The Iowa Evangelical Betting Against Trump

Bob Vander Plaats wants Christian voters to move on from Trump. Are they still listening?

Bob Vander Plaats, president and chief executive officer of The Family Leader

Bob Vander Plaats, president and chief executive officer of The Family Leader

Christianity Today January 9, 2024
Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images

In the lead-up to the first caucus in the presidential race, GOP hopefuls barnstorm Iowa, turning up at town halls, cornfields, schools, the state fair, and Bob Vander Plaats’s house.

He and wife Darla have welcomed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, and entrepreneur and political newcomer Vivek Ramaswamy. DeSantis, Ramaswamy, and Sen. Tim Scott (who has since suspended his presidential campaign) also visited his church, Soteria Des Moines, a Baptist congregation in the state’s capital.

Vander Plaats is head of The Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative Christian nonprofit with ties to Focus on the Family. He has built up a winning streak picking out the past three GOP caucus winners in his state—Mike Huckabee in 2008, Rick Santorum in 2012, and Ted Cruz in 2016—and holds one of the most-coveted Republican endorsements.

“Bob Vander Plaats is a kingmaker,” said Jim Tillotson, president of Faith Baptist Bible College in nearby Ankeny. “I would think his endorsement carries a lot of weight.”

Vander Plaats, though, tends to downplay his influence. “It’s not my endorsement,” the 60-year-old told Christianity Today. “It’s more that I’ve had a front-row seat to this entire process.”

In the lead-up to the caucuses, when he wasn’t brushing shoulders with candidates or hosting them during The Family Leader events, Vander Plaats was working from a nondescript office park in Urbandale, Iowa, where the ministry is headquartered.

His office is crowded with traces of his Iowa roots: a card with “I heart basketball” recalls his days on Northwestern College’s Red Raiders team, and a flip calendar displays family photos. A round tin with Wilhelmina peppermints, an homage to his Dutch heritage, is within arm’s reach on the table he uses as a desk.

American flags are everywhere: Some small ones on a desktop stand, several draped over a couch, another printed on a cushion. Behind him, a small flag waves near the US Capitol in a painting by Texas-born artist G. Harvey, released by Focus on the Family. It’s titled Time of Hope.

This year, Vander Plaats is holding out hope. Though the polls in his state show former president Donald Trump leading the field by over 30 points, he has backed DeSantis, believing him to have better odds at beating Joe Biden in November.

“I do see a big shift coming by January 15,” the day of the caucus, Vander Plaats said. “If I happened to believe otherwise, I wouldn’t have endorsed him. I think Ron DeSantis can win.”

While The Family Leader doesn’t endorse presidential candidates, Vander Plaats takes his personal endorsement seriously, seeking counsel from his family and close friends and talking to God before announcing his pick.

“We’ve bathed this in prayer, probably since the 2020 election,” he said, “that God would raise up the one that we know that … we should rally behind.”

The Family Leader invites Iowans to join in that outpouring of election prayer, offering a 14-day prayer and fasting devotional around the 2024 race.

When asked what he is looking for in the next president, Vander Plaats slips into preacher mode, referencing Micah 6:8 in describing a leader who would “seek justice, but to love mercy and walk humbly with our God, and, really, to find a shepherd today.”

Vander Plaats pulled from the parable of the lost sheep in the Gospel of Matthew to talk about the high call of leadership.

“A shepherd will lay down their life for the flock. A shepherd puts the cause of the flock above himself all the time,” he said. “I think America, but also the world, would be well served if we had a shepherd in the role of government that we could all look up to and say, That’s leadership.”

https://twitter.com/bobvanderplaats/status/1723054786155626825

The lifelong Iowan grew up in the faith, attending a Christian high school and a small Reformed Church in America college in Iowa called Northwestern. His career began as a high school accounting teacher. Eventually, he became a high school principal in his hometown of Sheldon.

During that time in the ’90s, his school district and another were sued by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union over a student-organized effort to lead commencement prayer. Vander Plaats recalls the federal district court judge questioning him during the case about his background, since he went to Christian schools. Vander Plaats told his alma mater that he got the impression the judge “thought my purpose was to proselytize.” The school districts won on appeal.

The birth of Vander Plaats’s third son in 1993 caused his life to take a turn, and he became more involved in pro-life and pro-family causes. Lucas Vander Plaats had a rare brain disorder resulting in lifelong physical and mental disabilities that required 24-hour care.

A few years after Lucas was born, Vander Plaats became CEO of Opportunities Unlimited, an Iowa organization that assists people with disabilities. He shared his son’s story and his testimony of God’s presence in the midst of suffering in a book published by Focus on the Family in 2007; Joni Eareckson Tada wrote the foreword.

Lucas was a “miracle” who caused the family to look “beyond where we were,” Vander Plaats told Northwestern after his son passed away in 2021 at age 28.

As he became more interested in pro-family policy, Vander Plaats’s interest turned to the public square. In 2002, 2006, and 2010, he mounted gubernatorial bids. Each came up short, including withdrawing in 2006 to run for lieutenant governor.

But instead of vanishing from the public eye, his influence continued to grow. In 2008, he chaired Mike Huckabee’s winning campaign in Iowa. He spearheaded a successful effort in 2010 to oust three members of the Iowa Supreme Court who had voted to overturn a previous state law that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriages.

That same year, he took on the role of president and CEO of The Family Leader. The Iowa group wants to see Christians engage the government with a pro-family gospel witness. It puts on programs to connect pastors and lawmakers, holds prayer events, and produces voter resources around policies and candidates.

https://x.com/bobvanderplaats/status/1741556126695473658

The organization has continued to punch above its weight in a state where churchgoing voters are a powerful bloc. Seventy-seven percent of Iowans are Christians, including 28 percent that are evangelical. In the 2016 caucuses, 62 percent of Republicans who participated in entrance polls in Iowa self-identified as white evangelical Christians.

But white evangelicals aren’t the same group as they were back then. Over Trump’s presidency, more of his supporters began to identify as evangelical whether they were consistent churchgoers or not.

“People who love their church and believe in God, but haven’t been typical churchgoers—he’s brought those people into the fold,” Pastors for Trump founder Jackson Lahmeyer told The New York Times, which noted that Iowa’s church attendance dropped by 13 percent, more than any other state, per the US Religion Census.

These self-identified evangelicals may be less likely to look to organizations like The Family Leader during campaign season.

“The Family Leader in Christian circles is known. But, you know, the average Republican churchgoer, who is Christian but maybe isn’t an activist, isn’t maybe even familiar with The Family Leader or with Vander Plaats by name,” said Jeff Taylor, an Iowa state senator and political science professor at Dordt University in Sioux Center.

Taylor noted that the “the endorsements that DeSantis has gotten haven’t changed the dynamics for him.”

At a Trump rally in Coralville, Iowa, in December, Iowa voter Peggy Fleakei told CT she’s locked in on her support for Trump. She said the former president “stands for so much of our American values, Christianity, our rights as Americans.”

Vander Plaats recognizes that most of his fellow Iowa evangelicals agree, so his approach is to convince them that they’re “not being disloyal to him by going to Gov. DeSantis,” who he believes has a better chance in the general election.

He compared the scenario to another upset a couple years ago. When Iowa’s longtime incumbent Republican congressman Steve King lost influence in the wake of a series of offensive comments around race and white supremacy, Vander Plaats threw his support behind King’s primary challenger, a relatively unknown state senator.

Though he had been a supporter of King’s, Vander Plaats chalked the change up to a “growing fatigue” with King, whose “voice is no longer desired at the table.” If the scandal-laden politician made it to the general election, Vander Plaats argued, it could put “everybody that’s on the ballot with him … at risk.” In 2020, the state senator, Randy Feenstra, bested King to win the primary. The political newcomer also easily won the general election.

Vander Plaats wants to repeat that in 2024. Like he did with King, Vander Plaats draws his argument along largely pragmatic lines. Americans “want to turn the page from an 80-year-old generation to the next generation, and have somebody who can lead and serve for two terms, not one,” Vander Plaats told CT.

Vander Plaats is bullish that Iowa polling is getting it wrong, and that Trump’s support may be more fragile than it appears: “Iowa always, always, always breaks late. I believe they’re going to break late again,” he told CT.

He has records to point to; in the 2015 presidential cycle, Ted Cruz was trailing five points in second place to then-candidate Trump. Vander Plaats endorsed him anyway, and Cruz won the caucuses by three points.

Back in 2012, Vander Plaats also predicted a surprise victory for Rick Santorum, who had been relegated to the bottom of the pack of six Republican presidential candidates. Santorum pulled ahead two weeks after Vander Plaats’s backing. The Iowa leader said in an interview he received a congratulatory phone call telling him: “You should take the credit.” It was from Donald Trump.

He’s not expecting a call this year.

During November’s Thanksgiving forum put on by The Family Leader, DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy made their arguments to Vander Plaats—and the room full of evangelical voters—with Trump noticeably absent, as he skipped debates and delayed campaigning in Iowa until January. “Sometimes some guests don’t show up,” Vander Plaats said.

When Vander Plaats officially endorsed DeSantis afterward, Trump responded by accusing him of scamming and disinformation, telling his supporters, “I don’t believe anything Bob Vander Plaats says.” Vander Plaats stated that his endorsement couldn’t be bought.

Tillotson, Faith Baptist Bible College’s president, said some Christians have been turned off by Trump taking shots at Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, who also endorsed DeSantis.

“There’s a lot of Christians that support Trump. And they’ll point to the good things … they’ll point to Roe v. Wade getting overturned and that not happening if those Supreme Court justices weren’t there,” he said. “But then you also have Christians who look at how he runs his private life, and the arrogance that he seems to have, and so then they would say, How can you do that? And so, I do think it’s all over the map.”

Vander Plaats himself voted twice for the former president. When asked if he’s prepared to do so again, he demurs at first, saying that his focus is on the primary. But then he adds: “People have asked me that before, if it’s Trump or Biden … I think [given] the history of Trump and the administration—there’s no doubt that I would land there.”

But until then, he’s still expecting DeSantis to pull ahead. As he said on talk radio, “My decision is not against Trump. It is for the future of our country.”

Books
Review

‘Cultural Christians’ Have Existed for as Long as Christians Have Existed

We often credit the early church with heroic faithfulness. But it was hardly innocent of accommodation and compromise.

Christianity Today January 9, 2024
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Lightstock / Pexels / Unsplash / Wikimedia Commons

Martyrdom lurking around every corner. Christians fervent in prayer morning, noon, and night. Bold declarations of “Christ is Lord” in Roman arenas.

Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World

This describes a few Christians, at a few moments, in the first few centuries of the church. Despite popular depictions, this was not the norm for every person bearing the Christian name. In fact, the norm was less heroic than we might realize.

In Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World, historian Nadya Williams proposes that many Christians in the church’s first five centuries may have been more closely aligned with their surrounding culture than with Christ. This is not to deny the authenticity of their faith, only to say that Christians have always been tempted to adapt to cultural conventions.

This more nuanced and historically consistent portrait erodes notions of “golden-era Christianity.” Like a microscope revealing cancerous cells, Williams shows readers how Christians are too often infected by the culture around us rather than influenced by Christ in us. From Christian nationalism to love of wealth to Christian “celebrity culture,” there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to how Christians have acclimated to cultural norms.

Straddling fences

Beginning in the New Testament, Williams shows how some Christians took cultural priorities more seriously than biblical ones. The standout case in the Book of Acts is the episode of Ananias and Sapphira, affectionally dubbed by Williams as the “first cultural Christians.”

This couple, seeing the sacrificial generosity of early believers, sought to make a similar statement, albeit with different motivations than those of their counterparts. Where other believers were driven by ideals of sacrificial giving based on the gospel, Ananias and Sapphira pursued a form of notoriety based on Roman notions of benefaction. Wealthy Romans expected to gain something in return for their gifts.

We often act with a similar mindset. The issue for this culturally Christian couple was the manipulative nature of their gift. Giving the church a portion of the proceeds from a land sale would have been laudable; presenting themselves in the same sacrificial light as others was not. Christians ought to give sacrificially, but never in a way that feigns sacrifice for the sake of accumulating power.

Williams proceeds to shed much-needed historical wisdom on issues related to consuming food and wine (chapter 2), as well as the realities of sexual relations in the Greco-Roman world and their impact on the church (chapter 3). The first Christians, it appears, carried with them some of their Roman baggage, including ritual drunkenness and pagan worship practices. Paul’s exhortations to the church, in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere, make it clear that Christians were attempting to straddle the fence when it came to food and drink, at times looking more Roman than Christian.

Regarding sexuality, of course, nothing could be more countercultural than the Christian sexual ethic. Christians were to be faithful to their spouses or remain celibate. In contrast, Roman men could do almost anything they desired sexually without penalty. In prominent cities such as Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, cultic prostitution was the norm, not to mention that slaves were seen as property to use sexually as desired. Some may say that we live today in a sexualized culture (which is surely true), but, in many ways, ancient Rome makes the modern West look like a PG-rated cartoon.

Williams then turns the historical page to consider post–New Testament Christians and the cultural sins present within the first few centuries. An interesting case involves Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor who grilled several Christians to better understand the supposed threat they presented in his region. Upon interrogation, it seems that some Christians were quick to reassure Pliny by renouncing their faith. Others persisted, however, leading Pliny to seek wisdom from Emperor Trajan on how to proceed.

The famous exchange between Pliny and Trajan represents a key non-Christian historical source on the nature of Christianity in the second century, attesting to the reality that some were leaving the church. Stories of renunciation would play out in the following decades during various times of Christian persecution, and later leaders such as Cyprian of Carthage would speak to how “lapsed” Christians ought to be reintegrated into the church.

This historical episode lends itself to helpful insights about “exvangelicalism” and related movements. How might Christians today address those who are leaving the church? Is the problem the faith, the clergy, or something else? To what degree do modern conventions such as social media play a factor? It’s worth considering recent work on the rise of the religiously unaffiliated “nones” and “nonverts” alongside stories of their forerunners in the early church era.

According to Williams, Christians in the Constantinian and post-Constantinian eras did not fare much better regarding cultural sins. Scholars of late antiquity are not surprised by violence between Christian groups or even by the power and manipulation used to sway ecclesial decisions. Modern Christians, though, ought to be shocked and reminded that such postures are contrary to Christian virtue.

Often, what seemed like disagreements over theology and practice may have been more cultural than theological. Advocating violence or manipulation as a “means to an end” is antithetical to Christian practice—or it ought to be, as Williams emphasizes. She notes, “Sometimes divisions are less about good theology and more about appearances. And those kinds of divisions should worry and convict us.” To this I can only add, amen!

I was particularly encouraged by the connections Williams draws between the church in the fourth and fifth centuries and the dynamics of Christian nationalism and celebrity culture today. Many have looked to Augustine’s City of God as a critique of Roman culture and its parallels today, but Williams uses Augustine like a scalpel to delicately remove a cancerous tumor. Augustine minces no words regarding the failures of Rome and the absurdity of Roman religion. In sum, placing one’s ultimate hope in an earthly kingdom is foolhardy at best. While heavenly citizens care about the welfare of the earthly kingdom, they are realistic about its prospects and longevity.

Most surprising in this book is the way Williams uses the early monastic movement to draw conclusions about the dangers of Christian celebrities. As numerous individuals fled to the deserts of Egypt and the surrounding region in the late fourth century, their spiritual fame and status garnered much attention. As Williams shows, these spiritual tours of desert monks were not unlike pagan shrine visitations.

Desert monks also represent object lessons for us today. Many today criticize the gathered church for stifling individualized spiritual experience. But whatever spiritual insights we gain from the early monastics, they must be used to serve God’s people.

No golden eras

Cultural Christians in the Early Church gives readers a fantastic example of how we ought to learn from this pivotal period in Christian history. The book is not a detailed introduction to early Christianity. It is, however, a powerful statement regarding human nature and the perennial challenge of living according to Christ. Christian doctrine speaks to the issues of our culture, whether in the first century or the 21st.

The book and its outlook are not pessimistic but realistic. Williams brings to it her knowledge of late antiquity, her dedication as a disciple of Christ, and her observations on modern evangelicalism. There were moments in the book when I wished Williams, rather than ending most chapters with various connections to modern evangelical life and thought, would let readers draw their own conclusions. Overall, however, this work levels the playing field for Christians today. Williams does not excuse these “cultural sins,” but instead does the delicate historical work of helping readers understand how we are just as prone to them as our forebears.

Rather than idolizing the early church, perhaps we should learn some sober lessons and apply them to our experience today. Williams’s work is far from an abstract exercise in social history; it presents a “usable history” of the best sort.

Recognizing our cultural sins ought to bring us back to the upside-down kingdom ethics of Jesus. Truly his kingdom is not of this world. There is no golden era of the church in history; only the one to come in eternity.

Coleman Ford is assistant professor of humanities at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the co-founder of the Center for Ancient Christian Studies and serves as a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. He is the author of Formed in His Image: A Guide to Christian Formation.

Church Life

Don’t Let Yourself Be ‘Cured of Churchgoing’

Church homelessness is lonely and exhausting. And the only antidote is Christian community.

