Six months ago, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released its first ever Religious Freedom Index. The survey of 1,000 Americans was designed to measure perspectives on the First Amendment, which includes, among other rights, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Becket’s findings were hopeful—very much so, in fact. The survey found large majorities of Americans support the freedom to practice religion in daily life without discrimination, and favor religious groups making employment and leadership decisions without government interference.
Still, even with the encouraging numbers, religious freedom “sits at a historical inflection point,” Becket reported. “Coming years could show religious freedom weakening and dividing along partisan lines or strengthening and expanding across demographics.”
That was before a global pandemic sent shockwaves through every part of life, on a global level.
Along with nearly every other established institution, the Church was forced to halt normal operations and settle in for months of something else. As the stoppage drug on, church leaders wrestled with competing priorities—religious liberty, submission to authority, and love of neighbor among them. Religious freedom became a key player in the conversation around when churches could and would reopen, especially in places where restaurants and businesses were able to open, or where COVID-19 cases were relatively rare.
“We as a church know how to keep our people safe, to exercise health safeguards, and to create a safe environment for worship, and we’re not allowed to do so,” said Illinois pastor Rob Schneider. “That is a religious liberties issue.”
Now, even as many churches are opening their doors to in-person gatherings again, the religious liberty questions raised by COVID-19 persist. Especially in light of a possible second wave of the pandemic, or another similar, previously unthinkable circumstance.
The effect of this season on the church will likely take years to recognize. How churches defined and interacted with their religious freedoms during the pandemic is one key area to watch.
Identifying the issue
In May, the Illinois Baptist State Association held two virtual town hall meetings on reopening that engaged discussion on the religious liberty angle. Illinois pastors had widely varying views on the legality of states imposing limits on church gatherings, but IBSA encouraged a thoughtful process that included input from Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-profit legal organization and ministry partner.
“We’re looking for places where the churches receive disparate or unequal treatment,” said Joseph Infranco, senior counsel for ADF. In other words, places where other kinds of group meetings—birthday parties or book clubs, for example—are allowed, but a Bible study of the same size wouldn’t be.
On May 28, Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration released guidelines for churches planning to reopen after Coronavirus. The guidance urged caution, but loosened previous restrictions that had limited gatherings to 10 or fewer people.
Schneider’s Calvary Baptist Church in Edwardsville had already planned to start in-person services, after weighing insurance questions and whether individual church members could face penalties for meeting despite the current stay-at-home order. “For us to be unable to have worship is ludicrous,” Schneider said, especially considering large retail businesses were open, and in some cases, not taking the kinds of precautions Calvary planned to take.
The pastor’s rationale has been echoed across the country, as fair treatment has emerged as one way to identify a religious liberty concern in the COVID era. In a Mississippi town, for example, churches won the right to hold drive-in worship services when leaders noted nearby fast-food restaurants were allowed to operate in much the same way.
Travis Wussow of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission cited Nevada as one state where churches haven’t appeared to receive the same treatment as businesses, including casinos.
“I think, broadly, we should recognize that the government does have the legitimate interest and authority of keeping people safe,” Wussow said, “and that includes how we gather. So long as houses of worship aren’t being singled out and treated unfairly.”
Nathan Carter is familiar with policy inequities and how they can affect churches. In 2018, Immanuel Baptist Church finally purchased the building they’d been renting for years, after challenging a zoning ordinance that would have required them to provide parking not required of similar organizations in the neighborhood. Carter’s church prevailed with the help of Mauck & Baker, a religious freedom focused law firm in Chicago.
“That was a clear religious liberty issue, and it took a lot of work and prayer and time and money, but we prevailed,” Carter said. This time, though, Chicago’s Coronavirus restrictions are hitting most establishments similarly, the pastor said. If officials were allowing theaters to open and not churches, Immanuel would have called Mauck & Baker again.
“As long as they’re restricting people equitably and not targeting churches unfairly,” Carter said, “then I think for the sake of public health concerns and our witness in Chicago, we have to follow our local guidelines.”
A path forward
Carter said there are good protections in the law, and the U.S. Constitution is on the church’s side. Still, he said, there are threats lurking. Some church leaders are concerned the government’s ability to shut down services could open the door to infringements on religious liberty. Schneider said members of his congregation are worried officials have learned a new way to regulate activities over concern for public health, and could move to restrict more individual freedoms in the future.
Plus, Carter said, while the law may be on the church’s side, public sentiment toward the church increasingly isn’t. “As public opinion shifts,” he said, “it isn’t ridiculous to be concerned about [religious liberty] in the long term.”
One solution may be in shifting the perspective around dialogue with government officials. Wussow encouraged church leaders that public officials want to hear from them. In general, he said, the story of the last several months has been churches and local and state leaders working together to keep people safe.
In Virginia, for example, 200 pastors shared their concerns about the state’s reopening plan with the governor, eventually reaching an agreement that allowed them to reopen earlier. Church leaders in Illinois similarly reached out to Pritzker, asking him to consider communities of faith in determining how the state will reopen.
IBSA Executive Director Nate Adams joined church and denominational leaders who urged the governor to consult with religious leaders in determining next steps in the state’s reopening plan. “We believe we can work with you and your staff to create a plan that follows the science, protects the people we love, and give churches a greater hope through participation in the planning,” their letter read.
Pastor Sammy Simmons found new opportunities to engage local officials when he pitched a proposal that would allow churches in the county to reopen, with parameters in place. Simmons, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Benton, presented his proposal to the county board, and contacted individual board members to discuss it. In the meantime, President Donald Trump declared churches essential and urged governors to allow them to reopen. More congregations began to move toward in-person gatherings, and Simmons’s proposal wasn’t ever voted on by the full board.
“But in the process, I got to talk to the chairman of our board,” said the pastor, who also serves as president of IBSA. “I got to pray with him several times. We got to have good conversations.”
In a post-pandemic world, engagement could be one key to a more robust understanding and embrace of religious liberty. The dialogues around COVID-19 noted by religious liberty advocates like Wussow could set the stage for more helpful conversations in the future. Still, there are obstacles, and they may be especially difficult for younger leaders who understand the importance of religious liberty, but are disillusioned about engagement in the public square.
“I think a lot of younger pastors are left wondering whether their political leaders believe all the things they say they believe,” Wussow said. “One of my biggest concerns for the next generation of pastors is that they will overreact to some of that disillusionment and disengage from public life.”
Carrying the banner
Nick Volkening is a church planter in Champaign-Urbana. His New City Church hasn’t launched public gatherings yet. But during the pandemic, the young church has developed a ministry philosophy based on sharing the burdens of their neighbors.
“What we’re trying to embody here is to say, ‘Your problems are not just problems, they’re actually my problems,’” Volkening said. “Taking that posture is hopefully serving us well as we try to reach people who don’t know Jesus.”
Among his generation, Volkening sees an evolution in perspective on religious liberty because younger church leaders don’t expect to be loved and embraced by their government, he said. Where previous generations saw connections between the church and the larger culture, those connections are increasingly frayed now. The religious liberty he is compelled to protect, Volkening said, is the freedom to speak into issues like the current conversation on race and justice, primarily as a Christian deeply invested in the people and places God has called him to reach.
Religious liberty is becoming increasingly politicized, Wussow said. Everyone who cherishes religious freedom should be concerned about that, he said, and work to ensure that as broad a segment of American life as possible recognizes the importance and value of religious freedom.
“That’s part of the way through,” he said, “is to help enrich and fortify the way that we think about our public lives, and what it means for us to live out our faith in the public square.”