Ideas

The Incarnation Sheds Light on Astrophysics

The heavens declare the glory of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jeff Hellerman, NRAO/AUI/NSF

The 27 huge dishes of the Very Large Array radio telescope were lined up on interconnected tracks, stretching for miles across the desert Plains of San Agustin in New Mexico. There was little other human activity in sight. My astrophysics colleagues were holed up in the nearby control room, monitoring the data as it came in from halfway across the universe. But I was outside, bundled up against the cold wind, looking up with bare eyes.

The sky was carpeted with stars. Words I had memorized long ago rang through my heart: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1).

We were using the telescope to hunt for gravitational lenses—places in the universe where space itself is curved. Earthly scales felt insufficient to describe a reality where our sun, for all its size, is but a single grain of sand on the long beach of the universe.

The scale could also be hard for my soul to grasp. As a young researcher, the arguments of atheists sometimes ran through my mind. “We live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star … tucked away in some forgotten corner” of the universe, astronomer Carl Sagan once wrote. In Western culture, we often assume small means insignificant. So I struggled to grasp the place of humans—and God—in this vast cosmos.


Questions of human significance are arising today in many scientific fields besides astronomy, including cosmology, evolution, genetics, and artificial intelligence. Answers are often couched in atheistic narratives, which in turn have fueled a surge of people claiming no organized religion. Barna surveyed this group of people in 2022, asking what makes them doubt Christian belief. One of the top answers was “science.”

The ideas of scientism and reductionism promoted by some atheists have spread through our culture in recent decades. Science is the best source of knowledge, God is mere superstition, and humans have no higher purpose, they say. In tech circles, the ideologies of techno-salvation and transhumanism are growing as people put their trust in inventions to solve humanity’s problems and conquer death. Though the militant atheists are fading in influence, many in the sciences still reject Christianity as unnecessary or even harmful.

Meanwhile, the church is often seen as having rejected established science or at least not offering useful answers. Current scientific discoveries are only rarely discussed in church. The same Barna study showed most pastors do not realize that science is among the top reasons that people doubt.

We need better narratives than these. To reach people in today’s tech-dominated world, we must bring together the discoveries of modern
science with the ancient truths of Christianity. The coming of Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago gives powerful answers to today’s questions. If the heavens are unfathomable in their greatness, then this truth is even more stunning: The Creator of the cosmos chose to become incarnate here.

image of a galaxy cluster.Nasa
Hundreds of galaxies in a galaxy cluster can be seen from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope with a natural effect known as gravitational lensing.

When God became man, he came to a planet that is but a pinprick in the emptiness of space. In our solar system, the Sun carries the Earth and other planets along as it orbits the Milky Way galaxy, sailing among a vast number of stars of which it is but one.

Astronomers estimate the total number of stars in our galaxy at about 100 billion; the majority are distant and dim, with only a sprinkling of 5,000 or so bright enough to see with the human eye.

Beyond the Milky Way, many more galaxies are scattered along huge filaments throughout space. Some clump together in small groups, like the Milky Way and its neighbor galaxy Andromeda.

Many merge and collide throughout their lives, accumulating mass and birthing new stars. Hundreds or even thousands of galaxies can conglomerate in rich galaxy clusters, which are some of the largest objects known to humans.

The total number of galaxies in the universe is difficult to count, since many are too distant for us to detect. But researchers recently measured the collective faint light of the galaxies and estimated that the visible universe contains hundreds of billions of galaxies—each of which contains billions or trillions of stars.

Most of the stuff in the universe is not stars, however. Data from the WMAP and Planck satellites have shown that 27 percent of the universe is dark matter—a scientific mystery that doesn’t emit or block light and that we can detect only by its gravitational effect on other matter. The greatest part of the universe—68 percent—is dark energy, an even more mysterious substance that drives the way the universe expands.

For all our advances in physics and chemistry, what we know can describe only 5 percent of the universe, including all the stars and all the atoms on the Periodic Table. For the remaining 95 percent, we have no explanation.

Scripture doesn’t mention dark matter or galaxies. Yet the Bible speaks clearly of God’s cosmic scale. In chapter 1 of his gospel, John uses as comprehensive language as possible to talk about what God made. In Colossians 1, Paul proclaims Christ as the Creator of all things. If these first-century apostles had been told about distant galaxies, they no doubt would have declared that those were also created by God.

The Bible’s cosmic claims are timeless, yet they carry more heft when considered alongside the discoveries of modern science. The God who brings out the starry host one by one, calling each by name, can do this for billions upon trillions of stars, not just the few thousand we see at night (Isa. 40:26). The inconceivable vastness of the universe does not diminish God—it shows us more of his greatness.

The place of humans is certainly small; we find ourselves dwarfed by both the creation and the Creator. Yet there’s more to the story. Although he is Lord of the heavens, announcing his coming to earth with a starry sign to the Magi, God also set his heart on humankind. The Creator of the galaxies, eternal and unbegotten, emptied himself and was born as an infant. At the crossroads of time and space, he chose to become fully human, one of us.

That changes everything.

Image of the Serpens Nebula seen from the James Webb Space Telescope.Nasa.
The Serpens Nebula seen from the James Webb Space Telescope.

The mystery of the Incarnation becomes more profound when we consider the physical aspects. Science has shown that the atoms of our bodies have their origins in the heavens. Hydrogen dates back to the beginning of the universe, when protons formed from cooling primordial plasma. Other elements we need for life—like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—arose by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars.

Most of these atoms stay locked in the interiors of stars, but when a star dies in a supernova explosion, the atoms are flung out into space. The explosion is so powerful that additional elements, like cobalt and nickel, form in the expanding shock wave. Astronomers found recently that collisions of neutron stars produce much of the gold and platinum in the universe.

After leaving the stars, these atoms condense into clouds of gas and dust—tiny, clean grains of minerals, hydrocarbons, and ice drifting between the stars like smoke. When nearby stars light up one of these clouds, we see a stunning nebula of brilliant colors and deep shadows.

Some clouds are actually stellar nurseries, where clumps of gas and dust can be dense enough to collapse under their own gravity, eventually leading to nuclear fusion and the birth of a star. The remaining dust stays in orbit around the new star, gradually coalescing into pebbles, then boulders, then moons and planets.

The atoms in our bodies and our planet are indeed, as Carl Sagan put it famously, “star stuff,” or more poetically, stardust. But this means something even more astounding: Through the Incarnation, God himself took on stardust when he took on human flesh.

When Jesus was conceived in Mary, he took on atoms from her—as we all do from our mothers—and those atoms had histories stretching far beyond our solar system. Those atoms assembled into genes to give shape to his bones and blood and into organic chemicals shared with all life on earth.

Each cell of Jesus’ body embodies his love for his creation—not only humans but also the animals, plants, mountains, and rivers often mentioned in Scripture. His very atoms once glowed in beautiful nebulae and powerful supernovae in the far reaches of space. Indeed, when God took on human form, he took on all of creation.

The Incarnation answers deep questions raised by modern astrophysics about our purpose and significance in the universe.

One of the things I love most about astrophysics is the chance to study things that are impossible down on Earth. For example, in Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity is defined not as the force described by Isaac Newton but rather as a distortion of the fabric of spacetime. In our everyday lives, Newton’s equations and Einstein’s equations give the same answers, so we don’t notice the difference. But we can see it in galaxy clusters.

Contrary to Newton, who said that light is not affected by gravity, Einstein found that it is. He discovered that space itself is curved and that light follows that curve, changing direction.

In galaxy clusters, the mass is so great that space curves substantially over large distances. An object that curves space this way is called a gravitational lens because—like a piece of warped glass—it distorts what we see through it. The distorted light appears to us as thin arcs circling the foregrounded galaxy cluster, visible in images taken by the James Webb Space Telescope.

Those who study relativity soon learn it is about more than curved space. Relativity describes deep and beautiful symmetries in the cosmos— between space and time, energy and momentum. Moreover, the same laws hold true in every location and circumstance we’ve been able to test. For those who can read the equations, the depth and universality of the mathematics is stunning. Many physicists have thus sensed the divine behind it. In 1948, Einstein himself told his friend William Hermanns, “I meet [God] every day in the harmonious laws which govern the universe. My religion is cosmic.”

Yet that very cosmic harmony can make God seem impersonal. Some years ago, I was out walking and thinking about physics when I suddenly felt overwhelmed by God’s intelligence. It seemed that this immense mind, governing space and time with such precision, couldn’t possibly care about individual people like me. I didn’t doubt God’s existence, but for a season I doubted his love. Einstein felt this too. He also told Hermanns, “My God is too universal to concern himself with the intentions of every human being.”

This is where science falls short. The natural world, though it reveals much of its Creator, cannot give us the full picture. In the Incarnation, we have God’s ultimate answer: Yes, God concerns himself with every human being. We know it because he came in person to dwell among us. The disciples saw him, touched him, knew his smile, and felt his love.

