A (brief) midyear round-up
Catching up on the Supreme Court, the J29 Coalition, the newest Portland Trail Blazer, and more
What a year this past month has been.
All references to 30 Rock aside, let’s dive right in with a few things to close out the halfway point of 2025.
The Supreme Court rules for religious freedom (again)
On the last day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 term, the Court issued yet another decision favorable to religious freedom. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involved parents wanting to opt their children out of certain public school curriculum involving what they think is the promotion of LGBTQ viewpoints. By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the parents in this case were entitled to an injunction exempting their children from this instruction while litigation continues.
Simply put, the parents won.
Writing for the Court’s majority, Justice Alito relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1970s case involving Amish families opting their children out of public schooling after the eighth grade. In the present case, Alito wrote:
We hold that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs—substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.
He continued:
The question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would “substantially interfer[e] with the religious development” of the child or pose “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child. Whether or not a requirement or curriculum could be characterized as “exposure” is not the touchstone for determining whether that line is crossed.
Alito reminded readers that even though current precedent says the government is not required to grant religious exemptions so long as laws are neutral and generally applicable, there is activity that requires a carveout — namely, when a person’s religious exercise is combined with some other constitutionally protected behavior (e.g., parents directing their children’s education).1
In dissent, Justice Sotomayor forcefully rejected this logic:
Public schools, this Court has said, are “‘at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’” They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.
Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children.
She wrote in conclusion that this decision unsettles the foundation of public education throughout the country:
Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.
Earlier in the Court’s term the justices unanimously ruled for a religious nonprofit organization wanting to take part in a state unemployment tax system for religious groups, even though the nonprofit’s work didn’t meet the state’s narrow criteria of religious activity. Paired with the Mahmoud decision, the Court continues to issue rulings bolstering First Amendment protections for religious freedom.
A J29 Kerfuffle
Recently there was a social media controversy involving an organization I’m involved with: the J29 Coalition. J29 is a network of theologically and doctrinally conservative pastors formed to support and encourage one another in an increasingly toxic political environment. J29 relies on speakers to lead a series of conversations designed to help pastors minister to their congregations well. Specific topics depend on the speaker’s expertise — when I present to pastors for J29, for example, I tend to talk about political polarization and partisanship.
Without getting into too much detail about the controversy, critics slammed J29 as being a Trojan horse for secular and progressive actors attempting to subversively influence conservative evangelical churches. I wrote a lengthy response to this criticism, declaring that there is decidedly not an insidious motive behind J29’s work and that encouraging pastors of all stripe to pursue a healthy, faithful, and better political engagement is certainly not a partisan enterprise.
But after some reflection (and encouragement from my wife), I decided not to share this response. Why not? Well, here’s an excerpt from the conclusion:
So, where does this leave us? Right about where we were before all this happened, I’m guessing. People inclined to criticism of J29 were probably not going to be climbing over each other to attend a J29 event before this controversy. And those believing J29 has something to offer to both pastors and their congregations were probably not going to be swayed by this sort of criticism.
I will say this: I am always happy to talk about my work with J29 and the American Values Coalition, as well as my writing and interests associated with Uneasy Citizenship, with the supportive, the curious, and the skeptical alike. I’m an open book.
The temptation of evangelical elites
Southern Seminary’s Andrew Walker recently wrote about evangelical elites, and the temptation of making concessions on the road to acceptance. Consider this:
Too many Christians, having achieved access to elite institutions, seem to lose their nerve. They crave acceptance more than they embody conviction. They confuse proximity to power with cultural influence, only to eventually find themselves being the ones influenced. They mistake a good reputation among the secular intelligentsia for faithfulness to Christ.
Walker cites Francis Collins and NT Wright as recent examples of evangelicals who have (in his mind) lost their nerve on cultural issues, such as the sanctity of life and human sexuality. The reasons for this sort of compromise, he says, is the desire to be accepted by the secular elites whose spaces they occupy.
He concludes:
None of this is a call to withdraw from cultural engagement. On the contrary, it is a call to raise up a new kind of Christian leader—one who understands that bearing witness is more important than earning accolades, and that public influence is a stewardship, not a status symbol. We do need more Christians in the elite spaces of culture. But we need them to be the right kind: clear-headed, morally courageous, unashamed of the gospel, and willing to be thought of as fools for Christ.
There is truth to Walker’s critique and warning. This temptation, however, is not limited to evangelicals who drift to Walker’s left on cultural issues. Just as evangelicals in predominantly left-leaning spaces might be tempted to moderate on stifle their voices on certain issues or principles, so, too, might evangelicals in elite right-leaning spaces — including in the current presidential administration.
