(RNS) — On April 29, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map that included two majority Black districts constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This decision will likely go far in resegregating the U.S. Congress. It was yet another court ruling undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rendering it virtually meaningless. In fact, columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote in The New York Times that this decision might facilitate “the largest reduction in Black representation at the federal and state levels since the end of Reconstruction.”

Indeed, historian Jemar Tisby responded by saying, “We are living through the Civil Rights movement of our day.” He cautions Christians not to miss the historical moment in which we live. 

The era between Reconstruction and Jim Crow 

After the Civil War (1861-1865), the Reconstruction period (1865-1877) provided protections for the rights of Black people never seen before in the country. But in 1877, those rights crumbled and would not be regained for nearly a century, in the mid-1960s when civil rights and voting rights were finally guaranteed nationwide. The dark period of Jim Crow segregation laws is sometimes referred to as American apartheid. 

However, I think we need a term for the period in between Reconstruction ending and the onslaught of Jim Crow implementation by the Southern states — a period facilitated by Supreme Court decisions. During this era, the Supreme Court issued several decisions that adopted a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment (1868) and the 15th Amendment (1870), which had been added to protect Black persons after slavery. The effect of the court’s decisions was to limit federal efforts to enforce those protections while ceding control to white Southerners to dismantle Black political participation and civil rights.

What followed Reconstruction was a white backlash that virtually wiped out the gains from the Civil War. A political compromise permitted states to limit Black rights to the point of virtually no political rights. 

We need to name the backlash era because it is occurring again today. Slowly but steadily, the hard-won gains of the civil rights era are being eroded by political pandering to white anxiety in the midst of growing diversity. And that movement is aided by a Supreme Court apparently so out of touch with the racial dynamics of this nation’s history that they fail to see what looks obvious to many others. Otherwise, why would a series of Southern states move immediately after the decision to redo their congressional district lines, with the result of eliminating people of color from their congressional delegations?

Religious leaders and the Voting Rights Act 

Religious leaders were intimately involved in the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Bill of 1965. Most observers credit their efforts with some of the critical influence in securing the votes necessary for passage. As it turned out, Republican votes were essential for passage. Those working for passage came to realize that it was religious groups that had connections with Republicans that other groups, such as labor groups, did not. This became the high point for religious influence on national legislation in recent eras.

These commitments to civil rights continue today and are reflected in some immediate actions after the Supreme Court issued its opinion. In my denomination, the United Methodist Church, two agencies, the General Board of Church and Society and the General Commission on Religion and Race, issued a joint statement: 

“After decades of historically protected equitable political representation,” they said, “the Court’s decision exposes Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities to renewed disenfranchisement. The potential loss of districts and voices from people of color that have been meaningfully represented, is a direct threat to a fair and equitable Democracy.” 

They went on to say that “the Voting Rights Act is a testament to the courage of those who marched, prayed, and organized for a more just democracy.” 

The GOP was for the minority districts they now are disbanding 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965. In 1982, Congress passed an amendment prohibiting the drawing of electoral boundaries or the use of other electoral devices that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. In 1986, the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles concluded that “unlawful dilution of the voting strength of racial minorities may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority.” This led the Reagan Department of Justice to mandate the drawing of minority-majority districts in a state whenever voter dilution was in question.

Instead of seeing this as a threat, Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich saw that if people of color could be “packed” into a few districts, then the other districts in the South were more likely to elect Republicans since Southern whites were increasingly voting Republican. The result was an increase in both people of color representatives and Republican representatives. This was one factor in Republicans winning the House majority in 1994 for the first time in almost 40 years.

So in 1992, 12 new Black members of Congress from the South were elected, bringing the Black House membership to 38 from 26. For most of the 12, they were the first Black representatives from their states since Reconstruction. Now the GOP is rushing to undo a system that served it well in the 1990s. The results could be risky, but the intent is clear. 

There continues to be a concentration of Blacks in the South, where over 50% of the Black population lives. This is precisely where state legislatures are already meeting to restructure congressional districts to eliminate Black representation. They claim that the action is strictly political with no reference to race, but that is not credible. In 1967, after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Robert Clark Jr. became the first Black lawmaker elected to the Mississippi Legislature since Reconstruction. He served until 2004. His son, and successor in the Legislature, said that claiming actions are political and not racial in Mississippi makes no sense when most Black voters are Democrats and most white voters are Republicans. “The two are often indistinguishable,” he said.

A Christian challenge 

Christians are called to approach public issues from a different perspective than many advocacy groups. We seek not special treatment or advantage but rather the common good. Methodists seek to follow John Wesley’s example. He offered spiritual and religious reasons for Methodist behavior, but when he approached public officials, he cited the public interest at stake in any actions sought. He strived for what was best for all the people. 

Ethicist Walter Muelder once said that “the message of Christianity should throw a searchlight on the actual facts of the existing situation and reveal the concrete consequences of political behavior.” This is a time when public officials need to see this big picture and how their actions will impact the lives of so many others. Christians are called today to point the searchlight.

(Lovett H. Weems Jr. is the Distinguished Professor of Church Leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., and the author, most recently, of “An Aura of Hope: United Methodism’s Next Chapter in the United States.” A version of this article first appeared on his Substack newsletter, United Methodist Focus. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)