Books
Excerpt

Joy Is in the Waiting

An excerpt from Savoring Childhood: Practical Wisdom for Slowing Down.

The book on a gray background.
Christianity Today March 5, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, IVP

“How long till we get to the beach, Mommy?” We were about seven minutes from our driveway the first time Henry asked. He was four years old, and the two of us were headed from our home in the foothills of South Carolina down to the coast, where the rest of the family would join us at the end of the school week.

Expecting him to be disappointed that so much of the trip lay ahead of us, I framed my answer as an apology. “Sorry, buddy, but we still have more than three hours to go.”

Hours and minutes were somewhat abstract to Henry’s young mind, but he understood that three hours was a lot of time. Still, his little spirit was so full of excitement that he squealed with joy, “Hooray, hooray! Only three more hours till we get to the beach!”

His response lifted my spirits, so a short time later when he asked again, “How much longer till we get to the beach?” I cheerily reported, “Only two hours and 45 minutes to go!”

Yes!” he shouted. “We are getting closer!”

He was right. We were getting closer with every second and minute that passed. And rather than focusing on the fact that we weren’t there yet, he was focused on our movement in a good direction—and he was actually savoring the journey. He chattered away in his car seat about things he was hoping to do when we arrived. He asked me to name every cousin, aunt, and uncle who would be there. He was looking forward to building a sandcastle and was excited about what we might have for supper. As we drove, Henry was making plans in glad anticipation of his desires rather than fretting over the not yet of it all.

For the rest of the ride, he continued to ask for the countdown to arrival. Instead of feeling exasperated by his repetitive questions, I got more and more tickled by his enthusiasm.

Whenever we make the trek to the ocean, our family brings up this story. I suppose it reminds us that the journey can be part of the fun, even though it involves waiting. The memory holds out a glimmer of possibility: Children can learn to wait . . . even to wait with joy.

So much effort and innovation these days goes into speeding up the journey, whether it’s a literal journey to a physical destination or the journey from I want it to I have it. This pattern of instant fulfillment has a diluting effect on joy.

On a folded sheet of yellowing paper that my mom discovered among some family documents, there is an unpublished essay by my great-aunt Eugenia Pearson called “The Magic of Expectancy.” Eugenia writes,

The youthness of youth is due largely to fervent and undiluted expectancies. People begin to be old, regardless of birthdays, when they limit and tame down their expectancies. Of course they try to feel that this taming down and limitation are respectable by calling them “settling down.” They seem to ignore the fact that in a living, changing, and growing world there can be no settling down at any stage of life. Expectancy keeps us in the creative livingness of life, where all desires are energized.

Eugenia was from an era of waiting stoically and not getting one’s hopes up. She was a teenager during the Great Depression. To her contemporaries, she brings the message that it is good to dream big and lean into longings. It’s a beautiful reminder not to give up on expecting God to do something wonderful, even when times are tough.

We are from a different era. Today, expectancy isn’t dulled by having our hopes dashed constantly by hardship, but rather by having them fulfilled instantly, always. Like the character Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, who sings, “I want the world. . .  I want it now!” children who habitually get what they want without delay are tyrannical when they have to wait. You see, entitlement is not expectancy. Impatience is not expectancy. Instant gratification has an unholy power to warp how our children think and feel. It muddies the clear, delicious water of expectancy and turns it into exasperation—a sour drink that makes waiting sheer misery.

Like a little devil on our shoulder, impatience whispers angry, fitful complaints in our ear that make us focus on what we don’t have. But there is another way to wait. A way of waiting that focuses on what we will have with confidence and enthusiasm.

As tempting as it is to try to spare our kids the pain of waiting, the best way to ease their anguish is to help them discover that waiting is not so bad. My favorite strategy for shifting a child’s perspective from exasperation to expectancy is to use countdowns. A countdown breaks up a long process into a series of small celebrations. This is not a trick to anesthetize or speed up delayed gratification. In fact, countdowns highlight rather than hide the reality of how far away you are from a desired destination or outcome. But by marking progress and celebrating milestones, countdowns make the journey feel endurable, even enjoyable. Children benefit from the way countdowns place something attainable in the foreground while giving them freedom to talk about their hopes and imagine the future.

Even if a desired outcome is very far away and progress is slow and gradual, stepping out the journey helps young people look forward with delight rather than despair. The journey itself is a fertile space for practicing patience and cultivating gratitude. Not everything a child wishes to attain is worth pursuing, but healthy desires deserve the space to gain momentum, even to reach the intensity of what we might call longing. Delayed gratification makes that crescendo possible and makes attainment all the more sweet when it finally comes. The natural byproduct is heartfelt appreciation.

If an instant lifestyle is getting in the way of your child’s ability to practice patience and savor longer processes, here are some tips for reclaiming the sweet parts of waiting.

  • Don’t avoid telling kids about good things that are far off. The further out you tell them, the longer the on-ramp for their mental preparation so that they can engage deeply and savor the experience. Start with brief countdowns for toddlers (a few hours, or one day before a big occasion). And build up to extended countdowns with big kids, for whom even a year or more should not be too long to sustain expectancy for something wonderful.
  • Loop kids in on preparations. Even if a child’s help actually makes life harder for you—and it will!—it forms something important in children to see themselves as contributors, and preparing can set their minds on the good that is to come with fresh energy and enthusiasm. Eventually kids who have taken part in preparations become truly helpful and enjoy it. We have finally reached that stage, and it is so rewarding!
  • Talk about hopes in family prayers. When you pray aloud together, thank God for opportunities that you are looking forward to. Share your own excitement, voice your frustration when waiting is hard, and encourage kids to voice their feelings honestly. “How long, O Lord?” is a biblical plea (see Psalm 13, for example). Including God in our looking forward helps kids learn that our heavenly Father cares about all the intimate details of his children’s lives. All good experiences worth waiting for are his gifts to us.

Enduring a child’s many questions and emotions is a test of endurance for grownups. If we’re honest, we could use the practice. Becoming patient is a lifelong process. So keep answering those questions, patiently and enthusiastically. Building up our own endurance helps prepare us for the long journey of shepherding young people into the childhood experiences that will help them to grow in wisdom, character, and love for God. This is the goal ahead of us, the great destination we are expectantly, or perhaps anxiously, awaiting.

“My little children,” Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (4:19, NRSVue throughout). Long journeys, even spiritual ones, can at times be excruciating. But with every yes we give to God, with every step we take to cooperate with his grace, even with every chapter we read and every suggestion we put into practice, we are getting closer. (You are closer now than you were before you read this sentence!)

So hold on to joyful expectancy. And “may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13).

Grace P. Pouch is content manager for Renovaré, where she curates and produces resources for spiritual renewal. She previously served as a seminary professor. She is the author of Savoring Childhood. Adapted from Savoring Childhood by Grace P. Pouch. Copyright (c) 2026 by Grace Pate Pouch. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. www.ivpress.com

News

Q&A: Some Israelis See Esther’s Story in the Attacks on Iran

Journalist Yossi Klein Halevi speaks to CT about Jewish reflections on the US and Israel-led war.

Christianity Today March 5, 2026
Illustration by Rick Szuecs / Source Images: Envato /  US Navy / Nur Photo /Getty


Early this week, as the joint US-Israel attack on Iran began, Jews around the world celebrated Purim, the ancient feast commemorating Esther’s rescue of the Jews from Haman of Persia. The Bulletin host Mike Cosper sat down with Yossi Klein Halevi, a journalist and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, to learn more about the Jewish response to these attacks and how the biblical story Israel celebrates this week informs Jews’ understanding of Middle East conflict. Here are edited excerpts from their conversation in episode 258.

How is the mood in Israel, even as people are running to bomb shelters and getting alerts from time to time as well?

On one hand, Israel is resolved—there’s no question. People are ready to make lots of sacrifices to bring this regime down. On the other hand, there’s deep disorientation and fatigue and still a society that’s quietly grieving. We’ve lost several thousand people since October 7 [2023] and thousands wounded in a country that’s completely traumatized. Now we’re back in the trauma. 

This is a very strong country, and there’s virtual unanimity among Israelis, certainly in the political system. There’s no opposition at this moment. Everyone understands this is an existential need for Israel and for the future of the Middle East. It doesn’t make it easier on the home front. 

Last night, we had our first-ever missile falling in Jerusalem. The conventional wisdom during all of Israel’s wars, whether against Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran, was that no one would dare fire missiles into Jerusalem because they wouldn’t want to risk destroying Al-Aqsa mosque or the Dome of the Rock, the two main Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. Last night, Iran changed the ground rules and fired a missile into East Jerusalem. 

Israel has been through this since Saddam Hussein and the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraq fired 39 Scuds into Israeli cities. We’ve been in and out of shelters for 35 years. I raised my kids going in and out of shelters. There were certain ground rules, even to the nonconventional war, and there aren’t anymore. The regime is fighting for its life, and it’s desperate.

You’ve sought energetically in a number of your works to understand your neighbors, both Christian and Muslim. Twenty years ago, you said we can’t let this regime just sit there and build nuclear weapons. How has your understanding developed over the decades?

Being an advocate for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, between Muslims and Jews, looks and works differently in the Middle East than it does, say, at Columbia University. When you’re sitting here in ground zero of radical Islamism, you very quickly understand that there can be no peace without confronting the enemies of peace. The prerequisite for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, for example, is confronting and containing radical Islamism. 

Now, I’m also a fierce opponent of my own government, but there are many differences between my government and Hamas. This is a democratically elected government, and I have the option come October, which is when the next Israeli elections are scheduled for, to do everything I can to bring this terrible government down. But when I call this a terrible government, I’m still going to draw a very firm red line between Hamas and even this government. There are elements in this government that are uncomfortably Jewish echoes of radical Islamism. But that’s not true for most of this government. I loathe this government. I have spent much of my last three years actively opposing this government in the streets, sometimes every week, every other day. That, for me, is also part of my commitment to reconciliation. 

But when you’re facing radical Islamism, there’s no recourse but to go to war. That’s something a lot of people in the West have forgotten. The West, at least America, once understood that, and I understand that the cumulative impact of the forever wars have undermined the resolve of Americans. However, not to stand up to the Iranian regime when it’s at its weakest point in the last decades would be to compound the mistake of going to war when you shouldn’t have. Not to go to war when you should is not a way of compensating for having gone to war when you shouldn’t have.

What do you think comes next for Iran, especially as the bombs keep dropping, as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is defanged?

I don’t think this is going to be easy or straightforward. Probably 15 to 20 percent of the public supports the regime. That’s a recipe for regime collapse. I believe the regime will collapse, but it still has enough of its hardcore support to put up a very credible fight. This regime has, for half a century, entrenched itself in all parts of the Iranian infrastructure and suppressed opposition from the very beginning. 

Even more importantly, elements within the regime are imbued with an apocalyptic fervor that believes this is the last battle before the return of the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah. The secular West tends to downplay the significance of the theological strain in the regime calculations because the secular West doesn’t understand religion. 

In Israel and the Middle East, the lines between religiosity and the national experience are never clear-cut. For example, tonight [March 2] is Purim. The holiday of Purim is about the victory of the ancient Jews of Persia over Haman, who wanted to destroy them. Every Israeli understands the resonance of a war against modern Persia—modern-day Iran—led by a modern Haman. That’s the given language of discourse here. The politicians, the army, the chief of staff speak about it. When the commander of the Israel Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, addressed the nation Sunday, he spoke about the story of Purim. 

Here we are 2,500 years after the Purim story. It’s like Groundhog Day except with much more lethal consequences. But there’s also something very powerful about these recurring themes in Jewish history, and sometimes not just themes but literal reenactments. For me as a religious Jew, what we’re experiencing these days gives me pause. I don’t presume to know God’s will, and I’m not sitting looking at the newspaper as if it’s the Word of God and I can interpret what’s happening. I think that there’s a real problem when religious people do that. At the same time, as a religious person, I notice certain patterns that happen in the Israeli story. And I wonder, What is this all about? What’s the message here?

There seems to be something else at work here in this very strange Jewish story. It gives Israelis generally a sense of purpose and, more than that, a framework of meaning to the story. It’s not just about survival. There’s this sense in Israel today as we’re entering Purim: Here we are back with the Persians again.

That’s the Book of Esther itself. It never mentions the name of God once in the entire book. It’s all about the hiddenness of God in providence.

There’s a rabbinic wordplay of the name Esther, which also means in Hebrew “hiddenness,” hester. The Hebrew phrase for God’s hiddenness is hester panim, “God’s face is hidden.” The divine is literally hidden in the Book of Esther. God’s name is never mentioned, yet one can discern in the Book of Esther this uncanny series of coincidences that leads to a redemptive trajectory.

The Book of Esther really works on multiple layers. On the one hand, Mordecai warns Esther that God is going to do this whether you’re part of it or not. And yes, who knows what your fate will be if you opt out? In that sense, he’s not giving her a choice, but he also says something very touching to her. He says a phrase which has become one of the best-known aphorisms in Jewish discourse. It’s been absorbed into modern Israeli discourse: Who knows if you didn’t rise to your status for a time like this? That is that sense of destiny. 

In a way, you can sum up Jewish history with everything that Mordecai has told Esther. On the one hand, it’s going to be really bad for you. On the other hand, what a wonderful opportunity. Mordecai is hitting Esther with a combination of fate and destiny. Fate is what’s imposed on you, and destiny is what you choose for yourself. Those are recurring themes both in the story of Purim and in Jewish history. What we’re experiencing now is this convergence of these themes at this moment. 

If you had polled Israelis, the decision to go to war would have won by a landslide. Even though we, along with the Iranian people, are the ones who are the most endangered by that decision, we just take it for granted that we must do this for survival. That’s fate. But we also need to do this to stand against evil, and that’s destiny. There is this convergence of fate and destiny at this moment in Israel’s history.

If the regime does fall, what might that mean for religious minorities across the Middle East, not just Jews living in Israel?

This has been a very bad period for religious minorities around the Middle East. It’s hard to say whether this is really going to turn things around in other countries. Think of the countries where the Iranian regime has had such a strong hold—in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. In Yemen, a 2,500-year-old Jewish community was destroyed, and no one is left. The Iraqi Jewry goes back to Babylon, literally 2,500 years, and that community has been completely erased. Baghdad in the 1930s was one-third Jewish. It was the New York of the Arab world.

The longest-lasting Jewish communities in the world, which were in the Middle East, have experienced a massive uprooting. They were destroyed in a single generation, sometimes within a year.

There’s such rage against Shiism in Iran. During the popular uprising in January, there were something like 350 mosques that were burned by outraged mobs. They see Shiism as the reason for their oppression. If the regime falls, religiously, Iran is going to go through major convulsions. 

Within Iran, whether they rename themselves literally or reinvent themselves culturally and religiously, Persia is reemerging. I also sense there’s going to be a very strong resurgence of Zoroastrianism and the Baha’i faith, these two indigenous Persian faiths. 

I think Christianity is going to have a tremendous flowering in Iran as well. To leave Islam and convert to another faith carries with it a death sentence, so you’re looking at a heroic nucleus of a Christian resurgence there. I think there’s going to be a resurgence of the Jewish community. There’s a large Persian community in Israel, in the US. I suspect there’ll be a reawakening and people will go back, certainly on pilgrimages. I think we’re going to see a tremendous flowering of other religions. 

Church Life

Helping the Church Think Clearly

President & CEO

A note from CT’s President in our March/April issue.

Church building with a lighthouse tower instead of a steeple shining a beam of light.
Illustration by Rick Szuecs / Source images: Envato

Around two o’clock in the morning in 1953, Billy Graham awoke with an idea. The idea grew from years of conversations with Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, and Charles Fuller. They were eager to use their gifts, networks, and insights to influence the next generation of Christian ministers and leaders. Burdened with the weight of a God-sized dream, Graham penned the document for Christianity Today

My idea that night was for a magazine, aimed primarily at ministers, that would restore intellectual respectability and spiritual impact to evangelical Christianity. It would reaffirm the power of the Word of God to redeem and transform men and women. 

After more than 70 years, we bear witness to this God-sized vision that is still vibrantly alive. From the beginning, Christianity Today has carried a singular, unshakable mission: to elevate the name of Jesus Christ. There is no greater calling. 

Long before our first issue was printed, Billy Graham envisioned a magazine to help the church think clearly, live faithfully, and bear witness to the one who holds all things together. His conviction, and the conviction of those who came after him, was that Jesus is not merely the subject of our stories. He is also the center of our hope, the heartbeat of our work, and the Lord whom we joyfully serve.

Christ is the one who brings life where death reigns. He breaks down walls, reconciles enemies, forgives sinners, and welcomes the prodigals home. He brings light where darkness gathers and hope where despair threatens. It is him alone CT seeks to magnify across continents, generations, and dividing lines. 

As we look back through the pages of CT’s history, we draw from a deep well of evangelical teaching and tradition that prioritizes the authority of Scripture, the necessity of new birth, and the beauty of Christ’s redeeming work. Our times are not unique. The gospel has always faced opposition, the church has always navigated division, and seasons of cultural upheaval are nothing new for God’s people. Through every era, Christ remains faithful. His kingdom has not faltered. His Spirit has not diminished. His people still prevail.

Our task is to glorify Jesus, the one who still saves, forgives, reconciles, and redeems. While the world may say this isn’t possible and Christ’s power is insufficient for our crises, they are wrong. The same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead and ignited the early church is at work now—awakening hearts, renewing minds, and calling believers to bold discipleship (Rom. 8:11).

As I step into my role as CT’s president, I honor CT’s legacy and move forward with expectant hope. CT will continue to lift Christ high, make his beauty visible, and speak gospel truth with conviction and compassion. We will continue to hold fast to the gospel that invites us not to a shallow unity but to the deep, reconciling bond forged only by the crucified and risen Lord.

This is the perfect time to lean into the mission of Christianity Today. Let us journey together with our faith forged by the past and our hearts filled with joy as we steward this sacred calling until Christ comes for us again! 

Nicole Massie Martin is president & CEO of Christianity Today.

News

Churches Haven’t Forgotten Portland

Churches partner with business and city leaders in Portland’s downtown core.

Person lying on a sidewalk in a graffiti-covered Chinatown street.

A person lies on the street in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood on January 25, 2024, following the decriminalization of drugs in Portland, Oregon.

Getty

On the descent, Portland looks like it did more than a decade ago, when I first started flying home from college for visits. The little city glimmers in light reflected between the river and the overcast sky. There’s the tallest building, iridescent pink, where my dad used to work. Still pink. There are the ubiquitous trees. Still green. There are the warehouses and houseboats and a series of bridges spaced across the Willamette River like a line of shoelaces strung through eyelets. 

My feeling of relief as the plane touches down has stayed the same as time has passed. I’m home. But in the years I’ve lived away from Oregon, Portland has reeled. A broken-glass summer of 2020 protests preceded a failed attempt to decriminalize drugs in 2021 and a record-breaking number of homicides in 2022. (The Old Town Chinatown neighborhood suffered in particular, earning the nickname “the Skid Row of Portland.”) In September 2025, riffing on a round of demonstrations outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, President Donald Trump declared that living in Portland was like “living in hell” and said he was considering sending in National Guard troops. 

Later reporting revealed that the troubling footage the president had seen on Fox News was actually from Portland’s summer of 2020—not 2025. The network had mislabeled the clips and otherwise mischaracterized the most recent unrest. Yes, police had fired tear gas in those encounters, ProPublica said, but it found “no evidence of what could be termed a coordinated assault [by protestors],” and “on most of the days or nights when officers and protesters clashed, local police and federal prosecutors ended up announcing no criminal arrests or charges.”

Hell doesn’t describe the city’s tentative upward trend lines. Since “record-breaking violence” in 2021 and 2022, reports The Oregonian, homicides and shootings have decreased precipitously in Portland. So have, to a lesser extent, aggravated assaults and robberies. In 2024, legislators rolled back the drug-decriminalization legislation. By the end of 2025, under the leadership of the city’s new mayor, Keith Wilson, Portland had opened more than 1,500 shelter beds and enforced a ban on camping in public places. Last summer, downtown foot traffic was the highest it’s been post-pandemic.

But Target, REI, and other big-box stores that left the downtown core haven’t come back. From January to August 2025, Portland office-worker presence was at only 50 percent of 2019 levels. (The national average was around 73 percent.) The city’s economy is down: Last fall, an industry report ranked Portland “80th of 81 markets for the second year running for overall real estate prospects across property types,” beating out only Hartford, Connecticut.

The owner of the popular Mother’s Bistro & Bar, which serves cornflake-encrusted French toast, said her dining room is noticeably emptier: “Without weekday traffic, our city looks abandoned. It is abandoned.” (When I ate brunch at Mother’s last spring after running a popular St. Patrick’s Day 5K, I was shocked to be seated immediately.) 

Pastor Tyler Michel grew up in Portland. He left in 2011, a time when the popular comedy series Portlandia shaped public perception. Bustling breweries, a thriving art scene: Portland was the place to be. Now Michel is back to pastor the 48-year-old Greater Portland Bible Church (GPBC). He says, “The level of optimism has completely changed.” Now, graffiti urges, “Don’t give up on Portland.” 

While pastoring, Michel is also working on a doctorate at Wheaton College focusing on how churches can partner with civic and business organizations—and Portland is a living laboratory. He wants his congregants to skip the outrage about the state of their neighborhoods and focus on practical, local interventions. GPBC runs a food pantry that serves 150 guests every weekend, and the church is hoping to host a tool library in its space. 

The church is also thinking through plans to use its property—a former dairy farm sprawling over 14 acres—as a community gathering hub. Recently, it sold two acres to Habitat for Humanity to build affordable housing. GPBC tries to support local businesses by ordering in food from nearby Thai and Mexican restaurants. Michel dreams of helping would-be entrepreneurs start their own shops and micromanufacturing outfits.

“Devastation leads to desperation that leads to transformation,” Michel said. “Sometimes churches choose either gospel proclamation or community development.” He wants to do both: “maintain a commitment to the gospel, which is the ultimate way people can thrive personally” and also “step into areas of common grace.” Michel wants churches like his to “take a seat at the table” with business and civic leaders while recognizing that, especially in a secular city, the table doesn’t belong to them. 

Tim Osborn takes the same approach. He’s pastored on both the east and west sides of Portland for almost 20 years, planting five churches along the way. He’s seen the city shift as job security—especially at big employers like Intel and Nike—has risen and fallen and housing costs soared past income levels. 

Osborn said the church has to help with those common-grace concerns. Young married couples need coaching on how to make budgets. A friend in the restaurant industry needs support as he crafts drinks for a brand-new eatery, working late-night shifts. A Christian can “revitalize the city” by “being a good manager … being faithful in whatever vocation you’re in.”

Mayor Keith Wilson recently gathered pastors into a room to share his shelter-bed vision. Osborn found the outreach encouraging, that “12, 13, 14 years, they said, was the last time a mayor actually opened up and said, ‘Yeah, I want to hear from and … partner with pastors and churches.’” 

Osborn also teaches at Western Seminary and sees “a new wave of leaders coming … young men and women [who still have] a vision for church planting … caring about the inner core of the city.” And that seat at the table? Yes, take it!

Perhaps literally. Last fall, a prayer room called Garden Space PDX set up a long table along Burnside Street in beleaguered Old Town—bedecked with donated flowers and laden with salmon and chocolate mousse. The group sold some tickets in advance but also left chairs for unpaid guests and anyone who walked by, including those in vulnerable situations. Hungry people who didn’t want to take a seat simply filled their plates and hung out around the block.

The Garden Space prayer team recalled “Scripture that talks about Go out to the highways and the byways” (Matt. 22:8–10), said Renee Boucher, a member of the Garden Space lead team who’s done ministry in Portland for nearly 40 years. Old Town is “still so dark,” she acknowledged. “It’s a place people are afraid to go.” But for three years now, the ministry has led prayer walks around the district. And they’re getting results.

“I see the same language that we’re using in our prayers coming out of our mayor or business owners. … There’s a desire to see Old Town revitalized in a way that actually allows for the flourishing of all people,” Boucher said. 

In the midst of more plans for 2026—prayer campaigns against human trafficking, workspace for artists in the “urban abbey” (as Garden Space is known), more dinners—she’s relying on a “phrase that seems to be a tagline for many of us now: Hope blooms in the City of Roses.” 

“We’re believing that for downtown,” she declared. “We’re believing that for the city.” 

Kate Lucky is a senior features editor at Christianity Today.

Theology

This Easter, Let’s Lose Our Hope

Columnist

We need more than reassurance, punditry, or prediction.

Illustration of a silhouette of a pile of debris with a flower growing from it.
Illustration by Ben Hickey

Once, I had to help someone lose her faith. Kind of. 

She was coming out of a prosperity gospel background in which people used the admonition “Have faith” to manipulate her into giving more money to the ministry. It was her lack of faith, they told her, that was to blame for her sickness and poverty. At one point, after listening to this woman lament her lack of faith, I said, “Why don’t we forget faith for a little while and just trust Jesus?” 

Trusting Jesus is, of course, what the Bible calls faith. And in the fullness of time, I told her that. But before she could understand the reality by which she could live, she had to let go of the illusion by which she was swindled. As soon as she stopped worrying about how much faith she had and looked to Christ, she was, in fact, exercising faith. Lately I’ve wondered if the same is true for most of us in regard to another good word that has lost its meaning: hope

My fellow evangelical Christians love the word hope almost as much as a pastor exposed as an adulterer loves the word grace. In almost every setting in which I speak, one of the first questions people ask is “What gives you hope?” or “Where do you see signs of hope?” When pressed to define what they mean, they ultimately describe what they’re seeking as measurable reassurance—the calming word from an authority that everything will turn out okay. 

If I were braver, I would simply respond, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” (Matt. 12:39, ESV throughout). But I am made of squishier stuff than Jesus, so I usually give some signposts of good things to come. When I do that, though, I am giving them punditry or prediction, not hope.

By definition, whatever statistics I could give about Bible sales or church attendance would not be hope, even if these numbers were much better than they are. “Now hope that is seen is not hope,” the apostle Paul told us. “For who hopes for what he sees?” (Rom. 8:24). 

Still, we want that visible, quantifiable reassurance, don’t we? I suppose everyone does, but perhaps evangelical Christians want it more than most. Even those of us who reject a prosperity gospel easily fall into a kind of “prosperity providence,” if not with our own lives then with the church itself. When the church is growing and successful, we seem to think this proves the gospel is worth believing. Somehow, even those who believe that the call to Christ is the call to come and die still think claiming health and wealth is okay, as long as it is for the mission and not just for us. 

The problem, though, is that this kind of hope disappoints. When visible institutions and articulable ideas fall apart—and they will—those who thought hope meant upward progress feel duped and disillusioned. But if this cheap sort of hope appeals so much to our human frailty, then how can we move beyond it? Perhaps the season of Easter is a good time to remind ourselves that our Lord has already shown us the way out of the false hope and the way into the real. 

The resurrection accounts of the apostles give us hope in the context of what seems to be utter despair. Perhaps no one described this more pointedly than Luke, in his account of the travelers on the road to Emmaus. They encountered a stranger whom we know (but they did not) to be the resurrected Jesus. Luke wrote that Jesus “drew near and went with them,” inviting them to express their dashed hope (24:15). Describing the Crucifixion, the pilgrim Cleopas said, “But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened” (v. 21).

At this moment, a Jesus who was more like me would have levitated in a burst of glory, saying, “How do you like me now?” But that Jesus would have already done that in Pilate’s courtroom or Caesar’s palace. Thanks be to God, that is not the Jesus we have. Instead, Jesus went back to where he always did: the promises found in the Word of God. And “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (v. 27). He then made himself known—as he does to us—in the breaking of bread. 

And then he was gone. “And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight” (v. 31). 

Faith, hope, and love abide after everything else has collapsed, the apostle Paul wrote (1 Cor. 13:13). Faith itself, the Bible tells us, is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). It’s the “not seen” part that troubles us—especially in a machine age in which we expect to control everything. The Resurrection, though, doesn’t “evolve” like a machine to be better and stronger. Jesus truly joined us in death. Hope seemed to be gone, except for God’s word in Christ that he would keep his covenant promises. 

Christ is raised—physically, bodily, really. On the basis of the testimony we have received from witnesses, by the Spirit, we believe. For now, though, we see death everywhere. As I write this, children in Africa are gasping in agony as AIDS ravages their bodies. Between the time I type this and the time you read it, chances are that some horrible tragedy will be in the news—a tsunami, an earthquake, civil unrest, an epidemic. We believe the church will prevail against the gates of hell, but that’s because Jesus told us so, not because the scorecard of wins demonstrates it to us. 

My impulse is to rush to the kind of hope that takes shortcuts around the suffering, endurance, and character by which real hope is produced (Rom. 5:1–5). 

But genuine hope does not disappoint us, Paul wrote, “because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (v. 5). The same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead is the Spirit who prompts us to groan inwardly as we wait (8:23). And in that groaning, sometimes too deep for words, the Spirit creates a different kind of longing, so that “if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” (v. 25). 

That’s not what I naturally want. I want the hope that comes with observable signs. But that kind of hope is not focused on the resurrected Christ at the right hand of the Father. That kind of hope cannot survive the hearse ride from the funeral home to the cemetery. And that means that if I am really to have hope, I need to stop asking for signs and remember the sign of Jonah. But that one sign is enough. A tomb in Jerusalem is still empty. He is risen, just as he said. That’s real hope—the kind that, just like our lives, we must lose before we can find. 

Somebody will probably ask me this week, “So where is the hope?” And I will try to give the person reasons not to despair. I will point to the younger generation, to what’s happening in the global church, to all kinds of statistics and anecdotes and optimistic predictions. But maybe what I need is for someone to take me aside afterward and tell me that’s all prosperity gospel bluster. Maybe I need that person to point out that even if nothing optimistic is happening, Jesus is still raised from the dead. Maybe that person can remind me of what I’ve sung since I was a toddler but keep forgetting: My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. All other ground is sinking sand. 

Maybe that person could even say it this way: “Why don’t we forget hope for a little while and just wait for Jesus?” 

Russell Moore is editor at-large and columnist at Christianity Today as well as host of the weekly podcast The Russell Moore Show from CT Media. 

Ideas

The Vigil of Birth

Staff Editor

For low-risk pregnancies, midwife care can offer mothers the birth resources they need: patience, attention, and time.

Pregnant woman sitting on a birthing ball while two caregivers support her during labor.
Illustration by Tara Anand

So much of pregnancy is numbers. How many days since your last menstrual period? How many babies are in there? How long is the femur? How thick is the placenta? What’s the angle of the nasal tip? How many centimeters is your fundal height? How many weeks? How many more weeks? Are you sure it’s that many weeks? Are you sure it’s just one in there?

With labor comes a new metric: hours. This is the worst number of all. You’ll hear tantalizing tales, intended as encouragement, of labors measured in minutes. I myself know a baby who made a sudden appearance at home after a short spell of light contractions spaced 15 minutes apart.

Alas, that was not my baby. My first pregnancy was twins. They were delivered—unusually for multiples—without a C-section or epidural, by a doctor who specialized in complicated births with few medical
interventions. At a prenatal visit, I asked about the longest time gap he’d seen between babies. Two hours, he said. I was reassured.

After my delivery, I assume that doctor has revised his approach to this query, because my gap between babies was four hours and 45 minutes. That’s not reassuring at all.

But it was instructive. It taught me how time matters in birth—and how much a provider’s posture toward time can reveal about the nature of their care. My doctor was on no schedule but mine. Those 285 minutes were very uncomfortable but never unsafe or uncertain. 

In a more conventional hospital setting, however, they wouldn’t have been allowed. I’d most likely have been bundled off to the operating room, then tasked with caring for two infants while recovering from both kinds of delivery at once.

My second birth reinforced the time-and-care lesson, albeit on the other end of the timescale. I went to our midwife-run birth center at 8 a.m., had the baby at 5 p.m., and by 10 that night was at home in my own bed.

Everything was different, yet the philosophy of care was the same. And though the primary provider at my first birth was an ob-gyn, his team was heavily populated with midwives and his style of care more resonant with theirs than with many of his medical peers. That was exactly why we’d sought him out.

Midwife-attended deliveries like mine are uncommon in America, and that’s a shame. Of course, midwifery isn’t appropriate for all pregnancies. There are many women and babies for whom hospital care, up to and including a scheduled C-section, is the right and prudent choice. Freestanding (not hospital) birth centers are only equipped to handle low-risk, uncomplicated deliveries, which means some women will “risk out” of their care, as midwives tend to phrase it. Twin pregnancies like mine are automatically high-risk.

But most pregnancies aren’t multiple, and far more births could be safely handled in birth centers than the 12 percent attended by midwives today. Not only could, in fact, but should, because midwife care in low-risk births correlates with better outcomes for mothers and babies alike.

Midwifery is the default option for low-risk deliveries in countries other than the US with the safest maternity care, and in America, peer-reviewed research shows that states with more midwife integration see “significantly higher rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean, and breastfeeding, and significantly lower rates of cesarean, preterm birth, low birth weight infants, and neonatal death.” There’s even evidence suggesting that expanding use of midwives could slow the worrisome decline in American birthrates by making pregnancy and its aftermath less of an ordeal.

This all might seem counterintuitive, I realize. Wouldn’t the greater resources of a hospital mean greater safety? For high-risk pregnancies, yes. But for low-risk pregnancies, a midwife-led birth center is more likely to avoid unnecessary medical interventions—like a C-section, which, being a major abdominal surgery, is good to avoid if it’s safe to do so—while offering women a greater supply of the resources needed most: patience, attention, and time.

“During my long labor in the hospital with my first, the doctor would stop by periodically to see how I was doing. The labor-and-delivery nurse on duty was also spread thin,” recalled Margaret St.Jean, a retired teacher in Virginia who also happens to be my mother-in-law. In the hospital, “I didn’t feel personally supported by anyone except my husband for hours of labor,” she said, but “when you opt for midwifery care, they act as their title describes. They are ‘with woman,’” as per the etymology of the term.

Following that difficult first birth, which ended in a C-section she’s long believed could’ve been avoided with more attentive care, Margaret sought out midwives for the delivery of her six subsequent children. 

“Midwives keep their eyes on the laboring woman, not on machinery spitting out information,” she recalled of those births. “In later stages of labor, you cannot ask for what you need. A good midwife’s skills of observation guide her to help you. The obstetrician is trained as a surgeon. Sometimes their skill is essential to saving lives, but they don’t spend hours by your side.”

For Margaret, the practical advantages of midwifery are linked to her duty as a mother before God. Today, a birth-center delivery is often more affordable than a hospital birth—that, as well as “transparent, upfront pricing,” was “a huge selling point” for Austin Gravley, a youth ministry director in the Texas panhandle whose wife chose midwife care. But 30 years ago, midwives were the more costly option for my in-laws. Their decision was born of the biblical conviction that “children are a heritage from the Lord” (Ps. 127:3), and parental responsibility a weighty trust.

Most other parents and providers I interviewed didn’t see quite so direct a connection between their faith and their choice of midwifery. But many described a real resonance. 

“My perspective as a Christian leads me to view bearing and birthing children both as a blessing and a part of normal life, but also as something cursed and difficult,” said Elisabeth Young, who works at a Christian nonprofit in Maryland. Though her choice of midwife care was mostly about its demonstrated benefits, she appreciates that midwives don’t treat “pregnancy and birth as an illness,” she told me. That’s not a theological position, exactly, but it makes good theological sense.

Ann Ledbetter, a certified nurse-midwife in Wisconsin who attends 40 to 60 births a year, said her faith “definitely” shaped her choice of work. “I have always felt in a weird way that I was guided toward midwifery,” she said, recounting a college-era pledge to God at the University of Notre Dame—made in a moment of desperation over an organic chemistry class—to “honor [God] with my work, whatever it may be.”

The Reformer Martin Luther famously entered ministry under similar circumstances—though his distress was over a lightning storm rather than sophomore-year o-chem—so perhaps it’s appropriate that Ann is a Lutheran today. Still, she’s held on to the Catholic idea of a “preferential option for the poor,” which means following Jesus in prioritizing the “least of these” (Matt. 25:34–40).

For Ann, that’s meant working at a community health clinic where 8 in 10 patients are low-income. “It has always been my dream to provide high-quality maternity care to people who often have very few choices when it comes to childbearing,” she told me, “and I feel so lucky to have ended up in a job where I can do this every day.”

Midwife care isn’t infallible, of course. Some midwives are incompetent, as are some members of any field. And sometimes things go awry—even dangerously awry. 

Austin, the youth ministry director, initially preferred a hospital delivery “out of an anxious sense of ‘What if?’ ” His wife, Melissa, had been intrigued by home birth with a midwife’s help, but for Austin, this was simply too much risk. (It’s too much for me as well, though I know several women who’ve had midwife-attended deliveries safely at home.) Austin and Melissa settled on a birth center as a middle ground.

After delivery, their son was doing well, but Melissa was losing too much blood and needed surgical repair. An ambulance rushed her to the hospital. “At first I was deeply angry about the whole ordeal,” Austin said, because “this was the exact ‘What if?’ that I had feared.” But the midwife in attendance “proved her trustworthiness,” he continued. “I respected the fact that she made the call for help and would not leave Melissa’s side until she was safe.” Their second baby, due in April, will be delivered at the same birth center.

The midwife’s assistant at that birth, Austin noted, was “a super-crunchy, progressive woman who was not a Christian,” whereas he and his wife are “theologically conservative Reformed evangelicals.” Melissa and the assistant “had some fascinating conversations about Jesus, the gospel, and church,” he said, and the couple was able to “pray for her and show to her a confidence in Christ throughout, especially after the birth when the medical emergency began.”

This pairing—of theologically conservative Christians with crunchy, often-secular progressives—is a birth-center distinctive I’ve noticed as well. Sometimes, sitting in a waiting room for a prenatal appointment, I’d marvel at who else was there with me: a homeschooling mom of five in skeins of denim next to a first-timer with grown-out purple hair and a pronouns pin. Where else in this polarized country would we all so naturally, intimately, and congenially converge?

“Most midwives I have seen, I would guess, do not align with me politically or religiously,” said Hallie Skansi Toplikar, a nurse in Central Texas who’s observed this pattern too. “Yet the friends I have that are most likely to use a birth center or even home birth are my Catholic mom friends.”

Christine, a nurse in Pennsylvania who wanted to be identified by only her first name given the sensitivity of her work, sees this unusual social mix as an asset. “One of the really beautiful parts about a birth center is that it’s a place where maybe not all of your values or all of your ideals overlap” with the people you’ll encounter, she said. “But your ideal for a low-intervention, natural birth is what brings everyone together.” 

At her birth center, staff and patients alike vary widely in their views. “Certainly, I fit into that Christian-mom demographic, but we have staff from lots of different perspectives,” Christine said, and they work to serve every mother well.

My mother-in-law Margaret saw this three decades ago. “I think there may be a ‘fellow traveler’ feeling that links the conservative Christian and the crunchy progressive,” she mused—“the value of principle above convenience. These principles may not be exactly matched—for instance, on the issue of abortion. But I think there is a shared value of independence and personal responsibility.” 

In her experience of midwife care, “people got along in a very comfortable way” across wide ideological and demographic divides, Margaret said. “Pregnancy, labor, and delivery are ties that bind women deeply together.”

Supporting his wife through labor can bind a man to good fatherhood, too, by offering an intensive tutorial in the long, often weary yet lovely responsibility of raising children. 

“I definitely sympathize with husbands who are concerned” about risk in nonhospital births, Austin reflected. “But even after my wife’s situation, the birth center was a genuinely beautiful and unique experience, and I don’t think that’s something to take lightly if it’s something your wife wants and it’s safe to do. It pushed me completely out of my comfort zone,” he added, “but if your midwife is trained and trustworthy, the upsides are valuable.”

That value extends beyond any one family. Birth deserts—places where women have no nearby facility offering maternity care—are an urgent and dangerous problem in America. It’s a lot more feasible to start and support a freestanding birth center than an entire hospital. Even so, it’s not easy. 

Some states maintain unfriendly legal environments for midwives, with limited licensure options or onerous and counterproductive supervision requirements. Birth centers often operate on thin margins, organized as nonprofits to accept much-needed grants and other charitable giving. They try to keep costs low to make midwife care as accessible as possible, yet even with a small sticker price, insurance companies can be obstructive and reimbursements too few. 

Money woes are common, Christine said, telling me that the sole freestanding birth center in Philadelphia closed in February. After nearly half a century and 16,000 babies, rising “financial and regulatory challenges” finally made it impossible to continue.

Talking about delivery practices can be difficult, because even dispassionate conversation about birth centers might feel like judgment for women who of necessity or choice took a different route to motherhood. It’s a prickly subject, and understandably so. But I have no qualms in saying that this facility closure is a severe loss for the women of Philly. That’s not because midwife care is right for every birth but rather because it’s a blessing for many.

“My midwives were strong Christians, and I did feel God was very present and active in my births with them,” said Carrie Stallings, a writer and tutor in West Texas who chose midwife care for its practical benefits. “But he was also present and active in my hospital birth.” 

We know that God will be attentive either way, but if you want a birth provider ready to stand vigil, consider calling a midwife. 

Bonnie Kristian is deputy editor at Christianity Today.

Books
Review

Congress Is Overwhelmed and Incompetent

Self-interested and self-loathing, it’s unable to represent the American people well. A new book suggests solutions.

Illustration of politicians in congress, running and falling as a cracked divide splits the ground beneath them.
Illustration by Ronan Lynam

Representative Chip Roy was staring at me, baffled. I had sidled up to the Texas Republican while he was leaving the House chamber one afternoon last spring to ask him about the tech billionaire Elon Musk. Roy was used to me pestering him as he walked to and from votes—all Hill reporters do it—but this question was particularly outlandish to him.

“Do you feel like Congress,” I’d wondered aloud, “needs to be leading the audits here instead?”

At the time, Musk was at the height of his cost-cutting paroxysm. With President Donald Trump’s thumbs-up, he’d been unilaterally canceling congressionally approved spending. But Roy wasn’t worried about encroachments on the power of the purse. He was just glad that someone was looking at outlays.

“I have 14 people in my office,” Roy told me after he’d recovered from my question. “How the frick am I going to go through every report of every dollar that’s being spent?”

Musk’s short-lived initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency, wasn’t quite the picture of independent, dedicated oversight. But Roy’s answer was telling nevertheless. How indeed might a member of Congress today conduct any meaningful oversight when lawmakers can’t hire enough staff, aren’t able to hold on to the employees they do have, and keep retiring themselves?

A few months after our conversation, Roy announced he would leave the House to run for a state-level office. If he wins, he’ll have far more resources at his disposal as Texas attorney general than he ever did as one measly member of the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Roy’s answer that day encapsulated a problem that gnawed at me throughout the nine years I spent as a journalist on Capitol Hill. In those years, almost every article I wrote about lawmakers’ foibles and triumphs could be tied into the same overarching story: Congress is on the verge of being a failed institution.

And that’s a charitable way of putting it, placing failure at a vague point in the future. (Chatting with close friends, I’ve sometimes stated my verdict in the past tense too.) My disillusionment isn’t just some jaded outsider’s view, nor is it particularly rare. People from both parties who work in Congress often feel the same way.

House members are drowning in constituent casework, with district sizes that have ballooned and are far too large for them to actually represent. Congress can barely keep track of the gargantuan executive branch’s public activities, let alone its inner workings. And members can’t even tell if the laws they pass are being implemented correctly. On multiple occasions in the course of my reporting, I had to tell congressional staff that the agencies they were supposed to be keeping track of had ignored the plain meaning of laws to entirely sidestep congressional oversight. Overburdened with other work, the staffers hadn’t noticed.

This decay is largely a capacity problem. Congress isn’t investing in itself enough to be able to represent the American people well or to provide meaningful checks and balances. 

Many Republican lawmakers have taken this broader trend of congressional disempowerment to absurd new heights over the past ten years—committing themselves to the president so devotedly that they’ve shrugged off rightful powers to declare war, set economic policy on matters like tariffs, and control the purse strings. 

A new book from Johns Hopkins University Press, Stuck: How Money, Media, and Violence Prevent Change in Congress, explains that this situation isn’t just a this-decade disaster. It’s the result of many decisions by lawmakers to treat Congress as a scapegoat for America’s political woes. For more than 30 years, members have slashed their own resources and frozen staff and member salaries, motivated by a desire for short-term political wins. If most Americans hate Congress, those lawmakers reason, perhaps they can win votes if they act as if they also hate Congress.

Glaring ethics violations by members have demanded reform throughout US history. But largely freezing the Hill’s resources has left the place a lot more dysfunctional in the long run.

Much of the brokenness I witnessed while reporting on the Hill sprang from this self-interested self-loathing. Congressional staff are overwhelmed and often leave for jobs with better benefits. Smart lawmakers who earnestly want to work on some of the nation’s most pressing problems burn out and quit. And committees bumble through hugely important investigations with just a handful of dedicated staff members. 

These aren’t sustainable working conditions, especially when you factor in the death threats faced by members and staff. A review of employment data last year found that the “probability of a staffer departing the House and Senate in a given year is 13% and 17%, respectively,” a rate far higher than the rest of the federal government at an average of roughly 6 percent. A record number of lawmakers have, like Roy, already announced they won’t run for reelection in 2026.

Throughout Stuck, Maya Kornberg—a researcher at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice—describes how members allowed the legislative branch to stagnate, gutting nonpartisan research agencies that provided technical information and blocking their own cost-of-living pay increases. The book is at its most useful for newcomers when Kornberg identifies the structural changes Newt Gingrich implemented to push most power into the House speaker’s office, changes she notes Democrats simply turned around and kept in place later. 

“Before the change in ’94, for fifty years the chairs ran things,” a former Democratic lawmaker told Kornberg, referring to congressional committees. Gingrich, a Republican, instead told the chairs “what bills he wanted and in many instances gave the specifics of what he wanted in the bills,” the representative said. “When we retook the House in 2006, because at that point most people had only been under the Republicans and that’s the way it was done, they said f— ’em. We will do it that way too. And we did it exactly the same way.”

This style of top-down legislating has led to some of the most toxic moments in recent congressional history. And it has also prompted a quiet atrophy among rank-and-file members, many of whom now don’t have the muscle memory or expertise to legislate on their own. 

To Roy’s credit, he ardently fought that trend while he was in the House, demanding more power for regular members. But it’s a red flag when even the lawmakers who most want to cut spending and conduct oversight feel they have to outsource that job to the executive branch.

“Our committees do some of it,” Roy said of oversight during that interview about Musk, “but that takes a while to get through the system.”

The answer is not just to kick Congress over and over again until it repents but instead to give regular lawmakers the tools they need to do their jobs. Those rank-and-file members are from our communities, sent to DC to represent us. Representative democracy can be a beautiful system when carried out in earnest—and with the right resources.

Kornberg urges tweaks to empower new members, including more robust rules training so they can navigate the Hill without marching in lockstep with party leaders. She also calls for Congress to spend more on itself, growing its staff and offering salaries competitive enough to draw talent.

Her ideas make sense; plenty of political scientists have argued for similar changes. But a more ambitious plan—expanding the number of members in the House itself—would do a lot more to revive the institution.

George Washington once envisioned a ratio of one representative for every 30,000 constituents. But for more than a century, while America’s population has grown, the House has been frozen at 435 members. Each House member today instead represents an average of 760,000 people. 

In one stroke, expanding the House would bring members closer to the communities they work for, reduce their casework to more manageable levels, and make it harder for party leaders to insist on their hyperpartisan, top-down machinations. 

But even considering a change like this one seems far outside the realm of possibility for this Congress. Today’s lawmakers can hardly keep the government’s lights on.

Still, throughout Stuck, Kornberg strikes a hopeful tone.

“Congress is always changeable,” she writes, “shaped and reshaped by the people who walk its halls.”

It’s true: Congress really is just people. I’m reminded, whenever I think about Capitol Hill, of Augustine’s quote about bad times. “We make our times,” he said. “Such as we are, such are the times.”

That sort of admonition is what I wished for most while reading Stuck. Much of this malaise raises questions of virtue and courage. Members broadly agree Congress is broken, but they can’t seem to will themselves to rebuild it.

Someone—perhaps a former lawmaker or a longtime Hill reporter—should write a more uninhibited, prophetic version of this book, reminding members of what Congress ought to be.

It won’t be me. After nine years, I found I couldn’t keep spending so much of my time around an institution that respected itself far less than I did. Like so many others, I quit. 

Haley Byrd Wilt is a writer based in the DC area. Her reporting has been published in Foreign Policy, The New York Times, NOTUS, and CNN.

Church Life

What’s the Difference Between Privilege and Blessing?

CT advice columnists also weigh in on enjoying unnecessary luxuries and the nature of fun.

Illustration of two silhouetted people sitting at a table with a covered dish between them.
Illustrations by Ben Hickey

Got a question? Email advice@christianitytoday.com to ask CT’s advice columnists. Queries may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Q: How much is too much? I’m thinking about all the unnecessary stuff we buy for ourselves when our resources could be used to alleviate suffering. How can I justify taking my family to a $100 dinner when there are single moms in my city who need that money for groceries? Vacations, jewelry, luxury cars: How do we Christians justify those things? It’s an unoriginal question, but I think about it a lot. —Torn in Texas

Karen Swallow Prior: It’s helpful to begin with the biblical principle of tithing. The spirit of the tithe is to give according to a posture and a proportion. Both principles apply regardless of income, and they require us to give early, gladly, and in the percentage we promised, not merely whatever we feel we can spare (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7).

But for those of us who enjoy prosperity and material excess beyond what most of humanity can imagine, that answer may seem insufficient. The needs around us are great, and many of us could give much more while still living comfortably ourselves.

Practically, you might consider giving more of your income to those in need. Maybe build a habit of donating to a local food pantry each time you eat out or adopt an overall lifestyle that’s considerably less luxurious than what you can afford. 

But perhaps the most helpful way to address the question is to turn it around. Instead of asking how much is too much, ask what our lifestyles are doing to us—both individually and collectively. There’s a reason Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). Scripture doesn’t say exactly how much is too much, but a lifestyle of giving rather than acquiring brings us nearer to the kingdom of God. 

Painted portrait of columnist Karen Swallow PriorIllustration by Jack Richardson

Karen Swallow Prior lives in rural Virginia with her husband, two dogs, and several chickens. Following a decades-long vocation as an English professor, Karen now speaks and writes full-time.


Q: How do you discern between privilege and blessing? I was raised to think my house, car, and sociodemographic context were blessings, but I’m now aware of the economic and social systems behind all that—I’m realizing my privilege. But also, my parents are amazing humans, which is a blessing. How should a Christian think about ideas like luck, blessing, and privilege? —Moneyed in Michigan

Kevin Antlitz: I tend to think of blessing as a divine intention, an unearned gift of God’s favor meant for a person’s flourishing. Privilege arises from our cultural context. It’s the advantage that comes from one’s social location. It may come from parts of our lives that we have no control over (e.g., race or sex) as well as from aspects that could possibly change (e.g., education or class).

There can be overlap between these two categories, but they aren’t the same, and how they relate is complex. To have privilege—say, being born into a wealthy family—can absolutely be a blessing. But not having privilege isn’t a curse. After all, Jesus did say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). 

For Christians, it’s important to remember that neither privilege nor blessing is the result of luck or chance. Every aspect of our lives is part of God’s good (albeit mysterious) providence. 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that it’s okay to be grateful for all these things—so long as we understand that both privilege and blessing are not ultimately for us. They are given for the sake of others. We need not feel guilt or shame for the goods we enjoy, but using them rightly is fundamental to our identity as God’s people. Like Abraham, the father of our faith, we are blessed to be a blessing (Gen. 12:1–3).

Painted portrait of columnist Kevin AntlitzJack Richardson

Kevin Antlitz is an Anglican priest at a Pittsburgh church positively overflowing with kids. He and his wife have three young children who they pray will never know a day apart from Jesus.


Illustration of a person sitting at a desk throwing an American football.Illustrations by Ben Hickey

Q: Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about fun. I have two young kids, and a desire to have fun seems pretty wired into the way they not only want but need to experience the world. And they want me to have fun with them! Does fun cease to have value at some point in life? Or does it become refreshment for doing our “real” work? Or does it have its own value? —Inquisitive in Ireland

Kiara John-Charles: Our society often treats fun as a reward for completing our “real” work, something to squeeze in after our obligations are fulfilled. Then, as responsibilities grow, we may forget to pause and enjoy the life God has given us. 

While fun can refresh us after work, it also holds unique value. It’s not inherently frivolous or foolish but a meaningful part of life given to us by God. Fun creates connection, sparks creativity, brings balance in hard times, and forms joyful memories. “A cheerful heart is good medicine,” says Proverbs 17:22, “but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.”

Fun can also help us cultivate joy and gratitude. Learning to appreciate the small gifts woven throughout our lives helps us enjoy God and his creation. Your children are inviting you into a beautiful space God intended for us. From the beginning, God delighted in his creation (Gen. 1:31), and as his image bearers, we are meant to delight in the world around us as well. 

Scripture reminds us that joy can fill our everyday moments (Ecc. 8:15) and that it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The prophets depict playing children as a sign of God’s favor and redemption (Isa. 11:8; Zech. 8:4–5). And as you find ways to have fun with your kids, you might experience delight and the gift of life in an entirely new way. 

Painted portrait of columnist Kiara John-CharlesIllustration by Jack Richardson

Kiara John-Charles is an LA native with Caribbean roots and a love for travel and food. She works as a pediatric occupational therapist and serves at her local church in Long Beach, California.

Ideas

Birth and Death are Life Issues

Staff Editor

A note from CT’s editorial director of features in our March/April issue.

Illustration of four tree silhouettes showing different seasonal stages in a grid.
Illustration by Ben Hickey

For everything there is a season,” the Teacher tells us in Ecclesiastes. “A time to be born, and a time to die” (Ecc. 3:1–2, ESV). 

I remember the morning I found out I was pregnant with my eldest son. Shortly after breaking the exciting (and surprising!) news to my husband, I took our dog for a walk. In that moment of quiet, one of my first thoughts was Lord willing, this child will outlive me. The reality of death became personal.

In the stories we tell and the legacies we bequeath, birth and death are always intertwined. And in this issue of Christianity Today, we examine both the beginnings and the endings of lives lived toward God. 

Karen Swallow Prior describes how childlessness can be a blessing: “Sometimes, while we are looking for one gift, it can be harder to see another one resting, still wrapped, in the other direction.” In conversation with Prior is Kara Bettis Carvalho’s report on fertility and reproductive technologies. And as the internet laments the struggles of parenting, Kate Lucky reminds us of the joy of motherhood.

These are not merely women’s  concerns or personal ones. As we consider demographic cliffs, declining birthrates, and the importance of passing the faith to subsequent generations, these stories speak to all of us as we promote the common good and make disciples. 

Likewise, we must think Christianly about death—not as a merely natural phenomenon but as a spiritual reality, an entrance into eternal life. Just as we fight for the lives of the unborn, we must also fight for the lives of those close to death, opposing all forms of euthanasia even when they’re branded as “compassionate” or “dignified.” To that end, Kristy Etheridge reports on Catholic and evangelical responses to physician-assisted suicide in Canada and New York. 

In between birth and death, the church works toward human flourishing and restoration. You’ll see evidence of this in Emily Belz’s feature about Christian boarding houses and Andy Olsen’s reporting on churches advocating for those wrongly detained. In our new Dispatches section, several CT staffers highlight Christians laboring to redeem business opportunities and rejuvenate a beleaguered city. 

In our reporting, reviews, and personal essays, we always take the side of life, including in this Lenten and Easter season. (We’re honored to feature an interview with theologian Fleming Rutledge about the Crucifixion and Resurrection.) We serve a Savior who passed through death, bearing the weight of sin and purchasing our redemption. Victorious, Jesus ushered in real life, and in so doing declared—as poet John Donne wrote—“Death, thou shalt die.”

Ashley Hales is editorial director for features at Christianity Today. 

Ideas

The Birds and the Bees, Babies and Me

God calls us to a fruitful life, no matter our fertility.

Person hugging a small horse in a barn while a cat stretches on a wooden railing nearby.
Illustration by Wesley Allsbrook

I spent a lot of time thinking about the birds and the bees while growing up. I was raised in a rural community as the child and grandchild of farmers. I helped oversee the births of kittens, chickens, rabbits, and one horse. Later, as a college student, I worked at a farm that bred and trained show horses. At times, I was called on to assist in the breeding of mares, the collection of semen from stallions for use in artificial insemination, and the castration of colts. On the farm, we had no doubts about how and when a new life began because we spent so much time trying to facilitate, manage, and control it. The facts of life were all around us every day. 

The barn housed one stallion, a stunning steel-gray Arabian. He’d been brought to the farm with hopes he’d sire more progeny from his coveted lineage, but alas, he turned out to be sterile. He didn’t know it though, and whenever a mare was led past his stall, he’d prance about with flared nostrils, arched neck, and flourishing tail. As his past and present owners battled out their legal and financial claims, his fate remained in limbo. Once, I got to exercise him by galloping through the wooded trails that wound around the outskirts of the farm. It was the most exhilarating ride of my life. Like most stallions, he had to be turned out alone and housed in a stall set apart lest he be constantly worked up by the other horses. His was a lonely life. 

Like other animals, human beings are subject to nature’s laws. In the realm of mere nature, reproduction is a biological, mechanical, and utilitarian affair. Yet when it comes to human reproduction, so much more than science, biology, and nature are involved. Being made in God’s own likeness and image, humans are more than natural beings. To bear or not to bear a child is a matter that touches on all that it means to be human: not just our biology but also our personal desires, drives, hopes, expectations, and fears—all these wrapped up in our social and familial contexts, traditions, and assumptions.

Being childless has forced me to examine these things. 

The thought of not having children, of not being able to have children, had never occurred to me. People in my family tended to marry and have babies early. Not always in that order. I assumed when I married at age 19 that babies would come not long after. They didn’t. But I was still young and not worried. I had so much life ahead. I embraced fully what was already in front of me: marriage, school, work, and a thriving church life.

Year after year passed, however, and I didn’t get pregnant. Then one day, I woke up in the surgical room of my gynecologist after a procedure that discovered and (ostensibly) repaired the damage done to my body by previously undiagnosed endometriosis. 

“You’ll be pregnant within six months,” the doctor said confidently.

Except I wasn’t. Not six months later, not one year later. Not, as far as I know, ever.

The doctor also mentioned that the next step would be to take fertility drugs. He said it as though he were a waiter in a fine restaurant describing the next course as he cleared the current dishes away. I nodded dumbly, got dressed, and shuffled woozily to the waiting room to find my husband. Because it had taken longer than expected for me to awaken from the anesthesia, we were the last patients to leave. As we exited the building, I was surprised to find it was already dark outside.

This was the ’90s. Tabloid headlines regularly blasted harrowing but triumphant stories of multiple births  resulting from fertility treatments. Afternoon talk shows featured beaming young parents seated on plush couches next to six, seven, or eight infants or toddlers adorned in matching bow ties and ribbons. But beneath the shiny surfaces emerged stories of months of bed rest for imperiled mothers, pregnancy “reductions,” and fragile babies spending weeks or months in intensive care units. At the same time, breakthroughs with in vitro fertilization raised a little (but not much) public debate about the ethics of intentionally creating embryos fated for medical waste bins or perpetual storage in freezers.

It seemed there were more regulations and safeguards around breeding horses than in making God’s image bearers. 

The blessing of medical science had healed my diseased body, as far as we could determine. That was enough. My husband and I decided that intentionally undertaking such grave medical and ethical risks was, for us, too close to testing God. We declined further fertility treatments of any kind, leaving it in God’s hands. And to wild abandon in the marital bed.

Still, no babies came.

I didn’t have many role models for faithful, happy, childless marriages. I have vague memories from my childhood of an elderly couple, distant relatives, who lived in an old brick house in Vermont where a clear, stony brook gurgled in the back. They were kind hosts who let me ramble throughout the place, full of rooms with no other children to be found. There was a sense of something mysterious about them and their home—something about the abundance of a life that doesn’t look like everyone else’s—that lingers with me still.

Most of the married women my age in church had or were having children, so I didn’t find childless role models there. Nor did I reveal my fertility struggles with my church or even my family. These were things few talked about then, and if the internet existed at that time, I didn’t know about it. I certainly didn’t want pressure, or sympathy, or advice. Most people assumed, I think, that I was tied up with my academic pursuits and didn’t want children at the time or perhaps ever. If they were making that assumption, it was fine with me.

Later, into my 30s and 40s, as such subjects were increasingly becoming topics of public conversation, much of what was expressed—by childless women more than childless men—displayed a level of existential longing, struggle, and despair that I did not share. Because I was not striving to be pregnant, I felt my loss was less. I resonate with words I recently read from the late Elizabeth Felicetti. In Unexpected Abundance: The Fruitful Lives of Women Without Children, Felicetti mentions that since she had no diagnosis for her infertility, she had no cause to turn to reproductive technologies. As a result, she says, “I sometimes felt like I could not express my own sadness about children because I had not gone to such lengths.” 

Being in the minority is, by its very nature, hard. Procreation reflects the natural order and is the pattern fulfilled by most creatures and most people. It is the way of the birds and the bees. But not me.

The hardness of not having the children I hoped and dreamed I would have has brought various kinds of grief. Chief among them is knowing what a great father my husband would have been and wanted to be. Smaller sadnesses include how I missed being able to read to my children the stories I loved when I was a child. To hear a child’s delighted squeals when playing with a puppy. To watch a small being grow into the unique person whom God made her to be and whom I had a part in forming. To experience my own children having children.

But great blessings have come, too, blessings that a path with children would likely have turned toward the home rather than outside it. My husband has been a teacher—more than a teacher, a father figure—to the teens he teaches in school. Likewise, I have been, for a small number of my own students, a mother figure—to some (they tell me) the mother they never had. I have written books that have helped others love the stories I love. I have cared for many of the lesser creatures God created and called good. I have been able to give back to my parents in their last years a fraction of all they gave me, by housing them, caring for them, and being their companion and helper—more so, to be sure, because I did not have children to care for as well. In the “sandwich” generation—those caring for two generations, those before them and those after them—I am an open-faced kind. 

This openness is a gift. Childlessness can be a calling in the same way that being a parent is a calling, or as marriage or celibacy can be callings. Not to be called to something is inherently to be called to something else, even if that something else is elusive for a while.

Person riding a galloping horse across a grassy field with birds flying nearby.Illustration by Wesley Allsbrook

Writing about celibacy—another way of life outside the ordinary course for most people—Wesley Hill observes in his essay “Celibacy Is Not the Gospel” that celibacy can “witness to the coming new creation in which ‘they neither marry nor are given in marriage’ (Matthew 22:30; 19:12),” just as marriage can “point to the coming wedding supper of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32; Revelation 19:6–8).” 

Similarly, while having children is the primary way to fulfill the creation mandate given in Genesis 1:28 and 2:15, those who do not have children can also “be fruitful and multiply” (ESV) in other service to God’s people. Just as marriage points to the mystical union of Christ and his church, so too children point to a fruitfulness of our spiritual lives that is born of life in Christ. 

In her book Solo Planet: How Singles Help the Church Recover Our Calling, Anna Broadway relays the words of Joanna, a celibate Catholic, who describes her call as one not to singleness or celibacy but rather to a life in community. “Through that shared religious life, she’s bonded with people she didn’t choose,” Broadway writes. Joanna explains, “They are given to me. And I learn to love them.” Similarly, in childlessness, God brings people other than our own children into our lives to love. 

A rich, helpful heritage on childlessness is contained in the pages of the Bible. Indeed, it’s a recurrent theme resonant with individual, historical, and spiritual meaning. 

Abraham and Sarah using the enslaved Hagar as a surrogate rather than trusting God to fulfill his promise moved me deeply early in my infertile years. I felt the anguish of each of them and understood the desire to take actions oriented toward the promise God had made, being unable to imagine how else God might fulfill that promise.

Their story served not only as a warning but also as a reminder: God’s grace is sufficient. It is sufficient when we obey and when we disobey (for God was merciful and faithful even when Abraham and Sarah were not). My heart goes out to Sarah—and to Hagar. The pressure Sarah felt to have a child, to give Abraham heirs, and to see the fulfillment of God’s promise grew heavier on her year after year, until she and Abraham took matters into their own hands, altering the course of history. Many of our desires are socially constructed, as Sarah’s surely were in a patriarchal culture in which her value as a woman depended almost entirely on her ability to produce an heir. Our discontentment becomes greatest when expectations we or others impose on us go unmet. 

I have, over the years, heard from many people struggling with infertility. Sometimes they are would-be fathers or would-be grandparents. But mostly they are young women facing the prospect of dreams and expectations (not only their own but often, sadly, those of others) unfulfilled. What I want to tell them—what I do tell them—is that God’s gifts are good. He may not give you the one you wanted, but he will give you others. 

It’s a cliché and as such is sadly drained of meaning. But it’s a truth whose meaning is worthy of recovering: Children are a gift. A gift is neither a right nor an obligation. A gift is given. A gift is received. A gift is not to be demanded or rudely refused. The best gifts are not deserved or bought, sometimes not even sought. The gift of children is like this. So, too, are the other gifts God brings. Sometimes, while we are looking for one gift, it can be harder to see another one resting, still wrapped, in the other direction.

Illustration of a large cat surrounded by chicks, a bird, and baby cats.Illustration by Wesley Allsbrook

In the midst of the years that are the time of peak fertility for most women, I was (along with trying to get pregnant) working on my PhD in English literature. I was fortunate that my studies gave me a closer look at British authors (my specialization) who were faithful Christians who contributed much good to the world—but didn’t have children. Jane Austen, brilliant novelist and satirist who never married, was one. Hannah More, the evangelical poet, dramatist, social reformer, and abolitionist, was another. In fact, More had four sisters who assisted each other in their educational and charitable endeavors, and none of them married or had children either. Nor did the poet Christina Rossetti, whose devout faith led her to minister to prostitutes as a volunteer with the St. Mary Magdalene Penitentiary. Charlotte Brontë lost her only child during pregnancy and lived the remainder of her life childless. Her sisters Anne and Emily never had children.

Church history is also full of people who did not have children and yet lived fruitful lives in service to their neighbors and to the church. Paul, for example. Jesus! Julian of Norwich, Queen Elizabeth I, Florence Nightingale, and John Stott. Some of my closest friends, too.

Childlessness is actually much more historically normal than you might think. Historian Rachel Chrastil writes in How to Be Childless: A History and Philosophy of Life Without Children that “widespread childlessness has been a long-standing reality in northwestern European towns and cities from around 1500 onward.” One notable exception is America’s baby boom (the period for those born between 1946 and 1964), an event Chrastil characterizes as a historical anomaly: “Some of the highest rates of childlessness ever recorded (including current rates) were for women born around 1900,” Chrastil said elsewhere in an interview. “In the U.S., for example, 24% of women born in 1900 never had children. Among those born a half-century later, between 1950-1954, a much smaller number, 17%, reached age 45 without ever having children.”

Since then, childlessness in America has seen a dramatic increase, as many experts and news headlines have highlighted. One in five US adults ages 50 and older have never had children, according to an analysis of government data the Pew Research Center reported in 2024. The same analysis found that 23 percent of adults in their 50s and 22 percent of those in their 60s have never had children. On a global scale, the World Health Organization estimated in 2025 that infertility affects one in six people of reproductive age at some point in their lives, a significant factor contributing to childlessness.

Why do these numbers matter? Childlessness is fainter in our collective consciousness than in reality. It is often portrayed as either an expression of some sort of defiant independence or a cause for scrutinizing pity. But there is a wide range of experiences, circumstances, and contingencies that lead to not having a child. Nevertheless, for whatever reasons they are childless, a group who constitute 20 percent of the population may be a minority, but they are numerous enough not to be invisible or inconsequential. Childlessness doesn’t need to be normalized, because it is—in fact, if not in understanding—already normal.

Recognizing this will naturally open ways for the childless among us to be more integrated into communal life—especially church life. Collectively (while taking individual differences into account), childless people have just as much need to socialize as young mothers do, for example. They desire to participate in holiday meals, traditions, and celebrations just as much as those with children. They will need care and comfort when they are sick or aging—and, in fact, will likely be in greater need of such than those who have children to assist in the later years. I don’t know a single childless person who doesn’t worry about facing the end stages of life not knowing who will be there with them. We need imaginations that make more room for the reasons for childlessness and, more importantly, for the childless people among us. We need structures, institutions, and policies that do the same. 

Christians have even more than contemporary trends and social structures to draw on in considering what childlessness has to teach. There is more to being fruitful than what the birds and the bees show us. We have more resources than the natural family to draw on in loving and caring for one another. 

As Emily Hunter McGowin observes in Households of Faith: Practicing Family in the Kingdom of God, “Scripture characterizes the church as God’s household.” The New Testament refers to fellow believers as brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. 

Of course, McGowin explains, the natural family is not the same as the church family. “Unlike the church, however, which anticipates a future union with Christ in the new heavens and new earth, Scripture suggests that human families as we currently experience them will come to an end.” Because the kingdom of God is an eternal family, the church must be a place that not only supports human families in this earthly life but also recognizes and affirms in practice the status of spiritual mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters in the eternal family of God.

Desire for children is natural. Yet part of what the story of Abraham and Sarah in the Old Testament teaches focuses on more than just natural children. Sarah’s conceiving and bearing a child with Abraham when both were so late in age was a work of God, not the flesh. The symbolic (as well as historic) significance of this event is described later in the New Testament by Paul when he writes in Galatians 4:22–31 that God’s spiritual children are those who came through Abraham and Sarah not through the flesh but through God’s promise—through his grace.

Grace, as Aquinas says and the Westminster Confession suggests, perfects nature. 

We speak of the birds and the bees to speak of the ways of nature. But the ways of nature are authored by a God who is beyond nature. When nature sings, heaven sings too. There is grace too in the ways of the birds and the bees and the galloping steed. 

And it is grace, not nature, that has made my life fruitful.

Karen Swallow Prior is a scholar, writer, and speaker who lives in rural Virginia.

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