News
Wire Story

Evangelical Report: Creation Care Is an Act of Worship, Hospitality

The National Association of Evangelicals focuses on the impact of the changing environment.

Christianity Today August 31, 2022
David Gray / Getty Images

The National Association of Evangelicals unveiled a sweeping report on global climate change, laying out what its authors call the “biblical basis” for environmental activism to help spur fellow evangelicals to address the planetary environmental crisis.

“Creation, although groaning under the fall, is still intended to bless us. However, for too many in this world, the beach isn’t about sunscreen and bodysurfing but is a daily reminder of rising tides and failed fishing,” reads the introduction of the report, penned by NAE President Walter Kim and released on Monday

“Instead of a gulp of fresh air from a lush forest, too many children take a deep breath only to gasp with the toxic air that has irritated their lungs.”

But the authors admit persuading evangelicals is no small task, considering the religious group has historically been one of the demographics most resistant to action on the issue.

The nearly 50-page report, titled “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment,” opens with a section that insists protecting the environment is a biblical mandate.

“The Bible does not tell us anything directly about how to evaluate scientific reports or how to respond to a changing environment, but it does give several helpful principles: Care for creation, love our neighbors and witness to the world,” the report reads.

The authors go on to cite passages such as Genesis 2:15 (“God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it”), Matthew 22 (“Love your neighbor as yourself”), and Deuteronomy 15 (“Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart”).

“We worship God by caring for creation,” the report reads.

Another section outlines the basic science behind climate change, but the report, produced in partnership with the NAE’s humanitarian arm World Relief, returns often to the real-world impacts of climate change, such as how air pollution created by fossil fuels can have negative outcomes for children’s health or disproportionately affect the poor.

Kim suggested the emphasis on lived experiences, which are often tied to churches or evangelical organizations, is by design.

“One of the things that you’ll see in this document is not simply scientific information, though that is there, or biblical argumentation, although that is there, but you also hear stories of actual impact on communities,” he told Religion News Service in an interview.

Real-world examples help readers “understand the human dimension of the impact of climate change,” he explained.

“I think people of faith responded very deeply, because we’re wired to follow in the footsteps of Jesus of loving God and loving our neighbor.”

Dorothy Boorse, a biology professor at Gordon College and the chief author of the report, agreed.

“One of the things that can be true for evangelicals is they have a very deep desire to care for others, and they often have a deep spirit of hospitality,” she said.

Appealing to concerns about health and care for children, Boorse said, can “spark an imagination” in evangelicals that climate change is “not different from other problems in the world that we feel committed to care about, such as education, food availability, or disaster relief.”

The focus on persuasion may be the result of necessity. The NAE has spoken out on environmental issues before (the new report functions as an update of a similar document published in 2011), but while mainline Protestant Christian groups and Pope Francis have repeatedly signaled the urgency of addressing climate change, many prominent evangelical leaders have suggested the opposite: Last year, Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, dismissed climate change as “nothing new” in a Facebook post and compared it to biblical instances of extreme weather—such as the flood in Genesis or the years of famine and drought in Egypt—that are depicted as acts of God.

The result has often been a religious community resistant to acknowledging the source of the issue, much less acting to prevent it. In a Pew Research survey conducted in January, white evangelicals were the religious group least likely to agree that human activity contributes to climate change, with only 54 percent saying humanity contributed a great deal or some to the trend. By comparison, 72 percent of white nonevangelicals, 73 peercent of white Catholics, 81 percent of Black Protestants, and 86 percent of Hispanic Catholics said so.

But as Boorse points out in the report, there has been some movement since the 2011 report was published, particularly among young evangelicals: A year after that document was unveiled, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action (YECA) was founded.

“One huge pattern that I observed is that young evangelicals are very concerned about the environment,” Boorse, who sits on YECA’s advisory board, told RNS. “There’s an entrenchment of certain ways of thinking that just takes a long time to change.”

Activists say the change can’t come soon enough. In addition to ongoing droughts in various parts of the world, the NAE report was unveiled the same day as news broke that, given the current pace of climate change, 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet—around 110 trillion tons of ice—is slated to melt into the sea, raising global sea levels nearly a foot between now and 2100.

Asked if she was hopeful the report and similar efforts could urge evangelicals to muster their resources and help prevent further environmental calamities, Boorse acknowledged she is often frustrated by fellow faithful who espouse baseless conspiracy theories about climate change or express open hostility to science in general.

“That has been very challenging for me in my professional life,” she said. “But I feel God has privileged me with the task of speaking to a group of people that I know and love, and trying, consistently, to talk about this as a real phenomenon—and it needs our attention.”

For Boorse, the necessity of the work—and the tenets of her faith—sustain her for the fight ahead.

“I’ve decided to be hopeful,” she said. “I think everybody has to, or you’d never get anything done.”

News

World Vision Employee Sentenced to 12 Years Prison in Israel

Humanitarian organization calls verdict “unjust” as questions about lack of public evidence of terrorism persist.

Family members hold a picture of Mohammad el-Halabi, a World Vision employee who has now been convicted of aiding terrorists.

Family members hold a picture of Mohammad el-Halabi, a World Vision employee who has now been convicted of aiding terrorists.

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Adel Hana / AP Images

Update (Aug. 30): A World Vision International employee has been sentenced to 12 years in prison in Israel for terrorism. The humanitarian organization says Mohammad el-Halabi’s conviction is unjust and the Israeli court’s ruling is “in sharp contrast to the evidence and facts of the case.”

According to prosecutors, the former director of aid to Gaza diverted funds and resources meant for hungry children and farmers to Hamas terrorists building tunnels and planning attacks on Israel.

“These are very severe deeds, the defendant funded terror with millions of shekels, helped strengthen the Hamas tunnel network,” prosecutor Moran Gez told press.

Citing security concerns, little of the evidence has been made available to the public. According to Gez, however, “The court left no stone unturned in this case.”

Outside observers have questioned not only the court’s verdict, but even the plausibility of the allegations. An independent audit of World Vision’s finances found no missing funds. The US Agency for International Development and the Australian and German governments investigated and found no evidence of wrongdoing. The audits concluded that Halabi did not have access to the amounts of money the government said he gave to Hamas.

Halabi, who has been in jail for six years as the trial dragged on, did confess to some of the charges after he was arrested. He has since claimed he was under duress and he is innocent. The confession itself is classified.

He was convicted in June. The full text of the verdict is also classified.

“The arrest, six-year trial, unjust verdict and this sentence are emblematic of actions that hinder humanitarian work in Gaza and the West Bank,” World Vision International said in a statement on Tuesday. “It adds to the chilling impact on World Vision and other aid or development groups working to assist Palestinians.”

More than two million Palestinians live in Gaza, and roughly half of them don’t have enough food to eat. The area has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since Hamas—designated a terrorist organization by the US government—took power in 2006. World Vision discontinued work in Gaza when Halabi was arrested in 2016.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has said it is “committed to cooperating with and facilitating the work of aid groups, including World Vision, in a way that didn’t violate security considerations.”

Halabi is expected to appeal.

—–

Original post (June 15, 2022): An Israeli court convicted Mohammad el-Halabi, former Gaza director for World Vision International, on terrorism charges Wednesday. The Beersheba District Court ruled that he is guilty of being a member of a terror organization, providing information to a terror group, taking part in forbidden military exercises, and carrying a weapon.

Halabi has not yet been sentenced. He is expected to appeal the ruling.

