WASHINGTON (RNS)—Numerous faith-based organizations and congregations are pleading with the Biden administration, in a letter sent Jan. 23 to President Joe Biden and other leaders, not to enact new immigration restrictions.

The letter—signed by 165 faith-based local, national and international organizations and congregations—expresses “grave concern” with policies Biden announced earlier this month.

While those policies expand a program offering humanitarian parole to Venezuelans to include individuals from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba, they also include a proposal to bar people from seeking asylum if they enter the United States without inspection or do not seek protection in other countries along the way, the letter said.

The administration has said it plans to launch an app that individuals can use to schedule an appointment for inspection instead of coming directly to a U.S. port of entry in order to reduce wait times and crowds at the border.

The letter urges the Biden administration not to move forward with what it calls an “asylum ban,” calling it “harmful, inhumane and deadly for the most vulnerable.”

“Across faith traditions and practices, the message is clear: We are called by our sacred texts and faith principles to approach one another with love—not fear,” the letter reads.

“Our diverse faith traditions compel us to love our neighbor, accompany the vulnerable, and welcome the sojourner—regardless of place of birth, religion or ethnicity. Importantly, our faiths also urge us to boldly resist and dismantle systems of oppression.”

Parole is no substitute for access to asylum, according to the letter.

Signers include three of the six faith-based agencies that partner with the U.S. government to resettle refugees: Church World Service, HIAS (formerly the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Several denominations also signed on to the letter, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ. Other signers are the American Friends Service Committee; General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; Hindus for Human Rights; Anti-Defamation League; Christian Reformed Church Office of Social Justice; Mennonite Central Committee U.S.; National Council of Churches; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Union for Reform Judaism; and Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice.

On a call hosted Monday morning by the Interfaith Immigration Coalition and #WelcomeWithDignity Campaign, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of LIRS, shared a number of misconceptions people have about those seeking humanitarian aid.

Not all have valid passports, access to a cell phone, reliable Wi-Fi or a willing sponsor in the United States in order to take advantage of pathways to enter the country, Vignarajah said. For many, their best option is to make an often dangerous journey to the U.S. border to seek asylum.

“That is a high hurdle to clear—one that borders on a wealth test for some of the most vulnerable children and families facing immediate danger,” she said.

Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, said his organization is old enough to remember a time before the U.S. had laws allowing people to seek asylum in the country. Hetfield pointed to 1939, when he said the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration refused to allow a ship carrying 900 Jewish passengers who were fleeing Nazi Germany to dock in Florida. It returned to Europe, where 254 of those passengers perished in the Holocaust.

That’s why the United Nations established and the United States adopted the Refugee Convention, he said, “asserting that never again, would people be trapped inside of their country of persecution.”

The Biden administration’s proposal would place the asylum laws the United States now has “out of reach” for many, Hetfield said, which he called “illegal” and “immoral.”

And that “hits home” for many faith-based organizations, “who’ve been serving some of the most vulnerable for decades,” Vignarajah added.

“This isn’t charity for us. This is how our supporters live out their faith and answer that higher call to welcome the stranger in need.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Thousands assembled Jan. 20 to participate in this year’s edition of the anti-abortion March for Life on the National Mall, where throngs celebrated the fall of Roe v. Wade while voicing concern as the abortion debate moves to the states.

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, opened up the 50th iteration of the rally by noting it was the “first march in post-Roe America,” prompting cheers from the crowd. But she was quick to dispel any notion that the anti-abortion movement has slowed following the Supreme Court’s decision to end nearly five decades of nationwide abortion access.

“We will march until abortion is unthinkable,” Mancini said, sparking another roar of approval from attendees.

The event, which appeared roughly the same size as past versions, was framed as something of a pivot point for the broader anti-abortion movement. It was present in the day’s theme,“Next Steps: Marching into a Post-Roe America.” Mancini made a point of promoting smaller versions of the march scheduled to take place in certain states later this year.

“Boy, did we get a huge victory just a few months ago when Roe was overturned,” said Republican Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, one of several lawmakers to address the demonstration. “But as you all know, that’s only the end of the first phase of this battle. The next phase now begins.”

The sentiment was similar in the crowd, where faith was a constant as in years past. Bryson Nesbitt, from North Carolina, explained the need for further action while holding a large Christian flag.

“I believe God will bless the nation for making that change,” he said, referring to the overturning of Roe, “but I think there’s more work that needs to be done.”

Move to the local level

Precise definitions of the movement’s new phase were hard to find at the demonstration, however. Not that there weren’t suggestions: March for Life organizers urged supporters to lobby Congress on legislation such as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” And the march route symbolically was changed to funnel participants past the western face of the Capitol instead of near the Supreme Court, as in years past.

Yet the legislation, which would make permanent the restrictions on federal funding for abortion, is unlikely to pass a Democratically controlled U.S. Senate, and much of the ongoing debate over abortion is happening at the state level—not in Congress.

The shift wasn’t lost on Dave Pivonka, the president of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, who stood near the back of the crowd. One of many Catholics in attendance, he said students from his school were not only present in Washington for the march, but also in Columbus, Ohio, where they were urging politicians to pass anti-abortion legislation.

“It’s really going to move more towards a local level,” he said. “The thought was, ‘Let’s overturn Roe v. Wade.’ Well, that was great, but the goal is that more babies are saved. The goal is for an end of abortion.”

Recognizing obstacles ahead

Many march participants were realistic about the obstacles their movement still faces. Despite the festive mood at the rally, public opinion polls continue to show widespread support for making abortion legal in all or most cases, and the 2022 midterm elections resulted in a slew of victories for abortion rights advocates.

Pushback to the anti-abortion movement is growing louder among people of faith as well, with liberal-leaning activists often stressing that support for sweeping abortion restrictions is a minority position in many religious traditions—including among Catholics.

The day before the march, advocates affiliated with the group Catholics for Choice surprised anti-abortion activists protesting in front of a Washington Planned Parenthood by unfurling banners behind them that read “Most people of faith support legal abortion.” Catholics for Choice also put up posters along the March for Life’s route emblazoned with similar messages.

Religious groups have filed lawsuits in several states challenging new abortion bans as well, with many arguing the prohibitions conflict with their own faiths.

