Church Life

Supposing Him to Be the Gardener

Where Eden was broken and couldn’t save us, Christ has returned as the gardener to make all things new.

Easter 2026 - Easter Sunday
Illustration by Jill DeHaan

The sun has not yet risen above the eastern hill, and here in this dusty blue haze, I am taking the short walk from my porch to the garden gate. The morning air is damp, and the birds have just begun to sing. The true wonder of the garden happens when no one is here to witness it—while we’re on vacation; during a thunderstorm; and in this case, overnight, while we all rested. Today the earth smells fresh and new, the roots have done their work, and the garden has grown without our involvement at all. Fruit has emerged, flowers have budded and are ready to open as soon as the sun breaks through the trees, and I feel as though I am the last one to arrive at the symphony as it rises in a morning crescendo.

Sometimes, the most victorious things happen in the dark.

Here, in this early morning dirt, I think of Mary Magdalene. I think of her, spices in hand, eyes swollen from shock and grief, heading toward the tombs before the sun has even risen. Before the hills are dusted with that vibrant light, she is looking for Jesus. The women have risen early to care for the body of the Man who knew them by name. The Man who looked them in the eye and welcomed them into his followers, who did not snub the lowly, who wasn’t concerned with status and charm, but who instead tended to their hearts as the one who created them.

Anyone near her that morning would realize she is a woman in mourning, as the scent of the herbs would give it away. She is exhausted, afraid, and carrying the heavy weight of grief all the way into that garden cemetery.

Yet, as her eyes begin to adjust to the predawn light, where she expects to find the body of Christ she is met with an empty tomb and a radiant stranger. The flurry brings an abrupt change of plans, and after the disciples have come and gone, she is once again alone in the garden, fumbling still in the wake of grief and confusion. The symphony has already begun, and she’s just about to hear it rise.

It’s here she turns to see a man and thinks he is the gardener (John 20:14–15).

And of course, the beautiful irony is that he was the gardener, and he still is, but not in the sense she imagined. Here, the Gardener himself, the one who tends to all those he has redeemed, is not simply wandering around looking for something to do. He is a man at work with a purpose. Where once a garden was a place of defeat and sorrow, where Eden was broken and couldn’t save us, Christ has returned as the gardener to make all things new.

Christ—who knows Mary’s heart, her eyes, her tears—calls her name.

“Mary.”

We know the voices of the ones who love us. We each know the sound of our name when it rings out in a familiar voice. For Mary, this is the same voice that called forth Lazarus, that spoke the words “Talitha koum” with power (Mark 5:41), that cried “Tetelestai” from the cross (John 19:30).

Mary enters the garden in fear and grief, and in Matthew 28:5, the angel says to her, “Do not be afraid.” This call echoes from Christ’s conception (Luke 1:30) and birth (2:10) to here in the garden tombs, and Christ will announce this once and for all when he returns:

“Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17–18).

Fear not, those of you who walk in the dark, who rise early and await the brilliance of the morning light, who long to be seen by a Redeemer who knows you by name. Fear not, you who walk amid the aroma of death; you do not need those spices to mask your pain. Here in our dirt, our grief-aroma-filled world, do not mistake him for just the gardener. He is indeed the Gardener, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the one who knows your name better than you know your own soul. Dawn has broken. The Gardener has faithfully brought life in the darkness. The symphony is rising, and we can join the chorus: Christ is risen, and he holds the keys forevermore!

Andrea Burke is an author (A Bit of Earth, Lexham, 2024; The Quiet Resistance, Baker, 2026) and is on staff at Grace Road Church. She is married to Jedediah, and they are raising their two kids, two dogs, two cats, a few strays, six ducks, and a lot of chickens in an old farmhouse near Rochester, New York.

Church Life

The Glory of Resurrection

The Resurrection not only transforms individuals but also redeems cultures with new meaning and purpose in Christ.

Easter 2026 - Easter Monday
Illustration by Jill DeHaan

Easter Monday, a day often overlooked in the US, holds profound meaning across the global church. It is a time for Christians to celebrate the ongoing impact of Christ’s victory over sin and death. In three distinct cultures that offer us a triad of symbols on Easter Monday, we see how the Resurrection not only transforms individuals but also redeems cultures with new meaning and purpose in Christ.

Scotland: Egg Rolling

Easter eggs are a big hit in the US, in part thanks to Scottish Christians who participate in egg-rolling contests on Easter Monday. Originally a pagan tradition meant to seek protection from hailstorms and plead for spring’s fertility, the Scottish church later redeemed its meaning.

The egg retained its symbol of new birth, but the rolling egg came to represent more than just the dawning sun after a dark, wet winter. It now echoed the rolling stone and the dawning of the Son (Mark 16:4). At Christ’s resurrection, the dark “hell storm” passed and the new creation hatched on the horizon.

As Scottish Christians joyfully see whose egg rolls the farthest down the hill each Easter Monday, they celebrate the rolled-away stone of Christ that ushered in an eternal springtime.

Poland: Wet Monday

For Polish people, Easter Monday is synonymous with Smigus-Dyngus (also known as Wet Monday), celebrating the baptism of Poland’s first official ruler, Prince Mieszko, the day after Easter in AD 966. Professor and author Andrzej Buko calls Mieszko’s conversion the “proverbial pebble that caused the avalanche” of Christianity in Poland and Europe.

Water rituals were originally pagan practices of fertility, cleansing, and luck. But Polish Christians found new meaning in them. Jesus’ baptism into the waters of death, his submersion in the tomb, and his reemergence from the proverbial Dead Sea was the pebble that caused the avalanche that changed the entire cosmos forever (Ex. 14; Luke 12:50). Christ’s ultimate baptism didn’t just inaugurate his new life; it birthed a new people—the church, Christ’s nation of nations (Eph. 2:19; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:9–10).

Now Polish Christians visit friends and family on Wet Monday to playfully splash each other with water, reflecting on the joy of new life in Christ.

Eastern Orthodox: Bright Monday

The Eastern Orthodox expression of Easter Monday, concentrated in Eastern Europe but practiced globally, focuses on the brightness of the week following Christ’s resurrection. Unlike the usual solemnity of the Office for the Dead—a set of prayers and rituals for the deceased—this week is marked by joy, feasting, and communal celebration.

Genesis 1:1–2 says, “The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” How barren and bleak! Yet God’s command “Let there be light” (v. 3) brought his creativity and intellect into visible form. This light, still a mystery to scientists, both illuminates and fascinates us.

Jesus’ appearance was once “disfigured beyond that of any human being” (Isa. 52:14)—formless. He “made himself nothing [and] humbled himself by becoming obedient to . . .death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7–8)—empty. “Darkness came over the whole land” (Luke 23:44)—darkness. How barren and bleak! But on the first day of new creation, Jesus declared, “Did not the Messiah have to su!er these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:26). In other words, the sufferings of Christ, the Light of the World (John 8:12), made way for him to enter the light of his exaltation (Phil. 2:9–11).

Bright Monday, the beginning of Bright Week, invites us not only to reflect on the Resurrection’s glory but also to live in its light—and let that Light live through us.

A Comic Redemption

The resurrection of Christ has brought not just a personal redemption but a cosmic one too. The various cultural traditions of Easter Monday throughout the global church remind us that Christ’s resurrection redeems and transforms cultural customs, infusing them with new meaning.

The stone-rolling, nation-birthing, light-giving Messiah has won the cosmic championship, and his resurrection life is now in us. We’re on the winning team—all cultures, all tribes—and this alone should bring a little more brightness to our Monday!

Rechab Gray is pastor of preaching and spiritual formation at New Creation Fellowship in Orlando, Florida, and a contributor to the book Fulfill Your Student Ministry (Rainer, 2019).

Church Life

Embracing a Sacred Tension

Resurrection is not an escape from the world’s pain but a transformation of how we endure it.

Easter 2026 - Easter Tuesday
Illustration by Jill DeHaan

Easter Tuesday is an often-overlooked day in the Christian calendar, falling in the wake of the Easter celebration. The stone is rolled away, death is defeated, and hope is alive. Yet, just two days later, we often find ourselves back in the thick of the ordinary—emails, doctor visits, broken relationships, physical pain, personal doubts, financial struggles, and a deep longing for what is missing. Easter Tuesday invites us into a sacred tension: the paradox of resurrection joy mingled with the grief of life in a world not yet fully redeemed.

The apostle Peter was undeniably aware of this tension when he identified followers of Jesus in the first century as “elect exiles” (1 Pet. 1:1, ESV). An elect exile is promised to receive an eternal inheritance from an eternal kingdom but currently lives in a broken place that is not home. It is to these elect exiles that Peter wrote these words:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. (vv. 3–6)

Peter knew this sacred tension. God’s mercy has provided a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus, bringing an eternal inheritance that is being kept for us (vv. 3–4). It is in this we rejoice (v. 6), and it is in this very hope that Easter Sunday is such a meaningful celebration. But this day of redemption has not yet come. So Peter also reminds us to grieve (v. 6). Sadly, joy and grief often get pitted against each other, especially in the church. But joy and grief should be seen as holy companions in a fallen world.

Easter Tuesday is not an afterthought. Rather, it is a powerful reminder that resurrection is not an escape from the world’s pain but a transformation of how we endure it. Jesus rose, but the wounds remained in his hands. So too, we carry wounds: griefs, losses, pains, betrayals, and unanswered questions. Easter doesn’t erase them; it reinterprets them through the lens of hope. Easter doesn’t solve them but provides a foundation to embrace the sorrow we rightly experience because of them.

On Easter Sunday, we stand in the light of the empty tomb. But by Easter Tuesday, we often find ourselves back in the shadows. The cancer is still there. That financial struggle is not resolved. The depression returns. That relationship is still broken. We might ask, “If Christ is risen, why does the world still feel so broken?” This is not a lack of faith; it’s the honest lament of believers who are learning to walk in the tension of the now and the not yet. Peter reminds the elect exiles in the first century, as well as those of today, of this sacred tension—the same one Paul captured when writing to the Romans: “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn” (12:15).

This sacred tension calls us to rejoice and weep on Easter Tuesday. Rejoice that Jesus is risen. We have a living hope. We are promised an eternal inheritance, which is being kept for us by the one who purchased it with his own life. But embrace the grief too. Sadness is the healing emotion of the soul. Sorrow is a gift from God that allows our souls to breathe and cope in a world that aches, longing for restoration. The risen Christ we celebrated on Sunday remains “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3, ESV). Jesus sweetly and powerfully meets us in this sacred tension, if we would stop, be still, and go to him today in our time of need (Heb. 4:14–16).

Brian Croft is the founder and executive director of Practical Shepherding. He is also the senior fellow for the Mathena Center for Church Revitalization at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has written or contributed to more than 25 books on pastoral ministry.

Church Life

Christian Athletes to Cheer on at the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics

Competitors in speedskating, bobsledding, the biathlon, and hockey speak about their faith.

The Olympic rings and five athletes.
Christianity Today February 16, 2026
Illustration by Dakota Fiebranz / Source Images: Getty

Around the world, Christians live out their calling in many ways, including in athletics. These six Olympic athletes have used their global platform as an opportunity to share the gospel. They are competing at an elite level in their sport and use that as a catalyst for telling others about the ways God has worked in their own lives. In a world where division is everywhere, this year’s Winter Olympics provide a chance for global Christians to root for their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Anders Johnson – Speed Skating, Canada

Canadian speed skater Anders Johnson is making his Olympic debut at the Milan Cortina Games. He and his teammates won gold in the men’s team sprint event at the 2024 World Speed Skating Championships, breaking the world record despite their status as underdogs entering the competition. As he reflected on his experiences in competitive skating, Johnson mentioned, “Eric Liddell said when he ran, he felt God’s pleasure. I feel the same way when I am skating.” 

Growing up in a Christian home, Johnson started skating around the age of 3. He is now pursuing a degree in theology from Liberty University while continuing his speed skating career. As a way of putting his degree to use as an athlete, he works to be a light to those around him. “The Lord has opened up really good conversations, and I have been able to share the gospel with teammates and coaches,” he said.

Elana Meyers Taylor – Bobsledding, USA

Milan Cortina is the fifth Olympic Games that Elana Meyers Taylor, a mom of two, has competed in. With three silver and two bronze medals, Taylor is hoping for gold this year. Her husband, Nic, has also competed in the Winter Olympics, and the two met at a Bible study held near the US Olympic Training Center in New York in 2011. Before they got married, the couple got baptized together.

Growing up, Taylor played softball and wanted to become a professional softball player. In college, it became the center of her life, yet she struggled with depression and an eating disorder. She played professionally in Michigan after graduating from George Washington University but still felt like something was missing in her life. She started researching different religions and found Jesus. “All of a sudden I just started crying, I was reading the book and it just hit me that Jesus is the way,” she said. “It was so strong and so powerful.” 

She debuted in the Olympics in 2010, after starting to bobsled in 2007. As she continues in her Olympic career, Taylor said her ultimate aim is to glorify God. “Regardless of whether I win a gold medal or never compete again, I just have to trust that God has a plan for my life and I’m called to be his representative through the sport and outside of the sport,” she said.

Jaccob Slavin –  Hockey, USA

The defenseman for the Carolina Hurricanes qualified for his first Olympic Games in 2026, following a series of injuries that ruled him out of 29 games this NHL season. 

Jaccob Slavin is a father of two and an outspoken Christian. On his Instagram bio, he writes, “All Glory to God … Galatians 1:10.” Only after acknowledging his faith and his family does the athlete recognize his decorated hockey career.

From his hometown of Erie, Colorado, to the Olympic Games in Italy, Slavin has been open about how his faith and athletic career intersect. In both 2021 and 2024, he won the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy in the NHL, which signifies sportsmanship, good conduct, and excellent playing ability. He is now in his 11th season playing in the NHL, and despite his injuries this season, the Olympic committee selected Slavin to play for Team USA this winter.

Slavin emphasized his greater purpose in Christ. “We’re supposed to go evangelize,” he said as he reflected on sharing his faith with a curious teammate. “We’re supposed to share the good news of the gospel.”

Paul Schommer – Biathlon, USA

“Redeemed by Jesus,” reads the Instagram bio of two-time Olympian Paul Schommer.  Schommer competes in the biathlon, an event that combines cross-country skiing and rifle shooting. 

Schommer was originally a wrestler, following in his father’s footsteps. But after his dad passed away in a car accident, the high schooler stopped playing sports. A year later, his brother encouraged him to join a cross-country ski club at their high school. Schommer continued skiing competitively at College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota, where he earned All-American.

In college, his coach Chad Salmela, a former Olympic biathlete, began to encourage him to pursue the Olympics.

While reflecting on what he has learned about his relationship with the Lord through his time as an Olympic athlete, he told the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, “The biggest thing I’ve learned is just the faithfulness of God always coming through. Without feeling called and led by God, there would be a good chance I would’ve quit right after I first started the biathlon.”

Tage Thompson – Hockey, USA

Buffalo Sabres’ center Tage Thompson is a team USA men’s hockey player, and this will be his first time competing in the Olympics.

Thompson is no stranger to the international stage, though. He has competed at the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) World Championships in 2018, 2021, and 2025, winning two bronzes and a gold, respectively. In 2018, doctors diagnosed his wife with a rare type of cancer. While she is now cancer free, Thompson has faced many highs and lows over the last few years, both in his career and personal life, that have tested his faith.

Thompson grew up in a Christian home, but his faith became his own while attending college at Yukon University. One of his teammates was a Christian and began inviting him to church and helping answer his questions about faith. “Had he not talked to me about the Bible and about Christ, I might not be as firm of a believer as I am today,” Thompson said.

Teddy Blueger – Hockey, Latvia

Teddy Blueger, a Stanley Cup winner, has played in the NHL since 2018, but at the Winter Olympics this year, he will be representing his birth country, Latvia. 

In a recent Bible reading plan published by Compassion International on YouVersion, Blueger speaks alongside other Christian athletes. “Hebrews 12 calls us to live in peace with everyone and to mutually encourage our brothers and sisters so no bitterness will take root,” he said. “Just as a team can’t win when ‘me’ goes at the forefront, we can’t run our spiritual race well when we’re running it by ourselves.”

Blueger went to an Episcopalian high school but said he did not begin to take his personal faith seriously until about three years ago. “It’s been a couple years, and it’s been an awesome journey. God has done some amazing things in [my] life,” Blueger said. Around the time he was coming to faith in Christ, he was traded to the Vegas Golden Knights. While that felt disorienting for Blueger and his family, that was the season that he helped the team win the Stanley Cup.

Ideas

Was Abraham Lincoln a Christian?

Editor in Chief

In his younger years, Lincoln was a skeptic. But as he aged, he turned toward biblical wisdom—and not only when in the public eye.

Abraham Lincoln in 1863

Abraham Lincoln in 1863

Christianity Today February 16, 2026
Wikimedia Commons / Edits by CT

Was Abraham Lincoln a Christian? The book Abraham Lincoln, The Christian (1913) claims he was. Contemporary Lincoln biographer Allen Guelzo said in 2000, “He was not.” It’s a hard question: Lincoln was a skilled politician who understood his public, a compassionate president who agonized about sending soldiers to die, a private man with marriage problems that became public, and a thinker who thought long and hard about God. 

Lincoln, born on February 12, 1809, grew up reading the King James Bible and contrasting its majestic language with the frontier Bible teaching that he treated in a variety of ways. First came parody. When Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Lincoln and daughter Sarah joined the Little Pigeon Baptist Church in 1823, teenaged Abraham did not. He often listened to sermons, though, and mimicked them afterward before a crowd of children until (as one child remembered) Lincoln’s father “would come and make him quit.”

Lincoln continued that practice into his 20s, once giving a memorable imitation of a preacher so plagued by a small blue lizard running up his leg that the preacher took off his pants and shirt while attempting to shoo away the reptile. 

Then he moved from comedy to questioning the accuracy of the Bible and the divinity of Christ. Political competitors called him a deist who “belonged to no church.” Lincoln’s law partnership with William Herndon, a frontier evangelist for transcendentalism, did not help his reputation among Christians.

As Lincoln’s ambition grew, so did his caution in criticizing Christianity. Lincoln, as Whig nominee for Congress in 1846, ran against Peter Cartwright, the well-known traveling evangelist. In response to Cartwright’s charge that he was an infidel, Lincoln issued a statement published in The Illinois Gazette: “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”

Lincoln chose his words carefully. He did not say he affirmed scriptural truth, only that he never denied it. He did not state his respect, only that he had not been caught in disrespect. Neither statement was true about his earlier years, but Lincoln did display good manners during the 1840s. He concluded his public statement with a notice that he did not favor those with poorer etiquette: “I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at religion.”

Lincon in 1858 famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” He did not have to spell out to listeners the meaning of his reference to Matthew 12, where Jesus heals a demon-possessed man. The Pharisees said Jesus did it by using Satanic power, but Jesus responded that “every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. … But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (vv. 25–28, KJV).

Lincoln won Northern votes by implying that the South was evil and the North could somehow bring about the kingdom of God. He shied away from talking about war, but Congressman John Wentworth of Illinois went around proclaiming in 1860 that John Brown the previous year had been like John the Baptist, clearing the way for Lincoln, who “will break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.”

The “house divided” speech and fervent politicking afterward won him the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. To overcome the old accusations of deism, Lincoln included in his stump speech a line about how he could not succeed without “divine help.” Some Northern ministers ignored Lincoln’s previously expressed beliefs because the Republican Party was now the instrument to end slavery through a quick victory.

That did not happen, and for two years the strategies of Lincoln and his generals failed. 

Beginning in 1862, Lincoln attended the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington on Sundays and sometimes Wednesday prayer meetings. Several long talks with pastor Phineas Gurley helped him go through “a process of crystallization,” which Gurley described as a conversion to Christ. Lincoln himself never said that, but he did tell journalist Noah Brooks, “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for that day.”

That may have been for public consumption, but a key bit of evidence is a private note Lincoln wrote just after the Union’s second morale-sapping defeat at Bull Run. His “Meditation on the Divine Will,” a note found on his desk after his death, was not a politically pious missive for public consumption but an attempt to think through what was beyond human understanding. 

“The will of God prevails,” Lincoln wrote. “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong, [for] God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.”

Who was right? Lincoln wrote, “In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party…. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills the contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

Was it God’s will for slaves to be freed? When responding to clergymen from Chicago who asked him to carry out God’s will concerning American slavery, he said, “These are not … the days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am not to expect a direct revelation.” But Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet five days after Union forces stopped the Confederates at Antietam, stating (according to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles), “God has declared this question in favor of the slaves.”

In October 1862, he told four visiting Quakers that the war was “a fiery trial” and he was “a humble instrument in the hands of our Heavenly Father.” Lincoln said, “I have desired that all my works and acts may be according to His will, and that it might be so, I have sought his aid.” 

In his “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day” in 1863, Lincoln called the war “a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people.” Lincoln still spoke of sins of the whole people, rather than focusing on one particular sin, grievous as it was, in one particular part of the nation.

Lincoln’s proclamation emphasized how Americans had taken for granted God’s kindness: “We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.” That proclamation applied the Old Testament pattern—God’s faithfulness, man’s forgetfulness, God’s discipline—to a new people become “too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”

Lincoln had not been above using religion for political purposes, but it seems that the war, along with the death of one of his sons, changed him.  After previously questioning prayer, he was becoming a praying man. He told one general that as reports came in from Gettys­burg during the first two days of fighting, “when everyone seemed panic-stricken,” he “got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed. … Soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul that God Almighty had taken the whole business into His own hands.”

Pastor Gurley announced on one Sunday morning that “religious services would be suspended until further notice as the church was needed as a hospital.” Generals had already made plans. Lumber to be used as flooring on top of pews was stacked outside. But Lincoln stood up—he did that often and also said all prayers should be made standing up—and announced, “Dr. Gurley, this action was taken without my consent, and I hereby countermand the order. The churches are needed as never before for divine services.”

Lincoln needed the church and the Bible. By 1864, Lincoln was even recommending Scripture reading to Joshua Speed, his fellow skeptic from Springfield days. When Speed said he was surprised to see Lincoln reading a Bible, Lincoln told him, “Take all that you can of this book upon reason, and the balance on faith, and you will live and die a happier man.” When the Committee of Colored People in 1864 gave Lincoln a Bible, he responded, “But for this book we could not know right from wrong.”

He told pastor Byron Sutherland of the First Presbyterian Church in Washington that God “has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins, [but my] hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us.” Lincoln increasingly saw no alternative to the spirits of ruin, as the war became one of attrition and the body counts surged. 

Many cite Lincoln’s second inaugural address, with its call to “bind up the nation’s wounds,” as evidence of his emphasis on reconciliation, and that’s true. But the address also showed Lincoln’s sense that God was in charge: “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war might speedily pass away. Yet … as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’”

I haven’t gone here into Lincoln’s marriage, which was a strange story unto itself that also drove him to prayer, but I’ll note one event because it pertains to the end of Lincoln’s earthly story. 

On March 23, 1865, Mary Todd Lincoln, often intensely jealous, exploded at Julia Grant, the victorious general’s wife. When Lincoln intervened, “Mrs. Lincoln repeatedly attacked her husband in the presence of officers,” one of them said. He reported that Lincoln “bore it as Christ might have done, with an expression of pain and sadness that cut one to the heart, but with supreme calmness and dignity. … He pleaded with eyes and tones, till she turned on him like a tigress and then he walked away hiding that noble ugly face so that we might not catch the full expression of its misery.” 

On April 14, when the Lincolns headed to the theater, General and Mrs. Grant did not go with them as originally planned, because Julia Grant refused to spend any more time with Mary Lincoln. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and his wife had been invited as well, but Mrs. Stanton also refused to sit with Mrs. Lincoln. Finally, Stanton selected young major Henry Rathbone and his fiancée to go with the Lincolns.

Partway through the play, the member of the Metropolitan Police assigned to guard duty, bored and thirsty, wandered away from his post. John Wilkes Booth fired his fatal shot unimpeded.

Mrs. Lincoln was eventually declared legally insane. She did recall that at Ford’s Theatre, just before the shooting, she and the president had talked about a trip they hoped to take to Jerusalem.

This short account draws from two chapters on Lincoln in Marvin Olasky’s Moral Vision (Simon & Schuster, 2024). 

Marvin Olasky is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

Church Life

Killing People Is Not the Same as Allowing Them to Die

Contributor

And the church of Jesus Christ has to offer people a better way of thinking about life and dependence if we want to push against the horrors of euthanasia.

An IV and hospital bed.
Christianity Today February 16, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty

A recent story from Canada demonstrates the grim reality of euthanasia: A husband suffering from “caregiver burnout” brought his wife to the emergency room. She’d gone back and forth about wanting euthanasia—or, as it is politely called in Canada and some other places where it has been legalized (along with New York’s similar and recently legalized physician-assisted suicide), Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). After being denied inpatient palliative care, the woman was “urgently” reassessed for euthanasia and killed the very same day—despite the objections of a previous assessor who had seen her the day before.

Caregiver burnout is a real problem, as anyone who has cared for a vulnerable loved one will tell you. Many are exhausted and frustrated when those they love cannot take care of themselves. In these situations, both those carrying this burden and those seeing themselves a burden to others would naturally find euthanasia tempting. This makes it all the more necessary to ensure that there’s no option to end the frustration by killing the person needing care.

Our culture idolizes independence and self-sufficiency to the point that people fear dependence on others more than almost anything else. The feeling of “being a burden” and a pervasive sense of loneliness are major reasons people seek euthanasia. The church of Jesus Christ has to offer people a better way of thinking about life and dependence if we want to push against the horrors of euthanasia.

The pressure to kill people simply because they are a burden on others will get worse in the next few years. As more baby boomers age into a time of life when they can no longer be independent, the strain on personal relationships and public finances will increase. Many people who never had children or are estranged from their families will find themselves alone and suffering. Many middle-aged families will find themselves responsible for caring for multiple parents at the same time. What can churches do?

First, we must find ways to support and encourage families who are taking care of loved ones who are vulnerable. I know many Christians who have spent a season of their life—sometimes a very long season—caring for a relative with dementia, even to the point of spouses switching off Sundays at church for years. Their labor is a witness to God’s love for each of us that does not change if we are more or less mentally and physically dependent. While calling out these quiet acts of heroism by name from the pulpit is probably not appropriate, Christians should celebrate these faithful caregivers with the same vigor that we laud missionaries in foreign lands.

Second, churches should also consider whether they could take more ambitious steps toward caring for people in the waning years of life. The Yes in God’s Backyard movement is focused on creating affordable housing on or around church properties, with some developments specifically designing spaces for the elderly. A “dementia village” in the Netherlands was designed to keep people engaged in community, even mixing them with preschool programs, so the elderly can enjoy time with small children rather than in isolation. Not every church has the resources to do this, but the need for these projects will become more severe. 

For others, something as simple as regularly leading worship at a nursing home or other care facility might be the next step. Heritage Mission is one ministry that helps churches do this sort of work. While it may not be as exciting as other kinds of work, your church might give someone one last opportunity to hear the gospel.

Finally, churches need to equip members to respond to common arguments in favor of euthanasia. One common source of confusion is the difference between killing people and allowing them to die. Since we often choose to stop intensive care interventions when people are nearing death, it’s easy to assume there’s no moral difference between, say, taking people off ventilators and injecting a medication to stop their hearts.

The difference is that when we stop an intervention and the patient dies, we have not caused the death—cancer, dementia, or heart failure caused it. But if we give that patient a lethal dose of medication, the person giving that medication is responsible for causing that person’s death. It is the difference between accepting that God is in control of when a person dies and arrogantly taking that control for ourselves. Books like Kathryn Butler’s Between Life and DeathEwan Goligher’s How Should We Then Die?, and Bill Davis’s Departing in Peace can be helpful in figuring out difficult details for families faced with these decisions.

Many societies in antiquity practiced “exposure”—abandoning children unwanted because of their sex or other unwanted traits. The early church rescued infants who had been exposed, eventually bringing about a moral revolution in a society that had wantonly discarded children and ending the practice. Now, followers of Jesus Christ have an opportunity to seek out those who are suffering and alone at the other end of life, sharing with them the ever-present love of God. It will take time, effort, and money to shoulder this responsibility well, but God has equipped us, wherever we are, to honor his children from the beginning of their lives to the end.

Correction (February 26, 2026): A prior version of this article was unclear on the distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Matthew Loftus lives with his family in Kenya, where he teaches and practices family medicine at a mission hospital. His book Resisting Therapy Culture: The Dangers of Pop Psychology and How the Church Can Respond is forthcoming from InterVarsity Press.

News

How CT Editors Carl Henry and Nelson Bell Covered Civil Rights

Trying to stake out a sliver of space for the “moderate evangelical,” the magazine sometimes left readers confused and justice ignored.

Newspaper clippings showing Carl Henry, Nelson Bell, and civil rights events.
Christianity Today February 16, 2026
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Getty, WikiMedia Commons, Unsplash

A note was scratched out in longhand on a short sheet of paper imprinted with the heading “Memo from the desk of CARL F. H. HENRY” and attached to a newspaper clipping from the November 26, 1957, Washington Post and Times Herald, page A9, under the headline “Churches Get Racial Warning.” The memo addressed to executive editor L. Nelson Bell read simply, “Nelson— You are more or less our conscience on this race issue —Carl.”  

Seventy years ago, as the founding editors of Christianity Today prepared for their first issue in October 1956, they envisioned a heady theological journal addressing difficult cultural issues from a biblical perspective. And Henry, the magazine’s first editor, proposed starting the publication with a series of articles on some of the most volatile issues of the late 1950s: desegregation and racial equality. 

But these articles never came to be. Christianity Today’s treatment of the emerging Civil Rights Movement proved how difficult it was to find consensus amid the differing opinions of evangelical leaders of the day.

Henry’s Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, first published in 1947, had been an early call to social engagement for conservative Protestants. Bell, who joined Christianity Today as its founding executive editor, was a former missionary surgeon in China, a highly influential Southern Presbyterian leader, and father-in-law to evangelist and CT cofounder Billy Graham. Each of those roles gave authority to Bell’s views on race, and he opposed mandatory desegregation in favor of voluntary efforts to integrate schools, churches, and other public spaces.

Henry’s plan for that early series called for each editor—Henry himself, Bell, and associate editor J. Marcellus Kik—to address the Civil Rights Movement, which was then centered on the Montgomery bus boycott and the growing national voice of Martin Luther King Jr. Bell had written extensively on race issues for the Southern Presbyterian Journal and viewed the problem in the South as “one of ratio, not of race,” by which he meant that desegregation was more difficult where there were higher numbers of African Americans. Bell was prepared to argue to readers of Christianity Today that “the matter will not be solved by a cold recourse to law.”

Instead, the plan was scrapped, perhaps due to a desire for a more unified editorial voice. Rather than following Henry’s initial vision of three 1,000-word essays, CT addressed race in scattered articles and editorials in the early years of the magazine.

Indeed, in those first years, civil rights and the international Communist threat were the two most common social issues in CT’s pages. As the Civil Rights Movement organized in the late ’50s and early ’60s, Christianity Today editorials proposed a moderate approach to the growing protest movement over desegregation. 

The first editorial on race and civil rights on March 18, 1957, called for the church to “be the Church” and cry against wrongs in the land. But it also argued that “forced integration is as contrary to Christian principles as is forced segregation” and praised the example of segregated Chinese churches in New Orleans. The editors proposed that “churches in which integration is not practiced may be just as Christian as those where it is found.” CT called for the church to stand against injustice and indifference but isolated that call in the middle of a long article that concluded churches, pastors, and laymen need not worry themselves about changes brought about by the Civil Rights Movement.

In the September 30, 1957, issue, the editorial “Race Relations and Christian Duty” addressed the showdown over the integration of Little Rock Central High School—a standoff which saw President Dwight D. Eisenhower call in federal troops. It called for the church to take a stronger leadership role in such matters.  

A year later, the September 29, 1958, issue published “Desegregation and Regeneration,” which deemed race issues a subset of a greater problem of sin and included an extensive statement Bell had prepared for a conference earlier that year. It described integration as “matter of personal choice, over which the Church has no jurisdiction and into which it should not intrude in the name of Christianity.”

A four-page editorial entitled “Race Tensions and Social Change” in the January 19, 1959, edition presented a position CT editors labeled the “evangelical moderate” stance—an effort to avoid the trap of being either a segregationist or an integrationist. 

The editorial suggested both “radicals” and segregationists “have attacked Billy Graham’s ministry,” and described the difficulty an “evangelical moderate” like Graham would face: “Some Southern clergy have linked the Christian cause as firmly to white citizens’ councils and racist politicians as have some northern clergymen to the NAACP and the Supreme Court.” 

Pressure was growing for Graham, who had integrated his own revivals beginning in 1953, to take a clearer stand on the segregation question. The editors recommended dialogue across racial lines, guarding against the sin of racial prejudice and not forcing individuals to segregate or integrate if they were opposed to doing so. But this was a difficult position to maintain, as it disappointed those on both sides of the issue. 

These 1950s editorials sent mixed signals to readers as they combined the hands-off approach that Bell had often championed with the call to social engagement that marked Henry’s work. The 1959 article, for example, paired enjoinders to moderation with an encouragement to ministers to speak up, because “the Church can … prove impotent in social ethics by neglecting [to condemn] race pride within its own house and fellowship.” And that encouragement stopped short of a call to specific action, contributing to evangelicals’ reputation for talking about social involvement while preserving the status quo—namely, a segregated society. 

Years later, Henry recalled in his memoir that the magazine was never “in the forefront of the [Civil Rights Movement] for several reasons.” Evangelicals were typically not included in some ecumenical efforts on race issues, he wrote, and deep theological differences prevented cooperation. Accordingly, Henry remembered that “we left the evaluation of Martin Luther King’s call for racial justice to Nelson, who held that King preached not the gospel but a message of social change.”

Henry also recalled that CT’s editorial staff took a stand against the “disrespect for law implicit in mob demonstration and resistance,” preferring legal recourse over public protests. This was an honest measure of where many evangelicals stood in the 1950s. And he offered one additional reason for the editors’ approach in that era: “We saw the race problem—rightly, I think—as one dimension of a more comprehensive problem, and not as the cutting edge of a dramatic social reformation.” 

In Bell’s case, however, his outspoken opinions against forced integration reflected Southern white culture and his personal bias. Henry accepted Bell’s rationale and granted him editorial authority for the magazine’s position on the Civil Rights Movement.

The postwar evangelicals had theological and organizational momentum, and Christianity Today was the flagship voice for those efforts. Henry, Bell, and others involved in those early years of CT were never fully comfortable with the Civil Rights Movement and struggled to provide a clear voice for their readers. This early challenge to postwar evangelicalism showed how difficult it was to find consensus on social issues, even with theological agreement. 

Michael D. Hammond, a historian of American Christianity, serves as president of Gordon College. He lives with his wife and six children in Beverly, Massachusetts.

Books
Review

This ‘Screwtape for Our Times’ Will Challenge and Confound You

The Body of This Death is difficult to classify, difficult to read, and absolutely worth your time.

The book cover
Christianity Today February 16, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, Word on Fire Academic

The Body of This Death is difficult to classify. Authored by Ross McCullough, a theologian in the Honors Program at George Fox University, it is almost—but not quite—a novel, a theological treatise, a collection of aphorisms, a series of correspondence, a science fiction dystopia, and a tract for Roman Catholicism. It is also the best new book you’ll read this year. 

As its subtitle states, the book consists of a series of “Letters from the Last Archbishop of Lancaster.” This framing device brings to mind other epistolary novels, as evidenced by the endorsement of novelist Jeffrey Eugenides, who calls the book “a Screwtape for our times.” Beyond a likeness of format, though, The Body of This Death is reminiscent of The Screwtape Letters in another way: It too is an instant classic of Christian spiritual writing that deserves a wide audience.

The time in which the book is set is unknown. It’s not the near future, but it’s close enough to be recognizable, perhaps a few centuries from now. There has clearly been some break between old and new orders, and McCullough’s English archbishop finds himself penning letters during a time of seismic transition. As the plot unfolds, you learn why he was the last archbishop of Lancaster and why his name has been preserved for posterity.

But the letters don’t come to us straight from their fictional author. We get them from a French scholar, writing in “Year 20 of the New Common Era.” He’s working with a newly discovered manuscript of the cleric’s writings, a one-sided correspondence with a range of addressees: a priest, a nun, an old friend, a struggling agnostic, a Muslim mother. The scholar arranges these letters in roughly chronological order, and they both recount and react to events happening in the writers’ lives and the world around them. These are followed by “posthumous” letters that could not be inserted smoothly in the ordinary correspondence.

With these epistolary snapshots, McCullough tackles an extraordinary range of subjects: from virtual reality, secular liberalism, and the nature of fatherhood to Islam, infant baptism, and the Incarnation. The result is a tour de force: a postmodern Pascal, an American Chesterton, a Catholic Kierkegaard.

Those three loom large in the book, as do Dante Alighieri, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and T. S. Eliot, along with the writings of both the church fathers and the desert fathers. It isn’t only their ideas that appear, though. It’s their style.

McCullough’s writing is not the kind of academic work which cannot help but cut God down to size, but neither is it popular, reaching readers with simple vocabulary and accessible structure. The Body of This Death is unapologetically literary, and while the payoff is worth it, the book demands much of its readers. If it’s deliberately difficult, it’s in imitation of the way Jesus’ parables confound his listeners. The point is the stubborn provocation—unwillingness to comply with the stories we prefer to tell ourselves. Jesus hasn’t failed when his hearers storm off in anger. His hearers have failed, and his parable has succeeded precisely by exposing their failure. 

The letters in The Body of This Death are closer to proverbs than parables. They’re largely aphorisms, for, as the archbishop comments, “Only the aphoristic is adequate to the task” of speaking about the divine mystery, “because only the aphoristic makes plain its [own] inadequacy.” Or, as the German writer Karl Kraus once wrote, “An aphorism never equals the truth. It is a half-truth, or a truth-and-a-half.”

Not for nothing, then, does aphoristic theology have a venerable place in Christian history. Its roots lie in biblical wisdom literature: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, books that ask at least as much as they answer. These are not systematic theologies. A proverb is a memorable saying of the wise, sometimes clear, sometimes enigmatic. It pokes and prods the conscience. It resists mastery, summary, and restatement. Its brevity can prove maddening even as it sticks in the mind. As the cow chews the cud, seekers of wisdom grind and suck until the proverb gives up its nourishment.

The desert fathers inherited and continued this tradition with their Apophthegmata, short sayings and anecdotes from the fourth and fifth centuries. These tend to follow a pattern: An abba goes to the desert to pray in solitude and instead attracts all manner of followers eager for his guidance. Some youthful man visits him, hoping to see a miracle, and the miracle he is told to seek is silent prayer alone in a cell. 

Sometimes these accounts involve the spectacular, like fighting demons. But more often at issue is something unspectacular, like avoiding fornication or refraining from gossip. The fathers’ comments are usually brief, witty, and unexpected, even deflating. McCullough’s archbishop follows their lead, taking up the mantle of Solomon and the desert fathers by striving with pithy formulations to gesture at truths that cannot be captured by finite minds.

“These letters are aphorisms,” he writes. Whether as a proverb or apothegm, the aphorism is close to the apophatic, a style of theology suspicious of the closure and finality of human speech. Words cannot but limit and bind, whereas the living God is infinite. His freedom breaks our words open—at times like a bud from a seed, at times like a split atom. We need words to know God, and he has given us trustworthy words by which to know him, yet aphorisms are a necessary check on our pretentions. They discipline our pride by curbing our verbal idolatry.

In the words of Blaise Pascal, “I should be honouring my subject too much if I treated it in order, since I am trying to show that it is incapable of it.” God will not submit to our ordering. He will not be tamed.

Like any correspondence, the book’s letters accumulate their themes, arguments, and wisdom over time, by familiarity and repetition and “real-world” events. In that sense, it gets easier as you go—but there’s no handholding in this book. 

There aren’t even handholds. You’re set down alone in a labyrinth, and you must proceed until you confront—or rather, are confronted by—Christ. As the archbishop writes in a late letter to the “inquisitors” who have imprisoned him on a trumped-up charge, “Do you know, Christ is not nailed to the cross; the cross is nailed to Christ. It is not the savior that flees the world but the world that flees its salvation. You think you are here to discipline me, but perhaps the nails run the other way.”

If the correspondence has a center, it is the cross of Christ. The letters spiral around it—not only the mystery of salvation but also the vocation of all believers to join the Lord in his passion. At one point the archbishop asks, “Why has Christianity lasted so long?” His answer: “It is a religion of suffering well.” One of the shortest letters is devoted entirely to the topic:

Fr. Rodrigues,

Pain is not the wound; pain is the reaction to the wound. Suffering is not alienation from God but a reaction against alienation, a protest that begins from some inarticulate depth inside of us—the depth from which articulations come. That is why it is holy, because it is always already on the side of the angels. In that sense, the suffering of purgatory and the suffering of hell both tend to their own dissolution: the one by overcoming the alienation, the other by silencing the protest.

Here is another, to the same priest:

The Church too gives us little reason for optimism, I’m afraid. Even the Apostles betrayed Jesus—are betraying him.

But optimism is not hope. Optimism sees history held in the hands of the two centurions: and the one after all is faithful beyond Israel, the other was converted by the cross. Hope on the other hand finds history between the two Judases: Iscariot, lost cause; not Iscariot, patron of lost causes.

This last letter is representative: so compact in its allusions it might as well be spring-loaded. If you don’t know one centurion from another or who the patron of lost causes is, the author is not going to let you in on the secret. (Nor am I.) The aim isn’t to keep you in the dark. It’s to draw you out of it. The saints and authors and poetic references are woven together so inseparably they form a single thread. And as with Ariadne and Theseus, this thread is meant to lead you out of the labyrinth—or perhaps toward its center.

The themes and theology of McCullough’s book, combined with how he chose to write it, raise two questions worth pondering for evangelical readers. The first is how, or whether, evangelicals should read Catholic writers. The second is what evangelicals might learn from a book like this: highbrow in style and substance, written in beautiful but stylized prose that is likely to prove unwelcoming, even intractable, to many readers.

I’ve paired the questions together because my answer is the same for both: Evangelicals can become better readers by reading more widely within the church—and not only when authors from outside the fold are safely six feet under.

You know the reading habit I mean. J. R. R. Tolkien, Thomas Merton, G. K. Chesterton, John Henry Newman, even Thomas Aquinas: all widely read by American evangelicals today, and all of them gone on to their reward. Were Chesterton alive today, would evangelicals like him so well? No doubt he’d have racked up quite a few high-profile conversions, much to the chagrin of Protestants wishing he’d quit picking off our best and brightest.

Or even think of C. S. Lewis, who never swam the Tiber but absolutely does not tick the familiar boxes of American evangelicalism. Lewis was an avid smoker who affirmed evolution, denied a young earth, read the early chapters of Genesis as nonhistorical, loved pagan myths and secular literature, and believed in both the priesthood and infant baptism. And yet—rightly—evangelicals celebrate Lewis as a great Christian writer and thinker. Could it be that there are Christians of our own time, in other branches of the family tree, who might instruct and reform us too?

Even if evangelicals remain cautious in their reading habits, The Body of This Death may yet find the readership it deserves. Journalist Arthur Koestler was right to say that “a writer’s ambition should be … to trade a hundred contemporary readers for ten readers in ten years and for one reader in a hundred years.” McCullough writes in that spirit, and I have no doubt this book will outlast our time, just as Lewis’s work has endured.

Writing that lasts is not easy. It is not market-tested by surveys. It is not measured by book sales or median reader taste. It is certainly not vetted by sensitivity readers.

People still read Søren Kierkegaard today—and have their lives overturned by his thought—not because it is digestible but because it is the very opposite. His voice is winding, florid, disorienting, and infuriating. But he speaks to what matters. He is gripped and enthralled by a vision he must communicate to anyone who will listen, with the urgency of life and death. His letters are scrawled in blood, not ink. His work won’t let you go until it’s finished with you.

That’s the kind of book this is. I believe it will prove a classic, but others will be the judge of that. What is indisputable is that McCullough has written a book that aspires to greatness. He sets the terms of encounter, and they are not negotiable. But if you accept the invitation, you won’t be the same again.

Christians need more writing like this—books that aim higher than sales or accessibility. And we need to honor and celebrate them when, in these rare moments, they come along. This is one of those moments. Enter the labyrinth and prepare yourself for the mystery that awaits.

Brad East is an associate professor of theology at Abilene Christian University. He is the author of four books, including The Church: A Guide to the People of God and Letters to a Future Saint.

History

CT Reports from Nixon’s Trip to Communist China

In 1972, American evangelicals were concerned about religious liberty around the world and moral decline at home.

Richard Nixon Eating with Zhou Enlai in 1972.

Richard Nixon Eating with Zhou Enlai in 1972.

Christianity Today February 13, 2026
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, CT Archives

“The year 1972 promises to be memorable for evangelical Christianity,” said CT editors in January. “Many signs suggest we are on the verge of a major spiritual awakening that will benefit not churches alone but the whole of civilized culture.” 

That editorial quickly moved to one college student’s statement:  

I have always been, or tried to be, a vocal crusader against injustice. But when I became a Christian, I saw the realm of social change in a different light. It was always easy for me to lash out against intangible evils like “the establishment” or the “fascist, racist nation.” But through Christ I’ve come to see that the problem is personal. The “establishment” is my next-door neighbor, my teachers, my employer. 

I’ve come to see that the most effective and lasting change comes through relating to people, changing the portion of the world that I, as a seventeen-year-old Christian, come in contact with. When seen in this light, America with its many ills is no longer some faceless opponent; it looks like the man next door. Changing him is changing America.

The editors concluded,

For many years, churches have been jostled about by the controversy over social gospel versus personal piety. This dispute has produced in many minds a distinction between personal and social ethics that is unreal. The two areas are merely selective emphases, distinguished for purposes of discussion. One cannot exist without the other.

Richard Nixon went to China in 1972. It was one of the Cold War’s most dramatic diplomatic gambits, shifting global calculations and widening the Russian-Chinese rift. CT called it “a pivotal event of history,” but editors wanted greater emphasis on religious liberty.

No issue is more basic than religious liberty. Of all the subjects to be discussed, none could be regarded as more profitable. Religious liberty is foundational to all human rights; yet there is ample evidence that in our supposedly enlightened times the number of people in the world who enjoy any substantial measure of it is declining! 

A discussion of political perspectives or even the physical needs of people is pointless unless the prior claim of religious freedom is acknowledged. If a man cannot live for what he regards as most crucial, then what is the point of living at all? Suppression of religious freedom is the supreme injustice.

CT, reporting on how Christians were faring in another Communist dictatorship, published the observations of two Reformation scholars who visited East Germany. 

Everywhere we turned we experienced the monotonous sloganeering and propaganda of a totalitarian state, and we saw no indication that the rigorous police controls over inhabitants and visitors alike had been relaxed. … One frequently senses he is being watched, and nearly everybody speaks in low tones when in public places. …

The East German regime is fundamentally inimical to Christianity. Although it apparently does not wish an open confrontation with the church, it tries to undermine the influence of religion in the country. … 

Pastor Wilhelm Eisner ministers to a medium-sized congregation in East Berlin. … According to him, church attendance is lower than it used to be, and because of the youth dedication the number of confirmands has dropped off. Nevertheless, the depth of faith of those who remain is greater than before. In his ministry Pastor Eisner has been emphasizing the lordship of Christ and the necessity for the full commitment of one’s life and goods to him. Official pressures have not emptied his church, but the built-in disabilities for believers have made life more difficult for Pastor Eisner’s flock, and for his family as well. His spirit and courage in standing for the integrity of the Gospel in the face of hostility from the regime were most impressive.

The emergence of a new folk hero caused evangelicals concern in 1972. The mysterious “Dan Cooper”  (or D. B. Cooper) hijacked an airplane, demanded $200,000, escaped without the money, and was widely celebrated.

Instead of regarding “Dan Cooper” as an outlaw who had endangered the lives of scores of people in an effort to enrich himself, many people seemed to look at him as a kind of national hero—a modern version of Robin Hood who robbed the rich and kept it all for himself. According to an Associated Press dispatch on November 29, 1971, “most of those responding to questions hoped the daring hijacker would escape.”

A sociology professor at the University of Washington commented that the hijacker won public admiration because he pulled off “an awesome feat in the battle of man against the machine—one individual overcoming, for the time being anyway, technology, the corporation, the establishment, the system” …

All of this is indicative of a strange new mentality that is emerging in our nation. We are living in an age of permissiveness gone to seed—an age when Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, are idolized rather than condemned, an age when every man supposedly has a right to do his own thing, lawful or not.

Another sign of shifting morality in America was the decline of prayers before public meals

Protestants in growing numbers are abandoning this form of public worship. Studies have shown … the early 60s saw a resurgence in giving thanks at home but a definite decline in doing so in public. Often children seem willing to pray in a restaurant but the parents are ill at ease. … 

Saying grace can … serve as a witness to the unconverted. This willingness to be different may signify dedication, and in all probability the observing non-believer will feel respect rather than scorn. Paul Little in How to Give Away Your Faith suggests that Christians tactfully explain to an unsaved meal companion what they are doing, being careful not to sound superior or self-righteous.

CT also reported concerns about the disappearance of the Protestant work ethic. Carl F. H. Henry said that critics misunderstood the Christian view

The Bible work ethic is now increasingly indicted on the cheap supposition that the divine assignment to man of dominion over the earth legitimizes depletion of natural resources, pollution of the earth, and the depersonalization of life and culture by empirical scientism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In its radical rejection of Christianity and Reformation theology the mounting post-Christian ethic is motivated more by spiritual rebellion than by ethical earnestness. But Christians must grapple with the work principles the Bible actually gives us, and must square their outlook and behavior with these claims.

CT encouraged evangelicals’ growing concern for the environment and “the emerging food ethic” in 1972.   

Devout Christian believers are realizing that they must look out for the “whole man,” and be good stewards of their own bodies. … People are flocking to health-food stores and are trying to forsake processed foods. “Organically grown” foods, those cultivated without the use of pesticides or what are regarded as chemical, artificial fertilizers, are in great demand. Some foods are being touted as especially healthful, among them wheat germ, soybeans, honey, and sesame seeds.

A great new sensitivity has been developing among consumers toward additives used for coloring, flavoring, preserving, and otherwise conditioning food; some are known to be harmful to human health, and others are suspect. 

Several new names appeared in CT in 1972—writers who would become important to American evangelicalism in the future. Theology student Wayne Grudem wrote “Letter to a Prospective Seminarian.” Pastor Eugene Peterson wrote about the resurrection

There was one resurrection; there are four narratives of it. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell the story, each in his own way. Each narrative is distinct and has its own character. When the four accounts are absorbed into the imagination, they develop rich melodies, harmonies, counterpoint. The four voices become a resurrection quartet.

Yet many people never hear the music. The reason, I think, is that the apologetic style for years has been to “harmonize” the four resurrection stories. But it never turns out to be harmonization. Instead of listening to their distinctive bass, tenor, alto, and soprano voices, we have tried to make the evangelists sing the same tune. Differences and variations in the resurrection narratives are denied, affirmed, doubted, and “interpreted.”

There is a better way. Since we have the four accounts that supplement one another, we can be encouraged to celebrate each one as it is, and to magnify the features that make it distinct from the others. …

1972 was an election year, and CT looked at the evangelical credentials of the far-right candidate running for president. When segregationist George Wallace was asked if he had been born again, “his answer was anything but vague.” 

Wallace testifies that at the age of thirteen he was born again during a little Methodist church revival. In the December issue of the John Birch Society’s American Opinion Wallace was quoted: “I have accepted Christ as my personal Savior. …” 

The Wallace campaign has had an evangelistic atmosphere. One observer reported that Wallace rallies combine “old-time rural evangelism, slick country-music salesmanship, and tried-and-true evangelical oratory.” Baptist preacher George Mangum of Selma, Alabama, travels with the campaigns, opening each rally with a “spiritual conversation with our God about some of the political problems in our country.” And, as in a rural revival, ushers pass buckets through the crowd while Mangum appeals for money.

Many Wallace supporters consider him “a good Christian man.”

Democrat George McGovern had some evangelical support as well. 

One group of evangelicals—aiming to demolish the “conservative-theology-equals-conservative-politics” stereotype—formed an Evangelicals for McGovern (EFM) committee dedicated to raising funds and pushing their candidate as the one who most closely adheres to biblical principles of social justice. The pitch was made to 8,000 evangelical leaders in a letter from EFM chairman Walden Howard, editor of Faith at Work. … 

“Evangelicals should be concerned about social justice from a biblical perspective,” [Howard] said in an interview. “I just don’t believe social justice is a high priority with Nixon. But it’s the heart of McGovern’s motivation.” Howard claimed the McGovern platform “moves at many crucial points in the direction indicated by biblical principles.”

Most evangelicals—and most Americans—voted to re-elect Richard Nixon: His landslide victory, with majorities in 49 states, was “no particular surprise,” according to CT, but editors also called for a full investigation of campaign staff who broke into Democratic Party headquarters and attempted to plant listening devices in the telephones.

There seems little doubt that, whether Nixon knew it or not, a number of his key supporters engaged in a brazen program of political espionage and in unfair attempts to interfere with the nominating and election processes. …

The failure of the White House to counter the charges in any substantial way serves to underscore the impression that much was amiss. We feel that the American people in general do not condone such goings-on and that their return of Nixon to office for a second term should not be so interpreted. 

It is now the President’s obligation to pursue with vigor and candor a full investigation of the alleged misdeeds.

Nixon did not heed such calls.

Ideas

Do Singles Really Have More Time for Ministry?

Contributor

The married and the unmarried both should be concerned with the Lord’s affairs.

A blurry black and white photo of a couple hugging.
Christianity Today February 13, 2026
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Unsplash

When I was in my teens, Magic Eye pictures were all the rage. My friends and I would compete to be the first to unlock the 3D image—a sailboat, a school of fish, a mountain range—buried within a page of chaotic, technicolour static. All it took was time, patience, a commitment to stare beyond the visual white noise, and the ability to stay cross-eyed for minutes at a time, and then suddenly the previously hidden image would snap into focus. And once you saw it, you couldn’t unsee it.

As I’ve spent the past decade or so digging deeper into what the Bible teaches about singleness, I’ve had several “Magic Eye” moments—occasions when looking at a familiar biblical passage from a fresh perspective suddenly brought it into new focus. Each time, it felt like I could finally see past the confusing static—the mistaken assumptions and incomplete teachings that often blur our understanding of those passages—and appreciate the full, 3D biblical truth about singleness (and often also marriage) that had been there all along.

One quiet Saturday morning several years ago, I was sitting in a local café, sipping a mediocre chai, when I felt the urge to open 1 Corinthians 7:32–35. I had no particular reason to turn to that passage, but looking back now, I can see that the Holy Spirit was giving me a not-so-gentle prompting.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Here’s how this passage is most often explained: Married Christians have a spouse whose needs they must prioritize, and so they have less time, energy, and capacity for things like their church family, gospel ministry, and even wider relationships. But those who are single (and therefore spouseless) are blessed with more freedom, energy, and capacity to invest in all those areas. Unlike their married counterparts, they don’t have a legitimate reason to be divided in their devotion to God and his people. One author has put it like this: The single Christian is “able to say ‘yes’ to things that require more of you than a married person can afford.”

But if I’m being honest, this interpretation of the passage has always felt a bit unresolved to me. As a never-married Christian woman, I haven’t often found myself with a wonderful surplus of freedom and flexibility. In fact, it sometimes felt like my singleness drained, rather than added to, my capacity to serve. I had been frequently told that my singleness was good because it allowed me to say “yes” to things that required more of me than what married people couldn’t afford.

But what if my relationships and responsibilities meant I couldn’t afford to say yes either? I wasn’t sure I was allowed to admit that to myself, let alone voice it out loud to others.

What’s more, the idea that my married Christian friends couldn’t serve God or his people as effectively, consistently, or readily as I was supposed to also didn’t sit right with me. After all, isn’t serving Jesus wholeheartedly the point and privilege of being his disciple, no matter our situation? Aren’t we all meant to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind? Isn’t loving your spouse meant to be part of a married person’s devotion to the Lord’s affairs, rather than a distraction from it?

But it wasn’t only these real-life questions that left me feeling confused about a usual reading of this passage. I had also always struggled to make sense of it within the immediate and broader context of the Bible’s teaching.

Consider, for example, Paul’s comparison between the married person who is concerned with the world’s affairs and the unmarried person who is concerned with the Lord’s affairs. According to our usual reading of this passage, married Christians are rightto be concerned with these worldly affairs (pleasing their spouse).

Yet in the same letter, Paul had already said quite a lot about how Christians are—and aren’t—to relate to a world he identified as foolish, passing away, and destined for judgment (1 Cor. 1:18–31; 3:19; 11:32). His first letter to the church at Corinth confirms what so many other New Testament passages teach: God’s people are not to be shaped by this world or caught up in its concerns.

So why would the same Paul who warns against worldly troubles and distractions suddenly equate loving one’s spouse with being concerned about things of the world? And why would he commend the married Christian for being absorbed in this?

Then there is the other comparison in the passage—pleasing a spouse versus pleasing the Lord. We may automatically think that spouses shouldbe concerned with “pleasing” each other. Yet none of the New Testament passages that speak about the loving relationship between a husband and wife use that language of “pleasing.” This means there is no reason for us to automatically understand that married people who are concerned with “pleasing” their spouse are concerned with a good thing.

In fact, if pleasing a spouse comes at the expense of pleasing God (which is the comparison in this passage), Paul’s point is surely to warn against it rather than to praise it. This is consistent with how he uses “pleasing God” elsewhere, namely as a shorthand way of describing the life of godly faith in action (Eph. 5:10; Col. 1:10; 2 Cor. 5:9). While he does occasionally speak positively of pleasing others (1 Cor. 10:33), whenever Paul contrasts the impulse to please people with the call to please God, he is very clear: “We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4, Gal. 1:10).

Then why, in this passage, would the apostle suddenly commend married Christians for being concerned with pleasing their spouse over, above, or even instead of pleasing the Lord? Why would he allow their interests to be divided away from pleasing God?

So there I sat, sipping my disappointing chai, when suddenly everything snapped into focus. It really was like one of those Magic Eye moments. For the first time, I glimpsed the full 3D meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:32–35.

A slight shift of perspective allowed me to see that Paul was not identifying important marital obligations but rather warning against particular dangers that can come with marriage in a fallen world. Along with early church fathers such as John Chrysostom and Augustine, I realised that in 1 Corinthians 7:32–35, Paul is actually calling married people to not be divided and distracted by their spouse.

Put another way, instead of saying married Christians can’t afford to be like their undivided single counterparts, the apostle is saying that married Christians can’t afford not to be like them. He wants both single and married Christians “to live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” My full explanation of my new understanding takes up a whole chapter of my latest book, Single Ever After.

When it comes to singleness and marriage, we’ve too often decided to settle for the somewhat confusing surface meaning of key biblical passages, rather than allowing ourselves to wonder if there might be depths to them that we are conveniently ignoring. We settled into the groove of what we’re comfortable thinking the Bible teaches about them.

This has led us to ignore the fuzzy passages—like deciding it’s okay for some Christians to be concerned with the affairs of a world that is opposed to God. It’s allowed us to pretend the white noise doesn’t exist—like deciding it’s okay for some Christians to be distracted from pleasing God to instead please a certain person.

This is to the great detriment of many single and single-again Christians in our churches. But it has also been very costly for many married Christians, whose relationships with their spouses have been heavily burdened by our—and their—hasty and selective reading of Scripture.

The gospel of Christ imbues both marriage and singleness with wonderful 3D meaning, making them complements rather than competitors. The question for us is whether we’ll look beyond the surface patterns we’re used to seeing until the deeper, richer picture of God’s design for both singleness and marriage comes into wonderful focus.

Danielle Treweek is the author of several books, including Single Ever After: A Biblical Vision for the Significance of Singleness, and the research officer for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.

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