WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Supreme Court agreed to re-enter the national debate over abortion by deciding whether stronger restrictions placed on abortion clinics and doctors in Texas constitute an “undue burden” on women seeking legal abortions and should be struck down.

The restrictions—requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to meet standards for outpatient surgery centers—could leave the state with 10 clinics clustered in four population centers and along the Mexican border. A similar law in Mississippi threatens to close that state’s lone abortion clinic.

Decision will clarify 1992 ruling

Whatever the justices decide next year will help clarify the court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when a divided court upheld the right to abortion while letting states impose restrictions that do not block women from obtaining services. The case is expected to be heard in March and decided in June.

“This will be the most important abortion rights case before the Supreme Court in almost 25 years,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of several abortion clinics.

“It’s overdue,” said Steven Aden, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which has submitted briefs on behalf of several states in the legal battle. “The Casey standard is unworkable and was ill-designed to begin with. We have more litigation now over the meaning of the Casey standard than we’ve ever had.”

By clearing up the ambiguity left by the 1992 ruling, the justices could serve notice to lower courts across the country and hand a victory to one side or the other in a debate that has raged since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973.

Emboldened by the court’s most recent action on abortion—its 2007 ruling that upheld bans on “partial-birth” late-term abortions—state legislatures have enacted hundreds of restrictions in recent years. They range from 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification laws, mostly upheld by lower courts, to bans on abortion after six or 12 weeks, which courts have blocked.

“The politics of this has always been to push the court more and more to give deference to state legislators to restrict abortion rights,” said Kathryn Kolbert, director of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard College, who argued the 1992 case before the court on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Abortions have dropped

At the same time, the number of abortions in the United States has dropped steadily, from more than 1.5 million in 1992 to slightly more than 1 million in 2011. That marked the lowest rate of abortions for women ages 15 to 44 since 1973.

The result of the laws and lawsuits is a growing disparity among states. California had 160 abortion clinics in 2011 and New York nearly 100, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

The Texas law, passed in 2013, forced more than half the state’s 46 clinics to close, and more are threatened by the latest appeals court decision. Wyoming has no abortion clinics. Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota each have one.

The Supreme Court has refused to re-enter the debate since 2007, turning away four efforts in the past two years by Arizona twice, North Carolina and Wisconsin to appeal lower court rulings striking down abortion bans or restrictions on medication abortions, admitting privileges and mandatory ultrasound tests. The Texas case has created a split among lower courts on how the Casey standard applies to doctors’ admitting privileges and clinics’ operating standards.

“Like so many Supreme Court decisions, it’s subject to interpretation,” said Neal Devins, a College of  William & Mary law school professor. For years, state legislatures focused on restrictions such as requiring parental consent and waiting periods, he says, but more recently Republican legislatures have been “going well beyond the template of laws that Pennsylvania had enacted and Casey had approved.”

Abortion politics in 2016

The issue could play out during next year’s presidential election, just as it did in 1992. Then, the focus on abortion rights and restrictions helped Bill Clinton against President George H.W. Bush, polls and studies suggest. The latest Gallup polls show 80 percent support for legal abortion in at least some circumstances, so a renewed focus could help Democrats next year.

The court itself also has changed. No women served there in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor helped craft what came to be known as the “Casey compromise” in 1992. If the court agrees to hear the Texas or Mississippi cases, three women—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will join the debate.

Justice Samuel Alito’s role also would be notable, because he served on the federal appeals court that upheld Pennsylvania’s abortion restrictions before the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. He found no fault with any of the restrictions—even the one struck down by the appeals court majority that called for spousal notification.

But the case, like those before it, most likely will be decided by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He joined the plurality that crafted the undue burden standard in 1992 and is the only one in the majority then who remains on the bench. He was the deciding vote in allowing states to ban late-term abortions.

“I think it’s up to Kennedy,” said Priscilla Smith, a senior fellow at Yale Law School who lost that case in 2007 by a 5-4 vote. Noting almost a decade has passed since then, she said, “I don’t think Kennedy ever wants to take an abortion case if he can avoid it.”

Can Kennedy be swayed?

John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University in California, says the controversy over Planned Parenthood’s use of fetal tissue from abortions could help sway Kennedy again. The justices, he said, pay attention to current events “because they know their decisions have to find some support in the real world.”

The Texas law requires abortion clinics to employ doctors who have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. The state says it is intended to “improve the health and safety of women” while leaving at least one clinic operating in every population center—although the Rio Grande Valley would see reduced services, and El Paso residents would have to get abortions in New Mexico.

“There is no evidence that women will experience any materially different travel distances to obtain an abortion,” the state contends in its brief opposing a Supreme Court decision to hear the case.

The law’s challengers claim the restrictions are meant to limit abortions rather than improve women’s health and would force all but 10 clinics to close in a state where about 60,000 women seek abortions annually. “Women unable to make the trip to one of the remaining clinics are left with only two options: carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or attempt an illegal abortion,” their reply brief says.

The challengers lost the first round in court, after which the number of clinics dropped from 40 to 18. If the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is allowed to stand, an additional eight clinics would close, including the only one in West Texas. The court would let the lone clinic in the Rio Grande Valley remain open but with greatly reduced services. Clinics would remain in Houston, Austin, San Antonio and the Dallas-Fort Worth region.

Legal battle lines clear

The Supreme Court twice has blocked the law from taking effect while appeals continued, most recently in June by a 5-4 vote in which the court’s most conservative justices dissented. That makes the legal battle lines clear.

“Part of what each side is counting on is getting Justice Kennedy,” said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School who clerked for Kennedy in 1992, when Casey was decided. “Both sides think in a perfect world that the court would move much farther—in opposite directions.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Americans of all faiths and viewpoints are gloomy about the economy, anxious about Islam, bothered by immigrants and mistrustful across racial lines, a new survey finds.

The Public Religion Research Institute’s annual American Values Survey documents discontent among all major religious groups, races and political views.

‘High anxiety’

“I am struck by the high level of anxiety and worry on all fronts,” said Robert Jones, chief executive officer of the research institute, although he underscored white evangelical Protestants express it most sharply.

For the first time in six years of the survey, Americans are split—49 percent to 49 percent—on whether “America’s best days are ahead of us or behind us.”

The survey of 2,695 U.S. adults was conducted between Sept. 11 and Oct. 4, 2015— weeks before the latest horrific attacks in Paris.

However, public opinion polls measure perceptions, which can be worse than what actually is happening.

The 2015 headlines likely influenced views, Jones said. He cited the January attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine; months of videotaped beheadings of Christians in Libya; waves of Syrian immigrants, chiefly Muslim, fleeing escalating violence at home; the 2016 presidential election campaign; and the Black Lives Matter movement that emerged after police shootings of black Americans.

Islam perceived at odds with American values

A majority of Americans—56 percent, including majorities in all the major Christian traditions—say the values of Islam are at odds with American values. That’s a significant rise since 2011 when Americans were split, with 47 percent saying the values were incompatible while 48 percent disagreed.

This includes:

• 73 of white evangelical Protestants, up from 59 percent in 2011.

• 63 percent of white mainline Protestants, compared to 47 percent.

• 61 percent of Catholics, up from 41 percent.

Only two groups did not reflect significant change.

• 55 percent of black Protestants said values were incompatible, compared to 51 percent in 2011.

• 41 percent of “nones,” people who claim no religious label, compared to 42 percent.

The responses of Muslims, Jews and Hindus on that subject are not broken out because their numbers are too small to be compared statistically on individual questions. The overall survey, conducted online and by phone, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Racial tensions

The survey also finds significant unease across racial lines.

According to the research institute report, the number of Americans who say racial tensions are a major concern in their community more than doubled, going from 17 percent in 2012 to 35 percent now. Concern about crime as a major problem has risen from 33 percent to 48 percent in the same period.

Parallel universes of perception

One question in particular—regarding police killings of black men—showed whites and blacks operate in parallel universes of perception. Overall, 53 percent of U.S. adults say the killings of unarmed black men by police are “isolated incidents.”

But this includes 65 percent of whites, while only 15 percent of blacks say the same. Black Americans overwhelmingly—81 percent—say the killings are part of “a broader pattern of how police treat African-Americans.”

“On this issue, there is no daylight statistically between white evangelicals (72 percent), white mainline Protestants (73 percent) and white Catholics (71 percent),” said Jones.

This divide is glaring despite the mobilization of religious leaders from all sides to address police violence, discrimination and racial inequality, said Jones.

Their efforts have had “little measurable impact,” he said, because “white Christians in the pews just see a different set of social problems than their fellow black Christians do. Any conversations about racial reconciliation need to back up. They need to find out first if they even see the same problems before they can address solutions.”

Economic uncertainty

Adding to the gloomy mood, more than seven in 10 (72 percent) believe the country still is in a recession, unchanged from 2014, despite rising employment.

Another grim perception, held by 65 percent of Americans: “One of the big problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life.” That reflects a jump of about 12 percentage points since 2010.

Uneasy about immigration

American unease seems to come from all directions. Another example from the survey: Nearly half (48 percent) of Americans say they are “bothered when they come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English,” compared with 40 percent in 2012.

Dan Cox, research director of the institute, said the full picture shows a nation “increasingly uncertain” about the future, “while nostalgia for the 1950s is widely felt,” particularly among white evangelical Protestants.

How evangelicals see the GOP presidential candidates

The research institute also looked at the how the current top five 2016 Republican presidential contenders stack up with the white evangelical vote.

Ben Carson leads the pack with a 55 percent favorable rating with this influential voting block and 26 percent unfavorable. Still, many people (10 percent) say they have not heard of him. That matters since these are the people any candidate might turn toward to grow support, Jones said.

Jeb Bush has a 41 percent favorable rating but a 47 percent unfavorable rating. Only 3 percent said they had not heard of Bush.

Donald Trump has the highest unfavorable rating with white evangelicals (52 percent) and a 39 percent favorable rating. And everyone said they have heard of him.

Marco Rubio has more favorable (36 percent) than unfavorable (29 percent) ratings and significant maneuvering room to introduce himself to people who haven’t heard of him (20 percent)

Ted Cruz is the least-known of the top five, with 23 percent saying didn’t know him. Among those who do, however, his favorable and unfavorable ratings are about equal—31 percent to 32 percent.

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Nov. 6 to hear appeals from religious nonprofits—including East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University and the Southern Baptist Convention’s insurance provider—challenging required coverage of contraceptives under Obamacare, including drugs they believe cause abortions.

The high court combined seven cases to resolve whether an accommodation written by the Obama administration allowing institutions like religious hospitals and universities to opt out of the contraceptive mandate significantly burdens their religious freedom.

Demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court on March 25 as it considered a previous case in which businesses challenged the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. (RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks)It will be the fourth time for the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. It is the second challenging a rule set by the Health and Human Services Department that employee health insurance plans must cover preventive care, including a full range of birth-control options for women.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision the government could not compel the closely held corporation Hobby Lobby to provide “Plan B” or “emergency” contraceptives because of the religious belief of its owners, who are Southern Baptists, that life begins at the moment of conception.

Recognizing the separation of church and state, the White House exempted religious organizations including churches and their integrated auxiliaries, which primarily serve church members and exist for propagation of the faith.

