News

The Churches That Fought for Due Process

An Ecuadorian immigrant with legal status fell into a detention “black hole.” Church leaders across the country tried to pull him out.

Detainees are transferred to an ICE facility during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Chicago on October of 2025.

Getty

Manuel Mayllazhungo had been detained in upstate New York for a little over a week when ICE officers told him he was being transferred south, to a facility in Louisiana.

Louisiana, Mayllazhungo had heard, was usually a detainee’s final glimpse of America.

The 37-year-old Ecuadorian man shuffled, irons on his wrists and ankles, into a room where guards began processing him to be transported. They searched him and rifled through his pockets.

When a guard pulled out a scrap of paper containing a list of hand-scrawled phone numbers, Mayllazhungo told him he needed it. “That’s the number for my lawyer,” he said. “I need to communicate with her.”

“That won’t help you anymore,” the guard responded. “You’re going to your country. You don’t exist anymore in this country.”

Then, according to Mayllazhungo, who shared his account over the phone in Spanish, the guard dropped the scrap of paper into a trash can.

Mayllazhungo had been taken on July 11, 2025, on his way to a roofing job near Buffalo. He and a coworker were parked in a white Chevy van outside an apartment, waiting to pick up another roofer, when masked immigration agents—Mayllazhungo guesses 10 in all—surrounded them. They told him to exit the vehicle or they would break his window and drag him out.

As an agent twisted his arm behind his back and snapped on handcuffs, Mayllazhungo tried to understand why he was being detained. He had a driver’s license. He had a pending U visa, a special status granted to immigrants who are victims of violent crimes and are aiding police investigations. That status came with permission to work and, supposedly, protection against deportation.

Mayllazhungo was no bad guy, he thought. On the contrary, he’d been the victim of assault and robbery—much of his life savings was stolen by men he alleges were United States citizens.

“Here is my work permit,” Mayllazhungo said to an agent who was arresting him. “And he told me, ‘I don’t care.’ They told us, ‘You are criminals.’”

Now, after days in detention, Mayllazhungo had only his partner’s phone number. He knew it by memory. He called María to tell her they were sending him away.

But how much could she help? María, whose last name CT is withholding, spoke limited English and Spanish—her first language was Quichua, same as his. She was undocumented and could not even drive.

For all Mayllazhungo knew, he was falling into a pit where the only exit was Ecuador.

The man had entered federal detention six months into an unprecedented scaling back of due process protections for migrants in the United States. The Trump administration, in its determination to refashion immigration policy, was arguing that detainees are not entitled to challenge their removals before a judge, an assertion the Supreme Court has repeatedly said runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also asserted it could deport immigrants with less than a day’s notice, a claim judges have viewed skeptically as a thinly veiled attempt to deprive them of their constitutional right to appeal.

But federal leaders were also circumventing due process in much quieter ways. Though Immigration and Customs Enforcement says that it permits detainees access to legal counsel, the agency has made it increasingly difficult for migrants in some detention centers to connect with the outside world. Such practices are at the heart of lawsuits against DHS alleging mistreatment at an ICE facility near Chicago and at another in Minneapolis.

“It’s always been challenging when someone’s detained,” said Mayllazhungo’s lawyer, Tina Colón Williams. “But it’s never been like this. This is the new era of barriers in communicating with clients and the new era of speed and swiftness in removal.”

As she struggled to reach Mayllazhungo, Williams eventually tried a strategy completely new for her. While he waited to board a flight to Louisiana, she mobilized individuals from four churches across the country to try to free him.

Williams was fresh off maternity leave when ICE arrested Mayllazhungo. His 17-year-old son called her with the news.

Already juggling the demands of being a pastor’s wife and worship leader at her church in New Haven, Connecticut, Williams, a mother of three, was catching up on all the dizzying ways US immigration law had changed while she was out of the game for three months in early 2025.

Williams’s firm, Esperanza Law, specializes in removal defense—representing clients the government intends to deport. Mayllazhungo had first come to the firm for help with a removal order he’d incurred as a teenager after he missed a 2005 immigration hearing. The piece of mail notifying him about the hearing had been sent to the wrong address, so he never saw it. Complicating Mayllazhungo’s current case was the fact that he had also been robbed. He was working with police to identify suspects, so the firm helped him apply for a U visa.

“It’s an incredibly powerful kind of visa,” Williams said. It can erase outstanding removal orders and qualify recipients for a green card. “It’s really helpful to law enforcement to have something like that so people can report crime and criminals can be held accountable.”

The government issues only a limited number of U visas each year, however; the wait to receive one can stretch more than a decade. Qualified applicants like Mayllazhungo receive a preliminary approval—called a “bona fide determination”—that allows them to work while they wait. That generally protects them from deportation.

After Mayllazhungo entered detention, Williams tried to contact the ICE officer assigned to his case and explain his situation. It would be okay, she thought. She’d seen this play out plenty of times.

Years ago, on her very first day at the law firm, she had approached some ICE officers to talk about a client who was about to board a deportation flight. The client was the victim of a crime and was applying for a U visa, she told them. Would they release the client while the visa was pending?

The officers argued against it but eventually sympathized. “It was like, ‘Okay, fine. We’ll give you time,’ ” Williams said.

In another instance, a client suffered a crime, and the day before a deportation hearing, the judge on the case ordered: Shut down the whole thing and don’t move forward with the removal.

So Williams felt reasonably confident she could persuade the people in charge of Mayllazhungo’s detention that “this is all a misunderstanding. Just release him. He has a U visa; like, what’s the point?”

“Maybe I was too naive,” she said later in an interview, “thinking of another era where there was discretion and mercy.”

For five days, Williams tried to reach someone. She sent emails to every address she could find, but all went unanswered. She made calls to the ICE detention center in Batavia, New York, where Mayllazhungo was being held, about 45 minutes from Buffalo. She phoned two different ICE field offices. She listened to “oddly cheerful” hold music while waiting for call center operators.

No one would help her. “The detention facilities are basically black holes,” she said.

Finally, she succeeded in scheduling Mayllazhungo for a virtual appointment, a confidential video call where she could get his permission to take the next steps and attempt to have his removal order canceled.

She could also take a statement from him, explaining why he missed his court appointment 20 years ago, explaining that he was a clueless 17-year-old kid at the time. He could share how other lawyers had convinced him that there was no removal order, that it had all been a misunderstanding and therefore he had nothing to worry about. He could share about his two US citizen sons at home in Buffalo, ages 5 and 17, who depended on him as the family’s sole breadwinner.

The evening before the virtual meeting was supposed to take place, Williams and a coworker were driving home from back-to-back court hearings near Boston. The lawyer was eager to see her infant son, to clear her head.

Then her phone rang. María’s contact blinked onto the screen. The woman called often, at all hours. But this call was different. María was panicked. They were taking Manuel to Louisiana, she said. Maybe tonight.

They’re about to remove him, Williams thought.

The lawyer had few tools at her disposal.

Williams knew she would eventually have to petition the judge who had issued Mayllazhungo’s deportation order—a judge in Arizona—to reevaluate his case. The petition would automatically protect Mayllazhungo from deportation, but it was also risky: If the judge decided to keep the removal order in place, Mayllazhungo would probably be deported swiftly.

Petitioning the judge would take time, and Williams was running out of that.

She needed to let ICE know that she was working on reopening the case; they might keep him off a plane for a while if she could contact an officer responsible for Mayllazhungo—something she had so far failed to do by phone and email.

She might reach someone if she went to the detention center in person. But it was already dinnertime, she was still returning from Massachusetts, and the Batavia facility was a six-hour drive from New Haven. Even if she walked in her front door, hugged her husband, walked back out, and drove through the night, Mayllazhungo could be gone by the time she got to Batavia.

Williams needed someone who was already close to Batavia, who could knock on the door of the ICE facility and deliver a message for her.

“Who is going to stop what they’re doing without charging a bunch of money and drop whatever to go print something and file something for a complete stranger?” Williams said. “I think it’s the church.”

She dropped off her coworker and then on her way home called her husband, Josh Williams. He is the lead pastor at Elm City Vineyard Church in New Haven, Connecticut, and he also oversees Vineyard evangelism and justice initiatives at the national level. Did he know anyone in Buffalo who could deliver paperwork for her to a detention center?

By the time Williams arrived home, she was shooting texts to leads. Sometime around 7 p.m., she got a call from the pastor of Buffalo Vineyard Church, Emily Defnet.

“Sorry, I don’t know you,” Williams said. She explained Mayllazhungo’s situation. Could Defnet or someone Defnet trusted leave immediately and drive to Batavia before 9:30? “They would need to print out this form, talk to an ICE agent there, and have the ICE agent call me.”

Defnet could not go herself but said she would check around. She remembers Williams adding, “And by the way, he might already be deported, so this might all be a lost cause.”

The pastor texted her church staff, who texted their own networks. Within an hour, Williams got a call from a woman named Allison Lang, the operations director at a Free Methodist Church in Batavia only two miles from the detention center. “I’m on my way to the church,” Lang told Williams. “We have a printer. Let me know what you need.”

Around 9 p.m., Lang stopped her car in front of the detention center gate, holding some legal papers and a cover letter from Williams.

A man in the guardhouse told her that the ICE officers she needed had gone home for the day. But he took the papers and promised to deliver them to his supervisor when he finished his shift, before midnight.

The following morning, an email appeared in Williams’s inbox from an attorney with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, the legal arm of ICE.

Finally, she thought, someone was talking with her. But the message was not encouraging. The ICE attorney told her that only once she filed the motion with the judge in Arizona, and not before, would they pause the deportation.

In other words, ICE would stop nothing unless a court forced it to.

A photograph of an ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana.AP News / Matthew Hinton
An ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana.

That afternoon, Williams received another email, this one from an ICE officer assigned to Mayllazhungo’s case. The detainee was already on his way to Louisiana, the officer said. So Williams tried again: Would ICE consider releasing him while his case was pending, she asked, given its tradition of respect for certified U visa recipients?

It would not. “No explanation,” Williams said. “Just, ‘No.’”

“They knew he had deferred action,” she said, referring to a type of status that delays deportation and that generally accompanies U visas. “He had a bona fide determination. He was the victim of a crime. And they kept him detained anyway.”

The only person who could stop Mayllazhungo’s deportation now was a judge in Phoenix who had never even met him and who had last touched his case so long ago the court records weren’t even available electronically.

Williams would have to draft a large filing in haste, print it, and deliver it to a courthouse on the other side of the country as quickly as possible. Even mailing it overnight seemed out of the question; Mayllazhungo could disappear from the country before the package arrived.

Williams needed someone who could hand-deliver the documents. She grabbed her phone and reached out to her husband again: Did he know any Vineyard people in Phoenix?

He gave her the name of an Arizona woman who works with Vineyard USA, the denomination’s headquarters. For the third time in 48 hours, Williams was on the phone asking favors of a stranger: “Do you have time? Can you do this now?”

A flurry of paperwork: Williams pulled together what she had. She wished she could have consulted with Mayllazhungo first. “That declaration would have helped the motion be stronger,” she said. “But I wasn’t given access to my client.”

She sent a digital copy to the woman in Arizona, who printed and hole-punched two copies and drove them to a federal building in downtown Phoenix.

Motions to reopen a removal case automatically pause a deportation, giving judges time to review the file. After a court employee stamped the documents, Williams breathed a little easier—her client would theoretically remain in the country at least a while longer.

Mayllazhungo did not learn about his reprieve for days. For a week and a half, he remained in Louisiana at a crowded terminal for deportation flights known as the Alexandria Staging Facility.

Around him, other immigrants disappeared constantly into departing planes. No one was calling him—watchdog groups have documented that Alexandria is a “black box” with extremely limited contact with the outside world and frequent complaints of inhumane conditions.

Mayllazhungo was transferred back to Batavia at the end of July. For weeks, he waited on word from the judge. During phone calls with María, he finally let his guard down enough to talk openly about what the family should do next—the line was monitored, but the couple spoke in Quichua, wagering that no one listening would understand them.

