WASHINGTON—Students can win money for college by writing an essay discussing whether public school calendars should accommodate religious holidays.

The Religious Liberty Essay Scholarship Contest, sponsored by the Religious Liberty Council of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, engages high school juniors and seniors in church-state issues by directing them to express a point of view on a religious liberty topic.

To enter, students must write a 800- to 1,200-word essay in response to this prompt: “In most public high schools, certain days are marked as religious holidays on the school calendar, and the schools are closed on those days. As public schools become more diverse, some students’ religious holy day(s) are not days that the schools are closed, resulting in absences for those students. In an essay, discuss whether public school calendars should accommodate religious holidays.”

Student writers are urged to consider how school administrators should determine if, or which, religious holy days are included in the school calendar, or if any school policies should be changed to better accommodate students’ religious exercise.

Students should develop a point of view on the issue and demonstrate critical thinking, using appropriate examples, arguments and other evidence to support their position, including identifying how the First Amendment supports their view. Any high school student graduating in 2018 or 2019 is eligible to enter the contest.

The grand prize is a $2,000 scholarship and a trip for two to Washington, D.C. Prizes of $1,000 for the second place winner and $500 for the third place winner also are available.

Essays will be evaluated by a panel of religious liberty advocates and will be judged on the depth of their content, the mastery of the topic and the skill with which they are written.

Entries must be mailed and postmarked by March 9, 2018. Winners will be announced by the end of summer 2018, and the grand prizewinner will be recognized at the BJC board meeting in Washington, D.C., in October 2018.

For entry forms and complete contest rules, click here.

For more information, contact Charles Watson, BJC education and outreach specialist, at (202) 544-4226 or cwatson@BJConline.org.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (RNS)—In the wake of the shooting massacre at a Texas church, Pastor Eric S.C. Manning has visited members of his own congregation—Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church—to see how they are coping with rekindled memories and ongoing grief.

Manning, who became pastor of the Charleston, S.C., church about a year after nine people were killed by a gunman during a Bible study by a white supremacist, has picked up the phone this year to call a Tennessee church and a Canadian mosque that suffered their own attacks. He also planned to offer a “ministry of presence” by visiting members of First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.

He talked about how things have changed—new security and a new counseling center —for his church members and how they’ve stayed the same—the church doors remain open to members and visitors. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

How did you learn about the shootings at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, and what was your first reaction?

We were watching television in the afternoon and saw breaking news that something had taken place in Texas at a church. We began to pray for the congregation there because we understand what it means to have evil show up in the church and commit a heinous act.

Is Mother Emanuel AME planning to reach out to that congregation in any way?

Yes, we plan on trying to get out there either next week or the following week, just to show our support and aid in anything that we can possibly do with and for them. The only thing that I can really guarantee is just bringing a ministry of presence to be with them to show solidarity and that they are not alone. One thing that we have learned is that when trauma happens sometimes those who have gone through it are able to provide a little bit more of an encouragement.

The situations seem to be both similar and different as far as what has unfortunately happened to your two churches: People were killed when they were coming together to pray and worship but the perpetrators seem to have had different motives. Does that matter at all as you reach out to this church?

That really does not matter. Though the motives may be different the result is the same: You have now two congregations who have gone through a tremendous amount of hatred and evil within their sacred spaces.

How are the members of your church coping with this news, which could be bringing back very, very difficult memories?

It is, of course, bringing up memories and exposing old wounds that we thought may have been healed throughout the process of time. It’s thrust several members back into that June 17, 2015, time when everything was kind of just moving very rapidly and having a lot of people experience the sheer raw emotions of having their church violated and having their ministerial staff and loved ones murdered within the sacred walls of the church.

How has your church offered counseling to them?

Mother Emanuel is blessed to have a partnership with MUSC (Medical University of South Carolina) in Charleston. And we have an empowerment center that’s staffed by clinicians from MUSC and they are able to come and to receive any type of help that they may need from a therapeutic or clinical perspective.

What has it been like for church members to walk back into a site of such tragedy?

I’ve only been serving Mother Emanuel for about a year and a half. Every day we do return to what is a crime scene, and there are days when it is mentally challenging to come through the doors, but through God’s perseverance, he continues to give us the strength that we need to endure. Sometimes the staff may give me a call and say, “Pastor, I just don’t feel up to coming in” and, of course, I understand.

Is there a way to sum up how your congregation was doing before the news of this Texas attack?

We were just continuing on healing and continuing on worshipping and being there for one another and welcoming as many guests or guest worshippers who wanted to come worship with us. There wasn’t a return to normalcy but our new normal we were quite OK with.

Were there specific things that the congregants tried to do to reclaim their church space as their own after the 2015 tragedy?

Reclaiming the church space is an interesting question: The space was never actually forfeited. Mother Emanuel has experienced tragedy before in its history—never, of course, like this. But the church is a place that has a history of resilience, a history of determination and perseverance.

So, the way that we, if you use the term “reclaim the space,” just that following Sunday was immediately opening the doors of the church and worshipping. That began the reclaiming of it. We weren’t going to let evil have the final word. We weren’t going to let the enemy stop the momentum of doing what God has called us all to do.

What kind of security changes has Mother Emanuel made after June 17, 2015?

We have uniformed officers in our worship service and in our Bible study and we also have a security team and we have cameras.

Incidents like these prompt some churches to contemplate getting training for security, arming their members or having armed guards. What do you advise?

Each church will have to handle or answer that question themselves. We can’t just say, “Here, this is the one size fits all.”

There are some people across the country who may be thinking now, after attending church regularly, that maybe they should consider staying home and perhaps listen to services online, on TV or on the radio. What would you say to them?

I would say to them, “Do not let the enemy have the victory.” I understand that people would be apprehensive and for a season they may not return. We experienced the same thing at Mother Emanuel but through the process of time God has continued to touch various members so that they feel comfortable coming back to worship.

Do you feel there has been any sense of healing since the attack on your church, or do you think that healing can ever come?

Healing takes time. Every member is in a different space, the same way that every member wasn’t able to immediately forgive. We just have to take one day at a time. And for those who are struggling, it is not for us to make them feel as if they are lesser a Christian or that their faith is weaker. We must also be patient and wait for their complete healing and restoration to come. But it will come.

FLORESVILLE (RNS)—Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Sutherland Springs to offer prayers and words of comfort to a stricken community three days after a lone gunman killed more than two dozen people during a Sunday morning church service.

The memorial service was held Nov. 8 on a high school football field in neighboring Floresville, about 13 miles from the site of the massacre at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The service was replete with Bible readings and prayers. It offered few political points and no mention of guns, mental illness or domestic violence.

Pence said he was inspired by the strong convictions of the people of Sutherland Springs and especially the victims of its historic church, and he expressed his solidarity with their faith.

Off to the side of the stadium, a section was reserved for victims’ families, and it was to them that much of the prayers and words were addressed.

“Faith is stronger than evil,” Pence reassured the families. “Faith is the antidote to fear and despair.”

Thousands of people responded with shouts of “Yeah!” and “Amen!”

‘This evil must come to an end’

Earlier in the day, Pence visited the hospital where many survivors were treated and met with the families of the victims. He also spoke briefly to reporters outside First Baptist Church, cordoned off with yellow tape.

“This evil must come to an end in our land,” he said, citing “bureaucratic failures” that allowed the shooter, Devin Patrick Kelley, to buy multiple weapons, including the Ruger AR-556 rifle he used at the church, despite having been admitted to a psychiatric hospital while he was in the Air Force.

Federal law prohibits gun possession by anyone who “has been committed to any mental institution.”

Kelley was also charged with assaulting his wife and stepson.

The Air Force and the Department of Defense are conducting reviews, Pence said.

“We will find out why this information was not reported in 2012, and we will work to make sure it never happens again,” he said.

God never gave up

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced Pence. Abbott offered his own testimony of turning to God after an accident severed a vertebra in his spine and left him in a wheelchair.

“I questioned God, but you know who didn’t give up on me? God,” Abbott said. “God brought me all the way forward.”

Floresville’s Bernard Cenney, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who came to the service to pay his respects, said the faith emphasis was a natural part of small-town Texas culture.

“Belief in God is really, really big here and it transcends going to church,” Cenney said. “There’s this wholesome belief in God and in something greater than us.”

Closing his speech, Pence invited his wife, Karen, to offer a prayer.

“We’re a family that believes in prayer,” she said. “Lord, thank you for being here with us right now.”

Some dissent

Asking for prayers in the wake of a mass shooting has become as expected as thunder after lightning. But outside Texas, there were some signs of dissent.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Southern California, walked out during a moment of silence held on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Texas shooting victims.

“I’ve been to too many moments of silences. Just in my short career in Congress, three of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred. I will not be silent,” Lieu said via Facebook Live. “What we need is we need action, we need to pass gun safety legislation now.”

Still, studies show communal grief rituals, like prayer vigils and moments of silence, can be crucial to the grieving process. A 2014 study by Harvard researchers showed such rituals can help people deal with negative feelings after a loss or tragedy.

“Since people who have suffered some kind of loss often feel as if their lives are out of control, using rituals can help restore that feeling of control and, in turn, make it easier for them to cope with grief,” Romeo Vitelli, a psychologist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder, wrote of the study in Psychology Today. “While rituals can vary widely, the underlying principle of restoring a sense of control is usually the same.”

WASHINGTON—The tax-reform package U.S. House of Representative leaders released Nov. 2 includes a measure that would weaken the Johnson Amendment—a provision in the tax code that bars churches from endorsing political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

The tax proposal drew criticism from advocates for separation of church and state, who insisted the measure would politicize houses of worship.

‘Deform, not reform’

“This tax bill will deform, not reform, the tax law that protects our houses of worship,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“Gutting the law that protects 501(c)(3) (tax-exempt not-for-profit) organizations from candidates pressing for endorsements threatens to destroy our congregations from within over disagreements on partisan campaigns.”

The Johnson Amendment protects the freedom of ministers to “speak truth to power and preach on moral issues, no matter how controversial,” Tyler added.

“Pastors and people of faith know that there’s nothing free about a pulpit that is bought and paid for by political campaign donations or beholden to partisan interests,” she said.

In August, more than 4,000 faith leaders signed a letter urging Congress to maintain the Johnson Amendment.

The proposed change in the tax law “has been pushed by a tiny minority and is opposed by the vast majority of Americans and churchgoers, across party lines and faith traditions,” Tyler said.

‘This is bad policy’

The Trump Administration and House leaders are “trying to change the tax code so they can pressure churches for endorsements,” said Maggie Garrett, legislative director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“They very clearly want to use congregations as political tools for their own benefit,” Garrett said.

“This flies in the face of the American promise of separation of church and state, and it’s blatantly unconstitutional. … This is bad policy. It’s bad for churches, and it’s bad for American taxpayers who will potentially see their money going to support partisan political operations being run out of church basements. This will further divide Americans in spaces that are specifically meant to bring them together.”

Kathryn Freeman, director of public policy for Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission, also expressed concern about diluting the Johnson Amendment, noting ministers already are free to “give their congregations biblical insights into public policy and ethical issues.”

“But I am worried that this is just an attempt to politicize our places of worship and to sow division and mistrust at a time when our nation needs Christ-followers to speak prophetically in the public square, while also demonstrating Christ’s love and concern for all, no matter their political affiliation,” Freeman said.

In addition, Freeman also expressed concern about cuts to the adoption tax credit in the House tax-reform proposal.

“As pro-life advocates know, adoption is an important and critical alternative to abortion,” she said.

WASHINGTON—Does a Christian baker have the First Amendment right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? It depends on which Baptists you ask.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 5 regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case centers on a Colorado commercial baker with a religious objection to same-sex marriage who refused to create and sell a decorated cake to a gay couple for their wedding reception. The baker asserts his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage should afford him an exemption to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

The court will rule whether applying the state’s public accommodations law to compel the baker to design a cake for an event that celebrates a union contrary to his religious beliefs violates the free speech or free exercises clauses of the First Amendment.

Baptist groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking opposing positions on the case.

Free exercise of religion in the marketplace

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission filed a brief Sept. 7—along with the Christian Life Commission of the Missouri Baptist Convention and others—arguing the “free exercise of religion by secular vocations in the marketplace should be no less protected than sacred vocations in the ministry,” citing the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

The brief argues the Colorado law “imposes a constitutionally forbidden de facto religious test for cake artists that compels them to design custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriage despite religious objections.”

The brief asserts application of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to the baker “revives an oppressive practice condemned by the Constitution—the application of legal compulsion to force a person to express and affirm ideas or belief antithetical to his religious faith as a condition of pursing his occupation.”

“No American should have to satisfy a government official that he holds the ‘right’ beliefs to keep his business or practice his profession,” the brief states.

Colorado law ‘strikes the right balance’

In contrast, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ and others jointly filed a brief with the Supreme Court Oct. 30 arguing Colorado’s public accommodation law as applied in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case “strikes the right balance between respect for religious liberty and the protection of individuals’ right to participate in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.”

“There may be more challenging cases, including in the context of same-sex marriage,” in which the parties filing the brief “might differ on whether a religious exemption is warranted, but this is not such a case,” it states.

The brief notes the law in question “applies to commercial activities alone and expressly excludes houses of worship from its reach.” It also insists marriage has “both a religious and a nonreligious, civil component.”

In the case before the court, the same-sex couple sought to purchase a cake for a reception “long after and far from where their wedding ceremony took place,” and the baker was not being required to participate in a religious ceremony contrary to his beliefs, the brief notes.

“Religious officials cannot be required to conduct wedding ceremonies outside their religious traditions, and a lay person cannot be required to participate in a religious ceremony, including a religious wedding ceremony, that conflicts with the person’s religious faith,” the brief states.

“In such circumstances, exemptions to secular laws would be warranted. But an exemption is not warranted under these facts. Respecting petitioners’ interest in their sincerely held religious views regarding marriage does not require granting them the right to deny service in the commercial marketplace to couples in connection with the civil or nonreligious aspects of their marriages.”

The brief asserts the public accommodations law actually protects religious liberty, because it prevents people from being turned away from a commercial establishment or denied services on the basis of their religious identity.

“Free exercise law provides many protections for the religious beliefs and actions of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee.

“But it does not provide a right for commercial vendors to refuse to sell goods and services to certain people in violation of a nondiscrimination law by simply asserting a faith-based reason.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Conservative African-American clergy accused LGBT activists of hijacking the civil rights movement and launched a campaign to support a Colorado baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.

William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, told reporters the civil rights movement’s efforts to gain equal facilities for schooling and health care do not equate with a gay couple’s wedding cake request.

“We had to fight for equal treatment because of the color of our skin,” he said, standing with other black clergy at a news conference held outside the Supreme Court. “Christians should not be forced to support sin.”

‘We Got Your Back, Jack’

The “We Got Your Back, Jack” campaign’s message is that the African-American civil rights struggle and LGBT rights are not comparable, adding to the fierce debate surrounding the case scheduled to be heard by the court on Dec. 5.

One of the images in the campaign depicts “white” and “colored” water fountains along with an “LGBT” rainbow-colored bubbler—all topped with the words, “One of these never happened.”

Dean Nelson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, said the aim of the campaign is the “support of Jack Phillips and all people of faith and conscience who simply want to live their lives, who simply want the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“The government exists to protect those who have diverse opinions and viewpoints, not to punish them,” added Nelson, who also is a senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Family Research Council.

The high court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, stems from a request in 2012 by David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a Denver gay couple, who wanted a wedding cake from Phillips’ shop. Phillips, the owner, refused, saying baking such a cake would violate his deeply held Christian beliefs.

The couple filed discrimination charges against him and won before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and in the state courts.

‘Trivializes racial discrimination’

The clergy were joined by staffers from Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council Action, advocacy groups siding with Phillips, as well as Janet Boynes, founder of a Minneapolis-based ministry that offers “spiritual guidance for those who choose to walk away from homosexuality.”

Boynes also objected to activists’ efforts to equate the civil rights and gay rights movements.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” she said. “There is no comparison. It only trivializes racial discrimination.”

Reached after the press conference, Cedric Harmon, executive director of Many Voices—a pro-LGBTQ black church movement—rejected the campaign’s premise.

“As a believer myself and a Christian, I don’t believe that anyone in business should be using their religious beliefs to discriminate against any member of one marginalized community because to do so would open the door to discriminate against all other marginalized communities,” he said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—After two federal judges ruled against the Trump Administration’s latest travel ban, protesters gathered across the street from the White House to stand in solidarity with Muslims and refugees.

The federal judges—one from Hawaii and a Maryland judge—temporarily blocked the ban, which would prevent people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, North Korea and certain Venezuelan government officials from traveling to the United States.

Hundreds of Muslims, Jews, Christians and the religiously unaffiliated began their protest in Lafayette Square park Oct. 18 for the #NoMuslimBanEver March, before they walked the few blocks to the Trump International Hotel.

Muslim American protester Kalid Ali said President Trump is punishing whole countries full of Muslims for the actions of a very few in a misguided attempt to protect Americans from terrorism.

“Mr. President, not everybody agrees with your decisions, and not everybody is a bad person,” he said. “He has to understand if there are bad people somewhere, there are many, many good people here, too.”

The protesters gathered around a large stage in the center of the park, where speakers gave personal testimonials and led the crowd in chants, including “No Muslim ban ever!”

“As we’re shouting, democracy is what this nation is all about,” said Leslie Carter, one of the religiously unaffiliated among the crowd. “And we have to work hard every day to prove that.”

Gamileh Jamil, from Buffalo, N.Y., belongs to the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services and said one out of three people in the city of Buffalo is an immigrant.

“We’re here to stand up and really represent all of the faces that we see on a daily basis,” she said.

“The tears, the frustrations of families being in a very traumatized, very war-stricken country and not being able to bring them in,” she continued, referring to refugees denied shelter in the United States. 

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Muslim refugees to the United States, whose numbers have recently increased, have been far outpaced by Christians refugees over the last decade and a half.

As the Trump Administration continues to enforce a travel ban affecting six Muslim-majority and other countries, a Pew Research Center report tracking the influx of displaced people finds 47 percent of refugee arrivals in fiscal 2017 were Christian and 43 percent were Muslim.

In the previous fiscal year, a record number of Muslim refugees were admitted. Pew noted 46 percent of refugees entering this country were Muslim, compared with 44 percent who were Christians.

“Even with the recent rise in the number of Muslim refugees, far more Christian than Muslim refugees have been admitted into the U.S. since fiscal 2002,” writes Phillip Connor, a senior researcher with Pew, in the new report.

In that 15-year period, almost 425,000 Christian refugees crossed U.S. borders, making up 46 percent of refugee arrivals. In comparison, 33 percent, or slightly more than 302,000, of admitted refugees were Muslim.

Almost 170,000 refugees of other religions entered at the same time, including about 55,000 Hindus (mostly from Bhutan) and about 50,000 Buddhists (mostly from Burma and Bhutan). In addition, more than 20,000 with no religious affiliation, mostly from Vietnam and Cuba, entered the United States between the fiscal years of 2002 and 2017.

In those 15 years, Christian arrivals represented nearly two dozen branches of Christianity, such as Armenian Christian and Ukrainian Orthodox. Those of non-Christian and non-Muslim faiths included Hare Krishnas and Zoroastrians.

Researchers found, overall, the United States is resettling fewer refugees even as the global number of displaced people is on the increase. If projections remain on track, the percentage of refugees admitted will be “lower even than the share admitted in 2001 and 2002, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” Connor said.

The Pew findings were based on analyses of reports from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the State Department.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump’s travel ban on majority-Muslim countries because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.

The ruling Oct. 10 is a victory for the Trump Administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.

“We express no view on the merits,” the justices said in a one-page order.

Clean slate

The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump’s travel ban. That case began in Maryland.

A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won’t expire until later this month. But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well.

The challengers in both cases already have renewed their lawsuits in the lower courts, starting the legal process anew. In Maryland, a federal district court has scheduled a new hearing for next week.

But the new travel ban and the Supreme Court’s order vacating the 4th Circuit appeals court judgment puts the administration in a somewhat stronger position, at least for now.

The 4th Circuit case was brought by the International Refugee Assistance Project, which argued that banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Sotomayor dissents

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court’s action. She would have dismissed the case but in a way that would have preserved the appeals court ruling against the ban, rather than vacating it.

Under its original schedule, the court would have heard the case Oct. 10, but the court had delayed oral argument after Trump replaced his earlier order. The new version followed a three-month review of immigration procedures.

The latest travel ban targets five countries included in two previous versions—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen—as well as Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Unlike the earlier bans, it treats some countries and types of travelers, such as students or tourists, differently than others.

The administration told the justices the new ban is “based on detailed findings regarding the national security interests of the United States that were reached after a thorough, worldwide review and extensive consultation.”

The ban’s challengers argued the case against the last version should go forward because many of the same travelers and their families are adversely affected—not just for 90 days, but indefinitely.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the 4th Circuit challenge on behalf of the refugee group, had said charges of anti-Muslim discrimination still applied “despite some new window dressing”—a reference to the addition of North Korea and Venezuela.

Hawaii, which brought the 9th Circuit challenge, warned the justices elements of the earlier ban still could be revived, since Trump has said he wants a “much tougher version.”

This article originally appeared in USA Today and was distributed by Religion News Service.

MADISON, Wisc. (BP)—A federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled the U.S. tax code’s ministerial housing allowance is unconstitutional.

Unlike a previous attempt by the same judge to strike down the housing allowance, the latest ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb could be upheld on appeal to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, said Mississippi College law professor Matt Steffey, law professor at Mississippi College.

The judge appears “bound by existing law to decide the case this way,” Steffey said. “The way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause” to forbid preference of religion over non-religion “dictates to a lower court, which must follow the existing Supreme Court precedent to arrive at this decision.”

Crabb’s Oct. 6 ruling eventually could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court if a majority of its justices are willing to change the high court’s longstanding interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is “possible,” Steffey said.

Codified as part of a 1954 law, the ministerial housing allowance permits ministers to exclude for federal income tax purposes a portion or all of their gross income as a housing allowance. The Internal Revenue Service has interpreted the law broadly to include religious workers of various faiths.

The benefit saves ministers an estimated $800 million annually, according to Christianity Today.

Favors religion over irreligion

Crabb ruled the ministerial housing allowance violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, which bans government-established religion, “because it does not have a secular purpose or effect and because a reasonable observer would view the statute as an endorsement of religion.”

As evidence of the law’s intent to favor religion over irreligion, Crabb quoted its congressional sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, as stating during a 1953 hearing on the ministerial housing allowance, “In these times when we are being threatened by a godless and anti-religious world movement, we should correct this discrimination against certain ministers of the gospel who are carrying on such a courageous fight against this.”

In 2013, Crabb similarly ruled the ministerial housing allowance unconstitutional. But the Seventh Circuit overturned her decision, ruling the plaintiffs—the Freedom From Religion Foundation—lacked standing to sue.

The foundation is a plaintiff once again in the current lawsuit, arguing the IRS has violated the U.S. Constitution by refusing to permit its leaders to claim the ministerial housing allowance. This time, Crabb wrote in her 47-page opinion, the organization and its leaders have satisfied the appeals court’s requirements to attain legal standing.

Clergy need to live near where they serve

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a conservative nonprofit legal group that represents some defendants in the case, argues Crabb’s ruling is in error.

“For nearly 100 years, pastors, rabbis, imams and other faith leaders—whose jobs require them to live close to their church or in an underserved community—have been eligible for the parsonage allowance,” a statement from Becket said.

“This tax provision ensures that faith leaders … receive the same tax treatment as other employees who must live in the communities they service—like military service members, teachers and overseas workers.”

“We have monitored this case and its predecessor cases closely and will seek as part of a long-standing coalition of ministerial benefit boards to file a friend-of-court brief on appeal at the appropriate time,” said O.S. Hawkins, GuideStone Financial Resources president.

“The housing allowance, far from being a government endorsement of religion, as Judge Crabb contends, actually removes government from the equation. Were it not for the housing allowance, the government would be imposing a tax on religious employers and their employees that is not imposed on non-religious employers.”

Regarding a potential Supreme Court reversal of Crabb’s ruling, “There are three justices who have expressed a willingness to read the establishment clause as permitting laws to prefer religion over non-religion,” Steffey said.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch has not been on the bench long enough to reveal his view on the issue, though it is possible he could side with housing allowance proponents, Steffey said. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy likely would cast the deciding vote on the issue, he said.

No immediate effect on ministers

Churches “should be concerned,” but “it’s not a DefCon 1 situation that requires immediate action,” Steffey said, referencing the U.S. military’s highest state of alert. “But churches should follow this litigation.”

GuideStone advised ministers to consult the entity’s annual tax guide, available at GuideStone.org/taxguide, and its housing allowance information, available at GuideStone.org/housingallowance, to ensure they are properly documenting housing allowance and reporting it appropriately on their income tax returns.

“We continue to live and minister in a world that is increasingly hostile to religious life as compared to the world in which many of us grew up,” Hawkins said. “Rather than discouraging us, we seek to continue to serve as an advocate for hundreds of thousands of pastors and other ministers we have the privilege to serve.”

Crabb ordered both sides to submit briefs by the end of October on whether the plaintiffs should receive “additional relief.”

GuideStone officials said they anticipate a final judgment before the end of the year, which likely will be stayed while the case is appealed and have no immediate effect on ministers.

WASHINGTON—The Trump Administration expanded the exemption for employers who cite moral or religious objections to providing their employees insurance coverage for birth control—including drugs that may induce abortions.

Representatives of some religious groups, including the presidents of two Baptist General Convention of Texas-affiliated universities that had challenged the birth control mandate, praised the announcement.

Others expressed concern the rule changes and particularly a related Department of Justice memorandum dealing with multiple religious liberty issues will continue to spark controversy.

Birth-control mandate

The Health and Human Services mandate of the Affordable Care Act—also called Obamacare—required employers to provide employees all Food and Drug Administration-approved preventive birth-control methods, including emergency drugs commonly known as the “morning-after pill” and the “week-after pill.”

Medical experts hold different views about whether the drugs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb or whether they simply delay ovulation, but some religious groups see them as equivalent to abortion.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act could not require private corporations, such as the family-owned Hobby Lobby retailer, to offer insurance coverage for birth control methods they believed caused abortions.

The new rule expands that exemption to include other entities on the basis of religious beliefs, and a companion rule protects organizations and small businesses on the basis of moral convictions apart from religion.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called the action “a crucial step in the preservation of religious liberty.”

“The government has no business whatsoever forcing citizens to subsidize the destruction of human life and the exploitation of families and communities,” Moore said in a written statement to Baptist Press, news service of the SBC Executive Committee.

“More still, the contraceptive mandate revealed the audacity of a state that believed it could annex the human conscience, which is why I have long opposed it as an unlawful overreach asking citizens to choose between obedience to God and compliance with the regulatory state. A government that can pave over the conscience of some can steamroll over dissent everywhere.”

Two Texas Baptist schools respond

Five years ago, Houston Baptist University and East Texas Baptist University filed a lawsuit challenging the birth control mandate, asserting it required them to provide “abortion-causing drugs.”

The new HHS rule announced Oct. 6 is “a victory for common sense,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for Becket, the religious liberty law firm that represented HBU and ETBU.

A federal judge in Texas ruled in 2013 the mandate violated the schools’ religious liberty rights, but the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals overturned that decision in 2015. (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-10241-CV0.pdf)

However, Becket officials noted the new HHS rule aligns with several Supreme Court decisions, including last year’s ruling in Zubik V. Burwell.

“We are glad the government has finally listened to the Supreme Court,” HBU President Robert Sloan said. “Our missions has always been driven by our faith, and all we have ever wanted was to live out that faith in every aspect of what we do.”

ETBU President Blair Blackburn likewise praised the new rule.

“We are thankful that HHS has seen the light and issued this new rule,” Blackburn said. “Our goal is to provide excellent Christ-centered education while remaining true to our Baptist beliefs. This case is at the core about protecting the constitutionality of our institution’s religious liberty to follow the tenets of our faith rooted in God’s truths.”

The Affordable Care Act exempted religious organizations such as churches from the mandate, but the exemption did not originally extend to faith-based institutions such as hospitals and universities that are open to the general public.

Later, the Obama Administration added a provision that allowed employees of such institutions and organizations to receive the mandated coverage through a third party insurance provider.

Some religious organizations—including GuideStone Financial Services of the Southern Baptist Convention—filed suits asserting a provision requiring them to let the government know in writing of their decision to opt out made them complicit in providing abortion-causing birth control methods.

GuideStone President O.S. Hawkins praised the new HHS rule as “good news for all Americans who value the importance of religious liberty in our nation.”

Attorney General memo causes concerns

In addition to the HHS rule changes, Attorney General Jeff Sessions also issued on Oct. 6 a Department of Justice memorandum regarding federal law protections for religious liberty.

The memo—which not only deals with the birth control mandate but a variety of religious liberty matters—likely will prompt further controversy, said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“In large part, the guidance restates much settled law, though with a decided tilt toward concerns of free exercise, giving short shrift to the government’s duty to avoid no-establishment concerns,” she said.

“In a couple of areas, the guidance will exacerbate controversy. The guidance treats complicated legal issues, such as the definition of ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise and the interplay between religious autonomy and government funding, in an overly simplistic way.”

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, offered a pointed critique of the Sessions memo. He particularly singled out language that he insisted gives federal government workers the right to use their religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate against or deny services to certain people.

“Anyone who cares about civil rights, fairness and equality has to pay attention right now,” Lynn asserted. “Treating one faith or one group of people as second-class citizens threatens the religious freedom that protects us all.

“Religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to use religion as an excuse to harm others. But today the Trump Administration is giving the Religious Right exactly what it wants. The guidance is a roadmap for how to discriminate against most anyone, including women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities.”

WASHINGTON—Baptist public policy advocates affirmed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for issuing a payday and auto-title loan rule designed to rein in abusive lending practices.

The rule—issued by the bureau Oct. 5—requires payday and auto-title lenders to assess the ability of a borrower to repay a loan before it is granted and limits the cycle of ongoing refinances.

“The CFPB’s new rule puts a stop to the payday debt traps that have plagued communities across the country,” said Richard Cordray, director of the bureau. “Too often, borrowers who need quick cash end up trapped in loans they can’t afford. The rule’s common sense ability-to-repay protections prevent lenders from succeeding by setting up borrowers to fail.”

‘Important first step’

Stephen Reeves, who leads Cooperative Baptist Fellowship advocacy and partnership initiatives, called the rule “a momentous step forward in the fight to rein in predatory lending practices nationwide.”

Kathryn Freeman, public policy director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission and member of Texas Faith Leaders for Fair Lending, called the rule “an important first step.”

“At the same time, we believe there is more work that needs to be done,” she said, noting the need for caps on interest rates and fees, approved legislatively at either the federal or state level.

Texas Appleseed, a public interest center based in Austin, noted for borrowers who do not refinance their loans, a typical $500 payday loan costs $1,351 in installments over five months. Refinances quickly can bring the total to thousands of dollars, Texas Appleseed reports.

A joint statement issued by the Texas Fair Lending Alliance and Texas Faith Leaders for Fair Lending noted from 2012 to 2016, Texans paid $7.5 billion in fees for high-cost loans.

During the same period, 186,685 families lost a car to an auto-title loan—often after paying significantly more in fees than the value of the original loan, the organizations noted. On average, these types of loans in Texas range from an annual percentage rate of 200 percent to more than 500 percent.

Strong bureau needed

“We want to see both borrower and lender success,” Freeman noted. “It is not morally justifiable or an effective business model for a lender to make most of his profits on defaults.”

Freeman and Reeves both applauded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its leaders for proposing the rule. They agreed the bureau serves vital regulatory and enforcement roles.

“A strong and independent CBPB is critical to preventing deceptive and unfair products,” Reeves said. “They must be allowed to vigorously enforce this new rule.”