Evidence of Objective Morality Is Hidden in Plain Sight

A new book finds this evidence in rational arguments. And in something those arguments can’t capture.

Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty, Oxford University Press

David Foster Wallace’s famous commencement address “This Is Water” begins with a story about fish:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

Sometimes the things right in front of us are the hardest to see. Like gravity or the cultural belief systems we inhabit, there are, as Wallace put it, “obvious, ubiquitous, important realities” all around us—“hidden in plain sight.” The more fundamental they are to our daily experience, the easier they are to overlook.

Philosophers David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls want us to notice one of those overlooked realities: morality. Notice the horror we feel toward sexual violence. Or our admiration for self-sacrifice. Or our indignation when the powerful trample the weak. Or our relief when justice is done.

In their book The Good, the Right, and the Real: Is Value a Fact?, Baggett and Walls want us to ask, What exactly is this moral water we swim in?

Over 40 years ago, philosopher Robert Adams compared moral arguments for God’s existence to an abandoned farm. What was once a popular family of arguments producing a ripe harvest fell on hard times. But since then, renovation has been underway, and a string of philosophers have brought the farm back to life.

Baggett and Walls are two leading figures in this contemporary rebuilding project, and their series of four books analyzing moral arguments for God has been a service to Christian apologists and curious skeptics alike.

Their project began with Good God (2011), a defense of God as the foundation of morality. Next came God and Cosmos (2016), a critique of secular attempts to ground morality in alternative sources of authority. Then, the authors followed up with The Moral Argument (2019), a history of moral arguments across Western thought.

The Good, the Right, and the Real represents the final installment in this series. Though chronologically it comes last, logically it goes first. The earlier books assume objective morality—that some things are right or wrong, good or evil, regardless of human opinion. This one defends the existence of objective morality.

Moral realism is the philosophical term for the view that objective morality exists. The authors’ definition has four distinct features. First, moral judgments are “truth-apt” (meaning that statements like “Murder is wrong” are capable of being true or false). Second, some moral judgments are true (murder is wrong). Third, the truth of these judgments does not depend on human attitudes (murder is wrong even if people think it’s not). And fourth, at least some clear moral truths are known.

Without this foundation, moral arguments for God’s existence can’t get off the ground. But how do we know whether moral realism is true? We can’t run lab tests on justice. Nor can we dissect the human brain and find “goodness” inside. We need a different set of tools.

Secular philosophers Terence Cuneo, Russ Shafer-Landau, and John Bengson have approached the question by identifying moral “data” in need of explanation and suggesting we let the best theory win. For example, one’s moral theory should be able to explain why there is both widespread agreement about some moral issues and widespread disagreement about others. It should be able to explain why moral judgments are thought to motivate or direct our actions. And it should be able to explain why moral demands apply regardless of what we think or feel.

Baggett and Walls agree with these criteria. They argue that moral realism, unlike its competitors, makes the best sense of what we actually experience. But as they remind us, “Moral theory is hard … and no single volume will clear everything up.” Though progress is possible, don’t expect knockout blows.

This intellectual humility is consonant with their previous books. They don’t overpromise. They don’t feign certainty. Their conclusions are modest, and their tone is winsome. They respect other thinkers and take their arguments seriously. It’s clear their goal is not to win but to woo.

Baggett and Walls spend much of The Good, the Right, and the Real considering and critiquing the main alternatives to moral realism: error theory, expressivism, constructivism, and sensibility theory.

Error theory is the view that our moral language tries to describe real facts, but there just aren’t any. So, for example, when we say, “Murder is wrong,” we’re wrong, not because murder is right but because murder is … nothing. It’s neutral. Though we speak as if good and evil exist, we are mistaken; morality is a noble lie.

The philosophical price for holding this view is steep. “It assumes,” Baggett and Walls point out,

that our moral experience—the visceral aversion we have thinking about the Holocaust, our phenomenological antipathy to cruelty, our abhorrence of mindless barbarism or rapacious greed, the deep satisfactions of morality we are capable of feeling, our ravenous hunger to see justice done—is systematically misleading.

In other words, it denies that the water exists at all.

Expressivism, like error theory, contends that there are no true moral claims. But instead of saying all moral claims are false, it says there aren’t any genuine moral claims to begin with. That’s because, on this view, moral claims aren’t describing reality; they’re merely expressing emotions or prescriptions. For example, “Murder is wrong” is akin to saying, “Boo, murder,” or telling people, “Don’t murder.”

While this theory captures something true—emotions and prescriptions do play a role in our moral experience—it leaves too much unexplained. If morality is reduced to “I don’t like that,” or “Don’t do that,” then why should people comply? The authority—the “oomph,” as philosopher Richard Joyce puts it—is absent. Worse, expressivism seems unable to explain our moral outrage at atrocities. If the Holocaust is only emotionally disturbing but not morally wrong in any objective sense, something vital has been lost.

Constructivism is a middle course between moral realism and expressivism. It holds that morality exists but isn’t discovered. Instead, it’s created—by individuals, societies, idealized rational agents, or hypothetical social contracts. The basic idea is that something is moral simply by virtue of people or groups endorsing it.

Every version of constructivism is flawed, even if, as Baggett and Walls argue, some are more flawed than others. If individual moral views determine what’s right, then disagreement entails incoherence. One person might think the Holocaust was right while another might think it was wrong—but they can’t both be correct. The belief that societies determine what’s right hardly fares any better. Morality can’t vary with the shifting winds of cultural consensus, or else we could conclude that slavery was right when most supported it but wrong when most opposed it.

Constructivist theories that replace real people with “ideal observers” or social contracts try to improve upon these weaknesses. They ask, for example, what fully informed people would approve, morally, if you stripped away all their biases. Ultimately, however, they fail to secure binding moral authority. Why obey the dictates of nonexistent entities?

Sensibility theory—at least the version that’s in conflict with moral realism—suggests that our feelings themselves constitute morality. Our emotional response to witnessing a child bullying another to tears—the anger toward the bully and the sympathy for the victim—makes it true that the bullying is morally wrong.

Unfortunately, if morality is reduced to feelings, then morality is arbitrary. Should our emotional reaction to (say) rape change, then rape could be judged morally right.

Other sensibility theorists take a different approach, suggesting that feelings point to reality rather than constitute it. On this view, Baggett and Walls explain, “Emotions may be and plausibly are simply signaling capacities for apprehending moral truths.” Our feelings of revulsion toward injustice help alert us to the wrongness of it; they aren’t what make unjust actions wrong. This view complements moral realism, in that both theories credit our emotions with helping us recognize moral truths.

This brings us to one of the book’s surprising twists.

In the final chapter, Baggett and Walls conclude their rigorous philosophical treatment with a turn from philosophy. After exposing the weaknesses of the alternatives to moral realism and offering a smattering of arguments in support, they take off their philosopher hats and emphasize the experiential nature of morality, both in literature and in the real world.

“Moral goodness, like beauty, carries with it something ineliminably experiential,” they write, “and recognition of this fact makes it all the more appropriate that any argument for robust moral realism should include elements that go beyond the purely logical and abstract.”

In Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Good Country People,” for example, a young woman is content in her moral skepticism until a conniving Bible salesman betrays her in a moment of vulnerability. Though she doesn’t believe in right and wrong, she accuses him: “You’re a Christian! … You’re a fine Christian! You’re just like them all—say one thing and do another. You’re a perfect Christian, you’re …” The man replies, “I hope you don’t think that I believe in that crap! I may sell Bibles but I know which end is up and I wasn’t born yesterday and I know where I’m going!”

The woman’s abstract theory about the nature of morality was safe until it collided with reality.

Something more powerful than philosophical argumentation is on display here. You can’t argue someone into seeing the Grand Canyon’s beauty. But you can point and say, “Look.”

Perhaps morality is like that. Encounters with both betrayal and loyalty, selfishness and self-sacrifice, greed and generosity—these are the experiences that shape our moral views. Philosophy simply refines them.

This means that weighing the validity of moral realism is never merely an academic exercise. It’s one of the most urgent and consequential tasks we can undertake.

If moral realism is false, then our deepest moral convictions—about justice and kindness, oppression and cruelty—are just preferences. How we treat others is negotiable. The Holocaust isn’t evil, and the abolition of slavery isn’t progress. All this leaves victims of abuse, persecution, and exploitation not only with the pain of their suffering but also with the silence of a universe incapable of calling it wrong.

But if moral realism is true—if there really is a moral structure to the universe independent of human opinion—then the picture changes completely. Our longing for justice is not naive. Charity and love are truly good, and cruelty and deceit are truly bad. Each human being has inestimable worth.

In this way, The Good, the Right, and the Real is not only a philosophical argument but also a gentle plea for moral attention. A plea, in other words, to listen to the inner voice telling us that some things are genuinely noble and some genuinely evil—to consider that this voice might not be a delusion or an evolutionary leftover but an insight into the nature of reality. This book is an invitation to notice the water.

