UPDATE: As reported by the Associated Press on Jan. 11, an Ohio grand jury declined to return an indictment against Brittany Watts for “abuse of corpse” following her miscarriage that took place at home.

(RNS)—The justice system finds itself in a new world when it comes to abortion and the rights of women.

Last month in Texas, Kate Cox, pregnant with a nonviable fetus that threatened her future fertility, sued the government to gain a medical exception to the state’s near total ban on abortions. After the Texas Supreme Court barred her access to an abortion, she fled to obtain the medical procedure across state lines.

Yet the story that haunts me most is that of 33-year-old Black Ohio woman, Brittany Watts.

Watts miscarried at 21 weeks and five days of pregnancy into her home toilet. Earlier that week, a doctor had informed her that due to her preterm labor, the fetus would not survive. She miscarried at home. Then she flushed both the fetus and the afterbirth.

But she kept bleeding, even after keeping an appointment with her hairdresser. So, she went to an emergency room at a nearby Catholic hospital. That’s when a nurse called the police, suspecting she’d performed an illegal abortion.

Police charged Watts with “abuse of corpse,” a felony that could result in a year of prison time. An Ohio grand jury will decide her case this month.

Agony of miscarriage

Miscarriage is an agonizing experience even without a litigious system peering over your shoulder.

A pro-life Christian, a mother of two myself and a former birth doula, I believe God creates each baby that exists and God knows each zygote from before its conception.

Yet, I am also flummoxed about the lack of compassion and empathy shown by pro-life activists and policymakers toward women put in such precarious circumstances that affect both them and their offspring.

Whatever the circumstances, a late-term abortion due to a life-threatening pregnancy complication is a last resort, the worst possible option for every woman I know, whether pro-life or pro-choice. A woman must undergo all the suffering of pregnancy, labor and postpartum without the reward of a child to make the pain worth it. She then must grieve additionally the loss of her child.

The “choice” is agonizing: Will she choose her own life or her child’s? In the case of miscarriage, the loss of control exacerbates the situation. Often women feel as if their own bodies have betrayed them. The grief is profound, and the physical suffering is worse for it.

Watts’ case

At the time Watts miscarried, more than halfway through pregnancy, a fetus of that gestation would be big enough to induce real childbirth, with the hallmark lengthening contractions, hormones, impossible pain and exhaustion.

Watts’ health records show she experienced days of labor symptoms without pain medication. When she finally passed the baby, she must have felt relief, terror and grief.

But the case hinges on what happened after the miscarriage: Watts flushed. And then she continued with her day, going to a hair appointment … until she no longer could ignore the bleeding.

A nurse, who had encountered Watts in her previous hospital visits, asked what had happened, and Watts answered truthfully, apparently adding she had tried to dispose of the fetus herself—unsuccessfully. Police later discovered fetal remains lodged in her pipes.

The nurse assumed the worst: a live abortion. But even after a forensic pathologist’s autopsy determined the fetus had died before labor, having experienced no injury during or after labor, Watts was charged.

Watts’ lawyer, Traci Timko, insists though Watt’s actions sound callous, she had done what most women do when they miscarry at home. What else would you do with a miscarried fetus?

Since Watts’ intentions seem to be on trial, it’s worth noting she has said though her pregnancy was unintended and she hadn’t informed her family of it, she planned to keep her baby.

She also had made multiple trips to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Warren, Ohio, not to get an abortion, but to save her baby. Her miscarriage proceeded without the oversight of the medical practitioners only because, according to her lawyer, hospital staff had deemed her case too legally risky to take on.

For this, Watts faces criminal charges, even though Ohio law does not clearly define the “abuse of corpse” statute, and current laws do not define how a miscarrying person should dispose of remains.

Miscarriage and law

As Timko has pointed out: “Women miscarry into toilets every day. If the state of Ohio expects these women to fish those remains from the toilet and deliver them to a hospital, funeral home or crematorium, the laws need [to be] changed.”

What is law in Ohio is the right to abortion, a right Ohio citizens recently voted into their state constitution.

According to The Associated Press, studies show Black women seeking prenatal care at hospitals were 10 times more likely than white women to have their cases referred to the authorities.

The callousness of our legal system toward women like Brittany Watts is astonishing. What does our country gain by dragging these women into court? What precedent will Ohio set by putting Watts into prison? And how many other women will receive delayed treatment—or be denied treatment outright—while hospital administrators debate liability risks?

A Christian response

Whether we believe in the right to abortion or not, Christians, who are in the forefront of pushing for abortion bans, must allow for exceptions in situations of miscarriage, rape and sexual assault and life-threatening circumstances for both mother and fetus.

We must seek to understand the situations of those forced to make the most agonizing decisions of their lives. And we must extend empathy to the grieving. If we do not, we will find ourselves guilty of the judgment of Ezekiel 34:4: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. … You have ruled them harshly and brutally.”

Let those of us with power instead govern with mercy.

Liz Charlotte Grant was a certified birth doula and is an author and essayist. The views expressed are those of the author.

Amid a cascade of profound theological declarations in Romans 8, the Apostle Paul pauses to pose this probing question, “What shall we say then to these things?” (v. 31). This is the question being asked of me vis-a-vis Denny Burk’s recently posted Baptist Press op-ed.

My answer is, “Rather a lot.” But like the writer of Hebrews, I do not have the time or space to say all that might be said (Hebrews 11:32). So, allow me to say what I believe needs to be said in the limited space allotted to me.

Background to Burk’s op-ed

A charitable reading of Burk’s article reveals his desire—as a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary employee and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood—to clarify for Southern Baptist Convention-insiders the considerable confusion that has arisen regarding the so-called “Law amendment” and its impact upon “friendly cooperation within the SBC.”

For those who do not participate in or follow SBC life, a word of explanation is in order. This past summer, messengers to the SBC annual meeting held in New Orleans voted by a wide majority—roughly 88 percent—to amend Article 3.1 of the convention’s constitution to include, and thereby stipulate, only “churches that affirm, appoint, or employ only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture” may be adjudged to be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC.

In June 2024, the SBC convention will gather in Indianapolis. They will vote again on this proposed amendment, which first was brought forward as a motion by Virginia pastor Mike Law—thus the “Law amendment”—at the annual meeting of Southern Baptists in Anaheim in 2022. Should a super-majority of messengers to the 2024 annual meeting also be found to favor the motion, then the constitution would be amended.

For his part, and in contrast with, for example, well-known North Carolina pastor and former SBC president J.D. Greear, Burk believes such an amendment is a natural and necessary outgrowth of what the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 affirms, to wit: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” (Article 6, “The Church”).

Summary of Burk’s op-ed

In his op-ed, Burk invites SBC-faithful not to take their eyes off the proverbial ball. The issue at hand, he insists, is not “whether women may serve in church staff positions.” Neither is it, he maintains, “whether women should teach mixed-gendered Sunday school classes.”

Burk is even willing to bracket off complementarianism, despite his dogged devotion to the same. To be sure, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, over which he presides as president, is predicated upon complementarianism.

If such issues are not in view, then what are “the precise issues in dispute?” For Burk, when the smoke clears and the dust settles, the ongoing debate, which he hopes against hope soon will be resolved once and for all, revolves around “whether the Baptist Faith & Message [2000] allows for women to be pastors” and “whether the Baptist Faith & Message [2000] should be the basis for friendly cooperation within the SBC.”

As Burk sees it, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, which he understands to be biblical, does not allow for churches to call women as pastors. Neither does he think it advisable, to say the least, for cooperating churches to do so.

Thus, according to Burk, churches who call women “pastors” and to serve as such, be they “senior” or “associate,” are in open defiance of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the convention’s “statement of faith,” and thus cannot be regarded in friendly cooperation with the SBC.

In what amounts to a get-out-and-vote-for-the-amendment stump speech, Burk is at pains to convince and convert those who are wavering or might be inclined to think there is room for compromise regarding women serving in pastoral roles other than “senior pastor.” To no one’s surprise, for him, there is no “middle way” here. Such is only a mirage, he maintains.

Because Burk is convinced a pastor is one and the same as an elder and overseer, only men may serve in such a capacity, and that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 faithfully enshrines such biblical truth, he necessarily concludes there is no room in the SBC for churches who think and practice otherwise.

The deleterious impact of such renegade SBC churches—on SBC mission agencies and seminaries—who fail to walk in lock-step uniformity with every jot and tittle of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, not least with respect to who may and may not be called “pastor,” should not be underestimated, he warns.

What is a stake? Rather a lot, Burk believes. In his way of seeing things, any SBC church who calls a woman to be a pastor of any type is in clear defiance of the measure of all things pertaining to faith and practice for SBC churches—the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Thus, they should be regarded as non-cooperative and, by way of logical extension, excluded from the SBC—such as Saddleback Church and Fern Creek Baptist Church were at the New Orleans convention. One can be forgiven for wondering what has become of the historic Baptist principle: “No creed but the Bible, no Lord but Christ.”

The convictions and commitments that lead Burk—and those of his tribe—to such conclusions are crystal clear. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000—as they would interpret it—is to be perceived and employed as the unassailable authority for doctrinal and ethical accountability in SBC life.

Relatedly, there is no room whatsoever for variation or difference on how best to regard and to refer to women engaged in ministry. They are not to be pastors or called such, because the Bible and Baptist Faith & Message 2000, as they read them, tell them so. One cannot help but wonder if the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 has become the “norming norm” for the SBC.

Five points for Texas Baptist churches to consider

As a life-long Texas Baptist writing primarily to Texas Baptists, some of whom might also regard themselves to be Southern Baptists, I would be remiss if I failed to make at least the following points in response to Burk’s earnest plea to SBC loyalists:

1. On the Texas Baptists website, one finds the following regarding beliefs: “The 1963 Baptist Faith and Messagehas been adopted by messengers of the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting. Some BGCT churches use other confessions of faith, including the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Neither confession of faith is a requirement for inclusion in the BGCT.”

If strict adherence to neither the 1963 nor 2000 Baptist Faith & Message is a prerequisite for involvement in BGCT life, the same cannot be affirmed by Burk regarding SBC life, where the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message is meant to reign supreme.

That being said—and this should not be swept under the denominational rug—there is only one Baptist Faith & Message BGCT messengers have approved formally, namely, the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message.

2. Given the priority of the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message among Texas Baptists and the latitude allowed cooperating churches within BGCT life with respect to confessions of faith, how Southern Baptists in general and Burk in particular might perceive or respond to a given BGCT congregation need not be a cause of anxiety, unless, of course, a given BGCT congregation also wants to be regarded in “friendly cooperation” with the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message-directed SBC.

Were the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message to be used in the fashion Burk envisions, all BGCT churches who are not also 2000 Baptist Faith & Message churches—both in principle and practice—no longer should be considered SBC churches in friendly cooperation.

3. Being misguided by the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, Burk—and not a few others in SBC circles—unnecessarily conclude the terms and titles “pastors,” “elders” and “overseers” are more than less one and the same. Meanwhile, a careful study of the New Testament evidence, which unfortunately is not possible here, reveals the terms are not used interchangeably.

Whereas the term “elder” (presbyteros) occurs regularly within the New Testament with reference to a leadership role and/or office within churches (see, for example, Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1, 5; 2 John 1; 3 John 1), the word “overseer” or “bishop” is used sparingly (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7), and the term translated “pastor” (poimenas), which is paired with “teacher” (didaskalos), appears but once in the entire New Testament witness (Ephesians 4:11).

Furthermore, there are any number of New Testament texts that unequivocally refer to women actively engaged and integrally involved in gospel work and witness and in ecclesial leadership and service.

While neither those women nor their male counterparts are explicitly given the title “pastor” within the New Testament, terms such as “deacon” (diakonos), “co-worker” (synergos), “sister” (adelphe) and perhaps even “apostle” (apostolos) are employed to refer to such women as Phoebe, Prisca, Apphia, Junia and their numerous female pastoral counterparts.

Truth be told, pastoral/ministerial roles and responsibilities for women and men in the first century church do not map easily or perfectly onto the 21st century church, and vice versa. Thus, careful exegesis, hermeneutical humility and faithful discernment are required.

4. Regarding women pastors, be they “senior pastors,” “associate pastors” or other types of “pastors” for that matter, thankfully they exist in considerable numbers in Texas Baptist congregations—so, too, in Baptist General Association of Virginia churches and in other Baptist fellowships the world over.

It is my hope and belief women pastors called by God and BGCT churches will continue and increase in the coming days, even if outside of the SBC, which may well be the case. For my part, I will continue to work toward the good, gospel end of training and encouraging women grasped and gifted by God for pastoral ministry.

5. Finally, now would be an opportune time for any number of BGCT churches to discuss and to discern whether they also are SBC churches, and if not, to begin to decide where they might want to invest the financial and human resources they have been sending to the SBC through the BGCT year after year.

Furthermore, for those BGCT churches who have women pastors on ministerial staff, it might well be wise to be proactive. If the perspective of Denny Burk wins the day, then those Texas Baptist churches will sooner than later be on the outside of the SBC looking in because of their “defiance” of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, to which churches in “friendly cooperation” owe unalloyed allegiance, especially when it comes time to determine who may and may not be called “pastor.”

Whatever happened to local church autonomy and authority to determine such a matter, one wonders?

Todd Still is dean and professor of Christian Scriptures at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed are those of the author.

NOTE: A response to this op-ed can be found here.

As Southern Baptists look toward the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Indianapolis next year, we all know there are at least two major decisions ahead of us.

The first relates to the second vote on the “Law amendment,” which passed overwhelmingly in New Orleans but requires a second vote in Indianapolis.

The second relates to the forthcoming report from the Cooperation Group that will be considering changes to the SBC’s governing documents.

These aren’t separate issues but two facets of the same issue—how the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 regulates our cooperation as Southern Baptists, particularly as it relates to women serving as pastors.

What is not being debated

I have done my best to listen to brothers and sisters on all sides of the issue, and I have discovered no little bit of misunderstanding among some about the precise issues in dispute.

Southern Baptist aren’t debating whether women may serve in church staff ministry positions. Of course, they can and do, and I can’t think of any Southern Baptist who would say otherwise.

Nor are Southern Baptists debating whether women should teach mixed-gendered Sunday school classes. That’s an interesting question that has been the subject of perennial debate, but it’s not something addressed by the Baptist Faith & Message and certainly not something requiring official action by the SBC.

Nor is this debate about how to define complementarianism. The Baptist Faith & Message is our doctrinal statement, and it doesn’t even mention the term complementarianism.

What is being debated

Rather, the debate we are facing centers on two things: (1) whether the Baptist Faith & Message allows for women to be pastors, and (2) whether the Baptist Faith & Message should be the basis for friendly cooperation within the SBC. We can discern at least two different points of view on these questions among Southern Baptists.

There are some who argue the Baptist Faith & Message allows for women to be pastors, and the Baptist Faith & Message does not constitute a basis for friendly cooperation. On this view, churches may call female pastors and may disagree with the Baptist Faith & Message on any given point and still be deemed to be in friendly cooperation with the SBC.

On the other side are those who believe the Baptist Faith & Message clearly does not allow women to serve as pastors, and churches in friendly cooperation should not openly defy the Baptist Faith & Message. On this view, calling women to serve as pastors and defying the SBC’s statement of faith are not consistent with friendly cooperation.

How are we to reconcile these two different points of view within the SBC? That is the question the Cooperation Group is trying to answer right now as I type these words.

We should pray for them and their deliberations. But we also should begin thinking about the way forward ourselves.