Halabi’s attorney, speaking to reporters immediately after the verdict was handed down, rejected the fairness of the judgment of the court.

“All the judge said, if I want to summarize it in one sentence, [was]: ‘The security forces cannot be wrong, they are probably right,’” Maher Hanna said.

Israeli state prosecutors accused Halabi of aiding Hamas terrorists by diverting millions of dollars from World Vision International to arm militants in Gaza. Halabi and his supporters adamantly denied these charges and claim the Israeli authorities were merely looking for a way to disrupt humanitarian aid that was going to Palestinian children.

World Vision has defended Halabi, arguing the available evidence does not support the government’s claims the former director supported terrorism. He did not even have access to the amount of funds that authorities said he gave to Hamas.

On Wednesday, the humanitarian aid group reiterated its “significant concerns about this case” and acknowledged “with disappointment the decision issued by the Beersheva District Court.”

The statement went on to say that “in our view there have been irregularities in the trial process and a lack of substantive, publicly available evidence. We support Mohammad’s intent to appeal the decision, and call for a fair and transparent appeal process based on the facts of the case.”

The text of the verdict is classified. A condensed version, released to the press, said the judges determined that Halabi was recruited by Hamas in 2004 and sent by his handlers to infiltrate World Vision.

Observers were looking to see whether the verdict will reveal more evidence from the trial, where few details of the case against Halabi were revealed, with prosecutors citing national security concerns.

The public version of the verdict, however, relied heavily on Halabi’s confession, which he has since tried to take back, saying it was coerced by security forces.

“The defendant’s confession, given in various ways, is detailed, coherent, with signs of truthfulness,” the three judges wrote in their decision. They dismiss his retraction, saying his explanations for why he falsely confessed were “unlikely.”

The judges also wrote that they had additional information corroborating the charges—but it too is classified. Sources familiar with the prosecution told CT that a disgruntled former World Vision employee and fellow prisoner testified that he heard Halabi confess to the crime he was accused of.

Most of the government’s case against Halabi was presented in closed hearings. Hanna was also not allowed to see all the evidence against his client. In some cases, he told CT, he was shown only copies of documents and not allowed to take notes.

The trial—which has dragged on for more than half a decade—has been widely condemned by human rights advocates. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said it was “not worthy of a democratic state.”

After repeated delays in the trial, the verdict was also drawn out without explanation. Closing arguments were completed in October 2021. The verdict was not given for another eight months. It is unclear if there is any explanation for that, but The Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli High Court ran out of patience, ordering the Beersheba District Court to issue its verdict by June 16.

After Halabi’s indictment in 2016, World Vision hired Deloitte and DLA Piper, one of the world’s largest multinational law firms, to conduct a forensic investigation, looking for the missing funds the Israeli authorities said had been diverted to terrorist activity. The investigators looked at more than 280,000 documents, interviewed more than 180 people, and probed every aspect of World Vision’s Gaza operation between 2011 and 2016.

The firm’s conclusion: There was no evidence that Halabi did anything wrong.

Brett Ingerman, the attorney who headed the audit, told CT that “the investigation did not find even a hint of funds being diverted to Hamas or any schemes or collusions involving other World Vision employees or third parties.”

They also did not find “any material evidence suggesting he was affiliated with, or worked for, Hamas,” he said.

World Vision shared the findings with governments that donate to World Vision and offered the report to Israel. Israeli authorities did not accept the terms of the offer, however, and have not commented on the audit in the process of the trial.

Additional reporting from the US Agency for International Development and the Australian and German governments corroborated the results of the independent audit, saying they also found no evidence of wrongdoing.

When the district court handed down its verdict on Wednesday, it said the details were “confidential and cannot be made public.”

Michael Lynk, former United Nations special rapporteur, who has tracked human rights issues in the Palestinian territory since the 1960s, said the case was undemocratic and the prosecution’s evidence questionable and legally suspect.

“Franz Kafka would feel right at home writing about this trial,” he said.

World Vision supports Halabi’s plan to appeal.

The organization, which suspended all aid to Gaza after Halabi’s arrest, also hopes to restart operations to help the more than 2 million people who live on the strip of territory on the Mediterranean coast under a military blockade that has been in place for nearly 15 years.

Founded in 1950, World Vision is one of the world’s largest charities, operating in nearly 100 countries, with an annual budget exceeding $3 billion.

“We are saddened that our work helping Gaza’s most vulnerable children has been disrupted for so long, and we hope to return to Gaza,” Wednesday’s statement said. “We remain committed to improving the lives of vulnerable children in the region, and hope we will be able to advance our humanitarian work in the context of our longstanding cooperation with the relevant Israeli and Palestinian authorities.”

Halabi’s sentencing is set for July 10.

Ideas

Stop Applauding Pastors Who Publicly Confess Their Sins

When leaders admit wrongdoing, we should respond with quiet sobriety, not clapping.

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Athena Grace / LightStock

Yesterday, I finished a 17-year ministry at Southern Hills Baptist Church in Sioux City, Iowa. Our attendance was the highest it’s been in a long time. I did what I’ve done week after week, Sunday after Sunday, since August 28, 2005: preach a text of Scripture.

After church, we had a potluck dinner and enjoyed warm fellowship. Members expressed love for my wife and me, sorrow that we were leaving, and prayers for our future. We received a basket of cards with some generous gifts and messages that made my wife cry. It was a wonderful way to wrap things up.

What I didn’t receive was a standing ovation.

Yesterday, Matt Chandler stood before his congregation to admit to inappropriate text interactions with a woman other than his wife and to announce he was taking a leave of absence. He claimed the messages were not sexual or romantic, but he withheld any further details.

With that in mind, I’m not addressing Matt Chandler’s sin (or whatever other words he used to describe it). Reading about his imbroglio just got me thinking.

In the accounts of Chandler’s actions, I looked for one thing and, sure enough, saw that after he confessed to his congregation, the church gave him an ovation. Another pastor stood to “define the narrative” by telling them what their ovation meant, and then congregants gave Chandler another round of applause.

I am annoyed at this response. I’m an old codger, so I am authorized to do “get off my lawn” rants. When did it become appropriate to give standing ovations to those who have committed disqualifying (or near-disqualifying) sins in ministry?

You might remember Jules Woodson’s public story of sexual abuse. After years of denial and evasion, the pastor who had abused her years earlier stood before his large congregation and gave a sanitized version of his “failings.” He received a wildly supportive standing ovation.

More recently, another pastor stood to confess an affair (again, putting it in the best possible light), and the woman involved came forward to tell the truth. She accused the pastor of statutory rape and some of the ugliest actions imaginable. Of course, the pastor still got a standing ovation.

We can only hope that both of those churches came to later regret their actions. Nonetheless, they honored and applauded abusers. In doing so, they heaped condemnation on survivors and added to their suffering.

When a church leader stands to confess sin, it’s a time for lament and a time for tears. Repentance requires honesty, humility, and sorrow, not managing appearances, controlling the narrative, or hiding the facts.

The fault often lies more with leadership than with congregants. These “confessions” are often staged to put the fallen pastor in the best possible light. Facts are hidden. The full story isn’t told. The blame gets shifted to someone else. Excuses are made. All told, the pastor or church leaders control the story to cast the confession in a heroic light.

It’s textbook manipulation. Unfortunately, in many megachurches—and elsewhere, too—people are conditioned to see their pastors in near godlike terms, so when he confesses a sin, they jump to a redemptive narrative and respond with enthusiastic applause.

But it has to stop. We should not applaud confessions of sin. Ovations serve no spiritual purpose, and in these situations, especially, they only cause hurt and harm.

If a sinner is genuinely repentant, he doesn’t want applause. If he isn’t genuinely repentant, he doesn’t deserve it. In most cases, a church has been given only a part of the story or a sanitized version of it—typically the one most favorable to the pastor.

Yes, these churches love their preachers. As a pastor, I appreciate that. They want to believe the best of and for their leaders. That’s a natural and even honorable desire. But standing ovations for misbehavior are not acceptable.

We do not applaud sin. We do not cheer it. We grieve over it.

So save the standing ovations for the football field.

Dave Miller is the senior pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church in Sioux City, Iowa, and editor of SBC Voices.

This piece was originally published at SBC Voices. Published with permission.

Speaking Out is Christianity Today’s guest opinion column and (unlike an editorial) does not necessarily represent the opinion of the publication.

News

Died: Rodney Stark, Sociologist Who Said Religion Is a Rational Choice

His theories of conversion and competition shaped widely held views of church growth and decline.

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Courtesy of Rodney Stark / edits by Rick Szuecs

Rodney Stark, the influential and controversial sociologist who argued for rational choice in religion, died last month at age 88.

Stark made the case that religious conversion, commitment, and cultural vitality should be understood in terms of costs and benefits. He rejected the common assumption that people practice a religion because they agree with the theology, arguing creedal affirmations are secondary to social connections. And he rejected academic accounts of belief as “false consciousness” or fundamentally irrational.

In more than 30 books published across seven decades—including The Churching of America 1776-1990, with Roger Finke; The Future of Religion, with William Sims Bainbridge; and The Rise of Christianity, by himself—Stark countered that religious life wasn’t any different from other human activity. It could only be understood in terms of social connections and people’s rational choices.

“That is the basis for my whole sociology of religion: people are as thoughtful and rational about their religious choices as they are about other choices in life,” Stark once said. “If you assume that people make rational choices about religion, you start seeing how the world works a whole lot better.”

The “rational choice theory,” as it was called, also led Stark to make influential arguments about religious competition and why some movements grow and others decline. According to his research, religious groups that make it easier to join and participate will—counterintuitively—see fewer people join and participate. Those who emphasize their difference and social deviance, on the other hand, will see numbers increase.

“Thousands of articles and books have sought to build upon or challenge Stark’s bold claims,” Conrad Hackett, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center, wrote on Twitter. "His prose was clear, compelling and abundant.”

Stark is sometimes credited with reviving the sociology of religion, though that ignores the critical work of his peers and rivals, such as Robert Bellah and Peter Berger. Stark was, however, very effective at provoking interest in his research questions. He did this partly by being a contrarian. One of his fundamental theoretical commitments often seemed to be that the consensus and conventional wisdom were wrong.

He also allowed himself to follow his interests beyond disciplinary lines, working on what he wanted to work on. He had a knack for finding new topics and questions that drew more people to his research.

“I don’t think I have a brand,” he wrote. “I am a dedicated, even reckless eclectic.”

An unusual accomplishment

Stark was born July 8, 1934, and raised in Jamestown, North Dakota, about 100 miles west of Fargo and 100 miles east of Bismarck.

Vanderbilt sociologist Gary Jensen once remarked that in their field of academia, that set Stark apart. “He’s the only PhD in sociology from North Dakota that I know,” Jensen said. “That’s a rather unusual accomplishment in sociology as a discipline.”

Stark never spoke publicly about his parents or said much about his childhood, except to note he was baptized and confirmed Lutheran but gave more thought, growing up, to football and baseball.

He became interested in religion only after he graduated college, moved to California, and went to work as a newspaper reporter for the Oakland Tribune. It started with a story on UFOs.

“I went out to cover something called the Oakland Spacecraft Club,” he told Christianity Today in 2003, “where there was a fellow speaking who was going to talk about his trip to Mars, Venus, and the moon on a flying saucer. I wrote a Sunday feature and had the maturity, where it came from I don't know, but I had the maturity to just write it straight. … I was then considered ‘the goofy writer.’ Anything odd that came along, whether it was calendar reform or some new religion, I would get assigned to it.”

His ability to “write it straight”—accepting the plausibility of people’s beliefs and taking their accounts of faith seriously—became an important asset when he started graduate work in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. During the first year of his master’s program, he was recruited by sociologist Charles Glock for research on links between religious “particularism” and antisemitism.

Studying religious commitment

Stark soon turned, however, to the deeper question of commitment. He wanted to know why people are religious. What do they get out of it? He and fellow grad student John Lofland developed a theory of conversion, focusing on social relationships, felt needs, and individual volition.

“The heart of religion is commitment,” Stark wrote in 1970. “Despite the primacy of this aspect of religion, it has been very little studied. Virtually no systematic attempts have been made to determine what factors contribute to or inhibit the efforts of religious institutions to recruit and maintain a committed membership.”

His first major study looked at 3,000 white churchgoers in Northern California and an additional 2,000 Protestants and Catholics nationwide. The American Journal of Sociology called it “impressive and exhaustive.”

Focusing on religious commitment and why people choose to identify with a faith, Stark also noticed that competition between religious groups encouraged more conversion. Most, at the time, thought religious diversity had the opposite effect, contributing to an overall religious decline.

“We’re always told that when there’s more than one church, people don’t know what to believe, so they believe none,” Stark later explained. “No. What you have when you only have one subsidized church is a very lazy church that doesn’t work at satisfying people or bringing them in.”

Predicting the future of religion

In the process, Stark grew sharply critical of his fellow sociologists’ attempts to understand religion. He concluded that classics in the field—including the work of Émile Durkheim and Max Weber—were fundamentally misguided. Their definitions of religion barely made sense, he thought, and predictions about the decline and ultimate demise of religion in the modern world, called the “secularization thesis,” were wildly wrong.

In 1985, he joined with sociologist William Sims Bainbridge to write The Future of Religion. The book argues that while secularization does happen, it’s more limited than sociologists have recognized and is countered by two unacknowledged social forces: revival and religious innovation.

In 1992, he joined with sociologist Roger Finke to apply his theories about religious choice and competition to American history. A number of professional historians and religious studies scholars criticized the evaluative framework, which used growth as the exclusive and universal metric for measuring religious success. They also questioned how the sociological terms were applied in historical context. Was it really true, for example, that Southern Baptists experienced more “tension” in the segregated, Jim Crow South than the left-leaning, LGBT-affirming Episcopalians?

Despite professional skepticism, The Churching of America found a broad and eager audience, and Stark’s approach was widely adopted by journalists and others attempting to explain the changes to the religious landscape.

Stark applied his rational choice theory to other historical subjects as well. He sought to explain the success of the early church in The Rise of Christianity, monotheism in One True God, and the followers of Joseph Smith The Rise of Mormonism. He also strayed beyond sociological questions to dabble in historical defenses of unpopular causes, most notably writing a defense of the crusades in 2009.

“The short answer to why I wrote the book is self-indulgence,” Stark said. “That’s always why I write. I mean, big secret is that the academic life has given me the privilege of writing every morning for the last many, many years. It’s the reason to get up and the reason to have a happy day. And that’s why I do it.”

‘I have trouble with faith’

His many defenses of religion in general and Christianity in particular seemed to have a personal impact on Stark toward the end of his career. He had long said that he was a defender of Western civilization and happy to embrace cultural Christianity but found himself incapable of affirming more than that.

“I have trouble with faith,” he said in 2004. “I’m not proud of this. I don’t think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it’s over.”

Later that year, he moved from the University of Washington to Baylor University, where he became the codirector of the Institute for Studies of Religion. By 2007, he said that while he couldn’t become a Baptist, he could profess a personal faith.

“I found … that I was a Christian,” he said. “I suppose ‘independent Christian’ is the best description of my current position.”

Stark died on July 21 at his home in Woodway, Texas. He was predeceased by his wife, Lynne Roberts. He is survived by one son, Joshua Stark. No public memorial has been planned.

Ideas

Helper: You Keep Using That Word for Women

Contributor

But it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons / Getty

A recent LifeWay Research study asked American Protestant pastors if women in their congregations were allowed to take on six specific leadership roles.

Views on preaching were predictably split, but roughly “9 in 10 pastors say women could be ministers to children (94%), committee leaders (92%), ministers to teenagers (89%), or coed adult Bible study teachers (85%) in their churches,” according to Aaron Earls. Fewer (64%) said women could be deacons.

The question of where a woman can serve in church “has been debated for centuries with biblical scholars in different denominations coming to different conclusions about what Scripture means,” said Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research.

The first part of the Bible, in particular, plays a key part. Generations of Christians have looked to the creation stories in Genesis 1 through 3 as the paradigm for gender roles. “As Genesis 1–3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate,” says Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.

The word “helper” from Genesis 2:18 has long been a hinge-point in these debates. Some use it to argue that a wife’s main role is to support her husband’s leadership. Others deploy it to justify strong views on female submission and service. And still others have construed the idea as softly as possible, saying, “God made man as a gracious leader and woman as an essential helper in marriage.”

But what if we’ve gotten that word wrong? The subservient overtones that often come with it are nowhere to be found in Scripture. And our misinterpretation has gotten us into trouble in how we view male and female roles.

The more accurate take, at least as I see it, is significant to those in both the complementarian and egalitarian camps. Everyone has something to gain from a closer, more careful look at the Genesis text and what it says: That a “helper” is in fact a full partner in the work God assigned to humans.

Arguably the most important passage for understanding personhood is Genesis 1:26–28. God makes both male and female as the crown of creation. We are designated as “God’s image,” a status that in an ancient Near Eastern context means that humans physically represent the presence of God on earth.

In Genesis 1, that status is expressed through rulership—a task given without regard to gender. Men and women are to rule together on God’s behalf by maintaining order and ensuring the flourishing of creation.

Strikingly, however, humans are not told to rule over each other. Teamwork is the model set forth.

This groundwork is essential to keep in mind as we turn the page to Genesis 2, where the creation of humans is retold in a more intimate key. The man placed in God’s garden is given a job to do: cultivating it and guarding it (Gen. 2:15).

But that man has a problem: He’s alone. While many animals populate the garden, none of them is suitable for companionship. If the man needed someone to take orders, he could have chosen an ox or a mule. If he needed a shadow, he could have chosen a dog. But none of them can help him carry out his responsibilities as a full partner, and none can hold him accountable to maintain the boundaries God set.

What the man lacks, then, is an ʿēzer kenegdô, “a helper corresponding to him.”

Enter woman. She resolves the plot conflict of Genesis 2 by offering what no animal in the garden could offer: full-fledged companionship. For some Christians, this section offers evidence for two key claims:

First: God appointed men to lead and have authority over women.

Second: Women are made to support men’s leadership by following.

However, these common assumptions don’t stand up to scrutiny. The point of the story is not primarily the differences between male and female, although those matter, but their essential similarity and equal status before God.

The woman is like the man in a way that no other creature is. She comes from his own body—just as every future man will come from the body of a woman—which suggests their mysterious connection. She “corresponds to him” (Hebrew kenegdô, Genesis 2:18, 20). And she fulfills the role of a partner to support what God appointed the man to do. Together they will populate the earth, and together they will rule over it.

Then why call her the man’s “helper”? Doesn’t that imply he’s the boss?

In English translations of Genesis 2:18 (NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV, NASB), the word “helper” suggests the man takes the lead and the woman is present in a support role. She is the receptionist for the CEO, the cheerleader for the quarterback, or the nurse for the surgeon.

Throughout history, women have often filled roles like these, and they have contributed much by doing so. However, this model misses something about the Hebrew word ʿēzer.

What kind of help does an ʿēzer offer? Who are the ʿēzers in the Bible?

The rest of the Old Testament uses the word ʿēzer in two main ways. First, it refers to allied soldiers who assist in battle. (See, for example, Joshua 1:14 or 1 Chronicles 12:1–22.) Second, it refers to God as Israel’s helper. (See Genesis 49:25; 2 Chronicles 32:8; Psalm 10:14; Isaiah 41:10–14.)

Clearly, in those passages, the “helper” does not have a subservient role. If anything, it’s the opposite. God supplies what Israel lacks. As Old Testament scholar Mary Conway explains, “the phrase kenegdo is best translated as ‘corresponding to him,’ a term that implies competence and equality, rather than subordination or inferiority.”

In fact, the word ʿēzer occurs as a common noun over 90 times in the Old Testament but never refers to what servants or subordinates do for their masters.

If you are in danger of losing a battle, what you need is an ʿēzer—another squadron of troops or divine intervention—to come alongside and bolster your flagging army.

What does this mean for women? The man is not in need of a secretary, a sidekick, or someone to carry out his orders. Rather, he needs a full partner in the work of ruling creation, maintaining the garden, and guarding it from intruders. He needs a woman.

The word “helper” does not do justice to the role God designed for women to fill in Genesis 2. “Necessary ally” or “essential partner” might be better ways to translate this word.

As a card-carrying member of the evangelical movement, it’s a mystery to me how many segments of our community have by and large rooted their doctrine of gender roles in Genesis 3 rather than in Genesis 2. It’s true that Genesis 3 presents gender hierarchy: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16).

But that dynamic comes from the terrible consequences of human rebellion. Eve ultimately failed in her job to help Adam carry out their commission to guard the garden. A shrewd intruder cast doubt on the suitability of God’s command, and husband and wife bought the lie—hook, line, and sinker. As a result, their relationship with God was badly fractured, as was their relationship with each other and the earth they were supposed to steward.

Notice, though, that the woman was held fully accountable for her own sin and the man for his. If Eve were merely a sidekick, God would not address her as a full moral agent—responsible for her own obedience to God’s command. And if the fault were solely hers, then the man would not also bear guilt.

Here’s my point: It’s a mistake to see Genesis 3 as a paradigm for human relationships and especially male-female ones. This text is describing the consequences of human rebellion, not God’s original intention.

God announces that the woman will have a hard time because her husband will dominate, not because things should be this way but because human sin led them to a place of dysfunction. They elected to trust their own wisdom rather than God’s, and that mistake didn’t end well.

God didn’t desire thorns, thistles, and male domination any more than expectant parents carefully design a time-out corner for their children before they’re born. If we want to recapture God’s vision for creation, then, we need to lean into Genesis 1 and 2 instead, where men and women stand side by side as allies in the work God designed for us to do.

But doesn’t Adam name Eve? And doesn’t naming imply hierarchy? I’m not at all sure that naming implies hierarchy. (For example, Hagar names God in Genesis 16:13.) But even if it does, as theology professor Glenn Kreider points out, Adam names Eve after the fall, not before (Gen. 3:20).

With all this in mind, let’s revise the two common assumptions about what these chapters teach:

God appointed men and women to lead together.

Women are made to support men’s leadership by leading with them.

Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not denying that women should be servants. The Bible is very clear that all of us, regardless of gender, ought to take a posture of servanthood in relation to one another. Jesus was the servant of all, and he calls all of us to imitate him.

According to the Book of Exodus, service is the essential expression of Israel’s vocation. That whole story is framed as a major shift from serving Pharaoh to serving Yahweh (Ex. 7:16).

As we think about our lives today, that calling hasn’t expired. The problem comes when we read “service” back into the word “helper” in Genesis 2:18 and apply it unevenly on the basis of gender. It’s not there in Genesis 2. To say otherwise is to do violence to the text.

While these ideas are not the Bible’s final word on gender roles, they do provide an important place to start the conversation. And it’s a very helpful place to begin.

Carmen Joy Imes is an associate professor of Old Testament at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology and the author of Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters.

Parts of this article were adapted from Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters by Carmen Joy Imes (InterVarsity Academic, 2023). Published with permission.

Speaking Out is Christianity Today’s guest opinion column and (unlike an editorial) does not necessarily represent the opinion of the publication.

News

Christian Radio Reacts to Ukraine Restrictions on Russian Language

Slavic broadcasters take different approaches as legal and societal efforts to combat propaganda impact worship and evangelism.

New Life Radio staffers during a broadcast

New Life Radio staffers during a broadcast

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Courtesy of NLR

A new language law in Ukraine has complicated ministry to Russian-speaking citizens. Comparing restrictions to the Soviet era, one Christian broadcaster is relocating to Budapest, Hungary.

“I don’t want our staff busted on the air for reading the Bible in Russian,” said Dan Johnson, president of Christian Radio for Russia, which operates New Life Radio (NLR) from Odessa on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast. “We were expecting bombs to wreck our radio operations, but it turned out to be this law.”

Last month, Russian missiles landed one mile from their studio.

But earlier in July, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed into law a near-complete ban on Russian music on radio and television. Passed by parliament with a two-thirds majority, it exempts pre-independence classical artists like Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as well as modern composers who have condemned the war.

About 65 percent of NLR airtime is music. Though local Christian anthems have inspired many during the war, Johnson said most contemporary worship songs are in Russian, even those originating from Ukraine.

A 2021 national survey identified 22 percent of the Ukrainian population as native Russian speakers, with 36 percent speaking the language primarily at home. Concentrated in the eastern Donbas and southern regions where Russian troops have prioritized attack, there are fears that Moscow is preparing to annex certain occupied areas.

Johnson has fled restrictions before. He moved to Russia in 1991 and by 1996 began radio ministry in Magadan, a featured city in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. Kicked out in 2006, he continued ongoing satellite-based radio work in Moscow, broadcasting throughout the former Soviet Union. But as the campaign against both free press and evangelical ministry tightened, in 2019 he relocated again.

Odessa promised an atmosphere of freedom—until now.

“There isn’t a government in the world that can stop the gospel,” Johnson said. “We will pivot and move on as always.”

NLR rents its studios and broadcasts by satellite and online, simplifying operations. Budapest was chosen because of its sizable Russian Christian population, Johnson said, which welcomed the ministry.

In the meanwhile, NLR continues to produce content in Russian, encrypting the signal to broadcast from outside the country. This should satisfy the law, he said, while also raising funds to build a Ukrainian language–only network in Odessa. In time, as a to-be Ukrainian broadcaster, he hopes to secure an FM license, alongside satellite and internet radio.

“I hope the authorities will leave us alone,” he said.

Sergey Rakhuba of Mission Eurasia called NLR collateral damage.

“I believe in freedom of speech,” he said, “but this is a state of war.”

A native Russian speaker himself, an aspect of Rakhuba’s ministry has witnessed increased scrutiny due the new law’s additional ban on books from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine’s occupied territories. It also restricts imports of Russian-language literature from other nations.

Officials took note of Bibles and translations of children’s devotional Keys for Kids in a shipment from Poland to be delivered to Donbas. Identified clearly as Christian material, they let it pass with the local pastor’s signature of receipt.

Mission Eurasia is still welcome to print Russian material, Rakhuba said, but there is very little demand. Churches are voluntarily switching their sermons to Ukrainian, he said, while the Pentecostal union officially dropped the Russian language in all its services.

“The government is doing everything possible to limit Russian propaganda,” Rakhuba said, “but the people also want to demonstrate their loyalty.”

Many are eager, even as they are struggling to speak the language, said Victor Akhterov, senior coordinator for Eurasia for FEBC (Far East Broadcasting Company). Before the invasion, the global Christian radio network—which broadcasts from 149 stations in 50 countries—operated seven FM stations in Ukraine, all of which were in majority Russian-speaking areas—and added Zaporizhzhia in April and Kyiv earlier this month.

Two have shut down because of the war.

Guest participants on the stations will often give a greeting in Ukrainian before asking if they can continue in Russian. But the primary broadcast language has changed over time, mirroring national policy.

“We anticipated the government response [to the 2014 separatist movement in Donbas],” said Akhterov, “and tried to adjust as we followed the trends.”

Founded in 1945 with an emphasis on China, FEBC began broadcasting to Ukraine in 1949 and on local networks in 1993. Twenty years later, it opened its first station in the Donbas city of Sloviansk, which was captured by Russian-backed rebel forces in 2014.

Four of its volunteers were executed.

At that time, the local FEBC broadcast had a Russian-language orientation with 20 percent of content in Ukrainian, designed to increase over time. Before the Russian invasion, content reached about 75 percent Ukrainian. Callers, Akhterov said, can speak whatever language they want.

It is the same for citizens—though the public square has shifted.

In 2012, Ukraine gave minority languages official regional status for use in courts, schools, and other government institutions in areas where usage reached a 10 percent threshold.

But in 2015, Russian was ordered removed from all railroads and airports, and in 2016 the first quotas were established for Ukrainian songs on the radio. It was in this period that FEBC made the “strategic decision” to switch primarily into Ukrainian.

By 2019, the 2012 law was replaced altogether to now require the use of Ukrainian in nearly all aspects of public life, while media outlets must include Ukrainian versions alongside minority languages. Exceptions were allowed for several ethnic communities, English, and other European languages.

Russian was excluded.

But there is no “ugly push” away from the language, Akhterov said. When the government consolidated national TV channels last March, it continued to broadcast news content in Russian. People remain free to speak the language, he said, and thousands of Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots are fighting to resist the invasion.

And many are changing their primary tongue.

From the Luhansk region of the Donbas, Rakhuba’s nephew once campaigned to preserve the Russian language against Ukrainian policy changes. Last week, the Mission Eurasia leader was surprised to receive his relative’s letter written in “pure Ukrainian.”

“I don’t blame my family for switching,” Rakhuba said. “Russian is now experienced as the language of the invader.”

Akhterov said that for many, it is now “painful” to speak their native tongue.

“All my life I spoke and read Russian; I authored articles and books in Russian; I preached in Russian,” said Sergey Nakul, FEBC’s senior broadcaster in Kyiv. “Today, I can’t. I switched to Ukrainian completely.”

There is thus no regret for on-air changes—especially as Russian-speaking citizens are still being reached. Affiliated ministry continues in Russia online and over social media, reaching three million Ukrainians every month.

FEBC has a longstanding policy to refrain from politics, Akhterov said. But as they interact with grieving listeners, broadcast interactions show them clearly on the side of the Ukrainian people.

In Russia it is more difficult. Licenses for FM stations in Moscow and St. Petersburg were not renewed in 2016, accelerating the transition to internet ministry. And today, FEBC-affiliated workers are not talking publicly about their wartime challenges. Their goal is to preserve an audience of several million people—and their gospel opportunities.

“We all understand Russia is living under a dark cloud of lies,” Akhterov said. “But we are not doing anti-propaganda; we are proclaiming the light of Christ.”

For Johnson, the mixed-language NLR staff is in a “quandary.”

“How would you feel about a government that discriminates against your language?” he said. “People in both countries are looking at us to see where our allegiances lie.”

Neutral on air, privately they are united against Putin and the evil perpetrated by the war. Criticism was received early on as they emphasized their peacemaking allegiance to the kingdom of God, he said, but the stance helped foster a sense of unity among listeners. During the daily one-hour call-in show, Ukrainian and Russian speakers would request hymns from their respective languages and warmly greet each other as family.

“We strive to promote this spirit the other 23 hours of the day,” Johnson said.

But the religious battle continues between the two nations.

The independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine has asked Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to remove Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill from his position. The Ukrainian Baptist Union has called on its Russian colleagues to be a “prophetic voice” on their behalf, as they lamented the loss of 400 war-torn churches.

But neither are the Russians idle. Last month, the nation’s security council passed resolutions against the “negative influence” of foreign religious associations. And on August 15, several members of the New Generation movement of churches were arrested; one year earlier the sect was declared “undesirable.”

Johnson fears Ukraine’s wartime policies are veering in a similar direction in terms of language—not faith. Akhterov disagrees. And while NLR focuses on strengthening the church in its Slavic niche, the larger FEBC considers itself a missionary enterprise to unbelievers.

But as each continues its ministry in a time of war and suffering, both efforts are centered on the Bible.

“We let the scriptures explain themselves, and make a mark on the listener,” Johnson said. “Paul can make a better case for how to live as a Christian than any radio commentator.”

Follow CT’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage on Telegram: @ctmagazine (also available in Chinese and Russian).

Select articles are offered in Russian and Ukrainian.

News
Wire Story

Court: HHS Can’t Require Christian Providers Perform Gender Transitions, Abortions

The appellate ruling sides with the Christian Medical and Dental Society and a Catholic hospital system that opposed the federal rule.

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra

Christianity Today August 30, 2022
Alex Wong / Getty Images

The Biden administration has received another setback from a federal court—this time at the appellate level—in its effort to institute transgender rights even at the expense of freedom of conscience.

The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans blocked last Friday a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that required doctors and hospitals to perform gender-transition procedures, as well as abortions. The unanimous opinion by a three-judge panel upheld a 2021 permanent injunction by a federal court in Texas that barred enforcement of the regulation—an action also taken by a federal judge in North Dakota.

The Biden administration’s support for transgender rights experienced another court defeat in July, when a federal judge in Tennessee blocked enforcement of guidelines from the Department of Education (DOE) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) while they are being legally challenged by 20 states. Those rules mandated schools must permit students to use the restrooms and locker rooms, as well as to compete on sports teams, of their gender identity instead of their biological sex.

A Southern Baptist ethics leader cited the Baptist Faith and Message in commending the decision.

“Baptists have long recognized ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience,’” said Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This ruling adheres to that truth and protects doctors and health-care providers from violating their consciences by conducting gender-transition surgeries or abortions.

“The government must understand that asking medical personnel to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs is an abuse of state authority,” he said in written comments for Baptist Press. “This result is not only a victory for the rights of doctors but also recognizes that the conscience is not some trivial item that can be paved over.”

The religious freedom advocacy organization Becket applauded the court win for its clients, the Franciscan Alliance, a Catholic hospital system, and the Christian Medical and Dental Society, which represents nearly 19,000 health-care professionals.

Joseph Davis, counsel for Becket, called the decision “a major victory for conscience rights and compassionate medical care in America.”

Doctors cannot do their jobs and comply with the Hippocratic Oath if the government requires them to perform harmful, irreversible procedures against their conscience and medical expertise,” he said in a written release.

In the Fifth Circuit opinion, judge Don Willett said the Franciscan Alliance has a valid claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal law that prohibits the government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion. The government may gain an exemption if it can show it has a compelling interest and is using the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.

The Franciscan Alliance claimed the HHS rule violated RFRA “by forcing it to perform abortions and gender-reassignment surgeries inconsistent with its sincerely held religious beliefs,” according to the Fifth Circuit opinion.

HHS has “repeatedly refused to disavow enforcement against Franciscan Alliance” of a 2016 rule and a 2021 interpretation of a section of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, Willett wrote. The department “concedes that it may” enforce the section against the Franciscan Alliance, he wrote.

In its 2016 rule under President Obama, HHS required health-care providers to provide both gender-transition procedures and abortions to avoid being guilty of sex discrimination. The Trump administration issued a rule in 2020 that rescinded the Obama-era policy by returning to the ordinary interpretation of the word “sex.”

HHS under the Biden administration, however, announced in May 2021 a reinterpretation of sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual orientation includes homosexuality, bisexuality and pansexuality, while gender identity refers to the way a person perceives himself or herself regardless of biology at birth.

Barely a month ago, HHS issued a proposed rule that largely revives the 2016 regulation that became known as the “transgender mandate.” The proposal would not only force doctors, clinics and hospitals to perform procedures to which they object but require health insurance companies to cover ones they find objectionable, critics say.

In announcing the proposed rule July 25, HHS said it is consistent with the US Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that ruled nondiscrimination protections in federal workplace law apply to gay and transgender employees. The federal judge in Tennessee who ruled in July against new DOE and EEOC guidelines said they surpassed the limits of the Bostock opinion.

The proposed HHS rule is another in a series of actions by the Biden administration during its 18 months in office to support abortion access and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer rights. These include executive orders by President Biden regarding both matters.

Ideas

Is Student Loan Forgiveness Biblical?

Christians are divided over whether Biden’s promise to cancel student debt is ethical and just from a scriptural standpoint.

Rally Held Outside The White House Calling On President Biden To Cancel Student Debt

Rally Held Outside The White House Calling On President Biden To Cancel Student Debt

Christianity Today August 29, 2022
Anna Moneymaker / Getty

Once President Joe Biden followed up on his promise to cancel $10,000 to $20,000 per borrower in student loan debt for eligible households, Christians responded by invoking a host of biblical references from Old Testament concepts like jubilee to the parables of Jesus in the New Testament.

Over a two-day period last week, searches for debt-related topics surged to 20 times above average on BibleGateway. Four verses—for and against loan forgiveness—were the top-gaining passages on the site:

  • Exodus 22:25 — “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.”
  • Deuteronomy 23:19 — “Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.”
  • Psalm 37:21 — “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.”
  • Ecclesiastes 5:5 — “It is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it.”

Searches for keywords “usury,” “paying debt,” “charging interest,” “debt,” “forgiveness of debt,” “debt paid in full,” and “paying your debts” were up. We heard from three Christian thinkers about how scriptural principles inform our stances on governmental debt forgiveness.

Matt Tebbe, cofounder of Gravity Leadership, author of "Having the Mind of Christ" and Anglican priest in Indianapolis

As Christians, we owe our very existence to debt forgiveness.

Christ loved us by forgiving us the debt of our sins (1 John 4:10), and he commanded us to love each other in the same way (John 13:34). To love as Jesus loves us is to participate in the debt-canceling reciprocity of God’s kingdom economy. Jesus instructs us to pray that our debts be forgiven as we forgive those indebted to us (Luke 11:4; Matt. 6:12, 14), referring to what we owe each other economically and socially. Our modern, secular vision often bifurcates the spiritual from the material. But in God’s kingdom, the social and economic dimensions are spiritual. What would it look like to take seriously God’s condemnation of usury and predatory lending that creates debt (Ex. 22:25; Ezek. 22:12)? To return ancestral land and release people from unjust debt as participation in God’s kingdom (Lev. 25;8–17)?

The Scriptures assign much more moral turpitude to the rich who profit off the poor unjustly—devouring widows' houses and hoarding riches—than they do to the poor who lose their lives to debt (Mark 12:40; Luke 6:24–26; James 5:1–6).

Christians, let us commit to forgive debt in a way that benefits the disenfranchised and impoverished more than it does the powerful and wealthy—loving each other as Christ loved us.

Paul Matzko, author of "The Radio Right" and Research Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C.

Some public thinkers support the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness policy with an appeal to the biblical idea of jubilee, the return of land and dischargement of debt every 50 years in ancient Israel.

It is questionable whether an ordinance that concentrated property ownership within a tribal ethno-state seeking to prevent resident aliens from accumulating excessive land, wealth, or power ought to be directly applied as policy in America today.

It is even more questionable whether a biblical system of jubilee and sabbath that once provided for the poor and dispossessed is an appropriate comparison to a student debt forgiveness policy that will mean a regressive redistribution of wealth from poorer, non-college-educated taxpayers to disproportionately privileged, college-educated workers with much higher future-earning potential on average.

We ought to resist the impulse, common among both new Christian Left and Right activists, to sacralize our policy preferences. There is no explicit, singular Bible position on student loan forgiveness. We must look to natural rather than special revelation for answers.

Joshua Wu, editorial director of the Asian American Christian Collaborative (AACC) and senior vice president of analytics at a public relations firm in Washington D.C.

While forgiveness and economic justice are biblical concepts (for example, the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 or the concept of jubilee in Leviticus 25, respectively), Christians can and do disagree whether student debt forgiveness is the best way to manifest these principles.

If, as most economists expect, this policy will increase inflationary pressures, is the cost of providing much-needed relief for some worth the effects it has on others? And is this the best way to seek economic justice? Would the $300 billion this is expected to cost be better spent permanently expanding the child tax credit given how effective it was in 2021 to reduce childhood poverty?

The complexity of public policy means that it is difficult to define biblical policy. As Christians, we should eschew the pursuit of biblical proof texts to validate our policy preferences.

Instead, we should humbly engage others with our biblical convictions and research about alternatives, cost-benefit analysis, and weighing of unintended consequences as we pursue human flourishing and the common good.

Books
Excerpt

Hymns and Neurons: How Worship Rewires Our Brains and Bonds Us Together

Scientific data suggests that singing in community reshapes our physical selves and our corporate connections.

Christianity Today August 29, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons

One of the curious results of the COVID-19 lockdown back in 2020 was the opportunity to experiment with what I might call “soul only” worship. This approach prioritizes the invisible activities of the heart and mind over and against the visible activities of the body. According to this mindset, the “real” action of worship takes place in our immaterial spirits, not in these very earthy frames.

A Body of Praise: Understanding the Role of Our Physical Bodies in Worship

A Body of Praise: Understanding the Role of Our Physical Bodies in Worship

Baker Academic

224 pages

$16.15

But that’s not how God has designed us as human beings, nor how the Spirit of God has wired us to experience corporate worship. It’s the Spirit’s pleasure, I contend, to work not just in our heads and hearts but in and through our physical bodies to form us wholly into Christ’s body.

And because the Spirit is the author of all things natural, not just supernatural, the sciences offer invaluable insights regarding the unique power of communal song to corporeally unite Christians in “Spirited” ways. In our relationally fraught and estranged times, this is good news for the church, I believe.

Here, I’d like to draw attention to two phenomena: entrainment and interactional synchrony.

What is entrainment? As Jeremy Begbie defines it, entrainment is “the synchronization of one rhythmic process with another.” In other words, it describes the way the body gradually syncs with another body or with an external rhythm, often unconsciously.

Entrainment happens all the time in corporate worship, it turns out. A particularly catchy hymn, for instance, may cause a person’s feet to start tapping unconsciously. A rousing rendition of a hip-hop worship song may find a group of people bobbing their heads in a synced way. Or, as the case may be at a Hillsong worship concert, a massive audience might find itself clapping at the exact same tempo without consciously intending it.

These phenomena are examples of mutual entrainment.

“In this scenario,” says ethnomusicologist Nathan Myrick, “people entrain to one another, with music acting as coupling factor: independent rhythmic processes create shared experiences of sensory data. Our brains and bodies become coupled to others. We do not have the same thoughts or feelings, but have our thoughts and feelings together, at the same time, with those around us.”

The idea of interactional synchrony is similar to entrainment, but it draws specific attention to what occurs when people mirror each other through bodily (and vocal) movements.

For example, when a mother smiles, her baby smiles; when she frowns, her baby frowns; when her voice softens, her baby becomes still; and so on.

The same is true in music.

“When two people are making music together, and really listening to what each is doing, they are sharing in the same pattern of neural activity,” writes cognitive scientist William Benzon in his book Beethoven’s Anvil.

“If the whole village is listening and dancing, then the whole village is enacting a single pattern of musical activity, even though they are physically distinct individuals with distinct nervous systems. What makes this sonic communion possible is that all these physically distinct nervous systems are cut from the same mold, and all are attuned to the same patterns of sound.”

Scientists have shown how certain practices of music—such as a congregation singing the doxology at full volume—evoke “neural activation that is shared among listeners in key emotion areas such as the amygdala, insula and caudate nucleus.”

These experiences create a surge of endorphins and a release of oxytocin, resulting in a heightened sense of “fellow feeling,” a deepening of “social bonds,” a loss of self-protective “boundaries,” and an increased sense of “feeling felt by another”—which is to say, an increased sense of empathy.

In terms of the scientific theory of “Hebb’s axiom,” neurons that fire together wire together, and a people who sing together experience a wiring together of their neural networks. They become tethered to one another in neurological and physiological ways, not just in affective or relational ways.

These experiences are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve over Zoom, partly because of the half-second delay that usually marks such exchanges and because, rather than being directly accessible to one another, our bodies are being mediated by a digital artifact (a phone or a computer).

My main theological point here is this: Over against the idea that the Spirit works in exclusively invisible and immaterial ways in the singing ministry of the church, I contend that the Spirit produces the “one-body” life of the church, not despite or beyond our bodies, but rather in and through our physical selves. The Spirit takes our corporate song and binds us corporeally in ways that are irreducible and deeply transformative.

But is this always true, without qualification? And is this the only way the Spirit forms us wholly?

For instance, what about Christians in contexts of duress and persecution who cannot easily gather in person? What about the sick and the homebound? What about the disabled, the immunocompromised, and the elderly in nursing homes?

In all such contexts, the opportunity of Zoom or live-streamed worship is an extraordinary gift and one that people in previous generations didn’t enjoy. So we should thank God for all manner of digital media and trust that he delights in technologies that form Christ’s body at worship.

But what about the possibility of manipulation, or the experience of negative peer pressure that so many Christians have experienced in their churches, whether Pentecostal or Presbyterian, Anglican or otherwise?

These dangers are very real, and we need to be vigilant against them. But perhaps we might also see the experience of fully embodied corporate song as a kind of positive peer pressure. Perhaps we might view it as an occasion for physically infectious worship, in the same way that a sporting event can be a socially infectious experience.

And what about the heart and mind? Don’t they matter in our experience of communal song?

Very much so. A deep sense of kinship as Christ’s body doesn’t happen mindlessly. It happens when we are keenly attuned to each other from the heart. It happens when we seek to love God with all our minds. When both our hearts and minds are fully engaged, our bodily activities of worship have a greater chance to sanctify us.

What, then, is the good news of entrainment and interactional synchrony to the body of Christ, which today is significantly strained and fractured?

On the one hand, the experience of entrainment reminds us that our bodies can form Christlikeness in us in uniquely physical ways. They have the capacity to disrupt and derail negative inertias that get stuck in our hearts and minds—fears, insecurities, biases, and prejudices that cause us to pull away from one another.

Allowing our bodies to become rhythmically coordinated to each other, then, can become an occasion for the Spirit of God to co-ordinate people who may find themselves profoundly out of sync with one another, whether theologically, politically, or otherwise.

On the other hand, inasmuch as the experience of interactional synchrony heightens our ability to be emotionally and relationally attuned to one another, it serves the purposes of forging bonds across all kinds of cultural divides: familial, ethnic, liturgical, and so on.

To me, this seems like an incalculable gift to the church at worship. It’s a gift that many cherish even more on this side of the global pandemic.

With rare exceptions, most of us in 2020 neither sat nor stood nor knelt in a physical space of worship. We exchanged no friendly handshakes. We received no heartfelt hugs. And for the most part, we didn’t sing together in the same room.

Instead, our bodily experiences of worship were marked by separation, depletion, and digitally mediated encounters. For many, the result was not only deteriorated mental and physical health but also spiritual anemia and relational estrangement.

While church leaders should be commended for going to great lengths to learn new forms of technology for remote church services, the experience of exclusively digital worship could not satisfy our God-given need to sing together in a common physical space.

When done well, this kind of singing is capable of drawing the ill-tempered, bigoted, self-absorbed, and broken members of Christ’s global body into a harmonious whole that astonishes afresh both the doubter and the believer.

It’s in that sense that I might call embodied singing a kind of “Spirited magic.” At its best, such an experience seems almost too good to be true. And yet, by God’s grace, it is true.

W. David O. Taylor is associate professor of theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary and author of the forthcoming book, A Body of Praise: Understanding the Role of Our Physical Bodies in Worship (Baker Academic, 2023).

This piece was adapted in part from A Body of Praise by David Taylor. Published with permission from Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.

Books
Review

Our Quest for Control Has Gotten Out of Control

More and more, it’s causing broken relationships, burnout, and anxiety. But that doesn’t mean we’re called to “let go and let God.”

Christianity Today August 29, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: JGI / Getty

Over the past few years, I started noticing a pattern in my life.

The Cost of Control: Why We Crave It, the Anxiety It Gives Us, and the Real Power God Promises

If my housemates didn’t wash their dishes quickly enough, I would jump in and do them myself.

If my fiancé didn’t communicate weekend plans enough in advance, I would barrage him with a half-dozen ideas and desires.

If my boss started micromanaging me, I retreated into insecurity and passivity.

If the circumstances in my life felt chaotic, I would focus extra attention on diet and exercise.

The thread I noticed was one of control: of other people, my body, my work, or my future. Simultaneously, I was noticing that I experienced regular anxiety over work projects, relational conflicts, or fears about the future. I know I’m not alone. According to one widely cited statistic from the Centers for Disease Control, about one-third of adults experienced symptoms of anxiety during the height of the pandemic.

Others have noticed this connection, including Sharon Hodde Miller, a teaching pastor at Bright City Church in Durham, North Carolina. In her latest book, The Cost of Control: Why We Crave It, the Anxiety It Gives Us, and the Real Power God Promises, Miller examines our often destructive relationship with control and points us to solutions in Christ.

“When the pandemic robbed us of certainty and predictability, it laid bare an idol that had been strangling us, invisibly, for years,” Miller writes. That idol is our illusion of control, which she argues is one underlying reason that our culture is chronically anxious, and many people—not just teenagers!—are feeling the effects of burnout.

Illusions of control

Miller defines control as “the power to influence the world around us and the sense of empowerment that gives.” She examines the topic in four parts: Why we control, how we control, what control costs us, and finally, the true power found in Christ.

We try and control our own lives and those of others, she says, by wielding knowledge, power, money, autonomy theology, or shame. With innovations like on-demand streaming platforms, anti-aging skin creams, and web access to almost any piece of information we might desire, our Western culture disciples us into the illusion of near-complete authority over our circumstances.

The problem, Miller writes, is that “our daily rhythms are rhythms of control, not rhythms of truth and reality. … We are living as if our control over the world has grown by miles when it has really only grown by inches.”

This inherent and very human desire to be in control goes back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve desired to rule over their own lives, ultimately leading them to separation from God and a broken relationship with each other.

But Miller believes that the topic is worth a fresh look in today’s age. Our society’s relationship with control “has shifted and evolved because of our particular cultural moment, and that change has had consequences that are new,” she writes.

Miller does well in diagnosing the problem; I was very convicted by her early chapters on why and how we control others. We might try to control our futures by gathering information (which usually just makes us more anxious) or control others by feeding them information meant to nudge them toward our way of thinking.

Ironically, Miller points out, studies have shown that using information to shift others’ opinions often has the opposite affect: People double down, especially if the information feels like an attack on something central to their perceived identity.

But it’s not just information that we wield to get our way. We use tools like money, emotional manipulation, and even theology to form people into our image or bid them to do our will. Miller only confirms what we already know: that these sinful tendencies lead to negative consequences, like broken relationships, burnout, and anxiety. And “when we use control to fix things,” she writes, “we end up breaking them even more.”

Active trust

Miller’s book isn’t meant as a comprehensive diagnosis of the symptoms of anxiety. She acknowledges early on that she is addressing the spiritual implications of control and anxiety as a pastor.

However, I was left wanting a bit more of a solution. Miller weaves biblical reflection throughout each chapter and often concludes her discussions by pointing us to our identity in Christ. Yet she spends fewer than 30 pages toward the end of the book discussing biblically supported ways of exercising control, and how our anxieties can strengthen our hope in Christ.

Scripture frequently warns against the abuse of power, and the Book of James emphasizes the futility of trying to control our circumstances (4:13–15). But the Bible also commends forms of good control, such as stewardship in work and society, or exercising control over our actions and over our tongue (James 3:3). “I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified,” writes the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 9:27, ESV).

Miller acknowledges that “let go and let God” isn’t the solution to our idol of control. Trust in God and others—and entrusting ourselves to God and others—takes active willpower, not passivity. Toward the end of the book, Miller points to Scripture’s words about control by discussing human agency, underlining our capacity to practice self-control and patience, take responsibility for our actions, and trust in God.

Her brief but practical words of advice—set limits, say no when needed, and take stock of how you’re feeling or where you’re at—were not new to me, but they were a balm to my soul all the same. I could have used expansion on these topics.

Miller frequently cites Diane Langberg, a noted Christian psychologist, as someone curious readers might consult for a deeper or more technical dive into counseling issues. But The Cost of Control serves as a first step—and a necessary one—for believers who are ready to take a self-reflective look at our need for control.

Kara Bettis is associate features editor at Christianity Today.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube