Theology

The Masculinity Debate Needs Johnny Cash

America’s young men are disaffected and lonely. But lack of manliness is not the problem.

Christianity Today July 12, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons / Archive Photos / Stringer / Getty

As I write this, Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison spins on the record player, filling my living room with the driving, train-like rhythms of one of America’s greatest storytellers. Originally released in 1968, it’s one of the dozen vintage Cash albums we inherited when a friend from our small working-class community moved to be closer to her children. Moments into the eponymous “Folsom Prison Blues,” a lyric catches my attention:

When I was just a baby my mama told me, “Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.”
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry.

And there it is: a voice from the past describing the past few weeks of horror in the United States. From Buffalo, New York, to Uvalde, Texas, to Highland Park, Illinois, we are once again grappling to understand what has become an all-too-common atrocity: senseless mass shootings by disaffected, violent young men. As a mother to a 16-going-on-37-year-old son, I think a lot about the state of manhood in American society and the evangelical church. Much has been made of the excesses of John Wayne masculinity, but I wonder if it’s time for a conversation about Johnny Cash masculinity.

While The Duke is synonymous with true grit, masculine bravado, and dominance, The Man in Black offers an alternative vision—and perhaps a way forward in these deeply fragmented times. Cash’s roots ran deep in the American South, and themes of poverty, religion, and all things Americana informed his music. His biggest hits include sentimental ballads about riding the rails, the mythical Wild West, and hard-working, hard-living men who miss their mamas. But while Cash celebrated a kind of rugged masculinity, he was also a deeply-flawed man. His life was marked by infidelity, alcoholism, and drug abuse. He was no pastor. And yet, Cash had a singular advantage—something the current rhetoric around masculinity misses. He knew he was a deeply flawed man. He knew he was a man in need of grace. So while he sang about the temptations that are common to all, he didn’t justify or excuse his own participation. Instead, his discography rings with confession, grief, and cries for redemption.

In the aforementioned “Folsom Prison Blues,” the narrator speaks of his criminal sentence as just and good. He confesses, “I know I had it coming, I know I can’t be free.” And just listen to Cash sing Kris Kristofferson’s “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” a song about the spiritual alienation and deep loneliness of hard living, and try not cry. Cash’s vision of masculinity is not a clean, controlled manhood. It is not even moral by classic definitions, but it holds the seeds of virtue because it is humble and self-aware. With King David, another broken poet-warrior of a man, Cash sings in so many words: “I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me” (Ps. 51:3). This juxtaposition of a rough-around-the-edges manhood that is also deeply humble challenges what David French terms “The New Right’s Strange and Dangerous Cult of Toughness.”

In a recent essay at The Dispatch, French notes that “The debate [around masculinity] is corrupted by politics, with different versions of masculinity now so thoroughly identified as Red or Blue that you can quite often guess how a man votes by the clothes he wears, the vehicle he drives, and the way he describes what it means to be a man.” But Cash throws a wrench into the politics of American manhood. He is not tame or domesticated—after all, he cultivated an outlaw image. But he also didn’t toe the party line, and by contemporary definitions, he would likely have been considered woke. His music reflects a deep compassion for those on the margins. It’s almost as if knowing his own faults made him slow to judge the struggles of others.

While would-be populist leaders claim to be fighting for the little guy, Cash knew that the little guy was more likely to be found in a prison, at the front lines of war, on the factory floor, or neglected on a reservation. And he wasn’t afraid to say so. His 1964 recording of “The Ballad of Ira Hayes” challenged the US government’s treatment of indigenous people and was initially blackballed by both Cash’s own record label company and radio stations across the country. And in perhaps the most quintessential Cash song of all, the 1971 “The Man in Black,” he sings of social injustice that holds people back:

for the poor and the beaten down
Living in the hopeless, hungry side of town
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime
But is there because he’s a victim of the times. …

for the sick and lonely old
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold
I wear the black in mourning for the lives that could have been
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men

And I wear it for the thousands who have died
Believing that the Lord was on their side
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died
Believing that we all were on their side.

Today, over 50 years later, swagger and bravado too often masquerade as masculinity, and folks will tell you there is a war on manhood. But take it from me, someone who grew up surrounded by salt-of-the-earth, flawed-but-humble men: The problem isn’t masculinity. The problem is a version of manhood that refuses to take personal responsibility and celebrates a win-at-all-costs triumphalism.

These vices are what make conversation and cooperation impossible. These vices are what wreck families, churches, communities, and countries. If we’re to make any progress on gun violence, or a host of other issues tearing our country apart, we must identify the real source of the problem. The conflict is between pride and humility. The conflict is between those who own their faults and confess them and those who refuse to admit wrong. It’s between hearts that are softened by the plight of their neighbor and those that are hardened.

Later in his life, Johnny Cash had something of a come-to-Jesus moment. Although he’d been raised and baptized in a Southern Baptist church, he rediscovered personal faith after his marriage to his second wife, June Carter Cash.

He eventually toured with Billy Graham, made several gospel albums, and in an ultimate expression of grassroots evangelical culture, took a trip to the Holy Land. The front of the album commemorating this trip is emblazoned with a holographic image of Cash standing on the Mount of Beatitudes. It’s hard to know how much of Cash’s public persona translated to his private life, and if you read through his body of work, you’ll likely find more than one objectionable lyric. Like the United States itself, he was a man of deep challenge and contradiction. But what you will also find is a vision of masculinity that is honest and humble. You’ll find a vision of masculinity that embraces the complexity of the human condition while refusing to blame-shift, whine, or deflect responsibility. You’ll find a vision of masculinity that knows its need of grace. In a word, you’ll find a real man.

Hannah Anderson is the author of Made for More, All That’s Good, and Humble Roots: How Humility Grounds and Nourishes Your Soul.

Church Life

‘Domestic Abuse Was Worse than Death Row’

Naghmeh Panahi and Mariam Ibraheem came together when the leaders that fought for escape from persecution failed to help them escape from domestic violence.

Mariam Ibraheem and Naghmeh Panahi

Mariam Ibraheem and Naghmeh Panahi

Christianity Today July 12, 2022
Courtesy of Naghmeh Panahi

When Naghmeh Panahi and Mariam Ibraheem describe each other, they start in contrast. Panahi is from the Middle East; Ibraheem from Africa. Panahi is Protestant; Ibraheem Catholic.

Despite their different backgrounds, the two women endured similar plights and ended up with a shared calling—but not the one either expected.

Panahi and Ibraheem were first brought together in the mid-2010s. Their families had been put in the spotlight by American evangelicals fighting Christian persecution abroad. Evangelical advocates rallied for Panahi’s ex-husband, Saeed Abedini, while he was imprisoned for his ministry work in Iran and for Ibraheem herself while she was on death row in Sudan for apostasy.

After a few years out of touch, the women reconnected in 2018 over a desperate, early-morning Facebook message. Ibraheem, now living in the States, had been secretly struggling to endure a difficult marriage like she thought a good Christian wife should. It was getting harder to bear the abuse, and she didn’t know where to go for help.

Even when locked up in Sudan, Ibraheem hadn’t questioned the Lord like this. “God, I’m really done. I need an answer,” she prayed. “I demand an answer.” Ibraheem said God brought Panahi to mind. She remembered that years earlier Panahi had disclosed her famous husband’s abuse.

The two women spoke with CT about how that message led them to years of prayer, assistance, encouragement, and partnership. Because Panahi and Ibraheem knew how powerful it was to have the church come together around the issue of religious persecution, they found themselves crushed by the lack of attention toward domestic violence. They felt convicted to help.

“Both of us got millions of supporters when it was about persecution and silence when it was about abuse,” said Panahi. “Processing how the church has handled it was shocking for both of us.”

Last month, a Washington Post investigation reported how advocates who promoted her ex-husband’s case, including Franklin Graham, urged Panahi to reconcile with Abedini despite his physical and verbal abuse. At one point, Panahi said, they even asked Ibraheem to encourage her to stay.

Over the past year, Panahi has spoken up about the details she said she was pressured to keep to herself while #SaveSaeed trended among evangelicals, sharing more of her story at the Restore Conference, with the Religion News Service, and on The Roys Report podcast.

Panahi and Ibraheem also continue to raise concerns about the global threat of Christian persecution; Ibraheem spoke last month at the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington and recently released her autobiography Shackled, focused on her willingness to face a death sentence for her faith.

“The persecuted church is told by the bullying government what to believe. That’s so similar to being in an abusive home and church—it’s control,” said Panahi, who is Iranian American and has ministry ties to the underground church there. “You see the similarity and the heart of God for both.”

While those targeted as a minority faith can recognize the government as the enemy and feel justified and supported in their suffering, domestic abuse is a much lonelier, more confusing prison to be trapped in, the two survivors told CT.

Even more so when your family is in the public eye, with happy photos and triumphant headlines hiding the distress at home.

Ibraheem said her home became “worse than death row.” The abuse by her ex-husband even echoed what she endured during her time behind bars in Sudan. “I didn’t teach my children Arabic because I didn’t want my children to know the names I was being called” during their fights at home, she recounted. It’s the same thought she had as guards insulted her while imprisoned with her newborn.

“In prison, I know why I am here. In my home, I’m asking, ‘Why is this happening?’” said Ibraheem. “You want to have peace at home.”

Instead, the place she expected to be safe became dangerous; the person she expected to care for her was hurting her; and the faith she leaned on was telling her to stay.

Panahi recognized how Ibraheem had exhausted her patience trying to make an abusive marriage work, and she’s seen that pattern with other Christian women she’s helped over the years. Even when abuse persisted, they believed that marriage is for life, kids should grow up with both parents, and God could redeem the brokenness in their relationships.

A mother of two, Panahi had some of the same thoughts when married to Abedini, who had pleaded guilty to domestic battery in the US prior to his detention in Iran and was subject to protective orders after his return.

Panahi’s perspective shifted as she studied Scripture. She began to see that God cared about her well-being more than preserving a marriage at any cost, and that institutions like marriage existed for the good of people and not the other way around. “The life of the person is more important than the institution,” she said. “One sheep is more important than the whole institution.”

That understanding was the key to Panahi’s escape. The God who saved her life when she was arrested at gunpoint in Iran made a way for her to find freedom from an abusive marriage in America.

“I started living, thinking for myself, reading the Bible, and it was God who rescued me,” Panahi said. “I’ve seen God’s rescue again and again and again. I couldn’t deny that God’s our lifeline.”

Panahi ended up helping Ibraheem find safe housing, legal representation, and counseling, leading to another testimony of rescue.

“God answers my prayers though people,” Ibraheem said. “God really worked miracles. When I prayed, God sent someone to help me.”

While their faith in Lord hasn’t wavered, their trust in the church took a hit.

The teachings that led them to justify remaining in abusive marriages as “biblical” remain widespread, they say. When believers abroad are suffering religious persecution, Christians want to help them escape; when they’re suffering in a violent home, the message from the church too often is to stay.

“I needed someone who could have told me this is what abuse was and this was not the heart of God,” said Panahi.

While more leaders are speaking up to address domestic violence from the pulpit and to condemn abuse in marriage, Panahi notes they often stop short of assisting a woman with legal fees to get a divorce.

She and Ibraheem lead the Tahrir Alnisa Foundation, advocating for women who have suffered abuse. They speak at conferences and church events, Panahi a couple times a month. Because they are public with their stories of survival, people in their network refer them to women who need advice or urgent help.

Panahi hears from fellow Middle Eastern immigrants as well as pastors’ wives and missionaries’ wives in the midst of abuse. She consults with pastors on how they can get involved to help—knowing when a situation needs more than in-house marriage counseling and requires an expert in domestic violence.

She sees a “tiny bit of movement” bringing abuse to the evangelical forefront, “but not at the scale of seeing how bad persecution is.”

Persecution brings the church together for a cause, but abuse, Panahi worries, is a bigger issue that’s doing more damage within the church. “Persecution is close to the heart of God, but what Jesus was most outspoken about was where religion is used to oppress,” she said.

Panahi, who lives in Boise, Idaho, and Ibraheem, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, have come to see their decision to take a stand against the abuse as not just permissible but God-honoring—as much as standing against religious persecution.

Ten years ago, Ibraheem never planned on ending her marriage. She never imagined herself advocating for abuse survivors. But now she says, “God has equipped us to be here and do this. My life is in a place where God wants it to be. His hand is always over us.”

“We didn’t want to be in this position,” said Panahi. “I feel like God has raised up women, and we’ve been able to use that platform to speak out.”

News

Native American Pastor Leads Southern Baptists to Decry Forced Conversions

“Burdened and broken” by the federal investigation into Indian boarding schools, Mike Keahbone drafted the denomination’s first resolution in support of native peoples.

Mike Keahbone, pastor of First Baptist Church of Lawton in Oklahoma

Mike Keahbone, pastor of First Baptist Church of Lawton in Oklahoma

Christianity Today July 11, 2022
Adam Covington / Baptist Press

Southern Baptists took a historic stand last month to acknowledge the trauma suffered by Native Americans and to officially offer their support and prayers.

“When you look at the long history of Southern Baptists, there was not a resolution in our history that ever took a stand with Native American people,” said Mike Keahbone.

A Native American who leads a church located near the headquarters for the Comanche Nation in southwest Oklahoma, Keahbone knows firsthand the need for gospel witness and for healing among native peoples.

The First Baptist Church of Lawton pastor proposed that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) speak out on the issue following a federal report, released in May, that investigated the history of Indian boarding schools.

The SBC resolution—approved at its annual meeting in June—condemns forced assimilation and conversion as “contrary to our distinctive beliefs as Baptists in religious liberty and soul-freedom.” The statement also recognizes how this painful history continues to affect native peoples, particularly after new report.

“For Native American people, this is opening up a pretty significant wound and one that we’re having to process and work through,” said Keahbone, who served both on the committee that drafted the slate of 2022 resolutions and on the SBC Executive Committee.

“Just to be able to say to everyone who was affected by this, to every Native American, to every Alaska native, to every Hawaiian native, ‘We see you, we understand this is painful, and we want you to know that we’re standing with you.’”

The federal report found that half of over 400 federally funded Indian boarding schools were run with the help of churches; Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches are mentioned, but not Southern Baptist. The historic approaches of the church and Christian missionaries continue to shape how native communities see the faith—and represent a barrier to contemporary evangelism, Keahbone said.

He developed the resolution with fellow members of the resolutions committee, including pastors J. T. English and Jon Nelson, and recently spoke with CT to discuss its significance.

How did this resolution come about?

When this report came out on the boarding schools, as a Native American—I’m Comanche; I’m a member of the Comanche tribe, but I’m also Kiowa and Cherokee—and having heard lots and lots of stories of my own family being a part of these boarding schools, I was very anxious to see the outcome. … I read every bit of it. I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn’t know the depth of how bad it would be.

After I read it, my heart was obviously very burdened and broken. It took me a few days just to even process and think through it. Once I did, part of that report discusses how missionaries from different denominations were a part of that process [of abuse]. You got to see reports on forced conversion, to go along with the forced assimilation, and it just broke my heart.

I immediately contacted Brent Leatherwood with the [Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission], and he was already working on it, which I was so proud of. I was really glad to hear that. One of the things that he was looking for was to see if Southern Baptists were a part of that report. That was a blessing to me, to see that he was already ahead of the game there.

It turns out that as far as denominations go, Southern Baptists were not named in the report, but I still had a burden on my heart to acknowledge it. I thought it would be really important for us as a convention, because of our history in dealing with racial reconciliation, especially Black and white reconciliation. I thought that this would be a great opportunity for us to stand as a convention with Native American people in a pretty dark moment in our history. …

This wasn’t just important to me, but it was important to our entire resolutions team and something that they believed would be important for our convention as well.

Is there any specific language or wording in the text of the resolution that you think is especially important to highlight?

I think the second “Resolved” is probably my favorite part: “Southern Baptists stand in support of Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians—especially those who are a part of our own family of churches—as they process the findings of this report and discern next steps toward healing.” That’s just huge.

Probably equally as important is the “Resolved” where we stand against forced conversions and distorted missiological practices. Those two I think are equally important.

It’s historical for us to take a stand as a convention for these people, for my people. That was just huge. It was super meaningful for me, personally, and so that got in my feelings a bit. But also, I think it’s important for everyone to know that we were not a part of the forced conversion movement.

The reality is, forced conversions are a primary reason why it’s so difficult to share the gospel with Native American people. It is primarily why Native Americans call Christianity “white man’s religion,” and it’s not because they don’t understand that Jesus was Jewish, that he was a Galilean—it’s not about that at all. It’s because of Native Americans’ experience with white culture, forced conversion, and forced assimilation that has built a huge barrier between Native Americans and the gospel.

So, for us, as one of the largest Protestant denominations, to say something like this and to make it a part of our history now is significant. As a Native American, when I’m sharing the gospel with Native American people, to be able to say, “We were never a part of that movement; we were never a part of forced conversion,” that’s a big deal.

How does the legacy of abusive treatment by missionaries and other religious figures at these schools affect Native American views of Christianity and Christian evangelism today?

I think it’s important for people to understand the history of Native Americans. Even before slavery, Native Americans were dealing with these issues for 400 years. Even before we became a nation, white European settlers came in and decimated our people.

One of the issues that I’ve been pretty bold about in Baptist circles is when you look at our convention, we have a specialist for African American ministry, we have a specialist for Hispanic ministry, we have a specialist for Asian ministry, and what’s missing is a specialist for Native American ministry.

When you look at the convention in 2021, I think we did a great job of putting someone from every nation, tribe, and tongue on the platform at some point, either to pray or speak or preach, but there was one missing group from that entire convention in 2021, and it was Native Americans. So, to see that that’s going on, it begs the question “Why?” And it’s not intentional; it’s not a racial issue. It’s just that typically Native Americans aren’t seen, and it’s because people don’t understand the history behind it.

In some pretty candid and private conversations, when I bring this up, the feedback that I get sometimes is “The Native American population is so small. You know, you have a large African American population, a large Hispanic population, a large Asian population.” And my response always is “How do you think that population got so small?” This was our homeland; this is where we came from; this is the motherland for us. And for us to have one of the least populations in this country points to a huge problem that has never really been addressed.

I’m not asking for reparations; I’m not asking for special attention. I just want us to have equal opportunity and equal representation in ministries that we have.

What should Christians today know about the history of Native Americans and these boarding schools?

My encouragement for people is to look at Native American history and look at what has happened to the Native American over the centuries, and it’ll help give you some perspective on the kind of trauma that we deal with. I think it would help a lot if people would just learn, just do a little bit of work, and see what Native Americans have been through.

It was noted in the report why we were even dealing with forced assimilation, and the primary culprit was that the government wanted it to be easier to take Native American lands. The way that they could do that was to [first] drive them and force them off their lands, and [then] they targeted children. They wanted to limit their education and limit their capability.

If you take the future generations of a people and you give them a limited education, you force them more into a workforce environment. Then they don’t become leaders; they don’t get put into positions where they can make a difference or see what’s happening to them and understand it and do something about it. The ugliness and the heart behind it—and the strategic movements of it—is an awful ugly part of our history.

I’m not trying to throw around racial cards or trying to look for some sort of handout because of what we’ve been through. In my heart, I want to learn how to live in this system and in this way of doing things, and I want to be successful in that. And I want to help other native people be successful in it, to be in positions to have influence, and give a voice where we can give a voice. I think you’re seeing a little bit of a culmination in that even in the birth of this resolution.

My CT Article on Dorothy Sayers Led to a Book Contract

Why supporting CT’s work around the Christian imagination is vital to reaching the next generation.

My CT Article on Dorothy Sayers Led to a Book Contract
Photo Courtesy of Marion E. Wade Center

Crystal Downing, codirector of the Marion E. Wade Center at Wheaton College, wrote an article for CT magazine four years ago that launched her most recent book on Dorothy L. Sayers, the renowned English playwright and crime writer.

Her essay for CT titled “Dorothy Sayers Did Not Want to Be a Prophet” led to a book contract with Broadleaf Press. She argued that Sayers “prophetically challenged the signs of her times,” and her book Subversive: Christ, Culture, and the Shocking Dorothy L. Sayers was published in 2020. The book was honored with a starred review from Publishers Weekly, which selected it as a “Pick of the Week” when released: quite amazing for a book emphatically endorsing Christian orthodoxy. “This is an author’s dream,” she said.

She and her husband, David, sold their house in Pennsylvania to move to Illinois for their role as codirectors of the Wade Center on the same day she turned in her CT essay.

They moved in 2018—and around that same time, they received a subscription to CT.

“We appreciate having a reasonable voice like CT that represents orthodox Christianity. It’s not reflective of a particular denomination,” David said. “We like to read CT articles because writers are always knowledgeable, thoughtful, and write in a civil tone.”

Crystal cited two CT articles in her book: a Lifeway Research report about Americans with evangelical beliefs, and an article from 2018, recounting the sins of CT’s past.

“I used that confession from CT to talk about contemporary political sins and I think that’s why this book is doing so well,” Crystal said.

Her essay recounts a series of BBC broadcasts Sayers wrote between 1941 and 1944. “Sayers’s BBC broadcasts, in fact, incited one of the biggest religious controversies in England since Henry VIII broke with Rome,” it argues. Sayers told Jesus’ story in these plays, without using King James Version English. This was extremely controversial at the time.

Because of the deadline, “I had to write about Sayers from the top of my head. It forced me to write for a more popular audience, not an academic audience,” Crystal said. When CT published the essay, she received emails from all over the world.

“An editor reached out to me and said, ‘I read your Christianity Today article about Dorothy Sayers. I want you to write a whole book on this woman.’

“It was wonderful!”” Crystal said. “Not only being commissioned to write an article on Sayers but being able to use reports and essays and an editorial from CT, which made it a better book.”

Crystal had written 18 articles for CT’s former imprint Books and Culture (which was published for 21 years), before she wrote her CT article on Dorothy Sayers.

“I was a regular contributor to Books and Culture, and that inspired me to write a book on film and religion [Salvation from Cinema: The Medium is the Message].” She also explained that this book is now required reading at many secular universities in the US.

“Many of the film I analyze in the book were inspired by reviews published in Books and Culture,” she said.

She met David at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.

“I was struggling to come up with a more emotionally satisfying faith,” he said. The apologetics course he was enrolled in was making him feel discouraged. But his literature course proved to be a saving grace, as he read Perelandra, the second book of the space trilogy by C. S. Lewis.

“Here was a work of fiction that appealed to my imagination and addressed some questions I was struggling with.” He wrote a paper for his literature professor at Westmont titled “C. S. Lewis, Apostle to the Imagination.”

His paper grappled with man’s search for meaning and Lewis’s keen awareness that the human imagination can lead people to God. His essay says, “One of Lewis’ primary goals in the space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) is to instill a profound sense of the reality of the supernatural in the minds of his readers.”

His professor said, “I have a friend who’s an editor at Christianity Today, and I’m going to send it to him and see what he thinks.”

David’s parents had subscribed to CT when he was a teenager. “It was one of the few things I thought was edifying,” he said.

Fifty years ago—when David was still struggling with his faith—a college friend of his suggested he read an article about C. S. Lewis to help him with his thinking.

“He handed me a copy of CT, and I looked up the article on C. S. Lewis. It was my paper that I had written,” he said. “I felt ministered to by my own article.”

That was David’s first introduction to CT as an author.

“It’s hard to find the middle ground, what Lewis called Mere Christianity. One critic said of Lewis, ‘He makes righteousness readable.’ I might say the same of CT,” he said.

He also appreciated how CT is reaching people through podcasts, like The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, telling the story of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church and its spiraling collapse in 2014. In its first year, the podcast had more than nine million unique listeners.

“I’ve appreciated CT’s podcast for a willingness to be candid about where we as a Christian community are succeeding and being a light to the world, while also exploring areas in which we need improvement and falling short of what Christ would have us to do,” David said.

David and Crystal recently became Sustaining Partners of CT to show their support of the important voice CT has in the church and the world

The Downings said they appreciate CT’s new addition of Ekstasis magazine and its focus on the Christian imagination. David said, “I have some former students who wrote for Ekstasis. It’s beautifully produced, and it appeals to the senses and the imagination, not just the intellect.”

“The End of Desire” was Crystal’s favorite essay in Ekstasis, because it drew attention to Charles Williams, one of the seven British Christian authors archived at the Wade Center.

“We [at the Wade Center] also have a museum. We have Lewis’s writing desk where he wrote Mere Christianity and the Narnia Chronicles, Tolkien’s writing desk where he wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. And, best of all, we have the wardrobe from C.S. Lewis’s childhood home,” David said.

Other authors spotlighted at the Wade Center include Sayers, Owen Barfield, G. K. Chesterton, and George McDonald.

“It’s wise of the people at CT to try to understand how we convey the message of salvation to a new generation. We can’t simply assume that the way the gospel was passed to us can be transmitted to the next generation,” David said.

Kelsey Bowse is a UX Strategist at Christianity Today. Follow Kelsey on Twitter @ kelseybowse

News

The Surge in Arab Seminary Studies

Unlike many American counterparts, evangelical institutions in Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine enjoy an influx of students as they serve beyond their ivory towers.

The 2022 graduation ceremony for the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo.

The 2022 graduation ceremony for the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo.

Christianity Today July 8, 2022
Courtesy of ETSC

Bassem Ragy did not need a master’s of divinity degree in order to do math.

Seven years ago, when his church’s preschool children presented their paltry Sunday school offering of 7 Egyptian pounds (then equivalent to $2), he recalled the equation of five loaves plus two fishes.

Now one of 69 members of the 2022 graduating class of Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo (ETSC), the newly-minted MDiv can preach Jesus’ miracle from the original Greek.

“When I see the work of our graduates, it gives me hope for the church’s future,” said Tharwat Wahba, ETSC vice president for church and society—and one of its many alumni. “We must keep up our momentum.”

The fishermen are multiplying.

In 1995, there were about 50 students at the Presbyterian institution. By 2005, seminary research had identified 311 affiliated churches, 127 of which lacked a full-time pastor.

By 2019, enrollment had grown to 300 students. Three years later, it reached 509. And now affiliated churches number 450, only 70 of which lack pastoral leadership.

Founded in 1863 aboard a felucca, a traditional Egyptian boat, in the Nile River, ETSC’s floating campus served mission stations and fledgling churches associated with the then-American Presbyterian movement. The seminary has steadily supplied synod pulpits ever since.

Wahba linked the explosive growth to a low point in modern Egyptian history.

While most Coptic Christians were cautious about the 2011 Arab Spring, many evangelicals seized the opportunity to minister to revolutionaries in Tahrir Square, hoping for the success of the democratic moment. But Islamist politicians quickly dominated the parliament, and in 2012 the Muslim Brotherhood captured the presidency.

Much of the Egyptian church felt under siege.

But the following year, ETSC—which had created a missions department back in 2002—made church planting and evangelism a required course for MDiv students. And in summer 2013, when a popularly backed coup removed Islamists from power, Egyptian evangelicals were already poised to serve society.

In 2015, newly elected President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi visited the Coptic cathedral for Christmas. In 2016, parliament passed a law to facilitate the building of churches and license existing houses of worship—long a sore spot for Christians of all denominations.

Most church plants reflect migration patterns, Wahba said, as Egyptians flocked from villages to cities. But as Egypt addresses overpopulation by expanding its existing urban areas, land in each has been zoned for new church construction.

Taking advantage of Egypt’s stability and official public favor toward Christians, evangelical parachurch ministries boomed. Wahba estimates there are now at least 2,500 employees across 105 organizations affiliated with the government-recognized Protestant Community of Egypt.

Their training has to come from somewhere.

ETSC, accredited at the master’s level by the European Council for Theological Education (ECTE), expanded its programs to include master’s degrees in leadership and management, media ministry, and four different emphases of theology.

Prior to COVID-19, 70 percent of students were already online. But offices in Alexandria and the Upper Egyptian cities of Minya, Asyut, and Sohag facilitate localized education and ministry with computers, a library, and secretarial assistance.

“Students began to think out of the box,” said Wahba. “Honor was attached to outreach, and a movement began to grow.”

It is taking place at a low moment in American seminary education.

The Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary campus in Amman.
The Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary campus in Amman.

Evangelical stalwarts have been shedding students over the past two decades. Fuller Theological Seminary—which is launching a partnership with ETSC for a doctor of ministry degree this coming fall—has seen full-time equivalent enrollments plummet 48 percent since 2002. Meanwhile, enrollment has declined 44 percent at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) and 34 percent at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Part of the reason is demographic. Generation Z has 4 million fewer members than the millennial generation, and of those born after 1996, 44 percent do not identify with a religious tradition.

Meanwhile, 60 percent of Egypt’s population of 100 million is under age 24.

Christians represent roughly 10 percent of Egyptians, with evangelicals less than 2 percent. But while the Arab Spring soured many Muslims on political Islam, it generated a surge in ecumenical respect around a united Christian identity. Wahba estimates about 7 percent of ETSC students now come from Orthodox and Catholic backgrounds.

“America was already in a post-Christian culture, and now they are talking post-church,” he said. “But in Egypt, we have a huge market for theological education.”

It is also cost effective. Egypt’s cost of living index ranks 127 out of 139 studied nations, 70 percent less than the base rate of New York City. Whereas TEDS costs $14,525 per year for tuition and fees, an MDiv education at ETSC costs only $8,000. All of its other programs: $2,000.

Benefiting from generous local and international support, ETSC students pay very little. This has made the growth in enrollment since 2019 “an act of faith,” said Wahba. All students receive an 80 percent scholarship; MDiv students receive 98 percent.

Similar generosity is received in Palestine, where the $9,000 tuition at Bethlehem Bible College (BBC) is reduced up to 70 percent for the roughly 150 theology and ministry students. An additional 40 students obtain degrees through Nazareth Evangelical College, a sister institution in Israel.

The Bethlehem Bible College lecture hall.
The Bethlehem Bible College lecture hall.

BBC president Jack Sara estimates its graduates fill 60 percent of Holy Land pulpits. But while the school’s community-based courses have increased in popularity—now with 100 students—overall enrollment has stabilized the last several years.

Even this is a “breakthrough,” said Sara, a PhD graduate of Gordon-Conwell. Life in the West Bank is difficult, he said, and Christians are emigrating. BBC was founded in 1979 when Christians comprised 5 percent of the population; today they comprise 2 percent. Bethlehem’s Christians now tally only 11,000.

The Christian community is also few in Jordan, but overall national stability has led to a growth in seminary education. Still, the comparison to Egypt is “apples and oranges,” said Imad Shehadeh, president of Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary (JETS).

Drawing from an estimated population of 200,000 Christians, of which 1 percent are evangelicals, the institution’s 100 to 120 students represent a steady increase from a low of 65 in 2001. Registered by the Ministry of Culture, JETS bachelor’s and master’s degrees are also accredited by ECTE, with its doctoral program currently under review.

Students pay an average of $75 per month, subsidized from $775, with an additional $500 monthly for living assistance. The investment has generated results, as Shehadeh said that across Jordan’s 60 evangelical churches, 70 percent of pastors graduated from the seminary.

The Jordanian government, however, limits on-campus study to students of Christian background. Online courses—now 25 percent of enrollment—extend its gospel-centered teaching to those raised in other faiths, but on average only 60 percent of accepted students outside the country are granted visas.

From 2002, Iraqis, Syrians, and Sudanese began disappearing from the ranks of JETS student body.

Shehadeh, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, said his campus and teaching capacity can accommodate up to 500 students—should restrictions be lifted, and funds obtained. But to fill in the gaps, JETS has increasingly taken its model mobile, providing courses directly in Jordan’s evangelical churches.

“Graduates equipping future graduates,” he said. “Those qualified can now come alongside the pastor to support his teaching ministry.”

ETSC has a different challenge to overcome.

Despite steadily decreasing the gap between churches and clergy, the Egyptian seminary may soon see a reversal. Up until 2011, it averaged a cohort of 50 MDiv students. In 2022, there were 28, and of the 70 graduating students, only 4 obtained the pastoral degree.

Parachurch ministries pay more, Wahba said, and draw away the best lay volunteers. The near-total scholarship is meant to encourage potential pastors, who every summer are sent out to serve in struggling villages and urban centers. Many of them stay, accepting the call to a disadvantaged parish.

Including Ragy. Serving in the labyrinthine alleyways of Cairo’s Nozha slums, his fellowship receives 100 people each week for worship.

At first, he joined kids kicking the soccer ball in the streets. Telling them about Jesus, as he met their parents he invited them to a home group in his apartment. Eventually he offered practical service, opening a nursery above his makeshift church, now in its third location. Its professionally painted murals are an oasis within a sea of concrete.

And the families come. Loaves and fishes, multiplied.

“God has opened a door for evangelism and church planting, and we do not know how long it will remain,” said Wahba. “But we ask for your prayers during this golden time of harvest, to walk through it.”

Additional reporting by Jeremy Weber

Adam’s Aloneness Wasn’t Just His Singlehood

The Bible points to a deeper truth—that it is not good for us to be isolated from community.

The First Family by Phillip Medhurst

The First Family by Phillip Medhurst

Christianity Today July 8, 2022
WikiMedia Commons

I’ve recently been working my way through the History Channel’s long-running TV series Alone.

For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, ten contestants are separately dropped into very remote terrain where, with minimal resources, they are expected to survive for as long as possible—entirely alone.

There are no tribes. No well-practiced host. No ever-present camera crews. Each contestant is utterly and indefinitely alone.

If at any point it becomes too much, they can each tap out, no questions asked. Some quit because the elements—or the predators—are just too dangerous. Others because they are (quite literally) starving to death. Others because they are injured or sick. But many tap out because they simply can’t bear the soul-crushing solitude for another moment.

In a particularly poignant example from an early season, one contestant was equipped for the survival part of the challenge. They clearly had the skills and know-how to stay alive in the wilderness for some time.

But a few weeks in, they found themselves struggling with the overwhelming isolation. “I knew it was going to be hard being alone,” the contestant said, “I guess I just didn’t know it was going to be this hard.”

In the end, the seclusion became too much, and they tapped out.

As they stood isolated, staring out at the water, waiting for the production crew to swoop in and extract them from the show, they put it very simply: “I am craving human companionship like it’s water .

As I watched the scene, I couldn’t help but be struck by the image of Adam by himself in the Garden of Eden. The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’”

Or at least, they are very familiar to me—an unmarried Christian woman who has spent the last seven years researching and writing about singleness in the Christian life and community. As I’ve spent a lot of time immersed in the contemporary Christian discourse about singleness, I have come across those words again and again.

Indeed, this is such a common refrain it might be easy for us to take its importance (not to mention its correct interpretation) for granted. It is worth taking the time to recognize just how significant this verse is. After all, this one short statement changed everything.

In the previous chapter, the author of Genesis had detailed God’s creative acts, step by extraordinary step. But it is only after he made the first human being that God looked and saw something amiss in his creation.

We often read the text as saying that it was not good for the man to be alone, so God made him a wife. Ah, blessed resolution—now we can move on.

But I want to challenge you not to rush past the meaning of this statement and instead reflect on what exactly God identifies as being “not good” about Adam’s situation.

Imagine yourself as Adam or that contestant on Alone. You are immersed in a magnificent garden, a gorgeous creation of lush greenery—the sky overhead, the ocean at your feet, and the mountains at your back. Surrounded by an exotic array of fish, birds, and animals. And yet you are utterly, entirely, cravingly alone as far as fellow human companionship goes.

Do you sense it? That is the “not good”-ness of your aloneness.

Adam was the only creature made in the image of his creator. At the time, there was nothing and no one else like Adam in all of creation; he was the only human being walking on the entire face of the earth. This is what it meant that he was alone. This is what was not good in God’s sight.

The reason God knew that it was “not good for man to be alone” was because he had created Adam with the exact need to not be alone. Think about that for a moment: An all-powerful, all-knowing God could have chosen to create this human creature to be entirely self-sufficient, to have no need of anything or anyone else. But he didn’t.

Instead, he created Adam to need others who were like him.

So, God created another human person made in the divine image—magnificently like the man but also wonderfully distinct from him in meaningful ways. God created woman.

In doing so, God made the one who would be Adam’s wife—but their marriage relationship was not simply an end in itself. As Christopher Ash said, the man primarily needed “not so much a companion or a lover (though the woman will be those) but a ‘helper’ to work alongside him in the guarding and farming of the garden.”

Yet after creating Eve, God did not say to them, “There you go, guys. Adam, you’ve got a wife. Eve, you’ve got a husband. That’s all you need. Now get on with the job.” Again, an all-powerful and all-knowing God could have made this sufficient. But he didn’t.

Instead, he blessed the pair, saying, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Do you see? God’s answer to Adam’s aloneness—his divine provision to all of humankind—is abundant community.

You see, the first human being didn’t simply need a spouse. He needed other people. Adam alone couldn’t achieve what God had created him to do. So, the answer to his aloneness was not the meager provision of a single marriage relationship but the holistic resolution found in a multiplicity of interpersonal human relationships.

The creator’s solution was to make Adam not only into a husband—but also into a father, a grandfather, a family member, a neighbor, a work colleague, and a friend. God took someone who was truly alone and generated the entire community of humanity from his very body.

Yes, the marriage relationship is central to human community. But its purpose is to serve the ends of this community as a whole—and ultimately the ends of divine-human community—rather than to be its sum total. This is evidenced by Jesus’ teaching that while human marriage will not extend into the new creation (Matt. 22:30), human community will.

In other words, God’s answer to the “not good”-ness of human aloneness was, and is, the “very good”-ness of relational abundance. What a remarkable act of God in this creation! And what a remarkable promise of God that those of us in Christ will enjoy such relational abundance beyond measure in the creation that is yet to come.

As we wrestle anew with the meaning of Genesis 2:18, we can embrace a more holistic appreciation of God’s resolution to the problem of Adam’s aloneness. And with that, we can acknowledge that the very goodness of God’s creation of women was “less about marriage and more about what it means to be human.”

Danielle (Dani) Treweek is a theological author, speaker, and the founding director of Single Minded. Her doctoral research on singleness will be published with InterVarsity Press in 2023.

Books
Review

National Tragedies Still Call Forth Sermons. But Their Tone Has Changed.

A new history argues that Protestant ministers have traded prophetic introspection for triumphalist civil religion.

Christianity Today July 8, 2022
Carlynn Alarid / Unsplash

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Americans relied on certain rituals of mourning to manage the shock of what had occurred. Sixty years later, after planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, they turned to those rituals once more.

When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter

When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter

Harvard University Press

440 pages

Desperate to make sense of the tragedy, Americans consumed all manner of media coverage. Within hours of the attack, political leaders reassured the public that the nation would remain strong, and then identified military action as the primary mechanism of retribution. And Americans went to church because, as Melissa Matthes explains in When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter, “gathering in grief at a worship space after violence seems to be a quintessentially American practice.”

Americans find comfort in familiarity during tragedies, so it is not surprising that Matthes, a professor of government at the United States Coast Guard Academy, discovered patterns of consolation in the thousands of sermons she read in preparation for her book. But Matthes’s work is not solely about the words of comfort spoken during crisis points. Her book stands out because she explains how Protestant ministers adapted their rhetorical strategies to respond to significant challenges that they faced as the religious and political landscape shifted after World War II.

Disparities in how ministers reacted to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are particularly instructive. Following the Japanese attack in Hawaii, Protestant clergy called for introspection, specifically asking congregants to consider how they had helped create a world where such violence was possible. Careful to maintain their moral voice, Matthes argues, most Protestant ministers refused to frame American military action as an expression of sacred history even though they supported a proportional response. Sixty years later, sermons deviated from this prophetic course as ministers invoked a triumphalist civil religion that championed American goodness and the redemptive power of military action.

The differences between the sermon rhetoric of 1941 and 2001 are emblematic of broader changes within Protestantism that took place between then and now. Throughout the 80 years that she covers in her book, Matthes characterizes ministers, especially white Protestants, as being so concerned with the church’s waning civic presence that they repeatedly reflected and reinforced the nation’s power dynamics from their pulpits. Though clergy expected a closer affiliation with the state to restore the church’s public prowess, Matthes argues that this tack ultimately led to ministers losing their prophetic voice and thus the ability to provide the nation with moral direction.

From penitent reflection to celebratory civil religion

Central to Matthes’s interpretation of post–World War II America is the argument that the church’s cultural stature in time of crisis determined the tone and tenor of messages adopted by ministers. When Protestant churches maintained significant influence at midcentury, clergy believed they had a right and a responsibility to shape public affairs. Flush with confidence, ministers crafted sermons that challenged congregants to restore Christian values. Moreover, because they were convinced that the church’s public presence mattered, clergy saw no need to “collapse the United States and Christianity,” as Matthes puts it.

But as Protestantism’s stature declined, ministers shaken by dwindling church attendance and the advance of secularism began to doubt whether their interventions could help redeem the culture. To reestablish influence, Matthes effectively argues, Protestantism “forfeited its prophetic power,” seeking instead to “ingratiate itself to the state, to use the mechanisms and processes of the state to augment its own power and authority.”

In a book filled with noteworthy contrasts, perhaps the most interesting one is Matthes’s description of Protestant responses to the tragic actions of two notorious murderers, Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh. In the immediate aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, clergy directed their congregants to incorporate soul-searching into their mourning. In particular, preachers asked their fellow Christians to consider that Oswald, a “quintessentially American” man who entered adulthood while he was a US Marine, derived his hatred and violence from an immoral society that they were at least partially responsible for creating.

Opinions on the reasons for this destructive cultural decline varied, with conservative Protestants typically blaming the removal of God from the public square and liberals charging the church with abdicating its public duties. Even so, the Protestants of this era agreed that the nation would continue to devolve into base behavior unless Christians revived a robust public spirituality.

Three decades later, after Timothy McVeigh was arrested for bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Protestant ministers were no longer able to lead the country into introspection, Matthes argues. Although McVeigh resembled Oswald in that he was a veteran who had grown up in America’s heartland, there was little public desire to consider how American culture had contributed to violent extremism as it existed in 1995. Church leaders were among those quick to characterize McVeigh’s actions as antithetical to the American way, choosing instead to highlight the national goodness embodied by the rescue crews and doctors who cared for victims. For Matthes, the church’s eschewing of penitent reflection in favor of a celebratory civil religion indicates that Protestants had grown comfortable merging their perspectives with broader national interests.

Even as she charts changes in the disposition of Protestant leaders toward political power during the late 20th century, Matthes characterizes the era’s racial dynamics as expressions of tragic continuity, with communities of color consistently treated as “the other.” Crises revealed the absence of status among communities of color, as those who felt the pain of government internment (Japanese Americans), the agony of violent death (the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.), or the anguish of abuse (the police beating of Rodney King) rarely witnessed other Americans treat their losses as national tragedies. This segregation of sorrow perpetuated divisions in American life because it kept many white ministers from understanding that the angry responses to systemic racism practiced by those in oppressed communities were outcries for social reform.

It is difficult to read Matthes’s book and not see race as the biggest barrier to a truly inclusive American civil religion. At times in post–World War II America, the obstacles to racial justice included white Christians who intentionally and aggressively treated communities of color as “them” rather than “us.” Such was the case when certain Southern Baptist pastors opposed President Lyndon Johnson ordering flags to be flown at half-mast to honor King after his murder. On other occasions, the message that Black grief should remain parochial was less straightforward, though no less harmful. For Matthes, the speed with which many white Americans declared that race was not a factor in the deaths of unarmed Black victims like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown indicates the continued relegation of Black grief.

Independent and thoughtful pulpits

Though she frequently addresses hot-button issues that foster controversy, Matthes approaches these subjects with the confidence of someone who gave focused attention to a wide array of sources. Consequently, there is much to like about her thoughtful account of the intersections between mourning and politics.

Still, the topic is not without its challenges. Chief among them is the difficulty that all scholars have in classifying the beliefs and practices of large religious communities in a way that identifies common characteristics without ignoring noteworthy variations. While Matthes is largely successful in navigating the landscape of American Protestantism, some readers will wish that she had given more attention to denominational and ideological distinctives. Certainly, her analysis would benefit from a more thorough examination of Baptists, Mennonites, and other groups that viewed close associations with the state as antithetical to the church’s mission.

Similarly, though Matthes’s depictions of white Christians failing to empathize with African Americans are important reminders of the church’s social failures, the stories of leaders like historian and Lutheran minister Martin Marty, who marched at Selma and regularly championed civil rights, point to the existence of white Protestants who viewed Black grief as an American issue. Perhaps these and other similar examples would serve as exceptions that prove the rule, but their inclusion would undoubtedly provide readers with a clearer sense of the diversity that exists within American Protestantism.

Notwithstanding these occasional oversights, When Sorrow Comes is a compelling account of how the church’s public presence evolved in contemporary America. Lamenting the way she sees Protestants relinquishing their prophetic calling, Matthes concludes by arguing that democracies need independent and thoughtful pulpits. This is a fitting end to a narrative that serves as a reminder of both the social and ecclesiastical consequences that follow the church’s steadfast pursuit of public status.

Keith Bates is professor of history at Union University. He is the author of Mainstreaming Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and Fundamentalism’s Public Reemergence.

History

The Dark History of Abortion Doctors

To reach pro-choice frontliners, pro-life advocates must understand their motives.

Christianity Today July 8, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons / Mauro Fermariello / SPL / Getty

This article is the third of a four-part series based on the upcoming book by Marvin Olasky and Leah Savas, The Story of Abortion in America: A Street-Level History, 1652–2022.

British theologian and missionary Lesslie Newbigin said the church is a Christian’s “home base for a mission to the ends of the earth.” Is that true in spirit as well as in geography? Who is at the other end of the earth from a Christian pregnancy resource center, even though it’s located next door? And who might be under tremendous pressure in a post-Roe era?

Could it be an abortionist? Thirty years ago, I spent some time with Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had professed faith in Christ after presiding over the biggest abortion business in New York City in 1971 and 1972. When he studied ultrasound video in 1974, though, Nathanson realized he had killed human beings. As pro-life advocates talked with him, Nathanson found comfort in “the special role for forgiveness” within Christianity.

I’ve read lots of books about and by abortionists and learned that each had a different rationale. Let’s start with Robert Spencer, who aborted at least 40,000 babies from the 1920s through the 1960s. Laudatory biographer Vincent Genovese wrote that Spencer “without any sense of loss” would “gently” place into a basin the tiny children he had just aborted.

Spencer felt no grief because as a student at Penn State he had become a confirmed Darwinist. “Zoologists look upon an embryo as a parasite. … Murder is the basis for life, for one form of life eats another,” he later wrote. “I am an evolutionist, hence I am an atheist. … The basic structure of all matter is electrical.”

Robert SpencerIllustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons
Robert Spencer

Spencer lived in Ashland, Pennsylvania, which had a population of 5,000 in 1960 and has about half that now. His practice wasn’t a secret. Some residents who protected him benefited economically from Spencer’s work, since the thousands of abortion seekers who came to Ashland from across the US patronized local hotels and other businesses.

It appears that Spencer killed only one of the women he gave an abortion during his 40-year career. A jury that included at least one former Spencer patient found him not guilty.

A second abortionist, Ruth Barnett, displayed a different motivation. Although she was not a doctor, she was as competent in abortion as the best. A close friend of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Barnett performed about 40,000 illegal abortions from 1918 to 1968 in Portland, Oregon, with at least two-thirds of the women coming to her by referral from established doctors.

Barnett’s self-appraisal seems accurate:

I have never lost a single patient. … I have a light touch. … In the movies, they always depict the fallen women sneaking up a dirty, rickety stairway to a dismal room—or making her way, furtively, into a dark alley that leads to a decrepit shack where some alcoholic doctor or untutored butcher performs the operation. … A clinic such as mine was not that way at all.

Her biographer, Rickie Solinger, describes Barnett as “clean and careful and very highly skilled” and says her operating rooms “were spotlessly antiseptic.”

Barnett’s memoir and biography suggest she became an abortionist partly out of revenge. An early sexual experience with “Frank” left her pregnant:

He was not to blame, he said. What kind of a little fool had I been to be so careless?… “You got yourself that way, now get yourself out of it.” Seeing the look of amazement on my face, he added a thrust that I’ve heard second-hand a thousand times since. “How do I know I’m responsible anyways? You’ve been going around with other guys.”

Years later Barnett recalled, “He turned and hurried away. I never saw him again. In the years that followed, I have observed many ‘Franks.’ … For years I hated Frank. So it was no surprise to me to find many of my patients had the same implacable hatred for the man responsible.”

Barnett raged not only against men who exploited her but the women snubbing her daughter, Maggie, who entered the University of Oregon in 1932 and tried to pledge a sorority, Alpha Chi Omega. Members rejected her because of her mom’s occupation: Barnett was “screaming and crying in rage” but then told her daughter, “For every sorority girl that comes in my office, you’ll get a new dress!”

Maggie recalled, “I was the most fashionable and best outfitted girl at the university that season. And also the wildest, wickedest, drunkenest, most daring, and most promiscuous.” Barnett aborted six of Maggie’s children—her own grandchildren.

Ruth BarnettIllustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons
Ruth Barnett

Barnett also liked earning at least $9 million (more than $100 million today) and buying “jewelry, expensive bric-a-brac, minks.” Maggie recalled her mom telling her, “Buy yourself a man, a husband, a lover. What can’t money buy? … We had about four or five fur coats apiece. … She loved jewelry. She had some gorgeous pieces.”

A third abortionist, Edgar Keemer Jr. (1913–1980), combined resentment and ideology. He grew up in a middle-class Black home hoping to echo his father, who rose from a poor rural background to become a pharmacology professor. Keemer Jr. tried to develop a well-paid practice in Indiana, but the local medical society denied him membership on racial grounds and the local hospital refused him admitting privileges.

Keemer visited New York City and Chicago but found underpaid Black doctors there moonlighting as railway porters. He settled in Detroit, where Blacks had entered the auto industry at good wages and Wayne County’s welfare system paid for doctors’ visits. Keemer let other Black physicians know that he would do abortions. His initial patients were their relatives. As others became aware of his clean clinical setting and maternal safety record, referrals increased.

When the United States entered World War II, Keemer tried to enlist in the navy as a doctor but encountered racial slurs and suggestions that he work in the kitchen or mop floors. The NAACP, trying to show patriotism, pressured him.

Keemer later said only one person “came not to lecture me. … He was a member of the Socialist Workers Party,” the Communist offshoot that supported Leon Trotsky in his battle against Joseph Stalin. Keemer joined the SWP in 1943, committed to replacing “capitalism with socialism wherein every man and every woman would be guaranteed a satisfying function in society”––if they survived.

In his autobiography, Keemer said he performed 30,000 abortions. When we add his work to Spencer’s and Barnett’s, we find that these three mass murderers apparently wiped out at least 110,000 unborn children. It can be tempting to demonize them, but they too, like Bernard Nathanson who presided over 60,000 abortions, were created in God’s image.

Once Nathanson realized the enormity of his sin, he “would awaken each morning at four or five o’clock, staring into the darkness and hoping (but not praying yet) for a message to flare forth acquitting me before some invisible jury.” Eventually, “for the first time in my entire adult life, I began to entertain seriously the notion of God … who problematically had led me through the proverbial circles of hell, only to show me the way to redemption and mercy through His grace.”

For Nathanson to change, he had to come to two understandings: that the life in a woman’s womb is human and worthy of protection and that God’s grace is boundless, able to reach even someone with the blood of thousands on his hands. Those are truths that the church, too, can carry into a post-Roe world.

Content adapted from The Story of Abortion in America by Marvin Olasky and Leah Savas, ©2023. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

News

Lawsuit Alleges Billionaire’s Christian Foundation Engaged in Self-Dealing

A former director of Bill Hwang’s investment firm, seeking millions in compensation, said Grace and Mercy was used as a financial “escape pod.”

Archegos CFO Patrick Halligan, who also served at the Grace and Mercy Foundation, leaves federal court in April.

Archegos CFO Patrick Halligan, who also served at the Grace and Mercy Foundation, leaves federal court in April.

Christianity Today July 7, 2022
Spencer Platt / Getty Images

A former managing director at Archegos Capital–a family office at the center of one of Wall Street’s biggest white collar crime cases in decades–has filed a lawsuit alleging fraudulent activity at the Grace and Mercy Foundation, the Christian nonprofit connected to the firm. In seeking millions in compensation, he claims the foundation’s $800 million in assets includes funding diverted from Archegos’s employees’ compensation.

In April, federal prosecutors charged Archegos founder Bill Hwang, a billionaire outspoken about his Christian faith, with racketeering and “massive fraud.” In 2021, banks lending to Archegos lost $10 billion, and the firm’s collapse evaporated $100 billion from the stock market, according to prosecutors. Hwang is currently free on a $100 million bond and awaiting trial.

Brendan Sullivan, who started at Archegos in 2014 and resigned during its downfall in March 2021, is seeking millions in compensation he says he is owed. He says Archegos leadership forced employees to put their bonuses back into a fund at the firm, which he alleges Archegos then invested in stocks and transferred to Grace and Mercy. The foundation, he said, then sold the stocks and got the profits. That would protect appreciated stock from taxation and give Archegos a tax deduction for the donation.

“These share transfers to the foundation were all coming from the Archegos Fund, which included employee deferred compensation … which was done without the knowledge or consent of employees,” the lawsuit says. The employee fund lost $500 million total, Sullivan says. Sullivan was owed $30 million in deferred compensation at the time of his resignation and has not received any of it, he said. He was one of Archegos’ 27 full-time employees, according to the lawsuit, which is directed at the firm, its executives, and the foundation.

Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine noted tables within the lawsuit showed Sullivan had put only $3.8 million into the deferred compensation fund and that he had come up with the $30 million value based on Archegos’ inflated profits in March 2021. A “combination of chutzpah and careful contract reading,” Levine said about suing for $27 million in paper profits.

Sullivan—who was part of the Christian community in Manhattan and did a fellowship through Redeemer Presbyterian Church—alleges Hwang ran the fund like a “cult” and used Christianity as a way to pressure employees to invest their earnings back into Archegos. He said questions about employees’ faith were a part of performance reviews and that they were pressured to go to lunchtime Scripture readings at the foundation, which was in the same office.

Sullivan is suing as a disgruntled former employee—he mentions career opportunities Hwang promised him and never delivered—and though there are typos throughout, his wide-ranging 99-page lawsuit is filled with emails and conversations specifically detailing his grievances. In the early 2000s, Enron employees who lost millions in retirement after Enron’s collapse brought similar lawsuits and ultimately won a class-action settlement.

Christopher Porrino, a lawyer for the Grace and Mercy Foundation, said in a statement that “Mr. Sullivan’s complaint against The Grace and Mercy Foundation is filled with baseless and frivolous allegations, all of which will be decisively refuted in court.” The foundation will continue its grantmaking work it has been doing since 2006, he added.

Grace and Mercy has distributed about 5 percent of its assets a year—amounting to around $30 million in 2019, the most recent year on record—to a variety of Christian organizations like the Bowery Mission, Prison Fellowship, and Fuller Theological Seminary. Sullivan alleges the grants to Christian groups were a cover for Hwang’s usage of the fund for his personal benefit.

Sullivan alleges that Hwang described the foundation as his “escape pod” and when Archegos was in trouble Hwang frequently told concerned employees that if the firm collapsed, he could move them to the foundation and use its capital to restart another investment firm, “Archegos 2.0.” Sullivan said that Hwang considered transferring Grace and Mercy assets to Archegos but did not after receiving counsel that it would be illegal.

“Hwang mentioned that some Archegos employees would be given foundation money to start their own investment funds, from which the foundation could generate management fees,” Sullivan alleges.

Central to Sullivan’s lawsuit is the fact that Archegos and Grace and Mercy functioned as the same entity though they were separate on paper. The two shared office space and employees, and Sullivan said they often had “firmwide” meetings that included employees from both Archegos and the foundation.

“Hwang regularly and informally moved money and shares from Archegos accounts to the foundation, and his family’s own private non-fund accounts, utilized Archegos staff, administrative functions, and resources to operate the foundation,” the lawsuit reads.

On the foundation’s most recent tax form, Archegos chief financial officer Patrick Halligan was listed as the bookkeeper for Grace and Mercy. Halligan faces racketeering and fraud charges in the Archegos case alongside Hwang. “Halligan…was central to the intermingling of assets, shares, and monies,” Sullivan’s lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also names Andy Mills, an Archegos executive who is a former president and board chair of The King’s College, a Christian college in New York. Mills was not charged in the federal case.

Sullivan alleges that when Archegos was in trouble Hwang and Mills assured employees of compensation through Archegos, Hwang’s personal funds, or the foundation. He says that Mills threatened employees who were thinking about leaving, saying that people who quit would no longer receive any of their deferred compensation.

Mills declined to comment to CT.

David Shapiro, an expert on financial crimes at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said authorities might be more willing to go after the foundation if there is self-dealing that parallels Archegos and if the two functioned as one entity.

“If I’m dishonest with my left hand, that’s probably relevant evidence that I’m dishonest with my right hand,” he said, while making clear that he didn’t know the truth about allegations against Hwang and Archegos.

However, Shapiro said, the foundation seemed to be run with more caution than risk-taking Archegos, with the foundation’s rate of returns exceeding the amount it was giving away.

Shapiro said that he might “worry more” for the foundation if the accounting firm doing the 990s was a small outfit rather than a major accounting firm like KPMG, which has more financial independence from a single client and could call out ethical lapses. The 2019 990 for Grace and Mercy lists a 3-person accounting firm.

“When you mess around with compensation of employees, and you have ERISA violations, that’s very serious stuff,” said Shapiro. Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fraud is among the allegations in the lawsuit. “It’s really a horrible situation.”

Meanwhile the federal case against Hwang and Halligan is proceeding, with prosecutors having to deliver discovery—evidence the defense can review—by July 20.

News

Could Roe’s Reversal Slow Global Trends to Legalize Abortion?

Evangelical advocates abroad hold out hope that America’s shift on abortion sets a new standard.

Pro-life protests in Bogota, Colombia

Pro-life protests in Bogota, Colombia

Christianity Today July 7, 2022
Chepa Beltran/Long Visual Press/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Some pro-life Christians hope the reversal of Roe v. Wade will help more countries outside the US resist legalizing abortion.

Under the landmark ruling for nearly 50 years, the United States modeled abortion rights as a standard, an inevitable sign of social progress. As abortion policy becomes a state-by-state issue, advocates say, it will decrease the pressure the US and US-based aid groups put on foreign governments around abortion access, allowing them to focus on other aspects of women’s health instead.

The Roe reversal “will help show the rest of the world that this isn’t a settled issue, even in the West, and will hopefully help countries in the Global South to resist pressure from the West to liberalize their abortion laws,” said Peter Saunders, the UK-based president of the International Christian Medical and Dental Association.

“It will also make it much harder to argue at the UN that abortion is an international human right when half the US believes, and will now enforce, the exact opposite.”

In its updated guidelines issued in March 2022, the United Nations’ World Health Organization called for the repeal of “laws and regulations that restrict abortion by reasons, prohibit abortion based on gestational limits, and require mandatory waiting periods.”

Under President Donald Trump (and previous Republican presidents), the Mexico City policy barred federal funding of international organizations that covered or advocated for abortion as a method of family planning. President Joe Biden rescinded the policy.

While the Mexico City policy focuses on foreign assistance programs, two other provisions—the Siljander and Helms amendments—also limits how US dollars are used around abortion abroad. The Siljander Amendment bars government funds from being used to lobby for or against abortion.

Yet, a study released by the Center for Family & Human Rights in 2020 found that the US had signed or signed and ratified at least seven human rights treaties through the United Nations, and the treaty bodies subsequently advocated for liberalizing abortion laws.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision on June 24, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US “will remain fully committed to helping provide access to reproductive health services and advancing reproductive rights around the world.”

Xesús Manuel Suárez García with the Ibero-American Congress for Life and Family (Congreso Iberoamericano Por La Vida Y La Familia), said the US and US-based nonprofits often pressure governments in the Global South to liberalize their abortion restrictions. Over the past two years, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia all moved to decriminalize abortion.

“The population [of pro-life countries] is led to understand that, although the majority position of civil society is pro-life, it seems inevitable that pro-abortion regulations will be imposed from above,” he said. “And suddenly, with the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the general population in Latin America discovers that this is not the case.”

International abortion rights groups have also voiced concerns about the ruling’s “chilling effect” on foreign aid for their cause. As one adviser told Politico’s Global Pulse, “When it comes to family planning and reproductive health, the U.S. is the largest government donor. And of course, that is going to create ripple effects.”

A change in America’s abortion landscape helps pro-life organizations working abroad “to insist that abortion should not be part of this conversation, that it should be up to individual countries and not pressure from NGOs and outside organizations,” according to Valerie Huber, founder of Institute for Women ’s Health.

“No longer can progressive nations and NGOs point to the US and our national abortion policy as an example of the necessity for legalizing abortion, nor can they say that legalizing abortion is a requirement for a democratic country,” said Huber, who worked on global issues concerning women ’s health for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the previous administration.

At the start of the Biden administration, Blinken announced the US withdrawal from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, the international agreement on women’s rights drafted by Huber when she worked for HHS and signed by 36 other countries. The declaration seeks to expand healthcare for women and protect the rights of nations to support health, life, and family through national policy and legislation, free from international pressures.

Most of South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia—some of the most populous areas of the world—severely restrict abortion or ban it outright. Russia, North Korea, China, Australia, Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, and a handful of countries in South America and Africa permit abortion on request with some limits on gestational age.

Guatemala joined the Geneva Consensus and was designated the pro-life capital of Latin America by Ibero-American Congress for Life and Family. Its president has called on the country to protect life starting at conception. By contrast, abortion restrictions are relaxing elsewhere in the region—most recently in Colombia, which decided in February to legalize abortion up to 24 weeks gestation.

“In our experience, the American government since Roe has been trying to engage in what can only be described as ideological colonialism or imperialism to pressure the majority world to conform to US standards on abortion,” said Dr. Mike Chupp, president of the US-based Christian Medical and Dental Association.

When global health organizations pressure countries to treat abortion rights as a settled issue, it detracts from other work to prevent maternal mortality, pro-lifers say.

Contraception, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical cancer screenings, steps to reduce infant and maternal mortality rates, better perinatal care—these are the women ’s healthcare issues that are truly urgent in much of the world to doctors like Chupp.

International pro-life advocates also believe that the reversal of Roe provides the chance for Christians to love not only unborn children, but their mothers too, a position championed by many Christian pro-lifers in the US.

Graciela Noguera Ibáñez works with NAF-Paraguay, a Paraguay-based nonprofit that promotes systems that will allow children, adolescents, and families to thrive.

“The real problem is social responsibility towards pregnant women in vulnerable situations,” she said. Ináñez has worked with the Ministry of Education to develop a program to support teen mothers and provide effective sex education to girls to help prevent teen pregnancy and clandestine abortions.

Ibáñez’s program has the support of Catholic organizations as well as the Association of Evangelical Churches of Paraguay.

Dawn McAvoy leads Both Lives Matter, a pro-life group based in Northern Ireland. She said that overturning the US federal abortion law would question the underlying assumptions about the right to abortion and privacy that have driven the conversation in both the US and the United Kingdom for more than 50 years. Great Britain legalized abortion in 1967, but the government of Northern Ireland kept its laws banning abortion until 2019.

“Any challenge to and rejection of a dogma that relegates the preborn ’s life and her induced death to a private choice is exciting,” she said.

But McAvoy believes Roe reversal is not the ultimate victory. The US and other countries around the world still have work to do cultivating what she calls a “pro-both” culture, where freedom and equality for a woman do not mean the power to end her child ’s life.

Just as the Dobbs decision resulted in even more expansive abortion policies advancing in blue states, some anticipate the ruling will also embolden activists working on a global scale.

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