Power is, after all, still power, and the temptation to gain or maintain a “seat at the table” is intoxicating, regardless of one’s politics. All Christians—elite, or not—must be on our guards.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 10 years later
We recently hit the 10 year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. I spoke to Christianity Today’s Harvest Prude for a story on what the anniversary means for American evangelicals — today, and in the future.
“You have to wonder too how much Donald Trump’s politics are playing into this as someone who certainly seems to excuse some of these certain cultural issues like sexuality, LGBT rights,” said Daniel Bennett, an associate professor of political science at John Brown University.
Bennett noted that many evangelical institutions have held to a traditional view of marriage, despite the larger shifts in public opinion: “A lot of the more conservative churches and institutions, like Christian colleges and universities … have very clear statements of expectations on gender and sexuality that affirm a more conservative or traditional sexual ethic, even with the culture moving in that direction.”
“It’s not as if these conservative institutions are being swayed by public opinion,” he added.
The story also includes some fascinating insights on the future of Obergefell, with many conservatives predicting that, unlike the overturned Roe v. Wade decision, Obergefell is here to stay. For example, John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom—which led the way in opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage prior to Obergefell—is pessimistic about the potential to upend the precedent with another Supreme Court decision, saying, “I think we’re a long way from that.”
Welcome to the Trail Blazers, Yang Hansen
The Portland Trail Blazers selected Yang Hansen in the first round of last week’s NBA Draft. Yang is a 20-year old, 7’2” center with intriguing offensive and defensive potential, who recently finished a promising season with the Chinese Basketball Association. However, due to perceived limitations in his game at this stage of his development, most scouts and observers pegged Yang for a second-round pick, making the Blazers picking him during the middle of the first round… confusing.
Portland had apparently been following Yang’s progress closely for a couple of years and were enamored with his potential; a source outside Portland called Yang “Chinese Jokic,” a reference to three-time NBA MVP Nikola Jokic. With this in mind, it’s not surprising Portland picked him. Moreover, given that Portland didn’t have a selection in the draft’s second round, perhaps it isn’t surprising they picked him so much earlier than other teams had expected.
Still, with other, more established players still available where Portland was drafting, picking Yang was certainly a surprise. It’s also a bit odd for Portland to choose a center after spending last year’s selection on another 7’2” big man (Donovan Clingan), and when the team has two other centers (Deandre Ayton and Robert Williams) also under contract. I can’t help but think another move (a trade, perhaps?) is on the horizon.
As a Blazers fan, I can only hope Yang scratches the surfaces of any comparisons to Jokic. But as a Blazers fan, I’m conditioned to be skeptical.
Details for Reimagining Faith and Public Life 2025
I’m thrilled to announce that the speaker for John Brown University’s Reimagining Faith and Public Life 2025 will be Elizabeth Neumann. Elizabeth worked in the Department of Homeland Security for the Bush and Trump administrations as an expert on extremist ideology and threat prevention. She is the author of Kingdom of Rage: The Rise of Christian Extremism and the Path Back to Peace,2 and also serves as a national security contributor for ABC News.
I’m looking forward to sharing more details soon, including the timing of her visit to campus and the specific theme of her talk. Stay tuned.
BONUS: Charleston dining recap
Caitlyn and I were fortunate to spend the past week in Charleston, SC, with two good friends. It was hot but beautiful — and we ate very, very well. Here’s a taste (get it?) of our culinary experience, with an off-the-cuff rating.
Monday
Ye Olde Fashioned Ice Cream — hand-dipped ice cream with lots of flavor options. I got the white chocolate raspberry. 3/5
Tuesday
Rodney Scott’s — generously-portioned barbecue, but the sides stole the show. Caitlyn and I split a plate with ribs, brisket, and pork, plus greens, mac and cheese, and cornbread. 3.5/5
Husk — southern fare in an upscale environment. I ordered the rigatoni with rabbit, shrimp, and crawfish, and the table shared the fried poundcake. 4.5/5
Wednesday
Poe’s — your basic burger joint, with half-pound patties and thin-cut fries. I got the burger with swiss cheese. 3/5
Beardcat’s — gelato. I recommend the sweet cream with chocolate shavings. 3.5/5
Thursday
Pink Bellies — Vietnamese cuisine in a fast-casual adjacent setting. We all shared the lamb dumplings, garlic noodles, and a General Tso’s-style chicken. 4/5
Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams — Gourmet ice cream. I got two flavors in a waffle bowl: root beer float, and berry with chocolate chips. 4.5/5
Magnolias — classy space featuring southern staples. I enjoyed the salmon in a peach sauce over gouda grits, with green beans and sauteed spinach. For dessert, we shared caramel pecan pie and creme brule. Top to bottom, this was my favorite meal of an excellent week of dining. 5/5
See Page Five of the Mahmoud decision for details.