A few months after that walk, the Holy Spirit gradually moved in my heart. God’s love started to seem plausible to me again, but now on an entirely deeper level. I realized that the mind of God is superseded only by the heart of God.

Though the Scriptures don’t speak of galaxies, I found in the Bible a larger framework for understanding the cosmos and its loving Creator. The ancient Hebrew psalmist had little conception of the universe as we know it today. But when he penned Psalm 103, he was referring to the largest thing he could conceive:

He does not treat us
as our sins deserve
or repay us according
to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens
are above the earth,
so great is his love
for those who fear him;
as far as the east
is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us. (vv. 10–12)

When the psalmist wrote of the east and the west, the heavens and the earth, he was picturing the furthest extent in each direction. He was pointing to the unfathomable ends of the universe. But he wasn’t doing so to point to God’s intelligence. He was underscoring the profound height and depth of God’s love and forgiveness.

Knowing the expanses of the universe, as we do today, only gives his point greater gravity. Whatever else God is doing in the cosmos, we believe that he took up the atoms of the universe to become one of us. In coming to us as an approachable, helpless baby, God’s message is unmistakable: Do not be afraid. I made you with intention. You are loved.

The carpet of stars above declares the shining glory of God. Yet God revealed his deeper glory, and his very heart, when the Word became flesh—with its cosmic implications—and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Through faith, the astrophysical elements of the Incarnation proclaim the stunning depth of the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

The discoveries of science cannot diminish God, for he created it all. Each time we look up at the night sky and consider the stars, we can remember that God delights in reminding us of his love—a love that is wider than the universe.

Deborah Haarsma is an astrophysicist, author, and the former president of BioLogos.

Church Life

Recalibrating What ‘People’ and ‘Place’ Mean

UK mission mobilizer wants to rethink “unreached people groups” amid changing migration patterns and a digitally-connected world.

An illustration weaving together scenes of rural life, urban settings, and domestic moments.
Illustration by Jisu Choi

In this series

For over 50 years, the term unreached people groups has shaped evangelical missiology. First gaining traction in the 1970s through the work of US missiologist Ralph Winter, the concept is “arguably the most significant thought innovation in twentieth century missiology,” according to mission mobilizer Leonard Bartlotti.

The term offers a compelling and convicting framework: Go where the gospel hasn’t gone, reach those who’ve never heard, and prioritize peoples without a local, witnessing church. Many, myself included, were awakened to a world in desperate need of more cross-cultural witnesses and to the centrality and primacy of the church’s global calling to missions.

But the world is being rapidly transformed by globalization, urbanization, migration, and digital connectedness. We can no longer agree on one singular definition of the term in question. In an environment where digital connectivity thrives, it feels outdated. We need to recalibrate our understanding of unreached people groups, recognizing its enduring strengths alongside its growing limitations and keeping before us the urgent biblical mandate to bring the gospel to those with little or no witness in their midst.

Part of the enduring appeal of unreached people groups lies in its simplicity. Amid so much that is complex, confusing, and contested within the academic and applied field of global missiology, this cuts through with clarity: Count the unreached, identify the most pressing needs, go to them, and finish the task. Each congregation has finite resources of time and money with which to effectively engage global religious realities. In this way, unreached people groups communicates opportunity, stirs prayer, and inspires action. It has helped countless evangelicals to pray, give, and go, especially toward nonbelievers residing in the “10/40 Window,” a region stretching from Morocco to Japan.

But problems arise when a useful tool becomes an unquestionable framework, especially if it dictates resource allocation and shapes strategy. We must be honest about the limits of its original definition and recognize that some of its built-in assumptions about people and place are starting to show wear and tear.

When Winter first directed evangelical attention toward unreached people groups, or “separate peoples,” at the first Lausanne congress in 1974, just over a third of the population worldwide lived in cities and around 84 million people lived outside their birth countries. But today, growing masses of people are migrating to sprawling urban hubs. Well over half the world’s population lives in cities, and more than 300 million people live as international migrants scattered across the globe.

In cities, cultures mingle, identities shift, and micro-communities form along lines of interest and worldview. As more people move to urban centers that increasingly look alike and as they consume similar food and pop culture trends, there are more points of commonality among peoples of different cultures and ethnicities than ever before. These migratory urban settings defy easy ethnolinguistic categorization, posing a challenge to the “people group” paradigm.

The term further breaks down when we consider contexts of multiple, mixed, or “hyphenated” identities; intercultural marriages; and hybridization where “language and cultures collide to give birth to new ones,” Vietnamese missions researcher Minh Ha Nguyen writes in an essay in the book People Vision: Reimagining Mission to Least Reached Peoples.

Technology-driven globalization has also changed how we understand people and place. A 17-year-old in California, a 17-year-old in Nairobi, and a 17-year-old in Mumbai may increasingly share digital habits, reference points, and forms of cultural expression. They may feel that they have a stronger common identity with one another through a global language like English than with a grandparent living a few miles away.

In situations where language barriers persist, the rapid development of AI translation tools means it is no longer unimaginable that worldview-level discourse across linguistic divides may someday be within easy reach of us all.

This doesn’t mean that people groups no longer matter or that we need to retire the term unreached people groups. But it means that people group thinking must adapt.

Mission strategies that cling too rigidly to fixed, inherited categories of people and place may miss emerging relational and cultural pathways through which people are coming to faith. Billions worldwide now have access to gospel materials in their own languages through smartphones. If calling groups “unreached” depends on their access to contextually and linguistically appropriate gospel communication, the activities of digital missionaries could rewrite the definition of unreached.

Can hearing the Good News through a social media ad or an AI-driven tool really count as reaching people who are “unreached” and helping them engage with the gospel? Surely, someone who casually scrolls past a Christian social media post or argues with a chatbot about matters of the faith should not be considered “reached” compared to someone who has a sustained, prayerful, face-to-face conversation with a vernacular-speaking believer.

Still, we must contend with ever-evolving migration patterns and rapid technological changes in our outreach. We need a messier missiology. If unreached-people-group thinking once gave us urgency and clarity, today’s world requires us to have flexibility and imagination. Gospel opportunities can appear unexpectedly, like talking about Jesus with a stranger through a game or inviting an overseas friend to a virtual Bible study with real-time translation.

Ecclesiastes exhorts us to “sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let your hands not be idle, for you do not know which will succeed” (11:6). We are called to share the Good News widely, trusting God to bring fruit and confident that the Lord of the harvest is still gathering people to himself. To recalibrate our understanding of unreached people groups is not to dilute our passion for mission but to deepen it.

Chris Howles served at Uganda Martyrs Seminary in Kampala between 2011 and 2023 and is now the director of cross-cultural training at Oak Hill College in London.

Church Life

A Place for the Placeless

President & CEO

A letter from Mission Advancement in our November/December issue.

A group of friends walking side by side, a bible study meeting, coffee cups
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Unsplash

There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.” These now-iconic words defined Dorothy Gale’s ultimate quest in The Wizard of Oz.

In every song and with everyone she met, Dorothy articulated her heart’s desire to return to a place of familiarity, love, and belonging. 

We all long for a place to call home. We yearn for what the prophet Isaiah saw, a future where people live in “peaceful dwelling places, in secure homes, in undisturbed places of rest” (Isa. 32:18). This sense of home involves more than just a physical location. These peaceful dwelling places are also the relationships that stabilize, the communities that shape, and the structures that speak to who we long to be. While we yearn for places that satisfy our core need to belong, the global reality of displacement often keeps literal home and safety out of reach.

All of us can ask: How can we experience God in the tension of our earthly places and our heavenly home? What do we do if our current places actually detract from a more magnificent vision of our eternal home to come? You hold in your hands an issue that wrestles with these questions. 

At Christianity Today, we are navigating the balance between earthly displacement and the promise of our ultimate home with Christ. We are pilgrims on the way. We embrace this in-between space through stories and ideas that elevate the kingdom of God, whose fulfillment and shalom we so desperately desire now. 

With your continued support, we will not only learn to thrive as sojourners and pilgrims for our time here but also raise a new generation with the necessary resilience to find home wherever God’s presence may lead them.

Through The Next Gen Initiative, which is part of The One Kingdom Campaign, CT partners are helping us equip and inspire the next generation of the church with a compelling vision of what it looks like to follow Jesus. Together, we’re also creating a sense of home, a place to belong in a world that often divides and isolates.

There is an urgent cry for the church to redeem and reclaim the places and spaces around us. Like Dorothy, we can find ourselves following yellow brick roads, wondering if we’ll ever reach the answers we seek. But with Jesus as our focal point, we can walk together in our communal calling until we arrive at the place Christ has already prepared: our divine home in glory.


Nicole Massie Martin is chief operating officer at Christianity Today.

Theology

God Is Your Father, Not Your Dad

Our therapy culture has made us too comfortable with God.