Faith-based charities

The definition of religious institutions did not include faith-based charities like schools and hospitals that are open to the general public and employ people from various faiths. After receiving feedback, the administration added a provision allowing employees of such organizations to receive the mandated coverage without their employer footing the bill.

Numerous religious organizations, including GuideStone Financial Services of the Southern Baptist Convention, filed lawsuits claiming the requirement of letting the government know in writing they were opting out made them complicit in providing methods of birth control they believe are morally equivalent to abortion.

When a religious employer opts out of contraceptive coverage, responsibility shifts to the organization’s insurance provider to pay for coverage of birth control at no cost to the worker. Religious employers that object to the policy insist the opt-out letter becomes a “triggering mechanism” that involves them in actions that violate their conscience.

Seven federal appeals courts have rejected that argument, reasoning the act of submitting an opt-out form relieves, rather than imposes, any substantial burden on religious exercise. In September, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in St. Louis differed, finding the opt-out provision violates the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and increasing likelihood the matter would eventually make it to the Supreme Court.

‘Grateful’ for a hearing

“We are thankful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear these cases,” said O.S. Hawkins, president of GuideStone Financial Services, a party in one of the consolidated cases. “We look forward to the opportunity to present our case and are praying that the justices will recognize and once again protect the religious liberty of ministry organizations to operate their benefit plans in accordance with their beliefs.”

GuideStone and its co-plaintiffs, Truett-McConnell College and Reaching Souls International, won the first class-action suit against the HHS mandate in October 2013. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in July, finding federal law, and not the opt-out act of “self certification,” is the mechanism that “triggers” contraceptive coverage. The 10th Circuit agreed to leave in place a preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from levying fines against the plaintiffs until the appeal is decided by the Supreme Court.

Another case involves East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University, two schools affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December 2013 that Obamacare violated the schools’ religious liberty, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in June.

Oklahoma Baptist University, which provides health insurance coverage for both employees and students, joined three other Christian institutions of higher learning in a September 2013 lawsuit challenging the contraceptive mandate. A district court in Oklahoma sided with the schools in December 2013, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in the same July 14, 2015, opinion that went against Guidestone.

Oral arguments in March 2016

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the combined cases in March, with a decision likely in June, right in the middle of a presidential campaign.

“It is sad that we have had to spend so much of the last several years fighting for the most basic of religious liberty protections, but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to defend the consciences of millions of Americans in what is sure to be a crucial case in the preservation of religious liberty,” commented Russell Moore, head of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“A government that can violate the consciences of some can easily attempt to violate the conscience of anyone. My prayer is that the Supreme Court will intervene in this administration’s cavalier disregard for soul freedom that forces a decision between obedience to God and compliance with a regulatory state.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—House Republicans began their effort to defund Planned Parenthood Sept. 9 with the first in a series of hearings intended to show the group illegally harvests and sells tissue from aborted fetuses, a claim the group vehemently denies.

The hearing in the House Judiciary Committee—titled “Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider”—is the first of several hearings expected this fall as three House committees pursue investigations of Planned Parenthood. House Republicans also launched a website to track the investigations.

Broad scope

Planned Parenthood Vice President Dawn Laguens insisted the House hearing offered anti-abortionists a platform to address issues beyond the scope of its stated purpose.

“From the provocative title to the slate of lifelong anti-abortion activists invited to testify, it’s clear this hearing was not about Planned Parenthood. It was a chance for anti-abortion extremists and members of Congress to promote their political agenda of banning abortion in this country,” she said.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., opened the hearing with a call for Congress to pass legislation to bar all abortions after five months of gestation, which would “help ensure that the body parts of late-aborted babies cannot be sold because late-term abortions would be generally prohibited.”

Examples of failed abortions

Republican committee members raised examples of abortions gone wrong or stories of infants who were mistreated or killed after failed abortions.

Perhaps the central dispute of the hearing emerged when Goodlatte asked Priscilla Smith—the one witness who supported Planned Parenthood—whether she believed a standard “dilation and evacuation” abortion is “humane.” She responded that for fetuses not viable to live outside the womb, it is a humane way to end the pregnancy. “Your view of humanity and mine are different,” Goodlatte replied.

Undercover videos

The hearings follow the July release of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the fees charged to research groups for various types of tissue from late-term abortions and the techniques involved in recovering it. The group that produced the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, says they prove Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue for profit.

Planned Parenthood claims the videos are heavily edited and falsely portray the group’s tissue-donation program.

“While all of these congressional investigations are based on false claims and videos that have been completely discredited, we continue to be fully transparent and cooperate with all of the committees,” spokesman Eric Ferrero said.

The Judiciary Committee announced the hearing was intended to “hear from the experts on the issues surrounding the alleged acts of Planned Parenthood.” Goodlatte and Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said in announcing the hearing, “Planned Parenthood and its executives must answer for the alleged atrocities brought to light in the videos by the Center for Medical Progress.” But neither group was invited to testify.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., also got Franks to concede that the committee’s GOP majority has not seen the full unedited videos and had not asked the Center for Medical Progress to provide them.

Instead, the hearing featured James Bopp, the general counsel for National Right to Life, two anti-abortion activists who survived botched abortions and Smith, a Yale Law School fellow who is a longtime advocate for abortion rights.

Abortion survivors testify

The abortion survivors did not address the tissue recovery practices described in the videos, instead making the case against abortion in general.

“We will have to give an account as a nation, before God, for our apathy and for the murder of over 50 million children in the womb,” Gianna Jessen said in a written statement.

Melissa Ohden, founder of the Abortion Survivors network, acknowledged her failed abortion did not take place at Planned Parenthood, but said in prepared testimony she was there to “give voice” to “the hundreds of thousands of children who will have their lives ended by Planned Parenthood this year alone.”

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the committee, said the panel was wasting its time on a “one-sided” hearing providing “no credible evidence that Planned Parenthood violated the law.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee also is investigating the videos and has requested information from Planned Parenthood and several scientific research companies about the practices involved in their recovery of fetal tissue for research.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee in August asked the Department of Health and Human Services for details on federal funding Planned Parenthood receives and whether health services the group provides can be obtained elsewhere.

Remove all federal funds

Conservatives are mounting an effort to have all federal funding stripped from Planned Parenthood—the group gets about $500 million a year—and have threatened to block any spending bill that includes money for the group, even if that means forcing the federal government to shut down when the fiscal year expires Sept. 30.

Conyers noted federal dollars cannot be used for abortions in most cases.

“The horrible irony here is that defunding Planned Parenthood would increase the number of unintended pregnancies and drastically, I fear, increase the number of abortions,” Smith said.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said there was no evidence that would be the result.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Concerned that faith-based groups can discriminate in hiring while receiving federal funds, a coalition of 130 organizations told President Obama the policy will tarnish his legacy of fair and equal treatment for all Americans.

The critics, including religious organizations such as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Union for Reform Judaism, asked the president to direct Attorney General Loretta Lynch to review a “flawed” 2007 Justice Department memo that said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides for an override of nondiscrimination laws for government-funded religious organizations.

“RFRA was not intended to create blanket exemptions to laws that protect against discrimination,” the letter sent to Obama states.

The White House has received the letter and a spokeswoman said, “It will respond in due course.”

A similar letter, supported by 90 organizations, was sent to then-Attorney General Eric Holder in June 2014.

In a blog post, Americans United for Separation of Church and State noted signatories of the new letter say some government-funded groups cite the Justice Department memo to refuse medical care to some sexual abuse victims or discriminate against homosexual employees, saying they have religious objections.

Obama originally campaigned against the hiring discrimination policy that dates to the George W. Bush administration, vowing to change it once he was in the White House.

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion,” Obama said in 2008.

“It’s time for him to fulfill that promise,” said Maggie Garrett, Americans United’s legislative director.

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The Obama administration released rules July 10 allowing “closely held” for-profit corporations to claim a religious objection to mandated coverage of contraceptives under Obamacare.

In light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, final regulations by the Department of Health & Human Services specify businesses not publicly traded but controlled by a relatively small number of people can qualify for a religious accommodation previously offered to faith-based nonprofits.

Sylvia Burwell“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said. “At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

Under the new rules, by informing the government of their objection, for-profit employers can opt out of paying for insurance that covers FDA-approved contraceptives they believe can cause abortion. A third-party insurer will step in and provide contraceptive coverage to employees at no cost to the company and be reimbursed by the government.

The administration also offered an alternative way for eligible organizations that have a religious objection to covering contraceptive services to seek an accommodation from contracting, providing, paying or referring for such services. 

Texas Baptist universities suing

Religious nonprofits including Baptist General Convention of Texas-affiliated East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University have filed lawsuits claiming a requirement that they fill out and submit a “self-certification” form to the Labor Department makes them complicit in providing employees with drugs and services to which they object. After the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the two Baptist schools, they recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Under the final rules, a religious nonprofit simply can notify the Department of Health & Human Services in writing of its objection, and the HHS will take responsibility for notifying the third-party insurer of the decision.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State doubts the administration’s latest attempt to accommodate religious objections to the contraceptive mandate will end litigation over the matter.

“The administration had to respond to this ruling, and today’s regulations are a good-faith effort to protect women,” Lynn said. “Although I hope I’m proven wrong, I fear that the Religious Right and its allies, the Catholic bishops, won’t stop until they have denied access to safe and affordable birth control to as many women as possible.”

Lynn blamed the whole “mess” on the Supreme Court, which he believes wrongly interpreted the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has been involved in several cases challenging the HHS mandate, called the new regulations one more attempt by the government to force religious nonprofits to distribute contraceptives.

Administration ‘digging the hole deeper’

“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. With a recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to expand its health care exchanges, Keim said, the government doesn’t need religious employers to help it distribute contraceptive drugs and devices.

“So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?” Keim asked.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—American evangelicals remain among the strongest supporters of Israel. Most believe God has plans for that nation—now and in the future. And many of America’s preachers say Christians need to support Israel.

Those are among the findings of a study of American attitudes toward Israel and the Bible from Nashville-based LifeWay Research. As part of the study, researchers conducted two surveys of 1,000 Americans in general, along with a survey of 1,000 senior pastors of Protestant churches.

“No piece of literature has had more impact on American culture than the Bible,” said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research. “No country is more intertwined with the ancient biblical narrative than Israel, and evangelical Americans see a contemporary connection with the nation.”

Researchers found evangelicals see a close tie between God and Israel. About seven in 10 (69 percent) say the modern nation of Israel was formed as result of biblical prophecy. A similar number (70 percent) say God has a special relationship with the modern nation of Israel. And nearly three-fourths of evangelicals (73 percent) say events in Israel are part of the prophecies in the New Testament book of Revelation.

Fulfillment of Bible prophecy?

While evangelicals remain convinced about a tie between Israel and God’s plans, Americans in general are less certain. Less than half (46 percent) believe the formation of modern Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. More than a third (36 percent) disagree, while 17 percent aren’t sure.

Americans are split down the middle over whether Jews are God’s chosen people as referenced in the Bible, with just under half (46 percent) saying they agree. A similar number (44 percent) disagree, while 10 percent are not sure.

Some Americans think God was closer to ancient Israel than to the modern-day nation. About two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans say God had a “special relationship with ancient Israel.” About one in four (27 percent) disagrees, while 9 percent are not sure. 

In contrast, 48 percent of Americans say God has a special relationship with modern Israel—fewer than the 53 percent of Americans who believe God has a special relationship with the United States, according to previously released LifeWay research. About four in 10 (39 percent) disagree God has a special relationship with modern Israel, while 13 percent are not sure. Evangelicals (70 percent) are much more likely to agree than Americans who don’t identify as evangelicals (38 percent).

Overall, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans believe events in Israel are tied to the biblical book of Revelation. Forty percent disagree, and 13 percent are unsure.

Younger Americans, those 18 to 24, are less likely (36 percent) to see a tie between Israel and Revelation than those 45 and older (52 percent). 

Women (52 percent) are more likely to agree than men (42 percent). Those with graduate degrees (24 percent) are much less likely to agree events in Israel are part of the prophecies in Revelation than those with a high school degree or less (55 percent).

When asked whether they support Israel’s statehood, 42 percent agree, while 35 percent disagree. One in four (23 percent) is not sure.

Higher education means more support for Israel

Higher levels of education correlate to higher levels of support for Israeli statehood. Those with a graduate degree are most likely to be supporters at 61 percent, followed by those with a bachelor’s degree (56 percent), those with some college (43 percent), and those with a high school diploma or less (31 percent).

Slightly more than half of men (51 percent) say they support Israeli statehood, compared to a third (33 percent) of women. Support also is significantly higher among evangelicals (50 percent) than others (39 percent).

Supporters are split on the reasons they back Israel. Sixteen percent say the Bible tells them to, and 9 percent say it’s because Israel is important for biblical prophecy.

Some (13 percent) say they support Israel primarily because Israel is America’s best friend in the Middle East. Others say it’s because Jews needed a refuge after the Holocaust (11 percent) or because Israel is the one and only Jewish homeland (15 percent).

Few ‘Zionists’

Although the term “Zionist” is synonymous with believing Jews should have their own state, only 8 percent of Americans claim this label. A third (32 percent) of Americans are not sure whether they are Zionist.

Senior pastors of Protestant churches are among Israel’s most ardent supporters. Most (80 percent) agree with the statement, “Christians should support Israel.” About one in seven (14 percent) disagrees.

Even though they support Israel, some pastors have their doubts about Israel’s military actions. About four in 10 (41 percent) agree with the statement, “It is hard to defend Israel’s military tactics.” Fifty percent disagree, while 9 percent are not sure.

“It is surprising that evangelicals, who have such a fascination with Israel’s biblical connections, are no more likely to have an opinion about Israel’s statehood than other Americans,” McConnell noted.

Survey methods

The first phone survey of Americans was conducted Sept. 19-28, 2014, and the second phone survey was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 5, 2014. Callers used Random Digit Dialing. Sixty percent of completes were among landlines and 40 percent among cell phones. Researchers used maximum quotas and slight weights for gender, region, age, ethnicity and education to reflect the population more accurately. 

The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.5 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Those labeled evangelicals consider themselves “a born again, evangelical or fundamentalist Christian.”

The phone survey of Protestant pastors was conducted Sept. 11-18, 2014. The calling list was a stratified random sample drawn from a list of all Protestant churches. Each interview was conducted with the senior pastor, minister or priest of the church called. Responses were weighted by region to reflect the population more accurately. The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.1 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

WASHINGTON (RNS)— The leader of the National Baptist Convention, USA, says his member churches should “do everything that is humanly possible” to protect themselves—even if it means hiring armed guards. But the head of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion denomination would rather churches call 911 if necessary.

More than a half-dozen black churches have been burned since the shootings of worshippers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. (BNG / Creative Commons photo by Erik Olson)After nine people were shot fatally at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C., and more than a half-dozen black churches have burned, officials of predominantly black denominations are taking different—and sometimes contradictory—approaches as they try to prepare for a safer future.

More than 1,000 people took part in a Department of Homeland Security web-based seminar July 1 that emphasized measures to prepare for a range of crises. Barbara Williams-Skinner, co-chair of the National African American Clergy Network, tuned in to the webinar and heard advice on how congregations should connect with first responders.

“Some churches are doing that,” she said. “Others had not been, and I think the Charleston church massacre helped people to understand that houses of worship that welcome strangers also have to be ready for strangers that mean harm.”

Leaders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church said the denomination is preparing congregations to “set up safety watches and take preventative measures to protect human life and physical assets.”

Jerry YoungJerry Young, president of the National Baptist Convention, USA, said he will advise members of his predominantly black denomination to take new measures, from installing interior and exterior video cameras to having office security systems buzz in visitors.

“We are in consultation even now with the experts to assist us in making sure we get to all of our constituent churches instruction, advice and suggestions as to how they can actually beef up security around the worship centers,” he said.

In his opinion, that can include armed guards.

But George Battle Jr., the senior bishop of the AME Zion Church, doesn’t think guns should be an option.

“We’re not going to have any guns on our property to deal with that,” he said.

George Battle Jr.Referring to a verse from the Book of Isaiah that says “no weapon formed against you shall prosper,” he added:  “We can’t preach one thing and do another.”

Authorities have not linked the Emanuel AME attack to the church fires or confirmed the fires are racially motivated. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating five fires across the South at predominantly black churches in June.

ATF’s Bomb Arson Tracking System shows 127 incidents at houses of worship in 2014, compared to 146 in 2013 and the same number in 2012. Last year, 42 were deliberately set, 26 were ruled accidental and 54 were labeled “undetermined.”

Still, the recent spate of black church fires, which remind many of attacks in the 1960s and 1990s, has prompted widespread concern.

Anthea Butler, a professor of religious and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said the government webinar should be only the beginning of efforts to address the attacks on black houses of worship.

“While this is important, it focuses on prevention—not cure or eradication of racism or religion-based hate crimes,” said Butler, writing in Religion Dispatches. “What needs to happen is a concerted effort by all churches, black and white alike, to confront the issue of racism in America with fervor.”

There has been some response across racial lines to the recent incidents.

Christ Church Cathedral in St. Louis started a fund-raising campaign to rebuild recently burned churches that were victims of arson with a goal of $25,000. It has raised more than $113,000.

“The response to this has been incredible, but truly not surprising,” said Mike Kinman, dean of the predominantly white Episcopal congregation. “There is so much good in people’s hearts.”

Carl Chinn, a ministry security expert, said prevention is a worthy goal, but it cannot eliminate evildoers.

“There have been many wolves, and there will be more,” he said. “Some will hate blacks, some will hate Christians, whites, Israelis or Sikhs—but they will come.”

WASHINGTON (BNG)—A Baptist group specializing in church/state issues says the threat of churches and other religious organizations losing their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage has been “highly exaggerated.” 

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty released a two-page handout in light of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Click to view the full-size PDF file.“Churches have long followed their own rules for performing marriages without such threat,” the Baptist Joint Committee said in a resource document titled “The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling: What you need to know now.”

The Baptist Joint Committee, a 79-year-old education and advocacy organization representing 15 national, state and regional Baptist bodies in the United States, says the high court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges doesn’t change that.

Threat to religious entities would be ‘over-expansion’

Any threat to the tax-exempt status of religious entities, the Baptist Joint Committee says, would require “over-expansion” of a 1983 Supreme Court ruling against Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian school in Greenville, S.C., which lost its tax-exempt status over a policy prohibiting interracial dating and marriage.

In that decision, the Supreme Court agreed 8-1 with the IRS that to qualify for tax exemption as a “charitable” organization, an institution must provide a public benefit and not be contrary to public policy.

“We are bound to approach these questions with full awareness that determinations of public benefit and public policy are sensitive matters with serious implications for the institutions affected,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority. 

“A declaration that a given institution is not ‘charitable’ should be made only where there can be no doubt that the activity involved is contrary to a fundamental public policy. But there can no longer be any doubt that racial discrimination in education violates deeply and widely accepted views of elementary justice.”

The Baptist Joint Committee said the ruling does not apply to churches and has not been applied beyond racial discrimination in education. “It is unlikely that the court’s decision in favor of same-sex marriage will have any effect on the 501(c)(3) status of religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage,” the BJC said.

An issue for colleges and universities?

During oral arguments in April, Justice Samuel Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli if the Bob Jones precedent would apply to a college or university that opposed same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli said. “I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

Chief Justice John Roberts remembered the exchange in a dissenting opinion to the marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court,” Roberts predicted. “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Religious liberty threat ‘unimaginable’

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told the New York Times Verrilli’s response to Justice Alito was ill-considered.

Laycock, recognized as one of the nation’s leading authorities on religious liberty law, said church leaders are worried about jeopardizing their tax-exempt status because “there is a certain obvious logic” to Alito’s question. But he termed it “unimaginable” any administration of either party anytime soon would go after the tax exemption of a religious institution over its views on homosexuality.

“When gay rights looks like race does today, where you have a handful of crackpots still resisting, you might see an administration picking a fight,” he said.

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the Constitution does not allow the government to deny same-sex couples marital benefits available to married couples of the opposite sex.

The decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide prompted sharp response from a wide range of Baptists—concern from those who support a traditional view of marriage as “holy union between one man and one woman” and celebration from self-described “welcoming and affirming” Christians.

Holly HollmanWriting for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”

In an initial assessment of the decision, Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted the court’s majority “respectfully acknowledges that some deeply held and long-standing religious beliefs oppose same-sex marriage.”

“In doing so, I believe Justice Kennedy was trying to quell fears that religious beliefs at odds with the court’s view of same-sex marriage are beyond the pale of civil discourse,” Hollman said. “In heated public debates over marriage equality, religious beliefs have not always been treated so respectfully.

“Of course, this decision does not answer all the questions about the conflicts between religious institutions and legal rights of same-sex couples. It does, however, acknowledge that marriage has both religious and civil meanings. Respect for religious differences will be a key component of working out the various conflicts that will arise in the wake of this decision. The court today, however, was properly focused on the civil definition of marriage.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the court’s decision a “flawed ruling” and “a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition.” He pledged to protect citizens’ rights “to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton“Consistent with existing federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that should already protect religious liberty and prevent discrimination based on religion, we must work to ensure that the guarantees of the First Amendment, protecting freedom of religion, and its corollary freedom of conscience, are secure for all Americans,” he said.

“Our guiding principle should be to protect people who want to live, work and raise their families in accordance with their religious faith. We should ensure that people and businesses are not discriminated against by state and local governments based on a person’s religious beliefs, including discrimination against people of faith in the distribution of grants, licenses, certification or accreditation; we should prevent harassing lawsuits against people of faith, their businesses and religious organizations; we should protect nonprofits and churches from state and local taxes if the federal government penalizes them by removing their 501(c)(3) status; and we should protect religious adoption and foster care organizations and the children and families they serve.”

Jim DenisonJim Denison, founding president of the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, compared the court’s decision to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

“Now the court has sided again with an activist agenda rather than historic moral commitments,” said Denison, former pastor of Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas and theologian-in-residence with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

“This decision renders marriage genderless and makes it primarily about the desires of adults rather than the welfare of children, families and society.”

Denison raised questions about what the ruling will mean for churches, Christian institutions and individual believers who conscientiously oppose same-sex unions.

“Most legal observers believe that pastors and churches will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. But what about a church facility rented for weddings?” he asked. “What about universities that offer married heterosexual students housing but not married gay and lesbian students? What about hiring practices and spousal benefits at faith-based hospitals and ministries? Will statements defending biblical marriage be considered hate speech? Will religious nonprofits that support biblical marriage see their tax-exempt status threatened?

“The ruling is fresh, the questions are many, and the answers are few.”

Russell MooreRussell Moore, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, predicted the ruling “will have wide-ranging and perilous consequences for the stability of families and for freedom of religion.”

“Despite this ruling, the church of Jesus Christ will stand fast,” Moore said. “We will not capitulate on this issue because we cannot. To minimize or ignore a Christian sexual ethic is to abandon the message Jesus handed down to us, and we have no authority to do this.”

In contrast, the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists called the Supreme Court ruling “a significant milestone for the LGBTQ (lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgender/ queer) community.”

“Among core Baptist beliefs is the separation of church and state,” the association said. “In the secular arena, the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly recognizes the equality of marriage for all people completely independent of our or other Baptists’ religious beliefs.  

“In the face of anti-equality rhetoric among part of the broader Baptist family, AWAB calls specifically on the Southern Baptist Convention to encourage civil compliance with equality law among their membership, regardless of whether individual churches choose to conduct or theologically acknowledge same-sex unions.”

Gus ReyesGus Reyes, director of the Christian Life Commission, the public policy and moral concerns agency of the BGCT, emphasized marriage as a divinely ordained “holy union between one man and one woman,” not subject to redefinition by any court.

“We respect the Supreme Court decision as the law of the land, but we believe in One who is higher than national laws, and ultimately, we must submit to God’s authority,” Reyes said. “Marriage is a God-designed and God-ordained institution, and no Supreme Court decision can redefine what has been defined by God.”

In light of the ruling, Reyes suggested Texas Baptist churches consider taking several steps.

“First, we recommend churches adopt bylaws and employment policies that clearly define biblical marriage and protect church property from use in same-sex ceremonies. The CLC offers examples of how this may be done, which can be found on our website,”  he said.

David Hardage“Additionally, ministers who do not agree with the state’s understanding of marriage may wish to refrain from signing state marriage licenses and move to offering a covenant marriage consistent with biblical teaching.” 

David Hardage, executive director of the BGCT Executive Board, underscored Texas Baptists’ desire to share God’s love and “treat all people with grace and respect,” but he affirmed a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches about marriage.

“Texas Baptists believe the love of God, demonstrated by the death of his Son on the cross, was for all people. We are committed to loving and caring for all our neighbors,” Hardage said. 

“At the same time, we strongly affirm the biblical view of marriage as that between one man and one woman. This has been, is and will be our position on this matter.”

Jeff HoodJeff Hood, an LGBT activist in the Dallas area and 2009 graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., likewise emphasized God’s love, but he took an altogether different view on the subject of same-sex marriage.

“God is love. When love wins, God wins,” said Hood, minister of social justice with Hope for Peace and Justice. “I am thankful that the Supreme Court stood with God this morning, and I pray that Texas Baptists will do the same.”

In 1996, messengers to the BGCT annual meeting approved a report stating the Bible teaches “the ideal for sexual behavior is the marital union between husband and wife and that all other sexual relations—whether premarital, extramarital or homosexual—are contrary to God’s purpose and thus sinful.” Texas Baptists subsequently reaffirmed that statement—most recently in 2007.

When two churches—University Baptist Church in Austin and Royal Lane Baptist Church in Dallas—publicly acted contrary to that position, the BGCT Executive Board took action by refusing any further contributions from the congregations and asking the churches to cease identifying themselves as affiliated with the BGCT. 

Suzii PaynterThe Cooperative Baptist Fellowship issued a statement calling for unity in the wake of the ruling. CBF Executive Coordinator Suzii Paynter noted the ruling accentuates the diversity of the nation.

“People of faith woven into our nation’s vibrant religious tapestry fall along many points on the spectrum on the subject of same-sex marriage,” Paynter said. “In the High Court’s ruling today, that is borne out in both the majority opinion and in dissenting opinions referencing religious groups.”

With additional reporting by Bob Allen of Baptist News Global

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 1 retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated the civil rights of a Muslim woman not hired because her religious obligations conflicted with the company’s policy on employee attire.

Overturning a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Abercrombie failed to accommodate a job applicant not hired after wearing a hijab, a religious head covering, to her interview.

Samantha Elauf, a Tulsa, Okla., teenager, was turned down for a job as a sales associate in 2008 for violating the store’s “look policy,” which forbids employees from wearing “caps.” 

Violation of Civil Rights Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on her behalf alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to “accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The EEOC prevailed in district court, which ordered Abercrombie to pay a $20,000 award in 2011. The appeals court struck down the judgment in 2013, finding the burden was on Elauf to inform Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation to the policy during the interview.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the 10th Circuit’ interpretation of the law.

“Abercrombie’s primary argument is that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing that an employer has ‘actual knowledge’ of the applicant’s need for an accommodation,” Scalia wrote. 

“We disagree. Instead, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.”

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority decision, finding Abercrombie’s discrimination against Elauf was not “intentional.”

Baptist Joint Committee

Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, welcomed the majority’s decision.

“The court today confirmed the fundamental principle in Title VII’s ban on religious discrimination in employment,” Hollman said. “Neither a person’s religion nor the potential need to accommodate a religious practice should be a basis for denying a prospective employee a job.”

In December, the BJC joined more than a dozen other religious liberty and civil rights groups asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Abercrombie.

Russell Moore, head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, described the Supreme Court decision on Twitter as “a big win for religious freedom.”

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)— For many Americans, Memorial Day is simply an extra day of rest. But for millions of others, it’s a day of memories and reflections on the friends and family who sacrificed everything in the defense of freedom. 

Here are three stories of ordinary Christians—in their own words—who faced extraordinary situations and still celebrate the hope found in Christ in times of crisis and loss.
 

Chaplain (Maj. Gen.) Doug Carver 

“For the most part, it’s been a quiet day in Baghdad. Units in other locations report an increase of suicide bombers, anti-Coalition sentiment and discovery of mass graves. Spending most of the afternoon preparing for the Memorial Day service at 1800 hours.”—Journal Entry 1, May 26, 2003

Chaplain (Maj. Gen.) Doug Carver It was Monday, May 26, 2003. I was at Victory Base Complex, just on the outskirts of Baghdad, Iraq, with the U.S. Army’s V Corps. This Memorial Day would be especially meaningful to our troops as we remembered the 146 Americans killed in action in Iraq to date.

I planned on focusing the Protestant Memorial Day service on a celebration of the lives of our fallen, as we also used the time to celebrate the new life and freedom that God gave to us through Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection. I used Proverbs 10:7 as my primary text (“The memory of the righteous is a blessing.”) The Camp Victory Chapel was packed. Even the V Corps commander and his staff took time out of their battle schedule to attend the service.

No sooner had I pronounced the benediction and walked out of the chapel with my commanding general than we received the bad news. Five soldiers were dead from various enemy attacks and accidents. All of them took place within the very hour of our Memorial Day Service. 

One of those killed in action was a young 25-year-old from Missouri, PFC Jeremiah D. Smith. His vehicle had hit an improvised explosive device in Bagdad, marking the beginning of the enemy’s concerted effort to hit, maim and kill our troops with this new weapon that most of us had never heard of previously. I’ll never forget Memorial Day 2003. We had paused in a war zone to think about life, to thank the Lord for those who’d paid the full measure of devotion to duty to our country and to celebrate the Good News of Jesus Christ. And then, with a prayer and the “amen,” you’re brought right back to the fact that here we are in a combat zone where young men and women are standing in harm’s way, and the war continues. 

“The commanding general was visibly shaken and upset from today’s casualties. Job 1:21: ‘The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.’”—Journal Entry 2, May 26, 2003

Chaplain Carver retired from his position as chief of chaplains of the U.S. Army in 2011 and now serves as the North American Mission Board’s executive director of chaplaincy.

Ernest DePaul Roy Jr.

I never knew my daddy. He only saw me one time when I was three days old. He was at Parris Island (Marine Corps Recruitment Depot) back in 1944, and I was born in Mobile, Ala. They weren’t going to give him a pass to come home, because he was about ready to ship out. The Red Cross stepped in and got a three-day pass for him. That was it—a three-day pass. He came and stayed 21 hours, and he didn’t sleep at all. He slept on the train coming down, and he slept on the train going back. That was it. He shipped out and never come back home. Ernest DePaul Roy Jr. at flag relay.He got killed in Okinawa when I was about five months old. He got there May the 5th, in 1945, and he was killed on May the 12th, which was my mom’s birthday. So we didn’t celebrate birthdays for her for a good while. She always thought of that as the day her husband got killed. We talked a lot about him, and I know a lot of stories that people told me about him and everything.

I (recently) went to Okinawa and saw where he got killed. My nephew took me, and we visited around all the camps and bases. We found a guy who was a historian over there and gave him my daddy’s name, so he looked him up on the registry. We got to see just about where he got killed. I’ve heard that, back in those days, Marines hung their hand-grenades on their vest, you know, and sometimes a bullet would hit one. That guy over in Okinawa said that’s the way my daddy died, too. A bullet hit the hand grenade. My mother never got personal stuff back.

Even though I never knew him, I do know my daddy was adopted, and I have an adopted son, too. My grandmother adopted Daddy out of Wilmer Hall in Mobile when he was 9 years old. My wife and I had been married 19 years when the good Lord gave us our son. 

Ernest “Sonny” Roy Jr. is a retiree and truck driver living in Mobile, Ala.

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens

As Marines, we train the way we train because we never want to be the guy or the girl that has to put on a dress blue uniform and knock on a door to tell a family they’ve lost a member. The value is placed on the Marine to your right and your left, knowing that you have to trust them to do their job and they have to trust you to do your job. As Christians, our actions, they don’t just cost a life. We’re talking about an eternal soul here. At the end of the day, when that life is lost, it can’t be re-won. As Marine Christians, it’s our job to try to be an influence to lead others to a relationship with Christ, so that regardless of what happens on a battlefield, the eternity is secured. 

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens and wife Jenniffer.I think one thing I’ve noticed in coming out of the Marine Corps is there’s less of a sense of urgency when it comes to sharing your faith outside of the military. In the military, we realize at any moment, at any time during any training exercise or during any wartime event, lives that never made a decision or never heard the name Jesus can be lost. As Christians outside of the military, I’ve noticed that, maybe, there’s less of a sense of urgency because the danger doesn’t seem as real within America as it does when you’re deployed overseas. 

As a Marine, you’re constantly hearing stories of heroic actions—of people who endured just the worst possible conditions to give us the freedom that we have in America today. I think Memorial Day is of even greater importance to those of us who have served, because we’re constantly confronted with the mistreatment of it, of the freedom that people bled and died to give us. It’s a direct parallel to the gift that Christ gave us and talked about in John 15:13, and he’s not just talking about death. I think he’s talking about the choices we make, as well. But there’s such parallelism in what we see in America today and what Jesus did because of the mistreatment of the gift that was offered. 

And I think that’s why I value Memorial Day so much, because it really has so many parallels into both sides of my life—my military life, as well as my Christian life.

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens recently retired from military service after more than 17 years in the Marines. He is studying at a Denver seminary to prepare for ministry to fellow service members.