Ideas

White Churches, It’s Time to Go Pro-Life on Guns

The Christian majority in America needs to shake off its malaise and work with Black pastors to end shooting violence.

Christianity Today June 3, 2022
Yuki Iwamura / Getty

Chicago might be a strange perch from which to write this appeal for gun reform. After all, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas recently invoked that well-established dog whistle and the refuge of Republican politicians and many of their Christian supporters: the deaths of Black kids due to gun violence in Chicago. For them, my city is proof positive that gun laws don’t work.

But here I sit, as one of Chicago’s young pastors at one of its most historic Black churches, bidding for a favorable response from the larger, politically dominant, white evangelical denominations in America.

I write to them because these denominations, like the Southern Baptist Convention, are politically influential in states with senators who could, if pressured by their base, be moved to act. They have swung elections in the past, when issues important to them drove them to the ballot box. These senators and representatives might not listen to a Black pastor in Chicago, but they will listen to a cluster of white pastors in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee.

I am not the first Black pastor to appeal to the white Christian majority to shake off their malaise and address pressing issues of justice. Martin Luther King Jr. made a similar appeal in 1963 from another unlikely place: a Birmingham jail. The issues are different, but the admonition is the same. There must be some white Christians of goodwill who sense that something is terribly wrong with gun violence among the children in our nation.

About 30 years ago, The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) began an aggressive recruitment of young Black clergy. Their seminaries sought young Black aspiring ministers who had no direct experience with the troubled racial history of their denomination. They offered money, jobs, and missional networks meant to help these pastors fulfill the Great Commission. SBC conferences started to intentionally feature speakers of color.

Linked to this invitation to preach the gospel together came an entreaty. Black pastors and their churches were to adopt the political agenda of the so-called moral majority. Their political agenda was presented as a litmus test for theological fidelity.

If you are true to the God of the Bible, they said, you had to affirm that abortion, adoption, pornography, and the war on drugs were the key moral issues framing the American social landscape. They deemed these issues “Christian” while labeling a host of other concerns plaguing my community as “political” and “divisive.”

The topic of gun violence, for example, has always been placed in the category of politics, but it is now considered the leading cause of death for children in this country.

In an era when hopes for interracial cooperation waxed high, Black pastors and churches migrated into dual affiliation. They did not leave their Black denominational homes of the National Baptist Convention or the Progressive National Baptist Convention. They merged both worlds as a signal of racial reconciliation. Enduring their cross and despising their shame, they sat down at the table of brotherhood.

Since then, 30 years have passed, and as far as I can measure, we are probably more divided socially and ethnically, if not politically, than we were back then.

The Black church has heard your requests for unity in fellowship and solidarity on public moral arguments. We have watched you parade the case for the unborn as the single greatest civic concern of our time. Some of us have even lent the credibility of our ministries to urge our politicians toward a more virtuous ethic. Even more of us facilitate organizations that care for women facing unplanned pregnancies. In good faith, we have joined our cause with yours.

Now we ask the same of you.

It is not our senators—those from our city-zoned districts—who reject universal background checks on the purchases of firearms. It is not our congressional leaders—those who attend our churches and speak at our back-to-school events—who are standing in the way of legislation that could prevent the next mass school shooting. It is yours. Your senators, who serve in your districts, sit in your pews, and listen to your preaching—they are the greatest antagonists to a real pro-life, anti-school-shootings agenda.

You have asked us to join in the fight for pro-life legislation, and now we ask you to do the same. Be pro-life by urging your congressional leaders to protect the lives of school kids who die at the force of weapons too easily placed in the wrong hands. Urge your senators to pass morally upright gun legislation. Be true to the same book you preach on Sunday.

We have waited for you to use your influence to lobby Congress for better school funding, access to quality health care, and food security. We have waited for you to denounce the alt-right racism that made a playboy a president. We have waited for you to declare that our lives matter. Now every American child is waiting on you to use your influence to protect them.

In short, I think you should leave Chicago’s name out of your mouth until you understand the forces that shape this city.

We are not your rhetorical whipping boy, trotted out for another session of mockery that serves your political ends. We are not your minstrel show, played on repeat on your news channels as a way to reinforce tropes about the inherent dangerousness of Black people. We see what you are doing and name it for what it is: racism. We know that you do not actually care about the Black lives lost to gun violence here. If you did, you wouldn’t use dead Black boys and girls as a political tool. You would see their tragic deaths as a catalyst for action.

Chicago is a border colony. Illinois is a gun-restrictive state. Studies have shown that nearly 60 percent of guns connected to crimes in Chicago arrive through Republican states. The loose privileges of others have a direct, negative, and destructive effect on us. And while there is no excuse for the murder rate in Chicago, there is also no excuse for decades of divestment and inferior schools.

There is no excuse for redlining and gentrification that imprison entire family lines. There is no excuse for new multimillion-dollar marijuana stores owned and operated by white men—selling the same marijuana that criminalized successive generations of Black men—who work without penalty and with permission.

Why is Chicago the scapegoat? It is because Chicago is code for Black.

What is rarely mentioned is the hard work of pastors and religious leaders on the ground in this city. When you talk about Chicago, talk about Breakthrough Urban Ministries in Garfield Park, a ministry that has rebuilt an entire neighborhood through housing, recreation, homeless intervention, and counseling services.

Talk about the work of Together Chicago, a new multipronged consortium of pastors, business leaders, community organizers, and educators reducing violence and building businesses. If you talk about Chicago, talk about James Meeks and the Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, which decreased violence by voting their neighborhood dry for two decades.

Chicago is an easy trope for those who do not know the story here.

I better understand why Martin Luther King Jr. took pen to paper in that Birmingham jail. When the laws that should liberate you imprison you, the one person a pastor expects to help him is another pastor. It’s frustrating that some of those who stand in the way of human flourishing are those sermonizing the imago Dei into a political talking point.

So I write my own letter from Chicago with the aid of these pastors listed below. We need you, our white evangelical brothers and sisters, to move your politicians to save our schools from another shooting.

Charlie Dates is senior pastor at Chicago’s Progressive Baptist Church. He holds a PhD in historical theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This letter was written with support from the following pastors: James Meeks, Salem Baptist Church of Chicago; Horace Smith, Apostolic Faith Church, Chicago; Otis Moss, Trinity United Church of Christ; Watson Jones, Compassion Baptist Church; David Swanson, New Community Covenant Church, Chicago; Ralph West, The Church Without Walls, Houston.

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

Church Life

When Being Helped Hurts

My experience on the receiving end of a mission trip taught me you can’t force love on a community.

Christianity Today June 3, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: the_burtons / Getty

When we got a phone call from a larger, wealthier church from a larger, wealthier town offering a service project a few years ago, we readily accepted. For several years my husband Tony and I copastored a small, rural church that had many needs. The other church had a group of middle- and high-school students coming to our area to attend a camp, and some of them wanted to volunteer to work in their afternoons and pay for the supplies.

It seemed like a great idea. As teens, Tony and I had participated in similar service projects, so we were excited to be a part of this one. But we had always been on the giving side, never on the receiving side.

Our elders got together with pastors from the other church and made a plan: Paint the walls and the deck, paint the grid in the drop ceiling, tear out some bushes, put in a patio, plant flowers, clean out the yard, and put in new glass doors for the front entrance. The pastor threw around dollar amounts to donate that seemed outrageous to us.

The kids were eager to help. They gave up their afternoon camp activities—waterskiing, ziplining, etc.—to serve us. And we were genuinely grateful. But the gift began to feel complicated.

It was small things, like the paint drips on our carpet. No one would expect a middle-schooler to be careful enough not to drip, or even to remember to use a drop cloth. But the adults with them didn’t seem to notice either, even as they watched Tony and me crouch on the floor to scrub out the spots. We ran around with drop cloths, trying tactfully to remind them. When you are on the receiving end of help, it is hard to correct the helper. You don’t want to appear ungrateful.

The same thing happened with a small table we used to hold our offering. It was not a nice table, but it sat below the cross and held Sunday morning tithe offerings. The volunteers used it to hold a paint bucket without a drop cloth. The paint puddled at the base of the bucket, and the mess stayed there for days.

I don’t think they were being malicious. They genuinely wanted to help. But they didn’t seem to be able to see that the carpet or the table were valuable to us. They were not nice furnishings. They were worn, stained, and out of style, but they were ours. They were going to stay there for a long time. I struggled to understand why the adults of the group were not taking care of our worship space. I wanted to shout, “I know it’s ugly! But it’s our home!”

When they left, the painting was not finished. A pea-gravel patio had been built but with so much gravel it was unusable for anyone, especially those in our congregation with walkers or wheelchairs. Because of the other church’s thriving basketball ministry, they had insisted on installing a basketball hoop, but it didn’t fit our context and was never used.

There were screws left sticking out of walls and badly done carpentry projects that we now had to repair. The promised glass doors, patio tables, and chairs never arrived and were never mentioned.

At the time, we were confused about the mix of feelings all of this brought on. We were genuinely grateful for much of what they had given and for their desire to help, but it took time to sort out why we also felt violated. I wanted to encourage the good thing they were doing while also wishing they weren’t doing it.

Tony and I knew we would have to show up to church on Sunday morning with the building halfheartedly transformed. We wondered what it would say to our congregants about their worth. Many of our members live with repeated rejection and abuse, and we worked hard to try to restore in them a sense that they were infinitely valuable before God. The impersonal and unfinished changes to our building seemed to contradict our message.

Now, I believe we felt injured because their service did not feel like love. Love requires intimacy and knowing, but this felt like we were only a means to their ends.

We could have been any church, any group of “needy people” anywhere, and their behavior would have been the same. We became the faceless object of their service, used to teach their children, to drum up good religious feelings in them, to bring them closer to Jesus. We were only bystanders for their purposes, not real participants in them. They didn’t see the value in our worn-out carpet or our shabby offering table because they didn’t see us.

The church intended to love us, but they did not realize that in order to love, you must know the other. Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez challenges us: “So you say you love the poor. Name them.” A name is a good place to start, a meal is better, and life together is even better than that. Real love requires knowing, listening, understanding. It cannot be foisted on people from a distance.

There are a few bright spots in this memory. I feel grateful for one young girl from the large church who took care of our children, became a Facebook friend after the fact, and has been in touch. There was also an engineer who returned to our church twice after the rest had left. Once he sat with us for dinner on the patio. His continuing presence, his willingness to spend time with us, made his work, at least, feel like love.

As I imagine churches excitedly preparing for their summer mission trips, there are several things I would like to suggest to communities on either side of service projects.

For groups who receive:

Recognize the power dynamic and address it. It is very difficult to correct a giver. Every awkward Christmas present received with a smile is evidence of that. The awkwardness is only amplified as you increase the resources offered, or the disparity between education, expertise, socioeconomic level, etc. It could have helped us to say at the outset, “We are so grateful that you are here. If there should ever be a problem, it might be awkward for us to bring it up. Would you mind checking in with us each day?” If they don’t seem receptive to feedback, I would recommend not moving forward.

Speak up. Remember that you and your community are not less valuable because you are on the receiving end of this relationship. Your voice matters. This is your community and your space, and they have come to serve you. If things are not going well, you can kindly ask for what you need or even end the project early. In the long run, that may be a better learning experience for the volunteering church.

Share life together. Enjoying meals and serving alongside one another can help the two groups better know each other and even form a long-term relationship. Consider what your community might offer so that your service can be mutual rather than one-sided.

For communities who give:

Listen attentively. When a receiving community speaks up, it is vulnerable and risky. Know that when they do venture out, they are saying something important. If the request seems silly to you, work to understand why it is important to them. This is an opportunity to show them a deeper kind of love. We can make that easier by checking in regularly and asking specific questions. Feedback or criticism is a success. It means that you are safe to approach despite the obstacles. It means that you have engaged in a real relationship.

Invite the receiving community to teach you something. Ask about the strengths of the community you've come to serve and invite them to share about themselves. Resist the temptation to take charge of every minute. Make space for the receiving community to lead you.

Focus your attention on those being served, not on the feelings of your volunteers. It feels good to do good things, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it is tempting to let the encouragement of your community be the goal. They will all learn much more about love if they learn how to listen and receive feedback so that their service can be valuable to those who receive it.

Cultivate that idea that less privileged people have something that you do not have. From my time working with less privileged communities, I have learned that when Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor,” there is real content to that blessing. As a member of the middle-class, my instinct is to assume that blessing means physical, financial, and emotional comfort, but Jesus didn’t think about it that way.

In the Gospels it is often the rich, powerful, and educated who missed what Jesus had to say, and those people on the margins are the ones who received it. Those of us who are affluent have things to learn about life, about God, about the good news of the gospel from those who worship from a less privileged space. I would love to see groups entering service projects with this kind of humble spirit knowing that what they receive will always be more than they give.

The experience at my church gave me new eyes to see my own acts of generosity. Tony and I have since transitioned to a more affluent church, and I hope that experience changes the way that we do ministry. Even when people want and need what we have to give, they can still leave the experience feeling used.

Author and priest Gregory Boyle says, “The measure of our compassion lies not in our service to others but in our willingness to see ourselves connected to them.” Love is not something that you can do to another. It is something you do with them.

Jesus walked with us before he died for us. God took on our flesh and experienced birth, childhood, love, career, suffering, loss, temptation. He knew us. He did not come simply to sacrifice himself, but also to know. Even if he knew us before he came, he went to great pains to show us that we were known.

Jennifer Holmes Curran is a writer, pastor, and parent in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Ideas

Abuse in the Church and the Road to Jericho

President & CEO

It wasn’t the robbers Jesus castigated in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It was the religious leaders.

Christianity Today June 3, 2022
Edits by Christianity Today / Source Image: WikiMedia Commons

The most harrowing part of last week’s report on the SBC Executive Committee might be its summary of interviews with survivors of sexual abuse. Christa Brown speaks with excruciating eloquence on the consequences not only of abuse in the church but of the callous inhumanity that greeted the survivors’ attempts to tell their stories.

“For most people of faith,” she says, “their faith is a source of solace,” a reservoir of peace and resource for healing. For her, however, faith is “neurologically networked with a nightmare.” She was raped repeatedly as a child by her pastor and endured a torrent of hostility when she told the truth. “It is not only physically, psychologically, and emotionally devastating,” she says, “but it is spiritually annihilating. It is soul murder.”

The pattern is consistent throughout the report. An individual suffers the horrific evil of abuse then suffers a second evil of monstrous indifference from religious authorities. The second evil is uniquely desolating. It is one thing to suffer at the hands of a single low-down hypocrite. It is another when the company of the high and holy treat you as though your suffering means nothing.

This same pattern, of course, is also found in one of Jesus’ most beloved parables. The parable begins with an innocent traveler on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. On this hard and narrow path, robbers set upon him, strip his clothing, and beat him to near death. A priest passes by, avoids him, and leaves him to die naked and alone. A Levite, a man who serves the worship of God at the temple, does the same.

Then a Samaritan, the last person Jesus’ audience would have expected, shows mercy to the traveler. He pours oil and wine over his wounds, binds him up, carries him on his own donkey to an inn, and tends him overnight. He gives the innkeeper money and tells him, “Look after him, and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have” (Luke 10:35).

Some parallels to our present circumstances are obvious. The body of the church is riddled with the cancer of abuse. It was never only the Roman Catholic Church. It is surely not only Southern Baptist churches. As the voices of survivors and advocates have made so heart-wrenchingly clear, there are thieves and brigands among us who will set upon the vulnerable and leave them humiliated and abused and struggling for life.

The existence of robbers, however, is almost taken for granted in the parable. Though we should do everything in our power to stop them, as long as there is sin, we will have abusers among us. It is, in the parable, the religious leaders who are most harshly condemned. The priest and the Levite did not merely fail to do the right thing. They joined the robbers in their dehumanization of the abused. They may have professed their faith eloquently in the temple courts, may have had crowds awaiting them in Jericho, may have had important things to do. But your faith is only ever as true as how you treat the image of God in front of you.

When Jesus is asked who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:1–14), he brings a child before him. He tells his disciples not to “despise these little ones” but to be like the shepherd who leaves the 99 on the hills to seek the one sheep who is lost and vulnerable. The kingdom of heaven never neglects the suffering of the one in order to serve the many. It neglects neither the smallest number nor the smallest person. “And whoever welcomes one such child in my name,” he says, “welcomes me.”

Now, imagine the sufferer saw the priest and Levite. Imagine she cried out for mercy but received none from these men who were supposed to represent the love of God. How would it have shaped her? Would it have caused her to question everything she thought she knew about who were the righteous and who were the wicked?

Or imagine the sufferer begins to tell the truth about what she saw. Word spreads of the callousness of the priest and Levite, the inhumanity of these putative men of God who serve at the temple of the Creator but show contempt for the crown of his creation. But the sufferer cannot prove it. Would the priest and Levite object that “the world” was attacking them because it is hostile to the righteous? Would they call it a “satanic scheme” to distract them from their mission?

After all, it is easier to attack the world than it is to acknowledge our sin. They tend to blame the world who find little to blame in themselves. They rage over the splinter in the secular eye who are blind to the branch in their own. It is our own sins that should grieve us most. It is only our own sins, losing our first love, that can ever really destroy the witness of the church that is the hope of the world.

So we can inveigh against “the world” until we lose our voices. That is precisely how we lose our voice, in fact, or at least any voice worth hearing. Beware the prophet who has more to say about the sins of the world than about the sins of God’s people. It was not “the world” that left the sufferer by the roadside. Nor was it “the world” that opposed Jesus’ vision for the kingdom of God even unto death. It was the “righteous.” It was the religious authorities.

Which is to say, it was us. Many of us.

Or imagine another twist. The wickedness of the priest and the Levite (for wickedness it is) was attested by witnesses. But the religious authorities circle around them and demand silence. The truth, they say, would harm the reputation of the priesthood. It would harm the institution of the temple. The truth should never be known. They would rather sacrifice the soul of one broken victim of abuse than undermine the faith of millions.

In our time, we have witnessed a shaking of the foundations of numerous Christian institutions—from megachurches and apologetics ministries to summer camps and entire denominations. But remember this: While the institutions of Christendom are meant to serve the kingdom of God, they are not the kingdom of God. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor. 15:50). The kingdom of God is an inbreaking of heaven, an inversion of the normal order of things in which the first becomes last and the last becomes first, the lost are found and the wounded healed, the reign of Love and Truth itself.

The truth may harm Christendom, but it will never harm the kingdom. It is not the kingdom of God when a child is abused. It is not the kingdom of God when religious leaders denounce and dehumanize that child when she becomes an adult and tells the truth. It is the kingdom of God when we protect our children—“for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 19:14). It is the kingdom of God when we bind up the broken, as the Samaritan did for the sufferer on the road. It is the kingdom of God when we defend the truth even when it requires sacrifice, for any faith that can be shaken by the truth is not faith in Jesus Christ.

The innkeeper receives less attention in the story, but his role is significant. It was recognized as early as Irenaeus and Origen, and repeated by theologians such as Ambrose and Augustine, that the Good Samaritan sounds a lot more like Jesus, and the innkeeper like the church. After all, Jesus is the Great Physician. Jesus alone can heal the wounds these ministers have inflicted. He meets the sufferer, the abused, the humiliated and neglected along the stony path when it seems as though all the world has abandoned them. He alone heals them with oil and wine.

The healer brings the sufferer to the inn, cares for him, and gives the innkeeper two denarii, the equivalent of two days’ wages. Care for him until I return, he says, and if the cost is greater, then I shall make you whole. The innkeeper, then, in the words of Bruce Longenecker, is “vulnerable to loss.” The innkeeper takes the risk. He picks up the work the healer began. He provides shelter, safety, and a home. He listens to the sufferer’s story. He cares for him as he heals. He wishes to love the sufferer whom the healer loves.

We often flatter ourselves that we are the Good Samaritans. We are not good at all. Not yet. Not today. But we might be the innkeeper. We might be inspired by the actions of a healer who is good beyond measure to care for his ailing ones until he returns.

It’s worth remembering why Jesus told the parable in the first place. An “expert in the law” asks him what a person must do to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25). Jesus returns the question, and the expert suggests you should love God fully and love your neighbor as yourself. But then the neighbor asks, “And who is my neighbor?” (v. 29).

He wishes—as experts in the law often do—to define the boundaries of religious responsibility. Instead of asking how far his love can extend, he asks how far it must. It is easy to hear the echoes of this question in our own time. Must I love them—the abused, the raped, the scorned—or can I find some way to absolve myself of responsibility? How can I set limits on the love God requires of me? The expert in the law asks who deserves to be his neighbor. Jesus answers a different question: How can I become a neighbor to others?

Perhaps this is the lesson we should learn from the parable as we reflect on the disease of abuse within the church. Sometimes wickedness comes with a leering grin. Sometimes it comes in the guise of a villain, a robber who preys upon the vulnerable. Just as often, however, if not more often, wickedness comes clothed as righteousness. With a bit lip, a furrowed brow, and endless protestations of concern. Wickedness comes in the form of the priest and the Levite on the road to Jericho. It comes in the form of those who hear the cry of the abused and abandoned and choose to keep on walking.

Righteousness, on the other hand, comes from unexpected places. It is rarely the province of the high and mighty. Goodness is Christ on the lonely road, and perhaps it is simply our honor, the least we can do, to love the hurting ones he brings our way. We do not need to ask whether the sufferer is worthy of us. We need to ask how we can be worthy of them.

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

How Do You Translate ‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’?

Pentecost let everyone hear the gospel in their first language. Bible translators work to give others that intimate experience too.

Christianity Today June 3, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons

Pentecost reveals a God who understands that language is more than communication.

Just days after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Holy Spirit arrives, and with him, the apostles’ ability to speak in other languages. Diasporic visitors from as far away as today’s Iraq, Libya, and Italy suddenly can hear the gospel in their mother tongues. Hearing about Jesus in this intimate way surprises and amazes the listeners in Jerusalem and viscerally reinforces the personal nature of Jesus’ mission. (The fact that these visitors likely understood Jerusalem’s prevailing languages of Greek or Aramaic further underscores this.)

Yet the church was slow to adopt this message of Pentecost when it came to translating Scripture. Yes, they translated the Bible, but predominantly into Latin, Koine Greek, Ge'ez, Coptic, or Church Slavonic—languages that, over time, became the domain of just a few.

This first changed during the Reformation, and then again with the advent of Bible societies in the 19th century and with translation organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators in the 20th century. Today, more than 3,500 languages have at least a portion of the Bible translated into their language (a huge jump from about 2,000 languages just 20 years ago!).

The explosion of modern Bible translations amplifies the ongoing story of Pentecost, a grace that becomes most apparent when we’re able to unearth the riches of these translations and share their treasures beyond their original target audiences.

A couple of those gems can be found in Acts 2:4, the verse that reports on the lifting of that language barrier: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they began to speak in other languages which the Holy Spirit made them able to speak” (NLV).

Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost?

Since 1885, the year of the first major revision of the King James Version, all major English Bible translations have used the term “Holy Spirit,” and yet the older “Holy Ghost” has maintained its enormous staying power. Practical reasons include the continued use of the original King James Version (KJV) and the use of “Holy Ghost” in nonbiblical texts, including “The Doxology.” But it also reveals the stubbornness of language—and language speakers. Of course, there is nothing wrong with “Holy Ghost” as a term—which brings us to a second insight. English has built its vocabulary by rather unashamedly borrowing from many languages, creating sometimes fascinating constellations of synonyms. Ghost comes from the Old English gāst, which originally meant “breath” or “good or bad spirit,” and spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which means “breath” or “supernatural immaterial creature.”

So why did the 19th-century revisers of the KJV change “ghost” to “spirit” when they used to mean essentially the same thing? In the revisers’ opinion, “ghost” had transitioned to refer too strongly to the spirit of a dead person—perhaps in response to the popularity of Victorian mediums and seances—thus running the risk of implying that the Holy Spirit was the haunting ghost of a deceased god.

If language changes over time and you have a treasure chest like English, why not adjust? Other languages with more limited vocabularies didn’t have that same freedom, so German, Dutch, and Afrikaans, for instance, still use a form of ghost today (Geist, Geest, and Gees, respectively).

Holy Spirit: he, she, or …?

Many languages use grammatical genders that should not be confused with biological genders, especially because the genders for identical terms can vary so much from one language to another (like the word sun, which has the grammatically feminine gender in German and the male in Spanish, and the word moon, which is the opposite in the respective languages).

But if the biological gender is inherently necessary for a noun (man, woman, bull), in most cases it matches the grammatical gender. This becomes complicated with Spirit, however, where the original languages use the neuter term Pneûma in Greek and the feminine word ruach in Hebrew.

Before A.D. 400, Classical Syriac (also known as Syrian Aramaic), a language related to Hebrew, used a term—Ruhä—that required a feminine grammatical gender. Around 400, however, a change started to emerge. When referring to the Holy Spirit, Spirit was now construed as masculine, even though it was contrary to the rules of the language (wind or lower-cased spirit continued to require a feminine gender). In this case, the language speakers seemed to have complied with the grammatical violation.

Other language speakers were not as compliant. In Asháninka, for example, a language spoken in Brazil and Peru, the term for spirit began as feminine and was artificially changed to masculine for the Holy Spirit. Asháninka speakers simply refused to accept the change in practice, however, and the Bible translators were eventually forced to change it back to its true grammatical gender. Upon further research, though, the translation team failed to detect any perceptible difference in the speakers’ understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit.

For some languages, the classification of nouns goes beyond gender. In Bantu languages—a very large language family spoken in Central and South Africa—nouns belong to between 15 and 18 different classes. In Swahili, the word Roho for “Spirit” should have been in the noun class for loan words (traveling to Swahili via Arabic), but early translators felt it was too risky to have Spirit be misunderstood as an inanimate object. So although it was grammatically incorrect, they placed Roho in the first class of nouns specifically reserved for people—and Swahili speakers accepted it.

In the case of Lamba, another Bantu language, the translators did not want to take any such liberties. Umupasi Uswetelele, Lamba’s term for “Holy Spirit,” belonged linguistically to the noun class also used for trees and plants, making it a non-person, grammatically speaking. And that's where it remains today. But its meaning is apparently unambiguous because, according to linguist C. M. Doke, “numerous references in the Scriptures … establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinity.”

A recent example of the intersection between language and theology is in a language with a long tradition in Bible translation. Swedish used to have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), but modern Swedish uses only two genders (common [utrum] and neuter). Until the Bibel 2000, “Holy Spirit” was translated as helige Ande, which is masculine. With the merging of the masculine and feminine genders into the common gender, it is now translated as the common-gendered heliga ande, matching the more widely used gender-equal-language practice in Sweden.

So what’s the bottom line with Holy Spirit and gender? Certainly, the Holy Spirit transcends our distinctions of male, female, or whatever other kind of classification a language might offer.

Translating ‘Holy Spirit’ in traditionally non-Christian cultures

The late Eugene Nida—a towering figure in the history of Bible translation and linguistics who was highly respected in secular academia—said in regard to languages without any Christian tradition, “Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit.” Although this quote dates back to 1961, the difficulties in finding the right term continue in the ongoing encounter between Christianity and new cultures.

Myriad stories exist where these translation struggles and successes are the direct result of initial failures. One such was the translation of Holy Spirit into Ditammari of Togo as “pure air”—a term Christian translators used to delineate from “impure air,” which in traditional beliefs referred to unclean spirits. Early Bible readers misunderstood this as the air that we breathe, so translators eventually changed it to “air of God.”

Another wonderful translation is Biyax Utux Baraw or “Power of God” in Seediq (spoken in Taiwan). I especially like the translation choice made in Western Highland Chatino (spoken in the Mexican state of Oaxaca). Here, Holy Spirit is rendered as Tyi'i Ndiose or “God’s perfect heart,” a description that touches my heart (imperfect as it may be).

When examining linguistic choices like this, it’s important to keep in mind that they were not made by the translation team because they had the most exotic and exciting ring to them. Rather, their research showed that other word choices, even those that seemed to be more immediate matches, had connotations that would be confusing at best or misleading at worst.

‘Filled’ with the Holy Spirit

The first sentence of Acts 2:4 includes these words in most English translations: “filled with the Holy Spirit.” I have spoken to fellow Christians who confided in me that they don't really know what this means. Yes, they believe in God the Father. They believe that he sent Jesus, his Son, to die on the cross for our sins, and that by believing in him they can have everlasting life.

But the Holy Spirit? They believe in him as far as Scripture testifies about him, but they haven’t experienced the Spirit’s presence in their lives. They’re not even talking about ecstatic experiences—simply the assurance that the Holy Spirit lives within them, or that they are “filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Words are keys to defining our world. Especially with something as intangible and yet experiential as “being filled with the Spirit,” it might be of tremendous help to those who are not sensing the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives to use a different metaphor. While all languages are completely capable, they describe perceptions of reality in slightly different ways.

And what may seem to be a limitation may open unique opportunities. For example, as Nida attests in the 1972 Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles: “In many languages people are not regarded as ‘empty,’ [and can therefore not] be filled.”

Bible translations in languages with this “limitation” have discovered a treasure trove of alternative descriptions for the Spirit’s activity in human beings (as you can see here)— including “the Spirit filling one’s heart” (Yamba, spoken in Cameroon) or “the Spirit filling one’s head and heart” (Isthmus Mixe), “the Holy Spirit coming to be completely with one” (Rincón Zapotec, which with Isthmus Mixe are spoken in Oaxaca, Mexico), and “walking with the Holy Spirit” (Eastern Highland Otomi, spoken in central Mexico).

My favorites come from two unrelated languages in Peru. The Shipibo-Conibo translators chose “the Holy Spirit permeates one” (as medicine), and the Yanesha ’ translators employed “wear the Holy Spirit,” because for them “filling” didn’t make sense. “Wearing” fit better in their traditional belief system.

What should our response be to alternate translations like these? We can either examine them as linguistic curiosities, or we can allow them to probe our own imperfect hearts—to see whether they can help us grow. We may recognize that we might very well “wear” the Holy Spirit, that we might “walk” with the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit “comes to be completely with us,” that the Spirit “permeates” us as much as a medicine that dissolves in our bloodstream and enters every nook and cranny of our body.

God’s cup of grace overflows in his continuation of the Pentecost miracle through Bible translations in thousands of languages. And when reverse-translated into English, these versions have the power to open our eyes and astonish us, much like those first listeners in Jerusalem.

Jost Zetzsche is a professional translator who lives on the Oregon coast. Since 2016 he has been curating United Bible Society’s Translation Insights and Perspectives (TIPs) tool. His latest book is Encountering Bare-Bones Christianity.

News

Rick Warren Reveals Successor, Retirement Date as Saddleback Church Pastor

Echo Church’s Andy Wood will take over for the well-known pastor and author on September 12.

Stacie Wood (from left), Rick Warren, Andy Wood, and Kay Warren.

Stacie Wood (from left), Rick Warren, Andy Wood, and Kay Warren.

Christianity Today June 2, 2022
Courtesy of A. Larry Ross

After more than four decades, the pastor of one of the largest and most influential churches in the United States is ready to step down.

And he has named a young couple to take his place.

“This afternoon, at our all-staff meeting held at the Lake Forest campus, I was finally able to publicly announce that we have found God’s couple to lead our congregation, and that they have agreed to come!” Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren told his Orange County, California, congregation in an email on Thursday.

Today’s email included a link to a video featuring Warren and his wife, Kay, along with Andy and Stacie Wood of Echo Church in San Jose, California. Andy Wood, 40, is currently Echo’s lead pastor, while Stacie Wood is a teaching pastor. They will have the same roles at Saddleback.

Founded in 2008 as South Bay Church, Echo now has four campuses and draws about 3,000 people to weekly services. Like Saddleback, Echo has ties to the Southern Baptist Convention, though neither church uses the word Baptist in its name. A graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Andy Wood has also worked with church planters through the SBC’s North American Mission Board.

“Kay and I believe so much in this couple,” Warren said in a statement announcing the transition. “We love them so much, and we are confident that God has prepared and chosen them to take up the baton and run the next leg of the Saddleback marathon.”

The search for a new pastor began last summer, in part because of ongoing health problems for Warren. He told the church last year that he has spinal myoclonus, which causes tremors and blurred vision, and that it has worsened in recent years.

Pastor Andy Wood of Echo Church has been chosen as Rick Warren's successor at Saddleback.
Pastor Andy Wood of Echo Church has been chosen as Rick Warren’s successor at Saddleback.

Saddleback leaders spoke with about 100 potential candidates before settling on Wood, who preached at the church earlier this year.

Wood plans to step down as pastor of Echo Church at the end of June and will move to Orange County to begin the transition. The first step will be a conversation between the Warrens and the Woods over Father’s Day weekend. In August, the couple will begin attending Saddleback.

The church will celebrate Warren’s ministry during the first few weekends in September. Wood’s first official day as pastor will be September 12.

“For decades, we have admired and respected Pastor Rick and Kay Warren and their work through the Purpose Driven Church model has been critical,” Wood said in a statement. ”We’ve been so blessed by their friendship, and after months of prayer and seeking counsel from others, we believe that God has called us together to step into serving at Saddleback Church.”

In the email to the Saddleback congregation, Warren said he and Kay were filled with love and gratitude for the church and quoted a New Testament verse about fighting the good fight and finishing the race.

“Now it is time for us to pass the torch on to a new generation who will love, lead, and pastor our church family in the decades ahead,” he wrote.

In May 2021, Saddleback made headlines after ordaining three female staffers as pastors—a controversial step for Southern Baptists. The SBC’s statement of faith limits the office of pastor “to men as qualified by Scripture.” But Southern Baptists disagree over whether that applies only to the church’s senior pastor or whether it bars any women from having the title of pastor. They also disagree over whether women can preach in a Sunday service.

At the SBC’s annual meeting, Saddleback was reported to the Credentials Committee, which is charged with deciding whether or not a church is in “friendly cooperation” with the denomination. Though some churches have left the SBC after naming women as pastor, the denomination has never officially removed any church for having a female pastor.

Filling Warren’s shoes will be a challenging task, as the current Saddleback pastor has long been one of the most influential Christian leaders in the country, shaping everything from how pastors dress to how they organize and start new churches.

Scott Thumma, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford International University, said megachurch transitions are often a challenge. The higher a megachurch pastor’s profile, the more difficult it is to replace that person.

While megachurches can continue after a founding pastor leaves, it’s not an easy transition.

“It will not be the same place without Warren,” Thumma said.

Wood’s success, Thumma said, will depend in part on whether Warren can let go of the church and allow a new pastor to take over and chart his own course. But Thumma observed that Warren has taken steps in the past to allow others to lead at Saddleback. He does not preach every Sunday and has been what Thumma called “a thoughtful leader.”

Thumma said the Warrens have been a positive model of what pastors can be during what is a difficult time for church leaders. They’ve avoided scandal and have been honest about their struggles. For the most part, they’ve avoided the culture wars and partisan feuds that have caused many to lose faith in religious leaders.

Pastor Rick Warren preaches at Saddleback Church in California.
Pastor Rick Warren preaches at Saddleback Church in California.

Warren’s retirement will mark the end of a remarkable career in ministry.

After graduating from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in December 1979, Warren and his wife, along with a 4-month-old baby, packed up their belongings and moved to the Saddleback Valley in Orange County, California, then one of the fastest-growing communities in the United States.

In his 1995 book, “The Purpose Driven Church,” Warren described poring over demographic and census data in the summer of 1979, searching out the right place to start a new church—stopping only to call his wife a few times a day to see if she had gone into labor.

One day, Warren said, he had a revelation after seeing the data on Saddleback Valley, saying God spoke to him and told him to plant a church there.

“It didn’t matter that I had no money, no members, and had never even seen the place,” he wrote. “From that moment on, our destination was a settled issue. God had shown me where he was going to make some waves, and I was going to have the ride of a lifetime.”

The church launched on Easter Sunday 1980, with a crowd of about 200 people in a rented space at the Laguna Hills High School in Orange County, and never looked back.

By 1992, the church had grown to 6,000 and bought a 74-acre site the church still calls home. The church is now one of the largest congregations in the country, drawing more than 23,000 worshipers meeting in more than a dozen locations.

The church, though Southern Baptist, downplayed culture war battles and eschewed traditional church culture for a more casual, come-as-you-are approach to worship—one newcomers could easily embrace. In the early days, Warren was known for preaching in a Hawaiian shirt—prompting a new fashion trend among pastors.

Saddleback also was the birthplace of Celebrate Recovery, a Christian 12-step inspired program to help people deal with their “hurts, hang-ups and habits.” The program has been adopted by tens of thousands of churches around the country.

Warren became a household name in 2002 with the publication of The Purpose Driven Life, a runaway bestseller. The success of the book allowed him to “reverse tithe” by giving away most of his income. In the mid-2000s, prompted in large part by Kay, Warren and the church became active in responding to the global AIDS pandemic and to addressing poverty overseas, in particular in war-torn Rwanda. He later also wrote a popular diet book called The Daniel Plan, prompted by his own weight loss.

Though conservative, Warren has avoided some of the partisanship associated with evangelical pastors. In 2008, he hosted a presidential candidate forum with Barack Obama and John McCain, then rivals for the presidency, and later gave the invocation at Obama’s first inauguration.

In 2013, Warren’s youngest son, Matthew, died at 27 after years of struggle with mental illness. The family shared openly about their loss and, in the years after Matthew’s death, have become advocates for addressing mental health and ministering to those affected by suicide.

From his early days of starting Saddleback, Warren hoped to spend his entire ministry at the church. One of his heroes as a young pastor was W. A. Criswell, who spent five decades as pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, and Warren hoped to emulate Criswell’s tenure.

“It was my promise to God and to you, God’s people,” Warren said last summer. “It was my way of saying: ‘You don’t need to worry about me leaving when times get tough for you. I’m here for the duration. I’m going to give my life to this church. I’m going to stick with you,’ and I kept the promise.”

Theology

Why We Shouldn’t ‘Move On’ From Horror

Growing numb to tragedy is a natural instinct—and one we should resist as Christians.

Christianity Today June 2, 2022
Brandon Bell / Staff / Getty

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

Even after several years of unpredicted chaos and suffering, the last three weeks have hit hard.

A white nationalist terrorist gunned down nearly a dozen Black shoppers in a Buffalo supermarket. Another shooter attacked a Taiwanese congregation during a Sunday luncheon. And then another brutally murdered 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas.

After each of these horrors, people often ask, “How long until something is done?” And yet, the sad truth in light of all these atrocities is the declining attention span of the American people.

Axios points to research on the sustained attention of the public—showing that horrors like the Sandy Hook shooting or the Parkland school shooting do not rally the nation’s attention beyond a matter of days. Some might suggest that the country is numb to such tragedies since they happen with such frequency compared to the rest of the world.

But Axios argues that what we are seeing is a people not necessarily numb to horror but overwhelmed by it. The sheer weight of all these incidents can lead to a shutdown in many people, in which they simply give up trying to comprehend it all and move on to something else.

In some ways, the country’s response is similar to how individuals sometimes respond to trauma in their own lives. One reason the book The Body Keeps the Score sells so many copies is because it explains a reality that many people experience. Even after we try to forget an awful event—or numb ourselves with alcohol or drugs or career advancement or something else—our response often shows up in other physical or neurological ways. The mind may forget, the argument goes, but the body remembers.

Sustained attention is so difficult with trauma and tragedy because we don’t want to think about such darkness. There’s a reason why most people turn their heads away when they see a mangled body in a car accident along the highway. We would rather pretend that such horrors don’t, or can’t, happen. And we do this not just with the terrors in the world but with our own personal apocalypse—our impending death.

Blaise Pascal argued that we all know we are going to die, so we try everything we can to distract ourselves from that reality. This conclusion, of course, was anticipated by the writer of Ecclesiastes—who admitted his own search for fulfillment through work, wealth, pleasure, and wisdom, only to find these to be nothing more than vain pursuits.

The writer of Hebrews further revealed that this submerged fear of death is precisely the power that the devil has over us (Heb. 2:14–15). To keep from acknowledging that we are perishable flesh, we pursue fleshly desires with abandon—in a way that just leads to more death (Rom. 8:5–13).

The root of our focus on triviality, pleasure, and diversion is not so much hedonism as it is fear (Rom. 8:15). We are afraid of death, so we look for idols to protect us from that—or at least to numb us to its reality (Gal. 4:8–9).

Our tendency to become overwhelmed in the aftermath of so many horrors is heightened by our sense of powerlessness. Even when we identify actions that could curb the problem, we know that almost nothing is accomplished in a civic and political system as broken as ours. And so, many of us simply “move on.”

This principle has a personal parallel too. How many of us have descended into patterns and habits we know to be wrong and self-destructive because we have given up on pursuing virtue and health? Once a person concludes that he or she is a “lost cause,” with no hope for change, the path ahead is bleak.

Yet a response of overwhelmed numbness can lead to more people getting hurt. Jesus continually confronts us about the ways that we want to look away from the hurting, whistle past injustice, and make the suffering invisible. The sores of Lazarus were no doubt unsettling to the rich man who passed by him each day at his gate (Luke 16:20).

It was easier for the leaders to accuse the blind man of bearing punishment for his own sin than to acknowledge that blindness can happen (John 9). In fact, these leaders were so callous to the blind man’s plight that the problem, for them, became not his suffering but his healing.

We are indeed overwhelmed by much darkness, all around us and inside us. Sometimes we will disagree on the exact steps to take to address the problems. And there will always be powerful forces around who don’t want us to address them at all. So, we just “move on” until the next horror—after which we will move on again.

As the people of Jesus, we dare not fall prey to that tendency. Jesus, after all, is the one who never turned away from even the most terrifying realities—leprosy, bleeding, and suffering of all sorts. One of the most remarkable things about Jesus is not just that he healed those who bore great difficulty but that he saw them in the first place. He sees us.

Jesus moves on, but not without carrying a wounded sheep on his back. We should go and do likewise.

Russell Moore leads the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today.

News

SBC Task Force Asks for ‘Ministry Check’ Website, Other Reforms to Stop Sexual Abuse

Churches and state conventions would not be required to use resources.

Southern Baptists pray in Nashville at the 2021 annual meeting.

Southern Baptists pray in Nashville at the 2021 annual meeting.

Christianity Today June 2, 2022
Mark Humphrey / AP Images

A Southern Baptist task force has asked the denomination to set up a “Ministry Check” website to track abusive pastors, church employees and volunteers, and to spend millions on reforms to prevent abuse. Most of the suggested reforms are voluntary and some could involve years of study and preparation, prompting a skeptical response from some abuse survivors and advocates.

Other suggested reforms, released on Wednesday, include hiring a national staff person who would receive reports of abuse and forward them to church leaders for a response; increasing training for churches; doing background checks on the trustees who oversee Southern Baptist entities; and encouraging state conventions to consider hiring staff to respond to abuse allegations.

The requests are part of a series of recommendations from the Southern Baptist Convention’s sexual abuse task force, which oversaw a recent investigation into how leaders in the 13.7 million-member convention have responded to abuse.

That investigation found that leaders of the SBC’s Executive Committee had shown callous disregard for abuse survivors—often demonizing or ignoring them—while working at all costs to protect the denomination from liability.

In response to the report, the task force has proposed two sets of recommendations.

The first set of requests—made to the Executive Committee, state conventions and other Baptist entities—are voluntary. That may make them ineffective, said Christa Brown, an abuse survivor and longtime activist, who called the task force’s recommendations disappointing.

“I don’t give much credence to suggestions and requests because they are toothless,” she said.

The task force will also ask local church representatives, known as messengers, to approve an abuse reform implementation task force during the SBC’s annual meeting in June. That task force would study abuse reforms recommended by Guidepost Solutions, the firm that ran the abuse investigation, and then report back in 2023. Among the Guidepost suggestions is creating a fund to care for survivors.

“They are kicking the can down the road,” said Brown. “I am gutted.”

If approved, the task force would serve for three years and would act “as a resource in abuse prevention, crisis response, and survivor care to Baptist bodies who voluntarily seek assistance.”

The task force would also work with the SBC’s Executive Committee and Credentials Committee, which has the power to kick churches that mishandle abuse out of the SBC.

Indiana pastor Todd Benkert, who played a key role in getting the abuse investigation approved during the 2021 SBC annual meeting, supports the recommendations, calling them a good first step toward addressing abuse.

He said it was important for messengers to approve the recommendations at this year’s meeting. Benkert said the success of those recommendations may be determined by the outcome of the SBC presidential race. Implementing any reform will take time and intentionality, he said.

“It won’t make any difference to vote for a new task force if we don’t also vote for a president that is willing to appoint people that support reform,” he said.

The current task force will report to the SBC annual meeting and then its mandate will expire. A new task force, if approved, would be appointed by whoever wins the 2022 presidential race.

“Over the course of the EC investigation, it has become clear to the Sexual Abuse Task Force that the process of implementing meaningful change in the Southern Baptist Convention in the area of sex abuse is beyond the scope of this current Task Force,” the report said.

The task force will also ask messengers to approve the Ministry Check website and a $3 million change to the SBC budget to pay for reforms.

Churches and other SBC ministries would report names of those who have been “convicted or had a civil judgment against them for sexual abuse” for inclusion on the website. Those ministries and churches could also submit names of those who have been “credibly accused” after an independent investigation.

If those Baptist groups are unwilling or unable to hire an independent investigator—and if state conventions or local associations cannot help—then abuse allegations could be forwarded to the staff coordinator for the website and an investigation could be paid for out of national SBC funds.

“The website will be established and maintained through an independent firm, selected by the Credentials Committee in consultation with the ARITF, and funded by the sexual abuse allocation request,” according to the recommendations.

The recommendations cite a 2004 study that found a high rate of recidivism among sex offenders.

“One of the problems in our churches is the ability of abusers to move from one church to another to perpetuate their abuse,” the task force said in its recommendations. “This often happens because churches don’t have the means to communicate with one another.”

One of the first responses to the recommendations came from Tom Ascol, a Florida pastor and leading candidate for SBC president. Ascol has been critical of the task force, claiming in a candidate forum that it had become “politicized” and saying local churches should handle any misconduct by SBC leaders.

“I am reading through the SATF recommendations for #SBC22 & looking for any Scripture reference & can’t find one, not even in the rationales,” he said on Twitter. “Did I simply overlook them?”

Tom Buck, a Texas pastor and Ascol supporter, said on social media that some of the task force recommendations are unbiblical.

Phillip Bethancourt, pastor of Central Church in College Station, Texas, and a former executive vice president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted his support for the recommendations.

“These are common sense first steps we should take in Anaheim,” he said.

https://twitter.com/pbethancourt/status/1532036632190279680

Robin Hadaway, another candidate for SBC president, said the recommendations “seem reasonable and wise.”

“I felt like the recommendations that they just announced are wise and are something that should be positively considered by the messengers,” he said of the delegates who will attend the upcoming annual meeting.

In a video posted on social media, Texas pastor Bart Barber, another presidential candidate, said it was important to follow the direction set during last year’s annual meeting and reaffirmed his support for the task force and investigation.

He said that the proposed task force was crucial in responding to abuse, saying it would help determine whether the SBC becomes “healthier or not in responding to and preventing sex abuse in Southern Baptist churches.”

In 2007, SBC messengers asked the SBC’s Executive Committee to look into the possibility of setting up a database of abusers. Even though the SBC’s lawyers said it was possible, according to the Guidepost report, Executive Committee staff opposed the idea.

The idea was eventually rejected by the Executive Committee in 2008, but staffers there kept a secret list of hundreds of abusers for years.

The SBC Executive Committee plans to meet this week.

Adelle Banks contributed to this report.

How CT is Helping Christians Around the World Tell Their Stories

The Globe Issue, CT’s newest endeavor, immerses readers in the stories of how God’s people are shaping their communities worldwide.

How CT is Helping Christians Around the World Tell Their Stories

When Timothy Dalrymple, Christianity Today’s president and CEO, joined the ministry three years ago, he shared a vision of how he believes CT is called to be a storyteller of the global church. That vision sparked the idea for The Globe Issue.

To tell the stories of the global church is a major undertaking. Finding and sharing stories from Christians around the world has taken nearly a year. By engaging with organizations like World Vision, International Justice Mission, and OMF International, inquiring about the stories they were hearing on the ground, Conor Sweetman, creative lead for special projects, was able to connect with international seminaries, local ministries, and individual followers of Jesus all around the world. Once connected, Conor set up a way for people to send in personal essays that told stories of what it means to be a Christian in their specific corner of the globe.

From the beginning, the goal of The Globe Issue has been different than that of CT magazine. While Christianity Today focuses on informing its readers, The Globe Issue offers readers an expanded spiritual and emotional lens and a capacious, captivating vision of how men and women are following the call of Christ all around the planet.

The look and feel of The Globe Issue will be different from CT magazine as well. The deluxe hardcover edition will be a linen-bound, gold-embossed coffee table book that is available for preorder now and will ship in September 2022. The digital component of The Globe Issue includes expanded visual elements like striking photographs from around the world, audio components in the stories, interactive illustrations, and more.

“All of the new elements aim toward immersive and new platforms and ways of storytelling,” Conor said. “We take telling these stories seriously, and all the technological aspects aid that.”

Conor went on to explain how one of the goals with The Globe Issue was to try new and exciting ways to convey narrative. With his work on Ekstasis over the years, Conor brought a focus to The Globe Issue that elevates a poetic and artistic storytelling experience.

The Globe Issue also includes two types of story formats: contemplations and chronicles.

Contemplations are stories told through the eyes of the person writing them. These come from personal experiences and reflect on the inward journey of faith. Chronicles are written by a third party, offering a broader contextual look at stories unfolding in the communities around them.

After spreading the word about the project over the course of three months, Conor received more than 100 story submissions from more than 30 countries. From that point, it was a meticulous editorial process to figure out what would eventually make it into The Globe Issue.

In the end, the editorial team included 20 stories from 18 different countries around the world. Conor explains,

My hope for The Globe Issue is that it will share stories across the world, where the work of missionaries, organizations, and individuals is seen in their small examples of the grandeur of God, where they are the opposite of trite or cliché. They are beautiful. We should train ourselves to be drawn to them. We can easily dumb things down and make them into sound bites, but God is working dramatically across the world, and he is so much bigger than what we see around us.

The work of The Globe Issue will expand the work CT is doing around the world. It tells the stories of the global church through voices based around the world, even as CT grows a global presence through hiring globally focused staff, such as a new a global storytelling journalist and a CT Asia editor to expand its global reporting footprint. CT also continues to grow its translation efforts.

You can experience The Globe Issue for yourself by visiting Globe.ChristianityToday.com, where you can view the articles online or download a digital copy, or by preordering the deluxe hardcover edition.

We hope you enjoy this dazzling glimpse of the depth and breadth of the kingdom of God all around the planet.

Caitlin Edwards is marketing and sales manager at Christianity Today.

News

Australia Had a Pentecostal Prime Minister. Did It Matter?

As Scott Morrison steps down, evangelicals assess the way he brought religion into politics.

Scott Morrison, center, attends a worship service at an Anglican cathedral in Sydney.

Scott Morrison, center, attends a worship service at an Anglican cathedral in Sydney.

Christianity Today June 1, 2022
Bianca De Marchi/NCA Newswire - Pool/Getty Images

Scott Morrison went to church. And he invited the journalists along too.

One month before Australia’s federal election in 2019, the prime minister traveled to Horizon Church, a Pentecostal congregation in New South Wales. He closed his eyes, raised his hands, and let the cameras click away.

The images drew a sharp reaction from a public uncomfortable with charismatic worship—and from Christians who saw it as a publicity stunt.

But then Morrison won. His Liberal-National Coalition (LNC)—a center-right party—overcame the predictions of pollsters and secured 77 seats.

“I have always believed in miracles,” he said. “And tonight we've been delivered another one.”

Three years later, Morrison returned to the same church. Again the journalists followed. But this time the election didn’t go his way. The LNC lost to the Labor Party on May 21, and the next day Morrison stood up at Horizon Church and read a few passages from the Bible.

“At the last election, we really understood it was for such a time as this,” he said in an emotional three-minute talk. “And now we understand it was for such a time as that.”

As Morrison leaves office, evangelicals are assessing the way his faith interacted with his politics: how that was covered by the media, how it was viewed by the public, and how they would want Christians to act, as Christians, in the public sphere.

“Morrison’s faith has become a story because he is prominently and publicly Christian, as opposed to many past Christian prime ministers whose faith has been a more private affair,” said Chris Mulherin, an Anglican priest and the executive director of ISCAST (formally, the Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology), a group working to strengthen the relationship between faith and science. “Morrison has used his faith believing (rightly, I think) that sincere faith—even Pentecostal faith where he is photographed with hands in the air and eyes closed—is not only attractive to Christians but also to a silent almost-majority who respect religious belief.”

About 60 percent of Australians identify as Christians, according to the 2016 census, but only about 15 percent are connected to a church. In practice, the country’s public spaces are essentially secular, and religious politicians are expected to keep their faith private. It’s uncommon for leaders to even gesture at a generic Christian culture and tradition.

“Nobody in Australia ends speeches by saying ‘God bless Australia,’” said Michael Bird, the academic dean at Ridley College in Melbourne.

Morrison’s public expressions of faith were, for that reason, quite jarring. The national spotlight found him as he spoke about the laying on of hands; receiving a vision from God telling him to run for office; and working behind the scenes to get Hillsong founder Brian Houston an invitation to meet with US President Donald Trump at the White House.

Previous prime ministers, including Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull, all described themselves as Christians, but some people saw Morrison’s faith as sort of off-putting—or at least questionable.

“He doesn’t keep it purely private, but neither does he wear it on his sleeve,” Bird said. “It comes out from time to time.”

The political value of Morrison’s faith was never exactly clear. If the public exposure of his Pentecostalism was a strategy to garner support, the math didn’t seem to add up. No Australian political party has won the majority of churchgoing voters in the last decade. Though one 2016 survey found that 40 percent of churchgoers supported the LNC, that works out to about 6 of every 10,000 voters. Not exactly an election-winning bloc.

And for most Australian evangelicals, that hasn’t been a goal.

“Australian evangelicals don’t have the numbers to take over a political party,” said John Sandeman, who founded the Australian Christian publication Eternity. “Our desire to impact society is not as politically directed as in the US.”

Instead, Aussie evangelical engagement in politics is shaped by a culture that doesn’t put much faith in politicians, according to Mark Sayers, the senior leader of vision and teaching at Red Church in Victoria.

Mandatory voting laws mean almost everyone goes to the polls on election day, but they rarely feel a strong emotional connection with the person they’re voting for. Australia uses ranked-choice voting in national elections, so voters aren’t even asked to give 100 percent of their support to one person but to just state the order of their preference.

“We are very cynical about politics and deeply suspicious of leadership,” Sayers said. “We are also deeply egalitarian, and due to the ‘tall poppy syndrome,’ we have no time for leaders who lose touch with ordinary people. Australians will punish at the polls a leader regardless of their politics who forgets from where they have come or who is not authentic.”

Some evangelicals also may have not resonated with Morrison’s public expressions of faith because of cultural distinctions between evangelicals and Pentecostals in Australia. Historically, evangelicals in the country have not started new denominations or created a strong, independent subculture. They worshiped in the three quasi-official Protestant churches—Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian—or joined one of the smaller Baptist, Churches of Christ, or Seventh-day Adventist churches. Most were culturally moderate, if not mainstream.

Pentecostals, on the other hand, have stood apart. And since the 1980s, these churches and networks of churches have grown rapidly—without ever establishing deep connections with other evangelicals.

“Pentecostalism is the new kid on the block,” said Meredith Lake, author of The Bible in Australia: A Cultural History, “and can appear a bit mystifying.”

But the sharpest criticisms from Christians who disliked the way that Morrison mixed his faith and politics weren’t directed at his charismatic sensibilities. Nor were they focused on his public displays of piety. Christians were frustrated, instead, when they couldn’t see that the prime minister’s being a believer made any difference.

“His own stated position is that ‘the Bible is not a policy handbook,’” Lake said. “My question is, Are his government’s policies any different because Morrison is the leader of his party, rather than another, non-Pentecostal member of the cabinet? Do we see evidence of Morrison’s Pentecostal faith causing a departure from the imperatives of neoliberalism?”

Last fall, a diverse group of Christians asked Morrison to open the country to more refugees from Afghanistan. They appealed to their shared faith, but it didn’t get the results they hoped for.

Tim Costello, executive director of Micah Australia, an international Christian social justice organization, found it frustrating and confusing.

“Scott Morrison in his maiden speech to Parliament in 2008 spoke effusively about his personal faith in Jesus. … He spoke of his debt to pastor Brian Houston. He spoke of his heroes like Bono, Tutu, and Wilberforce and that he wanted to make poverty history and lift Australian Aid,” Costello said. “Then he presided in government overseeing the deepest cuts to Australian Aid, leaving it at its lowest level in our history.”

Evangelicals concerned about climate change had a similar experience. Appealing to their shared faith with the prime minister didn’t seem to help their cause. Common Grace, an evangelical social justice advocacy group, knitted scarves that showed the increase of the average global temperature over the last hundred years, mailed them to their representatives, and asked to meet one on one.

“Many of the conservatives, including Scott Morrison, would not meet with Christians in their local electorate who were gifting them a scarf, and many didn’t even respond when their gifted scarf was mailed to them,” said Brooke Prentis, former CEO of Common Grace. “To know you can’t meet with your local member as a Christian and share what matters to you as a Christian was very disheartening.”

On the other hand, Morrison did at times back issues that evangelicals in Australia cared about, but he couldn’t deliver a victory. Perhaps the most important political fight of Morrison’s career was the fight for a religious freedom bill, which left many evangelicals disappointed.

When Morrison took office in 2018, replacing Turnbull, he was expected to deliver on an LNC promise to pass a religion antidiscrimination bill. The issue had become a concern after Australia legalized same-sex marriage.

“Religious freedom is widely seen as having been a key issue in the 2019 election, which Morrison’s party unexpectedly and decisively won,” said Natasha Moore, a senior research fellow at the Center for Public Christianity.

Despite this mandate, Morrison’s government struggled to turn the religious freedom bill into law. Both Christian conservatives and LGBT advocates greeted the first two drafts of the bill with disdain. The third, introduced last fall, was deemed better by evangelicals but could not command a wide base of support.

“We were portrayed as bigots, haters, etc.,” said David Ould, an Anglican minister in Sydney. “We had been pointing out to the political parties that we’re only asking for what they want for themselves, which is the right to hire people who believe—actually believe—what they stand for. … But it’s been whipped up into hysteria over, you know, gay teenagers and trans teenagers, who apparently we want to just throw out of all the schools.”

Morrison couldn’t maintain control of his own party, and earlier this year five members crossed the aisle to vote with the opposition on an amendment to weaken protections for taxpayer-supported religious schools. Religious groups withdrew their support from the modified bill, and the proposal died. Morrison attempted to revive it in the final month before the 2022 election, as part of the agenda for his next term, but then he went down in defeat.

“The religious discrimination bill failed despite extensive consultation, many rounds of submissions from across the political spectrum, and a strong push from the party in power,” Moore said. “The bill and the whole question became toxic. Little headway was made in convincing the public that this bill was anything other than an attempt to enshrine bigotry.”

In the end, Morrison disappointed the evangelicals who agreed with him on policy, as well as the ones who didn’t. As he leaves office, it’s unclear what future, if any, there will be in Australia for his brand of evangelical politics.

Some evangelicals are asking whether they should reconsider supporting the Labor Party. Others, such as Barney Zwartz, a senior fellow at the Center for Public Christianity, hope Christians can exert influence by being politically independent.

“However counter-intuitive it sounds, Christians should be swinging voters,” he recently wrote in a Melbourne newspaper, “looking at all the parties afresh each time round.”

Morrison, for his part, decided to go back to church and make his last statement as prime minister at Horizon Church. After years of criticism for how he connected faith and politics—whether he should do it at all, do it a different way, or do it more effectively—he pulled up the Bible on his smartphone and read from Micah 7.

“My God will hear me,” he read. “Do not rejoice over me, enemy of mine. Though I fall, I will rise. Though I live in darkness, the Lord is a light for me.”

Church Life

What ‘Pro-Life’ Means in Communist China

The state controls family life. The church still wants to make a difference.

Christianity Today June 1, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: ArtistGNDphotography / Getty

It was nearly noon in Chengdu, and the early June day had begun to heat up. Several Christians from Early Rain Covenant Church stood in front of a gynecological hospital, handing out pamphlets to people walking past.

The Chinese pro-life activists had gathered for Children’s Day (June 1) and were asking women to refrain from getting an abortion that day. Their pastor, Wang Yi, was supposed to join them. But early on that 2013 morning, police officers had blocked him from leaving his house.

From 2012 to 2016, members of the well-known Reformed congregation took to the streets of Sichuan’s capital on Children’s Day to advocate against abortion. Throughout the year, the church organized anti-abortion public lectures. But activists frequently faced government pushback; police often blocked speakers from leaving their homes or broke into the venue to halt events.

By 2016, the crackdowns seemed to have worked; the anti-abortion event publicity disappeared from WeChat. At the end of 2018, Wang was arrested and jailed and the government banned Early Rain from gathering.

But the government had also changed its tune on abortion. After decades of China pushing its one-child policy, the reality of a low birth rate led to policies encouraging families to have two or three children.

Today, the disbanding of Early Rain and the government’s pivot on abortion have led pro-life Chinese Christians to reflect on the best strategies to protect unborn babies and take care of pregnant women. Though disagreements exist over how this congregation and the greater church have organized around fighting abortion, Early Rain’s courage in proclaiming a pro-life message impressed many in the wider Christian community.

“Most Chinese people, including Christians, lack a basic understanding of life and God’s sovereignty over it,” said Ruth Lu, who returned to Shenzhen after finishing her graduate studies overseas. (With the exception of Wang, Christians in China quoted in this piece have been given pseudonyms for their own safety.)

“The voice that upholds life is precious when most people are used to giving up on life so easily,” Lu added. “It is especially precious because public Christian witness like that of the Christians in Chengdu is a rare occurrence.”

‘A wonderful witness to the gospel’

Early Rain made its case for its pro-life values on theological grounds. Every human being’s “life is made by God and belongs to Him,” says an anti-abortion statement written by Wang. Consequently, “no one has the right to murder God’s creation.” A fetus is a human being from conception, it adds; therefore, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” means “thou shall not abort” when it is applied to the issue of abortion.

Chinese Christians widely agreed with Early Rain on these points. While overseas reports often only highlighted Yi’s church, activities such as the distribution of the anti-abortion pamphlet were an interdenominational ministry that many other churches participated in as well, said Xiao Yu, a Chengdu resident who works for a ministry that helps pregnant women and mothers.

“In the reality of China, such ministry is a wonderful witness to the gospel and one of the significant missions God has given to Christians in China,” she said. “Over the years, this ministry has continued, albeit in a small way. It has saved the lives of many fetuses, and some who have had abortions have heard the gospel and even been baptized.”

Early Rain’s pamphlet also included four demands of the municipal government, hospitals, and Chengdu residents:

  1. Abortion advertisements should be banned outdoors, in the media, in schools, and on buses.
  2. Abortions by minors should require the consent of both parents.
  3. Hospitals should inform those seeking abortions of the alternatives to abortion and all the possible dangers of abortion.
  4. No abortions should be performed on Children’s Day.

Some Christians, however, questioned the efficacy of these demands, as well as Early Rain’s activism practices.

“I admire the brothers and sisters of the Early Rain for their actions in difficult circumstances defending the values of their faith, but I do not necessarily agree with the strategy,” said Shaolong Jiang, who pastors a Mandarin congregation in Chicago. “When a young woman who is already thinking about abortion receives an anti-abortion booklet by the road, the conversation about abortion already happens too late.”

In the numerous conversations Jiang has had with women about abortion, he’s often wished the church was more proactive on this issue. He says his time in the US has shown him the need for a holistic strategy for pro-life activism.

“In the United States, the church has made many efforts to legislate against abortion, but can the church really support women who lack the social resources to have their children?” he said. “Where is the church when these women are facing all the hardships and despair that they need to go through in raising their children alone? What can we do for them?”

While the church in China encourages Christians not to have abortions, it seems to lack the commitment to take on the responsibility of raising the child together, says Hu Yue, who pastors a church in Shanghai. Instead of letting individual families face the consequences of not having an abortion, the church should “let the child be born and then raise it together” with the family.

“[Chinese Christians’] anti-abortion promotion may have overplayed the impact of the government policy, emphasizing systemic sin at the expense of downplaying individual sin,” he said. “Creating the illusion that the official family planning policies are evil and individual abortion is because the woman has no choice.”

A new form of family planning

The Chinese government’s policy change from only one child to actively encouraging and incentivizing couples to have babies presents a new and different challenge to the Christian pro-life witness.

Last August, the Chinese government passed a law officially allowing families to have up to three children. The shift comes as the country’s population grows increasingly old and exits the labor force. But this new “freedom” is unlikely to change many minds; the expense of raising a child and a lack of confidence in marriage leave many young people disinterested in having a family, says Lu.

“What Christians advocate for marriage and childbirth has accidentally become conforming to the policies advocated by the government,” she said. “This, in turn, has ironically led some young people who resent the policy of encouraging childbirth to become resistant to Christian values.”

China’s family planning policies have never held to consistent moral values, says Jiang, pointing to the government’s wild policy swings. Instead, many of these decisions have been made with politics or economics in mind.

Chinese people, including Christians, have generally accepted the presupposition that the government has the right to regulate fertility, says Shi Ming, a house church pastor, who believes that believers should reconsider this position.

Indeed, as Hu points out, policies that encourage more children are also a form of family planning.

Regardless of future government policy, the church has a responsibility to care for those most affected by it.

Recently, during a public chat on the app Clubhouse, a young woman who had chosen to have an abortion asked Jiang what the church could do for her and for women like her.

“As a pastor of a church, my faith and my calling require that I cannot support your choice of abortion or anyone else’s,” Jiang said. “But even if I don’t support abortion, that doesn’t mean our church won’t come alongside women. If you are in my church, we will be there for you to the end.”

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