Ideas
Wire Story

Christian Refugees See America’s Beacon Fading

Tulsa pastor who helps “Okla-Zomi” families worries that the sudden withdraw of humanitarian support will trigger a global crisis.

A string of welcome signs hand-drawn by kids
Christianity Today March 10, 2025
Jovelle Tamayo / For The Washington Post via Getty Images

“You have come to us at a very low point,” said Pastor Piang, a refugee from Myanmar I met on a recent trip to Malaysia. “We always look to God for our hope, but we also look to the US, and maybe they don’t want us anymore.”

Piang and his family are among the thousands of Zomi, an ethnic minority displaced by persecution and violence due to their Christian faith. Piang and his family have been living in Kuala Lumpur for 10 years, waiting with patience and hope to be accepted into the United States as refugees cleared by the US State Department. Now they are afraid the US government is going to abandon them.

They have genuine reasons to worry. The current White House has moved from what was initially announced as a suspension period to a full termination of both US refugee resettlement and more than 10,000 humanitarian aid awards, lifesaving programs that have served vulnerable men, women and children from all over the world for more than four decades and through multiple Republican and Democratic administrations.

Another family, the Khups—a father, mother and their three children—had completed the final steps to receive approval to come to the US, only to have their flights canceled after Inauguration Day. This precious Zomi Christian family had already given up their apartment and sold most of their possessions in preparation for their impending departure.

For more than a decade, our church, along with one of our nonprofit partners, has been blessed to work with Zomi Christian refugee families in Tulsa. They’ve come to us over the years through the US Refugee Admissions Program, one of our country’s most effective means of providing resettlement and full legal status to some of the most imperiled people in the world. Since the early 2000s, the Zomi have become by far the largest refugee community in Oklahoma, numbering about 20,000 people.

Those who make a habit of stigmatizing refugees have never met a Zomi Christian. Time and again, we’ve seen Oklahomans’ negative narratives about refugees evaporate when they get to know our Zomi neighbors. Hardworking, consistent contributors to our community, many have opened restaurants or other businesses. Their children are thriving in our schools, they’ve started several churches and most now own their home. Many younger Zomis have degrees from our universities and work in education, health care or other important service industries.

Many Zomi have earned their US citizenship and are so proud to be Oklahomans that we often hear the terms “ZO-klahoma” and “Okla-Zomis.”

Baptists have a particular connection to Zomi Christians because our own missionaries brought the gospel to their people many generations ago. Judson Bible College, founded to educate Zomi students, is named after Adoniram Judson, one of the most famous 19th-century Baptist missionaries to the Burmese.

A group of kids in uniform at a school.Courtesy of Eric Costanzo / RNS
Eric Costanzo, center, poses with Zomi children on a recent trip to Malaysia.

The Zomi Christians in Kuala Lumpur, like other refugees around the world, are adept at maximizing scarce resources to care for one another. Their highly organized, volunteer-run network of community, health and learning centers stretches UNHCR resources to meet the needs of as many families as possible. Zomi churches are the backbone of this system, and their openhandedness toward one another is unmatched.

But it’s nearly impossible to be resourceful when all the resources suddenly disappear. The abrupt halt to both resettlement and humanitarian aid is what most troubles those we met at the UNHCR office. They believe that by withdrawing all its support immediately, rather than gradually so alternate plans may be explored, the US is certain to trigger a global crisis.

After all, it was our haste in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2021 that resulted in Kabul falling nearly immediately to the Taliban. In our work with Afghan families who escaped to the US at that time, most leaving loved ones behind, we see the effects of that mistake to this day. The fallout that will follow from ending resettlement and the sudden removal of humanitarian aid to refugees across the globe will impact many more people than we saw in Afghanistan, truly beyond estimation.

It is my faith, not partisan politics, that drives my convictions on all these matters. I take seriously the Bible’s commands to show compassion and offer tangible help to the most vulnerable. I’ve seen firsthand the devastation that displacement brings among families in many parts of the world. In Kuala Lumpur, I saw those hardships amplified by the added emotional burden weighing on the already heavy hearts of many families who still believe the US can be a beacon of hope for them.

I’m a pastor, not a policymaker, but I believe our government should honor the promises made to the families in Malaysia and in many other parts of the world. I’m praying the White House will reverse these terminations immediately.

As a proud and thankful American, I believe we should continue to live out our historic values of caring for the oppressed, afflicted, and abandoned, even when sacrifice is required.

I’m praying we do not forsake these families now in their greatest time of need. I pray we don’t close our hearts and doors to them or withdraw the aid keeping millions from dropping into utter destitution. I pray too that the US will continue to be the compassionate and generous country these families believe we are.

Eric Costanzo, lead pastor of South Tulsa Baptist Church in Tulsa, is executive director of Rising Village Foundation and coauthor of Inalienable: How Marginalized Kingdom Voices Can Help Save the American Church.

News

The Legal Hurdles Killing the American Dream

Most evangelicals want undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship. But ICE detentions, years-long court backlogs, and a growing lawyer shortage can make it feel impossible.

Graphic collage of lawyers and immigrants
Christianity Today March 7, 2025
Illustration by Abigail Erickson / Source Images: Getty

In the summer of 2019, Saulo Kintu got off a plane in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, and asked around about how to request asylum in the United States. Locals gave him a choice: He could climb the border fence, they said. Or Mexican authorities could give him a number, and he would wait for them to announce it, like waiting for an order at a sandwich shop.

Kintu chose the latter; he wanted to do things the right way. He took his spot in line behind roughly 15,000 other aspirants.

The Ugandan migrant stayed at a shelter called El Buen Pastor, a sweltering and dusty place where men, women, and children slept in bunks and between church pews and on the hard ground of an open-air courtyard. All of the roughly 130 individuals housed there engaged in the same agonizing vocation of biding time.

While he waited, Kintu began putting words to what would eventually become his argument for asylum in the US. A team of American pastors had visited the shelter and advised him to write about himself. On a sheet of paper, he flattened his life into a few lines: Where was he from? Why did he leave? What did he hope to do in America? He stapled to the page a photo of himself.

The allure of asylum drew masses of migrants to America’s southern border for years before the Trump administration, in January, began turning away anyone seeking refuge. Asylum has also inspired false hope: Every year for the last ten years, judges denied anywhere from half to two-thirds of asylum cases.  Presidents Biden and Trump have both sought to curb access to asylum, in disregard of US law and treaties that guarantee the right to request it.

But asylum is also one of the primary avenues by which undocumented immigrants already in the country can get right with the law. Given that three in four evangelicals support pathways toward citizenship for people here illegally—and that 70 percent believe the US has a moral responsibility to accept those fleeing persecution—we might look to Kintu’s case as a kind of scorecard for how America’s immigration system measures up on these priorities.

Or, as the Trump administration each week arrests thousands of immigrants without criminal records, upending life for any of them seeking legal status, we might simply ask: What happens next?


Kintu had what lawyers call “good facts.”

For starters, he had worked in Uganda as a radio host for Christian and secular stations. The country’s government had a history of violence against journalists like him. It tried to intimidate them, inviting broadcasters to regular meetings, for example, where officials laid out which stories were acceptable for reporters to pursue and which were not. “Those that do not go to the meetings have always faced the music,” Kintu told me during one of several conversations about his experience. “You understand?”

Kintu’s profession earned him membership in a “particular social group” targeted for persecution, an essential qualification to win asylum under US law.

A second qualification: Kintu could testify to his own torture.

On a Friday night shortly before Christmas in 2018, Kintu was walking out of the radio station in Kampala, Uganda’s capital, where he hosted a weekly politics talk show. A pair of police officers approached him in the dark and asked if he was the man who interviewed politicians.

“We have recordings,” they told him. Recordings of listeners phoning into his show and criticizing Uganda’s strongman president, Yoweri Museveni. Recordings of Kintu sometimes interviewing opposition politicians. “We are giving you a warning.”

A month later, in January, someone who sounded like an elderly man begging for help knocked on the door of Kintu’s home just after midnight.

But when Kintu’s brother opened the door, the old man’s voice vanished, and soldiers rushed inside with batons and guns. They knocked Kintu down and began kicking him. They pulled him outside, put him in a truck, and drove him to a military barracks, where for two and a half months they beat him and doused him with pepper spray.

In captivity, Kintu contracted malaria. He grew so ill that his captors took him to a hospital under police guard. When the officer assigned to him stepped out of the room for a cigarette, a nurse slipped Kintu out a back door and helped him onto a motorcycle taxi that carried him out of the city.

A few weeks later, in March 2019, Kintu boarded a series of flights that took him to Mexico City. From there he stumbled along a circuitous route north to the US-Mexico border.

Crucially, Kintu held one more high card in his play for asylum: He could prove he was afraid to go back to Uganda, what the law calls a “well-founded fear” of future persecution.

Kintu’s father and brother called him in Mexico and whispered: Strange people still came around the house, talking about radio recordings and asking where Kintu was. The police summoned his brother to the station every month to interrogate him.

Three key ingredients: government persecution, membership in a targeted group, and fear of return. Kintu’s case had them all.

One final tragedy helped put the wind at Kintu’s back. In September 2019, another Ugandan at El Buen Pastor died from a cocktail of sepsis, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. Her fellow migrants alleged that local doctors failed to provide appropriate care. A group of Ugandans, including Kintu, hiked to the Paso del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso and complained to US Border Patrol that Mexican authorities were mistreating them. (Local police had robbed Kintu of the last of his cash.) The Ugandans argued they could not shelter in Juárez any longer or they might die, too. They pleaded to be allowed to request asylum.

To their surprise, border agents waved them through.

The practice of “metering”—in which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assigned Kintu a place in a queue before turning him away—was common along the southern border. CBP has since abandoned the policy, which courts ruled illegal.

In Kintu’s case, however, the choice to wait in line gifted him with an “inspected entry,” an event in the official record demonstrating that he was following the rules.

So when Kintu entered CBP custody, he possessed about as strong a case for asylum as a migrant can. That was lost on him, of course. What did he know of American laws? “I was just ready to get in and tell my story,” said Kintu, who asked to use his tribal name instead of his English name for fear of the Ugandan government.

All he needed was some help putting his story in writing and steering it into the bewildering machinery of US immigration.

Even so, it would take Kintu more than three years, thousands of dollars, and at least six legal representatives to make it through the system.


Veterans of immigration law know that three years is nothing. In fiscal year 2024, successful asylum cases took an average of 1,451 days—nearly four years—to filter through America’s immigration courts. In some months, judges granted asylum to migrants whose cases had languished for a decade.

Asylum is not the only option—or even the most significant option—for immigrants to be in the United States “the right way.” Most immigrants nowadays come because resident family members petition for visas on their behalf. In 2024, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved more than three-quarters of a million immigrant visas for relatives and fiancées.

But for the undocumented, any route toward becoming legal is an overwhelmingly uphill climb through immigration courts. Last year, judges informed more than 300,000 immigrants that they were ineligible for status of any kind. They didn’t qualify as part of a persecuted group. They weren’t related to the right people. They didn’t have employers sponsoring them. For every immigrant granted asylum in 2024, nine were ordered deported.

“We expect immigrants to have legal status,” said Erin Hall, executive director of Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic in Indianapolis. “It’s like, Well, do you know how hard that actually is?”

In cases where the undocumented do have legitimate claims to stay, what determines whether they get papers is largely whether they find legal representation. Court data show that, in cases closed during 2024, 77 percent of immigrants who faced deportation for entering the country illegally but who had a lawyer were permitted to remain. Other studies have found that immigrants in detention who have legal counsel double their odds of getting relief.

It’s possible, in theory, for migrants to manage their own cases. Nonprofit groups in recent years have rolled out more educational offerings for legal DIYers, including federally funded programs the Trump administration axed earlier this year then, days later, abruptly reinstated. But “immigration law is notoriously technical, and there are all sorts of ways to screw things up,” said Maureen Sweeney, an immigration law professor at the University of Maryland who previously worked at Catholic Charities.

When do you file a form with USCIS, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and when do you file with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which belongs to the Department of Justice? When will applying for one exemption disqualify you from a potentially better one? If Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rolls out a policy to arrest people at interviews for marriage green cards, will you learn about it before it’s too late?

Just north of Indianapolis, Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic employs nine full-time immigration staff members at a beige church outreach center wrapped in trees. Hall has one team member spend part of each day simply tracking unending revisions to immigration law, such as updates to the 600-page manual that governs immigration court proceedings. “We have an administrative agency that literally changes the practice daily. We’re going to add this rule, change this form, no longer accept this, change this process,” Hall told me. “It just makes it so difficult.”

The quantity of information barraging immigration lawyers has always been daunting. With the new Trump administration, the deluge has turned suffocating. “It’s not just federal executive orders but our state executive orders and policy memos,” said Angelin Fisher, an attorney at the Indianapolis clinic. “There’s internal agency things that are happening as well—some that get leaked, some that don’t.”

Without help, undocumented immigrants are left to navigate a labyrinthine system on their own, usually in a foreign language, and always at their own risk. “Being represented is always better than being unrepresented,” Fisher said.


During five months of ICE detention, Kintu read 25 books. He read Corrie ten Boom’s The Hiding Place. (“It helped in restoring my faith.”) But Kintu’s favorite books to check out from the detention center library were crime novels. At the end of every murder mystery, the characters went to court. Kintu had never been in a courtroom; he wanted to know how to address a judge and how to respond.

“These books, they helped me with my vocabulary. I used words like ostensibly,” Kintu said. “I think the judge didn’t think I would use words like that.”

In late 2019, after several weeks in various ICE facilities—including two nights shivering in a cold room migrants called “the freezer”—Kintu was moved to the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. Human rights groups have reported that detention at Otero “amounts to torture,” citing complaints of unsanitary conditions and lack of food and water. But for his part, Kintu saw it as an upgrade from sheltering in Mexico. He thought the meals were decent, and he watched TV news.

A few weeks in, Kintu had a three-hour phone call with an asylum officer, what’s known as a credible fear interview. He also phoned an American missionary whose number he had memorized when she visited him in Juárez. She arranged for a pro bono lawyer in El Paso, about half an hour away, to take his case.

Most detained migrants don’t stumble upon legal counsel so readily. Detention complicates a case, such that representing clients in ICE facilities is its own specialty within immigration law. Lawyers often must move swiftly to prevent clients from being deported. Detainees can call out, but lawyers and relatives cannot easily call in. Judges at detention facilities have their own protocols.

The vast majority of lawyers avoid detained cases. “They are just really hard and cumbersome, and you have to be really willing to work,” said Angela Adams, an immigration attorney in Indianapolis who has mostly stopped representing clients in detention. Lawyers need to be available day and night, she said. They need relationships with agents. “It’s better off to get an immigration attorney who knows the ICE officers, who can pick up the phone and be like, ‘Hey, man.’ I can’t do that.”

There are no public defenders in immigration court—the Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel for accused criminals but not for immigrants. Private-practice immigration attorneys charge as much as $20,000 to represent detained clients, a sum few in detention can afford. So nonprofit groups handle the bulk of detained casework.

At some detention centers, such as those along the southwest border, immigrant-rights groups and pro bono lawyers pay regular visits, apprising detainees of their options and connecting them with representation. At other ICE facilities, especially in the US interior, immigrants may find only a list of phone numbers posted in a cell. Dialing them often resembles pulling the handle on a legal-counsel slot machine.

“The reality is, there is not capacity to represent everybody,” said Sweeney, whose law students at the University of Maryland sometimes represent detained immigrants. “Especially in detained cases.”

ICE locates many of its largest facilities in legal deserts. The agency transfers detainees between centers based on its own logistical needs, often without warning and sometimes across the country, creating nightmares for the detainees’ lawyers. If you are taken to the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi—ICE’s largest detention facility, currently housing more than 2,000 immigrants—the nearest nonprofit legal group that might take your case is a five-hour drive away in Memphis.

“Detention equals a deprivation of due process,” Sweeney said. “It’s harder to gather documents. It’s harder to talk to witnesses. You show up in court probably on a video screen as opposed to in person, which makes it much harder for you to convince the judge that you’re a trustworthy person.”

In truth, for some immigrants, detention is a worse outcome than deportation. That’s what concerns many lawyers about the Trump administration’s promised mass deportations. Immigrants can’t just be whisked away overnight; red tape and logistical snags and the right to legal appeals exert a gravitational pull that tends to keep detainees in custody longer than necessary. Mass deportation could, in practice, simply amount to mass detention.

“I have no doubt they’re going to keep as many people locked up as they can,” Sweeney said. Across the country, the number of detentions has grown to its highest level since Trump’s first term. ICE was holding nearly 44,000 detainees at the end of February, according to government data. Despite the administration’s pledge to focus on violent criminals, more than half of immigrants arrested this year had no criminal record.

While detained in New Mexico, Kintu appeared three times in court. At his first hearing, the judge told Kintu he had to remain in detention while his case was processed because he was a flight risk—a common designation for migrants with no community ties. ICE assumes that loners are more likely to miss their immigration hearings.

At Kintu’s second court hearing, his lawyer failed to appear because of a snow storm in El Paso. “After some time, I learned that it does not usually snow in Texas,” Kintu said. In detention, such glitches rattle nerves. The longer Kintu was there, one of his lawyers told me, the greater his risk was of being sent back to a place where he might be killed. At night, Kintu would wake when agents came into cells to take fellow detainees and put them on deportation flights.

By the time of Kintu’s third court hearing in March 2020, a network of churches had gone to work on his behalf. A ministry passed his information to Heather Ghormley, an Anglican pastor in South Bend, Indiana, who located a family willing to house and sponsor him while his asylum case progressed.

“As a pastor, as a Christian, I really don’t want people to have to go through detention,” Ghormley said. “It’s not like prison. It’s worse.”

The judge agreed to release Kintu into the family’s care on a $7,500 bond. It was an unnecessary condition: ICE’s detention guidelines did not require bond for an asylum seeker with a clean record and a sponsor. Kintu said his host family, a Mennonite couple then in their late 70s, posted the bond.

A full year after escaping Uganda, Kintu boarded a plane in El Paso and flew north to Indiana, at the mercy of a pair of strangers and carrying a $10,000 debt his family had accrued sending him to the US.


In South Bend, Kintu wanted a job. He needed to cover his children’s schooling in Uganda and pay back what his family had borrowed. But to get a job, Kintu needed a work permit. The Mennonite congregation, which became Kintu’s church family, helped him find representation at the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), a pro bono law firm based in Chicago. Lawyers there began working on his asylum case and drafting the paperwork for his work permit.

An applicant for asylum can request a work permit after 150 days; USCIS must process the application within a month. For reasons Kintu still does not understand—maybe paperwork delays, maybe someone filed at the wrong time—two years passed before his permit was approved. From 2020 to 2022, Kintu depended on his host family and his church for everything. “Life was so hard without a job,” he said. Unable to earn income, he went back to school for his GED.

Meanwhile, Kintu’s first lawyer left NIJC. Another lawyer there took up his case. Soon that lawyer also left, and NIJC assigned him a third. Support staff members rolled on and off his team, Kintu said, and at one point another lawyer from an outside firm in Chicago joined his case.

Burnout and turnover are high at nonprofit immigration practices. More than 13 million undocumented immigrants in the US compete for the attention of roughly 9,500 lawyers and other government-approved legal representatives. Because there are not enough lawyers to go around, offices field more inquiries than they can possibly get to.

“There are hundreds of calls to us every month that we have to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, we don’t have capacity to help you,’” said Hall, at the Indianapolis legal clinic. The shortage is growing more acute: Nationally, the share of individuals facing potential deportation without representation rose from 57 percent in 2021 to 67 percent in 2024.

Churches are slowly stepping in to help fill the representation gap. Immigrant Connection, a Wesleyan network of church-based legal providers, has coached dozens of congregations over the past decade through launching and running an immigration legal-services ministry.

Director Zach Szmara said churches make ideal providers, thanks to a unique Department of Justice provision that allows nonlawyers to represent immigration clients after completing a certification process. They need only office space and a couple of folks willing to work part-time. Congregations can help immigrants gain status and keep status. “Churches get using tax professionals,” Szmara said. “It’s the same thing with immigrants. They need guides. They need an expert walking beside them.”

As Kintu’s case moved forward, his legal team assembled a standard asylum toolset. Lawyers interviewed his relatives and compiled testimonies. They collected photographs of tortured journalists in Uganda. They drafted reports about Ugandan history and politics. These things they would use to argue before a judge and against attorneys representing ICE that Kintu merited relief.

In the fall of 2021, Kintu’s sponsors twice drove him to hearings at a Chicago courthouse, each one requiring a three-hour round trip. At the first hearing, the government’s attorney failed to show. When the judge got her on a video call, she apologized. She said the government was not ready and needed more time. The judge scheduled another hearing for a month later. At that one, the attorney said she had family issues and was still not ready. The judge, according to Kintu, was irate. She requested a new attorney and gave ICE one more month to prepare its defense against Kintu’s petition.

Lawyers often encounter chaos in immigration court. ICE, like the people it aims to deport, also suffers from a chronic representation shortage. In 2024, the government’s immigration legal arm, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, employed around 1,700 attorneys to manage a growing backlog of more than 3.5 million immigration cases. That’s upward of 2,000 cases apiece.

On February 9, 2023, Kintu appeared at the Chicago immigration court for the last time. Two members of his legal team sat beside him and helped him answer questions from the judge and from the government’s new attorney. At one point Kintu used the word bamboozled, a choice piece of vocabulary he had picked up from his detention reading, and the judge laughed.

During cross-examination, the attorney for ICE caught Kintu off guard by asking if, on the radio, he had ever interviewed members of the Lord’s Resistance Army, the terrorist group founded by Joseph Kony that fled Uganda nearly 20 years ago. “I told him that during that time I was a young boy. I was in elementary school,” Kintu said. “How could I do that?” The attorney asked the judge for another extension to further review Kintu’s file.

This time, the judge refused. She signed Kintu’s asylum papers and ordered him to go tell his sponsors the news.


Once Kintu’s work permit arrived, he tried to find a job in American radio. But he was told his strong accent wasn’t marketable. He got certified as a nursing assistant instead and now works nights at a hospital in South Bend. He moved out from his sponsors’ home and rents his own apartment.

Kintu has not seen his wife or kids in six years, except on video calls. He’s trying to bring them to America—with help from a whole new set of lawyers at NIJC. Asylees, like refugees, can petition to have their spouses and unmarried children join them. Kintu was told approval might take around 6 months; so far, he’s waited 15. He’s called his congressional office. He’s done all he can. “Patience pays, but it pays by pains,” he said.

America’s immigration legal framework is, if nothing else, a national test of patience. Immigration practice has long been viewed as the grunt work of the legal profession—grueling hours at a social worker’s salary. President Trump’s immigration crackdown, however, is persuading some young lawyers and students to see it differently. Legal clinics across the country say they’ve gotten more calls in recent months from attorneys in other fields offering to volunteer. “There’s an upswing of interest,” Sweeney said. “It now feels like the frontlines of civil rights work.”

Ghormley is one who stepped to the frontlines. She pastors Tree of Life Anglican Church in South Bend. Years ago, when she first heard Kintu’s story and helped place him with a sponsor family, she had been helping Anglican churches across the country grow their immigrant ministries.

Tree of Life is small, and Ghormley has long worked other jobs on the side—as a teacher, as a college professor. She had done some immigration law part-time, but after the 2024 election she dove in. Now she works immigration cases around 30 hours a week when she’s not pastoring her small church. “The shortage is just so bad, and we need to do as much as we can.”

When Kintu was cleared to apply for permanent residency, he could have used his other lawyers. But he came to Ghormley for help instead. “I could get to his case a lot faster,” she said.

Earlier this month, Ghormley held the fruits of her labor in her own hand, when she delivered Kintu his freshly minted green card. It’s actually green.

“We have a mandate from our Lord Jesus Christ to welcome the stranger as we would welcome him,” Ghormley said. “Part of welcome and hospitality in the United States is helping people navigate our really complex legal system.”

Sometimes help comes as hard truth. Several legal representatives I spoke with said they tell clients when deportation is their only likely outcome. To clients struggling with substance abuse or those who are alone and have few viable options to remain in the US, Ghormley has said, “If it’s at all possible for you to go home, I want you to think about that, because you need to be around a community that cares about you.”

None has taken her advice yet. But the job fosters thick skin. Ghormley has clients whose families have been martyred. She has clients who have wasted all their money on uncertified legal providers, known as notarios, who can’t actually represent cases to federal authorities. She has clients who tell her, as a pastor, things they say they have never told another soul before.

“There are a lot of predators out there,” Ghormley said. “People trust churches. We are here for them, not for money.”

Andy Olsen is senior features writer at Christianity Today.

News

Ukrainian Evangelicals Wait for the End

They yearn for peace and a good night’s sleep but don’t trust Donald Trump’s proposed cease-fire.

A woman and her dog walk on street in Kyiv after a Russian missile has destroyed the center of the city.
Christianity Today March 7, 2025
Maxym Marusenko / NurPhoto via Getty Images

Maia Mikhaluk feels as if she hasn’t slept for three years. Not really. Not well.

The Russian air raids hit Kyiv at night. But she never knows which night. In the early days of the war, Mikhaluk and her husband rushed to a makeshift bomb shelter, a corridor between their apartment and their grown-up daughter’s apartment. Now, they just lie in bed and pray for protection from the Iranian-made Shahed drones, the North Korean–made Hwasong-11A missiles, and of course the Russian-made Novator Kalibr missiles, 9K720 Iskander missiles, and Kinzhal missiles—the Kh-101s, Kh-47M2s, and Kh-555s.

Mikhaluk said the children in Kyiv can tell the difference between the different weapons systems based on the sound of the explosions. 

Mikhaluk is tired. She is ready for peace.

She doesn’t think President Donald Trump feels the same. She saw the video of him berating Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for not being thankful enough and not accepting Russia’s terms for peace. She heard him order Ukrainians to accept “a cease-fire right now” without any guarantees that Russia wouldn’t violate the terms of peace again. It didn’t seem to her that Trump was trying to end the war.

“It was not about peace,” Mikhaluk told Christianity Today. “It was a power play.”

The diplomatic meltdown at the White House may mark a critical turning point for the war. Ukraine has relied on American and European support since the 2022 invasion, fending off the Russian military, which is one of the largest militaries in the world, and surviving the bombs, blackouts, and dire shortages. But a few days after the Oval Office argument, Trump paused all military aid.

At the same time, Ukrainian Christians told CT that life goes on. They have their routines and establish a semblance of normalcy. Through it all, they put their trust in God. 

“When the enemy is strong and even when allies betray, God is still in control,” said Mikhaluk, a pastor’s wife who has helped plant churches across Ukraine since 1997. “We know he will not abandon the oppressed.”

Church can be a kind of ballast in the chaos, so many evangelical congregations have made significant adjustments to keep meeting. 

Churches have started online services, which helps the people who have been displaced by war to stay connected. Churches have also installed generators, allowing the congregations to invite their neighbors to charge their phones, drink some tea, and hear the gospel. 

Most still gather several times a week.

“They’re still worshiping,” said Jon Eide, who coordinates support for Ukrainian churches for Mission to the World. “They’re still having Bible studies on Tuesday nights. Everything that we might think, Well, there’s no use having that anymore.” 

In the southern city of Kherson, where the Dnipro River is the only barrier separating Ukrainians from Russian forces, Presbyterian pastor Vova Barishnev drives a van around to pick people up for church. These days, however, his Sunday-morning routine starts when he switches on a drone-detecting device. He keeps it with him in the van, and if it goes off, he speeds to safety, ideally finding a spot under the cover of an overpass.

This is an upgrade from the pastor’s previous method. He used to put his head out the window and scan the sky while driving. 

“Look, if you can get a cease-fire right now, I tell you, you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed,” Trump told Zelensky at the White House. The American president said a cease-fire would be “a d— good thing,” and the Ukrainian Christians who spoke to CT agree. 

But they also remember that their country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for a promise for protection. The United States and Russia both agreed. But then Russia invaded anyway in 2014 and took part of Ukraine by force. 

And they remember in 2015, Russia agreed to a cease-fire again. There was a 12-point deal, which included exchanging prisoners, withdrawing weapons, and respecting Ukrainian law in the annexed areas.

Russia didn’t follow through on its commitments. The Moscow government preposterously claimed it wasn’t even party to the agreement and then launched a full-scale invasion in 2022.

More than 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died since then. And more than 12,000 civilians. 

Anna and Vasyl Feier knew some of the 290 people killed in the assault on Irpin, a suburb of Kyiv with a lot of evangelicals. It was once a hub of Christian ministry, sometimes jokingly called the “Wheaton of Ukraine.”

“Everything was destroyed,” Vasyl Feier said. “Businesses were destroyed, and our house was destroyed.”

The Feier family fled in 2022 when the Russians invaded, making a run for the capital. They returned to Irpin after Ukrainian forces retook the city. They live in a temporary shelter and do their best with the constant interruptions of the war. Air-raid sirens disrupt sleep at night and work during the day. Their three kids, ages 4, 7, and 15, spend hours in the bomb shelters.

They would like to rebuild their home. But they just have to wait until the war is over. 

“It’s very hard to plan things,” Vasyl Feier said. “Every day we don’t know if we will be alive tomorrow or not.”

This is normal now. It’s hard to sleep. You watch the sky for drones. Your children learn to distinguish the sounds of explosions. You don’t make big plans. And you wait while American leaders talk loudly about a cease-fire that you couldn’t personally take seriously. 

“When you live in a war zone, your every moment can be the last one,” said Mikhaluk in Kyiv. “It makes you want to focus on what is important—on sharing the message of hope, the gospel, with as many people as possible.”

Ideas

Making the World Safe for Bribery

Trump’s changes open the door for Americans to normalize corruption as merely the cost of doing business.

Donald Trump sitting at his desk in the Oval Office speaking to cameras

Donald Trump signed an order relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in February

Christianity Today March 7, 2025
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

President Donald Trump has not been coy about reshaping what he considers to be an unfair justice apparatus in the United States. Whether for retribution or for reform, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and America’s definition of what warrants prosecution is changing rapidly—and the world will feel the effects.

Last month Trump issued an executive order to halt the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for 6–12 months while his newly appointed attorney general, Pam Bondi, reviews the structure of the act and takes “remedial measures” on past applications of the FCPA.

In 1977, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the FCPA, and President Jimmy Carter signed it into law. The act’s aim was straightforward: Stop US citizens and companies from bribing foreign governments. It was the first law in the world to penalize severely (up to 20 years imprisonment) bribery of officials in foreign countries.

Carter, when signing the law, made clear his view that “bribery is ethically repugnant and competitively unnecessary.” Born out of the Watergate investigation, FCPA was a response to the uncovering of hundreds of US businesses and entities bribing foreign governments for personal and corporate gain.

The law also reflected a growing concern for business morality among evangelicals. It’s more than coincidental that 1977 was also the year of publication for Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, Ron Sider’s book that sold 400,000 copies and made Christianity Today’s list of the hundred most influential 20th-century books on religion.

Sider complained about “bribes to top government officials” in other countries. He criticized Chiquita Brands International for allegedly bribing Latin American government officials in exchange for preferential treatment that allowed the company to exploit local workers.

Evangelicals on both the right and the left supported FCPA. More than two dozen antibribery Bible verses bulwarked their views. Ecclesiastes 7:7, one of the most succinct, says, “A bribe corrupts the heart.” In 2018, theologian Wayne Grudem, who would support Trump in 2020, wrote that “many wealthy nations have rightly outlawed the payment of bribes by companies with headquarters located within their jurisdictions.”

Some advocates of the act also offered a financial rationale: that a strict prohibition on bribery requests from foreign governments would help shield companies from the pressure to dole out bribery fees. Opponents complained that US companies would lose some business to competitors from other countries that could offer bribes, but FCPA cosponsor Rep. John Moss countered, “That is the small price we must pay to return morality to corporate practice.”

The Trump administration is updating the position of those opponents from almost a half century ago. Minimizing bribery to “routine business practices in other nations,” the executive order argues FCPA has been “overexpansive” in enforcement “actively harm[ing] American economic competitiveness.”

The executive order shelves “any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions”—including what might be a bribery-facilitated, multibillion-dollar renewable energy scheme

That’s no exaggeration. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Adani Green Energy with paying hundreds of millions of dollars from American investors to bribe the Indian government to alter the energy market in the company’s favor. Adani Green Energy allegedly tried to hide the bribes from investors.That investigation seems over, at least for now.

Taken by itself, the FCPA freeze could merely be a messy attempt to limit the authority of the DOJ and the SEC. But halting FCPA in tandem with limiting enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and disbanding the Foreign Influence Task Force poses a shift in American policy likely to affect not just American oversight of American bribery abroad but also the US government’s ability to monitor foreign agents in America.

Limiting the enforcement of FARA—the very law many believe Hunter Biden violated—increases America’s vulnerability to corrupt foreign influence in business dealings, policymaking, and elections.

But instead of viewing FARA as a tool to root out foreign interference and corruption in American institutions, Bondi is tamping it down based on another Trump administration executive order aimed at correcting what it claims is the previous administration’s “weaponization of the federal government.”

Bondi said FARA should only be used for instances “of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign governments.”

Crippling FARA, which requires foreign agents of other governments to register their activity in the US, significantly hinders America’s ability to track the movement and intentions of foreign governments in America. The change may also lead to an overturning of existing convictions.

For example, rapper Pras Michel, convicted of illegally raising millions of dollars on behalf of a Malaysian financier for former president Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, now hopes the law’s changes will allow him to appeal or even be pardoned, since his crimes fall outside Bondi’s new definition of FARA.

As with the FCPA pause, Bondi’s process for limiting FARA has also thrown into doubt pending legal cases against agents illegally lobbying on behalf of authoritarian governments.

Former US congressman David Rivera and his associate allegedly received secret payments of nearly $25 million to lobby the US government to improve its relationship with the Maduro regime in Venezuela, previously sanctioned for human rights abuses, violence against political opponents, grand corruption, and other crimes.

Rivera allegedly lobbied for Maduro without registering that his efforts were on behalf of the regime. That violates FARA, but the corruption charges against Rivera, including alleged conspiracy to commit money laundering, may be dropped due to the changes with FARA.

In addition to regulating bribery abroad and at home, the US also regulates the behavior of Americans overseas. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is the primary means by which the US government polices Americans’ financial behavior abroad. FATCA is also famous for encouraging other countries to develop their own safeguards against corruption and financial crimes.

For example, just four years after the US adopted FATCA in 2010, the intergovernmental Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) opted for a similar provision, the Common Reporting Standard. More than 100 countries have now adopted it.

Additionally, FATCA prompted intergovernmental agreements with 115 countries to share financial information with the US government regarding Americans’ financial behavior in their countries.

FATCA helped the US crack down on money laundering and other financial abuse abroad, but the Trump trajectory suggests it might be on life support. Arguing that countries should fight endemic corruption becomes much more difficult in the wake of stripping America’s own internal corruption controls.

These changes open the door for Americans to normalize bribery as merely the cost of doing business. Reshaping tools for prosecuting corruption amounts to reshaping American values and abandoning biblical concepts of justice.

In his 1999 book, How Now Shall We Live?, Charles Colson reflected, “The Bible teaches that there is a holy God whose law constitutes a transcendent, universally valid standard of right and wrong. Our choice has no effect at all on this standard; our choice simply determines whether we accept it, or reject it and suffer the consequences.”

Luke Waggoner is an international political and governance consultant.

News

The Challenge of Orchestrating Global Worship This Side of Heaven

Gather25 reflects our desire to sing together but also the struggle to capture the diverse music of the church.

Arena filled with people raised hands in worship

Gather25

Christianity Today March 7, 2025
Gather25 handout photo

As the livestream of Gather25 began, five children stood at the edge of an auditorium stage as a guitar picked a simple introduction to “This Little Light of Mine.” A spotlight focused on a boy who sang the first verse in English, then panned as each took a turn singing a few lines in their own languages.

A 25-hour-long event broadcast last weekend from seven locations around the world, Gather25 is the latest effort to bring together the global church for worship across tribes and tongues.

“I think people are hungry for this,” organizer Jennie Allen said in a Fox News interview. “I believe in the diversity of the church. Each stream of the church is causing good in different ways. At the end of the event, we’re going to be singing ‘How Great Thou Art,’ and our hope is that for one moment, the whole world would sing one song to God.”  

Between the live locations, TBN broadcast, and livestream into 21,000 churches and homes, organizers estimate that 7 million people tuned in.

The vision in Revelation 7:9 of “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne,” has inspired worshipers for centuries and added an eternal dimension to international gatherings of believers. 

But logistically and practically, leaders aiming to represent the diverse languages and styles of global worship almost always struggle to share platforms and microphones equitably.

Ethnodoxologists, who study global worship, examine the challenge for international gatherings to bring together Christians in song while resisting the pull toward the cultural and musical practices of the well-resourced and influential segments of the church.

The week prior to the live event, the collective of worship artists involved in Gather25 released an album, Hear the World That You So Love Sing Back to You. Executive producers Matt Redman and Jason Ingram assembled a team of Christian musicians and songwriters from ten countries. 

“It all makes for such a unique project—and such a beautiful glimpse of the global Church—alive and well, and singing her heart out,” said Redman in promotion of the album.

Many of the artists featured on the release already had large platforms. Nigerian worship leader Sinach (who wrote “Way Maker”), Guatemalan group Miel San Marcos, and Brazilian worship leader Gabriela Rocha each have millions of followers on social media and produce music that generally falls in the same contemporary praise and worship style that is popular in the US.

The album also includes several songs that incorporate Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, Portuguese, and Swahili, but in terms of musical expression, there is a generally unified sound: Western pop-inflected praise and worship. 

“I didn’t see a lot of diversity in the musical expression,” said ethnodoxologist Joy Kim, who works for Proskuneo Ministries. “That’s not necessarily a problem if there was deep collaboration involved. If artists from around the world were involved in the songwriting process and it all came out sounding like Western pop, that’s one thing. But all we can see is the outcome.”

Gather25 began at the US location, in Dallas, with children singing an American folk song popularized during the Civil Rights Movement, followed by a dance-team performance and an energetic worship session by award-winning gospel artist Tye Tribbett. Christine Caine, Francis Chan, Priscilla Shirer, and Rick Warren offered remarks and prayer.

As the hours went on, the broadcast locations moved around the world: Romania, Rwanda, India, Malaysia, the UK, Peru, and an undisclosed location featuring Christians in the persecuted church.

The live events themselves included more musical diversity than the album. At 2 a.m. Central Time on Friday night, Americans could tune in to hear worship leaders in India sing in regional vocal styles as they led congregational music. During the 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. time slot on Saturday, performers in Rwanda displayed traditional dance and drumming.

African drummers lined up on stage and a man flippingGather25 handout photo
Over 7,000 attended the Gather25 event in Rwanda.

African Christians filled the arena in Kigali, Rwanda, and celebrated the chance for their ministries and leaders to be in the global spotlight: a children’s choir from Uganda, drummers from Burundi, a gospel singer from Nigeria. Rwandan pastor Hassan Kibirango called it “exhilarating” and one of the “landmark moments” in his life to speak at the event.

While the sessions were translated in real time—organizers say 87 languages were offered—Christians from the US and the West also heard musicians around the world sing familiar songs or English lyrics.

With the global growth of contemporary praise and worship music from the United States, the UK, and Australia, churches in Nigeria, South Korea, and the Philippines can sing some of the same songs used in American megachurches.

Historically, the church has moved between a unified musical repertoire and regional diversity.

But this isn’t the first time in church history that there has been interest or movement toward a unified musical repertory and practice. 

The Roman Catholic Church prioritized a standardized liturgy and collection of chants, so before the Reformation, Christians mostly heard the same music and text in the same language (Latin) during services.

Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran missionaries brought their own hymnody with them in the 18th century, seeking to unify the church across geography. In some cases, that meant elevating Western musical practices over local ones as the “true” music of the church. 

“There was a shift in the mid-20th century toward encouraging Christians outside the Western European music tradition to embrace their own musical expression,” said Brian Hehn, the director of the Center for Congregational Song. “But the global church has only had a few decades to fight against the existing musical hierarchy. And they don’t have the resources to fight the music industry.” 

Hehn said that the musical hierarchy of the church still powerfully shapes worship practices of Christians around the world and challenges the ongoing pursuit of a global practice or “global song.”

“People with resources and power have to stop and think, Are we setting up people across the world to worship in their own voices, through their own local expressions?” said Hehn. 

Joy Kim, the ethnodoxologist, acknowledged that intercultural collaboration can be hard and expensive, especially when it comes to songwriting across language barriers. 

Outside the US, most church musicians are bivocational and serve in contexts where they don’t have the time and resources to travel to songwriting meetups. Even in an age of videoconferencing, cowriting or recording doesn’t work as well when everyone can’t be in the same room. 

“If I had the money, I would invite worship leaders from around the world, pay all of their expenses, and write music together,” Joy Kim said. 

Jaewoo Kim, the author of Willingly Uncomfortable Worship and director of public relations and ministry development for Proskuneo Ministries (and Joy Kim’s husband), wrote about the value of looking beyond Western Christian music after last year’s Lausanne Congress. Like Gather25, Lausanne gathered Christians from over 200 countries and territories virtually and in person and aimed to represent the diversity of the global church. 

“The songs chosen [for Lausanne] were also predominantly written by Western or English-speaking composers,” he wrote. “Every song is born out of a specific context. When we sing a song from another part of the world, we not only bring a particular culture’s language into our congregation but also welcome that country’s story and its lived theology in word and melody. This is an exercise in mutuality.”  

Joy Kim said that the work of learning to make worship more “polycentric”—giving equal weight to multiple cultures rather than one dominant culture—leads to rich relationships and a more expansive view of the global church. And she said she is hopeful that events like Gather25 can be a step in a good direction.

“We all need to learn what it means to have worship that is polycentric, multicultural, and intercultural—worship that reflects the bride of Christ,” said Kim. “I rejoice in efforts like this event to bring non-Western worship leaders and multiple languages to the same platform. We have a long way to go, but I celebrate it.”

Culture

‘Last Days’ Has No Motivation for Martyrdom 

The new movie from director Justin Lin portrays its missionary subject sympathetically. But it doesn’t understand #SoliDeoGloria.

A film still showing the main character in the jungle.
Christianity Today March 6, 2025
© 2024 Sundance.org

Earlier this year, the film Last Days premiered at Sundance Film Festival, dramatizing the life of John Allen Chau. According to a journal he left behind, Chau, an American missionary and graduate of Oral Roberts University (ORU), felt called to evangelize the unreached people of North Sentinel Island, part of an Indian archipelago in the Bay of Bengal. He was killed there in 2018 at the age of 26.

Interest in mission work marks a departure for director Justin Lin, whose long list of film credits includes directing Fast and Furious entries and episodes of True Detective. He undertook this project with the stated goal of being as sympathetic as possible to its real-world subject, and his compassion for John Chau is evident. One film critic characterized Last Days as a “respectful dramatization” that “shin[es] a light on what motivations could make someone attempt to contact a remote tribe.”

From its opening frames, Last Days evinces Lin’s cinematic expertise. Its expert direction, explosive sound design, and electric performances—especially from lead Sky Yang, who plays John—will jar viewers accustomed to amateurish faith-based cinema.

But then Last Days isn’t exactly faith based. Rather, it’s an investigation by filmmakers outside the church into the heart of a young man who apparently died on a religious suicide mission. 

It’s also not the first film to take on this story. In 2023, National Geographic put out the documentary The Mission, available on YouTube, which quotes from John Chau’s journal at length. It also includes interviews with John’s friends, the missionaries who trained him, and skeptics.

These interviews point to a major difference between the two portrayals. In Last Days, John receives his Christian education and attends something like a missionary bootcamp from a parachurch organization, but then he’s mostly on his own. The Mission clarifies that John enjoyed ongoing mentorship from a support team that never appeared in his social media posts. As one ORU alumnus says in the documentary, “In any endeavor, a lot more people are involved than anybody knows.”

At the Sundance premiere of Last Days, Justin Lin contrasted his film with The Mission’s documentary style. Preferring a based-on-a-true-story approach, he told his audience he was less concerned with getting the facts of John Chau’s life exactly correct and more concerned with creating “human connection.” That meant drawing inspiration not from The Mission but from another piece of work: a feature article in Outside magazine entitled “The Last Days of John Allen Chau,” from which the movie’s title is taken.

The journalist behind that article, Alex Perry, isn’t a Christian. But for a nonbeliever trying to suss out John Chau’s motivations, he seems a worthy guide. In the early 2000s, Perry tried but failed to meet the people of the Andamans, the archipelago that includes North Sentinel Island. Like Chau, he saw the islands as something “big and difficult and dangerous and extraordinary,” an opportunity for adventure.

“Where John and I differed was that while I had been a reporter pursuing a story, John wanted to be the story,” Perry writes. But a look into Chau’s journals reveals something different: He wanted to proclaim a story, the gospel.

The journalist does acknowledge an evangelical perspective. One of his quoted sources, a missionary who’d met Chau, said, “Whether you buy John’s reasoning comes down to whether you share his faith.” If God and his judgment are real and Christ died for the world, it’s rational to risk it all to take that message to every last people group. But if this is all just fantasy, it’s dangerous—a mix of “obsession, arrogance, self-deception … an almost inhuman absence of doubt,” as Perry puts it.

The core problem is that it’s hard, maybe impossible, for a nonbeliever to understand what could motivate a person to risk martyrdom for Christ. Perry repeatedly quotes Chau’s motto, #SoliDeoGloria, though he lacks the framework to make sense of “the cryptic Latin hashtag.” And the movie inspired by his article doesn’t make sense of it either.

Without a sense of “to the glory of God alone,” Last Days remains unfinished and unsteady. Director Justin Lin’s choice to rely on Alex Perry’s interpretation is not just an inaccuracy but an artistic error; it fails to supply a satisfactory motivation for its main character’s martyrdom. The movie’s John Chau, though cast in the best possible light, is a man of incomprehensible, unmotivated faith.

Early in the film, John attends his final chapel before graduating from ORU. The speaker challenges each student to light a candle, symbolizing a commitment to light the whole world with the gospel of Christ. But John demurs. The film never investigates why he initially rejects the call.

Nor does it explain why he eventually accepts. We see John committing to a life of missions only after his father, a doctor, runs into legal trouble surrounding painkiller prescriptions. Last Days seems to imply, ambiguously, that John is actually running from his father wound, whereas The Mission reveals a young man genuinely motivated to strive for God’s glory.

It’s this question of motivation that caused the most confusion for the missionaries I spoke with after they watched the film in Park City, Utah.

One missionary expressed regret at a missed opportunity. “I was that way, and now I’m this way,” he said of his own conversion experience. “It’s impossible not to share.” He loves proclaiming the gospel. It’s that love that doesn’t translate in Last Days.

Another missionary asked a different question: “Who’s this for?” He didn’t think that John Chau comes off as feckless or insane, per the accusations of real-life social media haters; the film acknowledges and dismisses these critiques. But the movie also won’t inspire believers. Its middle ground will “pretty much alienate most evangelicals,” he said. “They’re not going to watch.”

He may be right. But the care with which the film treads that middle ground is still remarkable. When Hollywood wants to portray a believer, it often fills him with hesitancy; audiences resonate more with Doubting Thomas than with Simon the Zealot. You can find a recent example in award-winning Conclave (2024), as Ralph Fiennes’s uncertain Cardinal Thomas Lawrence gives non-Catholics a point of entry into Rome’s highest echelons.

By contrast, Justin Lin’s rendering of John Chau is refreshingly faithful. Unwavering, John sets his face toward North Sentinel Island like Christ toward Jerusalem. Uncertainty may shroud his motivation, but the objective at least remains clear.

Another missionary hopes evangelicals will watch the movie in spite of its shortcomings. “It felt very familiar,” she told me, “in terms of a young missionary’s experience.” With 35 years in ministry and 20 of those as a missionary to Africa, her first reaction was to emphasize how well Last Days honored John Chau: “It was a nonjudgmental approach.”

She also appreciated how the film exposed the pitfalls that confront young ideologues on the mission field. “Due to colonialism, which is so ingrained in us and is the other side of the coin of white supremacy, we just think we know better,” she said.

In Last Days, this cocksure Christianity is exemplified in Chandler (Toby Wallace), a fast-talking, risk-taking young man who shows John Chau the ropes of Christian thrill-seeking. Hours after meeting John, Chandler invites him for a ride in his prop plane, emblazoned with the slogan “Jesus is my copilot.” Chandler awes John with the scenery below before inviting the inexperienced young man to grab the control yoke and pilot for a bit.

In Last Days, what John needs is an Obi-Wan. What Chandler gives him is a Han Solo—a slightly older, more worldly, but less wise companion.

The lack of meaningful discipleship is a huge mistake for Last Days’ John Chau, maybe his fatal flaw. “You get a 20-something who thinks he or she knows better, and there’s no stopping it,” said one missionary. Another agreed that mulish independence is a real threat to mission work, even if the particular excesses of Chandler were “cartoonish.”

The missionaries I spoke with hope that the film’s depiction of their work will lead to conversations. But I regret that they may come at the cost of John Chau’s portrayal in Last Days. The film presents him as mostly autonomous—God’s own loose cannon—though The Mission testifies to his integration in a Christian community. This oversight, and the film’s failure to capture his heart for Jesus, is a failure to convey his soul. On screen, John Chau’s enthusiasm seems to come from nowhere. Without a lost-and-found character arc, he’s just lost.

John will forever be a man younger than me, as will his hero, Jim Elliot, who was also killed on the mission field. Yet they will also always be, for me, titans of the faith. Each possessed the courage to lay down his life for a gospel that had changed it. Their testimonies resonate like thunder in the great cloud of witnesses, a thunder powerful enough to rattle fellow believers.

“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose,” Jim Elliot once said. By this standard, the John Chau of Last Days, who sacrifices everything to gain nothing, is a desperate if well-intentioned fool. How different was the real-world John Chau, a young man who glorified God alone through his life and in his death, laying down his life for friends to whom he ministered so briefly.

Trevor Babcock is an assistant professor of English at Williams Baptist University, where he teaches film and other subjects. His chapter on David Lynch’s Christian and Hindu influences will appear in the forthcoming book Theology, Religion, and Twin Peaks as part of the Theology, Religion, and Pop Culture series.

Pastors

Pastoring in the Gender Gap Crisis

Four factors driving young women away from the church and pastoral strategies to address them.

Silhouette of a young woman in front of cross-shaped window lighting.
CT Pastors March 5, 2025
Blond Fox / Getty

Only a generation ago, Norman Rockwell’s 1959 painting Sunday Morning was a prophetic diagnosis for pastors everywhere. The mother takes the kids to church while the father stays home, presumably engaging in unimportant things. As they leave, the son’s gaze is on his father’s example, learning that church is for women and children. Times have changed—the vibes have shifted, and it is now young women who feel that church is for men.

What is happening with young women? I’ve had a dozen or so people ask me this in the past few months. Two graphs, one from The Guardian and one from The Financial Times, are particularly jarring. Especially in contrast with Rockwell’s painting.

Historically, men have identified as more conservative than women, but the gap is growing, with a significant uptick starting around 2012. 

For Gen Z, this gap extends beyond politics and into the spheres of religion and sexuality. In America, Gen Z is the only generation in which women outnumber the men in disaffiliating with religion, defying both historical and global norms. A higher percentage of Gen Z women identify as feminists than any other age cohort, and 30 percent of Gen Z women identify as LGBTQ. These trends are so atypical and severe that some called 2024 “The Year of the Global Gender Rift.”

Pastors who want to evangelize and disciple both men and women (as they ought), must understand the factors behind this trend and chart a course to navigate these new waters in ministry. If “religion” codes “right” (or “based” as the internet sloganeers say), then there are plausibility structures and obstacles that must be overcome.

Let’s consider four key factors: abortion, atomization, abuse, and algorithms. 

Abortion

A majority of women (63 percent) and 45 percent of men identify as pro-choice. “Abortion is health care,” the argument goes. “Who’s against health care? Do you want women to be sick?” My body, my choice is the libertarian refrain that sometimes is applied to vaccines and sometimes to abortion; both have to do with the government setting medical policy. 

Significant confusion lies in the differences in how people understand and use the word abortion. Sometimes it is used to describe a woman getting a D&C after a miscarriage, and sometimes miscarriage itself is termed  “natural abortion.” In other cases, non-viable ectopic pregnancies threaten the life of the mother. In these situations, “abortion is health care” is a true statement that evangelicals don’t oppose a priori.

When trying to reach people, it is crucial to understand their concerns and validate them where possible. We who believe that humans are God’s image from conception must be able to speak with nuance about these matters of public policy and not let our pro-life activism be perceived as brutality or ignorance about real health care situations women face. For example, if a guest from your church arrives and says something like “Jesus is interesting to me, but Christians being against a women’s right to choose is a huge turnoff,” instead of responding, “Too bad, so sad,” we ought to lean in. “That is interesting. How did that come to be a value for you?” The guest will likely discuss the terror of unplanned pregnancy, rape, incest, or health situations that risk the life of the mother. We can acknowledge the terror of some of those circumstances and the evil of others. We should also discuss the church’s role in supporting women in the midst of overwhelmingly difficult situations, and commitment to protecting their dignity. Because women are made in God’s image, God values each woman’s life and hates any and all assault brought against her.

At the same time, we must be willing to push back: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Most abortions are not about health care. In reality, the overwhelming majority of abortions occur because having a child would interfere with personal goals, such as education, work, finances, or caring for existing children. This represents a profound departure from the Christian call to self-sacrifice and protection of vulnerable lives—a value that has set believers apart since the early church. Put more bluntly, it is murder—tantamount to Molech worship, where children are offered up as sacrifices for personal or familial gain. Throughout history, God’s people have been the counterculture, distinguished by their willingness to place the needs of the defenseless above personal convenience or gain. Evangelism involves both affirming and confronting, and that is certainly true on the issue of abortion. 

Atomization

Atomization uproots individuals from their social context, their web of relationships, and their Creator’s design. Radical individualism combined with consumerism has led people to conceive of their lives as personal brands to be curated and designed. God cannot have plans for me that I do not have for myself. The idea of God as author of history having a “design” feels like an imposition, with all authority—even divine authority—viewed as only legitimate when it is derived “from the consent of the governed.” Children, in this context, are not considered blessings but rather obstacles and interferences.

Evangelicals can acknowledge that children by definition “interrupt and disrupt” women’s bodies more than men’s bodies. There is a disproportionate cost. This isn’t because of “the patriarchy” but rather a result of God’s design for biology. 

Feminism has pros and cons. Pro: women are less likely to be trapped in abusive marriages than they were a few generations ago. Con: maternity is perceived as an assault on the atomized woman, with the fetus being seen as a parasite that either receives consent or doesn’t from its host. A person who understands society to be a collection of consenting individuals rather than a web of households, families, and communities will inevitably see the created order as a wet blanket of duty rather than a delightful design. 

Abuse

The timing of the #metoo and #churchtoo movements coincides with the spike in females identifying as liberal. Abuse of power is a significant issue to the weaker sex, as mentioned in 1 Peter 3:7. Although both men and women can be victims and perpetrators of abuse, the disproportionate number of men in positions of authority means that abuse of power is often skewed disproportionately toward the harming of women. How many abusers need to be protected by churches before it’s reasonable for women to conclude that the nature of the institution itself is the issue? 

You don’t have to be convinced by every allegation of abuse to recognize that the broader pattern is, at absolute minimum, a liability for the church’s reputation and witness. In conjunction with that context, we’d be foolish to not see how a president who appeared on the cover of Playboy magazine—an inherently abusive and dehumanizing cultural artifact—doesn’t contribute to the lack of trust young women might have in conservative circles. 

While pastors may be tempted to form opinions about every alleged abuse scandal that makes the news, doing so would largely be a waste of time. What is more important when it comes to reaching young women is having a coherent theology and philosophy of abuse, a public accountability structure within their churches, and a plan for how to handle cases of abuse within the congregation. 

A pastor who is ignorant of or uninterested in power dynamics within households and institutions fails to follow the incarnational path of Jesus. Pastors must ask themselves several questions: Do we have a clear protocol for handling allegations of abuse? Have we sought training from experts in this area? Are we fostering a culture where victims feel safe coming forward? Being pro-life, from both a biblical and public perspective, requires truly caring for the most vulnerable people—often females—in our congregations and communities.

If you aren’t sure where to begin, read Leslie Vernick, read Darby Strickland, learn from Chris Moles, familiarize yourself with the Duluth model. Get your leaders and elders trained, collaborate with local therapists, and, above all, don’t overestimate your competency when it comes to matters of abuse.

Algorithms

The digital age has created a new reality in which we’re exposed both to a higher degree of exposure to stories of suffering and to tribalistic in-group/out-group social pressures. This dynamic has been harder on women than it has been on men. 

In Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind, he identifies six “moral taste buds” that shape how people engage in moral reasoning: compassion, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Of those six categories, the one most strongly associated with someone identifying as liberal is compassion, and a close second is fairness. The significance of com-passion—literally “suffering with”—coding as liberal is significant as the feminine and maternal affections sparked by higher levels of oxytocin present in women naturally facilitate a higher degree of emotional connection to other persons. 

The algorithms know this and will literally capitalize on those with a generally more empathic nature. While men in general are more likely to have their anger weaponized by the algorithms, women in general, being more attuned to group dynamics, are more susceptible to the social pressures brought about by digital technology. Social media preys on this dynamic, with algorithms that monetize our desires and affections being more interested in co-opting your soul and weaponizing what could be holy rather than making the world a better place. Churches must help young women develop an emotional life that is shaped by the Scriptures.

Dismissing compassion as feminine is anti-Christ—Jesus himself sees the crowds and is “moved with compassion” many times in the Gospels. Women’s inclination toward compassion is a gift that should inspire men. The church must demonstrate the emotional healthiness and helpfulness of Jesus to those they are trying to reach.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in young women identifying as liberal perfectly correlates with the age of the smartphone. Exposure to more stories, decentralized mechanisms that amplify voices of sufferers, and the ability for tribal dynamics to develop digitally is all new, and compassion-oriented young women without fully developed prefrontal cortices are the most susceptible to the social pressure this reality creates. Haidt’s more recent work, The Anxious Generation, documents this phenomenon extensively.

Pastors who want to minister in this environment must have a thoroughly worked-out and nuanced understanding of what the Bible says about anxiety and how to function with health in a digital world. We are called to embody Christ’s selfless compassion, which stands in stark contrast to the commercialized compassion that pervades our digital landscape.

The burden of proof

Every shift in culture brings both assets and liabilities for evangelism. While men being more interested in the church is good news, women’s increased skepticism must be answered. The Great Commission is not a gendered task!

At a minimum, women identifying as less religious and more liberal places the burden of proof on religious conservatives to demonstrate that their worldview is good, true, and beautiful for women, not just for their male peers. As with any missionary endeavor, this is multifaceted: We must give careful consideration to issues related to abortion, be healthily compassionate people who patiently help others rightly order their affections, discipline abusers and support the abused, and think critically and clearly about buzzwords and cultural movements like feminism. Stomping our feet about how young women are skewing liberal and anti-church is not a viable missionary strategy. Pastors need to develop the necessary competencies and repent where necessary to be faithful shepherds.

Ultimately, we know that every worldview or ideology that isn’t submitted to the lordship of Jesus isn’t good for people. Evangelism is rooted in our love of individual persons and our desire for them to live according to their wonderfully created design. But good intentions and fervorous prayers are not enough; thoughtful contextualization has everything to do with following the incarnate God Most High. 

Seth Troutt is the teaching pastor at Ironwood Church in Arizona. His doctoral studies focused on Gen Z, digitization, and bodily self-concept. He writes about emotions, gender, parenting, and the intersection of theology and culture. He and his wife, Taylor, have two young children.

Theology

The Moral Cost of Murdering Ukraine

Columnist

What’s at stake is not just the survival of nations. It’s the consciences of those who align themselves with what is unquestionably wrong.

Ukrainians soldiers carrying a coffin
Christianity Today March 5, 2025
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty

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

Over the past few weeks, the United States of America reversed course on the Russian invasion of Ukraine in multiple ways: siding with Russia in a United Nations resolution, freezing aid to Ukraine in its defense against Russian forces, and hosting a televised Oval Office repudiation of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

As many have noted, the geopolitical, military, and diplomatic costs of attacking allies and appeasing enemies are incalculable. As American Christians, though, we should also consider the moral cost of abandoning Ukraine.

In most situations of foreign policy, the moral questions are usually debatable, if not murky. Hawks and doves usually agree on the underlying ideals and values to be defended but disagree on the best prudential way to achieve them.

Sometimes, however, those ideals and values are definitively tested. In those moments, what’s at stake is not just the survival of nations or even of the world but the consciences of those who align themselves with what is unquestionably wrong.

Through most of the first half of the 20th century, the American left—or at least its most fervent sector—defended, if not communism itself, then certainly the Soviet Union and its promise of a revolutionary utopia of equality and justice. Often, this was done with a “I don’t agree with everything the Soviets do, but they’re not as bad as they’re portrayed” type of waving away of reports of atrocities committed by the Soviet state.

George Orwell famously defined the ideology at work here when he wrote, “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

Orwell was especially harsh on the communism of his fellow British. He noted that no real revolutionary feeling—an actual tearing down of the status quo—existed in the England of his time.

“It is only natural, therefore, that the English Communist movement should be controlled by people who are mentally subservient to Russia and have no real aim except to manipulate British foreign policy in the Russian interest,” he concluded. “The more vocal kind of Communist is in effect a Russian publicity agent posing as an international Socialist. It is a pose that is easily kept up at normal times, but becomes difficult in moments of crisis”—because the brutalities of the USSR have to be justified in ways that can make them seem morally consistent.

“Every time Stalin swaps partners, ‘Marxism’ has to be hammered into a new shape,” Orwell continued. “The unquestionable dogma of Monday may become the damnable heresy of Tuesday, and so on.”

The moral cognitive dissonance of all this was on display every time Stalin swapped partners. Those who were “heroes of the Revolution” were suddenly enemies in the show trials. Fascism was an evil—until the signing of the Hitler–Stalin Pact. It was then an evil once again when Hitler and the Soviets split.

In time, the facts many had always known became indisputable: about the Soviet starving of Ukrainians, for example, and the encampment and murder of dissidents. Those who were anti-anti-Communist had to find a way to either ignore these atrocities or to justify them, without repudiating previously stated ideals or admitting that they had been morally compromised by their own ideology.

In his analysis of the American religion of the first half of the 20th century, historian Martin E. Marty (who died last week) noted the anguish of Unitarian minister John Haynes Holmes in preaching a sermon in 1940 titled “Why We Liberals Went Wrong on the Russian Revolution.” Holmes, who was widely known in his day, was a “man of the left” and had defended for years the Soviet Union and its promise of a just society.

But the Hitler–Stalin Pact left Holmes shaken. He came to describe his defense of the USSR as “the supreme disillusionment” of his life. “I have been deceived, deluded and disgraced,” he said, “sold out by those I trusted most; and I am as deeply afflicted as I am utterly disgusted by what has happened.”

“[Holmes] faulted himself and his fellows for not having properly read the signs of the times,” Marty wrote. “Liberals, in their concern to fight economic injustice, he said, had permitted evils to go on which ‘in our own hearts we knew to be wrong.’”

“Sometimes ‘we’ had fallen to doctrines which hold that the end justifies the means,” Marty wrote of Holmes’s confession. “It was the Hitler-Stalin Pact which, as Holmes saw it, stripped away the last veils of self-deception from the eyes of liberals, and set them ‘steadfastly against the cruel and bloody regime which they should have uncovered years before.’”

Now here we are again—with another defense of a bloodthirsty, empire-seeking Russia, led by murderers and oligarchs in their illegal invasion of a neighboring country, kidnapping children and killing Ukrainians, with a Russian Orthodox Church cheering it on as a “holy war” of Russian Christendom against the decadent Western world.

Previously pro-Ukrainian voices now have to find a way to shift with the ideology, convincing others that something has changed beyond the price of tribal admission. Zelensky, they might say, was rude for wearing battle fatigues instead of a suit to the Oval Office (while not objecting to Elon Musk wearing a T-shirt and ball cap in the same place).

Or, they might argue, Zelensky is a dictator because Ukrainian law pauses elections during wartime (when one could just as fallaciously argue that the US is a dictatorship because there are no presidential elections in the four years between when the Constitution specifies they should take place).

Some Christians even suggest that Ukraine is opposed to religious liberty—when virtually every religious minority testifies that the reverse is the case, that Russia, in fact, is the persecutor of evangelical Protestants and even of Russian Orthodox clergy who will not toe the Putinist line.

Perhaps most dangerous of all, in terms of what it does to the consciences of those arguing this way, is the suggestion that Ukraine is fated to lose. They have no cards left to play, the claim goes, so the free world should side with the eventual winners—or at least do nothing to stand in their way.

Those who are now castigating Ukraine don’t even pretend that doing so is moral. Instead, they seem to argue for a worldview in which everyone is equally corrupt and murderous, so the US should simply divide the world up into spheres of influence, regardless of who is being plundered or murdered in the process.

Political scientist Mark Lilla recently explained the psychological state of this moral worldview in terms completely separate from the Russia-Ukraine war, through—ironically enough—one of Russia’s greatest intellectual and literary giants, novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky.

“In so many of his novels we meet seemingly wicked characters who are really only in despair, their original goodness having been robbed by someone or by circumstances beyond their control,” Lilla writes. “And to cope with the trauma, they convince themselves that there is no such thing as goodness, becoming prostitutes or rakes or drunkards or revolutionaries, reveling in their baseness. But then they are undone when they meet genuinely good people and grow to hate them.”

Dostoevsky was not the first to see this psychological dynamic. Millennia earlier, the Book of Genesis gave us the account of Cain and Abel. Cain, enraged that God had accepted Abel’s offering while rejecting his, murdered his brother. When interrogated by God, Cain believed his violence was hidden safely in the past. But God says, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:10, ESV throughout).

The apostle John, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, explained to the early Christian church what was happening in this ancient account by saying, “We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12).

Legally, Ukraine belongs to Ukraine. Morally, a people have a right to defend themselves from the extinction of their people and the taking of their land. The Bible tells us of another murdered man—Naboth the Jezreelite—who lost his land unjustly.

King Ahab demanded that Naboth sell his vineyard to him, but Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Kings 21:3). The king went home “vexed and sullen,” until his wife, Jezebel, worked to frame and execute Naboth on made-up charges so she could take his land.

It’s odd to me that some of the same people who will use the epithet Jezebel for women who wear yoga pants or teach Sunday school take no notice at all when they themselves defend the same sorts of real crimes that Jezebel actually committed.

Decisions about war and peace are often morally complex. But in this case, the defense of the indefensible is happening through a social Darwinist argument that is already hollowing out much of American life. Such a view says that the power to do something is itself a moral justification—or even worse, that moral considerations are themselves a sign of “virtue signaling” and weakness. We have seen before where this leads.

For Christians, it demands some questions: Who would you rather be, Naboth or Ahab? Abel or Cain? The answer to these questions might not solve the war in Europe, but it will reveal something about you.

Russell Moore is the editor in chief at Christianity Today and leads its Public Theology Project.

Hope for Tainted Creeks and Troubled Families

Responders to our November/December issue told stories of estrangement and healing.

Photography by Abigail Erickson for Christianity Today

Sara Kyoungah White’s meditation on a polluted creek in our November/December issue struck our readers as “mournful” but also “deeply moving” and “hopeful.”

“I live near Plaster Creek and used to ride my bike on the path described by the author until erosion caused it to crumble,” wrote one woman on Instagram. She expressed her gratitude for the work of Calvin University, whose community has helped coordinate cleanup efforts. “They installed our rain garden and so many others in our neighborhood.”

Other readers shared their own creation-care efforts. On his family farm in northern Ohio, Jim, a retired clergyman, is planting trees along the Little Scioto River and removing invasive plants. “I wish I could write like you to tell the story of my land,” he said. “I see it as part of the watershed, and what I do affects everything else.”

The problems of river pollution aren’t unique to the Midwest. “We have many dairies in our larger Columbia Basin that are so rich in manure and are a threat to our water,” wrote Grace from Washington State. “Here in Kennewick, we have the Hanford Nuclear reservation, which is also a big threat. But there are some grassroots things we can do. Just knowing there are many others who care about our water and world being clean and healthy, for us and the wild, is a happy thing. And yes, it matters to God too.”

Kate Lucky, Senior Editor, engagement & culture

Recovery Ministries Try to Help Portland Get Clean

Measure 110, which decriminalized hard drugs, was a disaster and reflected secular society’s refusal to recognize evil. Fortunately, progress was made with the recriminalization of drugs last April. I am thankful for Christian organizations such as Union Gospel Mission, Blanchet House, CityTeam, and Portland Rescue Mission, which provide successful rehabilitation programs.

Charles Felton, Hillsboro, OR

I’m Estranged from My Parents. I Still Love Them.

I wish Carrie McKean well as she pursues recovery from her abusive childhood, yet there are many vulnerable young people and their families (and I know some) who need to be alerted to the dangers of indiscriminate estrangement, distancing, or severing.

Christine A. Jones, Carlsbad, CA

I have been an orphan since I was 11 years old because of the civil war in Liberia. One of the people accused of killing my mother was a close family member that I pursued for 34 years and finally got in contact with last year. It was worth it. Forgiveness was my goal, though reconciliation has proven elusive. A few years ago, I started an organization called WeRECONCILE. Our mission is to help fathers and mothers reconcile with their estranged adult children. We are in the pilot phase of the program with a few families this year, and it’s going well.

Marcus Doe, Tucson, AZ

Very beautiful article. I estranged myself for a time from my father once and, though necessary, it was deeply wrenching. An ongoing grief.

Dianne Tucker (Facebook)

For those of us who survived years of abuse or neglect, causing us to question for some time whether God was real or with us—and those of us who found healthy family and healing in the church and the gospel but still, in the same church, found many people who could not comprehend what we had gone through—this piece toes the lines of our hearts tenderly, and I am glad it was published.

@alexeamcmahan (Instagram)

Never read an article until now that captures so well the complexities of estrangement in a Christian family. Echoes so much of what I’ve wrestled with over the years, being estranged from my parents after trying so many ways to “walk on eggshells,” set boundaries, and otherwise make it work.

@nate-meyers.bsky.social (Bluesky)

What to Salvage from Fundamentalism

I appreciated Reynolds’s tactful and respectful observations about changes in theological viewpoints. I grew up accepting the Scofield dispensational views and am aware that the present generation has largely rejected them. I wonder why. Perhaps Richard Mouw’s book gave reasons, but I have no access to that work and would welcome a simple explanation behind the prevailing view. Is the rejection based upon more conformity to modern society or upon later biblical exegesis? A dispensational view does not automatically result in extreme separatism—or does it?

Wendell Kent, Colorado Springs, CO

Twenty-five years ago, he may have had a point. These days, fundamentalists have just rebranded themselves evangelicals; there is not enough of a distinction.

Lisa Cawyer (Facebook)

Winning the Pro-Life Battles, Losing the Persuasion War

Don’t forget that Brown v. Board of Education was an unpopular Supreme Court ruling when it was handed down.

Martin Backus (Facebook)

Behind the Scenes

Toward the end of the editing process for my essay “I’m Estranged from My Parents. I Still Love Them.”, my paternal grandmother died. As I separated myself from my parents, she was my fiercest defender, despite aching for her son. For years, I’d worried what I would do when she died—attend the funeral and risk a highly charged encounter with my parents or skip it to keep the peace? I thought I’d settled it: I would honor my grandmother without being physically present.

The week of her funeral, I was in an intense round of edits. The timing felt unbearable. My editor kept the process moving by asking gently probing questions that took me deeper into my own emotional journey.

I knew my grandma would want me to tell my story, so I persisted. As I did, I experienced fresh healing. As I recalled fraught relational moments, God’s faithfulness at every turn stood out. He never abandoned me to my grief and loss; why should I expect any less now? Not going to Grandma’s funeral would only indulge my fear and desire for control.

I called my brother, and we bought plane tickets within the hour. The next day, I turned in my final draft. Then we traveled to Washington and spent four restorative days with extended family. My parents didn’t attend the funeral for reasons of their own, which left me sadder than expected. But I did see God’s faithfulness, which I might have missed but for a writing deadline.

Carrie McKean, freelance writer

News

Justin Brierley Goes from Unbelievable to Re-Enchanting

After hundreds of conversations, the pioneering apologetics podcaster is celebrating the “surprising rebirth” of faith in the UK.

Portrait of Justin Brierley with a light blue background and audio recording equipment in the foreground

Photography by Alun Callender for Christianity Today

Walk around central London, and you’ll quickly spot the capital’s famous red buses, their sides adorned with advertisements for upcoming films, fashion lines, or beauty products. But in January 2009, they confronted the city with a more provocative message: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Created by the comedy writer Ariane Sherine and backed by the British Humanist Association and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins, the “no God” campaign took place during the heady days of New Atheism. Dawkins’s The God Delusion had been selling in copious numbers—just one contribution to a public discourse striking in its contempt for religious faith. Delusion was one of the kinder epithets applied; it was not unusual to hear religion condemned as indoctrination, even abuse.

In a small studio on Chapter Street, not far from Westminster Abbey, however, one 29-year-old was attempting to inject some civility into the conversation. Justin Brierley started his Unbelievable? show on Premier—a Christian radio station in Britain—in 2005, offering believers the opportunity to sit down with an atheist and talk through their respective positions. It was, according to Brierley, not a universally popular addition to the schedule.

“A lot of listeners at the time said, ‘This is a terrible idea because you are bringing these atheists on to argue for atheism,’” he recalled. People expressed fears that Christians would be “shaken in their faith.” Objectors had a point, he conceded: “The format was quite full-on, and it didn’t pull its punches.”

But 900 episodes later, the host stands by his reasoning.

“In the long run, if your faith can’t stand up to some difficult questions, then you have got to ask whether it’s a faith worth having,” Brierley said. “There’s a kind of growth that requires a certain amount of uncomfortable questioning, but rather like the butterfly emerging from the chrysalis, it can be difficult and painful but ultimately it makes you stronger.”

Brierley took his first job at Premier Christian Radio 22 years ago. In that time, he has grown a large and largely online audience with an appetite for in-depth, unashamedly intellectual debate about Christianity’s claims to truth.

In doing so, he has forged a career as a prominent Christian apologist. It’s a role that he has arrived at by an unusual route—as mediator rather than preacher. His tool is the well-timed question offered in service of the listener rather than the monologue delivered to the camera.

His story also tells us something about the evolution of apologetics in 21st-century Britain, where the internet, rather than the institutional church, has played host to debates about the big questions of life, the universe, and everything.

From humble beginnings—his first show featured an Anglican friend and his atheist neighbor—Brierley went on to host guests including Philip Pullman, Tim Keller, and William Lane Craig. His “Big Conversations” series featured Jordan Peterson on the psychology of belief and Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins debating belief and biology.

With the advent of podcasting—Brierley was an earlier adopter—the show gathered an enormous online following, with nonbelievers prominent among them.

Scroll through thousands of comments beneath the YouTube videos of these debates, and a common theme is praise for Brierley’s hosting.

“This guy is the best moderator on earth,” wrote one enthusiastic contributor watching the debate between Christian theologian Keith Ward and atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett. “I was very impressed by the host,” wrote another. “He was even-handed, totally free of aggression, and he always kept the conversation within the audience’s understanding and interest. Even though I’m an atheist and fully convinced of Dennett’s position, I felt completely welcome as a listener, and I’ll definitely come back to this channel!”

N. T. Wright, who is featured on many of Brierley’s shows (including an “Ask N. T. Wright Anything” series), describes him as a “natural” moderator. “He knows when to prompt a speaker, how to draw out something that was implicit but not quite clear yet, and when to add a fresh point that can turn the conversation in new directions,” the British theologian said. Wright cites as a favorite his own conversation with the historian Tom Holland. “We both learned a lot,” he said, “not just from one another but from what Justin was able to draw out from us.”

Writer and broadcaster Elizabeth Oldfield, whose podcast The Sacred has gained a large audience for its sensitive, probing interviews, describes Brierley as “just intensely personable. He seems like someone who is engaging in the world of ideas and has spoken to a lot of intellectual giants with a remarkably low level of ego.”

“He has more of a hosting posture,” Oldfield added. “He’s not been saying, ‘This is my startling new apologetics argument,’ or ‘This is how I have the answers to how Christians should be doing this.’ It’s been a much more hospitable holding of space for conversations.”

Brierley remembers to “greet people with warmth,” she observed, a vital missional skill. “Acknowledge the presence of people who don’t agree with you, name that they are welcome, seek to see things from their point of view, and ask the questions that they might have. It’s that actual empathy for—and liking of—people with different views that shouldn’t be rare, but it does feel quite rare.”

For those weary of ill-tempered exchanges, Unbelievable?, which Brierley left in 2023, stood out for its civility. But while part of the appeal was the show’s exploration of philosophical, existential questions and in-depth engagement with science, there was also a danger that listeners could get lost in theory.

Watch a debate in action, though, and you’ll notice Brierley politely seek clarification from a speaker or attempt to summarize a particularly dense argument. You’ll also see Brierley’s genuine interest in atheistic arguments. “I’ve always said I’d much rather [hear from] a really dogmatic atheist than ‘I really don’t care’ apathetic agnosticism,” he said.

While the show is primarily known for its atheist-versus-Christian format, Unbelievable? soon broadened to include conversations between those of various faiths and between Christians with different theological convictions. Shortly after the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Brierley hosted a radical Islamist, Anjem Choudary, in a discussion about whether the former Al Qaeda leader represented “the true face of Islam.”

Debates could get heated, Brierley recalled, particularly those between Christians and Muslims. In some instances, guests who had honed their craft at Speakers’ Corner, a section of London’s Hyde Park that has hosted public debates since the mid-1800s (and where arrests occasionally take place), brought a more combative approach to the studio.

But for the most part, the conversations illustrated the value of being face to face. Guests joined Brierley at Premier’s recording space in London, leaning over microphones around a white table, with Brierley as moderator in the middle.

By the time the pandemic pushed conversations onto Zoom, familiarity and rapport were already built up: In 2022, Dawkins challenged fellow scientist Collins on miracles with bafflement rather than contempt.

Brierley’s range of guests is notable given current debates about “no-platforming,” or “canceling,” public figures, with British higher ed regulators tracking speaker rejections by universities amid growing concerns about the protection of free speech.

Unbelievable? hosted Jordan Peterson, who in 2019 had his offer of a visiting fellowship at Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity rescinded, as well as writer Douglas Murray, who has argued that European civilization is dying by suicide as a result of immigration.

Brierley believes that some of his invitations were in error “because their views were probably either so extreme or a minority position that it wouldn’t have made sense to give them a platform.” But he’s still “not a fan of cancel culture.”

He maintains that the format of the show—matching each guest with someone who had an opposing “substantive point of view”—served an important function. For example, some listeners criticized his decision to feature a young-earth creationist. “But the fact is there are a lot—especially in the US—of young-earth creationists,” Brierley said, “so is it fair to just ignore their perspective?”

Brierley grew up in the Jesus Army, a British incarnation of the Jesus Movement, followed by time in independent charismatic churches. He remembers having a “strong peer group” and a “vibrant faith” in those years. It wasn’t until his arrival at Balliol College, Oxford University—where he studied philosophy, politics, and economics from 1998 to 2001—that he first encountered Christians of other traditions or even “proper hard-boiled skepticism about Christianity.”

Having grown up with a “very experiential” introduction to Christianity, he began to research the intellectual underpinnings of his faith, reading apologists that included a fellow Oxford alum, C. S. Lewis.

He was also part of the Christian Arts and Drama Society, a student group that staged evangelistic skits in the town’s streets. One tradition involved a performance in the square outside the Radcliffe Camera, a famous 18th-century library, on mornings when students would return, slightly worse for wear, from all-night parties.

“I’m sure some of these sketches had a bit of a cringe factor to them,” he said. “But they were also our honest, heartfelt attempts to communicate faith in a different way to the student body; there were interesting conversations that happened off the back of them.”

It proved useful training for his work at Premier Christian Radio. He began working there shortly after graduation, learning the ropes as a presenter, including time as a sidekick on the station’s weekday Inspirational Breakfast show hosted by radio veteran John Pantry. Three years in, he pitched Unbelievable?, which quickly became a flagship show.

Its success occurred in parallel with a broader shift in public debate to online platforms through YouTube, podcasting, and social media. Anybody, technically, could build a following. Among Brierley’s regular interlocutors on the show was Alex O’Connor, who founded his Cosmic Skeptic YouTube channel while still a student at Oxford.

This development has “broken down the control that many churches or church denominations once had,” Brierley said. Congregants now have access to a wealth of information, including attempts to debunk religious tenets, at the click of a button.

There have been “casualties from that, who found it difficult to remain a Christian,” Brierley noted, “partly because they had been perhaps exposed to a very one-dimensional form of Christianity, and suddenly it was difficult to transpose that into a wider category.”

But the internet is now “part of our everyday life,” he added, and churches are left learning to adapt. There are some things that it cannot replace, such as the face-to-face community found in local churches, although the transition from online exploration to life in a local church can be uncomfortable.

“Church in person is not delivered via an algorithm, and that’s the problem,” he said. “We are used to having our very specific interests met in this online world now…. Then, when you turn up at your local church and it turns out it’s not Tim Keller preaching, or it’s not Jordan Peterson delivering a message, there’s a sense of disappointment.”

Those on this journey need to learn that Christianity is “not interesting intellectuals giving you hourlong philosophical treatises,” Brierley said.

“The whole point of Christianity is seeing God’s grace in the everyday and normal…. It’s all very well to go on these intellectual flights of learning and deep thoughts, but if it can’t be translated into the way you live your life next to someone who you just find completely irritating, it is kind of pointless.”

Brierley’s 2023 book, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, suggests that churches in the UK may see more new people, including those who have begun to explore Christianity online, walk through their doors. The book’s thesis is that that the “Sea of Faith” described as being in “melancholy” retreat by the Victorian poet Matthew Arnold could in fact be coming back in.

He writes about the radical change in the tone and substance of public conversation around faith—a shift from the “bombastic debates” he hoped to diffuse on Unbelievable? to something much more considered and curious. In addition to giving a eulogy for the New Atheism of the early 2000s, the book explores the trajectory of high-profile public figures “surprised by the continuing resonance of the Christian faith.”

It’s a story that sits in stark contrast to statistical measures of belief in Britain, where a growing proportion of the public (more than half) identify as “no religion” and church attendance continues its precipitous decline.

Last October, the interim results of a three-year study titled “Exploring Atheism” were presented at London’s Conway Hall. The authors suggested that Britain had entered its first “atheist age,” with more atheists than theists. Brierley is careful to qualify that his book is not describing a revival, but possibly “the beginning conditions of a revival.”

“You would hardly recognize the way people are now talking about faith in the public square,” he said. “The big question is, are these people just using it as a sociopolitical tool, a useful fiction? And arguably some of them are. But I also see a number of these individuals who seem to be attracted on an aesthetic, personal level to Christianity.”

He cites the example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once hailed as the fifth “horsewoman” of the New Atheists, who has spoken publicly and candidly about her conversion to Christianity.

Oldfield, another close observer of the climate, describes a shift in the center of gravity from the hostility of New Atheism to an acknowledgement of the inheritance of Christian traditions and institutions “with a sort of wistful envy.”

Among those who have raised concerns about the trend is Luke Bretherton, regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at Oxford, who warned of the tendency to treat Christianity as “an endangered species to be protected on special reservations or weaponized to defend Western culture from internal collapse and
external attack.”

Things are also changing within apologetics. Oldfield recently sat alongside Brierley on a panel exploring the idea of a “rebirth” of Christianity, and, in a clip that became widely shared on social media, spoke of the “falling away of the myth that we make decisions based on arguments.”

Ultimately, she said, people come to conclusions based on relationships—people and “the stories that make sense to us.” For too long, she argued, Christians have tried to meet demands for “neat and tidy and palatable” responses to a “very thin, narrow definition of reason.”

It’s a perspective in tune with Apologetics without Apology. In this book, British theologian Elaine Graham suggests that apologetics has “narrowed its focus into a model of rational propositional argument.” She favors a new model, an “invitation to inhabit an imaginative world, in which religious faith ‘makes sense’ of experience.” Most of the proponents she cites for this propositional form of apologetics are male, and many of Brierley’s interlocutors, at least in the early years of the show, were men too.

Today, Brierley shares Oldfield’s sense that people are “often more guided than they are willing to admit by their gut and by their emotion.” The same applies to Christians, he said. “I still think [Christianity] makes intellectual sense, but I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t feel that I encountered something genuinely transcendent, that stirs my emotions.”

It’s significant that Jordan Peterson often becomes emotional during talks—a vulnerability that is critical to his appeal. “We’ve heard people talking endlessly about science and reason and it’s all been good, but people want to connect again with a real sense of being human and that involves a lot of emotion,” Brierley said. “I think it’s come back again. and I am glad that people are no longer dismissing that as just delusional.”

Oldfield adds that she has “softened towards some of those more intellectual forms of apologetics.” Some people, often young men, need to engage in such debates “to allow themselves to drop down to the emotional, existential level, to give themselves permission that it’s worth paying attention to these metaphysical yearnings.”

Brierley left Premier, where he had served as theology and apologetics editor, in 2023. In addition to running the Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God podcast, he now hosts the Re-Enchanting podcast for Seen & Unseen. It’s a venture by the Centre for Cultural Witness, launched by Anglican bishop Graham Tomlin to “inspire a renewal in the public understanding of Christian faith.”

Brierley’s next release, due in April, is an update of an earlier book: Why I’m Still a Christian After Two Decades of Conversations with Sceptics and Atheists. The book is a testament to the conclusion he reached as a student at Oxford: that believing in God is not a delusion but rather, as he puts it in one video, “a perfectly reasonable conclusion when we look at the fingerprints on our universe.”

Among those convinced by his argument is a viewer who, having watched one of his short YouTube films (“How a Dice can show that God exists”), commented about having a die tattooed on their wrist.

Meanwhile, on Sundays Brierley can be found at the suburban United Reformed Church (URC) congregation led for almost 20 years by his wife, Lucy, who was already exploring a call to ordination when they met at Oxford.

Justin was playing Harry the Horse in a production of Guys and Dolls “with a brilliant New York accent,” Lucy recalls.

“I was helping backstage and had been applying his makeup all week,” she said. “When he approached me at the cast party, it became apparent that he thought we were meeting for the first time.”

They were engaged within six months and married 18 months later. She remembers “intense but exhilarating theological discussions” in their early years that widened their perspectives on Christian faith.

His career path did not surprise her, given his intellect, communication skills, faith, and “beautifully calm—actually I would say unflappable—demeanor.”

Their church today has bucked the trend of mainline decline in Britain, and their four children have found their own faith over the years.

Brierley speaks with great affection about his wife’s ministry and the crucial role it has played in keeping his own perspective in place.

“It keeps you grounded as to what real issues are facing ordinary people,” he said. At its best, the church is “where you really see God in action in the lives of people and in the everyday, mundane ways in which we end up serving each other, hurting each other, forgiving each other.”

Lucy sees their jobs as complementary. While she disciples Christians in times of joy and crisis, journeying beside them in regular life, her husband taps thinkers and teachers in conversation about God.

“We’re both dealing with similar issues and spheres but from different angles,” she said. “What we’ve learned is that there is a place for both in the Christian world …. Faith is a matter of the head and the heart, and our respective roles have certainly shown us that.”

While it’s useful to have a “first-rate apologist” on hand at church, she said, Brierley also plays in the music group, volunteers with the youth group, and leads a home group—all roles he brings up on his shows.

Christian faith includes intellectual debate, but it’s important, he said, “to remind listeners who are used to hearing all these weighty intellectual arguments that …what you are hearing is one niche bit that appeals to you.

“Real Christianity is what my wife does: sitting next to the bed of someone who is dying or being involved in helping someone who hasn’t got enough to pay the bills,” he said.

“That to me is the heart of Christianity … I would not want anyone to mistake these intellectual debates and conversations for the real thing.”

Madeleine Davies is a reporter in London, where she covers the Church of England for Church Times.

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