The temptation will be to try and split the difference. However, I don’t see a stable “middle way” between the two sides, although some have suggested there is one.

For example, some wish to rewrite the SBC’s governing documents so women can serve as associate pastors but not senior pastors, and so cooperating churches might have to adhere only to part of the Baptist Faith & Message and not the whole Baptist Faith & Message.

This “middle way” option is only a mirage and not actually a middle way. Here’s why.

Failings of a ‘middle way’

Reach of biblical qualifications

If the SBC says the Bible allows women to serve as associate pastors, then on what basis would we say they can’t serve as senior pastors? The Bible doesn’t make a distinction between associate and senior pastor. It just speaks of the office of pastor/elder/overseer.

If you conclude the Bible allows the one, then there would be no biblical basis for disallowing the other. If you say your associate pastors don’t have to “manage their own households well” or be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 4), then on what basis would you require such a thing of senior pastors?

If the “middle way” allows for associate pastors to ignore the male-only qualification, what other biblical qualifications may be set aside among our cooperating churches? Either the qualifications for pastor apply to all pastors, or they don’t apply at all. That is the inevitable conclusion.

So, this particular “middle way” is no middle way after all. It would simply mean cooperating churches can ignore the biblical qualifications for pastors, and I don’t think Southern Baptists ultimately will view that as a solution.

Degree of adherence to Baptist Faith & Message

If the SBC changes its governing documents so churches need closely identify only with parts of the Baptist Faith & Message, then those parts would become the de facto doctrinal statement of the SBC.

Churches that need identify only with parts of a Baptist Faith & Message are likely not going to tolerate mission agencies and seminaries that exclude their partial adherence to the Baptist Faith & Message. Eventually, the partial-affirming churches will demand the entities become partial-affirming as well. That is how the de facto partial-affirming confession eventually would replace the Baptist Faith & Message.

The logic of the “middle way” position inevitably leads to affirmation of female pastors and to churches no longer having to closely identify with the Baptist Faith & Message. Southern Baptists ought not to embrace such a trajectory under the banner of adopting a “middle way.” Such a “middle way” will lead to a place Southern Baptists do not wish to go.

We are deciding right now who we are going to be as cooperating churches. Our debate really does come down to whether we believe the Bible allows for churches to call women as pastors and whether cooperating churches ought to be able to defy the Baptist Faith & Message. That is the bottom line, and I’m praying Southern Baptists see that and choose wisely when we get to Indianapolis.

Denny Burk is professor of Biblical studies and director of The Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College. He is also the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The views expressed are those of the author.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—One of the most dangerous things about former President Donald Trump is the way he has normalized hate speech. The venom and vitriol come so often that even when it is reported, its extremism fails to register with a fatigued and desensitized public.

For a campaign that began with vulgar boasts about grabbing women by the genitalia and the mocking of a disabled reporter, to a presidency marred by repeated nods to white supremacists, it’s no surprise Trump has produced outrage after outrage throughout his post-defeat, perpetual-vengeance campaign.

Even as a scholar who has tracked Trump’s rhetoric and its impact on his followers carefully since 2015, I have found myself, too often, responding to Trump’s latest hateful outburst with a demoralized shrug.

Back in early 2016, I was keeping a list. It soon became unwieldy and impossible to keep up. Over the last eight years, the sheer volume has made us, collectively, comfortably numb.

But Trump’s most recent comments should jar us back to our senses. They signal something new, even for Trump—that he has now fully embraced the rhetoric and strategies of the Nazis. If we care about democracy and the safety of all of our neighbors and fellow citizens, we can’t dismiss these comments as typical bluster or with a wave of the hand because “Trump is just being Trump.”

In this own words

Here’s what former President Donald J. Trump—the leading GOP presidential candidate—has said in the last few weeks:

• “Root out … the vermin.” This past weekend, Trump was in New Hampshire, where he delivered a nearly two-hour rambling tirade on Veterans Day. Trump’s closing should send a chill up the spine of every student of history and everyone who cares about democracy: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections. They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”
• “Poisoning the blood of our country.” On Oct. 5, a late September interview Trump gave to a right-wing website surfaced in which he made these bigoted and unfounded claims about immigrants: “Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.”
• “The threat from within.” Trump’s Veterans Day speech also encouraged his followers to view their fellow citizens as agents of evil: “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. … Despite the hatred and anger of the radical left lunatics who want to destroy our country, we will make America great again!”

In the past, one of Trump’s favorite rhetorical games was to make hateful statements, only to wave them off with half denials when challenged. Trump’s behavior these last weeks signals that he’s moved beyond even that tactic. Trump doubled down on the use of “vermin” to describe his political opponents in a Truth Social post the same day as his speech.

And when The Washington Post reached out to the Trump campaign to respond to criticisms that these comments echoed the rhetoric of Nazi and fascist leaders, Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, replied defiantly, “Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.” Note: In a puzzling move, the Trump campaign later tried to amend the statement to replace the phrase “entire existence” with “sad, miserable existence.”

In graduate school, I concentrated in political philosophy and ethics, where I was rightly trained to be wary of arguments that tried to score rhetorical points by deploying a Nazi analogy, a move sometimes called “reductio ad Hitlerumin” in philosophical circles. This tactic is a logical fallacy, typically taking the form of a slippery slope argument (“this policy sounds like it would lead to …”) or an ad hominem argument (“you know who else made a claim like that?”).

Basically, the invocation of Hitler or the Holocaust in an argument about something else is illegitimate, because it is intended to be a conversation stopper by making hyperbolic claims about consequences or impugning the speaker as Hitler-like.

But I fear that our rightful reticence to invoke an inappropriate Nazi analogy has rendered us incapable of calling out instances of actual Nazi ideology.

Consider ‘Mein Kampf’

What we are hearing from Trump over the last few weeks are not Nazi-like statements, but outright Nazi sentiments. Lest you think I am exaggerating, here are just a few selections from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf that are soberingly similar to Trump’s most recent rhetoric.

• Mein Kampf uses the term “vermin” three times and “rats” four times. Here is a sample: “The time seemed to have arrived for proceeding against the whole Jewish gang of public pests … Now that the German worker had rediscovered the road to nationhood, it ought to have been the duty of any Government which had the care of the people in its keeping, to take this opportunity of mercilessly rooting out everything that was opposed to the national spirit. While the flower of the nation’s manhood was dying at the front, there was time enough at home at least to exterminate this vermin.”
• Mein Kampf references the word “blood” nearly 150 times, mostly in the context of notions of purity vs. contamination or poison. It notably intermixes references to both ethnicity and culture. References to blood as ethnicity appear right up top in chapter one with this claim: “German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland … People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.”

And here is Hitler railing against what he saw as a Jewish-controlled press, with a metaphorical reference to blood as culture: “And so this poison was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life without the Government taking any effectual measures to master the course of the disease. The ridiculous half-measures that were taken were in themselves an indication of the process of disintegration that was already threatening to break up the Empire. For an institution practically surrenders its existence when it is no longer determined to defend itself with all the weapons at its command.”

And this: “All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.”

• Mein Kampf also characterizes the real threat to Germany as enemies within the country: “For never in our history have we been conquered by the strength of our outside enemies but only through our own failings and the enemy in our own camp.”

And again: “The strength of a nation lies, first of all, not in its arms but in its will, and that before conquering the external enemy the enemy at home would have to be eliminated.”

In the words of George Orwell

In 1940, after Hitler had invaded Poland sparking a war with France and England that eventually led to World War II, George Orwell reviewed a new edition of Mein Kampf in the New English Weekly. His words about Hitler—written five years before Animal Farm (1945) and nine years before Nineteen Eighty-four (1949)—are prescient for the American context today:

Ever since (Hitler) came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs—and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself …

One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme …

Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation “Greatest happiness of the greatest number” is a good slogan, but at this moment “Better an end with horror than a horror without end” is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.