An illustration of a father and daughter holding hands.
Illustration by Nicholas Stevenson

When theologian David H. Kelsey asked in 1993 what happened to the traditional doctrine of sin, his concern was not that it had disappeared. It was rather that it had migrated, moving from a frame of sickness and healing to one of estrangement and restoration. In the first version, we are sin-sick people, fated to die without intervention. In the second, we are far from God and need to be brought near. 

Both views are biblical. But with this shift—from a sin-sick Christian to an estranged one—we’ve adopted a new view of what the human problem is and how to fix it. In the first view, we need a doctor who will prescribe a cure. In the second, we need a therapist—one who will help us modify our behavior. If we need a doctor, the problem is systemic; if we need a therapist, the problem is the ego. It’s also a difference in agency. The sick need a doctor (Mark 2:17), but those far from God might simply move closer. It affects our diagnoses, too: Is our nature truly impaired, or are we simply suffering the consequences of false beliefs about ourselves?

Our age of wellness culture, for example, warns us of the dangers of our built environment—microplastics and carcinogens and dangerous food preservatives—and encourages us to reconnect with the natural world by adjusting our bodies to its “circadian rhythms” and avoiding the evils of blue light emanating from our phones. This guidance, while helpful, reflects the same kind of migration that Kelsey warned about. When we move about in the world, do we find ourselves suffering from a disease inherent in nature? Or are we merely victims of our environments, suffering from poor teaching or bad church structures? We might think a more holistic gospel, or a more healthy way of viewing God, is all the cure that we need. 

As a theologian, I applaud the pursuit of better ways to speak of God and his nature. But I see in our religious speak the same kind of contradiction I see in our pursuit of “Mother Nature.” Instead of seeing ourselves as in need of a holy God who can guide us through a hostile world, we imagine instead that nature intends to nurture, guide, and cure us. But is that the truth about nature, or about God? 


I’m a fan of the homeschool theorist Charlotte Mason, whose educational theory relies on regular, unstructured engagement with the natural world. “ ‘Nature never did betray the heart that loved her,’ ” Mason wrote, quoting William Wordsworth, “and, in return for our discriminating and loving observation, she gives us the joy of a beautiful and delightful intimacy.”

As a young mother, I found Mason’s theories inspiring and set about employing them with my own children as part of our preschool days. I wanted my kids to feel the space between the challenges they could tackle and the ones they needed help with. I wanted them to feel the effects of unpredictable weather and climb mountains that tested their endurance. In poet Rainer Maria Rilke’s words, I wanted them “defeated by ever greater things.”

There were bugs. And heat. And dreadful humidity. We encountered mosquitoes and leeches and a swimming snake. In the winter, there was snow and ice. For every awe-inspiring landscape and swooping bird, there was a sunburn and a sprained ankle to match. We trudged through the forest, sometimes enamored but sometimes praying to be delivered. 

Christians and the spiritually curious talk often about “finding God in nature.” We see him in birdsong or grand vistas or ocean bluffs. The nature we love is filled with well-marked trails and festivals of light, with snowflakes and sledding hills and cardinals at the bird feeder. But it’s hard to ignore platitudes that remain. 

“Nature’s sweetness” is a lovely sentiment but one that is difficult to prove with evidence. A true accounting of nature would need to examine how its exquisite beauty is met with what seems to be an underlying, unpredictable rage. The “red in tooth and claw” that Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote of has been largely written out of our experience of the natural world, with our mulched hiking paths and bug spray.

But we need not look very hard to find in nature signs of virus and disease, of animals designed for violent predation, and of rivers that flood their banks. When hurricanes destroy our livelihoods, the temptation is to ask the perennial question “Did God do this?” instead of “Might God deliver us even from this?” 


By Kelsey’s account, sin was once seen as an actual state that set humans against God. This story started with creation, and the central drama of the human person was the story of being healed from our illness.

But sin’s story migrated from Creation to the account of the human person (what theologians call “theological anthropology”), which meant that it was no longer a universal story about creation but an account of our individual, felt estrangement before God. 

In the second version, the story of sin is less concerned with the story of how God made the world and more concerned with how human creatures experience themselves.  Kelsey writes about the effects of this change: “Fall and sin stories express our consciousness that the concrete ways in which we actually live, the ‘hows’ of our lives, are contradictory to ‘what’ we truly are.” He continues: “Accordingly, a doctrine of sin describes that contradiction and what is needed to avoid it.” The goal of the human person, then, is to better align with the identity of someone made and beloved by God—and to avoid the identity sin introduces of someone who is wicked and separated from God.

The question here becomes, Is the account of sin and humankind one of a true estrangement caused by a real impairment in our nature—or is it merely a perceived estrangement, resulting from us believing the wrong story about ourselves? This state of estrangement before God can also be named “sin.” But practically speaking, it makes sin primarily a psychological reality. Its reality and its cure become largely concerned with how we felt before the face of God and how we imagined God felt about us.

In these views, the theological mirror has been turned from a focus on God to a focus on ourselves. It can leave us searching for cures to our predicament—to wellness and therapy and self-esteem—when what we really need is God. It can leave us feeling that our soul-sickness—our alienation, our grief, our estrangement—is not a result of sin but needs a therapeutic fix. We label it our weakness or the fault of someone else. It can lead us to lash out at our families, parents, and religious institutions for not “fixing” the errors in their midst. We can cut off our families of origin and protect ourselves from the harms of institutional religion, but this leaves us lost, broken, and despairing. 

A soul-sick view—Kelsey’s first—would tell us instead that all of these perceived estrangements are the result of sin that we are in need of a Savior to fix. Wellness and therapy prove to be poor cures for what ails us.


Father,” the form of address Jesus uses in his prayer in Matthew 6, identifies God as the origin of all things. It ascribes to him a role as the generator of life and acknowledges his authority for the world and its creatures. But father brings with it a tremendous amount of cultural and personal baggage. Fathers, after all, can be punishing. They can be abusive and violent and capable of wielding great harm on their offspring. Father is a title that smacks of authority that might be misused. So why wouldn’t dad be better?

Instead of speaking about God as Father, we’ve come to prefer a picture of God as good ol’ Dad. Dads, after all, are expected to be emotionally present. They are able to teach their children important skills and hobbies, and their success in their role is related to the quality of relationship they share with their children. They should control their anger and never make their children afraid. They should gently guide and not shame with their instruction. Friendship with such men is a given. This seems to be closer to the view of God that we should want.

And if dad is good, couldn’t mother be better? Mothers, after all, are associated with emotional warmth and care. Using mother, proponents assert, is especially attractive to those who have suffered the most under patriarchy’s thumb, generating welcome and possibly cutting back some of the weeds of religious practices that have kept women at bay.

But there is nothing inherently good about mother, just as father presents its own challenges. There are suffocating and angry and controlling mothers. There are neglectful ones, too. By prioritizing female language over male language for God, we risk simply matching a first conceptual overreach with a second. 

But the more significant issue is that, by changing terms away from father, we are trying to do public relations for faith. By seeking to make God more accessible and emotionally warm, we have ended up with a picture of God that resembles a great man in the sky more than it does the God of the Bible. 

When God fails our expectations by not being what we perceive as kind, not granting us what we ask for, or failing our standards of equitable treatment, we tend to give up on God instead of on our pictures of him. We expect God to come as a vulnerable baby, to admire and put down in the cradle when we tire of him. But like real infants, God comes to us with a disruptive roar, failing our expectations so that he might, in the end, exceed them.

Especially around Christmas, we are tempted to yearn for “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” I’ve wondered if the writer of that hymn had any children—or at least children like mine, some of whom came to me as if they were shot out of a cannon. Children, if they do anything, will unseat our expectations about children. God, by coming to us as one, seeks to do the same. 

By calling God “Father,” we might unseat our expectations of fathers, seeing one whose authority serves not to harm but to unseat the evil powers of this world.

This is where nature can teach us of God—but not in the way you might think.

When God comes to Israel, the natural world is often his vehicle. God seems especially well acquainted with water. First, in Noah’s day, we have the great flood, when God wipes out civilization due to its grave unfaithfulness. Water is the shovel with which God digs, uproots, and tosses away the debris of that lost world. Then there’s the Red Sea, where God makes a pillar of the waters so that Israel can pass through it. Then the Egyptians are drowned with their horses and chariots, the water acting again as an agent both of deliverance and of judgment. 

Elijah sustains a widow whose child is close to death due to a lack of rain. God’s prophet appears to address not the child’s illness but the absence of water. When the latter rains fall and fill the wells, it is a sign of God’s provision (1 Kings 18). Jeremiah and Joel both suffer under droughts and call their people to repentance so that God will send the desired rain. 

Appropriate amounts of water demonstrate God’s presence with his people; its absence reflects God’s own. When the disciples remark, “Even the winds and the waves obey him!” (Matt. 8:27), they are speaking of the one who delivered Israel through the waters by holding its destructive power at bay.