Noah M. Peterson is a philosophy of religion graduate student at the University of Birmingham and the editor of a think tank based in Washington, DC.

- More from Noah M. Peterson

News

Pro-Life Pregnancy Center to Get Day in Court

Adam MacInnis

New Jersey nonprofit accused of deception wants to appeal at the federal level.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers will have the ear of the United States Supreme Court this fall as the Christian nonprofit pushes back against what it believes is a clear attack on First Amendment freedoms.

The Supreme Court added First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin to the schedule for the upcoming term, which starts in October. A specific date hasn’t been chosen yet.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has accused the organization of deceptive advertising that misleads women. In December 2022, he issued a consumer alert, warning residents that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer “comprehensive reproductive health care,” specifically abortions.

The following year, Platkin launched an investigation into First Choice, a pro-life organization with five locations in New Jersey that provides counseling and support to encourage pregnant women to have their babies. The organization does not say that it’s pro-life on the front page of its website, but does identify itself as an “abortion clinic alternative.”

“We believe each person has a right to get accurate information from a resource that will not profit from the choices and pregnancy decisions they make,” the site says. “First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is an abortion clinic alternative that does not perform or refer for termination services.”

According to Platkin, this qualifies as “deceptive and fraudulent commercial practices” and “deceptive and misleading statements or omissions by charitable organizations,” violating New Jersey law.

First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber told CT that the demands of the subpoena are overwhelming to contemplate.

“We’re a small nonprofit, so the time that it would take for me to compile up to ten years of documentation would be completely burdensome and overwhelming,” Huber said. “Most importantly, it would take us away from our mission of serving women.”

Pro-life lawyers say it’s also an illegal violation of the rights protected by the US Constitution. Attorneys general from 19 states and the Trump administration agree. More than a dozen organizations, including Christian Legal Society, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Institute for Free Speech, Americans United for Life, Save the Storks, and Heartbeat International, have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs defending First Choice.

“The Attorney General of New Jersey was asking for private communications between workers, volunteers, clients, donors,” Adam Mathews, who represents Heartbeat International, told CT. “All that type of information … has constitutionally been protected at the highest court.”

Being forced to release donor information can have “an incredibly chilling effect on any type of communication,” according to Mathews.

There are recent examples of activists using that information to try to get people fired—sometimes successfully. Mathews gave the example of JavaScript inventor and Mozilla cofounder Brendan Eich, who gave money to support a ban on same-sex marriage in California and was forced to resign.

Lincoln Wilson, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm representing First Choice, feels optimistic that the Supreme Court will see the merit of their case. Precedent is on the crisis pregnancy center’s side, he said, pointing to NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson.

In that 1958 case, the state of Alabama was trying to subpoena the NAACP’s membership list. The Supreme Court ruled that the request constituted harassment and infringed on the freedom of association rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. It was a unanimous decision.

Before the court can consider the subpoena, however, it will have to decide if the case should be a federal case at all. A lower court ruled that the case couldn’t be appealed at the federal level until after it was fought out in state courts. That decision was upheld by the Third Circuit.

Lawyers for First Choice argue that this denies the nonprofit the opportunity to defend itself until after the potential harm has occurred. Experts say the Supreme Court will focus first on the question of when federal judges can intervene.

Defenders of the crisis pregnancy clinic say this is what the federal courts are for.

“Federal courts have been explicitly designated by Congress to hear federal civil rights claims,” the American Legislative Exchange Council argued in one legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court. “By denying a federal forum, the lower courts undermine the division of state and federal authority that is central to the American system of government.”

Pro-life advocates say their major concern, however, is less the legal question about the appropriate court for the lawsuit and more the fear of local governments going after Christian nonprofits. They hope the Supreme Court will decide for First Choice, clearing the way for the crisis pregnancy center to appeal the real question.

“There are so many components … that are strikingly chilling for the public and for pregnancy centers across the country,” said Americans United for Life spokeswoman Sarah Zagorski.

She believes First Choice was attacked because it was a Christian organization.

“That’s something that’s very shocking for the public and something the public should know,” she said. “It threatens long-established protections … for religious entities.”

Huber hopes the courts will protect First Choice from harassment. But she wants a Supreme Court victory to help protect other religious nonprofits and bolster First Amendment protections.

“I believe it could be precedent-setting,” Huber said, “and protect all different sorts of nonprofits from government overreach and from bullying and harassment when the government does not share their viewpoint.”

For now, she is just thankful that the Supreme Court is willing to listen.

“While it does weigh heavy, I am hopeful and strengthened by what God could achieve through it.”

- More from Adam MacInnis

Pastors

Sent to Your Street

Chip Sweney

Mission isn’t just across the ocean. It’s across the street. God places his people in neighborhoods and cities so the nations might know him.

SolStock / Getty

Everyone is on the move. There is a restlessness—a vast migration—taking place worldwide. In our neighborhoods, communities, and cities, the nations have arrived at our doorstep. We each have the opportunity to embrace intercultural relationships and to understand, respect, and benefit from the richness of cultures interacting. This is more than a global issue. It’s a local invitation. Pastors have a calling to engage the mission fields right outside their doors.

Pastor Tim Keller once said that a kingdom vision will make you “open to being sent out into your neighborhood to reach and serve in new ways..” This is a new kind of being sent. Rather than uprooting our families and leaving jobs and support networks, being sent today may simply mean being available—willingly stepping into culturally diverse relationships.

People everywhere are looking for their place in the world. The importance of place is evident from the beginning of time. It’s woven into history: Mankind began in a garden (Gen. 2:8, 15), and for followers of Christ, our journey culminates in a holy city, New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). Jesus’ ministry was rooted in specific geographic locations—Bethlehem, Nazareth, and ultimately Jerusalem.

In a similar way, God has placed each of us and our churches in specific places. He calls us to be more than merely residents. As a part of God’s redemptive plan, we have a responsibility to love our neighbors and engage our communities where we live, where we work, and wherever we go in our daily routines.

So how should churches and ministries respond to this opportunity?

To begin, we as pastors and leaders must rekindle the flame for mission.

I am one of the pastors at Perimeter Church, which has been ministering in the Greater Atlanta area for 48 years. Since our founding, Perimeter has sought to be a missional church, reaching our community, our city, and beyond. When we moved into our current facility in 1996, our surrounding community was approximately 90 percent white. Over the past 30 years, that same area has shifted to a 50-50 split between white residents and people of color. This change has brought new opportunities for intercultural friendships, and in turn, it has started to shift the relational culture of the church.

In response to this changing demographic, church leadership became proactive. We evaluated our staffing, programming, and engagement with our community. We increased diversity in leadership positions and developed partnerships with local nonprofits. Our people are building relationships and sharing the gospel in word and deed where they live, work, and go. Although we still have room to grow, we are increasingly reflecting our community and are seeing signs of progress.

Has your community experienced any demographic shifts? A simple way to assess this is to walk through your neighborhood, visiting local restaurants and stores, and intentionally spend time in public spaces. You may be surprised by how diverse your neighborhood is becoming.

How should pastors and ministry leaders build intercultural relationships?

Our people take their cues from us. The Father sent the Son, and the Son has sent his followers into relationships and mission (John 17:18; Matt. 10:5–8). That is just as true for us as for our congregants. As they are sent, so too are we. And as we build relational connections with pastors, community leaders, and neighbors in our communities, we model the richness of these relationships.

I have benefited from friendships with pastors who labor in different cultural contexts. Over the years, these pastors have become a “band of brothers” for me. We’ve supported each other through many challenges, and through these friendships, we have seen our lives and ministries flourish. I have experienced a couple challenging seasons of deep depression and anxiety, and the Lord has used these brothers as part of restoring me.

I recognize that many are reluctant to step outside their comfort zones and build relationships with people from other cultures. But you don’t have to travel overseas with a passport to be faithful. Sometimes the most courageous step is reaching across the street. It can start with having a conversation with a neighbor or inviting someone different into your home.

Let me share a little of my family’s story. We live in Duluth, Georgia, a town 15 minutes from our church. We’ve been in the same home for 23 years. Early on, when we first settled in, God began stirring in us a desire to reach out to our neighbors and engage with our community. Through those small steps toward missional faithfulness, we began experiencing intercultural friendships.

The second part of the Great Commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). Building new relationships with neighbors was our response. We wanted to love people and share the gospel with them in both word and deed (Luke 10:9). Over the years, we have seen God bear fruit out of this desire, and the friendships we’ve gained have enriched our lives. A turning point came when we began serving in the public schools our children attended. We formed friendships with parents from many cultures and began doing life with them. As we stepped into leadership at those schools, our relationships expanded even more.

I’ve also had the privilege of joining a diverse pastors’ group in the city. We’ve built strong bonds, pray for one another, and spur each another on to love and good deeds in our shared community (Heb. 10:24).

I share these as simple examples of how easily we can begin to engage our communities as the local mission fields they are. I am not suggesting you do exactly what we have done; however, I do encourage you to pray about your community and ask God for meaningful ways to engage with your neighborhood. At Perimeter we have a phrase: “Think big, start small, and go deep.” It’s good to have big dreams, but lasting change always starts with personal relationships.

Here are three foundational principles and some simple first steps I’ve found helpful for building intercultural relationships.

Be intentional

Our natural instinct is to build relationships with people who are like us. But cultivating friendships across cultures requires intentionality. It means understanding that shifting demographics are not a threat but an opportunity to be faithful to God’s call to mission. Although there’s a low barrier to entry, we still need courage to take the first step.

Begin by praying for an intercultural friendship and a cross-cultural friendship where you live. I am confident God will answer that prayer.

Be a listener and a learner

As we engage in these new relationships, it will become apparent we have much to learn. And that’s okay. It’s part of the process.

James 1:19 encourages us to “be quick to listen, slow to speak.” Ask questions. Listen well. As you do, watch your friendship deepen through understanding.

Be perseverant

Don’t give up. Stay with it. Adopt the mindset of a missionary—don’t walk away after one awkward conversation or failed attempt. Keep trying new and different ways to build genuine relationships where the gospel can take root.

A few simple first steps

This kind of intentional mission doesn’t have to be complicated. It begins with small, everyday acts of faithfulness. Here are some first steps you can take:

Research your church’s surrounding demographics. This will help you better understand the context God has placed you in.
Invite another leader from a different background to have lunch and begin building a friendship.
Encourage church members to host neighbors in their homes—whether through a holiday gathering, a simple conversation over coffee, or regular walks through the neighborhood to engage those who live on their streets.

Mission begins with getting to know the people the Lord places around us. All it takes is a mustard seed of faithfulness and a willingness to be intentional in ordinary places.

Finally, remember where we are all headed. We’re on our way to the new heavens and new earth. There, believers from every nation, tribe, people, and language will gather together in eternal relationship (Rev. 7:9). Our distinctives will remain, but something beautiful will happen: All will be redeemed. Every cultural barrier that divides us will be entirely gone. God’s unique design for each of us will be on display for all to enjoy.

Until that day, we bear witness to our future hope by living it out now. May his kingdom come and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

- More from Chip Sweney

Ideas

The National Guard Won’t Fix Our Crime Problem

Grant Everly

Lasting solutions come when we draw near to victims and seek God’s help in prayer.

Members of the National Guard patrol the National Mall on September 04, 2025.

Kent Nishimura / Stringer / Getty

When I was out-of-state visiting a friend last year, I received a startling text from my wife informing me a drive-by shooting had occurred on our street in Chicago. I immediately called her, and with a trembling voice, she described how she hit the floor of our apartment when gunshots rattled outside. She said it even felt like something had hit our wall. Police eventually arrived, and sure enough, they discovered a bullet had struck our building, entering the apartment of a neighbor across the courtyard.

In the aftermath of the shooting, my wife and I felt constantly unsettled. Any loud bang would cause us to freeze. As much as I was disturbed by what had happened, I was also haunted by what didn’t. Every few hours I searched online to see if I could find coverage of the incident, but nothing showed up. I reached out to a reporter, who explained that the news outlet doesn’t typically cover shootings unless someone’s physically harmed. I even downloaded a police database and isolated our block but found no record of the shooting.

Unfortunately, what we experienced was only the beginning of a cascade of violence. Last year, on a city block where I boarded a public train for my commute to law school, there were five shootings, three of them fatal. Earlier this year, five gunshots awoke my wife and me shortly after midnight. We soon learned that a man had been shot and killed outside the apartment building next to ours. He was 28 years old—the same age as me.

This time, I felt less worried for my own safety. I had learned that these types of shootings were rarely indiscriminate. They almost always targeted specific individuals, usually related to long-standing gang feuds. Although the murder outside my door reminded me that the risk of a stray bullet was non-zero, I knew no one was out to target me. I would stay alert, but I felt I would be fine.

This recognition, however, almost made things worse. I had come to see that the victims of violence are typically the most invisible of my neighbors. They exist in the periphery and are almost always Black or brown young men. Their suffering often felt unseen. If you didn’t hear the gunshots yourself or personally know the victim, you wouldn’t know someone’s life had been taken. There were no public memorials. No family members on the news lamenting the loss of the victim. Neighbors simply slipped away, never to be seen again, and the rest of us went on with our lives, unperturbed.

I thought, This is not as it was meant to be. Surely Jesus, who wept for the death of his friend Lazarus, is weeping at the murders of people made in his image. But am I? Is my church?

In the past few years, much has been made about violence in cities like mine. President Donald Trump has described Chicago as a “hellhole,” threatening to send in the National Guard despite the objection of our elected officials. After local officials pushed back, Trump signed an order this week to deploy the National Guard—already active in Washington, DC—to Memphis over the objection of the city’s mayor. He also continued to threaten a deployment to Chicago, saying the city was probably next and others, such as New Orleans and St. Louis, might follow.

I understand why many people might be open to such measures. Violence destroys communities, and it’s appropriate to yearn for safety and peace. But in our political moment, I believe we should emphatically reject sending in the National Guard or any other militarized law enforcement as the solution to everyday civilian violence. I am hopeful that we can produce lasting change in our cities without embracing a rather extreme policy with lasting ramifications on how we interact with law enforcement and live in our communities.

I’m hopeful because I’ve seen dramatic reductions of horrifying violence with my own eyes. I had the privilege of working with International Justice Mission (IJM) in the Dominican Republic, where IJM’s program focused on stopping one specific form of violence: the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Over eight years of work, the organization witnessed a 78 percent reduction in the prevalence of commercial sexual exploitation of children, a finding external evaluators confirmed.

That experience taught me that violence begins to decline when we take seriously Scripture’s commands to care for the vulnerable. In the Dominican Republic and throughout much of the world, survivors of sex trafficking are stigmatized, overlooked, and viewed as deserving the trauma they endure. But things started to shift in the Caribbean nation when IJM communicated that victims bear the image of God and that society ought to care for them as such. IJM, of course, didn’t do this alone; it worked alongside hundreds of local churches that joined regularly for prayer and exerted significant efforts to support our program.

Similarly, I’m convinced that in the US the problem of violence will not end until we proclaim the worth and dignity of every life. I know right now some might be thinking, But the typical victim may also have been a perpetrator. Isn’t that person among the “wicked” whom the Lord opposes (Ps. 146:9)? or How can we say that person is vulnerable?

Often, when we make objections like this, we fail to realize that we do not scrutinize victims of other violence in the same way. For example, American Christians have had significant empathy for victims of sex trafficking, like those I worked with in the Dominican Republic. At times, this empathy stems from a simplistic—and largely false—narrative of an innocent girl who is abducted and violated. But this is rarely the story in real life.

The average sex-trafficking victim is highly vulnerable, has experienced multiple severe traumas, may be criminally active, and often has substance-abuse struggles. In short, these victims are imperfect and sometimes perpetrators of violence themselves, not unlike many victims of urban violence. But imperfect as they might be, they need advocates who reflect a God “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4) and who proclaim their status as image bearers.

In the Dominican Republic, my former colleagues often heard people start their sentences with words like esas niñas, or “those girls.” Then many would go on to list disparaging adjectives— addicted to drugs, nasty, violent, difficult. These characterizations are not far from the narrative of American violence we see on the news or social media.

Militarized responses motivated by a “hellhole” characterization will only lead to a country where victims are treated more like monsters and less like people with worth and dignity. It is human nature, as God warns against, to turn away from our own flesh and blood (Isa. 58:7). The racial history of the United States—from white flight to the suburbs to restrictive racial housing covenants—has forced us away from one another. However, the tendency to put others at arm’s length is not exclusive to Americans. I also saw it in the Dominican Republic, where most individuals, Christians included, condemned and avoided victims of sex trafficking.

Violence there started to topple only as humble, committed advocates drew near to the victims. Investigations took time—officials patiently and meticulously started to build strong legal cases before making arrests. They sought to understand each situation before acting. Many of these local officials were eager to improve. They were open to our program evaluating the quality of their work and giving them feedback, an attitude which showed an admirable level of humility. Over eight years of work, displays of force were rarely, if ever, required to produce a dramatic reduction in child sex trafficking.

As child sex trafficking initially was in the Dominican Republic, violence in the US is sustained by a crisis of proximity. Sociologist Andrew Papachristos, who has extensively studied violence in Chicago, has found it is rarely random. Rather, it’s contained in small networks of people, where the line between victim and perpetrator is blurred. The same holds true in other areas around the country. In a study of violence in Boston, for example, researchers found that 85 percent of all gunshot injuries occurred within a single social network.