Continued strong support

If we ever could, we certainly can no longer afford to think that Trump does not matter. He is the presumed nominee of one of America’s two major political parties; no other Republican candidate is within striking distance. In virtually every national poll—and in recent battleground state polls—a two-way election between Trump and Joe Biden is a tossup.

In PRRI’s recent American Values Survey, conducted in partnership with the Brookings Institution, nearly all voters who supported Trump in 2020 (94 percent) said they planned to support him in 2024. More than three-quarters of white evangelicals — along with nearly 6 in 10 of both white non-evangelical/mainline Protestants (57 percent) and white Catholics (59 percent)—say if the election were held today, they would vote for Trump. These levels of support from white Christians are virtually unchanged from 2016 and 2020.

Like other successful authoritarian leaders, Trump has uncanny political instincts. Ever since he rose to power, his MAGA mantra has been conjuring a vision of an ethno-religious, white Christian state. His use of the phrase “poisoning the blood of our country” conjures both ethnic (where a contemporary conception of whiteness stands in for Aryan ethnicity) and metaphorical (where white Christian nationalism becomes the American expression of Hitler’s call for a new German Weltanschauung) visions of things that are to be kept pure and protected from defilement.

His characterization of immigrants as dangerous, deranged and diseased is setting the stage for what likely future Trump administration appointees, such as Stephen Miller, have promised will be “the most spectacular migration crackdown” and “the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen” should Trump be re-elected.

Trump’s calls to “root out … vermin” who present a sinister threat from within the ranks of Americans intentionally dehumanizes, in the eyes of his followers, all those who oppose him. The word “vermin” is a peculiar and deliberate word choice in political speech. Its appearance on Trump’s lips is no accident.

Appeal to Christian audiences

Finally, it is important to understand the religious dimensions of Trump’s rhetoric. As I’ve documented extensively (e.g., see the Afterword in White Too Long), Trump has regularly appealed to white Christian audiences by promising to protect and restore the power of Christian churches.

Speaking to a raucous crowd in New Hampshire on Oct. 23, Trump vowed to reinstate a Muslim travel ban and halt all refugee resettlement to the United States. Then he went on to say this: “I will implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants. If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel, if you don’t like our religion—which a lot of them don’t—if you sympathize with the jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country and you are not getting in. Right?”

At his rallies, Trump’s favorite closing incantation of “one people, one family and one glorious nation under God” echoes the rhythms of Hitler’s “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer” (one people, one realm, one leader).

Taken together, Trump’s recent statements reflect a willingness to trade in well-known Nazi propaganda tactics. Unlike Hitler, his speech most explicitly targets Muslims and immigrants rather than Jews—but it’s a risky bet to think American Jews won’t eventually be targeted if they don’t fit Trump’s narrow, rather Christian understanding of what he sees as America’s “Judeo-Christian” culture.

But Trump’s rhetoric follows the blueprint used by Hitler and other authoritarian leaders who dehumanized their political opponents to enhance their own power. Ultimately, these Nazi tactics are the bricks that pave the road to political violence.

Indeed, we are already seeing the seeds of political violence sprouting in American soil, not only in the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but in what Trump’s followers are prepared to accept.

One of the most disturbing findings of PRRI’s American Values Survey was the increase in support for political violence. The number of Americans who agreed that “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country” has jumped from 15 percent to 23 percent over the past two years. Today approximately 1 in 3 Republicans (33 percent) and white evangelical Protestants (31 percent) believe that political violence might be necessary to save the country.

Moreover, among those who believe the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, support for political violence rises to nearly half (46 percent). Among those who affirm the so-called Great Replacement Theory that immigrants are invading the country and replacing real Americans, and among those who understand America to be a divinely ordained promised land for white Christians, support for political violence rises to 4 in 10 (41 percent and 39 percent respectively).

Trump knows exactly what he is doing, and so should we. We should be clear about the basis of his appeal to his followers. And we should anticipate the violence to both our country and our neighbors that is sure to follow if he is re-elected to the presidency.

Robert P. Jones is CEO and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute and the author, most recently, of The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path to a Shared American Future. This article first appeared on his Substack newsletter. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service or the Baptist Standard.

I am quite distressed by the current political situation in the United States. The drawn-out scuffle for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is just one example. Watching the drama in Washington has brought to mind lessons I’ve learned over the years as a drama teacher.

When I first started directing plays with young people back in Sioux City, Iowa, I quickly realized I could not make it my primary objective to put on a great play.

When a fabulous production was my goal, I ended up making decisions that were not necessarily in the best interests of the students I was teaching. Their growth was the primary goal, and I had to keep that in the forefront of my mind to stay on track.

I think we’re committing a similar mistake as a nation. We’ve made America too important.

Wrong hope

Over the course of human history, nations have risen and fallen. America may fall at some point, too, which will be tragic but not cataclysmic. Though the United States might crash and burn, the kingdom of God still will survive. In fact, God’s kingdom might flourish all the more.

Contrary to the belief of many on the Christian right, the United States is not a chosen people. We are not the hope of the world. The hope of the world is Christ.

We’ve also made the American government too important. It seems we expect our government to solve all the problems in our country.

“The American people are immoral, selfish and stupid,” we say. And how do we fix that? Pass laws so nobody sins anymore. Create social programs so nobody suffers anymore. Fix the educational system so everyone knows all the right things and none of the wrong things.

What are we thinking? When did morality become Congress’ domain? When did the president become the hope of the oppressed? When did the powers that be become the source of all truth? Are these not the domain of Christ? Yes, they are. I’m quite sure of that, in fact.

Wrong goals

We are focusing on the wrong goals. If our goal is to make America great—by whoever’s definition—then we will be tempted to do things that are not good for the people of America and things that certainly are not in line with God’s kingdom.

I do fear for our nation. I love my country. But my primary citizenship is not in this young, experimental republic. My primary citizenship is in God’s kingdom—a kingdom not of this world.

Saving the country in a political sense is not my desire. God’s kingdom is my desire. Let us never forget God’s kingdom is not the least bit dependent on the success of the United States of America. But it does require God’s people to behave like God’s people—serving others, denying themselves, and following Christ above all.

Gwendolyn Joy lives in the San Antonio area and is a member of Woodland Church. This article is adapted from her original post. The views expressed are those of the author.

The enduring conflict between Israel and Hamas once again has ignited a powder keg of historical tensions beginning to explode in the tumultuous Middle East.

The situation has reached a critical juncture, with a significant loss of life, as evident from the mounting death toll, which tragically includes more than 1,200 Israelis and 1,500 Hamas fighters at the time of writing.

While the geopolitical complexities and long-standing historical grievances underlying this conflict have been documented meticulously, this article takes a unique perspective. It delves into the response of Arab Evangelicals to the ongoing atrocities.

In doing so, this article seeks to provide insight into the role and convictions of this particular group in the midst of the turmoil, shedding light on their perspective in a complex and highly sensitive context.

In 1978, Hamas—an acronym for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya (the “Islamic Resistance Movement”)—was established by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Since its inception, and despite the fact many Arab countries have established peace treaties with Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian groups assumed the responsibility of confronting Israel until the establishment of Palestinian sovereignty across the entire country.

In the early stages of this conflict, Arab Christians found themselves at the heart of the turmoil. Some took up arms against Israel, while many opted for different paths. However, today, in the midst of the raging war, Arab Christians in general, and Arab Evangelicals in particular, bear witness to the depth of pain and suffering endured by both parties.

The death toll on either side continues to mount, families are torn apart, and children are left orphaned. To many observers, it seems as if the sanctity of human life has been overshadowed, and individuals have become reduced to mere numbers.

Created in God’s image

As Arab Evangelicals, it is impossible not to recall the words of God in Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness’” (LSB).

The phrase “image of God” does not imply a physical resemblance to God, as God is a spirit (John 4:24). Instead, it signifies a more profound concept that underscores the dignity and worth inherent in every human being due to their creation by God.

This concept encapsulates the unique relationship between God and humanity, entrusting humans with the responsibility to exercise dominion and stewardship over creation.

The renowned Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck articulated this in Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation when he noted:

“The essence of human nature is its being [created in] the image of God. The entire world is a revelation of God, a mirror of his attributes and perfections. … But among creatures, only man is the image of God, God’s highest and richest self-revelation and consequently the head and crown of the whole creation, the imago Dei and the epitome of nature” (p. 530-31).

Hence, the response of Arab Evangelicals to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is firmly grounded in the Bible-based belief in the sanctity of human life. This principle is deeply embedded in Christian doctrine and transcends the political divisions and ethnic animosities that long have characterized the region.

Arab Evangelicals maintain a resolute commitment to the intrinsic value of every individual, regardless of nationality or ethnicity. In the midst of violence and suffering, their message resounds clearly: Human life is sacred.

Witnessing the tragic loss of life—be it infants or adults and irrespective of their skin color, language or nationality—is a heart-wrenching experience. God created humanity with dignity. However, sin not only separated us from God and rendered us spiritually lifeless, but it also induced us to vilify one another and cease recognizing each other as bearers of God’s image.

Dependence on prayer

Growing up in a region steeped in more than half a century of war and conflict has, unfortunately, led many, including myself, to become accustomed to the proximity of war. While this is a somber reality, it also has taught me and countless others that our ability to change our reality is profoundly limited.

This inability to alter our circumstances has bred a profound sense of dependence on God to intervene. It has transformed the words of Proverbs 3:5–6 into a lived reality.

For this reason, Evangelicals in the Middle East understand and believe prayer is not solely a means of communication with God, but it is a potent instrument for change. In the midst of the intricate geopolitical landscape, Arab Evangelicals turn to prayer as a wellspring of hope, guidance and transformation.

At the heart of our prayers as Arab Evangelicals, we express a profound and unwavering longing for more than just an end to the ongoing conflict and suffering in the region. Our prayers extend beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities to encompass a broader and more enduring aspiration that both Israelis and Palestinians may come to embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior.

This profound desire demonstrates a belief that transcends national and political boundaries, reflecting a deep conviction that genuine spiritual transformation is the foundational element for achieving lasting peace.

The recognition that political solutions, although essential, may not be adequate to address the deep-seated wounds and grievances deeply entrenched in the region is central to this perspective.

True peace

As Arab Evangelicals we understand the issues at the core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are multifaceted and encompass historical, religious and socio-political dimensions. We firmly believe true and lasting peace will fully materialize only when the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) returns.

In essence, this perspective emphasizes that while political agreements and negotiations can mitigate immediate tensions, the true path to lasting peace lies in the spiritual transformation of individuals and communities, paving the way for a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can coexist harmoniously.

In a region marked by religious, ethnic and political divisions, the words of His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan, a prominent advocate for peace in the Middle East, resonate: “Let us have ambitions. Ambitions to move beyond the violence and occupation, to the day when two states, Palestine and Israel, can live together, side by side, in peace and security.”

Today, our prayers as Arab Evangelicals encompass two vital aspects—praying for an end to the war and for the spread of the gospel.

Dr. Andrew is an Arab scholar and pastor. His name has been concealed for security concerns. The views are those of the author.

(RNS)—“When did the fruit of the Spirit become optional for Christians?”

A friend asked me this as we sat at a laminated table eating big salads in a little take-out restaurant facing a riverway. It was a recent gorgeous September afternoon, that rare kind of day that is neither too hot nor too cold, but just right.

A virtuous day, one might say, drawing on Aristotle’s definition of virtue as the moderation between extremes.

Virtue, however, isn’t just an abstraction of ancient Greek philosophers. Virtue is the fruit of the Spirit-filled Christian.

Virtue vs. vice

This concept of virtue is reflected in Paul’s letter to the Galatians where he contrasts the acts of flesh with the fruit of the Spirit. First, he warns the Christians not to walk in the flesh. He writes: “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21).

That’s quite a list.

It’s hard to go a day without seeing Christians publicly pointing out the prevalence of certain kinds of sexual immorality and debauchery, whether in the classroom, school bathrooms or the halls of Congress and state capitols. But when was the last time you saw a viral story about hatred, selfish ambition or jealousy in the church?

I suspect Paul would like to have a word. He does, actually.

“I warn you,” Paul continues, “as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

This passage should stop every serious Christian cold. Paul’s “this” covers an awful lot of sins.

However, Paul then goes on to paint a dramatically different picture—full of light and life—that contrasts dramatically with the previous one.

“But the fruit of the Spirit,” he writes, “is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-25).

Thinking about the fruit of the Spirit

I’ve thought a lot about the fruit of the Spirit lately.

Actually, it’s been foremost in my mind since 2015 when I made my pinned post on Twitter—now X—a summary of this passage. I did so because that is when I began to be subjected to vicious attacks from far-right bloggers claiming to be Christians.

Before that, I honestly never knew people who claimed to be Christians would treat one another that way. I think many of us have experienced similar shocks.

I also have thought about the fruit of the Spirit a lot since then, because it hasn’t always been easy to avoid walking in the flesh in response, not only to such attacks, but also to so much that has been happening over the past few years to the church, to the culture, to our nation and to our social discourse. It’s disorienting. It’s disappointing. It’s infuriating. It’s hard.

I’ve thought about the fruit of the Spirit more recently, because I had the joy of digging more deeply into the book of Galatians this year by reading Eugene Peterson’s classic commentary on it—Traveling Light—and writing a foreword to a new edition of the book.

Peterson’s commentary points to how this entire letter by Paul is centered on freedom in Christ. The ultimate fruit of union in Christ is freedom, Paul writes elsewhere in a letter to the Corinthians: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

The fruit metaphor Paul uses is so powerful and apt, Peterson explains, because the process of bearing fruit—natural or spiritual, literal or metaphorical—is long, complex and organic. It’s a process that requires care, attention and intention. And the supernatural fruit of the Spirit requires the work of God and his grace. He makes it possible. But we choose to allow it or not.

Thus, my friend’s very simple but pointed question.

When did the Spirit’s work become optional?

When indeed did the work of the Holy Spirit—which all trinitarian Christians understand to be God himself and Christ himself—become optional? It didn’t, of course.

A while back, I saw a post that said, “‘The way of Jesus’ is code for progressive ‘Christian.’”

I clicked on the account, sure it would be a hilarious parody account. It was not.

Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:16).

Then, just a few verses later in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus offers a chilling warning: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21.).

What is the will of God? Well, the Hebrew Bible sums it up nicely in Micah:

“And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

Paul’s description of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians is a kind of gloss on this passage. Justice, mercy and humility are Christian virtues. To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God both requires and reaps the fruit of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Notice, too, it’s not fruits, plural. It’s fruit, singular. When we are filled with the Spirit, we bear all the fruit, not just some. There is no tree that can bear so many varieties except one: the tree of life.

As I have been tested and tried—and have failed more than I wish to admit—in my very public—and private—Christian life over the past few years, months and even days, the only answer I know is to ask the Lord to fill me, and fill me again, with his Spirit.

It’s not optional.

Karen Swallow Prior was research professor of English and Christianity and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of several books. The views expressed are those of the author.

(RNS)—It seems as if every time we turn around there’s a new worry about artificial intelligence. AI is going to take over the nuclear launch codes and kill us all. Or was it just going to shut down the electrical grid? Maybe just the internet?

Wait, wasn’t it going to enslave us and use us as sources of energy? Or just replace all the creatives who provide us all of our music and movies? Isn’t that what the Hollywood strike was all about?

Some of these worries are legitimate. Some are fairy tales that already have been explored in dozens of popular movies over the last couple generations. (Paging HAL.)

While we’re obsessed with its dystopic downsides, we fail to account for the good things AI may do for us in the coming years, from cancer screenings to road design. AI is going to change countless lives for the better.

But there is a foundational threat posed by AI we all seem to be ignoring, one very much related to theology and an enchanted view of what academics sometimes call moral anthropology. AI has the capacity to undermine our understanding of the human person.

Let me explain by way of example.

AI’s growing capabilities

This past week, OpenAI announced its algorithmic language model and imaging platform “can now see, hear, and speak.” For instance, show AI an image of a bike and ask it how to lower the seat: Open AI’s platform can analyze the image, determine what kind of bike is in the image, search its databases and spit back the likely answer—in text or voice audio.

AI is not, of course, really thinking. “It” is a series of algorithms and neural networks with access to a very large database made by human beings. As one professor at the University of Michigan who studies machine learning put it, “Stop using anthropomorphic language to describe models.”

There’s that Greek word “anthropos”—human—again. The professor is worried when we use language that assumes the form or structures of the human, we are corrupting implicitly the way we think about AI. We are fooling ourselves into thinking a language model or image platform could be, well, like us.

Our changing concept of humanity

But the worry goes deeper than that, in the opposite direction. While some may be inclined to move closer to the view AI is like us, the broader culture actually is primed to move closer to the view we are like AI.

Indeed, many students in my classes in recent years have said something like: “Well, aren’t we just essentially organic machines? What is substantially different about the way we analyze a photo, engage a database and spit back an answer to a question?”

The underlying problem here is our culture’s advanced state of what the philosopher Charles Taylor called “disenchantment,” especially when it comes to our understanding of ourselves.

In the secular age of the post-Christian West, our cultural subjectivity no longer has a way to make sense of supernatural concepts—such as being made in the image and likeness of God—of the soul, grace, a will that is transcendent and free, or (in some extreme cases) even consciousness.

We do have a way of making sense of machines, computers, algorithms, neural nets—basically all forms of matter in motion.

The last few centuries and especially the last few decades have been preparing us to imagine ourselves as very similar to AI. Our ability to see, hear, speak and other actions of beings—which no longer are considered supernatural—are therefore comparable to the actions of other kinds of neural nets.

Remembering ourselves

If we explained AI to a medieval person, there is zero chance they would confuse it with creatures like us. Their cultural idea of how humans are formed simply wouldn’t allow them to make that mistake.

I, too, fundamentally dissent from our 21st-century reductionist view of the human person. Instead, I choose to go with the wisdom of Jedi Master Yoda, who taught Luke Skywalker in “The Empire Strikes Back” we are not mere “crude matter,” but are, rather, “luminous beings.” We are ensouled creatures whose form reflects the image and likeness of God.

Let us similarly respond to AI with prudence and care, neither rejecting the life-changingly good things that will come with it nor uncritically accepting every dangerous or destructive application. But, above all, let us resist the idea AI is like us or—even worse—that we are like AI. Neither could be further from the truth.

Charlie C. Camosy is a professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine and holds the Monsignor Curran Fellowship in Moral Theology at St. Joseph Seminary in New York. The views expressed are those of the author.

Un bebé sobrevivió al viaje hasta el otro lado del río. Este bebé se criaría entre muchos que lo aceptaban, siempre y cuando no mencionara cómo había llegado hasta aquí. Se crio entre quienes hacían trabajar incansablemente a sus padres y acaparaban sus privilegios y libertades.

No es de Moisés de quien escribo, sino de mi cuñado Gama. Entró en este país a través del Río Grande con sólo 9 meses de edad. Lo trajeron a Estados Unidos sus padres, personas respetuosas de la ley y temerosas de Dios que decidieron arriesgar sus vidas para que creciera en un lugar mucho más seguro y prometedor.

Estados Unidos es el único hogar que Gama ha conocido. Aquí creció, se educó y conoció a su esposa, mi hermana.

Gama es una de las mayores bendiciones de nuestra familia. Trabaja para una organización sin ánimo de lucro que acoge y cuida a niños. El papel que más me gusta de Gama es el de padre de mis dos sobrinas. Es un padre fiel, implicado y cariñoso.

Como Gama entró por el río sin autorización, no había ninguna vía o “línea” para que se convirtiera en residente estadounidense, y mucho menos en ciudadano estadounidense. Aunque se crió y educó en Estados Unidos, no estaba autorizado a trabajar. Era un “Soñador”.

“Soñador” es una referencia común a la Ley DREAM aún no aprobada por el Congreso.

Durante décadas, todo intento de aprobar leyes en el Congreso para proteger a jóvenes como Gama fracasaron continuamente. En 2012, el presidente Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva-Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia, o DACA.

Gama, un joven “Dreamer”, cumplía los requisitos para acogerse a DACA. Con DACA, ahora podía pagar y terminar la universidad.

Cuando Gama y mi hermana se casaron, nuestra familia asumió que ahora él tenía un camino hacia la ciudadanía. Nos equivocamos.

Según la Ley de Reforma de la Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad de los Inmigrantes de 1996, como Gama entró en el país sin inspección siendo un bebé, tendría que volver al país en el que nació para solicitar un visado de inmigrante antes de que su esposa pudiera pedir su tarjeta verde (green card).

Pero Gama se enfrentaría entonces a una ley de 1996 que prohíbe el reingreso durante 10 años a cualquier persona que pase más de seis meses sin estatus legal en Estados Unidos, que era el caso de Gama cuando era niño, antes de DACA.

Esta ley no es ampliamente conocida o entendida, pero a muchos “Dreamers” se les ha pedido que salten este obstáculo altamente injusto en su camino hacia la ciudadanía.

Gama tenía otra opción. Podía solicitar la libertad condicional.

Este “permiso” especial permitiría a alguien con estatus DACA salir del país por motivos laborales o humanitarios, y luego volver a entrar a través de un proceso autorizado para ser considerado elegible para la ciudadanía.

Desafortunadamente, Gama no calificó para ninguna de las restricciones en torno a la libertad condicional. Además, la administración Trump detuvo todas las formas de libertad condicional (paroles).

Decisiones difíciles

Las opciones de Gama eran: (A) permanecer en los Estados Unidos y continuar renovando su autorización DACA cada dos años por $495 y esperar que DACA siguiera siendo una opción legal, (B) calificar para el empleo o la libertad condicional humanitaria, o (C) ir a su país de origen y esperar el período de 10 años sin ninguna certeza de reunirse alguna vez con su esposa.

Así, durante cinco años de matrimonio, Gama eligió la opción A y se benefició de DACA.

Entonces, en 2021, el abuelo de Gama falleció. Como el gobierno de Biden reinstauró el sistema de libertad condicional, Gama ahora podía solicitar la libertad condicional humanitaria para asistir al funeral en su país de nacimiento.

El proceso de aprobación de la libertad condicional puede llevar meses, pero Gama tuvo el privilegio de recibirla en tan solo unos días. Aunque fue un momento difícil de pérdida para la familia, también fue un momento de esperanza.

Gama tenía ahora motivos creíbles para salir de Estados Unidos, volver a entrar correctamente y ajustar su estatus migratorio. Pero teníamos mucho miedo y preguntas, nada estaba garantizado.

Aunque se le había concedido la libertad condicional, su reingreso en Estados Unidos dependería de la discreción de un agente de la patrulla fronteriza o de seguridad nacional. Aún corría peligro de ser separado de su familia y del país al que llama hogar.

A su regreso al aeropuerto de Houston, nuestra familia esperó durante horas para saber si se le concedía autorización para volver a entrar. Esas horas parecieron una eternidad. Pero recibimos la llamada tan esperada. Le habían autorizado a volver a casa.

El padre de mi sobrina pequeña volvía a casa. No hay palabras para describir las lágrimas, los gritos de alegría y las alabanzas que experimentó nuestra familia.

Convertirse en residente

Por fin podía comenzar el viaje para convertirse en residente estadounidense. Pero el siguiente paso requería una financiación y un tiempo considerables. Tardaron meses en ahorrar los miles de dólares para el proceso de inmigración y el abogado, y luego simplemente tuvieron que esperar la tarjeta verde.

Pasó un año, la tarjeta verde no había llegado, y el DACA de Gama estaba a punto de expirar. No podían arriesgarse a que perdiera su trabajo si de repente se quedaba sin autorización laboral. Así que Gama tuvo que gastar más dinero para renovar su DACA.

Mientras esperaba la tarjeta verde, mi hermana quedó embarazada de su segunda hija. Fue un embarazo de alto riesgo. Vivían de cheque en cheque mientras todos sus ahorros se iban en ambos procesos de inmigración.

Mi sobrina nació prematura y permaneció en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos durante semanas. Su estrés fue en aumento por la dificultad de conseguir una guardería para poder seguir trabajando. Mientras tanto, las facturas médicas se acumulaban.

Mi hermana, ciudadana estadounidense, sólo trabajaba a tiempo parcial. Como Gama no era residente ni ciudadano estadounidense y tenía un proceso de inmigración pendiente, no podían pedir ayuda al gobierno para cuidar de mi hermana o del bebé. Hacerlo podría significar que no cumpliría los requisitos para convertirse en residente.

En agosto de 2023, la familia de mi hermana recibió el correo más liberador que jamás hubieran podido recibir: la tarjeta verde de Gama. Por fin, Gama podía llamar a Estados Unidos su hogar.

Proteger a los ‘soñadores’

Por desgracia, no todos los “Dreamers” tienen las mismas vías -o ninguna- para convertirse finalmente en ciudadanos estadounidenses. Durante más de 20 años, la acción legislativa en el Congreso ha fracasado.

El 13 de septiembre de 2023, el juez de distrito Andrew S. Hanen de Texas dictaminó que la resolución de la administración Biden que codificaba DACA “no es legal, lo que acerca a DACA un paso más a su posible final”.

Se calcula que unos 600.000 “Dreamers” corren el riesgo de perder la protección de DACA. Si bien no todos los beneficiarios de DACA son de herencia latina, la mayoría lo son, y la mejor manera de honrar y celebrar el Mes de la Herencia Hispana es abogando para que el Congreso apruebe una legislación que proteja a los “Soñadores” y a aquellos que no se benefician de DACA.

Un elemento que separa la historia de Gama de la del bebé Moisés es la figura de la hija del faraón. La hija del faraón se arriesgó al ver la humanidad y el potencial en un niño hebreo y abogó por él.

Como dijo Zach Lambert durante la reciente Conferencia de Compasión y Justicia de Fellowship Southwest, “[Necesitamos] ser como la hija del Faraón que, aunque fue educada para ser xenófoba y privilegiada en su identidad, salvó al niño hebreo”.

Los “Dreamers”, compañeros de Gama, necesitan que todos nosotros nos despojemos de nuestra xenofobia y utilicemos nuestras voces y privilegios en su nombre.

Anyra Cano es directora de programas y alcance de Fellowship Southwest. Cameron Vickrey, colaboró en este artículo y dirige las comunicaciones y el desarrollo de Fellowship Southwest. Las opiniones expresadas son de la autora.

Since 1609, Baptists have been vocal and persistent advocates for religious liberty. In 17th century England, it was not legal for any religious group to express their faith without permission from the official church.

Baptists could not worship freely, attend a university, hold public office, officiate weddings or observe the Lord’s Supper as they chose. Baptists could not refuse to have their infants baptized. Those who resisted the government found themselves beaten, harassed and jailed.

Religious persecution of Baptists

Thomas Helwys, the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, wrote a treatise demanding religious liberty in 1612, the first pamphlet devoted to the topic of religious freedom written in English.

Helwys sent his views to King James I with a personal letter attached. He insisted it should not matter to the government if a person was Jewish, Muslim or a heretic. No earthly power should punish people for their religious beliefs. He also added the king was a man and not God.

It did not end well for Helwys. He was tossed into Newgate Prison in London, where he languished until his death.

Baptists in Colonial America found no more freedom in the New World than in the Old. Once again, Baptists were beaten, harassed, fined and jailed.

Their marriages were not valid unless performed by a minister of the government-supported church. Invalid marriages meant children were illegitimate. Illegitimate children could not inherit property and were left impoverished when parents died.

Baptists could not attend college at Harvard or Yale, leaving young Baptists with no educational opportunities and Baptist congregations without trained leaders.

Government officials in Boston tossed a prominent citizen named Thomas Goold into jail over and over again for refusing to have his infant daughter baptized. He stubbornly refused to conform.

Baptist minister John Clarke wrote to an audience in England in 1652 explaining the news was very bad in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Clarke and his friend Obadiah Holmes had been arrested for visiting a church member on Sunday. The men were found guilty of “holding a private meeting on the Lord’s Day.”

Holmes refused to pay the fine imposed by the court. As a result, he was tied to a post and given 30 lashes with a three-corded whip (Clarke, Ill Newes from New England).

For these and other acts of resistance, Baptists earned a reputation for causing trouble.

Baptists defend religious liberty

Roger Williams

A Baptist missionary named Roger Williams railed against the “Bloody” practice of religious persecution in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Williams insisted the colonial government could not force people into religious belief.

He said religious laws could only create hypocrites, not disciples. He pointed to the religious wars that had ravaged Europe as evidence of the brutal policy of persecution. With the conviction of an Old Testament prophet, Williams claimed God would avenge the blood of those persecuted for the “cause of conscience.”

Williams believed every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27) and therefore deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Christ himself did not force his followers into the faith, although Jesus could have called 10,000 angels. Instead, Jesus respected the individual conscience.

An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (Emphasis added; Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience).

Christ came to proclaim freedom to the captive, recovery of sight to the blind and to set the oppressed free (Luke 4:18). Christ did not come to impose a heavy burden of religious legalism, but to free people to receive the New Covenant written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

The only sword that should be wielded in soul matters, wrote Williams, is the sword of God’s spirit, the word of God. When Williams established Rhode Island, he enshrined the principle of separation of church and state into the colony’s charter and welcomed all religious traditions to settle in his free territory.

John Leland

In the next generation, Baptists followed the trail of religious liberty blazed by Roger Williams. In an act of civil disobedience, Isaac Backus led Baptists to ignore the religious taxes imposed by New England authorities. John Leland, a revival preacher in Virginia, insisted:

“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics.

“Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions.

“Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it.

“When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government” (Emphasis added; John Leland, Right of Conscience Inalienable).

Leland, like Williams and Helwys before him, understood a threat to anyone’s religious freedom is a threat to everyone’s religious freedom.

Establishing religious liberty

By the time of the American Revolution, nine of the 13 colonies had government supported churches that routinely persecuted dissenters like the Baptists. In Virginia, 50 percent of Baptist pastors had been imprisoned for the crime of preaching the gospel without a government license.

Baptists protested loudly and worked with other minority groups to demand religious liberty. Their petitions and pleas fell on deaf ears until they gained the support of a powerful ally named Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson worked with the Baptists to make religious liberty the rule of law in Virginia. Although Jefferson disagreed with the Baptists on nearly every point of faith, he fought for their right to practice their faith freely—demonstrating a democratic principle that people of opposing opinion can work together for common purpose.

Baptists also negotiated with James Madison, promising him political support in exchange for a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution that would guarantee religious liberty.

Jefferson and Madison kept their promises to the Baptists. The result was the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After he was elected president, leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter congratulating Jefferson and thanking him for his work on behalf of religious freedom. Jefferson wrote the Baptists a letter in response:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”).

Religious and secular historians alike have given Baptists the credit for being the loudest and most persistent advocates for religious liberty—not just for themselves, but for all people.

Ongoing Baptist advocacy

Baptist advocacy for religious liberty continues today with organizations like the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., and the Baptist World Alliance.