The images we see in the Hebrew Bible are of a God who works at a grand scale to both rescue and deliver. Israelite theology developed around these great acts; awe, mystery, and even overwhelming dread characterize Israel’s encounters with God. 

“Woe to me!” the prophet Isaiah says upon beholding God. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips” (6:5). He does not hug him or ask for a favor. He fears his imminent death. 

God is, of course, not only dread and acts of awe. He is also provision and sustaining care. But God cannot be one without the other. That God is present to provide care for the widow and the orphan depends on God’s ability to act and to intervene, at all times and in all places. This is not a merely human power. God cannot be the one who provides for the widow without being the one who made the ocean deep and all that swims in it. The power to separate the land from the waters and to hold back the water in towering force is the same power that brings gentle rain to nourish the land.

You do certain things before such a God. You might kneel in reverence. You might lay prostrate and cover your head in fear. You might raise your hands toward heaven. Sometimes, when angered, you might attempt a wrestling match. But you’d be left changed. You’d forever limp. 

We no longer see God in rushing water. Many of our religious expressions and practices are ordered toward the God of quiet waters, not the one who came in a powerful flood. It’s not just our worship music and preference for reassuring sermons. It is the kind of comfort we have with imagining what this God is like. Many of us want a humble king, the Lamb and never the Lion. We have become so comfortable with “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” that we forget that he is a warrior too. 

Of course, Jesus is the Christian’s answer to how God can be both the one who comes in judgment and the one who comes to heal. But this can easily slide into what feels like an inevitable progression from avenger to friend, and  can make it seem like the triumph is of the therapeutic gospel and not of the holy God who came in history. Christians must hold together conceptually the man who became our friend and the one who controls the mighty waters. It is not always easy to do so.

As our felt needs have increasingly turned inward—higher on Maslow’s scale of belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization—we have adjusted our theological speech in this direction. We emphasize that church is a place of belonging more than a place of shared belief and that earnest commitment to the gospel is about our personal growth rather than our worship of the triune God. We talk about God as the ground of our personhood, someone who reveals our vocations, rather than as Creator and sustainer. 

This was all tried by the mainline churches of the late 20th century. As many of these churches have found, people don’t, in fact, need a God who exists to reinforce their self-esteem.

 All of this language falls flat when it runs up against a natural world that deals not in belonging but in threat and danger. In an age of rising waters and climate disruption, we should be reminded of the perilous mismatch between the God we speak of in our popular religious language and the God we so desperately need—one who judges, rescues, and delivers. 


When it comes to faith formation, Christians think a lot about the how, but I’ve been thinking more about what kind of God we form people to. Our priorities often lean toward reckoning with Christianity’s cultural overreach—its latent patriarchy or its unjust power structures—or with the negative theology that has harmed people’s self-esteem. We’re told that teaching about sin creates self-hatred and talking about divine judgment incites fear. But we think too little about the harm of presenting a God who is only a friend and never a Savior.

When David Kelsey ended his essay about sin’s “migration,” it was with a surprising warning, coming from a mainline theologian. Sin, he says, has not been forgotten by the mainline; it just exists under aliases or in different forms, such as injustice or inequality. Both are ways of speaking about sin, without the religious referent.

Or, he writes, perhaps the reason for its disappearance is different altogether. Perhaps it is “not so much a disuse of the concept of sin as it is an abandonment of the concept of divine wrath,” he writes, “for, if there is no need to talk about the wrath of God, then there is not much need to talk about the sin that incurs the wrath.”

H. Richard Niebhur predicted this when he wrote that “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” People are not seeking a Christ without a cross. What they are seeking is a cross that would beckon us to a world without suffering, without failure, without struggle, and without weakness. The kind of saving we seek is not only one without wrath; it is one desiring a world that doesn’t exist—a world without raging waters.

By looking to God to be Dad and not Father, we come to expect of God the things we expect of parents—warmth, attachment, availability, and the prevention of harm. But this does not reflect the God who came in water. We do not need a swimming lesson. We need a God who can save us from the raging rivers—and if he doesn’t, a God who can gather us to himself as we await the Resurrection. Such a thing only God the Father Almighty can do. And we are in need of such a God. 

Kirsten Sanders is a theologian and the founder of Kinisi Theology Collective.

Ideas

The Architecture of Revelation

A monastery on Patmos builds silence in a world of noise.

The courtyard of the Monastery of Saint John the Theologian.

Getty Images

I was on the island called Patmos. To be precise, I was in the Orthodox Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, on a fortified hilltop once occupied by a temple to Artemis, a short walk from the cave where the author of the Apocalypse is said to have received the revelation of the end of time. And I was about to receive a small revelation of my own.

Behind me, the whitewashed surfaces of a stone-paved courtyard resonated with the sounds of an overheated summer afternoon. This had been a site of pilgrimage for a thousand years; I was a latecomer. Like others around me, I was more tourist than pilgrim. But for a moment I had stepped aside, between the pillars of a shaded portico, into an arcaded exonarthex, through a narrow doorway, and into a low vestibule. In front of me I caught a glimpse of a further opening that led into the monastery church itself. Its interior was dark, its surfaces layered in dense iconographic splendor. 

But the church was closed. A rope was strung across the opening.

Conscious that this was the very heart of the monastery, I leaned in through the doorway, turning my head toward the light that filtered down from the vaulting above. One ear was turned back toward the sounds still shrilling from the courtyard outside. But the other half of my body had entered a different place entirely. In that instant, I was simultaneously aware of two very different relationships to space.

One was noisy, distracted, and disoriented—unfamiliar with the monastery’s labyrinthine plan, distrustful of its uneven thresholds, struggling to distinguish between 11th-century catholikon and 12th-century parekklesia. Even here it was alert to persistent push notifications—the sounds, perhaps mere vibrations, that tie us to many other spaces through virtual networks that are necessarily commercial in their ends and rarely devoted to the glory of God. That disposition had followed me into the courtyard and still echoed in one ear.

The other obeyed a different economy entirely. It was marked by a resonant silence—the silence of listening, of expectation, of making time and clearing space for an encounter with God. In that liminal moment, one thing was clear: We need such places. But for most of us, they are hard to find. Our culture is not good at building silence.

Massimiliano Cremascoli
The whitewashed walls of the streets leading toward the monastery.

Silence is often associated with monastic vows. In the monastery, with its strict schedule and constrained setting, time and space conspire to nurture the possibility of quietness. That quietness is spiritual, yes, but also literal. What separates the silence from the noise on Patmos is, among other things, a thick wall.

The site of this monastery was chosen precisely for its proximity to the place where John heard from God. But John, we are told, was not here by his own choice. God put him in a place where he could listen: a small, barren island removed from the noise and the networks of the mainland—an island infamous as a place of exile. According to long-standing tradition, the revelation was given in a cave: a place of intensified silence, enclosed by walls of solid stone.

Like the cave, the monastery on Patmos is a place of palpable thickness. And that thickness is both material and immaterial.

In figurative terms, the thickness is a product of centuries of accumulated meaning and generations of careful stewardship. This architecture is not merely a fungible resource; it is not just a capital investment, nor for that matter a consumable. Founded in the 11th century, the monastery is a place where change has come slowly. One thousand years into its history, it awaits the moment that will end all time. And it stands in silent rebuke of our own, thinner, spaces. Once you have felt the thickness of such a place, even the most elegantly designed modern structures feel insubstantial.

But the thickness is also material. The Monastery of Saint John—like the tumble of smaller houses clustered around it—was built of stone. If you scan the island’s volcanic landscape, it becomes clear that this material did not travel far from quarry to building site. The monastery, we might say, is built of the same stuff as the cave. Its stonework is simple: blocks shaped by hand and fitted one on top of another. Its substance is undeniably solid and has served its purpose reasonably well for the past thousand years. Exceeding the demands of structural integrity, the walls are literally thick.

That thickness, which once served defensive purposes, today defends against intrusions of other kinds. Its sheer mass not only absorbs fluctuations in temperature; it also dampens the noisiness of the world beyond, making possible a peculiar kind of silence: the silence of a cave, the silence that allowed John to hear from God. 

That same thickness does not, conversely, lend itself to other kinds of reception. The cell signal is poor, the Wi-Fi spotty. And such a structure does not readily allow for vast openings. It naturally generates a sense of enclosure, an inwardness that seems appropriate to the monastic life.

Massimiliano Cremascoli
An outcropping of volcanic rock on the island of Patmos.

Most of us do not inhabit such places. Our world is noisy, and we have never taken formal vows of silence. 

We too must clear space to listen. After all, for the Christian, listening is hardly optional. The Creator endowed humanity with only one mouth but with two ears. We should, we are told, be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:19). To know the voice of the Shepherd is the great privilege of those who follow Christ (John 10:27). Blessed are those who hear (Rev. 1:3).

To listen well, we need quietness. That quietness is biblical—the restfulness of Sabbath, the stillness of knowing God, the solitude of the wilderness, or the space of prayer in a quiet room with a closed door. That closed door is not only a metaphor; it belongs in the same category as the thick wall, the cave, and the place of exile. These are real things, real places. For us, as for the author of Revelation, hearing God proves inextricable from bodily experience. Our lives are entanglements of the physical with the metaphysical. 

So, quiet places are critical. Even in the most literal sense, sound is tied to space. Our ability to listen in stereo allows us to hear in three dimensions. We instinctively turn our heads to locate sounds, to experience the depth of specific places. And we can choose where to direct our attention. We can turn away from, or toward, a particular voice. We can choose to listen.

But some places are more conducive to listening than others. Our world is getting noisier, and finding quietness is more difficult than it used to be. Surviving pockets of silence have risen in value as they have become rarer, just as dark-sky landscapes have become more precious in an urban age.

In other ways, too, we may need to work harder to achieve a quietness that is receptive to the voice of God. Our culture bombards us with competing media, not least the voices of advertising, politics, and entertainment—the lines between them increasingly blurred, the intensity of their signals stronger than ever. 

Increasingly, even our churches are not only places to hear from God but also envelopes for producing virtual content that must compete for attention with other messages—beholden not to the rhythms of the liturgical calendar but to the relentless beat of online rankings, license renewals, and software updates. 

And our buildings are shaped by concerns that are profoundly restless. They share in the characteristic ethos of modernity—which, to quote the philosopher Karsten Harries, “stands in no essential relationship to the environment in which it happens to be located.” To be tied too deeply to a singular location becomes a liability, and mobility an asset. Outside of monasteries, it is vanishingly rare to encounter a lifelong commitment to a singular place. Even our electronics are mobile. And their signals follow us as we move around the world.

So, more than ever, Christians need places of stillness—places of periodic exile from a dominant culture’s networks of influence. We need them even if that exile is self-imposed. This is not in expectation of a latter-day revelation but rather to allow us to pay attention to the revelation that has already been given—to allow us to hear.

Silence also can be a gift to others. If our contemporary culture consumes vast quantities of space, place is in shorter supply, and places of quietness even more so. We live—more palpably than ever before—in a demonstrably restless world: one that longs, in its moments of clarity, for spiritual quietness. If we are to take seriously Augustine’s claim that our hearts are restless until they rest in God, then it follows that the proclamation of the gospel must find its counterpart in the clearing of spaces and the making of places that nurture the peculiar silence of listening. And not just listening, but listening to the voice of God. 

Where noise and distraction are the rule and stillness the exception, sustained silence can be transformative—provoking questions that demand answers and prompt a reckoning with our very existence within the larger expanse of time and space. Not for nothing are the nations given the great injunction of Psalm 46:10: “Be still, and know that I am God.”

Yet it is hard to make room for stillness. And it is difficult to build structures of the sort of quiet integrity that informs the monastery of Patmos. Our built environment follows a different logic—one that resists thickness and conspires against attentiveness. 

This is true in a literal sense. As a culture, we have moved away from thick construction. We build walls of thin layers separated by insulating air gaps; we deal, in other words, in the paradox of the cavity wall—an oxymoron of sorts, a contradiction in terms. 

In practice, the word wall is today more aptly replaced by the term building envelope—typically a composite of manufactured materials whose brand names are printed on their surfaces precisely because they are otherwise unnameable. 

Before exterior cladding is applied, our houses are wrapped in what might technically be described as super-calendared, flash-spun, wet-laid, non-woven, high-density polyethylene thermoplastics. Even structures that are ostensibly built of masonry are composed, at best, of a thin veneer of stone or brick overlaid onto something else. At worst, the would-be masonry is a printed sheet, a manufactured, lightweight, cost-efficient, code-compliant, water-resistant, single-use, self-adhesive, multihyphenate, acrylic-polymer brick-pattern stencil pressed into a layer of synthetic stucco reinforced with fiberglass mesh on an expanded polystyrene insulation backing board adhered to an acceptable structural substrate. 

Such materials travel vast distances from factories to distribution centers to building sites. Inherently light, the cost of their transportation has more to do with the expense of moving the truck than with the weight of the material.

This has its advantages. Setting aside the glories of modern chemistry and the wonders of contemporary logistics, thin surfaces make it easier to run wires; to install conduit; and to fit ductwork, cables, sensors, thermostats, smoke detectors, fire alarms, exit signs, lighting controls, security systems, microphones, video cameras, speaker systems, videoconferencing equipment, and Wi-Fi boosters. Our buildings become more nimble, more adaptable to rapid change.

Yet such buildings rarely belong to their particular places in the way that is true for the Monastery of Saint John. They obey different laws; they are built on different schedules; they emerge from different constraints. And they are less committed to their own physical existence. 

Ironically, a culture of staggering material wealth no longer invests meaningfully in material culture. The past century has produced a progressive reduction of expectations. If solid buildings could once be projected to last 150 years or more, many are now ready for major renovations within 15.

Such buildings rarely possess the quietude of their forebears. Thin walls are no match for thickness.

But places of quietness may be deliberately countercultural. In AD 1088, the abbot Christodoulos sought permission from the Byzantine emperor to found a monastery on Patmos. It was a bold venture on a site that was largely uninhabited but where the voice of God had once been heard with unusual clarity. 

For a thousand years since, the monks have devoted their lives to maintaining its witness. More recent efforts (including by organizations like UNESCO) have labored to preserve the site. The construction of quietness has always been hard work.

It bears noting that quietness does not imply retreat. On the contrary, it may sustain the advance of the gospel. The quietness of Patmos has tended not toward isolation but toward a deeper engagement with the place and its people. Its monastic population is closely tied to the island community, who grew up around the monastery and supplied most of its novices. Its materials are intensely local. Its massing is responsive to local climate and immediate geography. And its architectural vocabulary derives, however humbly, from the long history of classical building, with its ancient connections to Europe, Asia Minor, and Africa.

As an institution, the monastery is deeply conscious of the history of its site and its proximity both to the Cave of the Apocalypse and to the prior temple to Artemis—built in sympathy with one and in contradiction to the other. 

Over the years, it has remained conscious, too, of threats from the mainland—from Venetians, from Turks, from marauding pirates. Today it maintains a modest website, in Greek, and a less modest library that has participated for many centuries in the exchange of international scholarship. Throughout its history, it has also received pilgrims from around the Aegean. It now welcomes—with caution—visitors from farther afield, remaining careful to preserve the quietness of the place.

Fortunately for the monks, most of us are not within easy reach of Patmos.

Massimiliano Cremascoli
The bells of the Monastery of Saint John the Theologian.

And here lies an opportunity. Beyond the shores of Patmos, in more ordinary places, Christians are invited to make room for silence. This task is more critical than ever before. And it is, among other things, an architectural challenge. It requires a renewed commitment to that peculiar thickness of which the Monastery of Saint John is such a vivid example.

Achieving such thickness demands effort across every domain, in projects large and small. Just as the term quietude spills over from the domain of sound into the domain of spirit, so here the word thickness must address both material and immaterial concerns.

The challenge, to be clear, is not easily addressed by adjusting consumer choices. There is no quick fix. And while the undertaking is costly, the problem will not be solved just by making more expensive purchases. A culture that has traded place for space and quietness for noise cannot simply buy its way out. 

The challenge runs deeper. It is a question of meaning—of how and why, as a society, we build.

The task begins with a rediscovery of real materials—of which we can expect to know the sources and makers. It places a premium on qualities of integrity and simplicity: words with immaterial weight that apply nonetheless to material objects. And it calls for peculiar forms of expertise: the expertise of those who can read into the very outlines of the topography the hand of its creator, or recognize in the very grain of wood the veins of his mercy.

At a much larger scale, it may involve new patterns of sourcing, new supply chains, new delivery mechanisms, negotiations for the reopening of local quarries, conversations with the owners of nearby forests. It may require new ways of working; architects willing to scan a longer horizon; and builders willing to learn old habits, build thick walls, and pass on the skills needed for projects that do not aspire to fast-track completion. It may demand a resolve to wrestle with building codes and ordinances that are not drawn up with such ends in mind, and a readiness to forgo the financing mechanisms of the 15-month construction loan and 15-year mortgage. The work of the church will not be fully accomplished, after all, until the end of time.

It also involves rediscovering what it means to be placed by God in a particular location, honoring the features unique to that place and deepening investment in its people. That in turn demands a devotion to real, sustained relationship—investing for the long term in a future to which only the church of Christ can look with full confidence. This work must be pursued in community through time—building a culture of stewardship across generations, with grandparents who remember stories of God’s faithfulness and parents who commit to orienting their children’s children toward the voice of God.

But above all, it requires wrestling with questions that have been neglected by modernity. Only the church can hope to undo the relentless hollowing out of meaning in a culture that has lost sight of how architecture conveys theological truth, that fails to see the connection between material and immaterial, that has no concept of the thicker spiritual reality that shapes our thinly embodied existence.

This is a daunting task.

But it may yet contribute to building the church—not just the house of God, but the people of God—and to making places that draw those who recognize the value of silence when they hear it. It may yet build an architecture that attends to revelation, that welcomes others to cluster around and to build their homes and their lives in the shelter of God’s truth. And it may yet prove a blessing to those who hear, in anticipation of that day when to us, too, will be revealed the walls of the New Jerusalem, and we will stand within a place of absolute thickness, surrounded by a great multitude singing with full voice.

Kyle Dugdale is an architect, historian, and senior critic at Yale School of Architecture, where he teaches history, theory, and design. His latest book is titled Architecture After God.

Church Life

The ‘Unreached’ Aren’t Over There

Singapore-based missiologist argues that the term “unreached people group” is a misnomer and can feed a romanticized notion of missions.

Illustrations showing diverse groups of people separated by a large curtain.
Illustration by Jisu Choi

In this series

The term unreached people groups is increasingly a misnomer in the 21st century. We need a more vivid phrase to encapsulate the dynamism and fluidity of missions today. The growth of Majority World missions also underscores the importance of localized missions and ought to remind us that we should not view the world as either “reached” or “unreached” anymore.

As a missiology professor in Southeast Asia, I struggle to use the term in class because it is dismissive of the current complexities of missions. Proponents of unreached people groups often lament that only 1 percent of missionaries serve among the world’s least-Christian peoples in the world. But this statistic creates a false picture of today’s missions landscape. It fails to recognize the role of indigenous churches and their members throughout the history of missions.

Courses on this subject in many seminaries and Bible colleges generally center the accomplishments of individual Western missionaries. While we must never diminish individual efforts and sacrifices, we can consider how churches, not individuals, have always been the prime movers in missions, as church historian Dana Robert argues in her book Christian Mission: How Christianity Became a World Religion.

Many Majority World churches are minorities in their communities. They often read the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18–20 and the call to be God’s witnesses in Acts 1:8 as an imperative for every Christian rather than for a select few. Reaching the “unreached” in these minority Christians’ eyes is not something that only those who are qualified to preach or teach do. Rather, they encounter the unreached every day as they live in homes with altars to other gods or are forced to participate in non-Christian rituals and customs.

In 2019, I visited the Santal tribe in Jharkhand, India. Once a region considered a “graveyard of missionaries” for its remoteness and for Hindu nationalists’ persecution of Christians, the Santal are now seen as a “reached” group. This largely took place because of missionaries sent by churches from Kerala, India, rather than through Western missionary efforts.

Today, the Santal church evangelizes to neighboring tribes that are categorized as unreached, but it does not think of them this way. The Santal think of evangelism as a natural outworking of their faith.

I have repeatedly witnessed this type of story in my visits to Nepal, Cambodia, and Thailand. Local churches, rather than missions agencies, are effectively spreading the gospel by multiplication through caring for their neighbors and carrying out good works (Eph. 2:10). Sending Western missionaries to unreached Majority World people groups is currently a less urgent need than before, as 21st century Majority World churches now possess the means, methods, and motivation to reach their neighbors.

The location of the “unreached” is also changing. In the first century, most Christians were situated around the Mediterranean basin, and by the 1900s, there were parts of the world that believers had never set foot in. Now, however, churches and communities can be found in almost every geographical region, according to the Atlas of Global Christianity. Consequently, the term unreached people groups has lost its meaning today.

Christianity is growing more rapidly in the Majority World than in the West. African and Asian churches are experiencing the fastest growth in the faith, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity observed in a 2024 report.

When we do not recognize how the locus of Christian growth is shifting, we create a romanticized view of missionaries, focusing on fulfilling the “ends of the earth” portion of Acts 1:8 while neglecting our own Jerusalems. This idealization of mission work often results in the inefficient, and even detrimental, allocation of personnel and resources.

In 2018, 26-year-old American missionary John Allen Chau was killed by the Sentinelese, one of the most isolated tribes in the world, after attempting to contact them. I do not doubt Chau’s fervor and zeal for Christ, but I wish he had partnered with Christians in the region, who make up roughly 20 percent of the population on the Andaman Islands, before embarking on his mission.

Additionally, a traditional view of the term—which often assumes that the “unreached” are only in the Majority World—fails to address the term’s implicit Western bias. But the West is becoming unreached again, British missiologist Lesslie Newbigin and pastor Tim Keller warned. Missions to the West, where the vast majority of youth have no religious affiliation or have never heard the gospel, is just as vital as going to people groups in far-flung corners of the globe.

To move beyond a binary understanding of people as “reached” and “unreached” and to illustrate a multidirectional approach to missions more clearly, I use a metaphor of a waffle to describe missions in my classes. 

This image draws from the “spreading and filling” process found in passages like Genesis 1, the conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua, and the Book of Acts. We have an existing worldwide Christian network, with churches as the raised grids of a waffle thanks to the tireless work of mission pioneers like Adoniram and Ann Judson, who ventured to Calcutta (Kolkata), India, and Burma (Myanmar) in the 1800s. 

What is most needed now is to galvanize the filling of the waffle’s voids—areas of the world with little or no active Christian mission. These voids signify the unreached people in our neighborhoods and cities who are closed off to the gospel message. Churches can act as the syrup that infuses these voids by proclaiming the gospel, exercising the love of Christ, and spurring each other on toward love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24). The Bible consistently calls Christians to holistic and integral service toward not only the lost but also the least and the last (Deut. 10:18–19; 1 Pet. 2:9–12).

If we understand missions as a slow, steady pouring out of all that God has given us—like how thick, golden syrup spreads over a waffle and gradually fills all its grids—we will come to recognize that speaking of God’s mercy, love, and grace remains necessary in our Jerusalems as well as at the ends of the earth. Until the Lord returns, may we never cease in telling people near and far about how God’s words are “sweeter than honey” to our mouths (Ps. 119:103).

Samuel Law is associate professor for intercultural studies and dean of advanced studies at Singapore Bible College, as well as the pastor at large for the Evangelical Chinese Church of Seattle.

Ideas

Redlining, Monasteries, and Refugees

Staff Editor

A note from CT’s editorial director in our November/December issue.

 

A man fully embraced by nature, houses, and churches.

While many of us like to think of ourselves as self-made individuals, we are not so neatly defined or isolated. Our DNA bears genetic material from generations past. We pass along family stories at the dinner table. From food preferences to sports rivalries, we take on the stories, songs, and palates of our people.

Places shape our affections too—from homes, neighborhoods, and nations to flora, fauna, and topography. While we may recall how our childhood homes influenced us (Did you slide down the banister on Christmas morning?), often what we no longer notice exerts defining power over what we consider “normal.” 

The import of place can easily go unnoticed. Some of a place’s constraints are given by governments or institutions—consider how sidewalks, zoning laws, and church buildings shape our daily and weekly rhythms—while other constraints offer us more creativity and agency, such as starting a garden plot, picking a paint color, or hosting a holiday party. (Don’t miss  hospitality recommendations on page 26.) 

What might a place, with its particular quirks, teach us?

In this issue, you’ll read about a monastery on the island of Patmos  from architect Kyle Dugdale. He explains how quiet, thick places are primed for revelation (p. 44). Andrew Faulk’s photo essay on an Ethiopian pilgrimage site will open your eyes to the sacredness of place (p. 52). Three book reviews also consider how very different places—Ukraine, Colorado Springs, and urban inner cities—shape our learning and ministries (p. 64). 

But places aren’t always invitations. Ann Voskamp chronicles displacement in the faces of refugees while noting that God’s will is the surest place in which to find ourselves (p. 58). You’ll read about redlining from city planner Mark Bjelland (p. 71) and, from Deborah Haarsma, how the immensity of outer space challenges any simplistic understanding of who God is (p. 34).

Finally, read Andy Olsen’s excellent reporting in his sweeping story “An American Deportation” (p. 74). You’ve likely noticed an uptick in CT’s coverage of immigration and deportation since earlier this year. This reported feature is a multigenerational saga of one immigrant family, the Gonzalezes. 

And CT is uniquely poised to tell it. Although “An American Deportation” dovetails with much mainstream coverage on immigration issues, it digs into more complexities than are often told. It traces the cracks in the system and in each human heart and reminds us that policies always have a human face. 

It is also a redemption tale—of personal salvation and of a church who rallied, prayed, and supported a family in need. It reminds us that, no matter where we call home, no matter if we are literally or figuratively out of place, we have a place to belong with Christ and his people. 

As you gather around a table this holiday season, pay attention to the people around your table—but also pay attention to what sort of place you’re a part of. Who isn’t at your table? Who could be? What sort of story does your place tell? We hope the words you read here are a call to a generous posture of hospitality and welcome, wherever you find yourself.

Ashley Hales is editorial director, features at Christianity Today.

Books
Review

Picking Up Snakes and Putting Down Roots

We’re right to be wary of the perils of thin community, like loss of meaning and, attachment to screens. But thick communities have woes too.

Hands attempting to master a tangle of serpents.
Illustration by Ronan Lynam

Of all the potential pathways into the world of snake-handling religion, Dennis Covington’s surely stands among the unlikeliest.

In 1992, Covington worked as a freelance reporter for The New York Times, covering his hometown of Birmingham, Alabama. On a routine call to discuss story ideas, his editor suggested checking out a local trial involving a holiness pastor from Scottsboro, a small mountain town about 100 miles northeast. Authorities had accused this man of contriving to kill his wife with rattlesnakes—the same rattlesnakes that made regular appearances at his church.

Covington hesitated, fearing he’d further an image of Southerners as ignorant yokels. Still, he took the assignment, writing up the trial and getting to know the central characters. Before long, journalistic duty begat personal curiosity, the fruits of which Covington details in his 1995 memoir Salvation on Sand Mountain: Snake Handling and Redemption in Southern Appalachia

The book recounts Covington’s journey into a backwoods charismatic subculture with scattered outposts across Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. In visits to converted service stations, revival tents, and other destinations off the beaten path, he witnesses the faithful handling deadly serpents and gulping down a pesticide compound called strychnine. 

Covington starts off as a sympathetic observer. He marvels at the sheer physical courage on display. He resonates with shows of ecstatic worship and spiritual fervor, welcoming the contrast with his pleasant Southern Baptist congregation in Birmingham. He senses God’s enlivening presence in these communities, which take inspiration from Jesus’ bold claims about his disciples in Mark 16:18: “They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.”

Over time, Covington’s interest in snake-handling spirituality intensifies. He feels a mysterious pull toward these gatherings, becoming something more than a friendly interloper. Parts of his personal history—a childhood fascination with snakes, hints of Appalachian ancestry, an insatiable thirst for danger—strike him as signposts. It comes as little surprise when, finally, Covington takes up snakes himself.

Is the wild branch grafted onto the family tree? Not exactly. Covington is an outsider wrestling with questions of belonging. But the experienced snake handlers aren’t confused about who they are and where they come from. Most can trace their traditions back through parents and grandparents. Covington movingly describes the binding force of their shared cultural heritage, rooted in an ongoing friction between old Appalachian customs and modern American mores.

To borrow the current sociological vernacular, snake handlers inhabit a “thick” community. They’re an exceptionally tight-knit bunch. Local congregations meet frequently, and regular “homecoming” events function as extended family reunions. Marrying within the community is the norm.

Thickness also shows up in the exceptionally high demands snake-handling faith makes of its followers. They have the scars—and hospital records and funeral certificates—to prove it. Recalling his own experience of dodging death as a war correspondent in 1980s El Salvador, Covington aptly observes that when snake handlers recall biting incidents—often with mordant matter-of-factness or liberal helpings of gallows humor—they aren’t dusting off quirky family folklore. They’re telling war stories, with all the foxhole solidarity that implies.

A great deal of today’s cultural commentary sings the praises of thick communities and considers strategies for reviving them. We’re acutely aware of the perils of thinness: lack of purpose, loss of meaning, loneliness, addiction, attachment to screens. For Christians, this all makes sense: Scripture speaks of covenants, not casual commitments. Jesus speaks of carrying your cross and hating your closest family for his sake. 

Still, Covington’s memoir made me ponder certain factors that complicate our rush to extol thick communities. For one thing, there are limits to a simple binary of thick versus thin.

As Covington portrays it, snake-handling culture is thick in some respects and strangely thin in others. A lack of ecclesial structure or denominational oversight allows elements of theological weirdness to creep in, some of it bearing on matters less exotic than the snakes themselves. I was surprised to learn of“Jesus Name” or “Jesus Only” churches that reject Nicene orthodoxy, mocking the Trinity as a heresy of “three-God people.”

Proponents of thick communities can also skim over the plight of misfits and outcasts. In his closing chapters, Covington introduces a Kentucky man named Elvis Presley Saylor, a consistent but unwelcome presence at snake-handling events. Fellow worshipers treat him as Satan incarnate, hurling epithets like “the wicked one” within earshot. 

Saylor claims he aroused their ire by taking a second wife after the first left him for a snake-handling preacher. His situation sounds complicated, perhaps more so than he lets on. It also sounds like something better addressed by wise pastoral counsel than imprecations and anathemas. Why does he keep enduring this abuse instead of trying a different church? As Covington comments, snake handling represents the “only religious establishment” he knows. Staying is painful, but leaving is unthinkable.

Saylor’s dilemma feels especially tragic when set against Covington’s own falling out with the handlers, which was awkward but hardly acrimonious. It unfolds after a preacher delivers some uncharacteristically belligerent remarks about a “woman’s place,” aimed indirectly but unmistakably at Covington’s wife (a deacon in their Birmingham church) and a female photographer assigned to his reporting project.

Oddly enough, Covington had received his first invitation to preach just before the same meeting, without knowing the provocation in store. When his turn arrives, the congregation lets him land a good counterpunch. But everyone seems to calmly apprehend that his snake-handling journey has run its course.

“Endings,” Covington reflects without bitterness, “are the most important part of stories. They grow inevitably from the stories themselves.” That may be good journalistic advice, though I question how well it translates into the realm of church community and membership. Christ-ian fellowship means something more than a succession of chapters that open and close at our own discerning.

Still, at a time when prominent thinkers celebrate thick community as a check on individualism run amok, we shouldn’t forget those at risk of suffocating underneath. If “not all those who wander are lost,” then not all those who stand still are found.

Matt Reynolds is former senior books editor for Christianity Today.

Church Life

Geography Matters More Than You Think

American biblical scholar affirms the urgency and relevance of reaching the unreached in fulfilling the Great Commission.

An illustration portraying human connection and contrast amid the layered rhythms of the city.
Illustration by Jisu Choi

In this series

The idea of unreached people groups is still relevant, useful, and helpful for missions today. Scripture is unequivocal about how God works through us and in us to tell the world about Christ.

Because the mandate and scope of missions originate in Scripture, our understanding of the task must draw from Scripture. Additionally, a biblical understanding of other concepts, especially geography, must be recovered in pursuit of a fuller and more robust definition of people groups.

The traditional definition of people groups is problematic, as it focuses only on social factors. Its definition, established in 1982 by the Lausanne Strategy Working Group, starts with “a significantly large sociological grouping of individuals who perceive themselves to have a common affinity for one another.” 

For decades, ethnicity and language have been the commonalities that missiologists and missionaries emphasized when evaluating how to reach the unreached. Organizations like Joshua Project still rely on the 1982 definition and primarily support adopting ethnolinguistic approaches in mission strategies and fieldwork. 

However, categories like place and environment are essential components in making God’s name known, as the Bible shows. In Genesis 10, the nations have an intrinsic awareness of their geography. The descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem are separated by their “families, languages, lands and nations” (Gen. 10:20, NLV). The Great Commission as described in Luke and Acts defines the spread of the gospel geographically (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). Paul also takes Roman geography into account when he says that he has proclaimed the gospel from Jerusalem around to Illyricum, the Latin name of a province (Rom. 15:19). Even though Paul is writing in Greek, he uses geographical terms in a vernacular tongue to establish a connection with his Roman audience.

Scripture declares that all of creation, humanity included, will recognize God as Lord over all. As Psalm 22:27 says, “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him.” Phrases like “the ends of the earth” aren’t merely descriptive or incidental. Rather, they reflect that our sense of where God has placed us and the landscape of the area we inhabit are important to him.

Geography matters to God. It should be part of how we understand people groups and how we are to reach the “unreached” today. We can examine people groups’ connection to their land, how they tend to it and cultivate it, and what that might reveal about their perspectives of God, creation, and humanity.

Unreached as a descriptive qualifier for people groups also retains its relevance because we still have an obligation to go to the lost. All peoples around the world are an integral part of the psalmist’s proclamation, including displaced people, refugees, and those in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and China—the five countries with the most unreached people.

The interconnectedness of our world does not mean that people are any more able to receive a relevant, understandable gospel presentation and be discipled. About two-thirds of people worldwide are active internet users, but that leaves another third who are not as digitally connected.

Around 3.4 billion people have not had an opportunity to hear the gospel in a language or method they understand. If their neighborhoods do not have established churches that can communicate the gospel well and serve as bases for discipleship, fellowship, and missional equipping, then a major gap between initial people-group engagement and Great Commission fulfillment still exists.

How do we address this gap well? We can start by recognizing that reaching a people group requires more than speaking digitally or physically. We can deepen our awareness of missional pitfalls, like when we become so focused on getting to the “all” that we do not take the time to “make disciples” by baptizing them and teaching them to obey Christ’s commands.

We can also shift our perspective of God’s mission from one that is numerically driven to one that is geographically rooted. God is responsible for our salvation, but in his sovereignty, he commands us to go to the lost peoples and places of this earth. He chooses us as his instruments for making disciples of all nations. As Romans 10:14–15 says, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?”

We see many examples of God exhorting people to go in obedience throughout Scripture. In Deuteronomy 20, God explains that while Israel’s military victories are his, Israel still must fight its enemies (v. 4). Israel is not absolved of taking up arms simply because victory belongs to the Lord.

In Acts 2, after the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter speaks to the bewildered crowd in Jerusalem. He declares that they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when they repent and are baptized, a promise that is “for you and your children and for all who are far off” (vv. 38–39). And Paul explains to the Corinthian church that while God is responsible for their spiritual growth, Paul planted the seed and Apollos watered it, as coworkers engaged in the task that God had given them (1 Cor. 3:6–9).

Like Paul and Apollos, we go to the unreached because there is no other God-ordained method whereby people will hear the gospel in ways they can understand. As we discover and get familiar with opportunities and challenges arising from people groups’ geography, we can better teach and preach in culturally relevant ways.

From the call of Abram to leave his country and his people in Genesis 12 to the great multitude of people from every nation, tribe, people, and language praising God in Revelation 7, Scripture’s view of mission is expansive and exuberant. It is a picture of God’s overwhelming grace, mercy, and love for humanity.

This picture is what ought to inspire us to go to the unreached—not simply because it is a duty to fulfill as God’s children but also because we, the church, are active participants in God’s plan to redeem the nations. For unreached peoples to know who God is, they need believers in their lands: ordinary, flawed, but also Spirit-filled, patient in affliction, and unshakably hopeful (Rom. 12:12). Let’s break out of our insularity and apathy and heed God’s resounding call.

Matthew Hirt is assistant professor of intercultural studies at North Greenville University. He is the author of People and Places: How Geography Impacts Missions Strategy.

Culture

People Always Ruin Christmas

Celebrate anyway.

A woman trying to untangle Christmas lights.
Illustration by Silvia Reginato

In every family’s lore, peripheral characters pop up here and there, sometimes for a span of a few years, sometimes for decades. As you survey your memory, you will see them there—not doing or saying much, not playing major roles in any dramas of the day, but simply in the background. 

My family seems to attract a particular type of peripheral character: people who have few intimate attachments or are estranged from the ones they started with. They are a little quirky—sometimes you might go so far as to say “a little off.” In short, they are loners. They worked with my dad or ran into my aunt at morning Mass and were somehow claimed by us. From then on (perhaps against their own will, for all I know), they were drawn into the current of my family’s life. They tagged along. They appeared at birthdays and Fourth of July parties and Sunday afternoon visits, and they came over for Christmas Eve. Christmas Eve, in particular, is where I see these people, year after year, in my memory.

At least once, I complained to my parents. Strangers on Christmas Eve, unless they came bearing gifts, did nothing to endear themselves to my rapacious little heart. They put us on company manners. They forced us into the awkward, shuffling, small-talk routine peculiar to adults and children. They competed for my parents’ attention. They changed the dynamic.

Why couldn’t it just be us at Christmas? Why, tonight of all nights, could we not simply enjoy the giddy closeness and warmth, the endless inside joke that is a happy domestic party? I think the answer was something like, “We’ve been given so much, and other people so little. And it’s Christmas. People shouldn’t be alone at Christmas.”

If we’ve been given so much, I thought, then how come the pepperoni on the cheese tray always goes so fast? But adulthood is one long exercise in admitting your parents were right, and now I do.

Not that there wasn’t truth to my complaints, hardhearted as they might have been. You really do lose something precious and fragile when you invite in strangers. Many lonely people are lonely for a reason—unable or unwilling to give and take the way most do, embittered or driven by alienating compulsions.

And I would bet money that the gift we offered was a mixed blessing. I have been in this position many times, far from home at Christmas, relying on the graciousness of friends to include me in their family circles. At a certain point of heartsickness, the sting of always enjoying by grace what others enjoy by right competes with gratitude. You long for the people for whom you are first. It would be a very hard thing to have no such people.

There is a wound embedded in the structure of hospitality—the fact that to be welcomed in, someone has to be on the outside first. Someone always has to play the part of Odysseus, bereft and supplicant, even if only in the most vestigial and symbolic sense, as when neighbors reciprocate visits.

Still, it’s better not to be alone on Christmas. I have never turned down an invitation to turkey dinner. And I am grateful that none of the people we invited over the years ever turned us down, even if sometimes it came at a cost I will never fully understand. If nothing else, I am glad that, early in life, they muddied up my nice Christmas Eve.

What constitutes a nice Christmas Eve anyway? If you are of Italian extraction, like many of my friends and relations, the answer is not just pepperoni but probably several different species of fish: calamari fried in crunchy, lemon-scented rings; sardines layered with red peppers on an antipastos board slick with olive oil; bread dipped in whipped salt cod. For myself, a nice Christmas Eve is the vigil Mass, then decorating the tree by firelight; reading a story to the younger generation, who in this ideal scene have been flown in along with their parents; then champagne, fancy little bites of puff pastry and artisan ham, and the rug rolled back for dancing.

In purely material terms, we all have our nice Christmases, usually in the form of to-do lists. We need to go get firewood from that guy in the pines who sells it crazy cheap; we need to pick up a case of bubbly; we need to make sure the children’s stockings haven’t molded during their time in the basement; we need to make dough and peel potatoes and acquire, slice, brine, and stuff various meats. And as stressful as these preparations sometimes are, they’re not bad. It is an irony of the human condition that 15 hours of work often go into any three hours of revelry—and an even stranger irony that this bad exchange is usually, somehow, so very satisfying.

But something stalks the footsteps of the material, champagne-and-calamari, to-do-list version of Christmas. It is a doppelgänger, more seductive and somehow even more demanding. It is the Perfect Christmas.

The Perfect Christmas turns the mundane to-do list into scaffolding for the emotional consummation of a hundred cross-hatched desires. If we work hard enough, happiness will come easily. If we take the perfect Christmas card photo, if we set the perfect festive tablescape and cook the perfect prime rib (if anyone knows an idiot-proof method for this, please get in touch), if we purchase and receive the perfect gifts, we will be happy and know ourselves to be happy and be seen to be happy and know that we are seen to be happy—with all these layers of refraction never compromising the snowflake purity and refulgence of that immediate, satiating happiness.

So often, the happiness we desire is domestic in nature, that closed circle of giddy warmth. Christmas is the time of year when families come together, which means that Christmas is our chance to make up for all those days of the year spent in separate rooms, all that time spent ignoring each other on our phones. Christmas, one perfect day, is our chance to erase the quarrels and sloth and apathy, the squalid minutiae. On our Perfect Christmas, we will get to experience what being a family is all about.

Until, of course, people ruin it, as they always do, with their squabbles, failures, needs, competing points of view, and a hundred other potential points of departure from the vision board. The Perfect Christmas—an ideal that can be constructed and pursued without its maker ever becoming aware of it—usually suffers death by a thousand cuts from the sharp edge of reality.

Just as with hospitality, there is a corresponding wound, an ache embedded in family life that emerges when we are most immersed in its delights. It is the gap, however miniscule, between what we hope for, what should be, what we may feel hidden beneath the fleshly moment-to-moment reality—and what we actually experience. To fight the gap by chasing after the Perfect Christmas is a short road to tears. 

Hospitality is mysterious: a transcendent correction to the problem of exclusion that retains and even emphasizes the pain that it turns into joy. Family life is mysterious: a burning core of the solidarity and communion for which humans were made that always reveals a shortfall in the moment of its happiest achievement. Hospitality and family are among the sweetest things we experience in this life precisely because the desires involved will never be perfectly satisfied in this world. The joy and the pain both point us to something beyond them.

So, bring out the prime rib and puff pastry or slice-and-bake cookies. Do things differently for a day. Extend the invitation. Make the invitees feel special, and ask nothing in return. People shouldn’t be alone at Christmas. The imperfect Christmas will mean unfinished to-do lists, hurt feelings, disappointments, awkward silences, boring conversations, the pepperoni on the cheese board disappearing too fast. It will mean songs and colored lights and homecomings and Waterford crystal, and it will make you so very happy but never happy enough. Celebrate it anyway. The celebration will never make us happy enough, but the reason we celebrate will.

Christmas proclaims, among other things, our place around the divine hearth, the intimate circle where we enjoy all the unquestioned rights of heirs, all by the humbling generosity of grace (Rom. 8:17). We are beloved children of the house, but we were once beggarly strangers asking for space in the stable (Luke 2:7). In this life, at any given moment, we are asked to play one or the other. May we never forget that we are either. May we always rejoice that we have been both.

Clare Coffey is a writer whose work can be found in Plough, The New Atlantis, and elsewhere.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube