Church Life

Who Will Pay Africa’s Medical Bills?

Locals are increasingly running African mission hospitals. The next challenge: keeping foreign donors.

Illustration by Sarah Gordon / Source Images: Wikimedia Commons

One day in March, Yowati Nthenga, the head of accounting at Nkhoma Mission Hospital, was sitting at his desk wondering where he would get the money to pay the hospital’s roughly 400 employees the overtime and bonus pay they were owed. He had paid salaries, fortunately, but staff counted on that additional “allowance,” and it should have gone out already.

Nthenga’s office is near the gate of the rural, 250-bed hospital, which serves a region of about 460,000 people in central Malawi. On that day, patients arrived on motorbike, on foot, and in minibuses: women in labor, older men with hypertension, a boy with kidney damage. The hospital took care of them, and then Nthenga and the other administrators had to figure out how to pay for it. If patients can’t afford the hospital’s subsidized fees—a consultation costs about 90 cents—Nkhoma’s staff work out a doable amount or find some charitable program to cover the cost. Their policy is to not refuse anyone treatment. But eventually, the care must be paid for somehow.

The hospital is run by the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian, a Malawian denomination. Since it is the only hospital serving Nkhoma’s rural district, the Malawian government helps fund staff salaries. But the county’s health care system relies heavily on foreign funding, as does the mission hospital. And Nthenga has been watching those foreign donations trend downward.

This is happening in mission hospitals across Africa serving rural, poor populations. Giving from Western churches and organizations has declined, while the need for medical care is increasing with population growth. The pandemic worsened that trend, administrators at mission hospitals say, when churches in the United States turned inward to their own needs and the needs of their immediate communities.

As the medical missions world celebrates that mission hospitals are increasingly run by African churches, African doctors, and African administrators, many of those hospitals face a paradox: Weaning them off foreign physicians has long been the dream, but achieving that dream sometimes means losing foreign money.

Nthenga is accustomed to the money stress now: The hospital must find about $40,000 every month from somewhere to cover operating expenses. The staff have a meeting about the books every two weeks to decide which payments are priorities.

Nthenga has been working at Nkhoma for 12 years, and somehow the monthly deficits always work out. Church hospitals historically drew funding from US denominations but now regularly seek help from international organizations like Samaritan’s Purse and, in Nkhoma’s case, African Mission Healthcare.

Still, the pandemic was the toughest two years he and other administrators at Nkhoma Hospital remember. Suppliers started asking for cash up front because the hospital was getting behind in its payments. The hospital has been working on income-generating ideas, but so far it is operating in a deficit.

“The fact is we cannot manage without donors,” Nthenga said.

Frank Dimmock has worked with Nkhoma and in Malawi for years and serves as a liaison between the historically Presbyterian hospital and the Presbyterian Church (USA). He said PCUSA giving to operational expenses at the hospital stagnated during the pandemic, although a few presbyteries gave significantly to the hospital’s COVID-19 response.

Mission hospitals “are all struggling, unless their overseas partner churches are still underwriting them,” Dimmock said. But the number of overseas partners is shrinking. Back in 2011, he surveyed Christian health associations across Africa. Groups from Togo to Malawi reported that foreign giving was down. An association in Chad told Dimmock that Europeans “ask us to focus on the local opportunities of fundraising.”

Since then, Dimmock said, foreign churches aren’t sending as many missionaries—expats who often bring with them visitors and money—as they used to.

Mission hospitals are critical to health care in sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of the population is rural but health infrastructure is often concentrated in capital cities. Faith-based hospitals like Nkhoma tend to operate in more remote areas. In Malawi, 70 percent of rural health care comes from church clinics and hospitals. Nkhoma is also a teaching hospital, training Malawian nurses, medical students, family medicine doctors, and surgeons.

But providing highly trained staff and hospital infrastructure in remote places is expensive, and the populations mission hospitals are serving don’t have the money to support it. A compilation of household surveys from 14 African nations published in the medical journal The Lancet in 2015 showed that faith-based health facilities had the highest percentage of patients from the lowest economic quintile.

A painting of the Nkhoma Hospital by local artistPainting by Eddie Amtonyo
A painting of the Nkhoma Hospital by local artist

At Nkhoma, the economics of the population the staff served was evident: Some patients came barefoot, and one mother brought in her frail three-month-old baby boy with the copper hair and skin lesions characteristic of malnutrition, as well as her three-year-old who weighed less than a typical one-year-old. The hospital rehabbed the children for 11 days and then discharged them. At a checkup three weeks later, the baby boy whose bones had been showing had gained two pounds and was plump and healthy.

In recent years, financial challenges have compounded to test Nkhoma’s mettle.

During the pandemic, inpatient admissions plummeted 80 percent. According to hospital staff, patients were afraid of getting the coronavirus at the hospital, and because of lockdowns they also didn’t have money for services.

The Malawian kwacha also devalued during the pandemic, making supplies more expensive. Hospital staff were expecting the war in Ukraine to affect their bottom line too, making commodities more difficult to obtain.

The price of drugs, the most expensive line item after salaries, has gone up. There were shortages of magnesium sulfate, which the hospital uses to treat preeclampsia, and diazepam, used to treat seizures. Deciding what drugs to keep on hand is difficult. Some are too expensive to stock for uncommon conditions, and some expire too quickly for a rural hospital on a budget.

“Each time we would go to get quotations for the month or two months, we always get new prices. The prices are not just adding 10 or 20 [percent], but 40, 50 percent,” said Agness Nyanda, the hospital’s administrator. But the patient fees remained the same.

To cut costs, the hospital began limiting the use of its vehicles, which included sometimes canceling non-emergency visits to patients in villages. It tried to reuse protective gowns by dipping them in bleach, but that didn’t work, so it switched to washable fabrics.

In January and February, cyclones added to the hospital’s problems. They disabled one of the four hydroelectric plants that provide the nation’s power, triggering rolling blackouts that have lasted hours a day and continued for months. Heavy rainfall damaged underground cables connected to one of the hospital’s generators, forcing the hospital to rely for several days on an undersized backup generator.

On its ninth day of running, the backup generator quit. The hospital rushed in oxygen cylinders for COVID-19 patients and portable generators to support preemie babies in the neonatal ward. It evacuated an emergency surgery case to another hospital. Women were giving birth under phone flashlights.

Fortunately, no patients died. But Nyanda said repairing the underground cables cost the hospital about $6,000. When the next such emergency comes up, the hospital may have to delay other payments, like staff allowances. While staff generally know they are making sacrifices to work at a rural hospital, where their families might not have as many job or education opportunities, delays on payments add to already-depleted morale.

But then, something new—something encouraging—did happen during the pandemic, in early 2021.

The hospital put out an emergency appeal to local churches, saying that it was in trouble and needed help. The churches responded with the largest amount they had ever given: $13,000. That was meaningful, even if it covered only a small part of the hospital’s monthly costs.

“God has seen us through,” Nyanda said.

On the day Nthenga, the accountant, was trying to figure out what to do about the staff allowances, the hospital got two undesignated donations wired from the United States. One was for $12,000 from a Presbyterian church in Seattle. His problem was solved. If the funds had been designated, he couldn’t have paid the salaries. He ordered a transfer of the donations directly to the hospital’s bank account, which added up to enough money for the staff allowances to go out.

“So the question is, what will happen next month!” Nthenga said with a hearty laugh. “By God’s grace we are moving, and the years are going by. I get amused and amazed sometimes; what has made us go past 2019? What has made us go past 2020? 2021, 2022? God’s grace is upon us, but we are also doing our part.”

Emily Belz is news reporter at Christianity Today. She is based in New York.

News

Counting the Cost of Paying Ransoms for Missionaries

A Haiti kidnapping raises questions about no-payment practices.

Illustration by Joe Anderson

International Christian organizations and missions experts agree it’s not best practice to pay kidnapping ransoms.

But ransoms do get paid. And the impacts are hard to quantify. The cost is a burden borne by local churches, fellow missionaries, ministers, aid workers, and the many people they hope to serve.

A thousand dollars or a hundred thousand might tip the scales for kidnappers in the future, as they weigh whether to abduct more people. But one payment—or two, or three—might not tip the scales at all.

Three members of a group of captive Christian Aid Ministries workers were released last December by a Haitian gang known as the 400 Mawozo, after someone outside the Anabaptist organization paid the kidnappers. It’s unknown how much money the gang received, though the final amount was likely only a fraction of the original $1 million per person they demanded.

The remaining missionaries escaped. But money did exchange hands for three of them. As experts have assessed its impact over the past year, they haven’t reached a consensus on what it means for the future of missions in Haiti.

For some, it seems that the security situation in Haiti has deteriorated so significantly that paying one gang to release three missionaries had no effect at all.

“How can you raise the threat of kidnapping any higher? It’s already off the charts,” said Scott Brawner, president of Concilium, an organization that helps international Christian ministries assess risk. “Whether a ransom has been paid or not has not raised the threat of kidnapping. There are multiple kidnappings of Haitian nationals on a daily basis.”

More than 100 people in Haiti were kidnapped the same month as the Christian Aid missionaries, the Center for Analysis and Research in Human Rights reported. The total victims for 2021 came to around 800—a rapidly increasing number in the past few years.

Some believe that not paying ransoms in the highest-profile case of the year, however, could have helped curb the rise in kidnapping. Dieumème Noelliste, a Haitian-born evangelical who now teaches theological ethics at Denver Seminary, sees a missed opportunity.

“I was holding on to hope that the kidnapping of the American missionaries would provide an opportunity to break the back of the gang violence that has swept the country,” he said.

The 400 Mawozo was clearly not as successful as members might have hoped. One leader was extradited to the US on unrelated gun charges. But for the gang, the kidnapping didn’t end in complete disaster. They might consider it a moderate success, worth trying again.

“This means that foreign missionaries are now fair game,” Noelliste said. “[And] if the criminal elements have no compunction attacking American citizens who have the protection of the United States, what restraint would they show for a Haitian congregation? … The Haitian church therefore has nowhere to turn, and the gangsters know it.”

But even if missionaries and aid organizations all agree on the folly of paying ransoms, they’re not the only ones making decisions. In high-profile kidnappings, organizations face pressure from donors with their own opinions about the right response.

The family members of kidnapped missionaries often also get involved. Brawner advises missions organizations to include families in their crisis planning.

“Organizations have to do a good job not only communicating with but ministering to family members in the midst of this crisis,” he said. “Not every family member may share the calling to that risk. Now you’re dealing with family members who are angry with the organization for sending their children down there. There has to be a member-care piece that helps to minister to the family in the midst of this crisis.”

When the US government sends negotiators, they almost always work with the family, not the employer, putting key decisions in the hands of husbands, wives, and parents. When ransoms are paid, it’s often family members who put up the money, disregarding best practices.

The money may save a loved one’s life. But sometimes it doesn’t.

“Kidnappers can be very vicious and actually carry out what they say they will do, which is kill the victims,” said David Shedd, a former CIA agent and executive adviser of VDI, a security consulting firm relied on by American missionaries. “One is always wishful and hopeful that it would never happen to you, but when it does, all of a sudden it’s very real.”

Hostage negotiation is a complicated process and frequently goes wrong. In 2002, family members of Martin and Gracia Burnham arranged for a philanthropist to pay more than $300,000 to extremist Muslims who had kidnapped the American missionaries in the Philippines. Local police delivered the money, but then the group demanded $200,000 more.

When the Filipino military attempted to rescue the New Tribes missionaries, Martin Burnham was killed and the kidnappers escaped. Gracia Burnham, back in the US, argued that her husband would have lived if the full ransom had been paid.

Even when ransoms aren’t paid, money may still be exchanged. The reality of behind-the-scenes negotiations with kidnappers is often more complicated than statements of best practices make it appear.

John Berger, vice president for global operations and strategy at Crossworld, a cross-cultural disciple-making ministry, learned about this in crisis training.

“A no-ransom policy does not require a no-negotiation policy, and negotiation may lead to some kind of financial transaction,” Berger said. “It’s not giving into a ransom demand per se. It’s negotiating in a way that acknowledges that the hostage-takers and negotiators will be seeking some resolution to the situation beyond simply releasing the hostages and getting nothing back in return.”

Experienced negotiators may ask kidnappers about their expenses, such as housing and feeding captives and hiring a crew of armed guards, said Berger, who lived in Haiti for several years. They may try to figure out how to allow the kidnappers to save face.

“Negotiating with the hostage takers is kind of like a plea deal in a court case,” he said. “You agree to a lesser charge, so to speak, in an effort to resolve the situation.”

That lines up with what Megan Schreiber, the US director of Haitian Christian Outreach, has observed. While the ransom kidnappers demand isn’t normally paid in full, they often do get paid some money.

Has Schreiber ever seen hostages released without some kind of payment?

“No.”

Right now, kidnappings are only a piece of the larger security picture. Haitians are also dealing with the fallout from the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse and a gang-related oil crisis, in addition to long-term issues with the recovery from a 2020 hurricane and a 2021 earthquake. Local churches may not have food or fuel to spare, even if they want to welcome missionaries or aid workers.

“With the deterioration of the country and lack of resources, we don’t want to take away from resources that our family and communities need,” Schreiber said.

This scarcity may cause Christian expats in Haiti to consider leaving for a time, Berger said, or consider increasing their security. Missionaries and their organizations may also need to reevaluate their kidnapping contingency plans.

Whatever they decide, they will still have to pray about it, explain it to families, and put their trust in God. The missionary calling isn’t taken lightly.

“It’s always an emotional struggle for people on the ground,” Berger said. But, “I know very few long-term missionaries who bail out of fear.”

Morgan Lee is global media manager for Christianity Today.

News

Preach the Gospel Everywhere. When Necessary, Use Laundromats.

A different kind of “third place” ministry creates community and connections with washers and dryers.

Flynn Larsen / Getty

Some come with track marks from years of drug abuse. Others come with children in tow. Some are struggling through a bad week. Others, a bad decade. All bring their dirty laundry.

They wash it and dry it for free at church-run laundry services throughout the United States.

“Christ said we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and I think those clothes should be clean,” said Catherine Ambos, a volunteer at one such ministry in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Of course, it’s not really about hygiene, but dignity.

“If someone is dirty, unkempt, you tend not to look at them. You don’t want to meet their eye,” Ambos said. “If you can’t afford to wash your clothes and you’re a budding teenager, it’s an embarrassment.”

Churches have been washing clothes across the US since at least 1997, when a minister at First United Methodist Church of Arlington, Texas, started doing a circuit around the city’s coin-operated laundries, passing out change. There may well have been others before this. Today, these ministries exist across the country, run by churches of all traditions and sizes.

They’re not as common or as well known as church-run coffee shops, which have been promoted as “third places,” locations separate from work and home where people create community. But a growing number of churches see laundry ministries as a better way to connect with their neighbors and witness to the gospel.

Some churches buy their own washers and dryers, renovate a space so it has enough electrical outlets, and open a church-run laundry. Others, like Christ Episcopal Church in New Brunswick, send out volunteers with quarters. Ambos started doing that four years ago.

They budgeted $200. They quickly realized it wasn’t enough. “We were three-quarters of the way through the session when it became apparent that we were going to go over,” Ambos said.

Christ Episcopal’s pastor agreed to cover whatever they spent, and they handed out $267 in coins. The ministry hasn’t stopped since.

Belmont Baptist Church in Charlottesville, Virginia, has one of the older laundromat ministries still running. The church started helping people clean their clothes in 2010, when pastor Greg Anderson heard through another ministry that poor people in homeless shelters and long-term-stay motels would regularly throw away their clothes.

“It was just easier to go and get new clothes at a clothing-center type of ministry as opposed to being able to launder them,” Anderson said.

The church decided to install five washers and dryers in a building on its property and open a laundromat. Today, volunteers estimate that they save people upwards of $25,000 per year—money they didn’t have, or if they did, they could now spend on food, gas, or medicine.

“This works along with the adage, ‘People don’t care what you know until they know that you care,’” Anderson said. “We let them know we care and God cares, and we share Christ through that and directly with our words when that opportunity arises. To do so in the spirit of Christ is an incarnational thing. … The spiritual needs that so often receive all the attention cannot be separated from the physical needs of the people who might benefit from a place to wash their clothes.”

While people are doing their laundry, they talk to each other and the church volunteers, and relationships form. The church has been able to help more people through those connections.

Church members have helped families with car trouble and others who needed clothes. Once, they helped someone cover funeral costs. Another time, a single dad got help with child care.

The church sees it as evangelistic because they’re sharing God’s love with people. But the laundromat hasn’t contributed to church growth.

“None of these people became members of our church,” said Barbara Lowery, who has volunteered at Belmont Baptist’s laundry for 12 years. “That wasn’t what it was about. It was about helping people in need.”

Margaret Brown says volunteering at the Belmont laundromat for the past 12 years has opened her eyes to the needs in her community. The people who show up at the church with their dirty clothes have a lot going on in their lives. They’re not lazy and they’re not pretending to need help.

“These are people who really need it,” she said. But at the same time, “they don’t expect something to be handed to them.”

Brown has formed relationships with many of the people she sees week after week. One woman found out how much Brown loves coffee and during her laundry time made a point of bringing Brown something—a fresh cup, or sometimes coffee cake or coffee candy.

“I would say 95 percent of them are so appreciative that it breaks your heart,” Brown said.

Susan Thomas, who runs an Episcopal ministry paying for laundry in Blaine, Washington, said this is what has surprised her most: how much a load of laundry can mean to someone.

“We started it because we were looking for something to help the community that no one else was doing,” she said. “I can’t tell you how many people have come up to us with tears in their eyes thanking us for having this program. They have to decide whether to put gas in their car or put food on the table or have laundry.”

Blaine has a little more than 5,000 residents, but last year, Thomas said, the church paid for 1,600 loads of laundry, at about $7.25 per load.

Santa Maria, California, with a population exceeding 100,000 people, looks very different from Blaine, but the needs are similar. Frank Hall, a member of Crestwood Christian Fellowship, has run Morning Star Laundry for the past 10 years. Before COVID-19, they were helping around 50 people a week.

Hall has also worked with homeless ministries in the region in the past, and often he saw there was a place people could get a shower, but then they’d have to put their dirty clothes back on.

“Nine times out of 10 they’re walking around in dirty clothes, which isn’t going to help their health,” he said.

The nondenominational church gives $200 per week to Morning Star, and Hall collects recycling from church members to subsidize the ministry. He knew some local businesses could become critical of the church-run laundry because they didn’t want homeless people in the area and might worry about losing business.

To mitigate that, he’s developed relationships with them. He buys what he needs for the laundry from local stores and sets clear rules at the ministry about drug use, intoxication, and any antisocial behavior.

“We want to support the other businesses and not make them feel like we’re harming them,” Hall said.

Managing everything can be a challenge. It’s probably more work than a coffee shop. But Hall thinks it’s worth it.

“It allows us to help people, care for them, and help people to have some dignity,” Hall said. “When you’re doing it, you are caring for people that God loves.”

Adam MacInnis is a reporter in Canada.

News

Long Sermons Seem Longer in the Pews, Study Finds

But it’s not a new problem. Just ask Martin Luther.

Edits by Christianity Today. Source: Sean824 / Karl Fletcher / Getty

Churchgoers are six times more likely than preachers to say that their church’s typical sermon goes over an hour. Preachers, on the other hand, are twice as likely to say their sermons last less than 15 minutes.

Time, it seems, moves differently in pulpit and pew.

Modern preachers may decry the shortened attention spans of contemporary congregants, but conflict over sermon length isn’t new. It was a frequent point of contention during the Reformation, as preachers discovered the great depths of the Word—and went on and on about it.

Some sermons clocked in at three hours. Even the leading Reformers soon suggested restraints. Thomas Cranmer thought an hour and a half really ought to be plenty of time. John Calvin said a preacher needed to stop when he got tedious. Martin Luther offered young ministers this indelible advice: When people say, “He was prattling on and could no longer stop,” that’s a bad sign.

British churches eventually started installing hourglasses by the pulpits, according to church historian Owen Chadwick. The craftsmen who made them were more sympathetic to the experience in the pews than in the pulpits, though, and more than a few of the timepieces did not keep an honest hour. One surviving hourglass reliably runs out of sand at 48 minutes.

Though the preacher probably said it was half an hour.

Source: Lifeway ResearchInfograph by Christianity Today
Source: Lifeway Research

For more on sermon length and the perception of sermon length, visit: Lifeway Research.

Ideas

How to Greet the End of ‘Roe’

President & CEO

Faithful responses to the Supreme Court decision should involve new care practices.

Illustration by Joe Anderson

One of the best parts of attending Perimeter Church in north Atlanta was seeing the parking lot for young families. Industrial-sized vans pulled in each Sunday and poured forth children. These were not shuttles that gathered youngsters from local neighborhoods but single-family vans filled with children who had been adopted domestically and internationally, many with special needs.

Perimeter families have adopted over 100 children in the past 13 years, due in large measure to a ministry incubated in the church. Named for the declaration in Psalm 68:6 that God “sets the lonely in families,” Promise686 has supported nearly 500 adoptions through grants and other assistance. The ministry supported the adoption of my daughter, whose congenital heart defect probably would have been fatal if she had been left in China’s state orphanage system.

Ministries such as Promise686 will be critical now that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. We celebrate the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. The sanctity and dignity of all human life remains the preeminent moral issue of our time, and five decades of calling evil good has distorted the moral vision of our culture. Overturning Roe is a testament to a long faithfulness, passed down from parents to children to grandchildren, to fight for the lives and dignity of people in all stages of development. It could be the most significant moral achievement of a generation.

But what will a faithful response to success look like? Overturning Roe sends abortion policy decisions back to the states, and many will prohibit or have prohibited abortion. In the words of Jedd Medefind, president of the Christian Alliance for Orphans, “Many children will be born that would have been previously aborted,” and many to parents “that are strained and struggling.”

Is adoption the answer? Probably not. It is, at best, only part of the answer.

The Christian adoption movement in America was driven by the biblical command and the compassionate desire to care for the orphan and the widow. Countless families have made beautiful sacrifices—and experienced blessing—by opening their homes to children in desperate need.

But then came more moral complexity. Many adopted children, sundered from their original communities and cultures, grew up, learned their stories, and experienced a profound sense of loss and disconnection. In some cases, adoption was right and necessary; but in others, it was unclear whether adoption had served either the “orphan” or the “widow” (the birth mother) well.

The ready availability of American families willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt also led, in some countries, to traffickers supplying children whose birth families wished to keep them.

The adoption movement evolved. In part, this was driven by adoptive mothers who felt an ambiguous grief in which they loved and celebrated their adopted children but lamented the trauma of separation the children and birth mothers endured. It was also driven by a deepening engagement with the American foster care system. On the one hand were children who suffered abuse or severe neglect and clearly required foster care or adoption; on the other were mothers and children who might have flourished together if they had received loving care.

Promise686 still serves adoptions but has now also supported 6,550 foster placements, wrapping “care communities” around foster families to encourage them and improve their outcomes.

It has also worked to prevent children from falling into the foster system in the first place by supporting families in crisis and keeping children with their mothers whenever safely possible. In the words of president Andy Cook, “Churches are needed at every point on the continuum from prevention to intervention through foster care to permanency.”

Or consider Every Mother’s Advocate (EMA) in Florida. After three years of fostering and an adoption, the founder, Charlee Tchividjian, had seen enough of “the systemic challenges and brokenness mothers face once their families become entangled in the child welfare system.” The majority of child removals, she says, are simply due to an inability to meet the child’s fundamental needs. “For a mother in crisis,” says Tchividjian, “advocacy can change everything.” Of the families EMA engages on the verge of child removal, 88 percent move from crisis to stability.

How, then, should pro-life Christians celebrate the end of Roe? Perhaps by partnering with ministries such as these. “When a mom is advocated for,” says Tchividjian, “families are preserved; fostercare statistics plummet; and the foster care system’s pipelines to poverty, prison, addiction, and homelessness begin to slowly fade.”

The end of Roe will honor the sanctity of human life and deliver children safely into the world. It will also bring real hardships for many mothers. The best way we can celebrate the children who will be born of Roe’s demise is to love the mothers who raise them.

Timothy Dalrymple is president, CEO, and editor in chief of Christianity Today.

News

Anglicans Lose 14 Properties in South Carolina Court Battle

And other brief news from Christians around the world.

St Michaels Church in Charleston, SC

St Michaels Church in Charleston, SC

Kirkikis / Getty

The South Carolina supreme court ruled that the Anglican Church in North America must return 14 of 29 parish properties to the Episcopal Church. The congregations split from the Episcopal Church in 2012, taking about $500 million in church properties with them, after a general convention voted to allow blessings of same-sex unions. The state court ruled in favor of the breakaway congregations in 2017, but the decision was appealed. On second look, the court decided 14 of the disaffiliated parishes had agreed to a 1979 bylaw that said they held their property in trust for the denomination.

United States: Woman claiming coerced baptism dies

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is looking into the death of a 42-year-old woman who was suing a sheriff’s deputy for forcing her to get baptized. Shandle Marie Riley was pulled over in a traffic stop in 2019 and told deputy Daniel Wilkey she had a marijuana cigarette with her. She claims the deputy then offered her a choice: arrest or baptism. Riley chose baptism. The religious ritual was filmed by a second deputy. Riley later sued, claiming the law enforcement officers violated her freedom of religion. A Tennessee judge ruled in April that her lawsuit could go forward. One week later, Riley was found dead. Wilkey has also been accused of strip searching people on the side of the road and faces multiple civil lawsuits and criminal charges in Chattanooga.

Infograph by CT

Dominican Republic: Evangelicals call for police reform

The Confraternity of Pastors of Evangelical Churches of Ocoa is calling for police reform in the province capital after a 32-year-old man died in police custody. Medical personnel initially said José Gregorio Custodio was killed by a police beating but later changed their assessment and said the bruises on the dead man’s body were caused by an allergic reaction. “After a citizen has been arrested, you should not mistreat him and even less kill him,” said pastor Andrés Febles.

Trinidad and Tobago: Assemblies of God school faces audit

The Tobago government is investigating the finances of an Assemblies of God high school that shut down suddenly. The Pentecostal Light and Life Foundation High School closed in April, one day after the start of the school term, with 23 of the school’s 27 teachers leaving the premises because of concerns about the condition of the building. Two other schools were similarly shut down, one Catholic and one Seventh-day Adventist, and they will also be investigated. The Assemblies school receives the equivalent of about $88,000 from the government per term, some of which is supposed to fund the maintenance of the building. The director of the school said these are ongoing issues and criticized the secretary of education for publicizing her concerns on social media.

France: Religious liberty needs to be watched ‘like milk on the fire’

French evangelicals have asked President Emmanuel Macron to prioritize religious liberty in his second term. Thierry Le Gall, a member of the National Council of Evangelical Christians in France, said, “Freedom of religious expression needs to be watched like milk on the fire” because recent laws targeting Muslims have moved the nation “from a republican pact of tolerance to a policy of surveillance of religions.” Polling shows the majority of evangelicals supported Macron over his national conservative opponent Marine Le Pen. Macron is an agnostic.

Switzerland: Christian asylum seeker wins appeal

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled Swiss authorities did not properly assess the risk facing a Salvation Army convert if he were deported back to Pakistan. They looked at the persecution of churches, but not at the risks to individual converts. European governments have struggled to develop a workable system for evaluating the legitimacy of asylum seekers’ conversions.

Nigeria: Pastors debate ‘biblical’ marriage

Nigerian actor Yul Edochie announced his marriage to a second wife, prompting a national debate about polygamy. Reno Omokri, a former aide to President Goodluck Jonathan and an independent minister, said that in Scripture many godly men are polygamous and the practice is only forbidden for bishops and elders. African acceptance of the “Western construct” of monogamy has led to social acceptance of adultery and same-sex marriage, he argued. Kingsley Okonkwo, a pastor who frequently addresses relationships, countered that while some men in the Bible had more than one wife, it is clear from Scripture that that was never God’s plan for marriage.

Israel: Slain police officer honored

Busloads of ultra-Orthodox Jews attended the funeral of an Arab Christian police officer, honoring him as a “hero of Israel.” Amir Khoury, 32, rushed to the scene of a terrorist shooting in the city of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv. He and his partner exchanged fire with a 27-year-old Palestinian who was reportedly angry a female relative had been attacked by settlers. The Palestinian and Khoury were both killed in the shootout. Christians in Israel have recently clashed with authorities. Some claim the government doesn’t want them in the country.

South Korea: $1M sent for Jewish immigrants to Israel

South Korean Christians donated $1 million to help Ethiopian and Ukrainian Jews immigrating to Israel. The money will go to the Jewish Agency for Israel and was organized by One New Man Family, a ministry that aims to bring Jews and Gentiles together to “celebrate the Second Coming of Christ,” according to its website. Most Korean Christians believe that the church is the new Israel, but pastor Eun Soo Seol—also known as Pastor Joshua—wants to persuade them to “see Israel as Israel in the Bible.”

News

Germany’s Nuclear Power Plants Are Closing. But Their Moral Questions Have a Long Half-Life.

What is the Christian position on radioactive accidents, technology, and replacing fossil fuels?

Sean Gallup / Getty

Emmy Janssen understands the mechanics of nuclear fission. As a physics student at Freie Universität Berlin, she says the math can be challenging, but she loves the way her studies let her wrestle with what she calls “the depth and breadth of God’s created cosmos.”

But she is not so sure, as a Christian, she understands her ethical responsibilities. She wonders about “our role as God’s children, bringing nuclear power into the world in the first place.”

Janssen is not the only one. Across the country, German evangelicals are weighing the ethics of nuclear power.

The government is set to decommission its last three nuclear reactors by the end of 2022. Shutting down Isar 2, Emsland, and Neckarwestheim 2 will complete the county’s Atomausstieg, or “nuclear power phase-out,” and conclude a generation of political debates. But the debates, like radioactive particles, have a half-life, and evangelicals in Germany are still discussing the problems of waste, the risks of catastrophic accidents, and the potential benefits of nuclear power.

Deciding on a Christian position is not as easy as turning on the lights.

“There are indifferent people. There are people who are deeply convinced nuclear energy is dirty and dangerous. There are those who see it as a possibility for protecting the planet and developing cleaner energy,” said Matthias Boehning, director of the World Evangelical Alliance’s Sustainability Center in Bonn.

Some of the differences appear to be generational. Older evangelical views have been shaped by both Cold War history, when the US and the USSR planned out nuclear attacks and counterattacks, and—of even greater concern—by the memory of nuclear accidents.

The German nuclear power program kicked off in the 1950s, producing energy for the nation as it rebuilt after World War II. The German anti-nuclear movement emerged around the same time, raising concerns about the destructive potential of atomic bombs and the incredible difficulty of handling nuclear waste.

But most supported the nuclear program, according to political historians, until 1986—when Chernobyl happened.

For Markus Baum, a 59-year-old Methodist radio commentator for ERF Medien, that accident was a crossroads. He remembers listening to reports that the reactor in what is now Ukraine had melted down and ruptured, spewing clouds of contamination into the atmosphere. There were warnings about radioactive rain. He never thought about nuclear power the same way again.

“After Chernobyl, we saw the complications, the dangers,” he said. “We decided that the nuclear path we had walked had no future.”

Concerns about nuclear power grew. The Greens started arguing for an immediate closure of the country’s reactors. “Chernobyl is everywhere,” they said. They only won a few votes, but the argument became a permanent part of German political discourse.

In 1998, a new ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens committed to moving Germany away from nuclear power. The phase-out started in 2002.

When Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2006, though, she said shutting down the nuclear reactors was “absurd.” The power plants were not only “technologically safe,” but didn’t emit the carbon that drives climate change. Merkel, a center-right politician, had previously earned her doctorate in quantum physics. She understood the science and believed in the safety of nuclear power.

But Merkel changed her mind in 2011. An earthquake and tsunami led to three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions, and considerable radioactive contamination in Fukushima, Japan, dramatically demonstrating that no matter how technologically safe, nuclear power was always dangerous.

Merkel announced that all power plants would be closed by the end of December 2022.

Some younger evangelicals in the country, however, think Merkel was probably right the first time. They know the risks of nuclear power but feel they are minor compared to the ongoing damage done every day by burning fossil fuels.

Adopting what has been called an “ecomodernist” position, millennial and Gen Z creation care advocates point to increased safety protocols, advanced technologies, and the urgent need for an alternative to coal and oil.

“Nuclear is a clean energy possibility for them,” Boehning said at the World Evangelical Alliance. “They are being less ideological, more pragmatic, and present-oriented.”

Caroline Bader, cofacilitator of GreenFaith’s International Network and coordinator for its work with German faith communities, said this kind of perspective is short-sighted. Concern about climate change is not a good reason to return to nuclear power, she said.

“We demand universal access to clean and affordable energy for everyone, and nuclear energy is harmful in both regards,” she said. “It is expensive, dangerous, and not as clean as its advocates suggest.”

Even if there aren’t any accidents, Bader points out, nuclear plants produce toxic waste that must be dealt with. Germans will be dealing with that technical problem for centuries to come.

Those problems might be solved with advancing technology, but the moral problems with nuclear power will still be complicated. According to physicist Robert Kaita, an evangelical who has worked at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for 40 years, this is because “as human beings created in God’s image, we have tremendous power to create and destroy, to give life and to take it.”

Understanding creation at the atomic level isn’t enough for Christians coming to terms with the ethical questions of reactors, he said. As a scientist, he doesn’t dismiss concerns about nuclear energy. He prays for wisdom and compassion.

“Nuclear energy isn’t inherently evil,” Kaita said, “but we have to go beyond technical problems and consider the moral ramifications of what we are doing.”

Gerald Fink, a radiation shielding specialist who worked for Germany’s Technical Inspection Association, agrees. He said that as a Christian, he wants to take a “cosmological perspective.” He points back to the creation narrative in Genesis.

“Christianity is part of a very large project of restoration and completion. We are an important part of this, but it isn’t all about us,” he said.

By starting with that biblical perspective on human creativity and purpose, Fink believes questions around technology, clean energy, and nuclear power can be addressed more wisely and thoroughly.

“You have to have this perspective in mind when you come to the question of nuclear energy,” he said, “and then you realize it’s about much more than just splitting or combining atoms.”

Fink knows this doesn’t answer the question of a 20-year-old Christian studying physics in Berlin. But as the German government phases out the last nuclear power plants and the political debate begins a new chapter, this is a place for believers to start.

Ken Chitwood is a writer and scholar of global religion living in Germany.

Ideas

Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain Without Swearing

Columnist

Institutions may break the third commandment to excuse their abuse.

Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: Andrea Piacquadio / Pexels / Douglas Sacha / Getty

When I read the May report of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee’s decades-long complicity in covering up sexual abuse, along with patterns of intimidation and retaliation against survivors and whistleblowers, I heard myself say, “Oh my God.”

That might have been the first time I’d said that, precisely due to my Baptist upbringing. My grandmother, a pastor’s widow, would wash my mouth out with soap if I said anything like “Good Lord!” or “I swear!” She would point to number three on her framed Ten Commandments, hanging on her wall just as they were in my Sunday school classroom: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

This led to a kind of Jesuitical lingo of a Southern Baptist sort—in which “Jiminy Cricket!” or “John Brown it!” was not “cussing” but the words they replaced would be.

When I once called my brother a “fool,” I received my grandmother’s rebuke. Jesus said, she reminded me, that anyone who called his brother “fool” was in danger of hellfire. I called him “idiot” instead; that was allowed.

I loved Jesus and didn’t want to say anything that might offend him, but I couldn’t help but wonder how the King of the cosmos was so limited as to only hear the words one could find in the concordance to the King James Bible.

This question isn’t as bygone as we might think. I recently heard of a debate among 14-year-olds as to whether texting “OMG” breaks the third commandment or if it just means “Wow.”

The third commandment does, of course, address speech and oaths. And casually invoking God’s name for emphasis indeed trivializes what the Bible reveals to be holy. But there’s more than one way to misuse the name of God, more than one way to take his name in vain, and some of those ways are far more dangerous than just “swearing.”

“To speak the Lord’s name, unless instructed to do so, is to wrap yourself in the divine mantle, to summon God in support of your own purposes,” Leon Kass writes in his commentary on Exodus. “In the guise of beseeching the Lord in His majesty and grace, one behaves as if one were His lord and master. One behaves, in other words, like Pharaoh.”

To usurp the authority of God as a means to an end—even a good one—is, the Bible tells us, a pagan act. Much of the Old Testament is a rebuke to the “prophets” who speak where God has not spoken, especially to prop up the power of some political or religious institution. God also condemns as “vain” those who would come before him to worship while their “hands are full of blood” from acting unjustly toward vulnerable women and children (Isa. 1:12–17, ESV).

Sexual abuse, in any context and by any institution, is a grave atrocity. It’s worse when this horror is committed—or covered up—by leveraging personal or institutional trust. But using the very name of Jesus to carry out such wickedness against those he loves and values is a special evil. When sexual abuse happens within a church, violence is added to violence—sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual. Predators know this power is great, which is why they weaponize even the most beautiful concepts—grace or forgiveness or Matthew 18 or the life of David.

It’s also why institutions seeking to protect themselves will take on the name of Jesus to say that victims, survivors, or whistleblowers are compromising “the mission” or creating “disunity in the body” when they point out horrors.

But God will not long abide the misuse of his name for those who worship their own twisted appetites. When abominations are in the temple, hidden as they may be, the glory of God departs (Ezek. 8–10). And when Jesus sees what God called a “house of prayer for all peoples” turned into a den of robbers, he knows how to clear it out—so that the children can sing in safety once again (Isa. 56:7; Matt. 21:12–16, ESV).

When we see what has been done in the guise of the Jesus we love, in the name of the gospel we cherish, we must pray for him to bring justice and to end the vain use of the sweetest name we know. We must pray for him to clean our institutions built around that name, even if it means some don’t survive the truth.

And maybe that prayer starts by our saying, “Oh my God.”

Russell Moore is Christianity Today’s chair of theology.

Testimony

God Wanted Me When the Foster-Care System Didn’t

I bounced from home to home before finding the Father my heart yearned for.

Photo by Chad Holder for Christianity Today

America claims to not have orphanages, but our group homes are actually quite similar. Growing up, I lived in one with nine other young women who had absorbed a message of worthlessness from the foster care system.

The rules were strict. Cameras watched us from every corner of the house except our bedrooms and the restrooms. The school was on the same property as the home, which meant we weren’t allowed to go very far very often. On Sundays, however, we were allowed to go to church, which at least afforded a brief respite from the sterile group-home environment.

In fact, the pastor’s messages about forgiveness—combined with my mandatory weekly counseling sessions—gave me the first stirrings of hope I could remember. I even asked Jesus into my heart, though I didn’t understand what that entailed. I only went up to the altar because I believed it was my ticket to leave the group home. I thought that if I went through the motions of faith, I’d find relief from the pain of foster care and the continual sense of feeling unwanted.

‘Daddy issues’

As I moved through a succession of foster homes, my heart grew increasingly callous toward God and other people. During my junior year of high school, I took an honors English class where we read Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. I found the book intriguing, which prompted me to learn more about Rand’s objectivist philosophy.

Watching videos of Rand speaking and debating, I found her more relatable than the Christian women I’d met. She did not appear gentle or open. Rather, she came off as quite angry, which was how I felt. I figured I must be an atheist just like her.

My peers would poke fun at me, saying I had “daddy issues.” At the time, I believed having a father would solve lots of my problems. Perhaps someone would have been there to love me and calm Mom down when she spiraled into one of her manic episodes. Maybe I wouldn’t have entered foster care in the first place. If God was so good, I couldn’t help wondering, then why hadn’t he granted me a father?

During many lunch periods, I enjoyed secluding myself in my English teacher’s classroom. For one of my art classes, I received permission to paint a mural on his wall. While I painted, we talked. He never shied away from a good debate or hard questions.

One day he asked if I believed in God. I replied that I didn’t. From my perspective, it seemed like people claimed belief in God due to social consensus more than any genuine faith. “If most people in society didn’t believe in God,” I asked, “would people still believe in God?”

He paused for a long time, and I thought he might be searching for something to disprove my point. But instead, he responded, “I don’t know.” I appreciated his candor, which was rare among the Christians I’d known. Instead of telling me what (and how) to believe, he admitted he didn’t have all the answers.

I didn’t either, and my combative attitude was a blanket I used to hide my insecurity. But my teacher’s honest admission of uncertainty encouraged me to start asking more questions, because deep in my heart I was searching for the Father I’d always yearned for.

I’d recently moved into my 11th foster home, where the parents proclaimed Jesus’ name, took me to church every Sunday, and did devotions at the dinner table every evening. Around that time, I started dating the stepson of a Black Pentecostal pastor who held afternoon services for people who didn’t want to get up in the morning.

Tori Hope Petersen’s personal Bible opened to a passage in John.Photo by Chad Holder for Christianity Today
Tori Hope Petersen’s personal Bible opened to a passage in John.

Between my foster parents and my boyfriend, I spent about five hours in church every Sunday. Again, I felt drawn toward the life of Jesus. He touched the lepers who weren’t supposed to be touched, and he met the woman at the well even as his culture shunned her.

My heart was so drawn to the character of Jesus that I posted a YouTube video asking people to forgive me for being a mean and angry person. I tried my best to be kind and caring toward my peers, because it sank in that I shouldn’t hurt others the way they had hurt me.

One night my boyfriend came over for dinner at my foster parents’ house. We ate outside, and the Rottweiler ran around in the yard. We all laughed when my foster mom told my foster brother to put his hood up and run around, encouraging the dog to attack him.

Afterward, as we cleaned up our dishes and started back inside, my boyfriend stopped me, his face more serious than usual. My foster parents were behaving abusively, he told me.

I shrugged him off, suggesting that it was just something we did for fun. Plus, my foster mom was a licensed social worker—how could she ever abuse anyone? (And of all people, I knew what abuse was. I’d experienced it. Hitting, kicking, slapping, pulling, punching.)

Even so, my boyfriend opened my eyes to the darker reality. Before reckoning with abuse and manipulation from people who proclaimed Jesus, I had been on the verge of accepting him. Now, I was further away than ever. More and more, it appeared that Christianity and Jesus talk were masks people wore to hide their sin.

I didn’t want a mask. I wanted to be seen, known, and loved as I was.

The gift of pain

Once again, I changed foster homes. My single foster mom took me to church every Sunday, and my ears perked up at the sermons. I appreciated that the church made a point of supporting foster families and their children.

On top of that, my foster mom changed her lifestyle to fit my hopes and dreams. I loved track and field, and my track coach believed I had the talent to win a college scholarship. My foster mom made many sacrifices, like attending my practices, buying me the best track spikes, and altering her diet to suit my nutritional needs.

Church in Defiance, Ohio where Tori Hope Petersen came to faith.Photo by Reagan Williams for Christianity Today
Church in Defiance, Ohio where Tori Hope Petersen came to faith.

Around the same time, a youth leader I’d barely seen since junior high reentered my life. I began asking her and my foster mom questions about God, which they answered patiently and kindly. The one question I couldn’t shake revolved around innocent children: If God is so good, then why do they suffer? All they could answer was, “I don’t know.”

I didn’t know either. But I did know that when I looked at Scripture, I saw a God who didn’t shy away from pain but embraced it so that others would know love. And when I looked at the lives of those who most reminded me of Jesus, I could see how they had sacrificed on my behalf. I didn’t want to waste their suffering, or my own, but I wanted to receive it all as a gift—as a call to love others as they had loved me.

My salvation did not happen in a single grand moment, but through small miracles that gradually chipped away at the scales of skepticism. I saw God more clearly the more time I spent around people who pursued godliness, who told me who I was in Christ despite what I’d done and what had been done to me.

In the end, the father I’d always wanted turned out to be the Father who was always there, the Father who revealed himself to me in his own perfect timing.

Tori Hope Petersen is the author of Fostered: One Woman’s Powerful Story of Finding Faith and Family through Foster Care (August 2022).

Theology

Learning to Love Our Neighbor’s Fears

We aren’t all equally afraid of the same things. But Scripture’s wisdom can apply to all of us.

Illustration by Klaus Kremmerz

The 10-minute commute from home to my office at church has always had risks. Driving carries its own inherent danger. Then I have to find parking (sometimes in the dark, and often as the first car there); navigate the security alarm; and if a male coworker arrives, consider the risk of being a woman alone in a building with a man.

Twenty years ago, I found driving somewhat scary and walking across the parking lot alone terrifying; but being in the office with a Christian brother did not worry me one bit. Today, however, while driving remains something I’m careful about, I hardly think about getting out of my car once parked, and I’m considerably more aware of the male-female office dynamics. What caused the shift?

Approximately 10,000 miles.

In many ways, moving from South Africa to the US decreased my fear levels because the actual risks were lower. Driving in South Africa is statistically more dangerous than it is in the United States. Walking alone as a woman is less dangerous in Northern California (South Africa regularly claims the highest rape rate in the world). Over time, my fear lessened, recalibrating to the new risk levels.

But my perceived concerns about being alone with a male coworker increased when we moved to the US, even though I had no reason to think the risk of impropriety had actually changed. I found myself in a local church culture far more anxious about male-female interaction and needed to adapt my awareness accordingly.

Where we live influences both what we fear and how much we fear it. Of course, the size of our fears is affected by the size of the risk; we are more afraid of shark bites than jellyfish stings. But our fears are shaped even more by our perception of the size of the risk. The film Jaws conditioned an entire generation to be wary of shark fins at every beach, even though there are an average of 71 shark attacks per year compared to an annual average of 150 million jellyfish stings.

The COVID-19 debates over appropriate levels of caution are fraught with tensions between perception and reality: Boosted Americans are more worried about contracting the disease than their unvaccinated fellow citizens, despite their lower risk of being seriously affected. As it turns out, where we live makes a significant impact on our perception of threats. Studies have found that fear of the virus varied from region to region.

These differences in how we assess risk affect how we treat others. Much of learning to listen to and love our neighbors well has to do with how we respond to their fears, whether we share them or not. But what if we, judging others by our own personal fear levels, believe they’re much-afraid of little things or that their fears are unfounded? Or what if we believe others are being blasé about things we feel are real dangers?

The geography of fear

We need to ask where our fears come from and how much our location plays into them. We know our own personal experiences shape our fears for good and for bad: Our body keeps a score for both healthy and traumatic experiences. Adverse childhood experiences, mental health issues, and personality differences (neuroticism, for example) play significant roles in forming our fears.

But our locale does, too. In a multinational survey from the early 2000s, National Bureau of Economic Research’s Daniel Treisman found that, whether the object of fear was global like nuclear war or personal like the fear of serious medical errors, survey respondents in Portugal were two to three times more likely than those in the Netherlands to say they were afraid.

And while more than 80 percent of Greeks reported worrying about weapons, genetically modified foods, and new viruses, fewer than 50 percent of Finns said the same. Treisman concludes that “of course, some countries are more dangerous than others. Their inhabitants might be more afraid simply because they have more to be afraid of.”

Yet, he argues, this only explains part of the variation. While researchers could compare people’s fear levels of some dangers to their objective risk, the results showed “the correlations between these (were) often weak, non-existent, or even negative.” In other words, some communities were far more afraid of certain things, even when there was no greater risk of those things happening.

Another example of cultural differences: Each year, the Chapman Survey of American Fears asks a random sample of respondents across the US about 95 different fears ranging from the environment and natural disasters to the government and COVID-19. The most recent Chapman survey revealed that for the sixth consecutive year, Americans’ number one fear (80%) was corrupt government officials.

My South African brain sputtered when I read this report. I studied political philosophy and law at university, and the American democratic system with its checks and balances seemed to be the one that should engender the least fear, from where I was sitting. I called my Nigerian coworker and asked what he made of it.

“I’m stupefied,” he answered. “Corrupt government is a real issue of concern in my home country, but here? Why are so many people afraid?”

Formed by fear

Certainly, fear wells up from within us. But it seeps in from around us, too. Where we are in the world does more than teach us particular ways of living and thinking; it also shapes us in ways of loving and fearing.

Reading reports like these make me wonder: If I lived in a different country, or on a different coast, or in a different state, how would that affect me? How might I process the disasters, diseases, and dreads of this world differently? And how, in turn, would that change the way I related to others around me with compassion?

Catherine McNiel argues in Fearing Bravely: Risking Love for our Neighbors, Strangers, and Enemies that we’ve underestimated how much our immediate culture—whether the physical neighborhood we live in or the digital community we live in virtually—impacts our fears. We’ve been discipled to fear, says McNiel. A disciple is a learner, and we learn a great deal from the stories and emotions of those around us.

We are supposed to disciple people to love God and love our neighbor, but unless we address the ways our environments have taught us to fear “the other,” our attempts to love that neighbor will stumble.

Jesus calls us to enter this world, love our neighbors, take care of strangers, and pray for our enemies, too.

We are malleable creatures. We like to think that we read news and stories to gather information, acquiring facts to impartially assess and then accept or reject. What we underestimate is how this information is also formation: kindling our affection for some things and stoking our fears about others. Facts come with calls to action and appeals to our affection, and those have a local flavor.

As James K. A. Smith said in a CT interview, our habits form us, and this includes our reading habits, our media consumption, and the regular conversation partners with whom we share our day-to-day concerns.

Word of mouth is the quickest way to get out good news (consider God’s wisdom in how he sends salvation to the world), but it is also the quickest way to introduce and escalate worry. I hadn’t spent a minute of my life worrying about a proposed new school curriculum, for example, until I heard fellow parents whispering about it in the school pickup line.

For weeks, it was a topic over multiple dinners and in the local parent Facebook groups. Conversation by conversation and comment by comment, as we traded anecdotes and analyses, we stoked fear too.

There’s a name for this phenomenon of wildfire-like fear spreading: social cascades. Cass Sunstein, Harvard law professor, behavioral economist, and author of Laws of Fear, explains: “Through social cascades, people pay attention to the fear expressed by others, in a way that can lead to the rapid transmission of a belief, even if false, that a risk is quite serious. … Fear … can be contagious, and cascades help explain why.”

We are also susceptible to group polarization, writes Sunstein, so much so that groups are often more fearful than individuals. We might be a little afraid—or not afraid—of something on our own, but we can find ourselves deep in moral panic when we get together and pool our fears.

Christians, however, are called to speak to God in secret, naming our concerns before him in prayer (Matt. 6:5–8). But we cannot confess what we have not named, and the difficulty of dealing with our fears is that they are often subliminal. We might not even know what we’re really afraid of underneath it all. And even if we are, what then can we do about it?

Again and again, the Bible tells us not to fear (Deut. 31:6; Isa. 41:10; Luke 12:32). “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control,” wrote the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 1:7 (ESV). “I will fear no evil, for you are with me,” writes David in Psalm 23:4. Scripture is clear that people of faith are both commanded and empowered to root out fear.

But fear is a nuanced topic. The Bible doesn’t say all fear is wrong; rather, it cautions us not to fear wrongly.

Some fear is sinful, but the fear of the Lord is commended as wisdom. “Sinful fear causes us to spurn God and transfer our affections, hopes, and fears elsewhere. Health, wealth, relationships, and reputation are just a few of the things that take on a ‘divine ultimacy,’” says Michael Reeves, author of Rejoice and Tremble: The Surprising Good News of the Fear of the Lord.

Jesus himself warned that we might be fearing wrongly—and as a result, prioritizing wrongly (Matt. 10:28)—and he invites us not to get stuck in our fears, which are often far more informed by the people around us than by the truth. We might be in danger of fearing the wrong things altogether, or we might fear the right things but in the wrong amount.

But as any person who’s ever struggled with anxiety knows, having someone say, “Don’t worry” doesn’t magically eliminate fear. Spiritual growth cannot come from emotional gaslighting; denying or rebuking our fears doesn’t eradicate them. So how, then, are we to learn not to fear the wrong things?

Faced with the task of comforting a frightened congregation in the midst of political turmoil, German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s answer was: Preach! Or at least, listen to good preaching.

“Fear secretly gnaws and eats away at all the ties that bind a person to God and to others” until “the individual sinks back into himself or herself, helpless and despairing,” Bonhoeffer said.

Regular, faithful teaching directed at the character and power of God, the promise of Jesus who has overcome the world, and the presence of the Holy Spirit who is with us through it all speaks a powerful message to anchor us in hope when the storms of life seek to toss us around.

We, the united church, can encourage one another in hope (Heb. 10:23), and this does help us to face our fears. But we also have work to do on a much smaller scale, and realizing how much our location impacts our formation can help us disciple people away from fear and toward love.

Praxis and proximity

Growth can come from learning to be curious about why we think the way we do, and being willing to doubt it, Adam Grant argues in his best-selling book Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know. Learning to be curious—and even skeptical—about our fears is a significant first step in our being able to deal with them.

This isn’t intuitive. I usually think my fears are reasonable and rational; otherwise I wouldn’t have them. But moving between countries and visiting different church groups has revealed that often I am much more or much less afraid of a thing than the believers with whom I’m worshiping. This in turn has become an invitation to humbly and prayerfully evaluate what and why I love and fear.

The spiritual practice of discerning our desires before God can include questions to interrogate our fears. Ignatius of Loyola’s examen offers one such tool for introspection, inviting us to discern where we experience consolation and where we experience desolation. Fear would be a firm contributor to the latter.

Writer Brendan McManus explains in a blog post how learning to “be aware of your feelings, and then use your head” can be a simple but useful formula for a spiritually sophisticated approach: “The first step is to reflect on the experience or decision and ask, ‘How do I feel about this?’, whereas the second part looks forward, asking, ‘Where is this bringing me?’ and, ‘What is the likely outcome or fruit?’ Exploring these questions, we can tune in more to what God wants, be more attuned instruments for God in the world, and, ultimately, make better decisions.”

We can let our guards down, even if we disagree on letting our masks down.

Acknowledging that my fears have been culturally informed and formed by where I live—and that those fears have brought me to certain conclusions and will, if unaddressed, have a certain outcome or fruit—invites me to hold them loosely and examine them closely, offering myself both grace for the (real) concerns I feel and room to grow as I learn from new perspectives.

When looking at the fear map of my own heart, zooming out to hear stories from the broader church helps me to recalibrate my concerns, so that I can then invite God to “test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Ps. 139:23–24).

What’s more, we may need to physically close the gaps. If geography—that is to say, physical distance between communities—plays a role in curating our fears, then we should also consider how shrinking that distance can help us cure them. Tyler Merritt, author of I Take My Coffee Black: Reflections on Tupac, Musical Theater, Faith, and Being Black in America, argues for proximity as a tool to address racial suspicions. “Distance breeds suspicion. But proximity breeds empathy,” he writes, a concept he attributes to pastor and author Bryan Loritts. “And with empathy, humanity has a fighting chance.”

In 1 Corinthians 10, the apostle Paul addressed an anxious and fractured nascent Corinthian church that was facing concerns that hadn’t come up in Jerusalem. Some new Corinthian believers came from a pagan background where meat was sacrificed to idols in worship. When eating at an unbeliever’s house, they feared they might be eating something that had been part of a demonic tradition.

Others took a broader view: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (v. 26), so they could participate in meals without fear. How were these believers to eat and worship together if they had such different assessments of the risks on the menu?

Paul’s response provides a master class in how we might address our own fears, as well as those of others, with grace and truth. First, he acknowledged the reality of their concerns: Yes, for many, this practice is not just about food, but about participation in a dangerous and demonic realm (vv. 20–22). Then, he offered Scriptural context to help them wrestle with the specific questions arising out of their cultural background: Since the earth is the Lord’s, whatever is sold in a meat market can be eaten without raising concerns about conscience (vv. 23–26).

But even though Paul, coming from where he did, did not share their concerns, he called others to make allowances for them in love. Respect others’ consciences, he counseled (vv. 27–33). Scripture calls for us to be gentle and respectful where people are afraid, leaving room for their fears, even if we do not share them.

Taking the risk to love

Social scientists have shown that negative partisanship—our animosity toward and fear of the “other” side—drives our political behavior far more than our actual confidence in the policies and philosophies of “our” side.

“How we feel matters much more than what we think,” Ezra Klein observed in his book Why We’re Polarized. We are primarily feelings-based social creatures, and in elections, for example, Klein says, “The feelings that matter most are often our feelings about the other side.”

That means the Christian who wants to work out their faith in the public square needs to do more than just think about things biblically before choosing. We need to be able to acknowledge and then address how we feel about things before choosing. Who and what do we fear? Who and what do we love?

And just as we know it is wise to identify the sources for our facts when thinking, wisdom invites us to consider the sources and motivators for our feelings.

Zooming out to hear stories from the broader church helps me to recalibrate my concerns.

Deep-seated and localized fears about food sacrificed to idols were keeping the Corinthians from being able to love their neighbors and share table fellowship with them. In the 21st century, deep-seated fears continue to keep us too from loving our neighbors well.

I imagine Paul might have very similar words to write to believers in my community, where the fear of COVID-19 is high (and mask-wearing very common) as we interact with some believers just 150 miles south of us, in a community where fear of adverse vaccine reactions significantly outweighs the fear of COVID-19 (and mask-wearing is low).

How might he teach us to acknowledge the concerns of our fellow believers, rather than dismiss them, and call us to make room for one another in love so we can enjoy table fellowship and partner in kingdom work? We can let our guards down, even if we disagree on letting our masks down.

Just as my American brothers and sisters have helped me to name, contextualize, and process some of the fears I acquired in South Africa, perhaps my Nigerian coworker and I can help our American church deal with some of its local fears. We can’t do anything to lower the actual risk of corrupt government officials, but perhaps we could mitigate some of the fear that 80 percent of Americans hold by sharing our stories of how we learned to trust God when we lived in countries with less stable governments.

Jesus calls us to enter this world, love our neighbors, take care of strangers, and pray for our enemies, too. To do so and risk love, as Catherine McNiel writes, will require us to journey through our fears, naming them before we can hope to tame them. But before we can name them, we might need to unfold the map of our lives and begin humbly sticking pins in the places where our fears have formed.

Bronwyn Lea is pastor of discipleship and women at First Baptist Church of Davis and author of Beyond Awkward Side Hugs: Living as Christian Brothers and Sisters in a Sex-Crazed World.

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