discrimination policy and continued to say the group is in violation.

Praised as a ‘common-sense ruling’

“The law is crystal clear: universities can’t kick religious student groups off campus just because they choose leaders who share their faith,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, a religious freedom advocacy organization that represents InterVarsity and Business Leaders in Christ.

Calling it a “common-sense ruling,” Windham said in a written statement it means InterVarsity “must be treated fairly … and now can continue its good work serving a diverse campus community.”

In the Eighth Circuit case, the University of Iowa had not challenged a federal judge’s ruling that the school violated Business Leaders in Christ’s rights under the First Amendment to free exercise of religion, free speech and expressive association. Instead, Business Leaders in Christ appealed the lower court’s finding that the university’s administrators qualified for immunity from those violations.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit held the administrators were personally responsible regarding the free exercise and expressive association violations but not the free-exercise claim.

Federal judge Stephanie Rose had ruled in separate cases that the university violated the First Amendment rights of Business Leaders in Christ and InterVarsity.

“It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the University’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion,” said Eric Baxter, vice president of Becket. “They knew this was wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”

CHICAGO (RNS)—Last summer, as the death of George Floyd shined a spotlight on racism and violence against Black Americans, the Asian American Christian Collaborative marched for Black lives.

Months later, leaders of the Black and Asian American churches involved in that march began to plan a second event uniting their communities against racism.

In the midst of planning the event, Black & Asian Christians United Against Racism, organizers learned eight people were shot and killed in spas in the Atlanta area, including six women of Asian descent, and the spotlight turned on the recent explosion of violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders amid scapegoating for the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘Commitment to an enduring partnership is needed’

“In the wake of the surging violence against Asian Americans … and as the Derek Chauvin trial is taking place in the murder of George Floyd, an event like this is needed more now than ever,” said Pastor Raymond Chang, president of the Asian American Christian Collaborative.

“But, more than this event, a commitment to an enduring partnership is needed.”

Panelists at Black & Asian Christians United Against Racism, livestreamed April 5 from Apostolic Faith Church in Chicago, discussed the histories, struggles and contributions of each community and the importance of creating that partnership between them.

They included Pastor Charlie Dates of Progressive Baptist Church; Soong-Chan Rah, professor at North Park Theological Seminary; and Waltrina Middleton, executive director of the Community Renewal Society, among others.

In his remarks, Pastor Otis Moss III of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago recognized the “unique thread” of racism that ties Black and Asian Americans together in the United States.

The 1854 California Supreme Court decision People v. Hall, which ruled an Asian American could not testify against a white American, provided a blueprint years later for the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which ruled the U.S. Constitution did not extend citizenship to Black people, Moss said.

The Chinese massacre of 1871 in California, one of the largest mass lynchings in U.S. history, gave the “green light” to lynchings of Black people across the country, he added.

“Our oppression is linked together, but also our liberation is connected at the same time,” he said.

The church gives a template for what that liberation can look like, according to Moss. He pointed to the example of the famous 1906 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles—led by Black, Asian and Latino Christians—as proof “the Spirit functions in a way that white supremacy could not control.”

Men and women experience racism differently

Panelists discussed how racism is experienced differently by men and women—and how Black and Asian American women can find commonalities in each other’s experiences.

“White supremacy has often treated us in similar ways, and I think that when women share their stories and experiences with one another and hear the pain in each other’s stories as well as the resilience in one another’s stories, we can enter in a place of true solidarity with one another—solidarity that frightens white supremacy,” said Juliet Liu, pastor of Life on the Vine Church in suburban Long Grove, Ill.

They also addressed tension between Black and Asian American/Pacific Islander communities and ways the two historically have been pitted against each other.

Gregory Lee, an associate professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school in suburban Wheaton, Ill., explained the “myth of the model minority” started by white opponents of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

“We’ve been trying to play to the power structures instead of opposing them,” Lee said.

‘What can we learn?’

Many Asian Americans have realized “we’re being used in this game to hold down Black and brown folks,” he added. After the shootings in Atlanta, he said, they’re also realizing how vulnerable the Asian American community is.

“Asians are increasingly turning to African American sources to see how have they done it. What can we learn from them?” he said.

Several speakers at Monday’s event pointed to a New Testament passage from Ephesians, saying their battle was not against one another—“not against flesh and blood”—but rather a spiritual battle.

It’s a battle, they agreed, they’d continue to fight together in both prayer and protest.

“I think it’s a shame that we even have to ask this question why we need to care about anti-Asian racism or why we need to say that Black lives matter. The fact we have to argue about those things at all is a sad state of affairs,” said Gabriel J. Catanus, pastor of Garden City Covenant Church in Chicago.

“At a basic level, we are human beings. We bear the image of God, and God doesn’t just love human beings, he hates murder. If we are the people of God, that should also characterize us.”