Those far from such problems are the most likely to call places like Chicago or Memphis “hellholes,” while the victims themselves suffer endlessly. But these patterns and feelings, to be clear, are not new. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about them in his reflections on living in Chicago in 1966, noting that American society was “willing to let the frustrations born of racism’s violence become internalized and consume its victims” in our cities. “America’s horror was only expressed,” he wrote, “when the aggression turned outward.” In other words, urban violence exists in part due to deliberate actions—both in the past and present—that oppress some while isolating them from the rest of society.

We’re unlikely to stomp out violence in our cities until we follow the example of Jesus, who did not consider himself better than us but rather took the very nature of a servant, becoming like us, living among us, and working for our restoration (Phil. 2:3–7). There are many organizations scattered in our cities that are involved in this Christlike work. In my own city, organizations like the Lawndale Christian Legal Center, Breakthrough, and One Northside are leading this charge.

But this work doesn’t just need programs. It requires God’s people to earnestly seek him in prayer. Scripture tells us that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12). As one commentary on the Book of Revelation notes, “Spiritual evil … always eventually reverts to physical violence,” and “as evil seeks to assert itself against the kingship of the Lamb, it generates civil strife.”

When I worked for IJM, we began our workday with 30 minutes of corporate stillness, which gave us time to seek God individually. Then, every day, we would spend 30 minutes in corporate prayer, petitioning God for justice, much like the persistent widow in the Gospel of Luke. We prayed daily for help for victims, for righteous leaders, for stamina for ourselves, for the love of Christ to abound in our lives, for joy. We lamented and cried. My colleagues sang, and they sang loud, belting out praises to God and asking him to work on earth.

Since I’ve been back in my own country, I have wrestled with whether it’s easier for American evangelicals to pray for violence abroad than to pray for our own cities. To be honest, the question haunts me. I can say that in my own church in Chicago, I have rarely heard a prayer for God to intervene in the violence of our community. And many of us within the congregation have experienced that violence to some degree.

Even as my heart is heavy pondering these issues, I rarely turn to God in prayer. My mind goes to strategies and words, neglecting the truth that God sits on the throne, ready to answer his people. Perhaps all of us should start in prayer. And then, from there, let’s take Scripture seriously in its commitment to the marginalized and move closer to those bearing the brunt of violence in our cities.

Grant Everly is an attorney based in Chicago. He has worked at the intersection of violence and trauma in areas such as migration, human trafficking, and criminal justice in the United States and throughout Latin America.

- More from Grant Everly

Ideas

How Then Shall America Pray?

Ashley Ekmay

The White House’s new prayer initiative reveals much about our national character.

US President Donald Trump bows his head in prayer during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2025.

Jim Watson / Getty

In an address at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, on September 8, President Donald Trump launched another in a fairly long line of religious projects, the America Prays initiative.

Next year, “we will celebrate 250 years since that Declaration was signed,” Trump said in his address. “As part of the grand commemoration … we’ve invited America’s great faith communities to pray for our nation, for our people, and for peace in the world.”

Initiatives like this aren’t unusual in the US—you don’t have to search long to find examples of presidents, religious leaders, or celebrities making similar pronouncements, encouraging Americans to join them in praying for the nation and its people. But this proclamation is different for several reasons.

For starters, Trump’s America Prays initiative starts with a clear and simple ask: “that 1 million Americans would dedicate one hour a week to praying for our country and our people.”

For Christians and people of faith more broadly, this isn’t a hard goal to argue with. We’re already commanded to pray—humbly, lovingly and unceasingly. According to recent research, 44 percent of American adults already pray daily. That’s over 100 million, and it’s not a leap to ask that 10 percent of those would weekly devote time (if they aren’t already) to focus their prayers toward the health of the US.

But Trump’s call to action takes this a step further, encouraging folks to find 10 people to meet with each week to join in this effort, and, in what might be one of the most ecclesiastical expressions of this administration’s call to “defend our American values of faith,” the White House website now lists a handful of resources to help aid your prayer life, including an explainer of the ACTS model, weekly prayer challenges, and affiliate mentions of Hallow and Pray.com.

It’s a striking move to be sure. Since the nation’s inception, prayer has been a fixed institution, both procedurally within the government and as a righteous rallying cry to unify hearts and minds toward the common good. But the America Prays initiative is something a bit more pointed, more thoroughgoing in its aims to further catechize an American public that is purportedly increasingly religious.

In addition to the ACTS model, exhortations to partake in intercessory prayers for leaders, and recommendations for prayer apps, there is a long-form document offered as a resource called Prayer and Proclamations Throughout American History. The prayers and proclamations resource contains 17 prayers, sermons, and proclamations from historically notable American figures, including leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Billy Graham, and George W. Bush, among others.

The prayers and pronouncements are ordered chronologically, beginning with an invocation made in 1607 for the settlers who would later establish Jamestown Colony, and ending in 2001, with a prayer for the victims of 9/11.

The earliest prayers and sermons included—the very first being from 1607—focus on thankfulness for God’s provision, petitions for protection, and hopes for strength as early settlers labored under the vision of manifest destiny as a divine opportunity to bring Christianity to the new world. While these sentiments—thankfulness, protection, conquest—are throughlines in many of the pieces, you can see the tenor change a bit as the sermons move from the 17th century to the present day.

Due to (or despite) their historical contexts, past prayers and sermons offer us much in the way of guidance, spiritual formation, and visibility into both the hopes and anxieties of people from history. This is a rich collection as well as a testament to the oratory and writing skills of people that have seen the United States through some of its most significant and most formative moments.

But this document serves another purpose—to demonstrate a picture of what values the current administration seems to hope will characterize the United States.

Yet, it is incomplete. There are a number of biblically grounded, thoughtfully considered prayers and remarks here, but many aren’t included in full. One prayer like this is written by Abiel Leonard, crafted for Washington’s army during the Revolutionary War. The excerpt is short:

O my God, in obedience to the call of thy providence, I have engaged myself, and plighted my faith, to jeopardy my life in the high places of the field in the defense of my dear country and the liberties of it acknowledging thy people to be my people, their interest my interest, and their God to be my God. … And I desire now to make solemn dedication of myself to thee in it through Jesus Christ presenting myself to thy Divine Majesty to be disposed of by thee to thy glory and the good of America.

… Teach, I pray thee, my hands to war, and my fingers to fight in the defense of America, and the rights and liberties of it! Impress upon my mind a true sense of my duty, and the obligation I am under to my country! …

… Hear me, O my God, and accept of those my petitions through Jesus Christ, to whom with thee, O Father, and the Holy Spirit, one God, be glory, honor and praise, forever and ever. AMEN.

While this excerpt alludes to Psalm 144:1, “Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle,” Leonard’s prayer ends on a rather different note, one not included in the prayers and proclamations document:

And grant, O Lord, that the inhabitants of Great-Britain may arise and vindicate their liberties; and a glorious reunion take place between them and thy people in this land, founded upon the principles of liberty and righteousness.

While other prayers in the document evoke warfare to fully rid the world of evil, a missing portion of Leonard’s prayer sees the ideal outcome of conflict as reconciliatory, a “glorious reunion.”

Leonard’s whole prayer is redemptive, not the somewhat imprecatory missive it appears to be in the White House’s excerpt. It’s a truly Christian look at what it is to see the enemy, even an enemy nation, as a potential brother.

Number nine is John Quincy Adams’s Independence Day Address, 1837. This speech is a very long one, and the prayers and proclamations resource lifts passages focusing largely on Adams’s belief that the US was a uniquely valuable conduit through which God’s will could be reified on earth: “that it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity,” portraying the inhabitants “as a civilized, religious, and Christian people.”

But the full Newburyport oration looks deeper. Adams insists that while civil government is a crucial guardian of social order, spiritual principles and human rights supersede it:

By the affirmation that the principal natural rights of mankind are unalienable, it placed them beyond the reach of organized human power; and by affirming that governments are instituted to secure them, and may and ought to be abolished if they become destructive of those ends, they made all government subordinate to the moral supremacy of the People.

While the White House excerpt is largely a recognition of government as a means of executing God’s will, the fuller oration reminds us that the government is answerable to the spiritual ordering of things and the will of the people—not to the prerogatives of the state.

The final entry documents George Bush’s remarks on the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, delivered just two days after 9/11. The document includes Bush’s admonition to “answer these attacks and rid the world of evil,” but it does not include Bush’s praise: “We have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice.” It also doesn’t reflect his harkening back to one of his predecessors: “Today, we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity. This is a unity of every faith, and every background.”

Bush goes on:

In this trial, we have been reminded … that our fellow Americans are generous and kind, resourceful and brave. We see our national character in rescuers working past exhaustion … in thousands of citizens who have asked to work and serve in any way possible.

Even Bush recognized that our national character is not in our power or in how quickly we are able to deliver retribution, but in the sacrificial love we exhibit in the service of helping those in need, even at great risk to ourselves.

But a prayer by Martin Luther King Jr. may be the most powerful in elucidating the true character of a Christian nation, and what prayers proceeding from this character could embody.

King’s prayer includes both a confession to God that we have not loved our neighbor enough, have not gone the extra mile, that our history is “an eternal revolt against [God],” as well as a plea for forgiveness.

King also prays:

We realize that we stand surrounded with the mountains of love and we deliberately dwell in the valley of hate. We stand amid the forces of truth and deliberately lie; We are forever offered the high road and yet we choose to travel the low road. For these sins O God forgive. Break the spell of that which blinds our minds.

This is a convicting message—illuminating the ways that we, individually and collectively, are prone to walk directly into wrongdoing, often despite being surrounded by opportunities to make the right choice instead. What’s omitted here, though, is King’s clear and compelling call to action: “Help us to work with renewed vigor for a warless world, for a better distribution of wealth, and for a brotherhood that transcends race or color.”

While the America Prays initiative website speaks to the importance of national character, its decision-making reveals a character that the current powers seem to hope the US would embody. An idealized future of the United States for this administration is not one where peace is achieved through reconciliation and Christlike humility, but rather where “peace” is realized through the perpetuation of the United States as an unstoppable and unassailable picture of military might. Not just a nation, but an empire with unlimited firepower, able to, according to Trump, “wipe [countries] off the face of the earth.”

Many of the figures included in the document—most especially the clergy quoted—see war and bloodshed not as intrinsic to our character, but as something to be avoided at all costs, as failings that Christians should be ardently at work to see dissolved.

How, then, should Christians pray? Despite its omissions, the Prayer and Proclamations Throughout American History is a helpful guide, exhorting people of faith to give thanks to God for his provision, to recognize their transgressions against him and against their fellow man, to intercede on behalf of their neighbors, their communities, and their government officials for God’s guidance, and to see the person of Jesus Christ shared.

But the omissions lend additional color to how we petition God: We ask him to burden us with our failures to our neighbors, to make us deeply empathetic, to move us to faithful action, and above all else, to make us instruments of peace—characterized not by strength or might, but by humble reconciliation with those we share this nation with.

Ashley Ekmay is insights analyst at Christianity Today.

- More from Ashley Ekmay

News

For Kirk’s Fans, Provocation Wasn’t the Point

Mike Cosper

Young Christians in Kentucky remember how he treated question-askers and critics.

Jon Cherry / Getty Images

In the week following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, many young Christians in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky were explaining why his death hit them so hard. They pointed me to videos of Kirk interacting with others.

Carter McGill, a 23-year-old recent graduate of the University of Louisville and former vice president of a campus ministry called Across Campus, pointed out a YouTube short in which Kirk interacted with a young woman who identified as a transgender male. In the clip, the student asks Kirk at what age a person should be allowed to start medical intervention for gender transition. Kirk deflects and asks to hear the student’s story and reasons for seeking gender transition.

Kirk then encourages mental health help and “someone that is going to listen to what you’ve gone through, listen to what else is going on.” He says, “My prayer for you … I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born. I know that you might not feel that way, but I think that is something that you can achieve. … You don’t have to wage war on your body. You can learn to love your body.”

McGill spoke of dozens of videos in which a person approaches Kirk with a difficult question or even with hostility and his response is almost pastoral. “I can’t think of a time when he was ever hateful to someone he actually interacted with,” McGill said. Sometimes there’s fun, as in McGill’s favorite moment: a young woman coming to the microphone with her baby. She tries to ask a question. The baby interrupts, making noise into the microphone. But rather than express irritation or shrug it off, Kirk, with an ear-to-ear smile, says, “Give it up. That is a gift from the Lord, everyone. That is just beautiful.”

Clayton Smitson, 26, said, “When he talked to people, he talked to them particularly, not to their ideology.” Seth Franco, a 20-year-old student at the University of Louisville, said he admired how Kirk told followers to consider the downstream consequences of progressive ideas and the ministry opportunities they presented to the church.

For example, on the subject of gender transition, Kirk would often speak of it as a matter of social contagion. But rather than simply argue against the ideology itself, he challenged followers to prepare to help. “We need to care for people when they come out of this,” Franco said, believing the “fallout of the movement” was where the church could meet people with the love of Christ and restore them to normal lives.

When orating before crowds, as opposed to answering questions, Kirk was sometimes a flame thrower, with particular criticism reserved for affirmative action, transgender ideology, and DEI initiatives—which he said stood for “Didn’t Earn It.” But some Louisville Christians emphasized how he told opponents they were made in the image of God. His belief in that fact shaped how he treated critics. He often slowed people down, tried to calm their nerves, and even helped them articulate their arguments or critiques.

Although the mainstream press has focused on Kirk’s political role, many in their 20s said his influence went way beyond politics. “He was different from [The Daily Wire’s] Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh,” said Cassidy Adams, 26, a stay-at-home mom of twin boys. (Disclosure: she’s married to my nephew.) “They’re so abrasive. Kirk showed you could get so much further when you act Christlike and show kindness even while you spoke the truth.”

Adams graduated with a biology degree from an extension campus of Indiana University, where many of her peers tried to “disprove or debunk Christianity and creationism. … The minute you mentioned that you were a Christian, you were treated different.” She appreciated Kirk’s professional demeanor when taking on progressive campus culture and how he tied “science, religion, and politics into one discussion.” She admired his “gift for winning the argument, for sure, but above the arguments he made it plain and simple—Jesus above all.”

Young Christian mourners I spoke with loved Kirk for his bold affirmations of the beauty of marriage. They’ll miss his humor and charm as he won someone from the opposition over to his side. They’ll miss his understanding of when to laugh with people and when to challenge them and those moments when Kirk could disarm one of his challengers by presenting the gospel. In his best moments, he spoke not as a saint lording his status over a sinner but (to borrow a phrase) as one beggar showing another where to find food.

Kirk played that part imperfectly. When his critics say he blurred the lines between political and religious conviction, they’re right. When folks dig up comments he made that are inflammatory or offensive, the critiques that accompany them are often fair. But for those who loved Charlie Kirk, the point wasn’t the provocation, nor was it really even the culture war. It was the appeal of a person of deep conviction, showing up unafraid in a hostile setting, sharing his faith, and treating those around him with dignity and respect.

If those on the right fail to learn from these values, incorporate them, and even canonize them in their own political ethos, we could be headed to a very dark place. The death of Charlie Kirk may well be a tipping point for us culturally. But his way of life may light a way that pulls us back from the brink.

- More from Mike Cosper

News

Most Men Are Pro-Life. Activists Want Them to Speak Up.

Adam MacInnis

Programs seek to help fathers voice opinions and take responsibility.

Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

When polled, a majority of men in America check the pro-life box. But when two blue lines appear on a pregnancy test, many remain reluctant to voice those views.

“It’s like they don’t want to say the wrong thing and they don’t take a hard stance out loud,” said Amy Ford, cofounder and president of Embrace Grace, a nonprofit that equips churches to minister to expectant mothers.

Fifty four percent of men identified as pro-life, compared to just 32 percent of women, in a recent Gallup poll. In practice, those who work in the pro-life movement say many men are reluctant to express those views in public—or in private when faced with unplanned pregnancies.

Care Net president and CEO Roland Warren believes a big reason they don’t say anything is because they have bought into the pervasive cultural narrative that a man has no right to care about an unborn child until the mother decides not to have an abortion.

“Unfortunately, because of what’s happened in the culture, men have been trained that the right thing to say is ‘I support whatever decision you make,’” Warren said.

Warren and other pro-life advocates want to see that cultural norm change. They wish the pro-life sentiment that shows up in polls would get voiced aloud when it matters most. Pro-life advocates believe men can and should voice their views on life, especially in their personal relationships.

“We’re talking about the intentional killing of innocent human lives,” said Sean Corcoran, CEO of Men for Life. “That is not a women’s issue. That is not a men’s issue. That is a societal issue.”

When a woman tells a man she is pregnant, she is in a vulnerable position and is often looking for reassurance, Corcoran said. The father of the child has an opportunity at that point to address those fears.

“They need to speak to the woman’s concern—the concern that she’s going to be alone, that she’s not going to be able to afford this, that this is going to negatively impact her life,” Corcoran said.

Corcoran believes it’s important for a man to show that he’ll be there in some fashion, even if the relationship hasn’t been figured out and the status of that relationship needs to be a separate conversation. He encourages each man to show that he’ll be there through the pregnancy, help raise the child, and provide financially.

Warren knows a bit about how rewarding it can be when a man steps into the role of father.

He and his girlfriend, Yvette Lopez, were halfway through their degrees at Princeton University when they found out she was pregnant.

A professional at Princeton University’s student health services encouraged her to abort. Yvette was studying to be a doctor, and a baby would be an obstacle in that path.

Warren was scared. He had grown up in a single-mother home with four kids. He knew nothing of fatherhood.

Against the advice around them, they chose life, got married, and proved the naysayers wrong as they finished their education and pursued their careers while raising their child.

That experience and a growing understanding of Scripture helped Warren create a philosophy of pro-life ministry that includes men.

When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, Warren believes, Christians should consider an important question.

“If you can change everything except the fact that she’s pregnant,” he posited, “what should Christians want to have happen?”

He believes the story of Mary’s unexpected pregnancy with Jesus is a great precedent that highlights God’s call of Joseph to step into the role of father and husband.

Ultimately, Warren said, Christian pro-lifers want the woman to be supported and the child to be raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But you can’t get any of that if you don’t engage the guy.

That’s why Warren has put an emphasis on ministering to men during his 11 years as president of National Fatherhood Initiative before joining Care Net in 2012 as president and CEO. For many years, he said, crisis pregnancy resource centers have made the mistake of ignoring a man’s role.

“When I started at Care Net, less than 10 percent of Care Net-affiliated pregnancy centers had anything for men. Now we’re close to 65 to 70 percent,” he said.

One of the best ways he’s found to connect with a man is to have his partner invite him along when she contacts a crisis pregnancy center.

After a couple makes contact, the staff can begin to show the father how involved he needs to be, countering the cultural message that pregnancy is none of his business. Showing a man the life of his child—connecting with his abstract, quiet pro-life beliefs—can be really powerful too.

“When he goes to the ultrasound and he sees that life in her womb, something happens in his head. It becomes real for him,” Warren said.

Once fathers see their role, Care Net tries to teach them the skills to be good fathers and husbands.

This programming helps grow the man’s confidence that he can be a father. It also reassures a woman that her partner will be able to support her.

Embrace Grace also has a group focused on men called Embrace Legacy. It’s a chance for soon-to-be fathers to learn from older men.

“If these young men could have mentors that would disciple them and take them under their wing and help them dream, I think it would change everything,” Ford said.

When fathers don’t step up, Ford believes other Christian men can play a valuable role by using their gifts to help support single women.

Embrace Grace holds a special event for women called Princess Day, where they focus on their identity and worth in the eyes of God. One Embrace Grace support group decided to take it a step further and have men of all ages line the path the women walk into the event, holding signs with words of identity: chosen, loved, brave.

“These girls, they walk into this room, and they have to go through this tunnel, and they are bawling. Like they’ve never had men speak life over them,” Ford said.

Brian Walker, program director at Pro-Life Action Ministries and cofounder of Rich in Mercy, said a lot of men haven’t had anyone speak goodness into their lives either. He said having godly men show up for young men facing the reality of fatherhood can be transformative.

Sometimes, he said, when he stands near abortion facilities and tries to engage in peaceful conversations with people considering abortion, protesters will yell things at him like “no uterus, no opinion.” But he remembers 40 years ago: When he and his girlfriend decided to abort their child, he wishes someone had talked him, telling him his child was a real human being and he had a right to want to see his baby born.

Maybe if he’d spoken up, they wouldn’t have had an abortion. Outside clinics, he sometimes gets the opportunity to engage in deep conversations with men. They’re often surprised, he said.

He recalled one conversation ended with a young man saying, “Thank you, I’ve never talked with a man [about this] before.”

It showed him an important truth. Men’s voices are needed.

There’s a fatherhood crisis in America, Walker thinks. That’s part of the cultural problem that led to abortion being legalized. And it’s part of the problem that keeps men silent even when they have thoughts and feelings about the lives of their children.

But there’s a solution, according to Walker: “Men in the pro-life movement can exhibit being a father,” he said, “and exhibit our Father who art in heaven.”

- More from Adam MacInnis

News

Harvest Christian Fellowship Accused of Negligence in Romania

Daniel Silliman

Church responds to lawsuits claiming abuse in orphanages it supported: “The target here should be the alleged perpetrator, not our church.”

Cindy Yamanaka / The Orange County Register via AP

Two Romanian men claim a church in California is responsible for the fact that they were repeatedly raped as children in orphanages in the Eastern European country.

They say Harvest Christian Fellowship and its leaders, including evangelist and Calvary Chapel pastor Greg Laurie, should have known what was happening and stopped it.

Marian Barbu and Mihai-Constantin Petcu are plaintiffs in two lawsuits filed in federal court in California this week. They allege negligence and seek damages from Laurie and Harvest Christian Fellowship, who supported the Romanian ministries, along with former pastors Richard Schutte and Paul Havsgaard.

Their suits do not offer evidence that Laurie knew of the abuse allegations but blame him nonetheless.

Harvest Christian Fellowship, in a statement to CT called the lawsuits “sensational” and “a form of financial extortion … The allegations are serious and disturbing, but the target here should be the alleged perpetrator, not our church. This misplaced lawsuit wrongly targets Harvest and our pastor.”

Paul Havsgaard, who worked at the Riverside, California, church for about 20 years, went on to start ten orphanages in Romania in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He allegedly used them to sexually abuse scores of children. The abuse was “savage” and “prolific,” according to the lawsuits, terrorizing the boys and girls who came to Harvest Homes because they were desperate and the ministry promised them hamburgers and a safe place to sleep.

“I know what God wants,” Havsgaard allegedly told children as young as eight. “What I want, God wants.”

Harvest Christian Fellowship supported the orphanages financially but did not provide any oversight, according to attorney Jan Cervenka. The lawsuits argue the church and its pastors knew of allegations against Havsgaard before he went to Romania in 1998 and were told in 2004 of “awful accusations” at the orphanages but chose to ignore them.

“They did nothing to protect the children there,” Cervenka told the court. “Despite proof that Havsgaard was a devious and unrelenting pedophile … Harvest Riverside, Laurie and Schutte did nothing. They did not fire, suspend, withdraw or discipline Havsgaard. They neither reported him to the authorities, as was their duty under California law, nor instituted any new policies or procedures at the Harvest Homes.”

Cervenka’s firm, McAllister Olivarius, said it expects to file 20 additional suits with additional victims who were raised in the Romanian orphanages in the coming weeks.

The defendants in the case have not yet responded to the lawsuits in court or identified legal representatives. Havsgaard could not be reached for comment. Schutte, who went on to pastor a Bible church, also could not be reached for comment.

The church acknowledged it did fund Havsgaard’s orphanages. It also acknowledged it didn’t provide oversight—but rejected arguments it was responsible for oversight of the Eastern European ministry.

The orphanages were run through the nonprofit Actively Restoring Kids International, which Havsgaard set up independent of the church. Online archives of the Harvest Christian Fellowship website list Havsgaard as a minister in 2001 but not in spring 2002.

When a denominational magazine profiled the work Havsgaard was doing in Romania in the winter of 2001, it encouraged people to donate and gave a phone number. The number belonged to Harvest Christian Fellowship’s main office in Riverside, California.

The following year, when another Calvary Chapel minister working in Romania heard reports of Havsgaard’s abuse, he thought he should report it to Harvest Christian Fellowship.

“He doesn’t need to be another day in Romania,” pastor Steve Quarles told Schutte, according to the lawsuits. “He needs to be gone. He is an embarrassment to every single missionary and Christian worker. Get him out of here.”

Quarles and two other pastors did an audit of Havsgaard’s ministry in 2004 and found extensive evidence of abuse, according to the lawsuits. Children at the homes reportedly talked about sexual abuse openly, discussing it with each other and adults they trusted on staff. The audit also turned up receipts showing Havsgaard took some of the boys to nearby hotels and purchased snacks and alcohol after midnight, the lawsuits say.

Schutte, the missions pastor at Harvest Christian Fellowship and a member of Havsgaard’s board, reportedly received the results of the internal investigation November 2004. He allegedly didn’t do anything and continued to direct funds to the ministry for four years.

Harvest Christian Fellowship has 21 days to respond to the court summons. It said the lawsuit’s claims are “absolutely and entirely false” and “some of it is plainly slanderous.”

“We thank God for courts of law,” the church said. “We expect to vigorously defend against these claims.”

This is a breaking news story and has been updated.

- More from Daniel Silliman

News

Malaysian Christian Executed After 8 Years on Singapore’s Death Row

Eliannah Yeo and Isabel Ong

“Jesus loves you,” Pannir Selvam Pranthaman wrote in his final handwritten note to his lawyer.

Activists attend a candlelight vigil to protest the impending execution of Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.

NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty

Key Updates

October 10, 2025

Pannir Selvam Pranthaman is Executed
September 18, 2025

A Christian Pleads for Her Brother’s Life on Singapore’s Death Row

October 10, 2025

On October 8, Singapore hanged Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.

The Southeast Asian country’s High Court first sentenced the 38-year-old to death in 2017 for importing 51.84 grams of heroin from Malaysia to Singapore. Pannir, a pastor’s son who was baptized while in prison, received two stays of execution in the last few years. He submitted one final appeal against his death sentence, but the Singapore court dismissed the appeal on October 7. A Singaporean judge said that there was “no basis” to grant Pannir another stay of execution.

When Pannir learned of his execution date, he told his siblings what he wanted to wear for his final photo shoot: the latest Manchester United jersey and a pair of jeans, according to a report by Singapore newsletter We, The Citizens.

“The outcome may not be what we [had hoped] for, but let it not diminish the richness of the journey we went through,” Pannir wrote in a letter to his lawyer Too Xing Ji on October 3. “God will be with you n’ your family.”

Pannir lived with “deep reflection, prayer, and purpose,” his older sister, Sangkari, said at his funeral at the Word of Life Centre Church in Perak, Malaysia, on October 10. “I want to remind others that change is possible, even from the darkest place. That’s who my brother was, a man of faith, compassion and courage.”

Malaysian human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo felt a deep sense of resignation when he heard about Pannir’s impending execution. He prayed for God to halt the execution and for Pannir to know God’s love for him with “great confidence.”

“Many things are done on earth in the purported name of justice,” Khoo told Christianity Today. “But we are a flawed people.”

Prior to Pannir’s execution, groups had assembled outside Singapore’s High Commission to hold candlelight vigils. Some people bore a large yellow banner with the words “Stop the Executions” in big, bold letters.

Pannir’s death is the 12th execution to take place in Singapore this year. A few days before Pannir’s execution, Singapore hanged another Malaysian, K. Datchinamurthy, for bringing 44.96 grams of diamorphine into Singapore. Datchinamurthy converted to Catholicism while in prison.

Last month, Pannir published a book of poetry in Malaysia titled Death Row Literature. He penned these poems while sitting on his prison cell’s cold floor with only a few sheets of paper at his disposal.

“Is justice in this world like the garden of Eden, / a place that you’ve heard exists, / but you can’t find a way to reach it?” Pannir wrote in a poem dated May 21, 2022. “Yet, still in hope, I am waiting / with open arms to welcome. / “Will justice finally come home?”

September 18, 2025

September 3, 2014, felt like any other ordinary day for Angelia Pranthaman—until the Malaysian national found out that Singapore’s police had arrested her older brother Pannir Selvam Pranthaman for trafficking drugs into the Southeast Asian country.

Singapore’s Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers stopped 27-year-old Pannir for a random search as he tried to cross the Malaysia-Singapore border at Woodlands Checkpoint, the world’s busiest land crossing. The officers discovered he was carrying diamorphine, or heroin.

Three years later, the High Court of Singapore convicted Pannir of importing 51.84 grams of heroin from Malaysia to Singapore and sentenced him to death, setting the execution for May 24, 2019.

But Pannir did not die that day and has remained on death row for the past eight years after experiencing two stays of execution.

On September 5, Singapore’s Court of Appeal dismissed Pannir’s most recent bid to halt his execution. This means that Pannir is again “at risk” of receiving an execution notice, Angelia told Union of Catholic Asian News.

Angelia felt heartbroken and deeply disappointed when she received news of the court ruling. “This decision was devastating,” she told Christianity Today. “At the same time, we felt a strange sense of calmness because we knew that God was still powerful even in this painful moment.”

Singapore is one of 34 countries in the world—like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China—that punish drug offenses with a mandatory death penalty, which the country introduced in 1973. It has one of the world’s strictest drug laws—anyone caught trafficking 15 grams of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine, 250 grams of methamphetamine, or 500 grams of cannabis will face capital punishment.

Many Singaporean evangelicals in the country favor the death penalty, as they consider it a helpful and even necessary deterrent to the proliferation of drug-related crimes in the country. More than two-thirds (74.6%) of Protestants supported capital punishment, a 2018 research project revealed.

In Malaysia, some Christians feel otherwise, noting there is room to practice greater compassion in the criminal justice system. Just over half (54%) of Malaysian Protestants are not opposed to abolishing the mandatory death penalty, according to a 2013 survey. Two years ago, the country scrapped the mandatory death penalty for serious crimes, including drug trafficking.

To Angelia, Pannir’s sentence leaves no room for the redemptive arc she has seen in her brother’s life. “No one should be defined by the worst mistake made, and every human life has value and potential for redemption,” Angelia said.

Pannir was born in Ipoh, Malaysia. The son of a pastor, he attended Emmanuel Tamil Assembly Church, where he played the drums, guitar, and keyboard on the worship team. In 2010, he started working in Singapore while living in the nearby Malaysian city of Johor Bahru.

At a gambling den there, Pannir became friends with a man named Anand, who asked him to transport goods from Malaysia into Singapore. This led to Pannir’s arrest and 2017 conviction, as the Singapore High Court found insufficient evidence to prove Pannir was unaware of the contents of the goods he had transported.

The 2017 court judgment noted several inconsistencies in Pannir’s statements, which led the judge to question whether he was a “truthful witness.” For instance, Pannir originally said he had transported the goods because he needed money, but he later claimed it was Anand facing financial difficulties. Pannir also initially said he did not know what goods he was carrying, but he later claimed they were drugs or aphrodisiacs.

As the years on death row passed, Pannir spent more time praying and reading the Bible. In 2018, he got baptized in prison and took a new name, Paul Silas, according to the Singaporean Christian publication Salt&Light.

“I feel blessed and my heart can feel the joy that came from [God’s] salvation,” he wrote of his decision to get baptized. “My relationship with my family and God is being healed, and it [has become] stronger these past two years.”

Evangelicals in Singapore have largely avoided addressing Pannir’s case. Some, however, have written publicly in support of Singapore’s imposition of the death penalty.

Capital punishment is “a divine imperative and a pattern found in the Old Testament,” Edwin Wong, a pastor at True Way Presbyterian Church in Singapore, wrote in a 2018 post on his church website.

Mosaic law “legislates the death penalty for various transgressions,” Wong argued. Old Testament passages like Exodus 21, where God says a person who strikes another “with a fatal blow is to be put to death” (v. 12), and Leviticus 24, where anyone who “takes the life of a human being” or blasphemes God must be put to death (vv. 16–17), illustrate this principle in Wong’s view.

The New Testament also reflects the “appropriateness” of the death penalty, Wong noted. He cited Luke 23:41, where the thief on the cross humbly acknowledges that he is being punished justly.

Some Singaporean evangelicals view the death penalty as a useful measure to quell the escalation of vices in the country. International drug syndicates increasingly target Singaporeans under the age of 16 to become buyers or sellers, said Kent Ho, chairman of Christian nonprofit Loving Hand Fellowship, which supports drug offenders through counseling and addiction recovery.

“That is why the Singapore government has to be so firm in [its] stance on drug-related laws,” said Ho.

Other Singaporean Christians are less convinced of the death penalty’s effectiveness in discouraging serious crimes.

In 2018, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), affiliated with the World Council of Churches, urged the Singaporean government to reconsider whether alternative forms of state punishment, such as life imprisonment, might achieve a comparable deterrent effect.

Citing Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1–11, NCCS stated, “We believe that the Scriptural position is best represented as neither mandating nor prohibiting the death penalty but rather permitting it.”

“The government has the authority to impose the death penalty, but is not necessarily under obligation to do so,” the statement continued. The Singapore government did not respond to NCCS’s statement.

Some Malaysian evangelicals echoed NCCS’s position on the death penalty.

Humanity is created in the image of God, and God wants to restore his image in us rather than seek retribution against those who have destroyed it, said Davin Wong (no relation to Edwin Wong), a finance manager who worships at Bangsar Lutheran Church in Kuala Lumpur.

Countries with a mandatory death penalty “should consider moving from a mandatory to a discretionary death penalty and learn from other countries, such as those with European legal systems that lean towards rehabilitation and correction,” Wong added.

A new date of execution for Pannir may be imminent after the Singapore court rejected his appeal earlier this month, said Malaysian human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo.

Pannir and his family maintain that he cooperated with Singapore’s law enforcement and gave the authorities useful information, Khoo said. “If so, he should be credited for assisting the police. This has not happened. We need to continue to fight that the truth will prevail.”

“We should not hope to avoid the consequences of our actions. That is justice,” Khoo added. “We can only pray for God’s mercy to flow to the authorities through the power of the Holy Spirit.”

When Pannir was first arrested in 2014, Angelia could not understand why this had happened to her family. “But I gradually began to realize that God is fighting this battle with us,” she said.

Over the years, God has intervened in Pannir’s case in miraculous ways, Angelia shared. The day before Pannir was to represent himself in court to appeal his 2019 sentence, two lawyers in Singapore approached the family to help and successfully called for a stay of execution.

Then, in February as the Pranthamans fasted and kneeled in prayer, Singaporean authorities granted Pannir another stay one day before the execution was to take place.

Two Bible verses have served as a lifeline for the Pranthaman siblings in this season. One is Psalm 46:1, which declares that God is a “refuge and strength,” a very present “help in trouble.” A Malaysian evangelical pastor had written this verse in a card for Pannir, who placed it on his cell wall. Pannir meditates on the verse regularly because it comforts him, Angelia said.