The Baptist Joint Committee traces its history to 1936, when it was founded by Southern Baptists as a watchdog for religious liberty. While predominantly Baptist, the BJC now welcomes others who share the historic Baptist commitment to religious liberty.

As the BJC website notes: “We are attorneys, Capitol Hill insiders, ministers and scholars who work in the courts, with Congress and in the community to defend the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for every person, including those who don’t claim a faith tradition.”

Established in 1905, the Baptist World Alliance’s devotion to religious liberty has not wavered. “Defending Religious Freedom, Human Rights, and Justice” remains one of the five key areas of ministry to this day.

In 2018, Elijah Brown—a 2002 graduate of University of Mary Hardin-Baylor—was elected general secretary of the BWA. The BWA represents an estimated 51 million people—about twice the population of Texas—with 246 member bodies in 128 countries and territories.

Under the auspices of the BWA, Brown and other global Baptist leaders continue the fight for religious liberty so the gospel may be proclaimed and received freely.

New challenges to religious liberty

Baptists have celebrated this devotion to religious liberty for more than 400 years. Today, some have forgotten or abandoned this story. The suffering of Baptists and other religious minorities at the hands of Christian governments in England and Colonial America has faded from memory.

Some Christians have been seduced by an idea the church needs the power of the state to carry out its work, as if the kingdom of God cannot stand without the support of the government. Nothing good comes from a wedding of church and state.

It is dangerous to ignore our “Bloody” legacy of persecution. We all should heed the words I once heard James Dunn, a colorful Texas Baptist, say when he warned that when the church gets tangled up with the state, it is like being hugged by a bear: “At first it is warm and fuzzy. Then it kills you.”

Carol Crawford Holcomb is a professor of church history and Baptist studies in University of Mary Hardin-Baylor’s College of Christian Studies. The views expressed are those of the author.

A new law takes effect this Friday, Sept. 1, that will allow any school board in the state of Texas to vote on whether its schools may employ or accept as a volunteer a chaplain to serve as an official school representative.

This new law leaves school boards and community members grappling with questions about its legal implications and the effect adopting or not adopting this policy may have on students.

Content of the new law

During this year’s legislative session, Texas lawmakers added a new chapter to the Texas Education Code that allows public schools to employ or accept as a volunteer a chaplain to provide “support, services, and programs for students” as determined by the school board or governing body for the school.

Senate Bill 763, now Chapter 23 of the Texas Education Code, states that any chaplain “employed or volunteering under this chapter is not required to be certified by the State Board for Educator Certification.”

The author of the House version of the bill, Rep. Cole Hefner, stated, “[S]chools may choose to do this or not, and they can put whatever rules and regulations in place that they see fit.”

Put another way, the new law is permissive, not mandatory.

This means each school district and charter school in Texas must decide in the next six months whether to adopt a policy authorizing employed or volunteer school chaplains under Chapter 23.

This is uniquely different from how schools currently utilize chaplains in various ways, like a sports team chaplain who volunteers to help lead Bible studies or prayers with student-athletes, or the local minister who may volunteer to lead an annual See You at the Pole rally.

This law allows a chaplain to serve in an official capacity at the school, thus having total access to students throughout the school, just like any teacher or administrator would have.

Arguments for the bill

First, lawmakers expressed concern in this session about the mental health crisis facing Texas, particularly mental health concerns for Texas students. Several legislators saw this law as a means to ensure students received proper support in districts struggling to staff their schools with counselors for students.

The rationale is many areas of Texas may have easier access to a pastor who could serve as a chaplain in the school, as opposed to finding a certified school counselor willing to live in a smaller rural community for a lower income than many of their bigger city counterparts.

Alternatively, some supporters of the law intend to use it as an attempt to allow Christian groups to evangelize in public schools. They look around culture, see a spiral of moral decay, and believe bringing in a Christian witness could help turn the moral tide of the next generation.

Concerns and considerations

While the Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission understands these observations, there are equally valid concerns regarding this new law.

Many opponents of the law rightly are uncomfortable with the lack of a definition for a “chaplain” and the lack of educational or training standards for chaplains allowed in schools.

According to the Texas Education Agency, “a school counselor guides each student in planning, monitoring, and managing their educational, career, personal, and social development.”

School counselors are more than mental health professionals. They often are key players in helping schools prepare and plan for school transitions, college admissions and other educational goals.

School counselors must have a master’s degree and two years of teaching experience and must pass a certified school counselor exam. For many, the difference in professional qualifications of a “school chaplain” and “school counselor” is alarming.

The concern is even more pronounced when considering several other fields employ chaplains while maintaining high standards of qualification and education.

Over the last 20 years, Texas Baptists’ Baptist Chaplaincy Relations ministry has endorsed more than 1,000 chaplains in the areas of military, correctional, lifestyle, public safety, healthcare, marketplace, crisis response and pastoral counseling. Texas Baptists is the fourth largest endorser of chaplains to the U.S. Armed Forces.

Standing on 20 years of experience and success, Texas Baptists keenly recognize the value of chaplains and the importance of properly training a chaplain before endorsing him or her to work with anyone, especially vulnerable segments of the population like our children.

There also have been significant concerns about respecting the First Amendment rights of Texas students. Without guardrails directing chaplains or protecting students in Texas public schools, there is a genuine risk some chaplains for the purposes of Chapter 23 may violate students’ rights, which could increase legal liability for school districts.

As such, Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission supported several amendments that, if passed, would have added or strengthened guardrails for child safety and protection. Ultimately, the law did not include these necessary protections.

When Chapter 23 takes effect

The new law states, “Each board of trustees of a school district and each governing body of an open-enrollment charter school shall take a record vote not later than six months after the effective date of this Act.”

Chapter 23 takes effect this Friday, Sept. 1, 2023. This means school boards and governing bodies of Texas public schools have until March 1, 2024, to decide whether to adopt a policy.

What school boards and governing bodies should do

Ultimately, each school board should analyze the needs of the district it serves, listen to the desires and concerns of parents and children in the district, and follow the advice of the board’s legal counsel.

With that understanding, the Christian Life Commission suggests several areas of consideration:

• Consider whether the schools in your district need additional help. Many school districts already have excellent, well-qualified school counselors to support students. A chaplain policy may not be beneficial for schools already meeting students’ needs.

• If the school board adopts a policy, include additional safeguards and protections that go beyond what is required by Chapter 23. Several amendments initially were included in versions of the bill that did not make the final version.

The Christian Life Commission and Texas Baptists’ Chaplaincy Relations would welcome the opportunity to consult with any school leadership regarding best practices for such a policy.

• Be careful not to discriminate when employing or accepting volunteer chaplains. Adopting a policy that favors chaplains of certain faiths or disadvantages chaplains of certain faiths may violate First Amendment religious protections and create legal liability for your district.

Similarly, make clear to chaplains that using their position for proselytizing may violate the First Amendment religious protections of students.

• Take the time to evaluate thoroughly. The new policy doesn’t need to be implemented right away. Use the time between now and March 1, 2024, to speak with qualified chaplains, your attorney and with your school counselors.

Listen to stakeholders in your community. Learn from what other districts are doing and pay attention to court cases, as there may be legal challenges regarding the new law.

What school advocates can do

One of the key purposes of the Christian Life Commission is to help equip Texas Baptists to apply their faith as advocates on public policy. The following suggestions may be helpful to anyone desiring to get involved on the issue:

• Pray for your local school board(s) as they carefully consider this issue.
• Write a letter to your local school board explaining your view on the matter.
• Attend a school board meeting either to speak on the matter or as moral support for someone who is speaking.
• Start a petition and gather signatures from other stakeholders in your community with similar views on the matter. This can be included with your letter and/or presented at a school board meeting.

Dr. Katie Frugé serves as the director of Texas Baptists’ Center for Cultural Engagement and the director of Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission. John Litzler serves as the director of Public Policy for the Christian Life Commission and general counsel for Texas Baptists.