There was little mention of such religious opponents at the March for Life, although one demonstrator held a sign that read “Excommunicate Pro-Choice Catholics.”

Two sisters and longtime attenders of the march—Sara Sullivan and Megan Kinsella, both Catholic and from Virginia—characterized the event as an unusually boisterous affair. The pair grew up attending the March for Life, and their children, now in high school, were somewhere in the crowd.

“I’ve been (to) a lot,” Sullivan said. “This is definitely a more cheerful, lighthearted feel, like a celebration.”

But even as they celebrated, Sullivan and Kinsella eventually circled back to the message of the day: steeling themselves for clashes over abortion that will be waged far from Washington’s halls of power.

“The follow-up story is going to be to go into the state,” Kinsella said, pointing out that one of the March for Life’s state-level events is scheduled to take place in Richmond next month.

“That’s where we have to concentrate our efforts, because it’s not over. It’s just going back to the states.”

NASHVILLE (BP)—The FBI is offering a $25,000 reward for information related to attacks on pregnancy support centers.

“As part of a national effort to bring awareness to a series of attacks and threats targeting reproductive health service facilities across the country, the FBI is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest, and conviction of the suspect(s) responsible for these crimes,” the FBI’s statement said.

In Washington, D.C., FBI Director Christopher Wray said, “Today’s announcement reflects the FBI’s commitment to vigorously pursue investigations into crimes against pregnancy resource centers, faith-based organizations and reproductive health clinics across the country.”

Three centers in Portland, Ore., were either vandalized or fire-bombed.

Messages such as “IF ABORTION AINT SAFE NEITHER RU JR” were spray-painted on the Mother and Child Education Center in Portland, the FBI said.

The attacks, which occurred on May 8, June 10, July 4 and July 6 of last year, are all referenced in the release.

The Gresham Pregnancy Resource Center and the Oregon Right to Life building in Portland were included in the attacks. Molotov cocktails were thrown into the facilities, causing significant fire damage in Gresham.

The FBI said video surveillance at the Right to Life building shows a possible suspect driving a white 2017-2018 Hyundai Elantra.

Dozens of other attacks were carried out across the country last spring and summer.

“It is good to see the FBI finally taking steps toward justice for these centers and their personnel who do so much to serve the vulnerable in our communities,” said Hannah Daniel, a policy associate for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, in written comments.

“In the wake of the historic Dobbs decision, we witnessed unprecedented and grotesque levels of violence against pregnancy resource centers. These centers are on the front lines doing the important and often overlooked work of caring for women and their children. “

In Nashville, the Hope Clinic for Women was vandalized last June 30.

“We are grateful for all the support we’ve received from law enforcement,” Hope Clinic CEO Kailey Cornett wrote in an email to Baptist Press. “News of this development reminds me of my initial thoughts when security camera footage was found for our incident—my heart goes out to the woman (or man) whose anger and pain brought them to the point of causing damage like that. We are continuing to pray they find hope and healing.”

The FBI says perpetrators could face up to 20 years in prison for the attacks.

Anyone with information is asked to call 1-800-CALL-FBI or to submit their tip at tips.fbi.gov.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Former President Donald Trump is chiding evangelical Christian pastors who previously supported him but haven’t endorsed his new presidential campaign, accusing the faith leaders of “disloyalty.”

During an appearance on the Real America’s Voice show “The Water Cooler” Jan. 16, host David Brody asked Trump about evangelical leaders such as Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas. Jeffress was one of the former president’s most stalwart supporters during his presidency but recently announced he would not endorse Trump unless he wins the GOP primary race.

Despite initially saying he didn’t “really care” about the lack of endorsement from pastors such as Jeffress, who preached a sermon to Trump the day he was inaugurated titled “When God Chooses a Leader,” the former president went on to voice palpable frustration.

“It’s a sign of disloyalty,” Trump said. “There’s great disloyalty in the world of politics, and that’s a sign of disloyalty.”

Trump touts record on abortion

Trump then touted his record on abortion, noting his administration appointed three conservative Supreme Court justices—a move that ultimately resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, ending nearly 50 years of the nationwide right to an abortion.

Nobody “has ever done more for right to life than Donald Trump,” the former president insisted.

Trump appeared to blame evangelical leaders for the Republican Party’s meager showing in the 2022 midterm elections, saying he was “a little disappointed. because I thought they could have fought much harder” on the issue of abortion.

“A lot of them didn’t fight or weren’t really around to fight,” he said. “It did energize the Democrats. … I don’t know, they weren’t there protesting and doing what they could have done.”

Asked about Trump’s remarks, Jeffress lauded the former president but maintained his plans to refrain from endorsing until after the primary, and he noted Trump has not asked for his endorsement.

“Recently, I said to President Trump privately and on Fox News publicly that President Trump was our greatest president since Reagan and had done more for evangelicals than any president in history,” Jeffress told Religion News Service in a statement.

“Furthermore, I predicted that evangelicals would ultimately coalesce around him as the GOP nominee for 2024 and I would happily and enthusiastically support him. Hopefully, President Trump doesn’t think of me as being disloyal for not volunteering a primary endorsement he has not requested from me.”

Asked if he would endorse Trump if requested, Jeffress said that because he doesn’t identify as a Republican he sees “no need to insert myself at this point into a possible Republican primary fight.” He added that he expects Trump to be the 2024 nominee regardless.

Trump’s venting session highlights the former president’s ongoing struggle to amass the same level of fervent support from a subset of evangelical leaders he enjoyed in 2016 and throughout his presidency.

Despite a “Pastors for Trump” initiative launched in December after Trump’s 2024 campaign announcement, conservative Christian leaders who championed his cause for years, such as Jeffress and evangelist Franklin Graham, have yet to throw their support behind Trump’s new White House bid.

Pence speaks at Dallas church

Meanwhile, Jeffress hosted former Vice President Mike Pence—who is expected to be a potential 2024 presidential contender—at First Baptist in Dallas over the weekend, although Jeffress pointed out to RNS he did not endorse Pence.

According to Axios, Pence told the crowd he “couldn’t be more proud of the Trump-Pence administration” but added: “Obviously the administration did not end well. It ended in controversy.”

Pence also appeared to endorse the idea of Christian nationalism, an ideology embraced by Jeffress and championed by Trump throughout his political tenure. The former vice president, who was at the church promoting his new book, So Help Me God, called the term Christian nationalism “something of a pejorative … among the left-wing media.”

“This nation has ever been sustained by Christian patriots who believe in America,” Pence said, later adding, “America is a nation of faith.”

President Joe Biden’s visit to El Paso—his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border since he took office—came three days after he announced changes in immigration and asylum policies, which some faith leaders greeted with mixed reviews.

During his Jan. 8 four-hour tour of El Paso, Biden visited the Bridge of the Americas port of entry that connects El Paso and Ciudad Juarez and went to the El Paso County Migrant Services Center.

At the El Paso airport, he also spoke briefly with Gov. Greg Abbott, who hand-delivered a letter to Biden that pointedly called on the president to take a stricter approach to border security.

Biden visited El Paso on his way to Mexico City, where he was scheduled to meet with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the North American Leaders’ Summit.

Biden announces policy revisions

On Jan. 5, Biden had announced his administration is expanding the humanitarian parole process already in effect for Venezuela and Ukraine to allow up to 30,000 nationals per month from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba.

Anyone seeking humanitarian parole must have a sponsor in the United States and pass a vetting process, including background checks. Individuals in the program can live in the United States up to two years and receive work authorization.

The president said the United States will welcome up to 20,000 refugees from Latin American and Caribbean countries in fiscal years 2023 and 2024.

At the same time the United States will expand the humanitarian parole program, it also will expand its use of Title 42 expulsions.

Biden said individuals who attempt to enter the United States without permission and do not have a legal right to remain will be subject to expedited removal to their country of origin and to a five-year ban on reentry.

He also announced the creation of an online portal—available on a mobile app—to allow noncitizens in Central America and Mexico to schedule an appointment to present themselves for inspection and initiate a protection claim.

An accompanying rule would permanently bar anyone from seeking asylum if they appear at a port of entry without first applying for asylum in a third country before reaching the United States.

At the same time he unveiled the immigration and border security changes, Biden also announced the United States will provide close to $23 million in additional humanitarian assistance to Mexico and Central America. He also said his administration plans to increase funding to border cities and cities receiving an influx of migrants.

Muted praise, deep disappointment

Stephen Reeves, executive director of Fellowship Southwest, expressed general disappointment regarding the policy changes.

“While we appreciate the administration’s efforts to streamline the asylum process and allow more migrants from certain countries, it is deeply disappointing to see a continued limiting of access to a legal, fair and timely asylum process for the poorest and most vulnerable. It is doubtful that the migrants served in Fellowship Southwest’s border network will benefit from these changes,” Reeves said.

“Undoubtedly, the types of reforms and resources necessary to overhaul our broken system can only be done through bipartisan cooperation in Congress. It is a tragedy that we continue to treat global migration as a political football and not as the humanitarian crisis it is.

“Our country has the resources to alleviate suffering but not the political will. The administration’s new policy will continue to force the care and protection of thousands of migrants on to the compassionate but under-resourced Mexican border towns, ministries and pastors, and ensure a continued supply of victims for cartel violence and exploitation.”

Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy and policy at World Relief, offered cautious praise for some aspects of the policy changes, along with criticism of others.

“We certainly acknowledge that not every individual who arrives at the border will qualify to be granted asylum under U.S. law, but we must respect our nation’s moral and legal obligations to ensure due process for those seeking protection from persecution,” Yang said.

“We are encouraged by the expansion of legal avenues for those who have fled countries where people are enduring incredible hardship.

“However, such processes should not be paired with new restrictions on asylum for those with no other avenue for protection under current U.S. law but for reaching the U.S. border to seek asylum. We urge President Biden to work with Congress to develop a pathway forward that both protects our nation’s borders and respects the dignity and value of all human life, especially those who are vulnerable.”

‘Significant concerns’ voiced

Similarly, Jennie Murray, president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, applauded some of Biden’s announcements while voicing serious concern about others.

“Increasing the use of humanitarian parole will help contribute to a more orderly process at the border, as will expanded legal alternatives for those seeking humanitarian protection. We also are glad to see more resources and personnel being put in place to improve border processing,” Murray said.

“We have significant concerns as well. The proposed rulemaking that would implement a transit ban for many traveling through third countries is extremely problematic, as is the continued reliance on Title 42. People of limited means will continue to have difficulty accessing humanitarian parole, as has been the case for Venezuelans. We also hope the administration will consider increasing the cap on humanitarian parole visas if circumstances warrant it.

“Ultimately, the president and Congress still need to work together to adopt much-needed immigration reforms—including, but not limited to, the border—to solve the challenges we face.”

Mary J. Novak, executive director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, offered tempered praise for some of Biden’s announced policy changes, along with expression of disappointment regarding others.

“We welcome President Biden’s words about ending prejudice against immigrants and his support for the organizations and border communities serving immigrants. However, we are deeply disappointed that the Biden administration continues to choose failed border policies over just, humane policies that welcome our neighbors seeking safety,” Novak said.

“It is unacceptable to pair what is in effect an asylum ban with a limited, inadequate, stop-gap measure like humanitarian parole. People have the right to seek asylum, regardless of their nationality. As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor without distinction. Following today’s disappointing announcement of more expedited removals and a third-country transit ban, we commit to renewed advocacy for border policies that affirm every person’s inherent worth and dignity and uphold their human rights.”

‘Misguided and cruel’

Enhanced enforcement will restrict the legal rights of migrants facing danger to seek asylum in the United States, said Pedro Rios, director of the U.S.-Mexico border program for the American Friends Service Committee.

 “The administration is expanding the use of Title 42, which is an archaic public health order that empowers Border Patrol agents to expel migrants without recognizing their right to seek asylum under U.S. and international law, and further expedite their removal,” Rios said.

“We strongly believe that an enforcement approach in response to people seeking safety is misguided and cruel, and will only exacerbate the precarious conditions that endanger the lives of those seeking safe harbor. We urge the Biden administration to re-prioritize its approach by centering policies on the human rights of migrants seeking asylum in the United States.”

Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, was even more pointed in criticizing the Biden policy announcements.

“The expansion of Title 42 to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans is a broken promise,” Corbett said. “Rather than putting our country on a sure path to fully restoring asylum at the border, these new actions by the Biden administration entrench a dangerous, ineffective and inhumane policy where those in need of protection at the border are summarily expelled.

“The poor and vulnerable at our nation’s doorstep deserve more. Border communities will continue to work hard to pick up the broken pieces of our nation’s immigration system and show that our future lies not with expulsion and deportation, but with humanity and hope.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—“Christian nationalist” once summoned images of fiery extremists—stark racists concerned with keeping immigrants out of the United States or politicians who argued that the Ten Commandments ought to coexist in law with the Constitution.

Then came Jan. 6, and suddenly the term became a culture-war acid test: One member of Congress began selling “Proud Christian Nationalist” T-shirts, while Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas said if opposing abortion, transgender rights and illegal immigration made him a Christian nationalist, “count me in.”

For the record, sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry describe Christian nationalism as “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”

But not everyone who meets the definition claims the moniker “Christian nationalist,” and some who do are only barely recognizable as traditional Christians.

Here are six loose networks of faith leaders and followers who fit some part of the definition:

1. God-and-country conservatives

These largely unorganized faithful Americans are in many cases friends, family and neighbors who hold dear a vision of the country rooted in nostalgia for a past that is more aspirational than historical.

A recent Pew Research Center survey captured many of this group in the 45 percent of Americans who believe America should be a Christian nation, including 81 percent of white evangelicals, 67 percent of Black Protestants and 54 percent of nonevangelical Protestants. Almost half of Catholics (47 percent) also fall into this group, though Hispanic Catholics (36 percent) are less likely to do so than white Catholics (56 percent).

Only 16 percent of Jews think America should be a Christian nation, along with 17 percent of the unaffiliated and 7 percent of atheists and agnostics.

However, Pew found half of Americans (52 percent) said the federal government should never name any religion as the country’s official faith. Only 24 percent said the government should make Christianity America’s official religion.

2. Religious Right’s old guard

This subset of evangelical Christian culture warriors runs the gamut from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a Christian political lobbying organization, to Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Texas activist David Barton, who has long rejected the notion of the separation of church and state.

Mostly concerned with pushing anti-abortion and “family values” legislation, they advocate for a Christian influence in our existing politics.

While their heyday came under the Reagan administration, they can claim a new generation in such politicians as Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano and Colorado’s U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.

3. MAGA/QAnon

This summer Gen. Michael Flynn and Tennessee pastor Greg Locke drew large crowds as headliners for the “ReAwaken America Tour,” events that were part political rallies, part revival meetings.

Though this movement grew out of “Stop the Steal” Trumpism, the tour featured figures such as Sean Feucht, a worship leader who came to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic for his opposition to church closures, and often fused Christian nationalism with conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and globalism. Among their supporters are devotees of QAnon, who often claim the world is run by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophile Democrats.

4. The extremely online

Booted off of most social media platforms, the online wing of Christian nationalism seemed to have sunk into its own digital world until one of its leaders, the “America First” digital-only talk-show host Nick Fuentes, showed up with Kanye West at Donald Trump’s dinner table.

Known to spout antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric, these internet-based nationalists also include such figures as Andrew Torba, head of alternative social media website Gab who was briefly connected to Mastriano’s gubernatorial campaign. Torba recently published a book approving of Christian nationalism.

5. Trump prophets

If Trump’s 2024 reelection bid gains steam, you’ll likely be hearing from this mix of prosperity-gospel proponents and self-proclaimed prophets who believe Trump was ordained by God to be president.

Among the better known are Lance Wallnau, who predicted Trump’s 2016 election when the former president was still a long shot; South Carolina preacher Mark Burns; California megachurch pastor Che Ahn; and Mario Bramnick of New Wine Ministries Church in Cooper City, Fla.

Some of this group overlaps with the New Apostolic Reformation, a network of preachers who believe church leaders have been given spiritual authority over Christian nations and seek to develop ties with leaders abroad.

While allegiance to Trump has become a point of debate in the New Apostolic Reformation community, and some members have disavowed Christian nationalism, others, such as South Carolina pastor Dutch Sheets, who reportedly visited the White House hours before the attack on the Capitol, have stood by their prophecies.

The belief that the 2020 election results could be overturned by prayer and spiritual warfare connects the above with conservative commentators such as Michele Bachmann and Eric Metaxas. The latter, a former Trump critic, headlined a Jericho March event in the lead-up to the insurrection, emceeing an assembly that included addresses from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Flynn and Stewart Rhodes, founder of the far-right militia group Oath Keepers.

6. Patriots and theocrats

Since Jan. 6, members of the chauvinist group Proud Boys, which only began displaying Christian nationalist tendencies in the lead-up to the insurrection, have increasingly added prayer and other religious expressions to their ethic of patriotism and hypermasculinity.

In Idaho, there are signs that some members of the Patriot Front who were arrested in June for allegedly planning to riot at a Coeur d’Alene Pride event have shown connections to pastor and former Washington state lawmaker Matt Shea, a right-wing firebrand who has touted a document titled “Biblical Basis for War.”

Religion News Service national correspondent Jack Jenkins contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The religious makeup of the new Congress bucks the trends seen in American religious life, a new report finds.

The Pew Research Center says the Senate and House members are “largely untouched” by the continuing decrease in the portion of Americans who identify as Christian and the comparable increase in the share of those who say they do not have a religious affiliation.

Christians comprise 88 percent of the voting members of the 118th Congress who are expected to be sworn in this week, a number that has not changed much since the 1970s, when 91 percent of members said they were Christian.

The American population, on the other hand, has seen a drop in those identifying as Christians, from 78 percent in 2007 to 63 percent currently. Close to 3 in 10 Americans (29 percent) say they are religiously unaffiliated—atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”—a far larger portion than 16 percent in 2007.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent from Arizona, remains the only member of the new Congress who uses the description of religiously unaffiliated. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., described himself as humanist. Huffman also said he was “the token humanist in Congress” when he spoke via videotaped remarks to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s annual convention in October.

Another 20 members are listed as having no known religious affiliations. Most of them declined to state an affiliation when asked by CQ Roll Call, whose data is the primary source of analysis for the Pew biennial report.

The “Faith on the Hill” report noted that Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., was “moved to this category following revelations that he misrepresented parts of his life story and resume during his 2022 midterm campaign.”

The number of Christians—469—within the new Congress does mark the lowest number since Pew began its analysis of religious affiliation of the 111th Congress at the beginning of the 2009-10 session. But just by a hair. The number of Christians in Congress was above 470 in the eight most recent sessions and exceeded 500 as of 1970.

Overall, the 118th Congress looks similar to the previous body when comparing the two religiously.

Of the 534 total congressional members, 303 Protestants are being sworn in for the 2023-24 session, compared to 297 in the one that just ended. The number of Baptists remained the same—at 67—while the number of Methodists and Episcopalians dropped by four each. Presbyterians had one fewer member.

Catholics saw a drop of 10, with a new total of 148, but still comprise a greater share of Congress (28 percent) than they do the overall U.S. population (21 percent).

The members of Congress aligned with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon church, remained unchanged at nine. And the number of Orthodox Christians increased by one to eight. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is the sole member of the new Congress who identifies herself as Messianic Jewish; she has also described herself as a Christian.

The number of Jews decreased by one to 33 members, and all three Muslims and two Hindus were reelected in the House, as well as all three members who identify as Unitarian Universalist.

Other findings:

• Both chambers are dominated by Christians numerically.
• Almost all Republicans—268 out of 271—and three quarters of Democrats—201 of 263—identify themselves as Christians.
• All nine members of Congress who are Mormons are Republicans, while Orthodox Christians are evenly split, with four from each major political party.
• Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of newcomers to Congress are Protestant; a bit more than half (55 percent) of incumbents identify with that branch of Christianity.
• There are fewer Catholic first-timers than returning members of Congress (22 percent compared with 29 percent).

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Jessie Johnson, teaching pastor at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Va., rejects the idea of a Christian nation.

“The government doesn’t establish churches nor should it,” he said.

But Johnson also believes the Pilgrims who landed in Plymouth, Mass., in 1620 were on the right track when they made a covenant with God to establish a Christian society.

“There has to be a moral compass for society,” he added.

Because Johnson and his wife believe American public schools lack that compass, they homeschool their three children.

A movement that originated among educators on the left in the 1970s, homeschooling was increasingly adopted through the 1980s and 1990s by conservative Christian families seeking to instill traditional values in their children and protect them from an increasingly secularized public school system.

The homeschooling population consistently hovered at around 2 million students since then—a little more than 3 percent of the national student body—until the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered in-person school and forced children into Zoom classrooms.

In September 2020, six months into the pandemic, the U.S. Census Bureau reported the share of homeschooled children had shot up to 11 percent of households. With the escalated numbers has come increased attention to homeschooling.

Debates, meanwhile, have arisen over what children are being taught about American history, partly in response to the 1619 Project, a recounting of U.S. history that stresses the story of Black America, beginning with the arrival of the first slaves.

Culture war led to politically charged curriculum

The surrounding culture war picked up on the controversy, resulting in book bans and accusations that teachers are instructing elementary students using a legal and academic framework known as critical race theory.

These controversies have prompted the release of new, politically charged homeschool curricula such as Turning Point Academy, a product engineered by pro-Trump talk show host Charlie Kirk that promises to deliver an “America-first education.”

Another, the Christendom Curriculum, touts itself as “America’s only Christian Nationalist homeschool curriculum” and includes “battle papers” that tell children how to argue with the liberals who supposedly hate white Christians.

Some of these programs have tiny reach—Christendom Curriculum only had 100 current subscribers as of September. But critics of religious homeschooling say the same Christian nationalist messages, if not the same partisan divisions, have been present in the most popular and long-established curriculums used by Christian parents.

“The ideology has been taking root for at least a generation,” said Doug Pagitt, an evangelical pastor in Minnesota and executive director of Vote the Common Good, a progressive voting-rights organization. Christian nationalist ideas are “all over the place” in Christian education companies’ materials, Pagitt said.

“It’s in there in theology. It’s in there in history. It’s in there in current events,” he said.

Some of the most popular homeschool curriculum textbooks, produced by publishing giants Abeka, Accelerated Christian Education and Bob Jones University Press, teach that the first Europeans to arrive in Virginia and Massachusetts made a covenant with God to Christianize the land.

The History of the United States in Christian Perspective, a textbook from Abeka, promises students: “You will learn how God blessed America because of the principles (truths) for which America stands.”

Those truths made America “the greatest nation on the face of the earth,” the book says, before issuing a warning: “No nation can remain great without God’s blessing.”

Homeschooling texts stress American exceptionalism

These companies’ books offer students an “unproblematic and unquestionably exceptional America,” said Kathleen Wellman, professor of history at Southern Methodist University and author of Hijacking History: How the Christian Right Teaches History and Why It Matters, in a column for RNS.

Abeka’s history injects conservative values into more recent history as well, noting that, “since the 1960s, decisions of the Supreme Court and other judges have contributed to the moral decline of our country.”

Abeka, ACE and BJU Press declined to comment to RNS.

The Abeka curriculum was born at Pensacola Christian Academy, a K-12 school on Florida’s panhandle founded in 1954. Working initially from outdated public school textbooks, the school’s Southern Baptist founders, Arlin and Rebekah Horton, began publishing their textbooks in 1972 to supply the Christian schools that had proliferated after Supreme Court rulings ended segregation in public education and banned religious expression in the classroom.

Today, Pensacola Christian Academy’s website boasts every class is taught from a biblical perspective, and science instructors are explicit about “God’s wonderful design,” but students also learn the basic principles of chemistry and dissect frogs, much as secular students do.

‘Nationalist propaganda’

It is in the humanities, especially history, that former PCA students say they were indoctrinated into a form of Christian triumphalism, in which American society was at its best when it hewed to Christian faith.

 “It was just pure propaganda—nationalist propaganda,” said Tyler Burns, a graduate of Pensacola Christian Academy. Former Republican President Ronald Reagan was treated as practically the “fourth member of the Godhead,” Burns recalled.

An African American, Burns remembers feeling disoriented while being taught slavery was a “blessing in disguise” for introducing enslaved Africans to Christianity. Burns, now president of The Witness: A Black Christian Collective, has spoken extensively about the ways Christian education affected his ability to embrace his Black identity.

The white supremacist ideas that dismayed Burns can be found in Abeka’s home history curriculum as well. It implies that Southern land owners had little choice but to buy slaves to keep up with the demand of raising cotton and tobacco.

“The Southern planter could never hire enough people to get his work done,” it reads, noting at the same time that “only one out of 10 Southerners owned slaves.”

Some parents design personalized reading lists

In practice many homeschooling parents fashion their own reading lists to suit their views or their children’s abilities. Stephanie Rotramel, who has homeschooled her three children off and on since her oldest, now 17, was in preschool, said homeschooling allows her flexibility to meet specific educational needs.

This year, as her kids head back to school at home, she’s using mostly Christian curricula, though none of the ones mentioned in this article. She wants to expose her kids to diverse perspectives, though, and plans to supplement the curricula with YouTube videos from Trevor Noah and with a “year of nontraditional lit”—books such as Everything Sad Is Untrue by Daniel Nayeri and I Am Malala by the Pakistani education activist.

She doesn’t see giving a warts-and-all account of the country’s history while sharing a Christian worldview with her children as contradictory.

Rotramel said, as a Christian, she sees America as a place “full of sinners who need Jesus.” That includes the Founding Fathers. It includes Ronald Reagan, too.

“I feel like that’s the message of the Bible,” she said. “We’re all messed up. We need Jesus.”

Jessie Johnson agrees. He said he and his wife try to teach their children about the ways the United States has fallen short of the values of Christianity, in particular when it comes to race.

So, while the Johnsons have their children read the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims’ charter for their new society that would honor the glory of God and the “advancement of the Christian faith,” the family has traveled to Charleston, S.C., to study the history of slavery and have made repeated trips to the Manassas National Battlefield Park, not far from where they now make their home, where two major Civil War battles were fought.

“We know whose side we are on,” said Johnson, adding that slavery violated the Christian ideal that all people are made in God’s image—a founding American principle, he said.

Some curriculum providers revise materials

The drumbeat of white supremacy and Christian nationalism in the past few years has also convinced some conservative Christian curriculum writers that they should revise their materials.

Charlene Notgrass, who runs Notgrass History with her husband, Ray, a retired pastor, from their home in Tennessee, has been writing U.S. history and civics lessons for Christian homeschool families since the early 1990s.

 At the time, most homeschoolers were either “conservative Christians or hippies,” said Charlene, 68. Most of the early homeschool textbooks reflected that.

Today, they say, homeschooling is more diverse—both politically and ethnically. The couple said they’ve had to keep learning about overlooked parts of history and to reflect that new knowledge in their products.

In 2020, amid the George Floyd protests and a contested election, Charlene Notgrass finished a new revision of America the Beautiful, their high school history text.

“Too often,” it reads, “people have not believed that we are all equally valuable creations of God. Therefore, sometimes people treat people who are different from themselves—in skin color, in nationality, in political party, in the amount of money they have—as less valuable.

“No two Americans are likely ever to think exactly alike about everything,” it concludes, “but we still must respect each other.”

The Notgrasses describe themselves as “patriotic Americans” and want students who read their lessons to love their country, but they also want them to know the truth.

“We don’t think Americans are God’s chosen people, the way the Israelites are God’s chosen people,” said Charlene Notgrass. “The Bible tells us point-blank that God chose the Israelites. It does not tell us point-blank that God chose America.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Faith leaders joined members of Congress on Capitol Hill Dec. 15 to voice support for the expansion of the child tax credit, urging lawmakers to reinstate a broader version of the anti-poverty benefit before the end of the year.

“For many of us, this is a season of miracles—the miracle of Jesus’ birth, the miracle of Hanukkah,” said Abibat Rahman-Davies of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group. “But expanding the [child tax credit]? That shouldn’t take a miracle.”

The event was part of a sustained advocacy push by a group of faith leaders from across the theological spectrum who joined forces to push for lawmakers to embrace an expanded version of the credit that helps combat child poverty.

Earlier this year, the group published an advertisement in Politico Magazine and sent a letter to all 535 members of Congress and to the White House asking them to make the child tax credit “fully refundable and available to low-income families on a permanent basis.”

Lawmakers allowed the expanded version of the credit, which was created as part of the American Rescue Plan, to expire last year, sparking frustration among anti-poverty advocates. Members are currently wrangling over competing last-minute proposals put forward by both parties in hopes of passing something as part of an omnibus bill before the end of the year.

Rep. Rosa Luisa DeLauro of Connecticut, who has often invoked her Catholic faith in policy discussions, voiced passionate support for an expanded version during Thursday’s event.

“I’m so proud of being a part of a living Catholic tradition,” DeLauro said. “A tradition that unfailingly promotes the common good, expresses a consistent model framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net for our community’s most vulnerable—and that includes our children.”

DeLauro appeared to reference proposals floated by some Democrats that include tax breaks for businesses in an attempt to accrue Republican support.

“If we can provide tax cuts for America’s corporations, we can certainly provide a tax cut for America’s kids,” she said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Lutheran, tied his support for the credit to Matthew 25, a Bible passage in which Jesus says when his followers care for the sick and feed the hungry, they are caring for him.

Brown said he was once given a Poverty and Justice Bible, and noted how its translation of the passage’s final line—“What you did for those who seem less important, you did for me”—resonated with his faith.

“It’s so clear that that’s our calling,” said Brown, an Ohio Democrat.

People impacted by the child tax credit also addressed the gathering, explaining how the credit benefited their families. Rabbi Jonah Pesner offered a prayer, asking God to forgive the United States for a “year of suffering of our children” because of the expired credit.

The expanded version of the credit allowed families to receive as much as $3,600 per child in 2021, a marked increase over the previous $2,000-per-child payments. Advocates argue the increase made a significant difference to struggling families, and that its disappearance resulted in dire consequences. Researchers at Columbia University found that child poverty increased 41 percent a month after the credit expired.

The event included the voices of theologically conservative evangelicals.

“It is an important time to speak up,” said Eugene Cho, an evangelical pastor and head of the anti-poverty group Bread for the World. “If you ask us why we should speak up, I can think of 12 million reasons,” he added, referring to the millions of children who struggle with poverty.

Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, also addressed the gathering. He argued the credit resonates with his group’s religious commitments, such as “safeguarding the sanctity of human life.”

“For those who are concerned about the sanctity of human life and protecting the unborn child, the child tax credit provides welcome reassurance to expectant moms and dads who wonder if they could afford to raise a child,” Carey said.

“It tells them that they’re not alone. And that if they choose life, they will not have to shoulder the costs and burdens of parenting on their own.”

He was echoed by Steffani Thomas of the Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

“As a woman of faith, I am guided by the scripture that I consider which policies will allow the largest number of God’s children to thrive, have self-determination and opportunities,” she said.

In addition to the Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice—whose executive director, Mary Novak, offered the closing prayer—other groups that sponsored the event included the National Council of Jewish Women, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Jewish Federations of North America, National Council of Churches, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference.

Before she left, DeLauro repeatedly urged faith leaders to mobilize their networks, calling on them to “overwhelm the Senate and overwhelm the White House” with calls from supporters.

“Congress is an institution that responds to internal pressure,” she said.

President Joe Biden signed into law Dec. 13 a measure mandating federal protection for same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. It also grants federal recognition to interracial marriage.

The law does not require states to legalize same-sex marriage, but it mandates states to recognize such unions if they take place in a jurisdiction where they are legal.

It provides legal protection for same-sex marriage even if the Supreme Court at some point overturns the landmark Obergefell v. Hodge ruling, which granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 258-169 on Dec. 8 to give final approval to the amended Respect for Marriage Act. A few days earlier, the Senate approved a version of the bill amended to include religious liberty protections.

The amended version of the Respect for Marriage Act includes language saying nothing in the bill “shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection” available under the U.S. Constitution.

The amended bill—which passed with bipartisan support—states: “Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”

It specifically says churches and other nonprofit organizations will not be required to provide same-sex marriage ceremonies. It also states it does not “require or authorize” federal recognition of polygamous marriage.

The bill grants private individuals, as well as the U.S. attorney general, authority to bring civil action in federal court against anyone who violates its protections.

Faith-based groups that supported the amendments that added religious liberty protections to the Respect for Marriage Act included the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Some religious groups voice objections

The Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, and its president, Brent Leatherwood, expressed disappointment the bill had become law.

“Since our work opposing this bill began in July, the ERLC has remained consistently clear: Marriage is an institution that cannot be defined by the government. God has intentionally established it as a life-long, covenantal union between one man and one woman for the purpose of human flourishing,” Leatherwood told Baptist Press.

“Unfortunately, now that this act has become law, more people will be led astray and deceived by the false promises of the sexual revolution. We are prepared to meet these challenges and continue our advocacy to ensure that people of faith are able to hold to their most fundamental beliefs about marriage and sexuality in the public square.”

Ryan Bangert, senior vice president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, asserted the Respect for Marriage Act represented “blatant hostility against people of faith.”

“The First Amendment protects every American, including the many millions of us who hold decent and honorable beliefs about marriage. The president and Congress have intentionally threatened free speech and religious liberty with enactment of the ‘Respect for Marriage Act,’ continuing a pattern of blatant hostility against people of faith,” Bangert said.

“Sadly, the president chose virtue-signaling over protecting millions of Americans, churches and faith-based organizations that spoke out for months about the undeniable harms of this unnecessary bill. This law is a solution in search of a problem that provides no additional protection or benefits to same-sex couples. However, it does undermine the constitutional freedoms that belong to each of us.”

In addition to the ERLC and the Alliance Defending Freedom, other groups that remained opposed to the amended Respect for Marriage Act included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Religious Freedom Institute and the Family Research Council.

In a recent “Respecting Religion” podcast, Holly Hollman, general counsel and associate executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, rejected the premise that expanding the rights of some necessarily endangers the rights of others.

 “What we see in this debate is that there is still a powerful temptation to equate rights for others, for LGBTQ people, as an attack on religious liberty, and that’s disheartening,” Hollman said.

“The rights recognized by marriage equality should not be perceived as taking away religious beliefs or the way religious marriages are performed or recognized in any religious tradition, religious congregation or other religious entities.”

Christian nationalism “provides cover” for white supremacy by offering racists a veneer of respectability, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, told a Congressional hearing.

“Understanding Christian nationalism is imperative to both dismantling white supremacy and preserving religious freedom for all,” Tyler said.

Christian nationalist ideology represents “a gross distortion of the Christian faith” that seeks “to merge American and Christian identity,” she explained to members of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

“The ‘Christian’ in Christian nationalism is more about ethno-national identity than about religion,” Tyler told a Dec. 13 hearing on “Confronting White Supremacy: The Evolution of Anti-democratic Extremist Groups and the Ongoing Threat to Democracy.”

“Christian nationalism uses the language, symbols and imagery of Christianity—in fact, it may look and sound like Christianity to the casual observer. However, closer examination reveals that it uses the veneer of Christianity to point not to Jesus the Christ but to a political figure, party or ideology,” she said.

“Christian nationalism often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. It creates and perpetuates a sense of cultural belonging that is limited to certain people associated with the founding of the United States, namely native-born white Christians.”

Tyler took issue with what she called “the Christian nation myth” that ignores people of color and religious minorities in favor of “the false narrative that the U.S. is special because it was founded by and for white Christians.”

The “myth of a Christian nation” and the merging of Christian and American identity directly contradict Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious tests for public office, she noted.

Concern about attacks on houses of worship

“As a Baptist, I became a leader in the fight against Christian nationalism because of my increasing alarm about the violence it has inspired at our country’s houses of worship,” Tyler said.

She pointed to attacks on Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.; Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh; Pa.; and Chabad of Poway near San Diego, Calif.

She also noted how “Christian nationalism inspired white supremacist violence in public spaces,” such as the attack on Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y.

“Christian nationalism helped fuel the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, uniting disparate actors and infusing their political cause with religious fervor,” she added.

Tyler urged members of the Congressional committee to reject the notion that confronting Christian nationalism is anti-Christian.

“All across this country, Christians are deeply alarmed by this [Christian Nationalist] ideology—especially the way it gives an illusion of respectability to white supremacy and undermines our nation’s foundational commitment to ensure religious freedom for all,” she said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked Tyler why Baptists historically have championed religious freedom.

“It really goes back to the beginning of the Baptist movement in the early 17th century and Thomas Helwys, who wrote the first defense of universal religious freedom in the English language and was imprisoned by King James I for his advocacy,” she explained.

From Helwys to Roger Williams, founding pastor of the First Baptist Church of Providence, R.I., to the BJC, the common thread is a “theological commitment to soul freedom and our living out of Jesus’ command to love our neighbor as ourselves,” she said.

“We protect the religious freedom of our neighbors as we protect our own religious freedom,” she said. “And we do it in our constitutional democracy by defending the First Amendment.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A church choir sang. Marine Band members played. And the president of the United States pressed a button to light the first National Christmas Tree under the gaze of thousands of onlookers on Christmas Eve 1923.

For 100 years, the tree has represented a symbol of civil religion as Americans mark the Christmas season.

On Nov. 30, President Joe Biden did the honors just as President Calvin Coolidge did at that first lighting, and contemporary gospel singer Yolanda Adams sang for the crowds gathered on the Ellipse in the shadow of the White House.

Though the tree was not lit from 1942 to 1944—due to the Second World War—it is the second-oldest White House tradition, after the Easter Egg Roll, which began in 1878.

“A hundred years is a fairly significant milestone to reach for consistently practicing a tradition,” said Matthew Costello, senior historian of the nonprofit White House Historical Association. “This is really part of the customs and the traditions of the White House and living in the White House.”

Whether the tree will continue as a symbol of civil religion—a Christian tradition but also a generic celebration of the holiday known for Santa and reindeer—is an open question, said Boston University professor of religion Stephen Prothero. In the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the tree’s intersection of politics and religion may be seen as too fraught.

“At this point, these Christian symbols in the public square feel very different to me and to many other Americans, than they have in the past,” he said. “And that’s precisely because of the increasing power of white Christian nationalism in American society.”

Already, the tree can seem like a relic of an America that is now past.

“You would think, based on separation of church and state, that the federal government wouldn’t get into the Christmas tree business, but we have been doing these kinds of things for a long time,” Prothero said.

But the tree has always been part of America’s balancing act of alternately welcoming or rejecting religion in the public square.

“It used to be that there was a kind of a gentleman’s agreement—and I say, gentleman on purpose, because it was men who were making this agreement. And the agreement was that you could have religious symbols in the public space, but that they would have to be generic, that they wouldn’t be explicitly Christian,” Prothero said.

Five facts about the National Christmas Tree

1. It’s been a place for God-talk by Democrats and Republicans.

In 1940, before the United States entered the conflict in Europe, Franklin D. Roosevelt used the tree lighting to condemn the war, referring to the Beatitudes of Christ, and urging “belligerent nations to read the Sermon on the Mount,” a National Park Service timeline notes.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan offered a different interpretation of the holiday. “For some Christmas just marks the birth of a great philosopher and prophet, a great and good man,” he said. “To others, it marks something still more: the pinnacle of all history, the moment when the God of all creation—in the words of the creed, God from God and light from light—humbled himself to become a baby crying in a manger.”

More recently, Barack Obama, referring to baby Jesus, said at a 2010 ceremony that “while this story may be a Christian one, its lesson is universal.”

Donald Trump said in 2017 that the “Christmas story begins 2,000 years ago with a mother, a father, their baby son, and the most extraordinary gift of all, the gift of God’s love for all of humanity.”

2. The Christmas tree was joined by other symbols of faith.

At times, there has been a Nativity with life-sized figures near the National Christmas Tree. An Islamic star-and-crescent symbol also made a 1997 appearance on the National Mall not far from the White House, but it was vandalized, losing its star.

“This year for the first time, an Islamic symbol was displayed along with the National Christmas Tree and the menorah,” said President Bill Clinton that year in a statement. “The desecration of that symbol is the embodiment of intolerance that strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American.”

A public menorah first appeared near the White House in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter walked to the ceremony in Lafayette Park. The candelabra moved to a location on the Ellipse in 1987, and a 30-foot National Menorah has continued to be lit annually as a project of American Friends of Lubavitch.

3. Its lighting continued amid difficult times.

Roosevelt lit the tree weeks after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill standing behind him.

After the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his successor waited until a 30-day mourning period was over before lighting the tree. “Today we come to the end of a season of great national sorrow, and to the beginning of the season of great, eternal joy,” said Lyndon Johnson on Dec. 22 of that year.

A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush rode in a motorcade to the nearby Ellipse for the ceremony.

Costello contrasted these “people-oriented” instances to the more “policy-oriented” rhetoric of State of the Union speeches.

“We see after these moments of national catastrophe, disaster, tragedy, where this can be a really uplifting time for presidents to deliver a message directly to the American people, to remind them about what the season is all about, but also forward-looking,” he said.

4. While it’s kept its name, others have switched to ‘holiday.’

The neighboring Capitol Christmas Tree was a Capitol Holiday Tree for a time. It reverted back to the “Christmas” title in 2005.

“The speaker believes a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, and it is as simple as that,” Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, told The Washington Times that year.

Matthew Evans, then landscape architect of the U.S. Capitol, told Religion News Service in 2001 the tree is “intended for people of all faiths to gather round at a time of coming together and fellowship and celebration.”

Around that time, some state capitols and statehouses also opted to name their pines, firs and spruces “holiday trees” instead. But the National Christmas Tree has retained its longtime imprimatur.

5. The tree ceremony is really about kids.

An ailing 7-year-old girl asked that President Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan grant her “Make a Wish” program request that she join them for the tree lighting in 1983.

“The Christmas tree that lights up for our country must be seen all the way to heaven,” Amy Bentham wrote to the program, according to the U.S. National Park Service website. “I would wish so much to help the President turn on those Christmas lights.”

The Reagans granted her wish.

“The bottom line is what the president says and does, it matters; obviously, people listen,” Costello said. “But really, this is about kids, it’s about children and sort of the magical time of the year. And that was just one example, I think, that was especially poignant about why the ceremony matters.”