What Is at Stake
There are three reasons we should support the Court’s robust understanding of religious freedom.
First, we live in a society that is characterized by increasing diversity, not only of race, ethnicity and cultural background, but also of religion and ideology. A robust understanding of religious freedom helps promote peacefulness and tolerance by teaching us all to make accommodations for others’ differences—not only when we worship but also when we’re engaged in mundane activities, not only in the private sphere but also in the public square. Needless to say, if we Christians want others to recognize our religious freedom, we need to recognize theirs—whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or adherents of any other religion. In this, we are simply following the Golden Rule, which states, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12, NIV)
Second, as the government expands its legislative and regulatory reach into every nook and cranny of American citizens’ lives, it unwittingly burdens their free exercise of religion. Sometimes, given the ideological cast of those laws and regulations, the burden is—or at least seems—intentional. For example, some pro-choice advocates reject the Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby precisely because they want government to enshrine their vision of human sexuality in law. Similarly, some pro-gay rights advocates reject the decision because they fear it might lead to exemptions to the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) legislation. In other words, those advocates don’t mind the intentional burden their favored laws might impose on religious people. Shouldn’t we be worried about this foreseeable and intended erosion of religious liberty? More importantly, shouldn’t we take action to stop it? A robust understanding of religious freedom helps limit the size and reach of government on topics where ideologues want to impose their visions of society on religious people who have longstanding, substantive objections to those visions.
This doesn’t mean—it needs to be emphasized—that religion is a trump card against generally applicable laws. As noted above, there may be times when the government is using the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling interest, and this should prevail even if it burdens someone’s religious freedom. Nevertheless, shouldn’t the government bear the burden of proof to justify its imposition on religious freedom?
Third, promoting a robust understanding of religious freedom is in our own interest. The Supreme Court is a reliable defender of the First Amendment rights of explicitly religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. But what about charities affiliated with the Assemblies of God, such as Convoy of Hope? What about schools, such as Evangel University or any of our endorsed postsecondary schools? Will the Court reliably defend their free-exercise rights? I am encouraged to think it will in the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Had the Court ruled the other way, however, I would be discouraged that its decision would narrow the scope and weaken the force of religious freedom in our land.
What is at stake in the Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, then, is the kind of society we want America to be. Is it one that respects the rights of religious persons in all their diversity, fostering tolerance rather than promoting antagonism? Is it one that resists the ideological temptation to impose—through legislation and regulation—a one-size-fits-all vision on people who object to that vision, thus burdening their consciences? Does it allow religious persons to lead a faith-integrated life—not merely in their churches but also in their charities, schools and businesses? Or does it impose a false disjunction between people’s faith and the rest of their lives?
What Needs to Be Done
I close with some practical suggestions about what is to be done for religious freedom after Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
First, I want to remind us all that our Fellowship’s reasons for being are evangelism, worship, discipleship and compassion—not politics. As the tide of post-Christian secularism rises throughout our nation, it is tempting for Christians on both sides of the pulpit to turn to political activism to stem the tide. This is shortsighted and therefore ineffective. Politics reflects culture, and culture reflects values, which are religious in nature. Our government ultimately reflects our gods, in other words. Long-lasting, effective change therefore requires a change of heart. This heart change—made possible by the Spirit-empowered proclamation of the gospel—is where we pastors, evangelists and missionaries should expend our best efforts.
Second, this doesn’t mean that political engagement is unimportant. As American Christians, we have both the opportunity and the right to participate in the political process by informing ourselves about candidates and issues, voting, advocating specific policies, making reasonable arguments for our positions, petitioning government officials for their support, running for office, etc. We should do such things with what Richard J. Mouw calls “convicted civility.” Our political engagement, in other words, should reflect our deepest moral convictions, but they should be communicated with civility, knowing that those who disagree with us also are made in God’s image, loved because of Jesus Christ, and called and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live lives of greater holiness.
It is out of this sense of convicted civility that I signed a letter along with other faith leaders imploring congressional leaders not to repeal or amend RFRA. I encourage you, if you agree with the Court’s ruling, similarly to write a letter to congressional leaders, including your senators and representatives. RFRA represents the best tradition of American religious liberty and aligns with the interests of the Assemblies of God. It is worth supporting and defending. Moreover, as religious-freedom issues arise in your state, I encourage you to prayerfully consider advocating religious freedom to your family, friends, representatives and governors.
Moreover, we should encourage voting because elections have consequences. One of those consequences is that the president nominates judges who serve on district and appellate courts and on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate must then approve those nominees. It is a sad fact that no evangelical sits on the Supreme Court—even though evangelicals constitute a very large faith community in America. I suspect that at present no evangelicals could even be nominated or confirmed to a federal bench because they hold views that are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. People in our Fellowship need to remember that when they cast a ballot, they effectively decide who will sit as a federal judge. Indirectly, they are casting a vote for or against a robust understanding of the free exercise of religion.
Third, we ought to pray for government officials in all branches (executive, legislative, judicial) at all levels (federal, state, county, municipal) that they may govern with justice so that we and our nation, states and communities experience peace. This is a biblical command (1 Timothy 2:1–2). Notice in these verses that Paul enjoins both intercession and thanksgiving. As Christians in the United States, I’m sure we’ve presented our list of changes we would like God to make to our government. But have we thanked God lately for our government?
Fourth and finally, we should remember that the purpose of religious freedom is positive, not negative. “Live as free people,” Peter writes, “but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.” (1 Peter 2:16, NIV) Before religious freedom is freedom from government interference, it is freedom to do God’s will. As sons and daughters of God, we have the ability to do God’s will regardless of what the government does. God has not guaranteed that doing the right thing will be politically popular in this lifetime, but we should do it nonetheless. “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” (1 Peter 2:12, NIV)
I pray that God would bless you and the ministry you lead. I ask for the same from you. And I hope that you receive my advice on this topic in the spirit with which it has been given.
George O. Wood is general superintendent of the Assemblies of God (USA) and chairman of the World Assemblies of God Fellowship. He has been licensed to practice law by the California State Bar since 1991 and to practice law before 
the United States Supreme Court since 2004. This article originally appeared in the July issue of Called to Serve.
John Burton 
Abby Trivett 
Harbinger's Daily 