Angelia, meanwhile, clings to Jeremiah 33:3, which says, “Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.”

During one prison visit with Pannir, the siblings excitedly discussed how God had repeatedly done the unexpected, like how Moses and the Israelites escaped Pharaoh by crossing the Red Sea in Exodus 14.

“We were constantly reminded [of] how our human mind is not God’s mind,” she said.

Pannir, now 38, continues to evangelize fellow inmates and write music and poetry from his prison cell.

“I believe God has a purpose and has His will in my life,” Pannir wrote in a 2019 plea for clemency to Singapore’s former president Halimah Yacob, a plea Yacob rejected. “This journey of my life has taught me to seek His will more than … mine.”

After the court rejected Pannir’s appeal this September, Angelia and her family continue to explore legal options, although they recognize that opportunities for clemency are slim. For now, the Pranthamans focus on supporting Pannir spiritually and emotionally.

“I pray with tears, asking God to strengthen Pannir Selvam, to give him peace and courage inside prison, and also to help us not to lose faith,” Angelia said. “I also pray that God will turn this situation into a testimony of his power and mercy, [even] when everything seems hopeless.”

Additional reporting by Isabel Ong

Singapore’s Death Penalty

Official statistics on death penalty executions in Singapore are not published publicly. Human rights organization Amnesty International estimates that authorities hanged more than 400 people between 1991 and 2004.

Singapore halted the death penalty during the COVID-19 pandemic and reinstated it in 2022. Since then, the country has executed close to 30 people, most for the crime of trafficking drugs, and dozens of drug traffickers sit on death row.

Although the country rarely issues clemency for death sentences, Singaporean president Tharman Shanmugaratnam pardoned a drug trafficker facing the death penalty and gave him life imprisonment this August.

Support for the death penalty is strong in Singapore. Just over 3 in 4 Singaporeans (77.4%) support the use of the death penalty for crimes including drug trafficking, a 2023 survey by the Ministry of Home Affairs revealed. Close to 3 in 4 (73.7%) of Singaporeans polled in a 2021 survey find the death penalty more effective than life imprisonment in deterring drug traffickers.

Locals tend to avoid criticizing their country’s practice of capital punishment, wary that their government would view this as dissent and cause them to undergo criminal investigations or civil suits.

Singapore has received criticism and backlash from United Nations human rights experts for its imposition of capital punishment. But its government remains firm on adopting an “uncompromising approach” toward drug-trafficking offences to help create a “safe, stable, and relatively drug-free society,” wrote Anil Nayar, the country’s high commissioner to Australia, in March.

- More from Isabel Ong

News

93-Year-Old Mission Hospital in Kenya Forced to Close Its Gates

Pius Sawa

How a new state-funded health insurance program’s piling debts put Christian hospitals—and patients—at risk.

Empty beds at a maternity ward in Kibera hospital in Nairobi, Kenya.

Donwilson Odhiambo / Contributor / Getty

Jennipher Nanjala’s third pregnancy turned dangerous this spring when her water broke, spilling out in a greenish color, but she didn’t feel labor pains. The 42-year-old traveled more than 20 miles by public transit to St. Mary’s Mission Hospital—one of the country’s oldest mission hospitals, founded in 1932—in Mumias, Kakamega County, in western Kenya.

A clerk checked Nanjala’s national identification card to see if she had registered under the new Social Health Authority (SHA) insurance fund. She had, so the hospital cleared her to start treatment without paying cash upfront. Then the doctors examined her. Nanjala’s blood pressure was critically high.

“When I was told the baby was not kicking and she had defecated in the womb and I couldn’t go to the labor room to push, I called my husband to ask my pastor to pray for me,” said Nanjala. Doctors performed an emergency cesarean section and delivered her baby girl, Risper, alive. Three months later, Nanjala took Risper back to St. Mary’s to get a vaccination—only to find the gates closed. The hospital had shut down.

Weeks before Nanjala gave birth, faith leaders warned of imminent hospital closures due to debts owed by the defunct National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) and fallout from slow SHA payments. The Christian Health Association of Kenya called on the government to reimburse faith-based hospitals within 14 days, but delays continued. Debts under SHA piled up, paralyzing St. Mary’s operations.

In late June, around 100 staffers went on strike because they hadn’t received paychecks in over four months. On July 1, the hospital stopped operating, unable to pay workers or purchase equipment and drugs. National news reported the Kenyan government had failed to pay St. Mary’s more than 180 million Kenyan shillings ($1.4 million USD) since the SHA insurance fund’s October 2024 rollout.

The shutdown left an estimated 300 patients without regular care and more than 200 staffers without jobs. As of August, more than 700 private and faith-based hospitals are fighting to avoid shutdowns due to SHA debts. The Rural and Urban Private Hospitals Association warned that health care facilities will have to suspend services or require patients to pay if the government fails to cover bills within 14 days. Faith-based organizations provide 40 percent of Kenya’s health care.

Kakamega senator Bonny Khalwale, a medical doctor, blamed St. Mary’s closure on President William Ruto’s poor rollout of SHA. Ruto replaced the nearly 60-year-old NHIF system with the stated aim of providing affordable health coverage under a more efficient program. SHA mandates that every Kenyan over age 18 register to receive services at any public hospital. Just under half of Kenya’s population has registered for SHA so far.

Individuals must pay a lump sum annually to register for SHA. Formal employees have 2.75 percent of their salaries withheld to cover the cost, but gig workers struggle to pay the annual fee. Without SHA registration, patients cannot receive services at public hospitals. If patients don’t have cash on hand to pay for SHA registration, public health care providers can’t treat them. Private or religious hospitals let unregistered patients pay cash.

Nurse Caroline Moracha said the public hospital where she works stays mostly empty: “We just go and sit up [till] evening. Patients don’t come, because when they come, you ask them, ‘Do you have SHA?’ If not, you send them away to go and register first.”

Because of the quick rollout, some patients’ names don’t show up in the system. Zadock Mwanzi—a public health promoter who registers villagers for SHA—signed up right away. When his daughter needed a hernia operation, staff at Kakamega County Teaching and Referral Hospital couldn’t find his SHA records. He said the hospital detained his daughter for two weeks until he gathered the cash for the bill. Such detentions are common but not legal.

Julius Wakukha, a motorcycle rider in Kakamega, had to fundraise to get his wife and their newborn twins discharged. A hospital had forced them to stay for six weeks because the babies were underweight, then insisted he pay his whole SHA annual fee upfront.

“Then the bill was too high, and I was told to pay the extra amount [for services] because SHA could only pay a certain percentage,” Wakukha told CT.

Kakamega General Hospital denied Margaret Imbenzi’s daughter admission to the labor ward to give birth unless she paid her annual SHA fee: “I had to rush her to a private hospital. Because you are saving a life, you can’t sit there waiting for the system to approve you.”

SHA also faces concerns about corruption. Earlier this year, Auditor General Nancy Gathungu told the Kenyan Parliament she found legal violations in the purchase of SHA’s 104 billion Kenyan shilling ($803 million USD) health information technology system. Senator Okiya Omtatah from Busia County, Kenya, claimed some employees running the technology received salaries of 5 million shillings per month (about $39,000 USD)—higher than the Kenyan president’s 1.4 million shilling salary (about $11,000). Daily Nation reported some payments going to nonexistent or nonfunctioning “ghost” hospitals.

Brian Lishenga, chairman of the Rural and Urban Private Hospitals Association, accused Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale of mishandling fraud investigations and said SHA has accumulated a debt of 43 billion shillings ($332 million USD) in just ten months. Duale said the government has uncovered fraud at 24 health facilities and is investigating 61 others.

Duale has also said the government is working to pay all outstanding debt to St. Mary’s Mission Hospital and other affected hospitals so they can reopen, on one condition: “We will work on a verification process. Minus verification, I will not pay.”

After finding St. Mary’s closed, Jennipher Nanjala tried going to a public hospital in Kakamega. Hospital staff wanted her to pay the annual SHA premium before they would vaccinate baby Risper or treat Nanjala for high blood pressure. Nanjala couldn’t, so she returned home and sold a few chickens. She used the money to go to a private hospital the following day.

Nanjala said she hopes the 93-year-old mission hospital will reopen: “All my family has been using the hospital. We were all born there, and all my children were born there.”

Correction: CT reported that St. Mary’s Mission Hospital is the oldest continuing mission hospital, but Presbyterian Hospital Kikuyu Hospital, founded in 1908, is older.

- More from Pius Sawa

Give Today

Share

Share

Related

Share

Share

Related

Share

Share

Share

related

related

Share

Related

Share

Share

Share

Share

Related

Share

Share

Related

Share

Share

Related

Share

Key Updates

October 10, 2025

September 18, 2025

related

related

related

Share

Related

Share

Share

Related