Church Life

Let the Neurodivergent Children Come to Me

Gentle parenting is one tool to train up children who have disabilities with love and wisdom.

Christianity Today May 6, 2024
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Unsplash, Wikimedia Commons

As a toddler, my son would often lash out at other kids for no apparent reason, causing incidents at daycare, at home, and in the church nursery. At times, he would even hurt himself in his distress. After more than a year of trying to encourage the “right” behavior, I felt like this was more than age-appropriate tantrums.

We sought an evaluation, and our son received multiple diagnoses that confirmed he’s neurodivergent, a term that commonly encompasses brain-based differences such as ADHD, autism, learning difficulties, and more.

One way to consider how my son experiences the world is to think of his brain like a highly sensitive smoke detector. A typical smoke detector on your kitchen ceiling will alert you to a potential emergency in the room. However, one that is highly sensitive might alert you to a neighbor smoking a cigarette as he walks by your window on his way to the store.

My son’s nervous system makes him similarly sensitive. He’s hyper-attuned to potential threats in the world around him, and sometimes the most typical everyday interactions can become extremely distressing for him, even resulting in acute anxiety attacks.

As first-time parents, we did our best to follow conventional advice about establishing routines and maintaining authority. We disciplined him with consequences, withheld privileges, and rewarded any display of self-control. Any physical discipline only succeeded in making us seem like a threat and triggering his fight-or-flight response.

Traditional forms of discipline were not working, and my husband and I knew we needed to change the way we parented. Yet I still wondered if this was compatible with my faith. I could not escape the maxim “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

One Sunday, our pastor preached on the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32). He encouraged us to put ourselves in the shoes of a first-century Jewish father—to imagine being effectively disowned by your child and the emotions of having them eventually return.

Citing Kenneth E. Bailey’s work, our pastor explained that a first-century son who demanded his inheritance would be ceremoniously rejected, cut off from his heritage and his family. Our pastor described the father running to his son in order to reach him before the community noticed his return and cast him out forever. I pictured villagers running after the father to see what he would do, stunned that he embraced his wayward, reckless child instead of condemning him and casting him out.

Our pastor asked us to try to comprehend how unbelievable the forgiveness, grace, and protection the father extended to his son would seem to the rest of the village, who would at best despise the son and at worst excommunicate or stone him.

I tried to grasp the tenderness the father must have felt toward his son to be willing to forgive and find a new way forward that integrated his child back into the family and the community, regardless of what others thought. I wondered how to reconcile the discrepancies between this particular illustration of the love of God the Father and the parenting advice I continued to receive from other Christians to be firm, to shepherd and steward my child, and to let my child know I was the authority.

When I was encouraged to “shepherd” my children, I would jokingly respond that my lack of agrarian experience left me uncertain how to move forward. As I pored over the multitude of sheep and shepherd imagery in the Bible, I didn’t understand how a shepherd could brandish a rod against his sheep and still refresh or comfort them (Ps. 23:3–4).

So I did what many millennial parents might do: I searched the Internet for how to herd and tend to sheep, specifically looking for references to rods and staffs. I discovered that a rod would likely have been used to fight off wild animals who may come after the sheep—not against the sheep themselves, and that the staff was probably a shepherd’s crook, used to guide sheep and even retrieve them should they find themselves in a precarious situation.

I also learned that “Spare the rod, spoil the child” isn’t actually what Proverbs 13:24 says. The phrase likely originated from a 17th-century long satirical poem, Hudibras, and Samuel Butler’s words convey an explicitly sexual meaning.

Meanwhile, as we sought out strategies that would be effective for my son, I discovered secular experts who recommended mindful parenting that focuses on compassionately building skills—what is popularly called “gentle parenting.” I later found a number of Christian experts who encourage an approach to parenting that centers on connection, respect, and gentleness, including Flourishing Homes and Families, Connected Families, and Grace Based Families.

Both Christian and secular critics denigrate it as an overly permissive, boundary-free style of parenting that can have detrimental effects both in childhood and adulthood.

At the same time, proponents of gentle parenting don’t always agree on what discipline should look like. There are similar approaches called positive parenting, responsive parenting, and peaceful discipline, and some experts have even suggested abandoning the name “gentle parenting” altogether.

The words discipline and disciple both derive their meaning from the Latin word for instruction or teaching. As language has evolved, there continues to be an implication of order and instruction, but the concept of chastising or punishing didn’t become part of the word’s meaning until the 11th or 12th century, when it became associated with military instruction.

Gentle parenting, rather, allows my family to focus on instruction—on discipling our children in such a way that we model the Father’s love for them, so that they may grow to trust and know God.

Whatever you choose to call this style of parenting, the common thread is that parents are encouraged to be authoritative (often contrasted with authoritarian parenting), to focus on respecting and understanding the child, to emphasize cooperation between parent and child, and to encourage independence within appropriate boundaries.

At the end of the day, all parenting requires wisdom and discernment, and there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Gentle parenting offers one set of tools and strategies that enable us to model Christ’s love and to equip our children with the self-control, order, and grace required to navigate the fallen world we are all born into.

My husband and I believe that children are a blessing from God (Ps. 127:3), and we parent in a way that focuses on compassionately guiding and empowering our children (Eph. 6:4). We encourage autonomy, independence, and abiding faith by remembering that adults and children are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).

We don’t harshly punish our children, because we seek to love them as the Father loves us (1 John 3:1), and we endeavor to model discipline, grace, and faith in a way that we hope reflects that love (Prov. 3:11–12; 1 John 4:11–12). At every step, we consider our children’s development as well as their needs for support and accommodation.

When we punish our children, we are inflicting suffering for their past behavior with the hope of changing their future behavior. There is no shortage of ways to teach and instruct a child about wrongdoing—and how to prevent it—without causing them to suffer. Forgiveness, mercy, and grace are not opposed to discipline, good stewardship, and experiencing the real, felt consequences of our actions.

My husband and I have both the privilege and responsibility of working together to help our children develop skills and to offer support as they navigate the world with increasing independence. We allow our children to experience the consequences of their actions, and we discuss what we could do differently to achieve a different outcome. Most importantly, we teach them about the incredible grace and mercy that is offered to each of us.

We parent the way we do as a humble reflection of what God is offering to all of us. Throughout his ministry, Jesus went out to people and met them where they were. He didn’t insist on a standardized process of redemption, and there is ultimately no checklist we can follow. We can only follow him. To put it another way, Jesus wants us to follow his lead, and we ask the same of our children.

And when we inevitably fall short—or our children do—my hope and prayer is that we’ve cultivated the kind of love and grace that would allow a child to return in humility and trust or a father to sprint through town to greet his child, no matter the time apart or the circumstances of that separation.

A few months ago, we began to have similar concerns about our daughter’s development, and we sought an evaluation for her as well. As I discussed this with my mother and the psychologist, I realized that there are many similarities between my daughter’s behavior and how I was as a child. I decided to pursue my own evaluation, and we confirmed that both my daughter and I are also neurodivergent.

A recent CDC report found that nearly 1 in 10 children between ages 3 and 17 are diagnosed with a developmental disability, an increase from previous years. If this trend continues, the church will need to develop new tools to love and support our children. I imagine this will also include accepting and accommodating styles of parenting and forms of discipline that, while “new” to many in the church, are both rooted in Scripture and respectful of our children.

When the disciples stopped people from bringing children to receive blessing and prayer from Jesus, he admonished them (Matt. 19:13–14). We have no reason to believe that the children who came before Jesus were without disabilities. Throughout the Gospels, people came to Jesus for healing and prayer for themselves, their children, and their loved ones.

I deeply desire for adults to remember this before asking a seemingly disruptive child to leave a service or to refrain from participating in a church activity that would allow them to experience the love of Christ. “Do not hinder them,” our Savior says, “for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (v. 14).

Sunita Theiss is a writer, communications consultant, and homeschool parent based in Georgia.

News

If Panama Closes the Darién Gap, Would Evangelicals Care?

(UPDATED) Migrant rights have been off-radar for many Panamanian Christians. But as pressures increase, some are speaking out ahead of this weekend’s general elections.

A migrant woman carrying her daughter near the first border control of the Darien Province in Panama.

A migrant woman carrying her daughter near the first border control of the Darien Province in Panama.

Christianity Today May 6, 2024
Luis Acosta / Contributor / Getty

Update (May 6, 2024): José Raúl Mulino will be Panama’s new president after the Realizando Metas (Realizing Goals) party candidate won 34.2 percent of the vote.

Mulino began the campaign as the running mate of former president Ricardo Martinelli. (Martinelli previously served from 2009 to 2014.) When Martinelli was booted from the ticket after receiving a 10-year prison sentence for money laundering, Mulino assumed the top of the ticket. While other candidates fought to get him removed from the ballot for bypassing the party’s selection process, the country’s supreme court declared it legal two days prior to the election.

Last month, Mulino promised to close the Darién Gap, where tens of thousands of migrants have crossed from Colombia to Panama on their journey to the US border. On Monday, the president-elect reiterated his desire to do so, saying that he will work with the governments of Colombia and the United States to jointly create a long-term solution.

“Currently we have technology to survey the border, and I hope to start a repatriation process as early as possible,” he said in an interview Monday with Radio Blu.

Mulino is set to be inaugurated on July 1.

—-

On May 5, Panamanians will vote for a new president. The outcome of this election may have consequences for far more than its 4.4 million residents; it could change the migration reality for the hundreds of thousands of people traveling from South America, Asia, and Africa who pass through the Central American country en route to the United States.

Leading in the polls is José Raúl Mulino, a candidate for Realizando Metas (Realizing Goals), a right-wing populist party founded by disgraced president Ricardo Martinelli. He has vowed to shut down the Darién Gap, a densely forested jungle area that migrants must traverse to enter Panama from the bordering country of Colombia.

“We’re going to close Darién and we’re going to repatriate every one of these people, respecting their human rights,” said Raúl Mulino in April.

For many Panamanians, there was no migrant crisis before 2022. After passing through the Darién gap, migrants passed through the country on government buses to the Costa Rican border. But after a shift in US migrant policy sent many back to Central America a couple years ago, hundreds have since moved to Panama City and a handful of small towns. Residents have begun to blame them for crime and for overwhelming their sanitation systems.

Though evangelicals have largely been on the sidelines, many leaders say they should have done more.

“The church does not see the refugee problem as their own problem,” said Panamanian missionary Robert Bruneau, a regional leader with United World Mission. “They believe it is something the state should do and are not aware of the great opportunity they have to graciously and honorably serve someone who bears the image of God.”

A treacherous journey

With its mountainous rural terrain and long-standing control by Colombian gangs, the Darién Gap is one of the most treacherous passages of the arduous journey undertaken by migrants heading north. Few communities live in its swamps and jungles, rendering it one of the world’s most dangerous migration routes.

Immigrants first traveled through the region beginning in the 1990s, when Colombian citizens used the jungle to escape guerilla groups and flee to Panama or elsewhere. In the 2000s, Venezuelans started to travel through Central America and the Darién Gap as they sought refuge in the United States through the Mexican border. Since 2014, more than 7 million have left the country. Today, migrants from places as diverse as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Haiti, Nepal, and China (who first fly into Colombia or Brazil) follow the same dangerous path.

As recently as 2011, fewer than 300 migrants crossed the border between Colombia and Panamá irregularly. Last year, the number surged to 520,000. Through the end of April this year, more than 135,000 people have entered Panama. And about 120,000 children crossed the Darién Gap last year, many unaccompanied, with approximately half under the age of five.

Survivors who make it through the forest arrive at camps, established by the Panamanian government, often suffering from health issues due to extreme exertion, malnutrition, or diseases transmitted by mosquitoes or contaminated water.

World Vision is one of a handful of Christian organizations serving migrants passing through the Darién Gap and works with churches to provide food, clothing, security, and legal guidance to those passing through the region.

“[These people] do not migrate by choice,” Mishelle Mitchell, a World Vision spokesperson for Latin America and the Caribbean, told CT. “They flee hunger, war, poverty, and deserve the right to be respected.”

Unseen and unheard

After recuperating in camps, the government offers migrants two ways of continuing their journey: For roughly $40, they can travel in privately operated buses to the Costa Rican border. Or they can go to the border of Costa Rica and Nicaragua for around $80 to $90. The journey, which takes less than a day, keeps migrants from traveling on foot, a common scene in most Central American countries. It also largely keeps them out of sight and out of mind, says Gustavo Gumbs, an evangelical pastor who began working with migrants nearly a decade ago.

“The church was not awake to the refugee problem,” he said. “Even today, there are those who are either unaware of migrants or are not mobilized to help them.”

Evangelicals make up 22 percent of the population, compared to 65 percent of Catholics. But more than a dozen Catholic organizations work in the Darién region, led by Cáritas, the international arm of the Vatican for human rights, food security, and sustainable development.

In March, in a letter, Pope Francis addressed a group of migrants who met bishops and local authorities in Lajas Blancas, a city close to the Darién Gap, trying to find common ground with them as a son of Italian immigrants who went to Argentina “in search of a better future.”

“Migrant brothers and sisters, never forget your human dignity,” he wrote. “Do not be afraid to look others in the eye, because you are not a throwaway; you too are part of the human family and of the family of God’s children.”

Gumbs began Fundación de Asistencia a Migrantes (FAM) after feeling like he had a Christian responsibility to help those he saw in need in Panama City.

“We had an explosion in the number of migrants,” he said. “The government admitted that it could not take care of everyone.”

In 2016, he began collecting donations from churches of food, clothing, and hygiene items to take to migrants in Darién. Currently, more than 100 volunteers travel to the region daily to help migrants.

For years, Panama’s camps and bus system meant that few migrants interacted with locals. But in 2022, migrants began to return to other Latin American countries after the shift in US policy. Many arrived in Panama City.

“Suddenly, we had 10,000 people to feed,” said Gumbs, who picked up food from churches and collected donations from other Christians to pay for plane tickets for migrants going home.

“For the first time in many years, all denominations came together to do something together in Panama,” he said.

The success of the initiative led the Panamanian government to recognize FAM’s efforts, which now participates in migration discussions with internationally recognized organizations such as UNHCR and the Red Cross.

“As Matthew 5:16 says, even if they are not believers, they give thanks to God when they see the good works we do,” he said.

Even so, Panamanian Christians know the sum of their efforts has been modest.

“We are a small country. What we can do is insufficient; it’s like trying to stop a hemorrhage with a Band-Aid,” said Roderick Burgos, an evangelical social services leader.

For Panamanians, the influx of migrants is discomforting. Once sleepy towns, cities near the Colombian borders have become hubs for refugees as people wait for buses. Locals often charge migrants three to four times the previous amount for food, says Gumbs. Despite Darién being home to numerous endangered species including jaguars, macaws, and tapirs, garbage from the flow of people is everywhere, further threatening the animals and their habitat.

In 2020, Panamanian authorities blamed migrants for burning down reception centers in La Peñita, close to the Colombian border, and in Lajas Blancas, by the border with Costa Rica. In March, 44 migrants were arrested following a brawl that damaged part of a support center in San Vicente.

“The population in general is very upset [that so many people are passing through Darién],” said Jocabed Solano Miselis, a missionary to Panama’s indigenous peoples. “It’s not xenophobia, it’s the exhaustion of local resources.”

A new situation

Migration won’t be a top issue for most Panamanian evangelical voters, most of whom see the strongest connection between their faith and a socially conservative agenda. These convictions have led growing numbers to run for seats in Panama’s National Assembly and in city government.

“For many years, churches and Christians stayed away from politics, positioning themselves as intercessors,” said pastor César Forero of the New Life Family Restoration Center in Panama City.

But in 2014, the government announced a new sex education law that evangelicals believed would open the door for schools to teach pro-LGBT messages. Over the course of two years, pressure groups formed, and evangelicals teamed up with Catholics to organize in opposition.

“I thought that if we didn’t have about 10,000 people in a march, the law would pass,” said Burgos. “We had about 300,000 show up.”

After the government backed down in 2016, Panamanian Christians discovered a political strength they had previously never imagined. In the last general election in 2019, candidates began publicly identifying themselves as evangelicals.

Now, in 2024, “many of the aspirants are proposing pro-family policies,” said Forero. This includes trying to introduce a ban on same-sex marriage and advocating against issues like abortion and euthanasia, none of which are legal in Panama and currently face no proposals trying to legalize them.

In this regard, Panama already boasts some of Latin America’s most socially conservative legislation. Last February, the Supreme Court upheld a decision affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman. In April of this year, a coalition of LGBTQ organizations asked candidates to sign a pact expanding the rights of their community, including guaranteeing support for same-sex marriage. Seven of the eight presidential candidates declined to sign the document.

In the week leading up to the elections, the Evangelical Alliance of Panama called for a day of fasting and prayer on May 1 and asked Christians to judge candidates by several criteria, including fear of God, track record of transparency, pro-life stance, defense of the traditional family, concrete solutions to issues like education and health, fight against corruption, and desire to build a better country. Corruption, and crimes related to it, appears to be a main concern for voters. Last year, previous president Martinelli, who was current candidate Mulino’s mentor, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for money laundering.

In general, Latin American evangelicals vote for right-wing candidates, but public Panamanian polls do not include a religious affiliation question, so it’s not clear which candidate will have the most support from believers.

For the hundreds of thousands crossing the jungle on foot, however, there are decisions that are more urgent—and the results from the ballot can make a difference

“We believe in God’s justice, and justice relates to the dignity of individuals, both citizens and immigrants,” said Solano Miselis.

Theology

Goodbye Postmodernism, Hello Metamodernism

Our apologetics must evolve to engage with the new cultural mood of the next generations.

Christianity Today May 6, 2024
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Getty, Unsplash

For years now, scholars have announced the death of postmodernism. After decades of dominance as a cultural mood, the famously cynical and relativistic intellectual stance is finally out. In its place, another ideological outlook is taking hold—as those of us who spend significant time with the next generations (Z and Alpha) may have noticed.

So, the question is this: What fresh dispositions of thought are taking hold—and how might Christians engage well with our evolving cultural frontier?

One term that scholars have used to identify the new cultural mood is metamodernism. First used in 1975 to describe a literary shift, the concept became more prominent in the early 2000s thanks to the work of cultural analysts Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker. In their 2010 article, “Notes on Metamodernism,” they made a convincing case for the new zeitgeist and provided a cultural analysis of its characteristics.

Metamodernism, according to Vermeulen and Van Den Akker, is a “structure of feeling” marked by “(often guarded) hopefulness and (at times feigned) sincerity”—deriving from a realization that “history is moving rapidly beyond its much proclaimed end.” While there are plenty of academic responses to their work, the term has gained little traction in the public sphere.

As a high school teacher, youth pastor, and an older member of Gen Z myself, I’ve not only grown up breathing the ideological air of metamodernism but have also seen what it looks like on the ground. It can manifest in a few tangible ways, including in what I call apocalyptic hope, inverted worldview-building, and highly narrated identities.

Apocalyptic hope (or what Vermeulen and Van Den Akker call “guarded hopefulness”) arises from and stands in contrast to the staid pessimism of postmodernism. It acknowledges that the world is in some sense “doomed” or at least in crisis, but responds to this fact with dark humor, sincere hopefulness (often expressed through irony), and a revolutionary spirit that actively rejects the passive resignation of past decades.

The next generation of young people have grown accustomed to viewing their futures in bleak terms, expecting dystopian outcomes from technologism and government overreach, natural disasters resulting from climate crisis, and global instability in the face of competing nationalist and globalist visions of the future.

Despite all this, most young people have not embraced a head-in-the-sand mentality to preserve the innocence of their youth, nor have most responded with obvious despair. Instead, my generation often faces the future with a dark joke on the outside and a fierce resolution to change the world on the inside.

In contrast to one of postmodernism’s signature aspects—what professor and cultural theorist Ag Apolloni called “the era of endings”—the metamodernist generation yearns for a new beginning.

Vermeulen and Van Den Akker described metamodernism as a realization that history isn’t over yet. If that’s true, then there’s still hope for change—which is why the next generation has a zeal for solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems. When it comes to environmental, economic, or social issues, today’s youth are far more likely to identify with a cause and to seek to act on it—perhaps in drastic ways that can look like alarmism or overreaction. Having grown up believing our future may only be saved by drastic action, it makes sense for us to greet it with a wry sense of humor and a strong drive to remake the world.

Why should this matter to the church? It matters because one of the most essential elements of a worldview is its expectations for the future. Today’s young people expect things to get worse before they get better and feel a real burden to act quickly to avert the numerous disasters that humanity has brought upon itself. And as it happens, Scripture can meaningfully speak to and resonate with this attitude.

In Romans 8, Paul writes that all creation is groaning as it awaits redemption and re-creation. This groaning is not a natural feature of our world—it is an ongoing consequence of human sin and its destructive impact on God’s good world. The Christian story of reality speaks directly to the frustration and fear that plagues the metamodernist generations: Our world is plagued by the evils that we have wrought.

Fortunately, Scripture does not stop at diagnosing the problem. The gospel also prescribes a very real solution—the promise of re-creation, inaugurated by the resurrection of Jesus, as sinners share in a foretaste of the new life found in Christ and await our own resurrection patterned after his own. Seen through this lens, the gospel gives real substance to the apocalyptic hopefulness of metamodernism.

Another key facet of real-world metamodernism is what I like to describe as inverted worldview-building.

The historic norm has been to ground our worldview in metaphysical foundations and build up to ethical conclusions. In other words, at least on paper, we start with questions of ultimate meaning before moving on to questions of temporal purpose. As philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote in After Virtue, “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’”

But among the rising metamodernist generations, it seems this conventional order has been reversed. In response to the moral relativism of postmodern predecessors, the metamodernist generation first seeks to be grounded in certain essential ethical principles and then selects the best ideological framework to match those ethics. It’s a “cart before the horse” generation, in the sense that we often base our religious or philosophical positions on prior ethical assumptions rather than the other way around.

The new impulse, then, is to work backward from a kind of ethical certainty to whichever religious claims align with the ethical outcomes preferred by one’s crowd—and to reject those with ethical outcomes that are deemed “problematic.” According to this new ethical absolutism, some discard and denounce any religious outlook that seems to produce unpopular ethical conclusions.

Where truth and morality were once dismissed as little more than personal preferences, we now see people explicitly condemning many aspects of orthodox Christian teaching for its ethical failures. This also means that postmodern “tolerance” is decidedly out of vogue. In his book Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth, Thaddeus Williams observed that “since [the 1990s] we have watched a culture that prided itself in its nonjudgmentalism turn into one of the most judgmental societies in history.”

But while it may create some new challenges for Christian evangelism, this new cultural mood is not without its benefits. After decades of shadowboxing against ideological opponents who claimed to reject any moral reality or ethical standard, the church may find it refreshing to present its truth claims to people who acknowledge our frequently immoral world rather than trying to defend a purportedly amoral one.

From an apologetic standpoint, this shift in popular ideology also demands a shift in evangelistic approach. Rather than teaching young Christians to merely defend the existence of truth, we should be teaching them to better understand and articulate the grounds and benefits of biblical ethics. In communicating with the metamodernist generation, it is vital to defend a thoroughly scriptural view of Christian ethics.

As Rebecca McLaughlin points out in her book The Secular Creed, secularists and those who have moved on from a Christian worldview based on ethical outcomes often still cling to other ethical principles (like the weak holding the strong accountable), thinking such principles are “basic moral common sense” instead of realizing that many of “these truths have come to us from Christianity.”

Much of pop-culture ethic today can be reduced to the “harm principle,” an essential component of modern liberalism articulated by philosopher John Stuart Mill. Christian philosopher Charles Taylor describes the harm principle as the notion “that no one has a right to interfere with me for my own good, but only to prevent harm to others.” Some further conflate the harm principle with the biblical ethic, imagining that all God wants is for us to refrain from hurting each other—a simplistic reimagining of the Golden Rule. When filtered through the metamodernist mood, this can lead to a forceful condemnation of Christians who teach that there is more to morality.

“The injunction ‘Thy will be done’ isn’t equivalent to ‘Let humans flourish,’” Taylor points out, “even though we know that God wills human flourishing.” Scripture does not only call us to stay out of each other’s way and otherwise do what feels natural to us—it calls us to a way of living that goes beyond what is merely “natural” and often pushes us to lay down our own desires and even our own lives. Christ calls us to be transformed, and in Taylor’s words, “This transformation involves our living for something beyond human flourishing, as defined by the natural order, whatever it be.”

The final influential component of metamodernism, as I’ve observed it, is the tendency toward highly narrated identities.

One of the biggest practical differences between the younger generations (from millennials to Gen Alpha) and their predecessors is the level of comfort and familiarity with topics of mental health and psychological development. According to the American Psychological Association, members of Gen Z are “significantly more likely (27 percent) … to report their mental health as fair or poor” and are “also more likely (37 percent) … to report that they have received treatment or therapy from a mental health professional.”

Increased comfort and familiarity with the historically stigmatized topics of mental health diagnoses and development certainly isn’t a bad thing. This rise has been correlated to increased empathy and transparency about internal struggles and is already reshaping the modern workplace. But there are also side effects, especially thanks to the distorting influence of pop psychology.

Pop psychology today includes the large-scale dissemination of psych-adjacent opinions and advice offered in bite-sized portions on social media platforms. Madison Marcus-Paddison, a trauma therapist and counselor, points out that this type of content often suffers from oversimplification, lack of context, limited professional credentials, and loss of personalization when it comes to real and complex matters of mental health.

The real-world impact of this array of positive and negative shifts is a cultural mood characterized by widespread self-diagnosis, which can produce an over-narration of one’s identity under the guise of bettering one’s mental health.

Therapist Jessica Jaramillo, who works primarily with college students at the University of Colorado, has pointed out the rampant danger among youth in self-diagnosing mental health illnesses and identifying too much with their diagnoses. Even without a technical diagnostic label, there is a tendency among young people to overanalyze their own story to explain, justify, or solve their problems.

Like other metamodernist tendencies, this movement brings with it both positive and negative cultural shifts that Christians must meaningfully engage with.

On the positive side, this shift means that young people are far more willing to speak openly about the mental and emotional challenges they face and the burdens they bear. This openness may (often) take the form of sarcastic self-deprecation, but it nonetheless represents an increased vulnerability that can be a launching point for more honest conversations—which can be an inroad for sharing the gospel.

The dark side of this shift, however, is the sense of paralysis that often accompanies it. The more you attribute your sense of self to your past negative experiences, the less possible it will seem to hope for meaningful change in the future. Perhaps this sense of fatalistic determinism helps explain why the rate of suicide has tripled for adolescents and risen nearly 80 percent for high schoolers in the last decade.

In my experience as a teacher and youth pastor, this feature of metamodernism probably has the most impact on my interactions with the students I work with daily. Buried beneath wry, self-deprecating humor, many of my students feel it is impossible to escape the flaws that their past has built into them.

Once again, however, the gospel can speak a word of hope to the metamodernist mood. You are flawed, yes; you are a sinner, incapable of simply fixing yourself and becoming the person you want to be. But God’s mercies are “new every morning” (Lam. 3:23), and there is deep and abiding hope found in Jesus, into whose image we are daily “being transformed” (2 Cor. 3:18), and one day, “we will all be changed” (1 Cor. 15:51).

Your identity today is not an inescapable trap. This does not need to minimize real pathologies and their treatment—it simply reminds us that we are more than the stories we tell about ourselves.

There is certainly more to be said about metamodernism today, but my hope is to help shift the conversation at the popular level away from an outmoded postmodern apologetic. And as we work together to proclaim the Good News in a changing world, by the grace of God, I pray we might soon see revival in the metamodern age.

Benjamin Vincent is a bi-vocational pastor and teacher in Southern California. He serves as assistant pastor at Journey of Faith Bellflower and as the department chair of history and theology at Pacifica Christian High School in Newport Beach, California.

News

Christian Radio Sues Over Disparity in Streaming Costs

Discrimination case claims that noncommercial religious broadcasters are paying far more than fellow stations to cover royalties for music played online.

Christianity Today May 6, 2024
Tanja Ivanova / Getty

The website for 99.1 JOY FM in St. Louis features a scrolling playlist of its lineup of Christian pop music and a “listen now” button to tune in to the simulcast broadcast. But visitors may find that after a few hours of streaming artists like Lauren Daigle and Brandon Lake, the site may kick them off.

Because of higher royalty costs, many noncommercial religious broadcasters are choosing to either limit the number of online listeners they allow at a time or simply not promote their online platforms at all. A new lawsuit from some of these broadcasters, including many Christian stations, claims that their royalty rate, which exceeds what other stations pay, is effectively a form of religious discrimination.

“The government is charging religious broadcasters a significantly higher rate,” said Rory Gray, with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “It suppresses religious speech in the public sphere.”

Noncommercial radio stations—which rely on listener support and grant funding rather than ad sales—have traditionally been able to negotiate lower royalty rates for the music they play. But religious broadcasters, like JOY FM’s owner, Gateway Creative Broadcasting, lost out on that deal during negotiations in 2016 with SoundExchange, the rights management company that distributes royalties to artists.

Then streaming costs for religious radio increased in 2021, following a ruling from the US Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), and Christian stations were subject to the standard rates. A suit filed in February against the board claims that due to the discrepancy in rates set by the CRB and privately negotiated rates, noncommercial religious broadcasters are forced to restrict their streams in ways other noncommercial stations, like public radio, are not.

“Noncommercial religious broadcasters are now paying rates at a commercial level,” said Gray, who serves as counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee in the case. “They just want to pay a fair rate, the same rate that the secular NPR stations are paying.”

According to ADF, noncommercial religious broadcasters are now paying a rate 18 times higher than the average rate given to NPR stations. (Both public radio and college radio stations privately negotiated deals with SoundExchange.)

Some in the Christian music industry are cheering the changes in royalty agreements since they help artists make profit. The lower rates for noncommercial religious broadcasters have historically resulted in Christian artists receiving far less royalty revenue than their mainstream peers.

In a 2023 article for Billboard magazine, Malcolm Hawker, chief operating officer for SESAC Music Group and former president and CEO of Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) said that the regulatory system around radio, especially when it comes to Christian radio, is broken.

Referring to K-LOVE’s parent company, Educational Media Foundation, Hawker said that nonprofit status obscures the reality that EMF is a financial powerhouse with over $1 billion in assets.

“This is a far cry from the small volunteer-run community stations the CRB rates are meant to protect,” Hawker wrote. “I believe that it’s inherently unfair for these networks to exploit the CRB rate structure that’s available to educational radio stations given their financial profiles and the significant amount of money they raise using music to build a large audience.”

Hawker focuses primarily on royalty structures for airtime, while the case ADF is making on behalf of religious stations has to do with royalty fees for online streaming. But the problem Hawker identifies is the same: that Christian artists generally see lower royalty revenue in part because most of the broadcasters that program their music pay noncommercial rates.

ADF says that this case isn’t about giving religious broadcasters the right to pay artists less but rather about the higher royalty rate compared to NPR stations. “If the rate was the same, we wouldn’t have a discrimination case,” said Gray.

In a statement, ADF senior counsel John Bursch said, “Religious broadcasters should have the freedom to exercise their faith and free speech without discrimination, but government officials are forcing them to pay exorbitant fees or have their constitutionally protected speech suppressed.”

NPR stations are also classified as noncommercial broadcasters and are eligible for funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which does not fund organizations whose programming “furthers the principles of particular political or religious philosophies.”

Because NPR was able to reach a private agreement with SoundExchange while the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee was not, the CRB rates apply to nonreligious commercial broadcasters but not to NPR. The CRB rates kick in for noncommercial religious stations with an average audience size of 218 listeners or more.

ADF says that this is, effectively, religious discrimination, even though SoundExchange, which is not technically a party in the lawsuit, contributed to the current state of conflict.

According to Gray, the Supreme Court will determine whether they will hear the case in mid-June. For the time being, religious broadcasters are stuck with the rates set by CRB. SoundExchange has also filed an appeal, arguing that the CRB’s 2021 ruling did not do enough to bring rates for webcasters in line with streaming services.

As the music industry struggles to adjust to a landscape dominated by streaming and social media, radio broadcasters are trying to modernize and find their place in it. Some industry veterans insist that the future of radio is online streaming, so the survival of noncommercial religious broadcasters depends on their ability to find a sustainable model under increasingly streaming-centric rules and regulations.

News

Trash Problem Pushes Pastor to Action

A Honduran church leads the way in local garbage collection while praying for an international plastics treaty.

Pastor Wilfredo Vásquez collects and sorts trash in Honduras.

Pastor Wilfredo Vásquez collects and sorts trash in Honduras.

Christianity Today May 6, 2024
Guevara Tearfund

A banner hangs outside the Church of God in the village of El Rincón, Honduras, that says, “Let’s be part of the solution, not the pollution.”

It’s a message pastor Wilfredo Vásquez posted after witnessing the harmful effects of plastics in his community.

“More and more, I understand that if we want to see changes in any area of society, we as children of God must take the initiative for those changes, because the church is the hope of the world,” he told CT.

Vásquez, who shepherds the Wesleyan-Arminian congregation in the Central American town of about 4,000 people, has started taking steps to help his community and hopes world leaders will do the same by establishing an international treaty on plastics.

From April 23 to 29, delegates from around the world met in Ottawa for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-4). It’s the fourth stage in a five-stage process working toward an agreement that has the potential to change how plastic is handled globally.

If passed, experts believe it could have a similar impact on plastic usage as the Montreal Protocol of 1987 had on chemicals such as freon.

While the final stage of the process isn’t until November in South Korea, after the most recent round of discussions in Canada, delegates from more than 150 countries agreed to begin intercessional work. Right away, delegates will start meeting to develop ways to identify plastic products and chemicals of concern.

In El Rincón, 3,600 miles away from the latest round of discussions, Vásquez is praying for the treaty’s passage.

Vásquez knows exactly what’s at stake and what a difference even small changes can make, because he’s experienced it firsthand in his village. Speaking to CT through a translator, Vásquez shared about how until recently, there was no proper recycling or waste collection in his community.

“What people do with solid waste is either they throw it, they bury it, or they burn it,” he said.

The negative impacts could be seen all around. Trash littered playgrounds and sports fields. Smoke from trash fires polluted the air and caused respiratory problems for many people, including Vásquez’s mother-in-law.

“They close the doors and the windows and keep these people isolated,” Vásquez said. “They can’t go out because of the smoke.”

Compelled by love of neighbor and the biblical command to care for creation, Vásquez decided to do something to change what he saw.

He started encouraging church members and people in the community to stop burning trash. Then the church organized community cleanups and encouraged members to use reusable cups and utensils instead of single-use plastics.

Alongside Tearfund, a Christian charity that partners with churches in more than 50 of the world’s poorest countries, the pastor talked with community leaders and the local government about the need for waste collection.

The community now has a weekly garbage pickup. In addition, youth from Vásquez’s church collect and recycle plastic, while other recyclable waste is collected at sorting points established across the community.

As a result of these changes, the village is cleaner, and those with respiratory conditions can breathe easier.

Miriam Moreno, Tearfund’s environmental and economic sustainability manager for Latin America and the Caribbean, has worked with Vásquez to help make the changes in his community. One thing Tearfund did was fund containers for sorting waste.

“It’s very inspiring to have leaders like him to be able to share his experience and what he’s done,” she said.

Like Vásquez, Moreno says it is her faith which motivates her to do this work.

“I think it’s my responsibility as a Christian, and I feel very inspired to mobilize others and to get to know what others are doing,” she said.

She and Vásquez hope to encourage similar changes in other parts of Central America.

“While the waste collection and bins being installed in El Rincón will make a big difference to this community, there are hundreds of thousands more communities like this,” she said.

She believes addressing plastic pollution through an international treaty will be a key step toward helping impoverished countries.

“Everyone has heard the problems of plastic waste and pollution,” she said. “Everyone has a technical knowledge. But something that has been missing is that connection to make people aware of our responsibility as Christians to take care of creation.”

One of the people representing Tearfund at INC-4 is Rich Gower, a senior economist for the nonprofit. As an organization that works in more than 50 of the world’s poorest countries, he said, they’ve seen firsthand how plastic disproportionately impacts those living in poverty.

He said an estimated 2 billion people worldwide have no safe way to dispose of garbage. Like El Rincón, these places have few other options but to burn or dump their plastic and other waste on street corners and in open dumps.

“The results are wide-ranging and extremely harmful—causing toxic fumes; flooding; increasing the risk of cancer and other serious diseases like heart disease, respiratory infection, and other health conditions; and also creating climate emissions,” Gower said.

A Tearfund research paper, “No Time to Waste,” found that this results in the deaths of up to 1 million people each year.

Tearfund’s team at the UN talks is calling on governments to push for a treaty that fully addresses the impacts of waste on people living in poverty by ensuring four things are mandatory in the final agreement:

  • Reduction: legally binding targets to reduce plastic production and scale up reuse solutions
  • Recycling: universal access to waste collection and recycling
  • Respect: support for waste pickers, including a just transition
  • Response: mechanisms to ensure businesses and governments take action

Gower believes Christians have an important role to play in the process.

“Christians from around the world have joined together in Tearfund’s Rubbish campaign because we believe that every person created by God should be able to live a full life free from rubbish,” he said. “The growing waste crisis is having a huge impact on the lives of people living in poverty and is also harming God’s beautiful creation.”

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution will be held November 25 through December 1. If an agreement is reached, the plastics treaty could go into effect in 2025.

News

Hillsong Abuse Settlement Rejected Over NDA

Victim says she wants accountability more than money.

Christianity Today May 3, 2024
Andrew Merry / Getty Images

Hillsong Church Australia’s legal settlement with a former student who was groped by a worship leader fell apart on Thursday when the survivor refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

“I will not give up my voice,” Anna Crenshaw, daughter of Pennsylvania megachurch pastor Ed Crenshaw, told Australian reporters. “This has never been about money for me but about justice and accountability.”

According to lawyers, one condition of the agreement was a joint statement saying the church reported the assault immediately. Crenshaw claims Hillsong—embroiled at the time in a scandal over founder Brian Houston’s failure to report his father Frank’s sexual abuse of a young boy—actually waited four or five months to contact police.

Crenshaw was studying at Hillsong College in 2016 when Jason Mays, an administrative staff member and volunteer worship leader, put his hand on her inner thigh. The young woman—18 at the time—got up to leave, but Mays, 24, grabbed her, wrapped his arms around her waist, and touched her legs, butt, and crotch, according to a statement Crenshaw wrote several years later.

“He lifted up my shirt and was kissing my stomach,” Crenshaw, now 26, said in a TV news interview. “So I’m just, like, stuck there with this guy groping me.”

Crenshaw did not immediately report the incident because, she said, she was ashamed.

She also didn’t believe she could report Mays to human resources, because the department was run by Mays’s father. Two years later, a counselor pushed her to report to someone, and Crenshaw went to the head of pastoral care, who said, “I’m sure he’s really sorry,” according to Crenshaw.

The church then assigned Crenshaw to work on a team with Mays’s wife. After several months and pressure from Crenshaw’s father, Hillsong reported the incident to local police.

Mays pleaded guilty to indecent assault in 2020. He was sentenced to two years’ probation and mandatory counseling, but no criminal conviction will go on his record.

Mays told Eternity that he accepted he “crossed a boundary” after getting very drunk. But he claimed the media blew the details out of proportion and made him out to be a monster because of its anti-Christian agenda.

“I wish my apologies had been enough,” he said. “There needs to be reconciliation. Instead, this story of ours has evolved into a weapon that’s been used against the Church.”

Mays later returned to work at Hillsong. The church told Crenshaw’s father that there were “no additional concerns” about Mays, and that “we also have an obligation to care for Jason, his wife, and family.”

Hillsong’s founder also downplayed the incident to the congregation—saying it was really just an attempt at a hug—and told them “the Lord has forgiven Jason, and we felt he deserved another chance.”

Crenshaw sued the church. She claimed negligence and breach of duty.

According to her lawsuit, the church “had no proper or adequate policy or procedure in place for the proper or adequate handling of complaints of sexual assault” and had failed to take any precautions to protect students, interns, or volunteers “from the general risk of sexual assault by its members.”

The church denied the allegations. It also claimed not to be legally liable, since Mays was not “acting in any capacity relating to his paid employment or volunteer duties with Hillsong” when he touched the student inappropriately.

The litigation was set to go to trial on Monday in New South Wales. Hillsong, however, offered to settle the case for an undisclosed sum of money, and the trial was taken off the court calendar. When the attorneys returned the following day to work out the details, though, they came to an impasse.

Hillsong required a non-disclosure agreement. Crenshaw refused.

She would not agree to “get their money and walk away without my voice,” she told reporters. She wanted “accountability and real sense of justice and hope that they would really change moving forward.”

Christian abuse victims and victims’ advocates have increasingly opposed the use of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, claiming the common legal tools called NDAs are widely misused to protect powerful institutions from accountability.

NDAs were originally designed to protect tech industry “trade secrets.” They are now used by many industries and are often written so broadly that they include anything an employee learns in the course of employment.

Many evangelical churches and ministries require staff to sign them, though it is not clear what trade secrets the organizations could have. One agreement reviewed by CT included the prohibition of the disclosure of any “information regarding ministries,” as well as the names of anyone the staff member had ever worked with, even though their names, photos, and bios were listed on the parachurch’s website. Many of the Christian NDAs seen by CT also include prohibitions against disclosing the non-disclosure agreement, cloaking even the secrecy in secrecy.

It is not clear whether these agreements would hold up in court. To date, they have not been tested.

There have been a number of recent efforts to limit the scope of NDAs. In the US, President Joe Biden signed a law saying these legal agreements cannot cover sexual assault or harassment if they are signed before the incident as part of the conditions of employment.

The UK is currently considering legislation that would say NDAs cannot prevent someone from reporting information to police, lawyers, government regulators, counselors, or close family members. The head of the justice department said, “We are bringing an end to the murky world of non-disclosure agreements, which are too often used to sweep criminality under the carpet.”

Not everyone agrees that goes far enough, though.

“We need a complete ban of NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying,” a center-left member of the UK parliament said, “to ensure that no victim is silenced.”

A group called #NDAfree was organized in 2021 to push Christian organizations to stop using NDAs and to encourage people not to sign them.

“I’m not against settlement as a process,” one of the organizers told CT. “But using payment and NDAs as a way to not investigate something, that’s totally unacceptable.”

Crenshaw, for her part, said she had been hopeful that Hillsong’s approach to accountability had changed with the departure of founder Brian Houston. The condition of an NDA as part of the settlement convinced her she was wrong.

“It’s very disheartening and devastating,” Crenshaw said. “I think this is just evidence that despite their new leadership, they have the same tactics.”

The Hillsong trial has been rescheduled on the New South Wales court calendar for May 13.

Books
Excerpt

Chinese Christians Have Conflicted Feelings About ‘Saving Face’

Though a significant part of their culture, not all feel like it best honors how God wants conflict dealt with.

Christianity Today May 3, 2024
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty

In 1997, I moved from America to China to teach English and study Mandarin. I ended up working there for 15 years. While in the country, I ran an organization with team members of diverse ages, cultures, and ethnicities. Just like in the United States, I discovered that many interpersonal conflicts in China are left unaddressed and unresolved.

Changing Normal: Break Through Barriers to Pursuing Peace in Relationships

On my team, two Chinese colleagues resisted working together due to past conflicts that had never been addressed. A local pastor in my community told me about a pastor and an elder of a church who didn’t speak to each other for months due to a church split.

The term that most mainland Chinese people associate with conflict is maodun (矛盾) according to research conducted by Stonehill College’s communications professor Xuejian Yu. Maodun is typically perceived as something negative and destructive that should be minimized or dealt with through an avoidant or evasive nonconfrontational manner, thus preventing the loss of “face” or any experience of shame for all involved.

The Chinese words for “face” are mianzi (面子) and lian (脸). They refer to each individual’s perception or awareness of his or her own reputation in the eyes of others, which then forms the basis for one’s personal sense of integrity, honor, shame, prestige, and dignity. (For simplicity’s sake, I have combined the meanings of mianzi and lian in my description of face.)

In a broader context, face is “the pervasive human attempt to establish a sense of worth and meaning (‘esteem’) and to find acceptance (esteem that is ‘social’),” describes American missiologist Chris Flanders. Simply put, individuals possess face when they believe they are solid and respected in their identities, perceive that their reputations are intact, and feel accepted and socially affirmed as having value to others and their communities.

I interviewed 31 believers from 13 different urban city churches in China and discovered that many consider face as a negative and significant hindrance to living the Christian life. (All the names of the Chinese Christians quoted here are pseudonyms for security reasons.)

“Face doesn’t help reconciliation at all,” said Wang Min, a pastor’s wife from western China. “If no one else is present to mediate and a person has been shamed in a group, they will not reconcile because they feel like they have lost face. Even if they were clearly wrong, they won’t admit it.” “When a person is paying attention to face, they would rather die before reconciling. Or they reconcile at the surface level, only reconciling in response to the pressure of someone else being present,” Wang added. These findings led me to ask, How does the Bible speak into the concept of face in Chinese contexts? To what degree does giving, saving, or losing face in conflict contribute to or hinder reconciliation in this particular culture?

A theology of face

The concept of face is not bad, negative, or a hindrance, argues Flanders, the American missiologist. Our preoccupation with face is not a result of sin entering the world at the Fall but was present in a positive way pre-Fall, he adds.

God created us in his image (Gen. 1:26–27), which is by nature a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are hardwired to desire peaceful, joyful, and harmonious connections with others in community.

Face is a gift from God that structures each one’s identity and relationality at a basic level. Giving and receiving acceptance and affirmation of value through the mechanism of face establishes harmony in a communal sense, which is how God intended things to be.

Only when Adam and Eve disobeyed God did they feel afraid and view their nakedness as something shameful to be hidden (Gen. 3:7). Instead of coming to God, confessing their sin, and seeing what God would do, they hid, no longer connecting or getting their “face needs” met through the face of God.

From that point on, people have used negative face-saving strategies, such as avoidance and denial, to respond to situations in which they feel shame, embarrassment, and loss of face.

Based on this understanding of the origin of face and its relational purpose, I argue that we don’t need to get beyond face or get rid of the concept in Chinese Christian contexts. Rather, we need to look to God instead of people to meet our fundamental face needs for love, value affirmation, esteem, honor, and acceptance.

Nevertheless, face remains a fragile concept today since we can gain or lose face at any moment. When people disagree with us, raise concerns, or point out our mistakes or sin, we unconsciously sense that our reputations are in jeopardy. We get defensive and angry. We feel a need to prove our positions or protect ourselves.

Unmasking cultural beliefs

In face-conscious societies, losing face is a serious issue and can affect a person’s ability to function effectively in social settings. While it may sometimes be isolated to only one relationship, the loss of face may also impact a person’s relationship with a whole community. For instance, divorce is often perceived as something shameful that brings dishonor to one’s parents and impacts their esteem in the larger community.

Face is something that others can give to you, based on your relative positions in your social networks and on how well you conduct yourself in those positions. To give or save face shows respect and boosts one’s self-esteem.

People commonly give face to others through compliments on diligence, status, beauty, wisdom, or elegance and by complying when asked to do something. When critiquing someone’s performance, people save that person’s face by avoiding direct criticism, using tactful or ambiguous words instead. Showing respect for someone’s suggestion or position, even if one does not agree with the person, also saves face.

The common thought is that by saving face for others, one can prevent conflicts, and that by giving face to others, one can enhance interpersonal relationships.

“In Chinese culture, face is very important, especially for men,” explained Li Jie, a math teacher from western China. “A man is supposed to display his position in society, so from those in the very top of the government to the very lowest in the household, men especially want face.

“As a result, face has caused a lot of conflicts. I pretty much have never truly reconciled with someone. Every time, our reconciliation has strictly been to maintain face, meaning that on the surface level, everything looks fine and we are speaking with one another, but in fact, we have not reconciled.”

As Li Jie pointed out, reconciliation is often superficial in a face-oriented culture. Although people may behave politely toward one another after a conflict and cooperate again, their relationship remains distant or broken.

A deeper and truer heart-level reconciliation, where genuine harmony is present or being cultivated, seems less prominent in Chinese contexts. This is when two people hold “positive perceptions of each other” and interact “in a sincere, trustful, active, supportive, accepting, and natural manner,” describes Li-Li Huang, a professor of social and indigenous psychology in Taiwan. Genuine harmony looks like two people who are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Building a face-safe community

Relating to each other in this spirit of genuine harmony is meant to be a hallmark of Christian community. Likewise, a face-safe community is intended to be a loving environment in which we can honestly confess sins and discuss grievances instead of ignoring them.

But in Chinese culture, confessing our sins and apologizing to one another is perceived as something that will cause a loss of face. Doing so between people of equal status, such as friends or coworkers, includes some degree of losing face. Yet this is exacerbated between people of superior and inferior status—think father and son, or boss and subordinate. It is thought that someone of superior status should not apologize to someone inferior because of the hierarchical Confucian notions of positional power and authority. The subordinate is to obey and defer to the superior and to stay silent and submit in times of conflict.

Chinese Christians are thus confronted with a big conundrum: Culturally speaking, confession results in face loss, but in God’s kingdom culture, to reconcile is to apologize and confess, no matter your age or position.

After all, God doesn’t give or save face. He doesn’t pretend everything is fine relationally when it is not. God genuinely loves, values, and forgives us. He calls us to acknowledge our mistakes and transgressions (Ps. 32; 103:8–14) and purposefully addresses our innermost issues so we can be transformed (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18).

Apologizing merely to save face does not acknowledge one’s complicity in the situation. It strives to protect the person’s own honor and esteem. In contrast, giving a “confession apology” does not excuse, explain, or defend. Rather, it acknowledges the hurt that the other person feels and takes responsibility for one’s own contribution to the conflict. This might entail losing face, but when done sincerely in face-to-face conversations, we can also gain valuable gifts such as mutual understanding and empathy.

In short, when we don’t fear losing face because our identities are rooted in Christ and not in the eyes of others, our community can turn into a “face-safe” place where hierarchy and power differentials do not impede opportunities to reconcile.

After Chen Meizhen, a counselor in western China, apologized to a subordinate, she discovered that her face was not impacted the way she had feared it would be. “I originally thought that if I, the leader, apologized, I might become lower than my coworker,” Chen said. “I would worry and wonder, Will she look down on me? But after I truly apologized, she didn’t look down on me! She still respected me.”

Su Lijuan, a woman in marketing and sales in northern China, went so far as to say that genuinely apologizing restores one’s face: “What I knew to be true has been turned upside down. Previously, I thought that any time you apologize, the result will be a loss of face. However, if you can sincerely apologize, you actually restore your own face, your own dignity and honor.”

As people who have had our face needs met in God, we can “image” God’s face to each other. Instead of shaming, scolding, lecturing, or viewing ourselves as inferior when we acknowledge a mistake or confess sin, we can learn to accept, love, forgive, and support one another to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11, NLT).

Amid the cultural pressures to save or give face to preserve superficial harmony, a face-safe community becomes a place where authentic, heart-level reconciliation can occur. The reconciliation process often starts with apologizing but does not end there. Confessing our sin, acknowledging harm, making reparations for damage done, and changing our behavior, together with granting and receiving forgiveness, are ways in which genuine reconciliation can take place. When our fundamental face needs are met first in Christ, we can courageously be kingdom-minded peacemakers in a face-conscious society.

This excerpt was adapted from Changing Normal: Break Through Barriers to Pursuing Peace in Relationships by Jolene Kinser. Copyright © 2024 by Jolene Kinser. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

Theology

Conservative Methodists, Unite

After this week’s UMC votes on LGBTQ issues, African Methodists should join American conservatives in the new Global Methodist denomination.

A sign outside the Charlotte Convention Center promoting the United Methodist Church General Conference.

A sign outside the Charlotte Convention Center promoting the United Methodist Church General Conference.

Christianity Today May 3, 2024
Chris Carlson / AP Images

That was fast. In the first General Conference since the most conservative congregations disaffiliated, the United Methodist Church liberalized its teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy.

In other mainline denominations, like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA), the conservative exodus has tended to come after the progressive victory. But in the UMC, the conservative American contingent is already gone, so the vote wasn’t close.

With that settled, the next and perhaps final battle between American Methodists who have been on opposite sides of theological and social issues for more than half a century will concern who can win over the Africans, who have been the “main group opposing the changes in policy” on sexuality and are also the largest UMC contingent outside the United States. The breakaway conservative denomination called itself the Global Methodist Church in no small part because members hoped to remain in fellowship with churches in the Global South, where Methodism is more orthodox—and growing as Methodism in the US hasn’t in years.

But the United Methodist Church has also set in motion a plan to allow regional autonomy on the very issues that broke up the denomination domestically. This would permit African churches to remain traditional in how they define marriage and—so the pitch goes—otherwise insulate themselves from the Americans’ liberal course.

African Methodists have previously rejected similar proposals, likely understanding how such rules would dilute African churches’ influence over the denomination and exempt leaders of the shrinking US church from accountability to their African counterparts. They would be wise to reject the plan again.

I give that advice as a conservative Methodist myself—and one facing a similar quandary over denominational affiliation. For now, I remain a United Methodist. My church is theologically traditional but fell short of the congregational vote threshold to disaffiliate, and there’s no Global Methodist presence in my area.

Yet, longer term, I see no future for conservatives of any nationality in this denomination. With so many evangelical congregations and much of the organized resistance to theological liberalism gone, the trajectory displayed in this week’s conference votes will only accelerate.

A better path, as we near the end of the mainline, would be continued connection between the African and American Methodists who together prevented the UMC from going down this road for more than 50 years. Global Methodists have an opportunity to inherit the most vibrant parts of United Methodism while disentangling from its outdated bureaucracy. More importantly, they have a chance to provide an orthodox Wesleyan witness that is compromised neither by liberalism nor by fundamentalism.

The UMC held together as long as it did because it was orthodox on paper but progressive in practice, except in jurisdictions where traditionalists were numerically prevalent. But eventually, liberals who saw prohibitions on same-sex marriage as morally equivalent to racial discrimination could no longer live with even nominal orthodoxy. And conservatives could no longer watch those prohibitions being routinely flouted without consequence.

Yet our divides were never solely about same-sex relationships. When Methodists began debating homosexuality in 1972, it was a reliable proxy for beliefs about biblical authority and the Christian understanding of love. Today, I still believe liberalizing on sexual morality reflects an errant, culture-conforming view of Scripture and tradition, but I also think Methodists have other pressing questions to address—questions that sometimes cut across lines of debate over gay marriage and related topics.

Today there are more Methodists who passionately disagree with each other on LGBTQ questions while being able to recite the creeds together without crossing their fingers. And there are Methodists who are slipping away from very basic doctrines about Christ and Scripture. If we can complete the denominational split and welcome the African churches into Global Methodism, perhaps conservative Methodists can set aside decades-long sexuality debates and focus instead on core theological matters—and the broader work of the church—without compromising on marriage or abortion.

That vision is particularly appealing because many of us on the conservative side have come to believe we were not ambitious enough. Over a long period of time and with considerable effort, even without real executive authority to expedite the process, maybe we could have gradually transformed the UMC from a center-left denomination with a strong evangelical subculture to a (mildly) center-right one with a strong liberal subculture.

That opportunity, if it existed, has passed. But now, perhaps, we can do even better by going our separate ways. I was recently at a dinner outside Washington, DC, with longtime combatants in the fight for Methodist renewal. Many expressed their wonderment and relief now that the fight was “lost”—that they could now follow conscience and conviction without active resistance from progressive church leaders.

Just a few years ago, they would have been hunkering down to do battle at the General Conference, an experience a pastor friend once described to me as being like attending the Republican and Democratic National Conventions at the same time. Now, conservative Methodists are free to practice an orthodox faith marked by the distinctive parts of our Wesleyan heritage.

There’s no guarantee that conservative Methodists will flourish, of course. But the new beginning offers real promise, and our prospects will be better if our African brothers and sisters join us. Global Methodism is continuing a tradition that shares their values and biblical perspective, and membership from the Global South is vital to the church we’ve sought to build together for so long.

W. James Antle III is executive editor of the Washington Examiner magazine.

News

The Anonymous Buyer of One of World’s Oldest Books? The Green Collection.

Scholars worried that the text had disappeared from the public, but the Crosby-Schøyen Codex is now on display at the Museum of the Bible.

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is one of the oldest examples of a book.

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is one of the oldest examples of a book.

Christianity Today May 3, 2024
Courtesy of Christie's Images Ltd. 2024

Key Updates

August 5, 2025

The buyer of one of the oldest books in existence is no longer anonymous, and the book is viewable by the public after scholars fretted that it had disappeared into unknown private hands. 

The Green Collection, connected to the Museum of the Bible, revealed that it purchased the Crosby-Schøyen Codex, which contains what is perhaps the earliest complete versions of Jonah and 1 Peter, at an auction last year.

The codex is now on display at the Museum of the Bible, making it available to the public for the first time since 1988, the museum said. 

“These sacred texts provide incredible insight into early Christianity,” said Bobby Duke, chief curatorial officer at Museum of the Bible, in a statement.

The Green family, evangelicals who own Hobby Lobby, have one of the largest collections of biblical texts in the world.  

The Green Collection is in the process of transferring ownership of the codex to the museum, according to a spokesperson for the museum. The museum plans to digitize the text and put it online.

Scholars had worried when the book went on the auction block that it might disappear into private hands—making it impossible to study or to know if it was properly preserved. 

The museum exhibit on its fourth floor has seven pages from the codex on display, from Jonah, 1 Peter, 2 Maccabees, an Easter sermon, and a Passover sermon from Melito of Sardis. 

“The Crosby Schøyen Codex invites us into the world of Coptic Christianity during or immediately after what modern Copts would perceive as their tradition’s formative origin, namely the ascension of Diocletian in AD 284 and the Era of the Martyrs,” said Christian Askeland, a New Testament scholar who works for the Green Collection, in an email. “The peculiar compilation of texts relate to Christ’s sufferings (and therefore Easter) and sufferings more generally. … People who used this codex understood firsthand what it meant to die for their faith.” 

June 11, 2024

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex sold in London on Tuesday for $3.9 million to an anonymous phone bidder after several rounds of back-and-forth bids in the afternoon sale at Christie’s. A Christie’s auctioneer and expert on the ancient texts, Eugenio Donadoni, conducted the auction, telling the room the codex was “one of the cultural monuments of this sale.” Scholars and the public will not know the ownership of the prized text for now, but it’s possible the new owner or owners could reveal themselves at some point. If an institution purchased the codex, as scholars hoped, it’s more likely that would become public.

May 3, 2024

One of the oldest books in existence, which contains what is perhaps the oldest complete versions of Jonah and 1 Peter, is going up for auction in June. The sale of the Crosby-Schøyen Codex has scholars excited to talk about its uniqueness—and nervous about whether it could go into private hands and disappear.

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is a primary example of the invention of books, which coincided with the spread of Christianity, said Eugenio Donadoni, a specialist in books and manuscripts at Christie’s London, which is auctioning the codex. The growth of Christianity spurred the need to “maximize the text you can write down and transmit … around the Mediterranean,” Donadoni said.

Before codices appeared in roughly the third century, scrolls “for several thousand years were the primary vehicle for transmitting literature,” said Brent Nongbri, an expert in early Christian manuscripts and a professor at the Norwegian School of Theology.

Codices were a technological advancement that “that wouldn’t be surpassed until the discovery of the printing press,” Donadoni added. Donadoni just finished touring the codex for potential buyers in New York and Paris before returning it to London, where it will be auctioned on June 11. About the codex he said, “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

A single scribe wrote out the texts of the codex on papyrus leaves in Sahidic Coptic somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350, according to carbon dating of the codex conducted in 2020. That means it’s likely the text was written before the fourth-century church councils and during the time of the great persecutions.

“This is being used at a time when Christians are still finding their feet,” said Donadoni.

The codex contains Jonah, 1 Peter, a passage from 2 Maccabees, a Passover text from second-century church leader Melito of Sardis, and an Easter sermon.

New Testament scholar David Horrell has argued that these different texts in the codex relate to each other in how they talk about suffering and resurrection, and may have been an Easter liturgy. Melito’s text on the Passover talks about Christ as the Passover lamb and uses parallel language to 1 Peter. Jonah, some scholars argue, was a major figure in early Christianity in Egypt and repeatedly appeared in Christian art there.

Horrell notes Jonah’s “perceived relevance as a type of the Easter story, a sign of resurrection, notably in the ‘three days and three nights’ Jonah spends inside the fish.” The Maccabees text, focused on martyrdom, goes along with that liturgical theme of the suffering of both Christ and God’s people.

“We can slip into thinking that there’s just the New Testament—this particular collection of books—and that’s what everybody was reading,” said Nongbri. “But when we get back into this early period, there’s actually different collections circulating. And this one is an interesting group of texts and allows us to imagine, What would have this been used for? … What kind of liturgical use might this have had?”

The codex comes from the private collection of Norwegian Martin Schøyen, who has one of the largest collections of biblical texts. Some of the other largest biblical-text reserves are the Green Collection behind the Museum of the Bible and the British and Foreign Bible Society collection at Cambridge.

Museums and private collectors have had issues with ancient items’ provenance, like whether they were looted. The codex has a documented provenance and was a legal export out of Egypt, although the story of its original discovery is “open for debate,” said Nongbri. Yet Donadoni says there is “general consensus” that the codex was found near a particular monastic complex in Egypt.

The codex was buried in a jar in sand, according to the collector. An antiquities dealer first placed it on the market in the 1950s, and it eventually went to the University of Mississippi in 1955, which had a large archaeology department at the time. The university sold it in 1981, and then it passed to private collectors.

If the codex was from the earlier end of its carbon dating between 250 and 350, that would make it the oldest book, including the oldest copies of 1 Peter and Jonah. William Willis, an early scholar studying the codex, argued that “it may be dated with some confidence to the middle of the third century,” or 250.

But if it was produced at a monastery, then it likely came at the later end of the carbon-dating window, according to Nongbri, because monasteries took off in the fourth century.

Other scholars have argued that it could have been produced earlier and stored at the monastery where it was later discovered. Horrell, for one, argued the codex was produced before the monastery was founded.

Is it the oldest book in existence?

“It could be,” said Nongbri. “But it’s not certain.”

In the codex, the 1 Peter text is described as “the letter of Peter” and does not make any reference to 2 Peter. The Schøyen Collection says that means it was copied in A.D. 60–130, making it the “single most important [manuscript] of 1 Peter.”

Christie’s estimates the codex will sell for $2.5 to $3.75 million. Last year the Codex Sassoon, considered the oldest near-complete Hebrew Bible, broke records for the sale of a book or historical document when it sold at auction for $38.1 million.

Scholars worry about where the codex will end up.

“There’s always the fear when something goes up for sale … it could go behind doors that would make it hard for researchers to access it,” said Jordan Jones, an expert in biblical texts and archaeology at the University of Iowa.

Nongbri concurred: “We just worry about it disappearing.”

Nongbri and Donadoni both noted that the Schøyen Collection allowed scholars in to study the codex, with the carbon-dating study as the most recent example. The Schøyen Collection had photographed the codex, and Christie’s also photographed and digitized it.

But there is more research to conduct on it with newer imaging tools. Jones noted how multispectral imaging, for example, helped researchers see words no one had seen on the Dead Sea Scrolls. That hasn’t been done on the codex, he said.

“Researchers would have a field day [with the codex] if they got a chance,” Jones said. “These pages are in a better state of legibility than the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

Multispectral imaging could show any changes made to the text, such as whether there was initially a different word under the visible word, Jones explained. He also said there could be more studies on the way the codex was bound.

There’s definitely more to look at from a sort of book history standpoint,” said Nongbri. “Certainly multispectral imaging would be great.”

Donadoni from Christie’s London said he is hoping an institution steps in to buy the codex. The auction will include other biblical texts: the Holkham Hebrew Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus, and the Geraardsbergen Bible. In the Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus, the Gospels were written in fifth-century Christian Palestinian Aramaic that was largely erased and written over by a tenth-century Georgian Palestinian monk.

Scholars of these texts will be watching the auction on June 11—and hope that they might know who the buyer is afterward. Sometimes buyers are not disclosed.

Nongbri said any major university that has a papyrus collection has the proper conditions for storing the codex, the personnel to care for it, and the systems for academics to study it.

“That’s the ideal setting for something like this,” he said.

This article has been updated to clarify that the fourth century church councils were not establishing biblical canon.

Theology

Why Almost Nobody Likes a Politician Shooting Her Dog

The widespread outrage over Kristi Noem’s book should awaken moral responsibility—not just toward pets but for one another.

Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota.

Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota.

Christianity Today May 3, 2024
Bloomberg / Contributor / Getty / Edits by CT

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

Decades ago, before he was a nationally recognized face, Stephen Colbert featured a “Better Know a District” segment on his show The Colbert Report in which he would parody a far-right cable news host as he interviewed members of Congress, trying to get them in awkward situations for comedic effect.

In his interview with John Yarmuth, then a congressman from Louisville, Kentucky, Colbert referenced Yarmuth’s past life as a debater on local television. He challenged Yarmuth to show his debating chops by instantly debating the opposite side of a question of Colbert’s choosing. The stance Colbert chose to take was that throwing kittens into a wood chipper was a bad thing to do—and he then pointed to Yarmuth to argue the other side—that sometimes, throwing kittens in a wood chipper is the right thing to do.

The joke, of course, was that no decent human being, much less a politician seeking votes from a majority of the population, would ever want to be seen making the case for throwing kittens in a wood chipper. This past week, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem proved that, as much as the American public has shifted on all kinds of issues, there still isn’t much of a constituency in this country for “Throw Kittens in the Wood Chipper”—or, more accurately in this case, “Shoot Puppies in the Head.”

In fact, many people have noted that this might be the most united that Americans of both parties and all tribes have been of late—all in expressing revulsion at Noem’s self-disclosure in her memoir that she “hated” her 14-month-old dog Cricket. When Cricket wasn’t trained enough to hunt pheasants instead of chickens, then bit the governor, Noem shot the dog and buried her in a gravel pit.

There’s little question that Noem won’t be gunning down her next pet from the vice-presidential residence at the Naval Observatory. That’s obvious. What’s less obvious is why, even with all of our moral divisions, this kind of story can still call forth such strong emotions in most people.

Michael Knowles, a commentator at The Daily Wire, argued that the outrage over Noem’s boast of her dog-killing skills is just one more example of liberal elitism. Urban progressives are the ones who treat pets like children, he said, sometimes pushing their dogs or cats down city streets in baby strollers.

To some degree, he’s right. I can’t imagine a soul where I grew up, in the little Woolmarket community of Biloxi, Mississippi, ever putting a dog in a baby carriage. That said, Knowles’s argument could only come from an urban dweller who knows no more about rural America than the people he lampoons. It had the feel of The Office’s Michael Scott—after getting caught undressing in his office—telling receptionist Pam that “European offices are naked all the time.” Pam replies, “They’re so not.”

Yes, rural Americans often don’t rely on veterinarians to euthanize their sick pets. Sometimes, a quick, merciful shooting—rather than an injection—is, in fact, how someone will “put down” a dog suffering with distemper or rabies or cancer. It does not follow, though, that most people—rural, urban, or suburban—would kill a pet for not being trained properly (or a cow for not producing enough milk, etc.).

So why does this story evoke such strong emotion—enough to shoot a politician’s political career in the face in front of the whole world?

A friend texted me that question on day three of the news story. He wasn’t for gunning down puppies, but how, he wondered, with all that’s happening—including the potential for World War III erupting from Gaza or Ukraine or Iran or Taiwan—would this be such a big story?

Other people would point out that there’s so much human suffering that we put out of our mind. Those who believe (as do I) that abortion is a violent act, or those who believe (as do I) that some capital punishment techniques are inhumane, might wonder why a puppy can unite us in recognizing cruelty when these other things do not.

That’s a good question. It might be that recognizing animal cruelty is not necessarily a replacement for a concern for (vastly more important) human dignity, but it might be a starting point for recognizing a greater truth.

As much as some caricature the Bible’s picture of humanity as the crowning point of creation as being the origin of a rapacious mistreatment of the earth—including animals—almost no one really believes that animal life and human life are equal in moral value or moral accountability.

When the ethics entity I led came out for legislation banning animal fighting (such as when one gambles on which pit bull or which rooster will kill the other), a very concerned church lady let us know that she thought it was a waste of time. “Animals don’t know what the law is,” she said. “If they want to fight, they just fight.”

We had to explain that the bill was not to penalize animals in the wild from fighting each other. She misunderstood the bill, but her intuitions were in the right place. We find Kristi Noem shooting Cricket to be morally weighty in a way we don’t find Cricket killing chickens. Human beings are morally responsible creatures in a unique way—including in the way we treat our fellow creatures.

The Bible tells us so. When Jesus said that a human life is worth “more than many sparrows” (Luke 12:7), he did so in the context of saying that not one of those sparrows is forgotten or unnoticed by God (v. 6). In fact, the Bible itself shows us that we are designed to see a parallel between animal creatures and ourselves in some key respects.

The apostle Paul references the command “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” as an analogy for paying those who labor within the church their just wages (1 Tim. 5:18). The entire Old Testament sacrificial system is about seeing something morally significant, though not ultimate, in the shed blood of bulls and lambs in a way that would not be the same with, say, an offering of wheat or of bread.

God commanded the people of Israel under Moses—just as he would before in the days of Noah and afterward with the early Christian church—not to eat the blood of an animal: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11).

We learn to recognize the Lamb of God through thousands of years of God’s people seeing, well, actual lambs.

We recognize this created analogy when things go horribly wrong with the way people treat animals. Almost every story about a serial killer’s childhood includes the torture of animals. Consciences that are seared in some things often move to greater and greater things. The loss of the ability to wince at the sight of a suffering animal is often an early sign of a similar loss of conscience at the pain of other human beings.

By contrast, how many of us grew up better able to care for and love other human beings because we loved and took care of a Labrador retriever or some guinea pigs?

Children starving in Gaza are more important than dogs and cats. Vulnerable unborn human life is of more significance than that of pets. The poor should compel us to compassion more so than cruelty to animals. That human beings are more important does not mean, though, that the lives of animals are not important.

Part of the fallenness of this world is that, as sinners, we seek to make invisible whatever we as human beings don’t want to see. When we don’t want to see the suffering of a poor Lazarus under the table or a beaten man off the road to Jericho, we turn away.

Often, our proximity to the pets we love means that we don’t sinfully protect ourselves from seeing them. We wince when we hear of cruelty to them because we aren’t expecting it, and we can imagine it.

Rather than denouncing the inconsistency here—of loving sparrows more than people—perhaps we should do it the other way around. Maybe we should note that we all seem to rightly recognize that we should treat our pets without cruelty—and then we might ask ourselves why we do not extend an even more emphatic moral responsibility for one another.

We live in a world of moral numbness, of human cruelty. We disagree on matters that should be obvious to any functioning conscience. When we see an exception to that, we should note it and be glad.

We seem to still know that shooting a puppy and throwing kittens into a wood chipper is a bad thing to do. We should try to ask why we notice it and seek to build on that.

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

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