Christianity Today January 9, 2024
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch Tlapek / Source Images: Unsplash

When my family moved from Washington State to California, my parents braced my brother and me for a church search that could take some time. But after just one Sunday, we fell in love with a congregation, and my family still attends there more than 15 years later.

In leaving home for college, I hoped for the same narrative. Instead, I found it to be the complete opposite. In fact, up until about six months ago, I had been going on six years without a home church—which is a familiar reality among many Gen Z Christians.

Roughly one-third of young people are attending church less often today than they did before the pandemic. A 2022 study from the Survey Center on American Life found that the pandemic appears to have caused those who already had the weakest commitments to regular religious attendance—including young people, single folks, and self-identified liberals—to stop attending church altogether at a much higher rate than other Americans.

Throughout my church search, I struggled with thoughts of self-doubt, wondering if I was the problem: Was I just being too picky in my expectations? Was I discounting churches for superficial reasons? In my mind at the time, the reason I had not yet found a church home was a mix of equally valid contributing factors over the course of my college career.

In my first year, I visited what felt like hundreds of churches by bus, since I didn’t have a car. And when the pandemic hit during my sophomore and junior years, I began tuning into my beloved church from back home. By senior year, I was determined to find a community and released any expectation of finding a one-to-one comparison with my home church.

I began commuting 40 minutes into the city in search of a rich community of diverse believers—ethnically, generationally, and socioeconomically. I decided I would commit to a church that I loved regardless of how far I had to go to find it. But I quickly realized how hard it was to get integrated into a church community when you are the only one who lives far away—I couldn’t stop and get coffee after work like the other members who all lived in the area.

Meanwhile, Sunday after Sunday, I felt the isolation of church homelessness.

One reason for this was that many of the congregations I visited were homogenous, and I desperately wanted to learn and be challenged by a diverse group of people. Other reasons were a bit more clear-cut: One church I went to played Pitbull music during the offering. Another church’s website used an AI bot to “show me around,” but for any additional information on leadership and community involvement required me to join their Slack channel. In yet another church I visited, the pastor made a casual remark from stage that read, to me, as a giant red flag.

Some churches I simply did not trust, partly because of their involvement with denominations struggling with scandal or dismissing sexual abuse. Unfortunately, in these times, committing to a church often requires a delicate balance of trusting fellow congregants and being on guard. And especially as a young woman, I wanted a place where I could allow myself to be vulnerable.

Even when the wider denomination is struggling to pursue justice and accountability, I know there are individual churches that are doing well. But how do I know which congregation or church leader will be the subject of the next scandal—or whether I won’t be the next victim?

Studies show that I’m not alone in this fear. According to a 2022 Barna study, 27 percent of people say their doubt in Christianity is due to past experiences with a religious institution. Statistically and anecdotally, many Gen Zers I know share a concern that church just doesn’t feel safe amid so much scandal.

There’s another oft-cited reason people avoid committing to church: In my social circles of young people, I hear many say they just haven’t found a church that shares all their convictions.

In this, I am reminded of the haunting warning C. S. Lewis gives in The Screwtape Letters, where the “devil” writes to his protégé, “Surely you know that if a man can’t be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that ‘suits’ him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches.”

I’ve also heard from others who simply don’t see church as a requirement of the Christian faith. As Daniel K. Williams writes, “What if the problem with dechurched evangelicals is not their faulty understanding of faith, but rather evangelical theology’s own lack of emphasis on the church?” He makes the case that evangelicals need to rediscover a compelling theology of church—to establish a uniquely evangelical answer to the question, “Why church?”

Even for me, the lies of isolation were around every corner. I hit periods of simply not attending church, telling myself that it wasn’t a necessity. Sometimes I quoted Matthew 18:20 to convince myself that I was always “at church” when I was with two or more gathered in Jesus’ name.

In this, going to a Christian college was a double-edged sword. It’s easier to avoid attending a local church when you’re constantly surrounded by Christian community—attending chapel three times a week and engaging with biblical curriculum every day. But I always felt ashamed, like I was a bad Christian, whenever people asked me what church I was going to. It seemed like being connected to a home church was some ultimate litmus test of my spiritual well-being.

Yet none of these excuses ever solved my deep longing for Christian community. Church homelessness is a lonely place to be, and it’s also a vulnerable foothold for the enemy to slip lies into our minds. Satan knows church searching is exhausting and requires faith to persevere as we look for a healthy congregation that will challenge us to serve others and grow in our spiritual walks. This is why he often encourages us toward apathy and indifference, to distance us from our desires for God and community. This, paired with loneliness, can be a powerful combination.

Church is essential for our faith, not to mention that in-person worship can improve our overall well-being and lower our psychological distress. But overcoming church homelessness takes time, mental energy, and emotional endurance. Many of us struggle with the resilience to face it—especially those of us who are young adults or single.

Yet there might be a hidden blessing in this very struggle. To quote Romans 5:3–5, “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”

More than anything, I’m grateful the Lord cares about our suffering and sees us through it all.

A few months ago, as I had done many times before, I walked into a new church all alone—when every ounce of my being did not want to walk into the sanctuary by myself. Just then, I heard a still, small voice in my head say something that gave me an immediate sense of peace: “A church should be the safest place to be alone.”

Since then, I’ve attended the church’s connect class, signed up for a small group, and joined their women’s ministry. I’ve written down the names of people I meet each week as a reminder of my answered prayers for Christian community. This Sunday, I will be sitting in the sanctuary, surrounded by fewer strangers than the week before—with my Bible and notebook, my list of priorities, and an open mind—praying this is the place where I can plant my roots and thrive.

And as I continue to show up each week, God continues to demonstrate his faithfulness to me. Each Sunday, I thank the Lord for giving me the strength to battle loneliness; and the more I get plugged in, the more my loneliness dissolves. Beyond that, I’m grateful for the opportunity to see more of God’s kingdom at work around me and to meet other people who each have their own unique reasons for showing up at church despite their personal obstacles.

This is not to say there aren’t still Sunday mornings when I don’t feel like waking up and going to church. But when I look back at some of the toughest times in my life, I see that I felt furthest from God when I wasn’t surrounded by other like-minded believers—and the only way I got out of those trenches was when I decided to give church another chance.

In fact, there have been moments in my life where the only reason I still hold on to my faith is because I knew there were other Christians praying for me. On days when I feel upset with God or discouraged at our sinful world, I know someone is praying for me to regain a sense of hope.

In all this, I want to remind those suffering from church homelessness—especially my fellow young adults and single people—that you are not alone. More than that, you don’t have to be content with this loneliness. You can be resilient and find the family God has promised you.

And every time we make the decision and effort to show up for service on a Sunday morning, our very presence in the house of God means the devil has failed to cure us of churchgoing.

Mia Staub is the content manager at Christianity Today.

Inkwell

Only Noah Was Left

Inkwell January 9, 2024
Photography by Gauhi H.

i.
i was alive seven weeks,
three days
until my mother felt me.
there i was in her ocean,
the umbilical cord my ark
as i sailed from ultrasound
into life.
they saw my teeth
and named me laughter.
how screams shine like smiles.
how hysteria echoes like—
a drowning earth.
i’ve learned there is no such thing
as a drowning sky
because the heavens cannot be baptized.

ii.
what is a smile
while a million portraits of you
sink into earth’s unseen?
today, they still call me laughter,
and rightfully so.
yet my essence knows why
the sky cries.
why she sets into the color of wine
each evening.
why her cold shoulders shiver like
last trimester depressions.
why her snowflakes fall beautifully
every year she outlasts her peers.

iii.
day three
is a journal entry
that begins like the others
but never ends.
it is a dove flying out
into a new world
without its flock
flying flying flying
seeking rest
as its wings wipe the tears
of a mourning sky.

Isaac Akanmu is a poet, financial analyst & author of not belonging anywhere.

News

Azerbaijan Added to US List of Religious Freedom Offenders

Is the Islamic nation’s inclusion—the State Department’s only change this year—driven by its treatment of Christians, Muslims, or ethnic Armenians displaced from the Artsakh enclave?

The building of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan.

The building of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan.

Christianity Today January 8, 2024
Mozar / Getty / Edits by CT

For the first time, the United States has recognized Azerbaijan as a violator of religious freedom.

Inclusion on the State Department’s second-tier Special Watch List (SWL) subjects the oil-rich Shiite Muslim–majority nation to the possibility of economic sanctions.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has called for the Caucasus nation’s censure each year since 2013. Created by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), USCIRF’s bipartisan yearly report evaluates “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations independent of US foreign policy concerns and tracks government implementation of its recommendations.

Complicating any consequences, Azerbaijan aligns with US foreign policy in certain areas: It cooperates closely with Israel, is aligned against Iran, and agreed to increase oil exports to Europe in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In a brief statement, US secretary of state Antony Blinken kept unchanged all other 2022 designations mandated by the IRFA. Azerbaijan joins Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the SWL, cited for “engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.”

Twelve nations—China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—again received designations as first-tier Countries of Particular Concern (CPC).

USCIRF “welcomed” the designation of Azerbaijan. But it stated there was “no justification” for failing to follow its advice to also label India and Nigeria as CPCs.

India was first recommended from 2002–2004 as a CPC, from 2010–2019 for the SWL, and then again from 2020 onward as a CPC. Nigeria was recommended for the SWL from 2003–2008, and as a CPC since 2009.

While the State Department has never included India, former president Donald Trump listed Nigeria on the SWL in 2019 and as a CPC in 2020. President Joe Biden removed it entirely the following year.

USCIRF called for a congressional hearing over these omissions and further criticized the State Department for issuing sanction waivers for CPC violators Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

In a statement to CT, Lilieth Whyte, public outreach chief of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, cited three main factors.

Azerbaijan’s laws place “onerous registration requirements” on religious groups to register nationally, restricting them further in their right to worship freely and select their own clergy. The government physically abuses, arrests, and imprisons religious activists, she added, while conscientious objectors are not permitted to serve their country in accordance with their beliefs.

Not mentioned was Azerbaijan’s months-long blockade of its Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh—which Armenians call “Artsakh”—which culminated in an invasion last September that displaced more than 100,000 people.

At the time, Blinken “urged” Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev to “immediately cease military actions.” In November, assistant secretary of state James O’Brien told a congressional committee that “there cannot be ‘business as usual’” in US relations.

But last December, the State Department press service clarified that cessation of interaction with Azerbaijan would be “contrary to our interests.” Instead, US policy would continue to press the country to greater respect for “human rights and fundamental freedoms,” as well as a lasting peace agreement with Armenia.

Shortly thereafter, the two nations swapped prisoners of war, announced as “tangible steps towards building confidence” in pursuit of a peace deal. Azerbaijan has stated that an agreement is close.

Zaven Khanjian, executive director of the Armenian Missionary Association of America, welcomed the State Department designation. Calling the displacement from Nagorno-Karabakh an example of “ethnic cleansing,” he also cited the erasure of Armenian heritage from areas under Azerbaijani control.

And he wants US pressure to move beyond a simple designation.

“Armenians cannot wait until the oil fields in Baku dry up,” Khanjian said, referring to the Azerbaijani capital city, “for Washington to pursue punitive measures.”

Many Armenians, however, are suspicious of the peace negotiations. Khanjian is in favor, but skeptical. His hesitation is rooted in distrust of autocratic Azerbaijan, and he believes Russian and American interests will also have to align. Still, he is praying.

One issue at stake is the return of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh. But Azerbaijan counters that ethnic Azeris displaced from Armenia in earlier conflicts should have their rights recognized as well. In letters sent to the United Nations, this includes the right of return westward to Armenia.

Blinken’s designation was met with a harsh response—not by the Aliyev administration, but by an association representing the displaced, formerly called the Azerbaijan Refugee Society. But one month prior to the invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, the group changed its name to the Western Azerbaijan Community (WAC), whose website displays a map that includes the territory of Armenia.

“The US list on religious freedom has no force, no weight, and we categorically reject it,” stated the WAC, viewing it as an “arrogant” example of American hostility.

Aliyev has previously stated that Azerbaijan would return to these “historical lands,” but in vague terms amid official clarification that this does not include territorial claims.

As long as these veiled threats exist, said Craig Simonian, the Caucasus region coordinator for the World Evangelical Alliance’s Peace and Reconciliation Network, there is doubt that peace negotiations can be meaningful. Azerbaijan also continues to hold Artsakh Armenian political leaders and prisoners of war, while its troops are marshaled on the still-demarcated border.

And the language of Western Azerbaijan is “hugely aggressive,” he said, dismissed by mainstream scholars. But even so, and despite all that has happened, at least the two nations are talking.

“Reconciliation can happen,” Simonian said. “Perhaps not between governments—at least not quickly—but between those who choose to follow Christ.”

Following his nation’s placement on the SWL, Aliyev spoke to some of these directly.

Christmas is a symbol of kindness, he told Azerbaijan’s Orthodox citizens, offering holiday greetings to the mostly ethnic Russian community who follow the Eastern calendar.

“It is commendable that our Christian compatriots, taking advantage of the broad opportunities created by the exemplary relations between the state and religion, are keeping their unique traditions, language, and culture alive,” Aliyev stated. “Ethnic-religious diversity … is one of the predominant qualities of our society.”

Christians comprise roughly 3 percent of Azerbaijan’s population. USCIRF has chided it along with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates as authoritarian nations who are “major investors” in a promotion of religious tolerance that “obscures the state’s responsibility and failure to protect and promote freedom of religion or belief for everyone.”

And USCIRF’s most recent country update stated that while Azerbaijan has stopped certain problematic practices, Protestants continue to face obstacles in registration. Not one non-Muslim community has been approved in the last three years.

It is not that bad, one Azerbaijani Christian leader told CT.

“As part of the small circle of evangelicals, I don’t see any major changes toward the churches,” he said, requesting anonymity. “We still have freedom, and I see this designation as a change in US politics.”

Azerbaijan’s Protestants primarily come from a Muslim background.

But there is legitimacy, he added, in policies regulating the Islamic religion. Official religious authorities maintain control over Shiite mosques, with hundreds of mullahs arrested for their support of Iran. Wary of extremism, the secular government keeps a tight watch on foreign preachers of any religion and requires approval of any distributed spiritual literature.

The Azerbaijani Christian then provided a few anecdotes that reveal an uneven attitude toward Christianity.

One church regularly receives approval for visiting American pastors after informing security, he said. But two foreign Christians were denied residency visas under suspicion of unregistered evangelism.

One congregation of primarily Muslim converts wished to mark its ten-year anniversary in a large public hall. The government denied the permit, telling them to celebrate privately in the church. The pastor insisted, telling them to take away his registration—threatening they would then lose contact with his house church network. With this the authorities relented, and the celebration ensued.

One former thug became a Christian and began evangelizing in a Muslim ethnic minority region. When residents complained, he was called into the police, and during interrogation he related his full spiritual testimony. Afterward, the captain told him he was free to continue and to let them know if anyone gave him trouble.

And in a humorous episode, a preacher of short stature planted a church in a border territory far from Baku. Local authorities arrested him but, without a law that forbade his evangelism, charged him instead with assault against the hulking officers. The judge asked how this was possible.

He answered: It was easy, sir. My wife held them down.

Laughing, the judge dismissed all charges.

Why then does the Christian leader remain anonymous?

“Anything political, unless 100 percent in support of the government, might be used against me,” he said. “As long as Christians have peace with the authorities, I don’t want to break the balance.”

Freedom House calls Azerbaijan “not free,” ranking the nation No. 13 from the bottom in its annual Freedom in the World report. But the nation is not currently ranked in the Open Doors World Watch List of the top 50 countries where it is hardest to follow Jesus, though in 2016 it rose as high as No. 34.

Yet for the first time, the US has grouped Azerbaijan with 4 other offending nations, following 12 countries in the first tier of violations. Will designation result in improvement for any?

“The challenges to religious freedom across the globe are structural, systemic, and deeply entrenched,” stated Blinken. “But with thoughtful, sustained commitment from those who are unwilling to accept hatred, intolerance, and persecution as the status quo, we will one day see a world where all people live with dignity and equality.”

News

Christian Colleges Try Eliminating Tuition to Draw Students

A number of schools are trying various methods of not charging tuition, born out of their convictions about debt and hopes for students to choose a Christian education.

Sattler College students at their dorms in Boston.

Sattler College students at their dorms in Boston.

Christianity Today January 8, 2024
Courtesy of Sattler College

As Christian schools adapt their education models to an unfriendly market, several are experimenting with offering free tuition to some or all of their students.

Starting this semester, Sattler College, a small Anabaptist college in Boston, announced that it will not be charging any of its students tuition. The president, Zack Johnson, said some students came to his office in tears of happiness after the announcement.

Uriah O’Terry is a sophomore at Sattler, and the first in his family to go to college. He said in past semesters finding the money for tuition was “a point of stress,” and he had to take out a loan. He’s happy for the change.

“I am being prepared for a life of effective Christian living without the burden of debt,” he said in an email. “So the way I pay for my ‘free’ college education is by serving Jesus and the people around me with the skills and knowledge that I have gained at Sattler.”

Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, also announced that in fall 2024 it would not charge tuition for Pennsylvania students whose families make under $70,000 a year. In fall 2023, Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana, began offering free tuition to Indiana students whose families make less than $65,000. That program will continue next school year, now for families making less than $60,000.

Hope College in Holland, Michigan, is in its third year of a pilot program to offer free tuition. It is currently covering tuition for a small group of students who go through a character-based application as it tries to raise funds to cover more and more of its students.

“The reception has been a wide range of things from people who are inspired by it to people who think we’re totally crazy,” said Matthew Scogin, president of the college.

Hope asks students receiving free tuition to sign a covenant that they will give annually in any amount after graduation. “We went to this amazing line Jesus uses in Matthew 10:8, where he says, Freely you’ve received, now freely give. And we said, ‘Let’s see if we can apply that to our actual business model,’” said Scogin.

Sattler president Johnson wants the tuition-free model to encourage students to choose an educational institution where they will experience Christian formation without worrying about money. Most of Sattler’s freshman class this year are the first in their family to attend college, said Johnson.

“To create avenues for discipleship for young Christians is one of the church’s biggest tasks—to be really investing in these years,” said Johnson. “If our young people aren’t choosing to be discipled in these young years, some of us should be pulling our hair out [about] why people are choosing other alternatives.”

Sattler is calling its plan an “entrustment” model, “offering education in exchange for a student’s commitment to the principles of kingdom service and financial gratitude … using gospel concepts of generosity and service to solve the problem of student debt before it even begins.”

Sattler’s Johnson said his statistical modeling “showed we’d probably receive more money as an institution over time if we doubled down on generosity and gratitude, instead of billing an amount that’s usually discounted. … This isn’t certain, but I’m betting we will be better funded in the future because of this decision.”

Sattler—a school that started in 2016 and has a student body ranging between 60 and 80 students—could make it work, according to Johnson, because it has fixed costs, so additional students don’t add to expenses. Students still pay room and board, with subsidies in certain cases.

Willem de Ruijter, Geneva College’s vice president of enrollment and marketing, said in a statement that the school was “continuing to work towards making a rigorous Christian education accessible for all.” The school stated that “strong fiscal leadership and stewardship from boards and alumni” allowed it to offer the free tuition.

Christian higher education is experiencing both the best and worst of times. Some schools are seeing record enrollment, while more than 18 schools have closed since the pandemic. New York City’s only two evangelical colleges shuttered last year as their enrollments declined and debt rose.

Some Christian schools have already firmly established a no-tuition model. Undergraduate students at Moody Bible Institute have their tuition covered by donors, but the school has the students apply for federal aid. College of the Ozarks has a “tuition assurance scholarship” for its students, where they work their way through school in a work-study position, and donors cover any remaining costs.

The new no-tuition programs at Christian schools are popping up as states are also trying to establish more free-tuition programs. New York, Indiana, and Washington currently offer various versions of four-year tuition coverage for public universities, while a number of states are also covering tuition for community colleges.

John Aubrey Douglass, a researcher on higher education at University of California, Berkeley, is more skeptical of how these programs will work financially.

“The political movement for free tuition does not provide any significant plan on how to make up lost revenue,” Aubrey wrote in a 2020 article for International Higher Education. “Universities are like other organizations in society: If they lose significant income, there are consequences that can include reductions in access and in the number of courses offered, and rising student-to-faculty ratios.”

But the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research looked into such models for the Illinois governor in 2021 and found that the state’s offering of free tuition would more than cover the costs of the program through graduates’ higher earning potential and other spillover effects.

Christian colleges don’t have the tax dollars that state governments do, and don’t receive that increased tax revenue from graduates having higher earnings. And none of these schools are requiring post-graduation income sharing, an experimental model that can allow educational institutions not to charge tuition. But these institutions think they can make it work for theological reasons.

Sattler and Hope are trying to focus on a spirit of generosity through better alumni engagement from such programs. Sattler’s Johnson had looked at Hope’s pilot as a model for getting rid of tuition. Sattler’s program cites the same Bible verse as Hope, Matthew 10:8, to freely receive, freely give. Johnson and Hope’s president Scogin had a conversation this fall about the model and how it could work.

One critique of this model is that students won’t have “skin in the game” and might not perform as well academically. Johnson argues that students are still invested—not only with paying room and board but also with paying through their time.

Johnson himself was educated at the US Air Force Academy and has long thought about what service academies can model for Christian higher education. Like a service academy, Sattler is calling students to “kingdom-focused service” after they graduate, which can mean being a software developer or a missionary. Either way, he is betting that graduates would feel more involved in the institution—in giving, working at the school later, or serving on the board.

Hope’s Scogin acknowledged it’s “a model that’s uncertain. Although, in my view, the current model is even more uncertain because it’s breaking.”

Scogin said Hope could offer free tuition in its small pilot program because the school was in a “position of strength in terms of enrollment and budget.”

“God says this to Abraham—he blesses people to be a blessing,” Scogin said. “We’re charging students an extraordinary amount of money at literally the poorest point of their life. … Jesus creates this crazy upside-down economy, where he says it’s the poor and the lowly and the meek who are actually closest to God. And so we think Christians ought to be the ones pushing hardest on access to education.”

Additional reporting by Harvest Prude.

How IVF Made Its Way into Evangelical Pro-Life Debates

And what I wish I had considered before reproductive assistance.

Christianity Today January 8, 2024
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty

When evangelicals speak of the unborn, they’re often thinking of babies growing inside pregnant moms. Even the pro-life mantra of “from womb to tomb” presupposes a womb to carry them.

So as record numbers of Americans grow their families through in vitro fertilization (IVF), Christians who believe that life begins at conception—even if that’s in a petri dish—face new questions and challenges. In response to expanding reproductive technology, pro-life evangelicals are reexamining the theological and ethical concerns around creating and caring for life at its earliest stages.

I wish I had thought more deeply about this in 2015, when I began IVF in a desperate move to become a mother after several years of infertility. But even as a pro-life Christian, I thought primarily of the lives I would carry, not the ethical ramifications of potential leftover embryos. In fact, I wasn’t even aware one could make so many embryos at once, and the doctors at my IVF clinic didn’t inform me of it.

Other Christians whose beliefs about life did come to bear on their journeys through fertility assistance have experienced the tension firsthand. I talked with Jamie Skipper, who began to consider treatments to help get pregnant around 15 years ago. Her staunch pro-life convictions immediately made things harder.

The Skippers were committed to limiting the number of embryos. If each one created was a new life, they didn’t want any “extras” to sit in a freezer or get destroyed in the process. But IVF is a physically demanding and expensive process, so doctors often recommend fertilizing multiple eggs for a higher chance that one will develop into a healthy baby.

Jamie Skipper said finding a pro-life fertility doctor willing to go with their convictions was “like the underground railroad,” a very hush-hush network. They searched and continued to pray.

“The Bible doesn’t say, Don’t do IVF or Do IVF,” Skipper told CT. “What the Bible does say is Pray without ceasing. If you don’t go into this journey with prayer, you won’t know what God wants for you individually.”

After finally meeting a doctor they trusted, the Skippers moved forward, using their first embryo to become pregnant with their daughter and freezing two more to use later.

They became one of millions of US families who have used IVF to conceive. Earlier this year, Pew Research Center found that 42 percent of Americans have used fertility treatments such as IVF or know someone who has, up from 33 percent in 2018.

In survey breakouts provided to CT, white evangelicals were as likely as Americans overall to say they or someone they know had used fertility treatments. Well over 40 percent of white evangelicals, white mainline Christians, and Catholics agreed, compared to just 26 percent of Black Protestants.

Though evangelicals use fertility assistance, they often approach it differently. Things like fertility medications to stimulate ovulation and intrauterine insemination (IUI)—both of which help conceive a baby inside the mother—are less controversial than IVF, which creates embryos in a lab before implanting them.

When it comes to IVF, one survey found that Protestant Christians were largely in favor of embryo creation for a married couple but against sperm and egg donation in IVF. They also opposed preimplantation genetic testing, which screens which embryos to implant.

The evangelical cautions and ethical arguments around IVF draw from beliefs that life begins at conception, all are created in the image of God, and we have a responsibility to protect and sustain life from its earliest stages—the very same foundation as the evangelical movement against abortion. And yet, IVF has historically been left out of the abortion conversation.

“Evangelicals and other Protestants have achieved moral clarity about the evil of abortion. But we remain confused about the ethics of in vitro fertilization, a technology that removes a woman’s egg and fertilizes it with a man’s sperm in a laboratory environment, then reintroduces the now-living embryo into the woman’s uterus for gestation,” noted theologian and ethicist Matthew Lee Anderson in a post for First Things in 2021.

Perhaps pro-life advocates wanted to focus more on those who intended to end life than those who sought to create it. Perhaps they hesitated to speak out against it knowing the painful struggle of Christians in their midst who had turned to fertility assistance. Either way, evangelicals haven’t been as vocal about the ethical ramifications of IVF as they have about abortion procedures, medication abortion, or even Plan B.

But the conversation has expanded, especially in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s overruling in 2022.

“I’m very connected with a lot of pro-lifers who have had their eyes opened to how IVF violates the rights of children, their right to life,” said Katy Faust, the evangelical founder of children’s rights organization Them Before Us. “I think a lot of it is they just didn’t know before, but once you know, you don’t unsee it.”

Faust speaks against the practice of unrestrained embryo creation in IVF, which inevitably results in frozen embryos being destroyed or left on ice indefinitely. Each embryo is, scientifically speaking, a unique person comprised with a distinct DNA code, including things like eye color and gender, just like one conceived in the womb in its early days.

Faust noted how the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling revealed an undeniable connection between IVF and abortion. “Why is it that all of the fertility doctors in red states were freaking out after Dobbs?” she asked. “It’s because they [may not be able] to do business there if they can’t destroy human life.”

Right now, abortion laws do not affect frozen embryos, but there have been a couple of state bills that aim to make it so. In Kansas, for example, a bill that criminalized the “unlawful destruction of a fertilized embryo” advanced to the Senate, but the bill has not passed.

And yet, while most Americans see abortion as a “moral issue,” most do not view IVF in such terms. Few resources exist to help guide Christians who may be considering IVF. One online guide offers this piece of advice: For the Christian, “the decision to conceive is always the decision to implant.”

“Toward a Protestant Theology of the Body”—a recent conference named for the papal catechesis on human sexuality, marriage, conception, and personhood—tackled this rising theme. The Institute on Religion and Democracy event showcased an increased aptitude for questions regarding reproduction and the body.

“If I go and speak on this somewhere, a lot of people just assume that I’m Catholic because, for the last couple decades, it’s really only been Catholics that have been talking about this,” said Faust.

Emma Waters, a research associate for The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Life, Religion and Family, said she’s observed a shift in Protestant Christians, theologians, and pastors beginning to reexamine the moral and theological concerns related to IVF.

“Many Southern Baptist churches, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Anglican Church of North America, and some within the Presbyterian Church of America are working to educate their congregants about the purpose of a child, and where Christians should draw firm lines in their use of technology,” Waters told Christianity Today.

In the last couple years, I’ve become more educated about the ethics of reproductive technology and the realities of created and commodified lives. It’s caused me to see my own experience with IVF differently and to wish I had been better informed. While the treatment was successful for me, helping me become pregnant with two healthy babies, the remaining embryos I have stored on ice have caused great heartache.

The biggest evangelical concerns around IVF tend to center around the loss of embryos in the process, so families like the Skippers commit to carrying and caring for any embryos they create.

As Jamie Skipper moved forward with IVF, she worried about what would happen to her two frozen embryos if she “got hit by a bus and died” or was unable to implant them for any reason. She ended up drafting a legal will granting custody to close friends in case of her demise. After the will was in place, the Skippers felt peace that they had done everything they could to protect their children.

Two years after the first successful implant, Skipper implanted the last two embryos, which resulted in the birth of her second daughter.

Today Skipper, like some prominent evangelical groups like Focus on the Family and The Gospel Coalition, supports “ethical” IVF, in which the embryos created are made from the biological material of the parents and implanted into the biological mother, and no embryos are frozen or discarded.

The truth about more than a million frozen embryos on ice has become more common knowledge as of late. Prior to that, many Christians unacquainted with IVF didn’t realize this numeric reality. As the conversation has progressed, pro-life advocates have grown bolder in their advocacy against IVF procedures that create extra embryos.

Several years ago, Live Action founder Lila Rose, who is Catholic, came out against this kind of IVF, and many Christian commentors criticized her stance because of their personal experiences. Because so many Christians have participated in IVF to grow their families, it can be difficult to speak out against it in pro-life contexts.

Remaining true to biblical conviction, however, is more important than avoiding hurt feelings. I want to offer women the kind of resource I wish I had when I began IVF; Skipper and I both see a lack of Christian resources around IVF and plan to write a guide for couples considering potential IVF treatment.

But some evangelicals have moral reservations that extend beyond the potential loss of embryos and don’t support any form of IVF. Anderson, writing for First Things, argues that “the doctrine of the imago Dei illuminates the problem of wrongful creation, not only of wrongful killing.”

In her book Conceived by Science, Stephanie Gray Connors writes of how the process “commodifies” children through the freezing and grading of embryos deemed best to implant in the womb.

“With this motivation, no longer is the human person valued for his or her uniqueness and nature of being an image bearer,” she wrote. “Instead, the person is valued, wanted and selected for the usefulness they provide to others.”

She notes that the freezing process itself poses a risk to the embryo’s life, so it can’t be ethical to “endanger the lives of some children in an effort to create other children.”

Christians heading up the nation’s leading pro-life organizations are beginning to vocalize their concerns about IVF more broadly as well.

Steve Aden, chief legal officer at Americans United for Life, told The Guardian that once people fully understand the implications of traditional IVF, they will “turn away from this creation and freezing of hundreds of thousands of distinct individual human beings who remain in limbo forever or are ultimately cast off as if trash.”

Since her experience with IVF, Skipper has become passionate about educating others about the realities of IVF and excessive embryo creation. As a national health care policy expert, Skipper feels privileged to understand the business of health care. Most people, she said, aren’t aware of the details or monetary motivations behind them.

High success rates are important to clinics, as this often results in more funding and patients.

When mothers choose alternative IVF routes, like refusing to create as many embryos, pregnancy success is less likely, reflecting on clinic rates as a whole. Thus, evangelical pro-lifers are bad for business.

“You should be able to ask specific questions to your specialist to make sure it’s done in a way that 100 percent respects your pro-life stance,” said Skipper. “And if they try to explain to you that science doesn’t work that way or whatever—run for the door, because that’s the first sign that they’re not going to support you.”

Theology

Brazil’s Top 10 Bible Verses

Leaders reflect on what YouVersion list of the most-shared Scriptures in their nation includes—and misses.

Christianity Today January 5, 2024
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Pexels

The most popular verses for Brazilians in 2023 focused on the provision of God.

Those digitally cracking open their Bibles were most likely to search Joshua 1:9, followed by Jeremiah 29:11 and Isaiah 41:10, according to YouVersion.

Valdemar Kroker, who pastors Igreja Irmãos Menonitas in Curitiba, a city of nearly two million in southern Brazil, found the results unsurprising.

“It’s not surprise to me that Joshua 1:9 is the top verse,” he said. “I’ve heard my father sing this passage countless times.”

Nearly all the verses that made Brazil’s Top 10 are Old Testament texts that ring with a sense of “promise,” according to Paulo Won, a Presbyterian pastor, theology professor, and content creator.

“The focus is on what God can do in us, in the sense of granting us victories in life, more than on how we can be molded to God’s will, and thus live the discipleship that presupposes eventual difficulties and tribulations,” he said. “It’s a clear diagnosis that our way of living the gospel is largely triumphalist.”

The appearance of these verses suggest that Christians aren’t learning the Bible as a “grand narrative” or always being given the larger context of where these words come from, says Cynthia Muniz, a biologist and theologian.

“The Brazilian evangelical scene itself has been strongly influenced by triumphalist theologies, so that some of these texts can be understood as personal promises of prosperity and victory, including material ones,” she said.

YouVersion’s apps include tools designed to help people read the Bible more frequently and pray more regularly. These were downloaded 11.2 million times in 2023, an increase of 112 percent compared to 2022. (YouVersion also noted that they worked with 150 partners to launch 330 new Bible plans in Portuguese last year.)

“This year, our team really focused on expanding partnerships in Brazil because we want everyone to have easy access to quality biblical content in their native language,” said Bobby Gruenewald, founder and CEO of YouVersion. “More than anything else, we want to help people experience God’s love, and our ministry would not be possible without these incredible partners we work with in Brazil who are passionate about investing in the spiritual growth of their communities.”

Daily YouVersion Bible use increased 27 percent in Brazil in 2023. But this fervor to read God’s Word wasn’t limited to digital texts. According to the Brazilian Bible Society, on average, the country prints seven Bibles per minute.

Despite this energy around Bible engagement, a close reading of YouVersion’s verse list offers some feedback for the Brazilian church. Beyond identifying a triumphalist tone among the popular passages, theologians also noted the dearth of Bible verses quoting Jesus. Out of the ten verses on the list, only two were found in the Gospels and only one contained Jesus’ words (Matt. 6:33).

“We are, in fact, not only reading too little but also preaching too little from the Gospels,” said Won. “We associate the gospels with stories about Jesus, which often don’t carry the prosperity emphasis that many of our churches favor.”

For example, Matthew 6:33 is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ main teachings to his disciples and full of instructions on how to embody his values to the world. But today’s churches pay too little attention to Matthew 5–7, says Muniz.

“This is worrying, because the gospels are at the heart of the New Testament message,” she said. “Furthermore, as followers of Jesus and called to be ‘his imitators,’ it is essential that we meditate on his words and be inspired by his actions. There is no doubt that we have a lot to learn from Jesus.”

Muniz and Won also expressed concern about Brazilian Bible readers’ tendency to separate a verse from the larger passage.

For example, Romans 8:28 reads, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” It’s part of a larger section of text where Paul is discussing “the adversities of the present time, the effects of sin, and our participation in Christ’s sufferings so that we can also share in his glory,” said Muniz.

“This text is a good example of how not taking the context into account and reading the verse by itself can lead to misinterpretations,” she added.

The idea of victory that Paul notes in Rom. 8:28 does not refer to “prosperity in this life or the conquest of anything worldly,” said Won.

“The victory is over death and sin, over principalities and powers,” he said. “It is Christ’s ultimate victory in which, in him, we have a share. In this sense, reading the text as a simple hope for believers is not only an inappropriate reading but a diabolical misrepresentation of the true triumph we have in the Lord.”

According to Won, the Brazilian church needs to read Matthew 11:29 more, where it says, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart.”

“We are experiencing the intensification of polarization in various areas of society. For me, Jesus’ call to meekness and serenity must not be forgotten,” he said.

Kroker emphasizes that Jesus needs to be our greatest example. Brazilian church leaders need to devote more sermons to the Gospels, specifically focusing on Jesus’ nature, actions, and mission, he said.

“We need narrative sermons that more vividly highlight the example of all the qualities and attitudes that are expected of us and that is in the life of Jesus.”

Editor’s note: CT’s regional analyses of the YouVersion top Bible verses of 2023 include Africa, Brazil, the Philippines, Singapore, and Ukraine.

Books
Review

The Bible Dictates What the Church Teaches. Should Church Teaching Dictate How We Read the Bible?

A Protestant considers a Catholic theologian’s call for an “ecclesial” reading of Scripture.

Christianity Today January 5, 2024
artas / Getty

On November 10, 1942, following a British victory in Egypt during World War II, Winston Churchill famously quipped, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

The End of Interpretation: Reclaiming the Priority of Ecclesial Exegesis

I thought about those words as I opened The End of Interpretation: Reclaiming the Priority of Ecclesial Exegesis, a recent book from Catholic theologian and First Things editor R. R. Reno. Just as Churchill saw that victory as a decisive turning point in the war in North Africa, Reno sees a renewed synthesis between Scripture and doctrine as a path forward through the crisis of our cultural moment.

The book hovers around an essential question: “How,” Reno asks, “do we square doctrine with Scripture?” On the surface, this might sound like an odd question to pose. Aren’t Scripture and doctrine the clearest of allies? Aren’t they two parts of the harmonious whole of Christian witness? For most believers, surely, there is no obvious tension between them. But in seminary classrooms, the topic tends to launch impassioned debates.

In advocating a new synthesis between Scripture and doctrine, Reno is responding to a gradual division during the 20th century among those who engage in serious study of the Bible and theology—a rupture he considers harmful and unnatural. In broad outline, the task of biblical exegesis (understanding the objective meaning of Scripture in its literary, historical, and canonical contexts) has come unglued from the task of theology (constructing authoritative doctrine that distills the Bible’s teachings on God and man).

As Reno makes clear, this state of affairs has an important institutional component. For too long, the traditional disciplines of biblical and theological studies have been separated by a sea of competing methods and assumptions invented in the halls of modern German universities. At this point, Reno hopes that we will cease any attempt at building bridges between them and will instead sail back to the safe harbor of the church, where these boundaries evaporate. Then, if we can get back to reading the Bible in ways that accord with the church’s teaching, perhaps we can pursue the kind of spiritual formation that is socially redemptive.

The ‘presumption of accordance’

Anyone familiar with Reno’s recent publications (Sanctified Vision, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Genesis, Resurrecting the Idea of a Christian Society, Return of the Strong Gods) can see the way this book captures the transition in his own thinking toward, as his subtitle reads, “the priority of ecclesial reading.”

In the introduction, Reno traces his own intellectual journey through the writings of Karl Barth and 20th-century “post-liberal” theologians, which led him to see the truth of God not as a set of rational propositions or subjective feelings but as a symphony displaying the “synthetic genius” of the divine composer.

Reno’s basic approach in The End of Interpretation can be summarized in a simple sentence: “Proper interpretation proves itself to be such when our reading of Scripture accords with what the church teaches.” Curriculum managers at academic institutions may reject Reno’s call for synthesis, but in my assessment, he is not trying to convince academics. Rather, he is trying to awaken Christians who are active in church ministry and wearied by stagnant debates over biblical interpretation.

As Reno writes, “This book presumes that we ought to take great care to honor the truth of our faith, and it is the job of reason, including its modern methods, to purify and deepen that truth. But we must seek this purifying and deepening as Christians.” Through the union of exegesis and theology, we are drawn “closer to God” and challenged to deeper engagement with Christian theologians who have gone before us. For Reno, the words of Pope Benedict XVI capture this imperative: “For the life and mission of the Church, for the future of faith, it is absolutely necessary to overcome the dualism between exegesis and theology.”

The book’s chapters follow a straightforward outline: The first two defend and explain how doctrine and exegesis “accord” with each other. Chapters 3–4 find historical examples in the work of the church father Origen and the Reformers. And chapters 5–7 provide case studies applied to readings of Genesis, John, and 1 Corinthians. Finally, the book concludes with some reflections on the lessons Reno gleaned while serving as the editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary series.

Throughout the first two chapters, Reno’s watchword is accordance. He argues that exegesis should begin with “the presumption of accordance,” a phrase he describes as follows:

If the Bible teaches something we judge integral to the gospel, then we hold that the church’s teaching must be substantially the same. The reverse holds as well. If the church teaches something as a saving truth, then we assume that the Bible does so. It’s that simple: what the Bible says accords with what the church proclaims.

The word church, of course, could have many different meanings, especially as it relates to Protestant-Catholic divisions, but Reno reminds us that “nearly all Christians adopt the presumption of accordance,” even those Reformation traditions that give primacy to Scripture rather than church tradition.

In chapters 3–4 Origen and Luther are brought forward as examples of the kind of “interpretive synthesis” that Reno hopes the church will model. Origen is certainly controversial, and Reno does not defend him in every way but does show how Origen reads Scripture in a “Christ signifying way.” Of course, Origen labored to draw out the spiritual implications of various biblical texts, but only through an intense focus on their literal meaning. Luther, for his part, argued that doctrine provides what Reno calls a “horizon of truth” that focuses exegesis and stabilizes interpretation.

In chapters 5–7 Reno works through specific passages in Genesis, John, and 1 Corinthians and demonstrates how to read Scripture in a way that accords with doctrine. His discussion of Genesis, for example, shows that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is not something theologians have “imposed” on Scripture, a point he reiterates several times. In reality, the doctrine emerged over time through careful negotiation, or “pressure,” between Scripture and doctrine. In fact, the doctrine is essential for helping us better understand the early chapters of Genesis.

The same is true with Jesus’ call for unity of faith in John’s Gospel and Paul’s insistence on moral formation in 1 Corinthians—the kinds of readings that form believers for what Reno calls “selfless service.” Doctrine, rather than standing apart from these passages, lends them greater clarity and equips believers to live them out. In his examples, which span the whole canon, Reno synthesizes Scripture and doctrine in ways that aim to shape the people of God and prepare them for cultural engagement.

The book ends with some discussion of the controversial Brazos Theological Commentary series, for which Reno served as the general editor. The narrative around this commentary series offers a fascinating case study in the discussion of theological interpretation. Reno admits that authors for the series weren’t told which interpretive approaches to employ, apart from assuming that Nicene Christianity would play a crucial role. While some volumes are more successful than others, this series was a living attempt to accord Scripture and doctrine.

And that is the point: These books were not a platonic ideal that materialized in publication but an example of the journey to marry two things that have been put asunder. While the volumes may have received mixed reviews, at least these were serious attempts, and we can hope, as Reno writes, that in the “foundry of exegesis, better theologians were formed.”

Reviving the church’s voice

Different chapters in The End of Interpretation were written at different points in Reno’s career, and some chapter transitions are difficult to follow, but a careful reading can discern the internal logic of the whole. I find myself largely supporting Reno’s hope for recovering ecclesial exegesis, but I can see the challenges that linger on the other side. I am still not sure how a generation of seminarians and academics trained in critical methods and assumptions can learn to appreciate the synthesis of Scripture and theology.

On some level it seems that the work of reconciliation must begin in the church. The word ecclesial, of course, can mean different things within different denominations and church traditions. But perhaps we can table those differences for another day and, in the meantime, worry about recovering a church-centered way of reading Scripture that offers something hopeful as the people of God face significant cultural transition.

In the end, Reno’s book offers the seasoned reflections of a Christian intellectual who has thought deeply about the history of biblical interpretation and the need for “good” exegesis in and for the church. Reno has been working diligently in recent years to revive the church’s voice in cultural engagement, and it is easy to see how his clarion call for “ecclesial exegesis” fits that agenda.

I sympathize with his thesis, and while his work may not betoken the end of scholarly methods for interpreting Scripture, I pray that it signifies a Churchillian moment when the church can recover habits of ecclesial reading and be bold enough to embrace them. Figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, and the Reformers were. I hope that we are too.

Stephen O. Presley is senior fellow for religion and public life at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy (an initiative of First Liberty Institute) and associate professor of church history at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His forthcoming book is Cultural Sanctification: Engaging the World Like the Early Church.

[This article is also available in Turkish.]

Theology

Evangelicals Shouldn’t Criticize Evangelicalism (Unless the Evangel Really Matters)

The gospel doesn’t come with a gag order. It calls us to name and repent of idolatries and hypocrisies—especially our own.

Christianity Today January 5, 2024
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch Tlapek / Source Images: Getty

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

A year or so ago, my friend David French and I were speaking to a group of young congressional staffers on Capitol Hill when one young man, a Republican and an evangelical Christian, asked us why we would criticize what’s happening right now on the Right.

“With all the hostility coming toward Christians from secularism and progressive ideology,” he asked, “why not punch Left instead of Right?”

Quite often, one will hear this sort of complaint from professing evangelical Christians—often in response to some conversation-generating book, such as Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne or Tim Alberta’s new work The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. These objections are often couched in terms of maintaining the “unity of the church,” usually picturing those evangelicals who dissent from Christian nationalism or white identity politics as betrayers, with an unspoken subtext: “The first rule of Born-Again Club is that we don’t talk about Born-Again Club.”

Sometimes this critique will extend all the way to the series of scandals issuing from American evangelical Christianity, at times with the argument that evangelicals “attacking our own side” on such matters will only cause unbelievers to hate us more and Christians to trust their leaders less.

This argument is akin to the “No Enemies to the Left” policy of some sectors of American progressivism in the middle of the last century toward the Soviet Union and Communist totalitarianism. One might whisper that Joseph Stalin is awful, but saying so publicly would only make the case for authoritarian anti-Communists. One might recognize that figures such as Alger Hiss sure seem to be KGB assets, but one could never say so. After all, with McCarthyism at a fever pitch and riddled with false accusations about Communist infiltrators, why would one acknowledge that there actually might be some?

The strategy kind of makes sense in Darwinian terms if a group—whether a labor union, a political party, or a church—is a tribal unit evolved to huddle together around the fire, no matter what, for fear of the saber-toothed tigers in the dark. And yet, even if one were to accept that premise, the strategy doesn’t hold together. That’s especially true in a context of avowed commitment to Christian orthodoxy.

First of all, the talking points are self-refuting. If Christians who criticize other Christians—especially in the hearing of unbelievers—are wrongfully attacking the unity of the church and should instead be speaking mostly of “all the good things we do,” then why is it not wrong for Christians to criticize Christians who criticize Christians? At the root of that argument is the very sort of deconstructionist moral relativism we were taught to reject.

More importantly, though, the “just punch Left” argument is, at best, a revelation of unfamiliarity with the actual text of the Bible and, at worst, a disavowal of the authority of the Bible. Moreover, such an argument reveals an agreement with the enemies of the Christian church—that the church is just another partisan tribe.

Which is worse in Scripture: the pagan idols of the nations around Israel or the golden calves that Jeroboam placed at Bethel and Dan? Throughout the Scriptures, God denounces and ridicules the false gods of the nations—but almost always as a warning to his own people not to do likewise.

The golden calves of Jeroboam, like the golden calf of Aaron before him, are not just wrong; they are also blasphemous. Jeroboam, the king of Israel, used the name of God to carry out a political agenda—to keep people from traveling to Judah for worship—as though he were speaking with the authority of God (1 Kings 12:25–33). The Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures denounces this in the harshest possible terms: “And this thing became a sin to the house of Jeroboam, so as to cut it off and to destroy it from the face of the earth” (1 Kings 13:34, ESV).

Jeroboam’s action is perfectly rational in starkly political terms. Every nation in the world, after all, was united around its gods, around its worship. That’s why treaties and alliances and intermarriages almost always included an importation of someone else’s gods.

All that is bad enough, but it was far worse because God actually exists, because he had actually spoken. Jeroboam was not just personally sinning, nor was he just leading a community to sin. He was leading the covenant people of God to idolatry while telling them it was the worship of God.

This is why the apostle Paul wrote that the hypocrisies of his own people were even worse than the basest rebellion of the pagans. Of those who are to instruct the nations as a “light for those who are in the dark,” who then are committing the very sins they denounce, Paul wrote, “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Rom. 2:19, 24).

Theologically, Jesus had far more in common with the scribes and the Pharisees than with the tax collectors or even the Sadducees. His harshest denunciations, though, are directed toward the Pharisees. Why? It is precisely because these religious leaders “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2). As Jesus’ brother would later write, those who claim the teaching authority of the church “will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).

In the big scheme of world politics, which matters more: an entire empire given over to sexual and cultural immorality as well as the worship of a whole pantheon of false gods—or one tiny gathering of Christians in a seaport town ignoring their own member’s misbehavior? The apostle Paul wrote that it was the latter.

In fact, he wrote that he was not telling people to disassociate from unbelievers—even the most fornicating, defrauding, idolatrous kind. “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor. 5:12–13, ESV).

With all the persecutions facing the church, why didn’t Paul “just punch pagan”? It’s not because he takes the church less seriously than he did the world but because he took it more seriously. The church is, he was told by Jesus, the body of Christ himself.

When a generation is more enamored with Values Voter Summits than with Vacation Bible School, the arguments for the prophets who denounced the “enemy” and spoke reassurance to God’s people seem plausible.

To say to Israel, “Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house will now shortly be brought back from Babylon” (Jer. 27:16, ESV) can sound like building up the unity of the people. After all, isn’t that how confidence is maintained—by focusing on the “good things” and telling us everything is about to get better? Jeremiah, though, said that was a lie. And when he did, they said he was betraying his own people—that he was siding with the Babylonians (vv. 16–22).

Hananiah would have seemed a more loyal “evangelical” than Jeremiah. He punched at Nebuchadnezzar and cheered up those on “our side.” And God said through Jeremiah, “Listen, Hananiah! The Lord has not sent you, yet you have persuaded this nation to trust in lies” (Jer. 28:15). In fact, Jeremiah said, Hananiah’s “unity” was “rebellion against the Lord” (v. 16).

Even at an infinitely less serious level than that of politics, for those of us who actually care about conservatism, the equation of “conservatism” with authoritarian demagoguery or sexual predation is actually the greatest possible victory for the Left. It leaves the country without principled conservatism and lets an entire generation equate conservatism with white nationalism, anti-constitutional illiberalism, or base misogyny. It makes progressivism, in many people’s minds, the only perceived alternative to insanity or cruelty.

Maybe that doesn’t matter much—unless conservative principles are really true. Even more so, the theological and moral credibility from the inside of evangelical Christianity—of the church that claims to be (imperfectly) the “light of the world,” offering a word of “thus saith the Lord” in an age of deconstructed authority and a call to repentance and faith in an era of relativized morality—is of crucial importance. Evangelical Christianity can only offer to the world what it has not given up on itself.

Baal, Artemis, and Odin will always be better tribal mascots than Christ and him crucified. “Punch at the other side” is always better advice for hacks and pundits than “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” will ever be. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” will always sound more like bad news than good to a faction wanting to win. That’s all self-evidently the case—unless there’s really a heaven, really a hell, really a gospel, really a God.

The gospel does not come with a gag order. The moment we believe it has is the moment we’ve given up on the words, You must be born again.

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

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