They “hoped beyond hope” that the judge would vacate Mayllazhungo’s removal order, Williams said. Barring that, she wanted at least to ask a judge to release Mayllazhungo on bond—a long-standing practice with detained immigrants who pose no public risk.

Except by this time, ICE had shifted its stance. Over the summer, a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directive banned judges from granting bond to most detainees, effectively cutting off the avenue by which most immigrants escape detention, including asylum seekers and those without criminal records.

The policy has been challenged in court; anyone who watches prime-time television legal dramas understands that federal and state judges commonly release accused nonviolent criminals on bond while they await trial.

But in early February, two judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DHS’s practice of indefinite detention—despite more than 3,000 previous rulings from hundreds of federal judges who concluded that denying bond to non-criminal detainees violates Constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether America will have two parallel prison systems: One in which an accused arsonist or embezzler or drug dealer might walk free on bail, and another in which a student who overstayed her visa or a roofer who overlooked a piece of mail must be jailed for months.

María was the first to learn the immigration judge had decided against Mayllazhungo. On August 29, she tried calling Williams twice and got no answer.

Williams was at a press conference at a New Haven high school, standing behind a podium ringed with microphones. She fought back tears as she spoke about a teenage client, Esdrás Zabaleta-Ramirez, whom a judge had just ordered released from ICE custody.

The young man had been detained at his job washing cars. Williams fought for his release as ICE shuttled him between states and tried to expedite his deportation to Guatemala. Zabaleta-Ramirez’s classmates staged rallies. Teachers wrote letters. Now he would, against all odds, be able to return to his junior-year classes.

After the press conference, Williams was venting to a colleague about the difficulty of their work, about how the arbitrary nature of ICE decisions was so demoralizing. The teen’s release was a huge victory, but what was the lesson to be learned? Everything felt random.

Her coworker told her she should take the rest of the day off, get a massage or something. Williams looked at her phone and saw two missed calls from María. She vowed to let it go to voicemail if the woman called a third time.

But on her drive home the phone rang again, and Williams picked up. María explained that she had just looked up Mayllazhungo’s case online and seen that the judge had denied their motion to reopen his case.

He could be deported at any moment.

Williams pulled off to the side of the road and, again, began texting pastors. Her options were limited: Other lawyers might have been able to file a federal case in New York to stop the deportation, but she was not licensed to practice there. She could appeal the Arizona judge’s ruling, but that might stretch on for weeks or months, and Mayllazhungo would have no protection from deportation while the appeal played out.

To keep him in the country as long as possible, her only remaining option was to file with ICE a formal request for stay of removal—in other words, officially asking ICE for mercy.

Soon Williams was on the phone again with Lang, the church administrator in Batavia. They made a plan: The filing would require a thick stack of papers, so Williams would email it to María to have it printed. María would bring it, along with a filing fee, to Lang, who would deliver it to ICE at the Batavia detention center.

Four days later, on September 2, Lang pulled into a gas station off Interstate 90—just across the freeway from the detention center. She parked in front of a Tim Hortons, next to a car with two Ecuadorian women and two children inside.

The women got out. One of them, Mayllazhungo’s adult stepdaughter, spoke English—she said that ICE had also detained her husband that summer.

When they handed Lang a thick package of documents, the heft of it shocked her. She imagined the sensitive information it contained, the reality that these papers might be a man’s last hope for seeing his family again.

The first time Lang delivered paperwork for this family, a month earlier, she sensed that God had called her to do it. “I have no doubt in my mind that the Lord opened up my schedule that evening,” Lang told me.

She felt that same sense of calling this time, but also a rush of grief—holding all those pages, looking at the kids in the back seat of the car and this pair of women who were “beside themselves” with worry, as she described it. “I was not prepared for how much emotional weight was going to come along with meeting his family.”

Lang didn’t really know what to do with that feeling. She had only one idea.

Nobody expected press conferences for Mayllazhungo or his family. But standing with these women between cars at a gas station in upstate New York, Allison Lang grabbed their hands and prayed for them.

Lang was not unfamiliar with prisons. Her father had worked at a medium-security state facility and brought home stories. Other relatives also worked in corrections.

Still, walking through the detention center entrance, Lang felt intimidated. She was mildly surprised that guards had even allowed her in; across the country, politicians and pastors and other officials were being denied access to ICE facilities.

“You can just sense that everybody’s on high alert,” she said.

An officer (“very cordial,” Lang said) seated her in a tiny waiting room. After 45 minutes, a woman emerged and began inspecting the papers, asking questions that Lang texted to Williams.

“I was like, ‘Oh gosh, I don’t know any of this. I didn’t go to school to become a lawyer.’”

The woman wanted to see Manuel’s passport. It wasn’t in the file.

They took all of his IDs when he was detained, Williams wrote Lang.

More ping-ponging text messages: Manuel’s family had a digital copy. Would they accept an email? More waiting. Finally, the officers agreed to receive the file.

Lang drove away feeling grateful that a pastor’s wife–lawyer 400 miles away had tapped her as an unlikely legal courier. “Do I know why? No,” she said. But she would offer that kind of help again, “as great or as little as it turns out to be.”

Photo of Tina Colón Williams speaking at a press conference in New Haven following the release of a detained teenager in August 2025.Image courtesy Rachel Lacovone / Connecticut Public
Williams speaks at a press conference in New Haven, Connecticut, after the release of a detained teenager in August 2025.

Nearly a week later, Williams received a message from ICE that her request for mercy had been denied. Again, the agency offered no explanation.

“It would not be a difficult thing to have released this man,” the lawyer said. “There’s all sorts of compelling factors in this case. I don’t know if they didn’t read it or if they read it and they were just like, ‘Whatever.’”

Within days, ICE transferred Mayllazhungo back to the Alexandria Staging Facility in Louisiana.

During his first 24 hours there, Mayllazhungo said, he was handcuffed without food or water. He was given no access to a bathroom.

The facility seemed far too crowded. New men arrived at all times, pouring in by the hundreds. “I don’t know where they were coming from, but they just kept coming,” he said.

Mayllazhungo shivered in a frigid room while he tried to sleep. He was issued a set of clothes to wear but had no access to laundry services. After several days, he washed the uniform in a sink and slept on the uniform while it dried.

Anger reached a boiling point. Detainees complained loudly to guards that they were hungry, that they had asked to use a bathroom and were refused, that they were thirsty.

One day, according to Mayllazhungo, guards told them to get over it. “They said that we deserved worse punishment than we were getting, because we’re criminals.”

That, Mayllazhungo said, is what started the brawl.

Several detainees snapped. Even with their hands and feet cuffed, “they fell on top of ICE,” he said. (Many guards at Alexandria work for Geo Group, the private prison company that manages it, and are not employed by ICE.)

Men grabbed at officers, trying to strike them. Mayllazhungo said guards rushed in from around the facility to break up the fight. Mayllazhungo, who said he did not participate in the conflict, fled with other detainees, pushing each other to escape the chaos.

Mayllazhungo thinks that’s when his wrist broke.

Not until some time after calm returned did he realize he could not move his right hand. He can’t recall the precise moment when he injured it—maybe somewhere in all the shoving, his wrist twisted the wrong way inside the tight cuffs—but it was red and throbbing with pain. He could not make his fingers grab food to bring it to his mouth.

Mayllazhungo said he requested medical care multiple times but received none.

ICE did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story. The Alexandria Staging Facility is designed to house detainees for no longer than 72 hours, though many have reported longer stays. Mayllazhungo’s descriptions of conditions there are consistent with other accounts.

After five days at Alexandria, Mayllazhungo was bused to another facility in Louisiana about 45 minutes away.There, he was allotted one or two ham sandwiches a day. He could talk to María again. He had a single call with Williams, during which the connection was so bad they could hardly understand one another.

The women were asking Mayllazhungo, Did he want to appeal the judge’s ruling? The lawyer could not promise it would make a difference, but she had reviewed the judge’s decision and spotted all kinds of flaws in the reasoning. There was a chance, if they moved quickly. She said she would drop everything else and fight if Mayllazhungo gave the word.

But he was so tired. He had been in detention now for more than two months. His hand was swollen. Every dollar they spent fighting this in court María could not earn back, because she couldn’t work. Everything, always, was on his shoulders.

“It’s okay,” he finally told them. “Just leave it.”

On one of the last few days of September, Mayllazhungo felt handcuffs drop from his wrists as he stepped off a plane in Guayaquil, Ecuador.

He took a bus into the mountains, toward the village where he had grown up. He had not seen it in 20 years. He had a sister there who would probably take him in.

Now, Mayllazhungo spends his days searching the countryside for odd jobs to earn money to send back to his family. In December, he spent a few days helping a local builder assemble windows.

Back in Buffalo, a local Catholic church has been supporting María and the kids with some basic needs. Other churches have also offered to help.

Williams hates that they could not save her client from deportation. It’s a consolation, maybe, that each filing that church people helped her make “slowed down the process and changed something,” she said. She also believes that “it makes a difference, psychologically, for the families impacted by this, knowing that there are other human beings out there in the world who care and who are willing to help.”

In Ecuador, Mayllazhungo can at least speak to his sons daily by phone. His 5-year-old asks, “Where did you go? Why don’t you come home?”

The phrase he heard over and over—from immigration agents, from detention center guards, from American leaders—echoes in his head and messes with him: “You’re a criminal.” Except, he said, he isn’t. “I was clean,” he said.

Soon after arriving in the mountains, Mayllazhungo saw a doctor about his wrist. An x-ray confirmed it: The bones had broken.

Andy Olsen is senior features writer at Christianity Today.

History

Troubling Moral Issues in 1973

CT condemned the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and questioned the seriousness of Watergate.

A CT magazine cover from 1973 and an image of an anti-abortion poster.
Christianity Today February 20, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, CT Archives

When the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in January 1973 ruled that the US Constitution protects the right to abortion, CT showed no hesitation in decrying both the legal reasoning and the moral travesty of abortion. 

This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people, as expressed in the now vacated abortion laws of almost all states, including 1972 laws in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, and recently clearly reaffirmed by state-wide referendums in two states (Michigan and North Dakota). 

We would not normally expect the Court to consider the teachings of Christianity and paganism before rendering a decision on the constitutionality of a law, but in this case it has chosen to do so, and the results are enlightening: it has clearly decided for paganism, and against Christianity, and this in disregard even of democratic sentiment, which in this case appears to follow Christian tradition and to reject permissive abortion legislation.

The Court notes that “ancient religion” did not bar abortion (Roe et al. v. Wade, No. 70–18 [1973], VI, 1); by “ancient religion,” it clearly means paganism, since Judaism and Christianity did bar abortion. … 

Having previously seen fit to ban the formal, admittedly superficial, and possibly hypocritical acknowledgment of God that used to take place in public-school prayers and Bible readings, the Court has now repudiated the Old Testament’s standards on capital punishment as cruel and without utility, and has rejected the almost universal consensus of Christian moral teachers through the centuries on abortion. Its latest decision reveals a callous utilitarianism about children in the womb that harmonizes little with the extreme delicacy of its conscience regarding the imposition of capital punishment.

CT noted that many commentators seemed to think only Roman Catholics were opposed to abortion, but that just wasn’t the case, quoting Maryland Rep. Lawrence J. Hogan. 

Hogan said that much anti-abortion activity comes from Protestant ranks. In Maryland, he said, a Baptist minister is heading the fight, and in Minnesota the anti-abortion leaders are Lutheran. He added that Orthodox Jews are also strongly against abortion. Reform Jews, however, seem to favor abortion. …

Protestant leaders seem divided on the issue. While the Baptist minister in Maryland opposes abortion, W. A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, seemed satisfied with the high court’s ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” …

Two Protestant theologians, Albert C. Outler of Southern Methodist University and J. Robert Nelson of Boston University School of Theology, disapprove of the decision. The two men, both Methodists, disagree with their denomination’s official position, which is strongly pro-abortion.

CT also noticed a need for Christians to think clearly on another moral issue in 1973: homosexuality.

The last two years have witnessed a flood of literature advocating tolerance, approval, and even a kind of appreciation for homosexual behavior. Much of this writing comes from ostensibly Christian quarters. Because of the religious or Christian language in which the prohomosexuality arguments are often couched, evangelicals need to familiarize themselves with the biblical approach to this problem.

Editor in chief Harold Lindsell took on the issue in “Homosexuals and the Church.”

My purpose here is not to consider the case for or against laws restricting homosexual conduct. Nor will I discuss whether homosexuals should be given equal job opportunities in business, government, and the armed forces. I will not here make a case against private homosexual activities between consenting adults. My intention is to deal with two questions: What is the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality? And what should the attitude of the churches be toward the place of homosexuals in their midst? …

I exclude from discussion non-practicing homosexuals; there is no reason why they should not be received into any church and ordained to any ministry. My concern here is with practicing homosexuals. …

Everywhere Scripture dictates that believers are to love sinners even as they hate their sins. The lack of compassion many Christians show for homosexuals is inexcusable. It may be easier to show compassion for the drunkard and the adulterer than for the homosexual. But this ought not to be. Christians who are deeply offended by homosexual behavior must still reflect the compassion of Christ for sheep who have gone astray. And they must have a heart of loving concern for homosexuals’ redemption and for their personhood, however much it has been defiled by sin.

CT reported that some evangelicals were also very concerned about feminism in 1973 and the changing social exception for women in American society. 

The credit or blame for the most provocative remark to be heard during a church convention so far this year probably goes to Mrs. Harold Walker of Fort Smith, Arkansas. “Most church problems are caused by women!” she told the National Women’s Auxiliary of the American Baptist Association last month. Mrs. Walker, a thirtyish pastor’s wife and mother, made the observation in an address to the auxiliary in which she roundly denounced women’s lib.

“I believe Paul knew what he was talking about when he placed woman in her rightful place in the church,” said Mrs. Walker. “If you have been in church work very long, you know that most church problems are caused by women—women who rebel against fulfilling their God-given position.”

Some 1,000 women were on hand for the auxiliary meeting, which preceded the annual national-messenger of the ABA in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The magazine also gave space, though, to an evangelical woman who argued that feminism was deeply Christian

The original women’s rights movement was fervently religious. For the most part, nineteenth-and early twentieth-century feminists professed Christianity and took the Bible seriously. When critics hurled theological arguments against them, they sought to answer with well-reasoned rebuttals. Christian feminists of the 1970s may find it helpful to see how they waged the battle. … 

The feminists liked to refer to the first chapter of Genesis, pointing out that God created both male and female human beings in his image and gave them joint dominion over the earth. Alluding to Psalm 8, Quaker abolitionist Angelina Grimke wrote that woman (like man, created in God’s image) was “crowned with glory and honor; created only a little lower than the angels—not, as is almost universally assumed, a little lower than man.” Woman at creation was given the same honor, privileges, and responsibilities as man.

Critics who opposed equality for women bypassed Genesis 1 and preferred to stress Genesis 2. This chapter clearly taught, they insisted, that woman was created for man and that man was superior to woman. Wasn’t Eve given to Adam to be his helpmate? Wasn’t it obvious that God intended the woman to honor and serve the man rather than to have her own independent existence?

No, said Christian feminists. They could not believe that woman had been created as an afterthought, solely for man’s benefit. One way they refuted this interpretation was to argue that the words translated “a help meet for him” could just as well be rendered “a helper like unto himself.” The expression did not signify weakness, subservience, and inferiority. (After all, God himself is spoken of in Scripture as our helper.)

CT editors were very interested in a massive, multi-denominational push for evangelism in 1973, dedicating numerous articles over the course of the year to “Key 73.” 

When this vision abruptly broke upon the American church scene, it met with spontaneous, unconditional acceptance. How wonderful for North America! Replace disunity and cynicism and selfishness with the flame of God’s love moving from heart to heart! Reach every home with a winsome witness to Jesus Christ! And yet, will it happen? Why shouldn’t it happen? Others have written in these columns that action is the order of the day: let each Christian select a personal evangelistic project and begin to put heart and strength into its accomplishment. American and Canadian churches will be transformed! Imagine the difference if every Christian begins to say: “God works through me; God works where I am!” Imagine the many new converts who will join them in the worship and service of God! 

But can this vision be realized? Can we actually come under the compulsion of God’s Spirit so that we are transformed into God’s envoys to the unbelieving world around us? I believe so.

A mid-year check-in reported that Key 73 was seeing “phenomenal” results.

Although the first phase in many places began unspectacularly, there were already impressive pilot programs in 1972, and Christians in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Detroit, and Seattle, among other metropolises, found their stride in the first weeks of the new year. … Scripture distribution quickly accelerated to the point where the American Bible Society was dispatching 600,000 to 700,000 copies of Luke-Acts weekly. …

On the local level, there are impressive reports of evangelical engagement. In one New York area, twenty-one churches in the Kenmore-Tonawanda region, spurred by Kenmore Baptist Church, distributed 50,000 copies of Touched by the Fire (Luke-Acts) by personal presentation house to house on a Sunday afternoon in March.

CT continued to inform readers about Christians in Communist-controlled countries. Carl F. H. Henry reported that, despite persecution, Christians in places like Burma refused to give up the faith. In fact, the church saw “survival and growth.”

When nearly all the missionaries were ordered out of Burma in 1966, many observers feared the worst. But the church in Burma is very much alive and is growing—evidence, perhaps, that the early missions efforts provided a solid base for the church to carry on with its own leadership. … 

Ten years ago General U Ne Win ushered in a socialist government and isolationist policies after wresting control from then Premier U Nu. Since that time the country has deteriorated steadily on the economic front. Rice and teak exports have dwindled. Warring insurgents control nearly half the land area. Because of these and other factors, inflation has hurt Burma—and the churches—badly. Small churches have a difficult time paying a full-time pastor. Some pool their funds to hire one man to work on a circuit basis.

All the denominationally supported general-education schools were nationalized in the mid-sixties. However, the Bible schools and seminaries are still open, and more than forty Bible schools hold classes. … Street meetings are still carried on, and Bible distribution is taking place. Radio scripts are produced in the country and shipped to Bangkok for production and later airing on Far East Broadcasting Company transmitters from Manilla.

Not all issues of 1973 were as clear-cut as Communist persecution, sexual ethics, and abortion, however. CT went back and forth on the seriousness of reports that some people working for President Richard Nixon broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex. 

At stake are moral and ethical issues that cannot be overlooked. Citizens have a right to expect their government to act uprightly. When public figures breach the common canons of conduct, every citizen should be morally outraged. …

We will accept at face value the claim of the President that he was not personally involved in the sordid Watergate affair. But now that he knows of its existence and is aware of the names of those who have already been tried and found guilty, and probably of others who have not yet been brought to justice, his duty is clear. It is Mr. Nixon’s solemn responsibility as President and as a Christian to see that the matter is thoroughly and fully investigated, that executive privilege is waived so that the facts can be uncovered, and that the full weight of the judicial processes is employed to guarantee that justice is done.

Mr. Nixon has one other responsibility. He should purge his administration of all who have been involved in this squalid affair. In this way people everywhere will know that his administration will not put up with this sort of thing, and even more, that he himself has taken a stand for ethical and moral principles that have suffered so greatly because of Watergate.

Editors stated that Watergate went beyond standard political intelligence gathering, but noted that Washington immorality was rampant:

The illegal acts that the term [Watergate] now signifies must be condemned.

Billy Graham … commented that Watergate is “a symptom of the deeper moral crisis that affects society.” How right he is! Anyone at all familiar with the Washington scene knows there are skeletons stacked high in some congressional closets. If all these doors were opened, the Watergate scandal would no doubt rate only second billing. 

The magazine was also alarmed at allegations that the immorality of the Nixon administration was somehow the fault of evangelicals, since the president was closely associated with Billy Graham and regularly invited ministers to lead worship services in the White House.

None of this can be laid at the door of revivalism and pietism. Evangelical evangelists including Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Finney, Moody, Torrey, and Graham have always preached against such sins. Billy Graham put it clearly: “Lying, cheating, stealing, fornication, and adultery are always wrong. They are a breach of God’s law no matter who does them.” The Watergate and Pentagon Papers malefactors operated on the principle that the end justified the means, a principle that Hitler’s Eichmann used so murderously.

Evangelicals believe in ethical absolutes and have always said that good ends must be secured by right means. …

The Watergate and Pentagon Papers malefactors may have had plenty of religion; what they lacked was genuine Christianity and obedience to the Ten Commandments. If they had refused to lie, cheat, and steal, there would have been no Pentagon Papers case and no Watergate. If the principles advocated by revivalists and pietists had been upheld, there would have been no need for a Senate investigating committee (which, we might add, has on the whole produced a regrettable spectacle in which prejudice and an accusatory attitude seem to belie claims of objectivity).

It wasn’t the last time that evangelical association with political leaders would raise ethical questions.

Books

Reading Dante with C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers

Three books on theology to read this month.

Three books on a pink background.
Christianity Today February 20, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today

This piece was adapted from CT’s books newsletter. Subscribe here.

Richard Hughes Gibson, The Way of Dante: Going Through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven with C. S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Charles Williams (IVP, 2025)

One of the greatest writers in history is also, to the modern reader, one of the most intimidating. Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) was a poetic genius, ranking alongside Homer, Li Bai, Goethe, and Tolstoy as one of the most important writers in any language. C. S. Lewis remarked that reading Dante made Shakespeare seem artificial. Yet many of us are scared to read the Divine Comedy, whether because of its form (intricately rhyming Italian poetry), its subject matter (hell, purgatory, and heaven), or its sheer size. “After all,” as superfan Dorothy Sayers admitted, “fourteen thousand lines are fourteen thousand lines, especially if they are full of Guelfs and Ghibellines and Thomas Aquinas.”

This should make us grateful for Richard Hughes Gibson. In The Way of Dante, he introduces us to the Florentine master by way of his influence on Lewis, Sayers, and the poet Charles Williams. The result is a fine, brief work of literary criticism that does two distinct things. On the one hand, Hughes explores the various ways in which Lewis, Sayers, and Williams wrestled with how to understand, translate, criticize, imitate, and spiritually engage with Dante (chapters 1, 2, 4 and 6). On the other hand, he illuminates the Divine Comedy itself with chapters on the Inferno (3), the Purgatorio (5), and the Paradiso (7).

The most accessible parts of the book explore Dante’s influence on Lewis, whose visions of heaven and hell are familiar through The Great Divorce and the Narnia stories. The most sparkling sections involve Sayers, whose prose is by turns penetrating and mischievous. But fittingly, the star of the book is the Comedy itself, from its terrifying depiction of hellish monotony to the breathtaking splendor of “the love that moves the sun and other stars.”

Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament (Oxford University Press, 2015)

When I started Matthew W. Bates’s book, I had never heard of “prosopological exegesis.” By the time I finished, I had become convinced that it was crucial to a proper understanding of multiple New Testament texts—and more importantly, I had been stirred to rejoice in fresh ways as I reflected on the Trinitarian God and the books he inspired.

Prosopological exegesis is a reading technique that, Bates argues, was widely used in the early church and was crucial to the development of Trinitarian doctrine, especially the way we speak of God using personal language. In a nutshell, it involves reading numerous Old Testament texts as dialogues between different divine persons. (Prosopon is the Greek word for “face” or “person.”)

In Psalm 110:1, for example, we have the famous words, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet,’” which the Gospels take as being addressed to Christ (Mark 12:35–37). Notice the Trinitarian implications: The Holy Spirit is telling us about something the Father said to the Son.

This is different from typology. David is not speaking about himself here, in a way that Jesus later imitates; David is taking on the voice of a character in a divine drama. Once you notice this, you see it everywhere. “A body you have prepared for me,” says the Son to the Father (Ps. 40:6; Heb. 10:5). “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” says the Father to the Son (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33, ESV). “Your throne, O God, will last forever. … Therefore God, your God, has anointed you,” says the Spirit to the Son about the Father (Ps. 45:6–7; Heb. 1:8–9). In this rigorous yet accessible book, Bates takes us through lots of examples of this reading strategy and shows us how much it has shaped the way we talk about God.

Zacharias Ursinus, The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563

The Heidelberg Catechism is one of the great texts of Christian history. Written in 1563 in the German city of Heidelberg, it consists of 129 questions and answers about Christian faith and practice, organized into 52 sections, one for each Lord’s Day of the year. Confessions and catechisms can sometimes be rather dry affairs, which appear pedantic and fussy to readers from other theological traditions. Heidelberg is the opposite: short, warm, pastoral, practical, rich, and joyful. (And I say that as a nonconformist charismatic pastor who has never baptized a baby in his life.)

The catechism gets off to a flying start. “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” it asks, revealing straight away that the questions will aim at pastoral encouragement, not just doctrinal detail. The answer: “That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.”

Its final sentence is equally heartwarming. Q: “What does that little word ‘Amen’ express?” A: “‘Amen’ means: This shall truly and surely be! It is even more sure that God listens to my prayer than that I really desire what I pray for.”

In between, the catechism covers the heart of Christianity by going through the Apostles’ Creed, the sacraments, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. Many of the answers—on the meaning of “Father Almighty” or “Christ” or Communion or the ninth commandment—are utterly delightful. There is hope and joy here for anyone who loves the Lord, whatever they think of Reformed theology.

Andrew Wilson is teaching pastor at King’s Church London and author of Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West. Follow him on Twitter @AJWTheology.

Ideas

Ben Sasse and a Dying Breed of Politician

The former senator is battling cancer. Losing him would be one more sign that a certain kind of conservatism—and a certain kind of politics—is disappearing.

Ben Sasse on Capitol Hill.
Christianity Today February 20, 2026
Drew Angerer / Staff / Getty

This article is slated to run in our May-June print issue later this year. We decided to share it sooner in light of the remarkable interview Ben Sasse gave to Sola Media’s Know What You Believe podcast, hosted by Michael Horton. Watch that interview below, then read on to learn more about the faith and principles that guided Sasse’s work in Washington. 

On August 27, 2018, two days after Senator John McCain died of brain cancer, Senator Ben Sasse posted a photo of the two of them: Sasse wearing athletic shoes, red shorts, and a white T-shirt, McCain wearing a suit and holding a traditional black leather briefcase. The two appear to be laughing. Sasse captioned the photo, “This looks like a nice picture. In reality, he’s calling me ‘stupid ba—rd’—again.”

That image captures the essence of both senators. McCain, traditionalist to the core despite his reputation as the “Maverick” of the senate and his often foul mouth. Sasse, who called himself the second or third most conservative senator and was a self-deprecating and humorous politician who took his oath seriously but never took himself too seriously. 

The subtext of the photo, in the aftermath of McCain’s death and at a time when McCain had become persona non grata with many on the right for his refusal to revoke Obamacare a year before, signaled who Sasse is. Despite the pressure from President Donald Trump and the MAGA wing to shun McCain, Sasse was showing him respect. 

On December 23, 2025, Sasse made an announcement. “This is a tough note to write,” he posted on X, “but since a bunch of you have started to suspect something, I’ll cut to the chase: Last week I was diagnosed with metastasized, stage-four pancreatic cancer, and am gonna die.”

The loss of Ben Sasse—though, to quote Monty Python, which I think he’d appreciate, he’s not dead yet—is the loss of a rare breed in today’s politics, the principled conservative uninterested in populist trends on the right and, like McCain, driven by a set of internal principles. Many had hoped to see Sasse return to politics when the populist fever breaks. To know he won’t be here for that moment is a tragedy. 

In his first speech on the Senate floor, in November 2015, Sasse essentially gave a lesson on the constitutional order and on the abject failure of modern-day Congress to assert its authority against the administrative state and the executive branch. It’s a remarkable speech, given only after he’d spent a year in the chamber and spoken with many of his colleagues to understand what was going on. 

No one in this body thinks the Senate is laser-focused on the most pressing issues facing the nation. No one. Some of us lament this fact; some are angered by it; many are resigned to it; some try to dispassionately explain how they think it came to be. But no one disputes it. 

As a result, he also said, “The people despise us all.” 

The point of the Senate’s long terms, Sasse concluded, is to “shield lawmakers from obsession with short-term popularity to enable us to focus on the biggest long-term challenges our people face.” And the character of the chamber matters, he explained, “precisely because it is meant to insulate us from short-termism … from opinion fads and the short-term bickering of 24-hour-news-cycles. The Senate was built to focus on the big stuff. The Senate is to be the antidote to sound-bites.”

This would become the message he repeated again and again and again while serving that institution. It’s not merely an indictment of a certain kind of short-term thinking by the Senate; it’s an indictment of the character of our politicians, who come to the chamber not actually to serve their people and solve problems but to leverage the platform, cling to power, reach other offices—governorships, the presidency—or position themselves to serve on high-paying corporate boards when their terms ended. 

He similarly criticized Senate process during the controversial nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that “every confirmation hearing is … an overblown, politicized circus” because the constitutional system—and particularly the I-alone-can-fix-it style of the modern presidency—is in shambles.

How did we get here and how do we fix it? I want to make just four brief points.

Number one: In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. 

Number two: It’s not. Why not? Because for the last century, and increasing by the decade right now, more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. The legislature is weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they really want to do legislative work. And so they punt most of the work to the next branch. 

The third consequence is that this transfer of power means that people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done. And when we don’t do a lot of big actual political debating here, we transfer it to the Supreme Court. And that’s why the Supreme Court is increasingly a substitute political battleground. It is not healthy, but it is what happens and it’s something our founders wouldn’t be able to make any sense of. 

And fourth and finally: We badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. 

Sasse made these comments in November 2018. He won reelection in 2020, and then—in a move that shocked many—in October 2022 announced he would leave the Senate in January 2023 to become president at the University of Florida. 

On Sasse’s last day in the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell praised his knowledge and skill on a range of issues, but most of all his passion for “things that bear directly on the future of the American experiment.”

In his own farewell address to the Senate, a speech filled with biblical references, Sasse returned to his theme of limited, constitutional governance. The founders wanted “senators, and presidents who thought of DC as a temporary stay,” he said. “Washington is a place to do a good bit of neighbor loving work, but then to go back home to the more permanent work of life-and-flesh-and-blood whole communities.” Sasse was leaving Congress to do just that.

It’s not entirely surprising that Sasse would leave the Senate for academia. He had left public life under the George W. Bush administration, having served as an assistant secretary in the US Department of Health and Human Services for academic life 12 years earlier. He’d overseen an overhaul of Midland University in Nebraska. But his exit from the Senate seems as tinged with grief about the state of our politics—something Sasse articulated from day one of his time serving there—as about a sense of fit or calling. 

If you spend nine years challenging colleagues to be the grownups in the room and do their jobs, reminding them that the Constitution gives them authority to restrain other branches, reminding them they serve the people (and it’s not the other way around), and if you feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock up a hill every day and starting the next in the same place—well, when the governor of Florida calls and says, “I have a wonderful plan for your life,” you can’t judge the man for taking it. 

At the University of Florida, Sasse helped launch the Hamilton School, a new program focused on civic and classical education. Many conservatives and Jewish groups lauded him for how he handled campus demonstrations after October 7, 2023: He had, essentially, a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitism. But his stint at Florida would be short-lived. 

In July of 2024, Sasse announced he was stepping down from the presidency at the university due to his wife’s health and the needs of his family. “I need to step back and rebuild more stable household systems for a time,” he wrote. “I’m going to remain involved in serving our UF students—past, present, and future—but I need to walk arm-in-arm with my dearest friend more hours of every week.”

Earlier in 2025, he announced he was serving as a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank aligned with the Sasse’s principled conservatism. And then a few months later, he discovered he has pancreatic cancer and likely won’t survive it. 

So who is Ben Sasse? A senator who wanted his colleagues to take their eyes off the next election and focus on the American people instead, each of whom is made in the image of God. A college president pushing against academic trends making the Western tradition and the American story villainous. A man who steps away from a prestigious job to care for his wife at a moment of crisis, displaying the essence of “Love your wives as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25, NCV).

And, if you read his announcement of his own terminal disease, you see a man ready to face death with courage and faith. 

It’s a grim metaphor, but Sasse is one of a dying breed. Conservative people of principle—people committed to classical liberalism and the Judeo-Christian Western tradition—are vanishing from the public sphere. 

They may return, and in the meantime—in this mean time—let’s be thankful for Sasse’s witness. That said, I repeat myself: He’s not dead yet. And I pray he’s getting better. 

As he fights, Christians can share his hope, and everyone can witness as he testifies to it. As he put it in his announcement about the cancer, “We hope in a real Deliverer—a rescuing God, born at a real time, in a real place.” True, “the eternal city—with foundations and without cancer—is not yet,” Sasse continued, but already, “the people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned….For to us a son is given (Isaiah 9).”

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, “Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country,” and it is “indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.” It is men like Sasse who made it indispensable, who kept our institutions grounded in a moral and ethical tradition that made democracy make sense.

Correction (February 23, 2026): A prior version of this article misstated the location of Midland University.

Mike Cosper is senior director of CT Media.

News

Died: Ron Kenoly, ‘Ancient of Days’ Singer and Worship Leader

Kenoly fused global sounds with contemporary worship music, inspiring decades of praise.

An image of Ron Kenoly.
Christianity Today February 20, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Facebook

“A worship leader is the facilitator of the activities that go on in the presence of God,” Ron Kenoly wrote in his 2008 book, The Priority of Praise. Kenoly, one of the first celebrity worship leaders to rise to prominence as a recording artist with Integrity Music, changed the sonic landscape of contemporary worship music during the early 1990s. Kenoly was an energetic performer and song leader, celebrated for his ability to engage a crowd or a congregation and inspire participation. 

His 1992 album Lift Him Up featured high-energy praise songs like “Ancient of Days” that blended gospel and Afro-Caribbean style characteristics and became popular with congregations across denominations and continents. 

“He wanted everyone to be singing,” William McDowell, Kenoly’s former music director, told CT. “He cared deeply about everyone in the room experiencing God in worship.” 

Over the course of his career, Kenoly toured in 123 countries, gaining notoriety as a worship leader in the United States, the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and Ghana. His music blended genres and regional styles, ushering contemporary worship music into a new era of experimentation and expansion. He changed the way worship music was produced and marketed; he was one of the first worship artists to have their face featured on the cover of an album.

“Worship in spirit and truth requires more than fancy vocal aerobics, beautiful poetic lyrics and sweet or hot musical passages on the instruments,” Kenoly wrote. “God is pleased with our talents, but He is not impressed by them. … God is always looking at the true heart of the worshiper.” 

Ron Kenoly died on February 3, 2026, at the age of 81. He is survived by his second wife, Diana, and three sons. 

Kenoly was born in 1944 in Coffeyville, Kansas. He grew up with an often-absent father (a sergeant in the Air Force), five brothers, and a mother who was committed to getting her family to their Baptist church most Sundays. After graduating from high school, Kenoly joined the Air Force and moved to Hollywood. During his service from 1965 to 1968, he performed with a pop cover band called the Mellow Fellows. 

In 1968, Kenoly married his first wife, Tavita (with whom he had three sons), a fellow musician who shared his aspiration to make it in the music industry. He found mixed success, landing record deals with A&M Records and MCA, and started performing and releasing music under the name Ron Keith in the mid-’70s. It seemed like his big break was on the horizon, but it never came.

Chasing success in the music industry took a toll on Kenoly’s personal life. His marriage deteriorated until 1975, when his wife rededicated her life to Christ at a Foursquare church in Los Angeles, which sparked Kenoly’s own spiritual reckoning. “There wasn’t any more fear, only courage, and a joy that I had never seen,” Kenoly said in a 1997 interview. “I wanted what she had, so I did what she had done. I surrendered, turned over all of my dreams, hopes, talents and abilities and said, ‘God, please change me.’” His first marriage lasted 42 years.

Kenoly subsequently gave up performing in nightclubs and took a job as a locker room attendant at the College of Alameda, where he started taking courses and working on a music degree. When administrators at the institution learned of Kenoly’s recording and performing experience, they offered him an accelerated track through a degree program and hired him as a voice teacher. 

Kenoly turned his attention to Christian music in the 1980s, accepting a job as a worship leader at the Jubilee Christian Center (now Redemption Church) in San Jose, California, in 1985. He gained regional popularity as a church musician, and in 1989, then–vice president of Integrity Music Don Moen visited Jubilee and invited Kenoly to record an album with the label. 

His first album with Integrity, Jesus is Alive (1991), sold 400,000 copies. His second, Lift Him Up (1992), sold more than 450,000 copies and spent 70 weeks on the Billboard contemporary Christian chart. 

Lift Him Up was a surprise success, initially proposed as a straightforward recording of a live worship service with a very limited budget. Two of the songs (“Hallowed Be Your Name” and “We’re Going Up to the High Places”) were written or cowritten by Kenoly; the others were selected by Integrity producer and keyboardist Tom Brooks, who also helped assemble a backing ensemble with impressive industry bona fides. 

Drummer Chester Thompson, who played for Genesis, Phil Collins, and Frank Zappa, was in the Lift Him Up ensemble. Respected Latin American percussionist Alex Acuña was also featured, and the team of backing vocalists included heavy hitters like Olivia McClurkin. The quality of the music and the live performance captivated listeners. 

The popularity of Lift Him Up catapulted Kenoly to celebrity status in the contemporary worship world. It also demonstrated that fans of contemporary worship music were enthusiastic about Kenoly’s fusion of global genres. 

“Kenoly transformed people’s imaginations for culturally coded praise and worship,” said Adam Perez, assistant professor of Worship Studies at Belmont University. 

Perez added that, in the 1990s, artists like Marcos Witt were helping expand Integrity’s reach into Spanish-speaking markets, but Kenoly was one of the first Black worship leaders whose music was marketed to a general Christian audience rather than being steered toward the gospel niche. 

Kenoly actively sought to record music that resonated across racial divides, expressing a desire to produce albums and songs for an audience that looked like his diverse congregation. 

“This whole thing was born out of a multi-racial congregation. Jubilee is about 45 to 50 per cent Caucasian, probably about 25 per cent African American and the rest is Hispanic and Asian,” Kenoly said in a 1994 interview. “Somehow, we’re able to present ministry that touches the lives and hearts of all those people … people have come to realise that worship has no colour, age, ethnic or cultural barriers.” 

Stephania Andry Wilkinson, a former Integrity Music marketing executive and founder of Red Alliance Media, told CT that Kenoly was the “ultimate unifier.”

“He showed that worship has no boundaries or color lines,” said Wilkinson. “He was one of the greatest psalmists of all time, and his music still works. It holds up today.” 

British gospel singer Muyiwa Olarewaju said that popular worship artists like Maverick City Music have built on the foundation Kenoly laid with his music. 

“He showed worship leaders that you could be high-energy and orchestrated, yet deeply intimate and scripturally grounded,” said Olarewaju. “There would be no Maverick City today without Ron Kenoly. There would be no Brandon Lake, no Michael W. Smith as we know them today.”

Recording artist and worship leader Israel Houghton told CT that seeing Kenoly lead diverse congregations in worship in a musical style that pushed the boundaries of the genre was an inspiration. 

“To see a Black man lead millions of people from multiple cultures in 1991 quite literally ignited a flame in me,” said Houghton. “He gave me permission to be my cross-cultural self and not have to assimilate into a copy or caricature of someone else.” 

Following Kenoly’s death, worship leaders around the world posted tributes to his music and influence. Worship leader and producer Noel Robinson, who served as music director for one of Kenoly’s tours, called him a “bridge builder” and a leader who was “fearless in his delivery, confident in his calling, and utterly secure in the God he served.” 

Kenoly’s most recent album, Set Apart Is Your Name YaHuWaH, Vol. 2 was released in 2015, but Kenoly continued to tour, teach, and write music into his final months. McDowell said Kenoly was writing songs until the week he died. Kenoly told him that he was experimenting with using the AI platform Suno to arrange some songs that he hadn’t been able to record yet. In January 2026, he led worship at a conference in Jakarta, Indonesia. 

“He’s been all over the world,” McDowell said. “But you’d never know he was that big, talking with him. He was genuine and unpretentious. He had personal and ministerial integrity. And I had a front seat to that.”

Books

‘Theo of Golden’ Offers Winsome Witness

Novelist Allen Levi talks faith, writing, and hope.

Allen Levi writing.
Christianity Today February 19, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: allenlevi.com, Unsplash

Allen Levi’s friends wouldn’t let him leave his novel in a drawer collecting dust.

After having the idea for Theo of Golden, Levi wanted to see if he had the “muscle” and “patience” to write a novel. He didn’t have plans to do anything with it afterward. But at his friends’ urging, in October 2023 he self-published the completed book. Since then, its sales have steadily skyrocketed, booming in 2025. This past December, more than two years after publication, the novel reached The New York Times’ paperback trade fiction list. It has remained there for ten weeks.

Theo of Golden’s success is unique in some ways, both as a self-published novel and as a book centering on a Christian character. Theo is full of hope and expresses love “in a winsome way through kindness and generosity,” Levi told Christianity Today. But the character hesitates to have conversations about heaven with a curious non-Christian.

Levi lives on family acreage in Harris County, Georgia, and attends two churches regularly: a young plant that began by meeting on a couple’s farm, with chickens and donkeys, and an African American Baptist church. Levi says his vocation is to “use creative gifts to provoke godward thought.”

Theo of Golden begins with Theo, an elderly Portuguese man, visiting a small Georgia town. He sits down for coffee and is enamored by the 92 portraits on the wall. After talking to the shop owner, he begins a mission to buy the paintings and bestow them on the models.

Levi has worked as a lawyer and judge, is a longtime songwriter, and earned a master’s degree in Scottish fiction while living in Edinburgh. In this conversation, Levi discusses the winding vocational path that brought him to a New York Times bestseller list, the novel’s recent popularity, his faith background, creative and spiritual influences on his life, and plans for his next book.

This conversation has been edited and condensed.

How did Theo of Golden begin? Did the idea just come to you one day?

One day I was in a coffee shop down in Columbus [Georgia], and the coffee shop has 92 portraits on the wall. They’re all done by a dear friend of mine who is a wonderful artist with a particular gift for portraiture. And I was looking at the portraits, as I always do when I go to this particular shop. And the idea that came to me was Wouldn’t it be a lot of fun and interesting to buy the portraits one at a time and give them to the people who are portrayed in the frames? That became the seed corn for a story. That was nothing unusual for me as a songwriter. I was constantly on the prowl for things to write songs about. But I thought, This could be a story.

My thinking was not to write a novel for publication but just to see if I had the muscle and the stamina, the patience, to write a piece of long fiction. I actually bought four of the portraits that day, and they all became characters in the book. I didn’t have a plot. I didn’t have any sort of narrative arc that I was working under, but I started writing scenes, imagining that someone came and bought portraits and did what Theo does in the book. I figured out what I wanted the tone of the book to be, and I started writing in fits and starts.

I would maybe work for a week or two, and then I’d quit for six months. I gave up a dozen times. I said, “I can’t do it, and I don’t have the muscle for it.” But I stuck with it. And when I finished it, I patted myself on the back and said, “I’m done.” I put it in a drawer, and that was going to be the end of it. But some friends of mine who knew I was playing with the idea of writing a book asked if they could read it, and I let them read it. They said, “We really think you should do something with this.” That’s what rescued it from the dustbin.

There’s an interesting tension in the book. You seem eager to share Christian truths, but I’ve heard you in another interview resist the title Christian fiction, and the main character repeatedly resists conversations about heaven with a non-Christian character. Still, there are Christian themes all throughout the book. How did you decide on that approach?

As a musician, I always asked myself when I was getting ready for a gig, “Who is the audience tonight?,” because I played for a really diverse swath of audiences. I could play at a Southern Baptist church on a Sunday evening for an elderly congregation one night and then for a college group three nights later. It just made sense to know who I was going to be singing to, because I was there for them.

I think that’s the right approach for me to take as a creative person, as an artist. They are not there for me. I am there for them, to serve them. Good art does serve. In this, I wanted to write to as wide an audience as I could possibly engage. C. S. Lewis says that the first duty of an artist is to teach and delight. And I wanted to do the “teach” part subtly and delight as winsomely as I possibly could.

I wanted to communicate hope. I certainly wanted to communicate that Theo was a man who loved and he was a man who expressed that in a winsome way through kindness and generosity. But I didn’t want the book to be so steeped in this man’s faith that it would run off readers who don’t share our faith perspective. Out of kindness to that audience, I tried to make the story as engaging as possible without denying that this man was a character of faith.

Theo of Golden is spending its eighth [now tenth] week on the New York Times paperback trade fiction bestseller list. Do you think your approach to Christianity in the book has anything to do with that popularity?

Not really. Let me backtrack just a bit. You mentioned that I resist the label Christian fiction. I’m not quite sure what that is. And if you asked me, “Do I consider this book Christian fiction?” I would have asked you to define the term, because I’ve never quite understood what it means. I know that there are books that have so many buzzwords in them that there is no mistaking it for who the author was and what his or her persuasion was.

When I was a lawyer, sometimes people would come to my office and they would say, “I understand you’re a Christian lawyer.” And even then, I resisted that. I didn’t want people to come to my office because I was a Christian lawyer. I wanted them to come because I was a good lawyer, I excelled in my work. And as a writer, I want people to be drawn to the book because it is excellently written. I did the best I could. Not to say that it’s excellent, but I did the best that I could. And I like the fact that the story, again, reaches a broad spectrum of readers. I don’t want to live in a silo. I want to respect the fact that not everybody in the world sees through the same lens that you and I might see through.

I’ve been interested in its popularity. I have friends who aren’t Christian, and if we have dinner and I start going through the gospel with them, they wouldn’t want to get dinner with me anymore. A lot of American readers might feel the same about a book.

You’ve probably heard the term before: pre-evangelism. Sometimes there are things that maybe the church should do just to express the love of God for people, regardless of a message or a response. I think of the Book of James, where he says if somebody comes to you and they’re hungry, feed ’em. Don’t preach to ’em; feed ’em. You’ve got to feed them first. Maybe sometimes our first responsibility is to feed the hungry, and maybe we don’t feed them the real rich food as the first course. We give them something that prepares the palate, so to speak. And that is not to say that we don’t ultimately want to get to the point that we share the gospel of Christ. We want to do that.

There’s a statement by C. S. Lewis where he says that to love and admire anything outside oneself is to take a “step away from utter spiritual ruin—something along those lines. To write a piece of fiction, a story like Theo that makes a godly man attractive, a character like that who might draw the heart of a reader, is to maybe invite that reader to love and admire something outside themselves. It becomes an enticement of sorts, in a good sense of the word, for someone to come look and see.

Is there one specific moment you can remember when you became a Christian? What’s your relationship to the church today?

I grew up in the church in my hometown of Columbus. We were faithful churchgoers to a Presbyterian church. I’ve got a wonderful mom and dad. I’ve got three wonderful sisters and had a wonderful brother who’s now gone to be with the Lord. Faith was probably a somewhat superficial thing for us. We had a respect for it without much understanding of it. I probably saw it as something that was nice but not necessary. Now I see it as something that is necessary but not always nice. It can be a very uncomfortable thing.

When I went to college, I ended up graduating from the University of Georgia, and while I was there, I met some people who were very unashamed Christians. I saw the gospel in them in a way that I had not seen before. February of 1978 is when I kind of chart the beginning of my surrender to Christ, and it has been push and pull and forward and backward and all of that since then. But ever since then, faith has been deeply rooted in me. I’m very much a work in progress, like all of us.

You’ve said your mission statement is to use creative gifts to provoke godward thought. What creative works have provoked godward thoughts in you? Do they tend to be works created by Christians?

I don’t know if you would call the Scripture creative work. I mean, there’s certainly poetry, and there’s prose, and there are parables, and there is fiction used in the right way in the Scripture. So that, first and foremost. I like to think that everything I read in some way informs my faith, even if it’s from Cormac McCarthy or somebody who is nowhere recognizable on the faith spectrum, because it reminds me of what life might look like if I had not surrendered my life to Christ many years ago.

C. S. Lewis is kind of a perennial favorite for me. I seem to always have something of him in rotation. I love to read C. H. Spurgeon. He was a master with the language. His devotion to Christ was undeniable, and the focus that he had on moving the kingdom forward has always challenged me. Wendell Berry, no doubt, even though he doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve in a lot of ways, has profoundly impacted my view of the world and my Christian view of the world. Just a sense of stewardship and community and cherishing small things.

I’ve read lots and lots and lots of books over the years. My memory is not terribly good, so things tend to slide off of my memory quickly, but I never feel like it’s been a waste of time. I feel like there’s some imprint that they leave behind that rounds me out.

You’ve said that you’re working on more novels focusing on characters from Theo of Golden, particularly Ellen. Can you tell us how that’s going?

It’s been hard. I wrote Theo as a personal challenge, so there was no pressure whatsoever. I never expected anyone to read it. It was arduous, but I was able to do it at my pace, and I didn’t feel like anyone was breathing down my back. With Ellen, I don’t feel like anyone’s breathing down my back, but given the response that people have had to Theo, I do think there’s probably an expectation. I want to write the best book that I can.

I want to make sure that whatever I write really has something to say. I’m all for delighting people and giving them something to read that doesn’t require a lot of deep thought or reflection, but my preference is always to have something of substance in what I write, be it a silly song or a serious novel. I hope my goal will always comport with my mission statement—that I will use stories to provoke godward thought.

Correction: An earlier version of this piece had the wrong location for the coffee shop, which is in Columbus, Georgia, not Columbus, Ohio.

Books
Review

An Able Reply to the Toughest Challenges to Reformed Theology

A new book on the Reformed tradition commends it as a “generous” home combining firm foundations and open doors.

The book on a green background.
Christianity Today February 19, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, Baker

Back in my online dating days, I once had a match almost cancel our dinner plans. No, she hadn’t caught me lying about my age, height, or hairline. But an unexpected red flag had surfaced as our correspondence drifted—on eHarmony, mind you, not Tinder—toward contested points of Christian theology. Before agreeing to meet in person, she needed to know where I stood on the doctrine of predestination.

I told her I affirmed it, because the Bible does (Rom. 8:29–30). She told me she couldn’t support any worldview that denies our freedom to embrace the gospel or undercuts our duty to share it. I replied that I didn’t see any conflict between God deciding who receives his gift of saving faith and God’s ambassadors laying it on the table for anyone to claim. And I extended an olive branch: this CT article,written by an avowedly non-Calvinist theologian, that argues likewise.

Détente achieved, we went on our date, enjoying a polite, theology-free meal. And that was that. 

But the story lives on, for me, as one useful illustration of a deep-running aversion to doctrines—like predestination—that emphasize God’s sovereign ordering of human affairs above our free-willed responses. Like me, my eHarmony match took Scripture as her highest authority. But like many other committed believers, she also recoiled at the notion of God fixing every person’s eternal fate before the dawn of creation.

Of course, every Bible-believing denomination and church tradition recognizes divine sovereignty, in some form, as a genuine article of Christian faith. Historically, though, the most emphatic and sophisticated apologias tend to flow from movements carrying the Reformed banner. Theologically and institutionally, Reformed communities exist downstream from Reformation-era stalwarts like John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, along with seminal statements like the First and Second Helvetic Confessions (1536 and 1562), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith(1643).

I have spent most of my adult life in and around the Reformed universe after stumbling into it almost by accident. I know the reputational baggage Reformed theology carries. Critics often regard it as stern, severe, and cold-hearted. Some see Reformed communities as breeding grounds for dour rigorists who delight in drawing and policing inflexible boundaries.

The three authors of Generously Reformed: Theology Rooted Deep and Reaching Wide are aware of the shadow cast by such stereotypes. J. Todd Billings, Suzanne McDonald, and Alberto La Rosa Rojas are professors at Western Theological Seminary in Michigan. Like me, they discovered the Reformed tradition later in life, and their book is a welcome effort at overturning misconceptions about its historical and theological track record. More importantly, it makes a positive and persuasive case for seeing Reformed Christianity as a gateway into the fullness of historic Christian truth, rather than a fortress of purity to huddle pridefully within. 

Billings, McDonald, and Rojas commend the Reformed tradition as a “spacious” and “expansive” home combining firm foundations and open doors. Like a tree, they write, it “reaches down with deep roots for life outside of itself (in God) and branches out widely to the life of the world in which we live.”

The authors go about demonstrating Reformed spaciousness in two broad movements. First, they trace the contours of Reformed thinking in general. 

As the book readily grants, this can be a frustratingly slippery task. There is no Reformed pope or college of Reformed cardinals acting as supreme authorities on matters of faith and practice. The various Reformed confessions agree with the consensus of the early church as expressed in its foundational creeds and councils. And they agree on a lot else besides. But they differ dramatically on significant subjects, like the proper forms of worship and church governance. 

Those confessions were never meant to command the consciences of Reformed believers in all times and places. In many respects, then, it makes more sense to speak of Reformed habits, tendencies, or emphases than Reformed decrees that apply without exception. Unbound to any one church body, these characteristic modes of faithfulness don’t stay contained among Presbyterians and formally Reformed denominations. Many Baptist, Anglican, charismatic, and independent churches lay claim to parts of this heritage.   

Given its diffuse nature, then, many understandably try to collapse Reformed theology into some person, slogan, or formula. But the authors of Generously Reformed push back on the simplifiers. Reformed teaching, they insist, is not synonymous with historical heroes like John Calvin or contemporary figures like John Piper and R. C. Sproul. Nor is it reducible to the five Reformation “solas,” which distill “some of the pressing theological issues at stake” but leave plenty of areas untouched.

Even the acronym TULIP, arguably the most popular Reformed shorthand, receives a thorough demystifying. Some of the book’s most insightful sections reacquaint readers with TULIP’s historical background, as a localized rebuttal to theological opponents, while cataloging both its rhetorical weaknesses and its insufficiency as a signature statement of Reformed doctrine.

For the authors, the difficulty of setting the Reformed tradition’s boundaries is actually one source of its strength. As they argue, Reformed churches and confessions enjoy a “deep contextual flexibility.” To cite one Reformation rallying cry, the church is a “creature of the Word.” Which means it can’t be held in the proprietary grip of any ethnic faction, geographic region, or ecclesial hierarchy.

Wherever the Word goes, then, believers are empowered to adapt the message of salvation to new contexts and needs. As the authors observe, “Reformed churches around the world—from South Africa to Cuba—have continued to generate confessional documents that clarify the gospel’s witness in their own times and places.” Thus does Reformed theology expand its reach and broaden its appeal while remaining securely anchored in the faith once entrusted to the saints.

After outlining the basic shape of Reformed thought, the book moves toward explaining specific pieces of Reformed theology and practice. Two later chapters—on Reformed approaches to justice and public life and Reformed contributions to end-times debates—struck me as helpful but somewhat secondary. 

The topics themselves are first-order, of course. But the theological deficits the authors address—individualistic views of redemption and escapist notions of eschatology—echo common indictments of evangelicals in general, even if Reformed teachings give valuable guidance. 

(For what it’s worth, I thought the justice sections leaned too heavily on wholistic portraits of the gospel that merge canceled debts and Christlike living, or liberation from sinful hearts and from oppressive conditions. These portraits supply essential correctives. But I don’t see them establishing either the fact or the wisdom of a sweeping mandate for social activism on the church’s part, as distinct from the vocations of individual members.)

To my mind, the book’s finest chapters answer objections to Reformed teachings on predestination, infant baptism, and God’s providential caretaking of everything from cosmic forces to individual lives. In most dialogues with the free-will side of the Christian family, this is where battle lines form. I’m no trained theologian, so I won’t attempt to analyze these sections exhaustively. Instead, I’ll pull on one prominent thread—the pure grace of salvation—that illuminates why I dwell most hospitably in Reformed neighborhoods, despite some lingering attachments to rival zip codes.

Truth be told, I’m a fence-sitting squish on infant baptism. My young son got sprinkled, as our church prescribes. But I got dunked myself, and occasional wavering aside, I still think the dunkers have the better biblical argument.

I’m even a little wobbly on predestination—if not doctrinally, then at least experientially. My childhood church had a custom, after baptizing new believers, of singing “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.” I still choke up at the memory of that chorus and the heartfelt testimonies that summoned it forth. Today, I cringe at how “decision” language obscures God’s paramount role in quickening dead hearts. But I’m also uneasy about disdaining it as a species of self-deceit.

What resolves these tensions in favor of ongoing fellowship with Reformed congregations? More than anything, it’s the Reformed insistence on saving faith as God’s achievement, through and through. Obviously, other traditions preach grace, not works, as the basis of our admission into God’s family. But robust theologies of predestination and infant baptism slam the door on a temptation to boast. We can’t pretend our meager stores of biblical literacy or spiritual maturity made the slightest difference. We can’t take credit for giving the gospel a fair hearing instead of a cold shoulder.

We’re left, instead, to marvel at the mystery of being chosen by the same God who chose a conniving trickster to multiply his people, a hardened persecutor to grow his church, and “the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27). It’s grace all the way down. Hallelujah!

In their introduction, the authors of Generously Reformed clarify the parameters of their project. “The primary focus of this work,” they write, “is the theological dimension of Reformed confession and theology; it is not a work in cultural anthropology, sociology, or church history.”

I’m of a few different minds about this. The first thing to say, without reservation, is that the authors need no permission—certainly not from uncredentialed scribblers like me—to write whatever book they wish to write. Reformed theology, as they acknowledge, isn’t the whole of Reformed spirituality, community, and public witness. But theology shapes those other areas profoundly. And the authors, as theologians, justifiably play to their strengths.

I fear, though, that this strategy avoids grappling with other, equally potent sources of anti-Reformed sentiment. People, after all, encounter this tradition as something more than a body of theological reflection, however nuanced and multilayered. They also encounter it as a network of overlapping subcultures marked by distinct styles of engagement and badges of authenticity. 

Like it or not, actual existing Reformed identity doesn’t always run a direct pipeline from the Belgic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism. For good or ill, it soaks up the buzzwords and hobbyhorses of podcasters, social media voices, and celebrity figureheads. It pours forth in wildly divergent streams, from the gentle erudition of Tim Keller’s Manhattan pulpit to the theocratic rumblings of Douglas Wilson’s Idaho citadel. 

To see why this matters, consider the book’s chapter on God’s providence, which recalls Reformed reactions to the 2004 tsunami that killed over 200,000 people after battering Indonesia’s coast. 

Assessing a pointed critique from Orthodox commentator David Bentley Hart, the authors agree that certain pastors embarrassed themselves by glibly proclaiming the tragedy an expression of God’s righteous and infallible will. From their perspective, the error owed more to lopsided theology than tone-deaf boorishness: These pastors weren’t wrong about God’s righteousness and infallibility, or his power over the wind and waves. But they had neglected biblical and Reformed precedents for raging against suffering rather than blithely accepting it.

I understand why the authors propose theological remedies for theological missteps. Yet I can’t help wondering if they overlook another possible warping the Reformed witness. Reformed leaders often favor bold, uncompromising postures. And there are good reasons for this. If God’s truth is at stake, you can’t cower before every social and intellectual taboo.   

There’s often a fine line, however, between steadfast conviction and fetishized boldness—between telling the truth, no matter who it offends, and almost reveling in the lack of a gentle, loving spirit. I don’t think most Reformed writers and thinkers are guilty of crossing this line. But the strident minority who do surely bear some blame for making their movement appear more narrow than generous.

Billings, McDonald, and Rojas would doubtless concede that some Reformed exemplars behave crudely, speak intemperately, and otherwise give the tradition a bad name. Indeed, the authors emphasize how sin and prejudice corrupt every branch of Christian faith, including their own. I suspect they think there’s a better way of defeating bad influences than going round for polemical round. Why not drill beneath the terrain of controversialists, present Reformed theology in all its beauty and complexity, and let readers decide who embodies it best?

That sounds about right to me, which is why I can’t fault any hesitation to duke it out with Christian nationalists, the more extreme male headship crowd, or other groups with a presence on the Reformed fringes. There’s a useful analogy, here, with the challenge of defining and defending evangelicalism itself. No, you can’t ignore the ugly stuff—the black marks on civil rights or the lame excuses for Donald Trump’s pagan inclinations. But ultimately, people need to see the inheritance—not just denunciations of the ones squandering it. 

In the same way, Generously Reformed succeeds by digging for deep roots rather than wallowing in the mud. May it remind Reformed readers of the spacious tradition they inhabit, while convincing others that there’s always room someone new.

Matt Reynolds is a writer and a former CT editor. He lives with his wife and son in the suburbs of Chicago.

Culture
Review

MercyMe Holds On to a Hit in ‘I Can Only Imagine 2’

The contemporary Christian film sequel explores life after writing a megahit, asking whether hardship can bear good fruit.

John Michael Finley as Bart Millard and Sammy Dell as his son Sam in I Can Only Imagine 2.

John Michael Finley as Bart Millard and Sammy Dell as his son Sam in I Can Only Imagine 2.

Christianity Today February 19, 2026
Jack Giles Netter / Courtesy of Lionsgate

I teach an undergraduate course called Worship and the Arts during the spring and summer terms. Most of my students in that class aren’t studying theology or religion—the course satisfies a general education requirement in our curriculum. Many of them don’t identify as particularly religious either.

The first week of class, I typically ask the students to write about an encounter with art that has changed their beliefs about or perception of God. The last two times I’ve taught this class, at least one student has mentioned the song “I Can Only Imagine.”

“When I listen to it, I feel like God loves me,” one wrote, “and I have peace about the future.” 

That isn’t surprising, given the song’s popularity: “I Can Only Imagine” is the best-selling Christian record of all time and the first Christian song to go platinum and double platinum on digital platforms. If you tune in to Christian broadcast stations like K-Love for the day, you’re likely to hear it at least once. The listenership of Christian radio skews older, but somehow this nearly-25-year-old song is reaching my students and resonating.

“I Can Only Imagine” is a soaring ballad with lyrics that invite listeners to imagine what it will be like in God’s heavenly presence. Its origin inspired the 2018 film I Can Only Imagine, whichtold the story of MercyMe lead singer Bart Millard’s fraught relationship with his abusive father and their eventual reconciliation. The film’s box office success surprised the industry and critics. It was the third-biggest movie in the US during its opening weekend, behind Black Panther and Tomb Raider.

A sequel, I Can Only Imagine 2, will be released by Lionsgate on February 20. Most of the cast members reprise their roles, including John Michael Finley as Bart Millard, country singer Trace Adkins as band manager Scott Brickell, and Dennis Quaid as Millard’s father. The roster includes a new, high-profile addition in Milo Ventimiglia (of Gilmore Girls and This Is Us) portraying singer-songwriter Tim Timmons.

The sequel starts with a drone shot of a MercyMe concert at Red Rocks Amphitheater, with Finley (as Millard) gripping the microphone.

“What comes next when you’ve gotten all your dreams?” his voice asks. “What do you do when the only thing in the whole world that you have to hold on to is a song?”

It’s an odd way to begin a film that is, essentially, holding on to a hit song and stretching its popularity into a franchise à la the God’s Not Dead films. Despite relying on many of the same tropes and formulas of other faith-based films, I Can Only Imagine 2 doesn’t stoke culture war. It participates in some mythologizing and intentionally pulls on heart strings, but its central conflicts aren’t built on confrontation with a caricatured enemy. The story arc is driven by personal struggles, health crises, and the strange professional aftermath of having written the biggest Christian pop song ever.

We get an early flashback of Millard and his wife, Shannon (Sophie Skelton), reeling from a medical episode in which they find out their son, Sam, has juvenile diabetes. Millard, who has just departed for a tour, rushes home to find his family at the hospital, and he has to learn to check Sam’s blood sugar and give him insulin injections. The experience of causing his son physical pain sparks a flashback in which a young Millard is being attacked by his violent father.

Sam’s diabetes is a key plot point throughout I Can Only Imagine 2. The film takes place during his teenage years, when his parents have trouble helping him manage his disease independently. He forgets to check his blood sugar at the right times; sometimes he forgets to eat. Sam is an aspiring musician who is more interested in practicing guitar than taking charge of his health. An offhand comment by Millard to his manager becomes a last-minute decision to take Sam on tour with MercyMe.

A lot of conflicts, personal dramas, and various themes fight for center stage in this film. It echoes the father-son relational struggle of I Can Only Imagine: We watch Millard come to terms with his own shortcomings as a father and the ways his brokenness left him unprepared to build an authentic relationship with his son. Milo Ventimiglia’s character, Tim Timmons (based on the singer-songwriter of the same name who cowrote the song “Even If” with Millard), is battling a rare form of cancer, which he conceals from Millard as they set out on tour. Timmons and his wife are also expecting their first child.

On tour, we see Timmons reading a book titled The Origin of Hymns—which looks like an old cloth-bound classic but is actually a mockup of a forthcoming book that will release with the film—and he talks at length about his love for the late 19th-century hymn by Horatio Spafford, “It Is Well with My Soul.” As Timmons and Millard share a moment of appreciation for the song and the tragic story that inspired it, Millard remarks, “I wish I could write a song like that.” Timmons replies, “You did, man.”

Is “I Can Only Imagine” a modern-day “It is Well with My Soul”? Unclear. The song is  25 years old, but that’s not really long enough to know its staying power. The comparison feels forced—also potentially unearned—but the film leans on it to argue that great songs emerge from great struggle. Millard’s turbulent relationship with his father and subsequent reconciliation before his death gave us “I Can Only Imagine.” Spafford’s tragic loss of his daughters in a shipwreck gave us “It is Well with My Soul.” The film begs the audience to ask, What great song will emerge from this mutually difficult season for Millard and Timmons?

Timmons chips away at the basic theme and structure of a new song while on tour, inviting Millard to collaborate. But Millard is distracted by Sam and his memories of his own father. Eventually, he listens to Timmons’s rough, bare-bones demo, and the song becomes “Even If,” which the credit montage tells us became MercyMe’s biggest hit after “I Can Only Imagine.”

“Even If” was released by MercyMe in 2017. The song samples the chorus of “It is Well with My Soul” and embraces a challenging message: God may not save you from pain, even death.

I know you’re able, and I know you can
Save through the fire with your mighty hand,
But even if you don’t,
My hope is you alone.

It’s still unlikely that “Even If” will ever top the success of “I Can Only Imagine.” To some degree, the fictionalized Millard seems aware of this, but the film’s arc still feeds the will-they-won’t-they tension around the song Timmons is writing and the band’s flagging popularity.

This film had an opportunity to more deeply explore what it’s like to come down from the high of writing a megahit.

At the start, I wondered if we were going to see the uncomfortable soul-searching many artists face as they realize they may never be able to produce a song that reaches as far or gains as much acclaim as something they’ve already done. For Christian artists, the tension between the pursuit of material success and faithfulness is a fertile ground for character development and inner conflict.

I Can Only Imagine 2 sidesteps that trickier territory in favor of perhaps more universally relatable plot points: Sam’s struggle with diabetes, his dream of becoming a musician (real-life Sam is now a musician who performs as Sam Wesley), the challenge of parenting adolescents and young adults while also dealing with your own trauma, Timmons’s cancer, and his wife’s pregnancy.

The film’s numerous mini sermons might deliver what many viewers are looking for in an inspirational faith-based movie. The characters are also generally likeable. One of the film’s more self-aware moments comes during a post-credit scene in which Trace Adkins’s gruff, no-nonsense character stares placidly at a field with his father. He asks, “Say, Dad, do you ever want to talk about your feelings?” His dad replies stoically, “No, not really.” Adkins ends the brief exchange with a “Yeah, me neither,” a winking acknowledgement of the film’s abundant dialogue and sometimes overly acted soul-searching in other scenes.

The film ends with Millard breaking the fourth wall to answer the rhetorical question he asked at the beginning of the film: “What do you do when the only thing in the whole world that you have to hold on to is a song?” We see that he’s speaking in a grief support group.

He poses the question, then looks straight at the camera and says, “You keep holding on.”

“I Can Only Imagine” is still a mainstay of Christian radio. People ask for it to be played at their funerals. MercyMe isn’t a washed-up contemporary Christian music group trying to reinvent itself or manufacture relevance; its hit song hasn’t faded away.

I Can Only Imagine 2 holds on to that hit song, sometimes focusing on it instead of treading new ground. To be fair, though, its audience is definitely holding on to the beloved song too.

Kelsey Kramer McGinnis is the worship correspondent for Christianity Today.

Theology

Your Understanding of Calling Is About to Change Radically

Columnist

You can do little about what artificial intelligence is doing around you, but you can do something about you.

A compass.
Christianity Today February 18, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Image: Pexels

This piece was adapted from Russell Moore’s newsletter. Subscribe here.

You don’t have to seek God’s will for your career anymore.

I’m mostly joking, but not entirely. We must always seek God’s will. But what we meant by this for most of our lives is about to change dramatically. It’s not God or his will that’s changing but the world as we’ve known it—and with it, the outmoded way we’ve thought about “career.”

My teenage years brought with them a series of decisions as I wrestled with “What am I going to do with my life?” and “What is God’s will for me?” As with most of us, a huge part of that was calling. For me, it was a calling to ministry. But as many of us have emphasized and reemphasized for the past 30 years, a calling is not just into full-time Christian service but more generally to a vocation. The stakes of figuring out precisely what that calling was were rather fraught because it determined a cascade of other questions: Should you go to college or trade school or enlist in the military or do something else? If college, what major? If trade school, what discipline? If the military, what branch?

Those decisions determined the scope of your life—even if you pivoted and chose something else later. You felt that that if you got this wrong, you would be wasting your life or ruining your future. That’s a lot of pressure to put on a 17- or 18-year-old. That was the world all of us lived in, as did our parents and our grandparents. But we’re entering a different world now.

Last week, the essay “Something Big Is Happening” hit 60 million views on X within a matter of days and just as quickly became a focus of controversy. The essay, by artificial intelligence industry researcher Matt Shumer, argues that we are in the equivalent of February 2020, paying little attention to the virus that news reports told us was spreading across China. The world, Shumer wrote, is about to change dramatically—with a sea change of job losses and mass unemployment, especially in entry-level positions and among white-collar “knowledge workers.”

Many dismissed Shumer as an alarmist “doomer” or found legitimate problems with some of his predictions. But let’s set all that aside. What should get our attention is not what’s contested in Schumer’s piece but what is not. Dario Amodei, CEO of the AI company Anthropic, recently wrote a memo warning the world about what’s coming, including, as Axios summarized after interviewing him, his belief that “AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs—and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years.”

Note that this is not Paul Kingsnorth or another tech skeptic. This is someone who has articulated one of the most hopeful views of the possibilities of AI for a better future for all of us—and even wrote a manifesto called “Machines of Loving Grace.” Amodei still believes in the promise of AI—after all, he’s in charge of one of the most important AI companies in the world. In an interview with Ross Douthat, Amodei explored even more in depth what he sees coming. It’s worth it in the long run, he believes, but the upheaval will be massive.

At the same time, an Anthropic safety researcher published an open letter telling the world he was quitting—and heading to the United Kingdom to write poetry. The letter did not end with “Good night, and good luck,” but that was the feel.

As you know, I have definite views about where I think this is headed, and I have stated and restated my alarm that the church (and Christian ministries and media) seem unwilling or unable to prepare. But here’s one piece of all the ways AI is changing the world that will definitely be the case, regardless of whether the AI doomers, the AI boosters, or those of us in the middle are right: The old pattern of choosing a career and spending a life pursuing it is about to be over.

In some ways, of course, it already is. My father worked for essentially two places for his entire life—the FBI and the Ford Motor Company—and he had a more varied career than many of his peers, who started at a company and retired in the same place. That has shifted. Virtually no one expects a career so stable that they’ll be with the same employer for a lifetime.

But most people thought that even if employment is not that stable anymore, a sense of vocation still is and always will be. If you are a computer programmer, you might go from working at a hospital to working at a law firm. If you’re an accountant, you might go from working for a paper company to working at a county parks-and-recreation department, and so on.

Things are much less fixed and stable now—even for the most educated and specialized. After all, a surgeon in 2026 might well have an unrecognizable skill set when compared to a surgeon in 2046. An effective teacher in 2026 might need the equivalent of an entirely different education to do the job in 2056. And then there are those whose entire fields get raptured in what seems like the twinkling of an eye.

There are lots of dangers, toils, and snares here, and I won’t wave them away. But there’s at least one way in which the shakeup we’re entering might be good for you. I don’t mean good in the sense that medicine or quality of life will be better (although I have no reason to doubt that). I mean the uncertainty itself. Our own uncertainty can help us shake off some assumptions that hurt us.

We have thought of vocation as a definite thing. That mindset may even be behind a lot of the angst we have about discerning God’s will for a career. We think once it’s decided, then the map is set, and now we just set out on it. Of course, that was never really true. Vocations never go the way we plan. That’s true whether a person stays in the same role for a lifetime or moves from job to job to job.

A truck driver might do the same thing he did when he was 25, but it’s an entirely different thing to maintain attention and skill than it was to choose it. Someone might think she knows what it will be like to be an emergency room doctor after interviewing those who’ve done it, but she doesn’t know what it’s like to be an emergency room doctor while going through a divorce or recovering from an addiction.

As Frederick Buechner famously said, “The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet.” That’s still true. But the ways and means of joining your gladness to that hunger will change—probably over and over. The unpredictability was always there. Now it’s just recognizable and undisguised.

Maybe you’re worried about figuring out what God is calling you to do. Maybe you’re concerned about how long you can keep working in the calling you chose years ago. In either case, here’s the good news: You can do nothing about the changes around you, but you can do something about you.

Here’s what I mean. Maybe you write code and your job is about to be replaced by an AI model created by another AI model. But you will still be the kind of person who knows how to pay attention to the detail it takes to do what you do, who knows how to discipline yourself to focus on the task in front of you. You still are the person who could do all that while facing all the personal obstacles in front of you at the time.

Maybe those skills will be completely repurposed in ways you never imagined, but you still have them. Maybe it’s time to stop thinking of yourself as a software engineer and to start thinking of yourself as a person who has the kind of mind that can learn and do software engineering—even if you apply it to something you never imagined. You can teach someone else how to do that—even if it is so they can do things you never even considered.

I’m right there with you. AI models can write faster than I can, and I’m sure they can turn out a more attention-grabbing article or sermon than mine would be. Maybe the whole point of my calling wasn’t the writing or the teaching but the preparation for some month in the distant future when my roommate in the nursing home tells me he was hurt by some religion and is scared to die. Maybe my whole calling—all these years of grappling with what to say in sermons or wrestling every week with whether some atrocity in the news cycle was worth writing about here—maybe that was all just a lifetime of preparation for me to be able to know what I need to say to him: “Jesus loves you. This I know, for the Bible tells me so.” Who’s to say? If that is the case, could I live with that? Would it all be worth it? Yes. The same is true for you, whatever you do.

But that contentment requires a certain mindset. In describing Abraham’s faith in response to God’s calling, the Bible says, “And he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11:8, ESV throughout). That required Abraham and Sarah and all the other heirs of that promise to “[acknowledge] that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (v. 13). You don’t know what you will be doing in ten years. You never did.

You can’t predict with certainty what jobs the world will need in ten years—and you certainly can’t find one and freeze it in place. But the world will still need wisdom and integrity and creativity and care. As you learn and practice a craft, you can pay attention to what disciplines that you have enable you to do it. Those who thrive will be those who adapt—who can learn, recalibrate, and see their vocations as lives of serving others with their gifts, not just as job descriptions. Maybe then we can free ourselves of identifying with our callings and see that they were always meant to free us to give and serve.

And in that freedom, we might recover something we’ve lost. Jesus said to his disciples, “Follow me.” And then he said it again. And again. And again. In every case, he repurposed old skills for some new task for which his disciples never even knew they were being prepared.

Jesus’ calling to vocation was never about a blueprint. It was always about a way. It was never about your calling. It is about who is calling you.

Russell Moore is editor at large and columnist at Christianity Today and leads its Public Theology Project.

Theology

Christian Doctrine in 70 Hebrew Words

Columnist; Contributor

Martin Luther called Psalm 110 the core of Scripture for its 7 short verses of foundational doctrine.

Fragments of Psalm 110 with paintings from the Bible.
Christianity Today February 18, 2026
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons, Bible Gateway

The Hebrew Bible does not contain a formal creed or systemization of core doctrines, but if it did, it might be Psalm 110. Martin Luther called it “the very core and quintessence of the whole Scripture,” and there is no Old Testament text more quoted or alluded to in the New Testament.

In just seven verses, we find miniature versions of Christian doctrines including the Trinity, the Incarnation, the inspiration of Scripture, the humanity and divinity of Christ, the holiness and unity of the church, and the ministry of Jesus as prophesied Priest and King. The British philosopher A. N. Whitehead famously described European philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato. We could say something similar: New Testament theology is a series of footnotes to Psalm 110.

Here is the psalm in its entirety (ESV here and throughout):


The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand;
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The LORD sends forth from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your enemies!
Your people will offer themselves freely
on the day of your power,
in holy garments;
from the womb of the morning,
the dew of your youth will be yours.
The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek.”

The Lord is at your right hand;
he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment among the nations,
filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
over the wide earth.
He will drink from the brook by the way;
therefore he will lift up his head.

Psalm 110 is like a classic song everyone keeps singing. Jesus, his disciples, and the apostles all quote Psalm 110. For Jesus, Psalm 110 is quite literally a conversation-stopper, a trump card that he plays to silence those who reject his claims. He quotes the first verse and asks the Pharisees: “‘If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?’ And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions” (Matt. 22:45–46).

Peter makes Psalm 110 the biblical punchline of his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:34–36), then does the same thing a short while later in debate with the Jewish council (5:31). Stephen alludes to it as he is about to be stoned (7:56). Paul evokes it frequently, often at crucial moments in his reasoning (Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25–27; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1). The argument of Hebrews is built on it from start to finish (1:3; 4:14–5:10; 10:11–14; 12:2). It turns up in 1 Peter 3:22 and Revelation 3:21; 19:11–21. It even makes an appearance in the Apostles’ Creed.

The New Testament’s emphasis on Psalm 110 may be puzzling. How did this little poem become so central to Christian thought and doctrine from the very beginning? What do we do with all the Iron Age details we find difficult—dew from the womb of the morning, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the shattering of kings and the strewing of corpses? And why was this psalm in particular—this psalm that most of us never sing and many of us struggle to understand—so significant to Christ and the apostles?

Much of the answer is found in that magnificent opening verse.

A Psalm of David.
The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Jesus, as we have seen, bamboozles the Pharisees with the implications here. If David refers to the Christ as his “Lord,” who sits at the right hand of God with his enemies under his feet, then David surely cannot be referring to a mere human descendant. And if (as the Gospels clearly indicate) Jesus himself is the Christ, and therefore the “Lord” of Psalm 110, then it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is a divine as well as a human figure. As C. S. Lewis put it, by quoting the opening verse in the way that he did, Jesus “was in fact hinting at the mystery of the Incarnation by pointing out a difficulty which only it could solve.”

The psalm goes even further than pointing to Jesus’ divine nature. The opening verse contains not just two characters, but three: “the LORD,” “my Lord,” and the speaker. But if the speaker is “David himself, in the Holy Spirit,” as Jesus puts it, then we have a remarkably clear reference to the Trinity (Mark 12:36). The Spirit is telling us what the Father says to the Son. The intimacy here, as we eavesdrop on conversations between the divine persons, is breathtaking.

Indeed, we may be able to go further still: The psalm references the eternal “begetting” of the Son. If we assume that the person being addressed in verses 1–4 is the Christ/Lord throughout, which seems almost certain, then Christ is promised a global kingdom, daily refreshment, and an everlasting priesthood. The Greek version adds even more fuel to the theological fire: “From the womb, before the dawn-bearing morning star appeared, I begot you” (v. 3, LXX). When you read this alongside Psalm 2, as the early church did, it sounds suspiciously like a statement of the eternal generation (or “begetting”) of the Son.

However, the most dramatic move in the psalm is where the Messiah is identified as a priest. Davidic kings came from the tribe of Judah; priests came from the tribe of Levi. It would be slightly anachronistic to refer to this as a separation of powers within Israel, but only slightly. Yet David is unapologetic:

The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek.”

This astonishing verse reaches a thousand years backward to the mysterious priest-king Melchizedek who blessed Abram (Gen. 14) and reaches a thousand years forward to the New Testament’s most theologically sophisticated argument (Heb. 7–10). God promised Christ that he would be a priest. And not just any priest: an everlasting, Melchizedekian priest rather than a temporary, Levitical one.

If we read Psalm 110 carefully, Hebrews argues, we know that Christ comes as a priest who is greater than Abraham, qualified by his indestructible life, the source of a better hope and a better covenant than the old ones, able to save us to the uttermost because he always lives to pray for us, and perfect forever (7:4–28). Few doctrines in Scripture are more comforting than the fact that the all-conquering Lord of the world is blameless, indestructible, and permanently praying for you—and that comfort is entirely drawn from an exposition of Psalm 110.

Psalm 110 also provides the basis for a beautiful doctrine of the church:

Your people will offer themselves freely
on the day of your power,
in holy garments. (v. 3)

Here, the people of God are drawn freely to Christ’s sovereignty, rather than coerced or commandeered, and dressed in clothes of priestly holiness. When Christ the royal priest rides out to battle, he is accompanied by a royal priesthood in his train: his church. The comprehensive victory that he wins over the powers and rulers—with nations judged, kings shattered, and chiefs scattered—becomes ours. So, presumably, do the rest and refreshment that come in the final verse:

He will drink from the brook by the way;
therefore he will lift up his head.

These are deep scriptural waters. In just 70 Hebrew words, we are pointed toward the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord, the Holy Spirit who spoke by the prophets, and the holy church. We find humanity and divinity, incarnation and exaltation, kingdom and priesthood, victory and sacrifice. Convictions on which our faith depends, from the Trinitarian nature of God to the inspiration of Scripture and the intercession of Christ, are littered throughout this psalm. Joy bubbles forth from it. Given that we will be singing this psalm forever, we might as well start now.

Andrew Wilson is teaching pastor at King’s Church London and author of Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West.

addApple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseellipseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squarefolderGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastprintremoveRSSRSSSaveSavesaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube