Videos

Reimagining Biblical Womanhood

A candid forum on the obstacles and opportunities facing women leaders in the church.

Christianity Today March 15, 2022

From patriarchal interpretations of Scripture to contemporary incidents of #ChurchToo abuse, Christian women often are treated as second-class citizens in the church. Yet throughout history it has been their tireless contributions that have kept Christianity vital and active in society. The whole church suffers when women’s voices are silenced. And both men and women miss out when women are unable to fully develop and exercise their gifts in the church.

On March 11, CT convened authors and ministry leaders Kat Armas, Beth Allison Barr, Amanda Benckhuysen, Nicole Martin, and Joyce Koo Dalrymple for a lively discussion on women’s roles in the church from the perspectives of history, theology, and practical ministry.

Our Panelists

Kat Armas

Kat is a Cuban American writer and podcaster from Miami, Florida, who holds a dual MDiv and MAT from Fuller Theological Seminary where she was awarded the Frederick Buechner Award for Excellence in Writing. Her first book, Abuelita Faith: What Women on the Margins Teach Us About Wisdom, Persistence and Strength, sits at the intersection of women, Scripture, and Cuban identity. She also explores these topics on her podcast, The Protagonistas, which centers the voices of Black, Indigenous, and other women of color in church leadership and theology. She has written for Christianity Today, Sojourners, Relevant, Fuller Youth Institute, and Missio Alliance. You can check out more of her work at katarmas.com.

Beth Allison Barr

Beth is the author of the bestselling The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth. She received her BA in history (with a minor in classics) from Baylor University and her MA and PhD in medieval history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is also the author of The Pastoral Care of Women in Late Medieval England, and writes regularly on The Anxious Bench, a religious history blog on Patheos, and has contributed to Religion News Service, The Washington Post, and Christianity Today. Her work has been featured by NPR and The New Yorker, and she is actively sought as an academic speaker. She recently was named the James Vardaman Professor of History, an endowed chair at Baylor. She is also a Baptist pastor’s wife and mom of two great kids.

Amanda W. Benckhuysen

Amanda is a pastor, speaker, and biblical scholar. She currently serves as the director of Safe Church Ministry for the Christian Reformed Church in North America. In this role, she helps equip churches in abuse prevention, awareness, and response. Previously she was professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary. She is the author of two books, The Gospel According to Eve: A History of Women’s Interpretation and Immigrants, The Bible, and You. She earned a BA from Queen’s University, MDiv from Calvin Theological Seminary, and her PhD from the Toronto School of Theology at the University of St. Michael’s College.

Nicole Martin

Nicole is senior vice president for ministry impact with American Bible Society. She also serves as an adjunct professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, is active in ministry at Kingdom Fellowship AME Church in Maryland, and formerly served as the executive minister at The Park Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. She’s the author of two books, Made to Lead: Empowering Women for Ministry and Leaning In, Letting Go: A Lenten Devotional. A nationally recognized speaker, Nicole has been inducted into the prestigious Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Board of Preachers at Morehouse College. She earned a BA from Vanderbilt University, a MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a DMin from Gordon-Conwell. she resides in Baltimore with her husband, Mark, and their two daughters.

Joyce Koo Dalrymple (moderator)

Joyce is a pastor, speaker, and podcast host. She most recently served as the pastor of discipleship and connections at Wellspring Alliance Church in Wheaton, Illinois, and minister of women and discipleship at Reconcile Church in Duluth, Georgia. A former television journalist and attorney, she frequently guest preaches at local churches and speaks at women’s events and retreats. She co-hosts Adopting Hope, a podcast from Christianity Today about foster, adoptive, and spiritual parenting. Joyce received a BA from Stanford University, a JD from Boston College, and an MDiv from Metro Atlanta Seminary. She and her husband, Tim, live in Wheaton with their three daughters, including one they adopted from China.

Webinar Transcript

Kelli Trujillo: Hello. Thank you everybody for joining us for this special Christianity today event, we are so glad that you’re here. My name is Kelly Trujillo and I’m CT’s Projects Editor, which means I oversee our special issues. And it’s a joy to welcome you and tell you a little bit more about what we’re going to be doing today.

Those of you who have tuned in to our earlier webinars know that you are often greeted by my friend and colleague, Ed Gilbreath, who leads CT’s Big Tent initiative. And I’m grateful to Ed for inviting me to step into his shoes today for this webinar that spotlights women’s voices. Our monthly series of webinars springs out of our Big Tent Initiative, which is part of our effort to better represent the growing racial, ethnic, and generational diversity of the North American church, and to foster unity among Christ’s followers.

As you all know, this is March and it’s Women’s History Month, and today’s webinar is going to feature the voices of several dynamic Christian women whose ministries of thought leadership are helping the church reflect on and explore the meaning of biblical womanhood.

Now, we realize that this is a fraught subject for the church that can be a source of great division. And we know that committed and devoted Christ followers from various Christian traditions may have different perspectives on some of these issues. So it’s our hope that in today’s webinar, we’ll have an honest and empowering conversation that will be sensitive to those different perspectives.

At CT, we’re passionate about advancing women’s stories and ideas for the kingdom of God, and elevating women storytellers and sages for the global church. And one expression of that has been a special issue – I’m holding it up for you guys to see – that we’ve done over the years, that spotlights women’s voices for the sake of the whole church. And this one looks at prayer from a rich theological perspective. And I’m sharing that with you because you’ll be getting a link where you can download that special issue to read more from other female thought leaders, and a link to that will be included in the comments as well.

I’m really looking forward to this discussion today. So without further ado, I want to introduce our moderator who will guide our discussion and who will introduce our panelists. Joyce Koo Dalrymple is our moderator. She is a pastor, speaker and podcast host, a former television journalist, and attorney. Joyce frequently guest preaches at local churches and speaks at women’s events and retreats. She’s the cohost of one of CT’s podcasts called Adopting Hope, which is about foster adoptive and spiritual parenting. Joyce received her BA from Stanford University, her JD from Boston College, and her MDiv from Metro Atlanta seminary. She and her husband, Tim, live in Wheaton, Illinois, with their three daughters.

So please welcome Joyce Koo Dalrymple.

Joyce Koo Dalrymple: Thanks so much, Kelly. It is such a joy and honor to be your moderator this afternoon. This conversation about women has probably been going on since the beginning of time. Yet I also sense that we’re living in a unique moment in time where women are speaking up about maybe ways they’ve felt dismissed or been wounded in the church, and as these things are coming to light, I think the crucial question is, How are we going to respond.

That’s why I’m so excited we’re doing this panel today with four amazing panelists who have contributed significantly to this conversation, through their writing and their speaking. I’m excited for you to hear from them.

In the interest of time, I’m going to give you a brief introduction of each of our panelists, and you can find their fuller bios on our website.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Allison Barr. Beth Allison Barr. She is a history professor at Baylor University. Her academic specialty focuses on Women and Gender Identity, and Medieval and Early Modern England. She also researches how the Reformation affected women and Christianity. Beth is the author of The Making of Biblical Womanhood, How the Subjugation of Women became Gospel Truth.

Beth Allison Barr: Thank you.

Joyce: Second, we have Kat Armas. She is a second generation Cuban American whose earliest theological formation came from her grandmother, her abuelita, who fled Cuba during great political unrest.

Kat holds a dual Master of Divinity and Master of Arts and Teaching. She is the author of Abuelita Faith, What women on the Margins Teach us about Wisdom, Persistence, and Strength.

Next, we have Dr. Amanda Benckhuysen. She is the director of Safe Church Ministry for the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a ministry that equips congregations in abuse awareness, prevention, and response. She was previously professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary, and is the author of The Gospel according to Eve, a History of Women’s Interpretation of Genesis One to Three.

And last but not least, we have Reverend Dr. Nicole Massie Martin. She is a senior vice president at the American Bible Society and an Assistant Professor of Ministry and Leadership Development at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Nicole formerly served as the executive pastor at the park church in Charlotte, North Carolina. She is a nationally recognized speaker and preacher, and has written the book Made to Lead, Empowering Women for Ministry.

Welcome, all of you panelists. Thank you so much for being with us. All of our panelists have such inspiring personal stories.

So I thought I would begin by asking each of you about how you overcame an obstacle as a woman seeking to pursue your calling, either in ministry or academia. Let’s begin with you, Nicole. Would you mind starting us off?

Nicole Martin: Oh, the hardest question and starting. Yeah. Thanks for that. First, can I just tell you how honored I am to be part of this? I was fanning out over every single one of you. I have your books. I’ve read them. I thank God for you, and I’m like super, super honored to be with you.

So obstacles in ministry. As I was processing this, I think one of the biggest obstacles that I faced, and in part still face, is just navigating the external kind of comments that are meant, I would assume from a good place, but become microaggressions for me. So, you know, early in ministry, this was the comments from friends who many of whom were women who would say, Are you sure that women can do that? Women, friends in college who were aiming to own their own businesses and be presidents of their companies, but would say to me, you know, I don’t think that you should be trying to be in ministry. Or they would say, Oh, I heard you’re going to go into ministry, is it going to be youth ministry or children’s ministry?

When I progressed and got married, you know, there were other comments, like, Are you sure that you can keep your marriage and stay in ministry? Or comments like I was told once, Just be careful teaching Bible study late at night because somebody is at home making your husband a casserole.

I wanted to say, my husband doesn’t eat casserole, but, you know. And then when I had children, I remember the challenges that I faced being pregnant and preaching, and people would say some of the craziest things like, So when are you going to stop your ministry job so that you can take better care of your children to come? Or one of my favorites, I know what I’m going to get you. This is after I preached and I’m, like, visibly sweating. I know what I’m going to get you after the baby comes, a girdle, so you can fit into your robe and it won’t be so tight. So it’s all of those things. And it’s not the comments themselves, it was the fact that each of those comments touched on an insecurity that I had.

So I’ve learned to overcome that by dealing with my insecurities. By reminding myself, I am enough for ministry, my children are discipled and they are okay. Yes, I make mistakes, but God made my children for ministry just like He made me for ministry, and they grow from me being obedient in my calling.

I have my little list of affirmations here. You know, it’s like, I think I overcome by reminding myself of who I am, that I am called to this and I am qualified and I’m not on some journey of disobedience, but I’ve done my research and I know what God is calling me to do. So that’s just a little bit of it, and it’s a whole lot deeper. And I know my colleagues would say some of those traumas still continue to today, but by God’s grace, we persevere.

Joyce: Thanks, Nicole. I love how you… There’s like the voice that you hear from externally and then there’s your inner voice, and then there’s God’s voice, and listening to how God says you are sufficient, you are enough, strengthens you to pursue your calling. Yes. Amanda, would you like to go next?

Amanda Benckhuysen: Yeah, sure. And like Nicole, I am just honored to be here on this panel and to share this space with all of you. It’s real privilege and honor to be part of this conversation. So thanks for the invitation.

Like Nicole, I think I experienced all of those same kinds of microaggressions, that’s a pretty common experience for women in ministry, particularly in evangelical circles. But I think the hardest part for me was really coming to terms with how much I was, at least at the beginning, asked to put aside of myself to be received well in ministry and then later in the academy. How much I had to accommodate to ways of being and behaving that didn’t feel quite natural, and how much of who I am wasn’t really welcome in ministry or in my particular setting.

And I will never forget one particular instance that sort of exemplified that. It was a preaching class in seminary. And after preaching my sermon in class, the professor commented that I was too sexual in my presentation. And I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, because I was fully and appropriately dressed. But nonetheless, my sexuality was somehow getting in the way of the gospel message and that was somehow my problem.

And I can tell you, I was horrified by the comment. I was embarrassed, I was ashamed, and it actually made me quite insecure to get up in front of people, to get behind the pulpit and preach. Because along with all of the natural jitters that you might have as a beginning preacher, I also began to wonder what people might be thinking when they saw me, like, how are they thinking about me?

And yeah, what I learned from this experience and from others is that I needed to actually suppress myself to become less female if I was going to be well-received in ministry. How did I overcome this? It’s been a journey, I’m still on the journey actually. But a couple of things. One, having a really good, solid community of people who supported me was really helpful. People who I could go back to and say, Hey, this happened, helped me process this. Having a strong sense of my call, of knowing that God had actually called me to ministry and to the academy, that was incredibly helpful, to be able to go back to that moment, that understanding of my calling, was strengthening for me.

And then one of the things I studied and wrote about in my book was women’s interpretations of Genesis one through three. In the 19th century, there were these women preachers who believed and leaned into the idea that they were called not in spite of being women, but because they were women. For me, that was, like, that maybe God called me not in spite of my gender, but because I’m a woman and because I have qualities and characteristics that actually contribute to the kingdom of God. And so that was life-giving to me. And especially learning that and being able to lean into that myself, and then knowing that there was this great cloud of witnesses of women who were cheering me on in this regard who had also done this prior to my going into ministry.

So that was…. I mean, it’s still a journey, but that was immensely helpful to just switch the framework, the paradigm in which I was thinking about myself in ministry.

Joyce: Yes, it’s a journey for all of us. And I think having examples both in real life who have gone before us, and examples in history.

And so next I want to ask Beth, our historian here, what has it been like for you and what have you had to overcome? And I know you’re in academia, but you also have been in the church and your husband is a pastor.

Beth: Right. I did want to approach this from more of an academic perspective in thinking about women’s challenges, because one of the things that I have always struggled with is that I am a Christian woman in a field that is largely not Christian. And I went to a public university, I went to Chapel Hill where I got my PhD. I had a good friend who is now a professor at Wheaton and we were both in the program together, and we were like our Christian friends. And so it was something that was a very strange place because on the one hand I had my husband who was at Southeastern Seminary and a very different world, and I was at Chapel Hill in a women’s studies program. So we had this really strange sort of life that was going on. So I always found myself looking for other women like me who were academics, who were also involved in the church, who are also serious about their faith.

So very early on, I found a conference that some of my colleagues were part of. It was called the Conference on Faith in History. And one of my colleagues encouraged me to go to it, and I went in 2006 for the very first time. It was the first time I’d left my son for a conference, so he was very young then. And I went there and I was all excited about getting to meet other women and network with other women who were also in the discipline of history, and what I found was there were almost no women there. There was almost no panels that talked about women’s history or women’s issues, especially not medieval. And there were just hardly any women. And I was really discouraged, and I just left and I just checked out of that conference for several years. And I finally ended up going again a little later on in my career. Because one of the people on the executive board of the conference, his name is Rick Kennedy and he’s at Point Loma Nazarene University in California, and he reached out to me and he said, Beth… You know, he asked me to come and I said, there’s no women there. And he emailed me back and he said, how can we get more women if we can’t get women to come? And I was like, Well, that’s a really good point. And so I agreed to be on the board of the conference, and I started inviting women. I started building panels that focused on women’s topics, I invited scholars all over the place to come to it. And I’m very proud that in 2012, there were 32 women on the conference program.

By 2016 – I joined the board in 2013 – By 2016, there were 61 women on the conference program, and by 2018, when I became president of the conference, there were 88 women on the conference program. And it has been such a wonderful thing to be a part of, to see women of faith in the academy, growing these networks together.

And it also taught me a really important lesson that if we want to change things, we’ve got to step out and help change them. So although I also have to say that I was listening to y’all talking about your bodies and preaching and one of the most vivid teaching evaluations I remember was when I taught a class that I actually had my daughter in the middle of a semester that I was teaching. So I like taught up and came back four weeks later, which was crazy. But I had a student put on that evaluation that he thought it was great for women to have babies, but he didn’t think they should do it while they were teaching his class. And that just always… I have never forgotten that.

Joyce: Well, Beth, thank you for paving the way in spaces where there were not a lot of women, and creating a safer space for women to enter in. And last, I want to turn to you, Kat. Kat, as a woman of color too, I feel like there is an intersectionality of gender and race and things that you’ve probably faced and had to overcome. What has it been like for you?

Kat Armas: Yeah. Thank you so much for… I’m so happy to be here and thank you for the invitation. And I’m so glad that you brought that up because that was something that I wanted to talk about. I feel like, you know, my experiences… I can’t separate my experiences as a woman from my experiences as a Cuban woman, right. Particularly in the white evangelical world. And I didn’t grow up in the white evangelical world, and so when I sort of found myself in that space it was very shocking for me. You know, I was raised by two single immigrant women, right. I was raised by a single grandmother and a single mother, both immigrants. And so that experience for me really shaped me, right. They were the providers of the family, right? They were the sole spiritual leaders. I mean, they did all of the things. And so when I found myself in white evangelical spaces, and I was told by professors and by pastors, you know, that I needed a… You know, a man needed to lead me, I needed to fit into these roles or I needed to fit into these spaces, it just didn’t make sense for me. So many women in my community, they were the ones in those spaces and in those roles. That’s why things started to sort of break apart for me. I thought, you know, well, how is that supposed to be the norm across time and space when that just is not a reality for me, for my family, for my community and for, I mean, so many communities across the globe, across the world. I mean, that’s just not a reality.

So for me, I think overcoming that was really leaning into the spirituality and the faith of my foremothers, my abuelita, my grandmother, and realizing, like, wait a minute. No, God has moved most powerfully here. Not in the academy where I thought I would encounter God from white male pastors or professors, but it was within the everyday. We call that in Latinx culture, you know, lo cotidiano. The everyday experiences around the dinner table and in my home.

And that’s where… Where women… It’s sort of like this double edge. And I write about this in Abuelita Faith, in my book, about how we call abuelita theology, a kitchen theology, because that’s where, you know, so much is formed, but it’s also in the kitchen because that’s where many of our grandmothers have been sort of regulated and pushed to.

And it’s really a matter of kind of finding that in-between space and celebrating that we find and we learn and we experience so much of God in the spaces where men aren’t necessarily the leaders and the providers like in my own family. And so I think that it’s important that we’re telling these stories, right? Because I think it’s in these stories that we’re sort of changing that, changing this dynamic and making our stories known.

Joyce: Amen. And the chat is lighting up, Kat, with people who are agreeing with you, and just excited to see the response here to some of the things that you’ve said.

The next question I’m going to ask Beth, because the title of this whole seminar is Reimagining Biblical Womanhood, and biblical womanhood is sort of a confusing term, and I feel like it can also be a little bit misleading. And so in your book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, you actually unpack it a little bit about how it’s a concept that came about through a series of clearly definable historical moments. So can you tell us about that?

Beth: Yes, I would love to. And I forgot to say – I was listening to the other panelists – I’m so thankful y’all are having this panel, and I am so grateful for the other women who are on this. I have to tell Kat, I actually just quoted her at the end of a sermon. I very rarely preach sermons, but I preached one last week, and I used her in my conclusion of it. So I’m just so grateful to be here.

But something funny about the title of this is that in my original manuscript that I outlined, my final chapter was going to be Remaking Biblical Womanhood. And by the time I got to the end of the book, I realized that I didn’t want to title the chapter that anymore because I had really decided that biblical womanhood was a very particular modern concept that did not cover what we see women doing in the Bible, and what we see God calling women and using women throughout history. So I actually changed by the time I got to the end of it, and my last chapter clearly, you know, is not talking about remaking biblical womanhood.

So what is it? Biblical womanhood, as I would argue, is really a modern term. In fact, if you go to Google, if you go to Google Ngram, which is a really fun tool to kind of use, and you put in the words biblical womanhood, what you’ll see is that it’s pretty much nonexistent until 1977, and then it just explodes onto the scene and it’s everywhere in the 1990s and building up to the early 2000’s. And of course we know that that’s when some very famous books came out, including Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It’s also the time, you know, when we see the Danvers statement and we see the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

And so, all of these ideas are around what this very modern concept of biblical womanhood is, and it is really quite easy. It’s that God created women to follow male headship, and that women’s primary calling is to be a wife and to be a mother. And that while women do do other things, that that should always be their primary focus.

If you want to think about an example of this idea of biblical womanhood, you can just look — I’m Baptist — just look to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and you can see in Article 6 where it talks about while both women and men are gifted, only men are able to hold leadership as pastors.

And then if you look in Article 18 it says that women are called to graciously submit to the servant leadership of their husbands. And then it says that women, their God-given responsibility – that’s the words used – God-given responsibility is to respect her husband and to help in managing and nurturing the household in the next generation.

And so I think those, you know, if I say biblical womanhood is this God-ordained place for women to be under male leadership and to have a primary focus on being a wife and being a mother, I think it’s really encapsulated in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000.

But as I do argue – you asked me essentially to summarize the argument of my book – and one thing… So I’ll do it really fast for you. But as a historian, I… Actually, I tease people that if I’d been a theologian, I think I would have been a systematic theologian because I like patterns and I like to look across large areas of time. And I’m a social historian, which means that I do look across large swaths of time to see, for both continuity and change. And so biblical womanhood, this idea, we can look across history and we can see that it is rooted in the ancient world. If you think about Aristotelian teachings, that women are deformed men, that there is something wrong with the female body that makes her unable to be in leadership because she simply is not…she’s not capable of doing that type of service.

And we see this idea. It continues throughout the medieval world, and as I think I introduced a lot of people to in my book, is that even though the medieval world is not a golden age for women it does have what I call a loophole. And the loophole is that women by rejecting what it means to be a woman can gain the spiritual authority of a man.

And so this is what we see with Women Religious, this is how we get preachers like Hildegard of Bingen in the central middle ages. But with the Reformation, this loophole goes away because we see this emphasis, you know, the Reformation era – and it’s not just religion, it’s something that’s going on in early modern Europe – it emphasizes or champions marriage as the best thing that both women and men can do, and Reformation theology, rejects celibacy. So what we see is we see this emphasis on that a godly woman is a married woman with children. And this becomes emphasized even more in the scientific revolution and the enlightenment where once again we see those Aristotelian ideas kind of pull up where there’s something wrong with the female body, that women’s brains are literally created smaller than men’s, and because women give birth, that’s really the only thing that they should do. And you think about, you know, I always quote Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in my classes, and one of the things that he says, which almost mimics something that Aristotle says, is he says women is made to please man, and to be subjugated.

And then in the 19th and 20th century, the section I had in my book, I said, you know, evangelicals essentially baptized this idea of biblical womanhood. And we did that through Bible translations, where we literally wrote women out of leadership in our Bibles. And then we also did it – you can look in the Danvers statement for this – where we began to argue that not only something’s wrong with women’s bodies, that they have to be under men, but this is something that God ordained before the fall.

And so it is literally written into creation that women are to always be under the authority of men. So there was my fast runs through history for you.

Joyce: Thank you so much, Beth. That was a big question to ask you, but you did a great job. One thing after reading your book, I realized that like – you know, it wasn’t a new realization – but things wax and wane over history, and also I just feel like you think when you’re living in that moment in history that that’s like what you’re being told, this is what the Bible says, that that’s it. But it’s actually part of a much larger story, and a story that’s often told from the dominant point of view.

And that brings me to you, Amanda. There has been women’s voices that have been left out of biblical interpretation, and so I love how in your book, The Gospel According to Eve, you actually bring to light some of women’s theological, biblical interpretation around some of the passages about Eve.

So I was wondering, what can you learn from women as they interpret these scriptures?

Amanda: Yeah. So Beth, you actually set me up really well because against the backdrop of this Aristotelian thought and these ideas of women’s male headship and women’s submission or women’s subordination being written into creation, you get these women throughout Christian history who kind of push back against those ideas that women are inferior and women are secondary and women are somehow less than men.

So traditional interpretations of Genesis 2 and 3 get there – particularly Genesis 2 – get there by focusing on the difference between male and female in that text. And they sort of emphasize details that seem to, you know, pronounce the difference between men and women. But women interpreters in history as far back as the 14th Century, and probably earlier, read this text quite differently, and they read it in terms of how this text celebrates how men and women are similar.

So it’s a very different way of looking at this text, and I’ll just give you a quick one run through. If you break Genesis 2 down into scenes, the first scene would be God creating Adam and noting that it’s not good for Adam to be alone. The second scene, Adam goes through all the animals, identifying them by name, and it’s worth noting that it’s not that he can’t find any animals who might be a helper to him, but he can’t find any animals that might be a kenegdo to him, who might correspond to him or be like him. And so these women interpreters are pointing this out, that the problem with the animals is they’re not like Adam, right? And then the third scene is God creating a creature that corresponds to Adam, is kenegdo to Adam, someone who is like Adam but different from the animals. And so there’s a kind of emphasis on the difference between Adam and Eve and the animals, and the similarity between Adam and Eve as human beings. So in this third scene, Adam recognizes immediately that Eve is like him and does this lovely dance of joy, right? At last, bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because from man she was taken. And that women understood was the moment when Adam recognizes finally he has found a creature who is kenegdo, who is like him, and that together they are human.

So women read Genesis 2 as a text that promoted their full humanity and their dignity and value, and they did this against a backdrop of a culture which said women were less than men. So in the Bible they found this sense of dignity and value and worth, and they wondered why that wasn’t their lived reality, and why the church did not stand up against the culture to suggest otherwise. So that’s one example.

Joyce, do I have time to do Genesis 3 very quickly?

Joyce: Yes, go ahead.

Amanda: All right. So when it came to Genesis 3, women interpreters noted that God had a lot more grace for Eve than traditional interpreters had. They noted that yes, Eve sinned first, and they had all kinds of interesting exegetical insights into that, but they also suggested that God gave women a unique task in partnering with God in the work of redemption in Genesis 3.

So if you look at Genesis 3:15, God says to the serpent, I will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, between the serpent’s seed and her seed. Her seed will crush the serpent’s head and his seed will strike at the heel of the woman’s seed. Now, English translations can be deceiving because they say he, he will crush the serpent’s head. But the antecedent to that pronoun, he, is actually the woman’s seed. And so women interpreters noted this. They said this verse is actually not about Jesus. What it is about is suggesting that women and all their offspring, particularly their female offspring, are being identified for the special role that they will play against in fighting against Satan, in fighting against evil.

It was like God had commissioned women to hold Satan back. And some 17th Century women interpreters even understood this as a call for women to engage in proclaiming and teaching the gospel, because how do you do battle against Satan but proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. So I think all of this teaches us how important it is to hear men’s and women’s voices together.

Francis Willard, a 19th Century reformer, actually said if we want to get at the full orbed truth of scripture, like if we want to take the truth of scripture seriously, then we need men’s and women’s voices together. And I think we can extend that to say, we actually need black, brown and the voices of people of color as well. We need to hear the voices of all those who are interpreting scripture to understand the full orbed truth of scripture, because no one of us is going to get it right all by ourselves.

I think the other thing that teaches us is the importance in male-dominated spaces, because of course this traditional interpretation has kind of wreaked havoc on the way we think about men and women, right? And it’s done a lot of harm to women and their lives. So I think it teaches us the importance in male dominated spaces of listening to women’s voices and women’s experience and women’s testimony. And I know we’re going to talk about this later in the webinar, but I think of this especially in terms of women who give voice to ways in which the church has harmed them and the ways in which they’ve been harmed by church leaders.

And I think if we begin to honor women’s voices in theology, in biblical interpretation, in the seminary, in the academy, we will also take seriously the claims when women come forward and say there been misconduct, there’s been abuse, and I’ve been harmed by that. And so anyway…

Joyce: Yes, that’s a great way to tie it together too, because I think the way we think theologically, it informs how we respond practically in our churches as well. And so there’s such an importance of having, as you said, all voices that kind of…not just from one perspective, but that can give us a full-orbed, as you said, interpretation of scripture.

I want to go to you, Kat, now. And I think you are doing so much to bring to light voices from the margin. And I love this quote that I’ve heard you pose, and it’s what if the greatest theologians the world has ever known weren’t really considered theologians at. And I think about how in Jesus’ ministry, He really lifts up the voices of the marginalized, women also who were kind of like on the outskirts, and they were commended for their faith, and they were examples for the disciples to learn from.

So I love how you are doing that in your writing and in your podcast. Why is that so important and why are you doing that?

Kat: Yeah, thank you for asking. And so that question, what if the world’s greatest theologians are those whom the world wouldn’t consider theologians at all, is sort of the leading question of my book, right?

Because when we think of a theologian, where we think of someone who has something to teach us about God, you know, kind of like what I mentioned earlier, we think of formal education, right? We think of the man or the white man behind a pulpit or you know, leading or teaching a classroom.

So in my book, I touch on colonialism, and what it means to decolonize from colonial ideology. And of course there are a ton of ways to do that. But one of the things that I focus on is the notion of wisdom. So when we think of a theologian, we think of someone who is wise, someone who holds the wisdom of God. One of my favorite post-colonial thinkers, his name is ** and he writes that social justice is not possible without cognitive justice.

And he talks about how we have to sort of reclaim the different ways of being and knowing in the world. We have to recover all the diversity of ways that women in particular make meaning of their existence, what it means to know. And that’s something that I wrestle with. Like, who gets to say who is wise, who gets to say who has the wisdom? Obviously, you know, we know who has said that in the past. So yeah, I love this idea of cognitive justice. Looking at this notion of wisdom and saying, Well, wait a minute, what if wisdom lives in our bodies, right? So many women hold this wisdom across time and across the globe. They have an embodied wisdom that lives in their hands, lives in their bodies. And I talk a lot about this in Abuelita Faith.

And so that’s the first part, as you mentioned that quote, and I wanted to talk about that quote, but then you ask, Why is that important to lift up? And I think it’s important, not just because we want to lift up, but we want to learn, right? We want to learn. We want to consider our marginalized, consider our immigrant grandmothers and mothers, consider our poor grandmother and mothers as legitimate sources of theology, that we have the most to learn about God from lived experience. Because these are the people in society that are out there surviving, and it’s in that survival where you learn the most about God. And we see that in the Bible. I know you kind of mentioned this, Joyce, but in scripture, I mean, you see so many women literally trying to eat and in that they are literally called blessed, right? They are just trying to survive. They are widows just trying to get married so that they can, you know, have a future. And in that they are called blessed. And so in Abuelita Faith I argue that survival is in and of itself a holy endeavor, and we see that through the lives of women.

And so this is important for one, you know, for many women of color through currently right now trying to process. And who they are, as I mentioned earlier, as both a woman and as in my case, a Cuban woman, we need a diverse set of experiences. Because my experiences are not a white woman’s experiences. And so I need to wrestle with what, you know, how colonialism lives in my body and how it’s been passed down generationally through my grandmother and my ancestors. And so we need to work through that.

And also it’s important, to answer your question, to lift up and learn from the marginalized women. Because – and I think that you touched on this as well, Amanda – that we miss out on the fullness of the kingdom of God if we’re not learning from, again, poor women, marginalized women, women of color. We only get a tiny glimpse when we’re choosing to seek out wisdom in the places where we’ve been trained only wisdom resides. And we know that that’s not true, right? Wisdom lives in the places that we would never think we can find it. And so I like to say that the image of God is not individual whereas I have the image of God within me. It’s not just individual, but it’s collective, all of us collectively, we make up the image of God.

And so I want to know the fullness of what it means to be made in the image of God by all of us living and existing and making meaning of our existence together.

Joyce: Yes. Amen. Thank you, Kat. So you’ve looked at kind of historical, theological, and cultural forces that have made it difficult for women sometimes to flourish or pursue their callings.

And so now I want to ask a very practical question here and I’m going to turn to you, Nicole. What advice would you give women who are trying to pursue their callings as ministers? Whether it be vocationally in the church as a pastor or just as a lay person or wherever God has placed them, how should women be preparing themselves, and how can those in leadership positions be helping develop women and giving them opportunities?

Nicole: So honestly, the first thing they need to do is listen to this webinar. They need to save it on their computers, they need to put it on their podcasts, they need to listen to it. I need to save this webinar.

You all have encouraged my whole soul. You know, Kat talked about her…the importance of, you know, learning from her grandmother and her mother. In my tradition, my grandmother and my mother’s, when they felt the Holy Spirit, they would rock. It’s taking everything in me not to just rock as I listen to God minister through you all.

I didn’t know I needed that, and I needed it. So I would say… I’m also an emotional person and that is a gift. How fitting on a women’s discussion, cry your eyes out. But you know, this is what God does when we hear from the heart of another woman, either her pain or her overcoming. When you hear how God met her in her brokenness, and how God brought healing to her identity, and how God allowed her to emerge with wealth and wisdom and knowledge. It brings tears to my heart and my mind and my face, because I think, Thank you, God.

Part of the challenge of being a woman in ministry is the sense of being alone. But panel discussions like this remind you, I am not alone. Like, I can go do this. So in my book I talk a little bit about that, and I named four things that women can do.

But the first thing that I want to say about that, and I think the area that’s most important, is women need to cultivate sacred space. They need to cultivate sacred space with God, with their communities like this, and with themselves. One of the things that people used to say about me, and I used to really struggle when I first came into ministry, was like, You really love God. And you know, at first I was like, I do and I hope you do too. And then I realized I’ve had to have a dependency on God as a person of color, as a woman, that the average man may not have had to have. I have had to depend on God when I’ve walked into the room and known I was the only one, like Beth said. I have had to depend on God when I was debating scripture with people, with women and men, who would use the very Genesis 2 and 3 that Amanda talked about, to use it against me. I have had to depend on the Lord and to quote scripture to myself when I sat in predominantly white rooms and reminded myself, my grandmother, even though she graduated college later in life, was just as qualified. My great-grandmother who integrated schools in Pittsburgh with a third grade education, that woman was called and I am too.

So I think that sacred space, we have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are driven by God. I think of Sojourner Truth, you know, when she’s preaching the gospel, she’s not preaching because she was affirmed by some man, she’s preaching because she had a Holy Spirit burden. She had that Jeremiah fire in my bones. And if you have a sacred relationship with God, if you have a calling from God, then your drive is not because you have an opening or a position or an invitation, your drive is because you’ve got fire that you’ve got to get out. We’re here not because we chose to walk into fire and opposition. We are here because God woke us up one morning and said, Get out there, write the book, teach the class and preach the gospel; any questions?

And so, you know, I think when you have that sacred space with God, then you’re not worried about what other people say, because at the end of the day, I just have to follow Him. I want to hear Him say, Well done. I hope I please you, but that’s not my aim. My job is I gotta hear the Lord say well done.

And then I think the second thing that I talk about is the power of mentorship. And I saw in the chat, somebody was talking about, you know, sponsorship versus mentorship, and this is a hard truth I had to accept. When I first started out, I only wanted women mentors, and I had a very traumatizing experience. I can remember, I was 19. I was kind of wrestling with what I meant, what a calling meant. I went to this woman, I heard her preach so I went to her afterwards. I was totally naive and zealous. I was like, Oh my gosh, I just love hearing you preach. Oh, you just touched my heart, can I call you? Like, I literally said that, Can I get your email address, and can I call you? And she was like, Honey, I do not have time. And that same narrative was repeated four times with four specific women that I still know. And each time they said, No, I don’t have time, talk to my assistant. One woman said, I worked my way up, you can work yours up too.

So I had to learn how to diversify my mentorship. I started to realize that some of my professors were mentors. They weren’t in the church ministry, they mentored me.

I had to learn that I needed a sponsor sometimes. I needed a man at the table, at the predominantly male tables, to say, Have you heard of my sister, Nicole, how about her? And I thank God for the white men, the black men, the Latino men who were in male dominated rooms and said, Have you heard about Nicole? And Ed is one of them.

So I needed mentors who would help me cope with life, but I also needed sponsors. Somebody who was bold enough to say, Have you thought of her? And then I needed to remember, when I got to that table, I’m a sponsor too. And I need to be able to say, Have you thought about Kat, oh my gosh, she has this amazing book out, you need to consider her. Have you talked to Joyce? Oh my gosh, Joyce is amazing.

And then the last two things that I talk about are confidence and the difference between self-confidence and God confidence. It does crack me up when I think about my seminary experience.

So, you know, the professors would be like, Who would like to preach and all the guys would shoot their hands up. And the women would be like, I’m good. And the same as in the boardroom, you know, Anybody have any comments, and all of the men are like spewing their comments. Some of the comments were really good and some of them were like, You just raised your hand to raise your hand.

And I learned that if I’m confident in God, then it will build my self-confidence. I don’t have to wait until I’ve gotten enough confidence in myself as a… For myself speaking only of Nicole, it’ll never happen, I’ll never be 100% confident. Half of what I’m saying right now, I’m like, oh God, please, Jesus, let it be right.

So I can’t depend on my own self-confidence, I have to depend on a confidence that comes from God, that flows from an overflow of my relationship with God.

And then the last thing is about cultivating your love life, which really gets me excited because, you know, when you talk about this notion of… Beth Allison, where you’re talking about like how the Reformation brought about this, you know, you have to be married in order to be whole, I spent a good number of years as a single woman in ministry, and then I got married. And I learned as a single woman in ministry, even a family member said to me, Now, you know, you’re not going to get married, Right? And I used to think how awful to say that. But I think part of cultivating your love life is to recognize as a woman, my source of love flows from beyond me, and that allows me to operate in a level of love. Because perhaps it’s one of the most challenging parts. Like, some of my male colleagues were told – I was in the room when they were told – Now you’ve got to get married in order for your ministry to take off. They have this pressure. Some of them have said to me, I married her so that my church would grow. I’m like, I’m sorry for you but I refuse to submit to that standard. If marriage is what the Lord has for me, I walk into that, knowing that, thank the Lord, my husband is like, You better go do that.

Somebody said to me the last time I preached, my husband was on the side, he was holding my purse, and someone was like, I would hate to be your husband. I was like, Well, I would hate to be your wife. But I looked at that. Here he is holding, like, my coat and my purse. And I was like, God made that man for me, and even if God didn’t have that man for me, God has loved me enough that I become enough for ministry because of His love for me. So I just wanted to pull out that duality, that there are a lot of single women who are wrestling with, Can I be called and not be married? Yes. And then there were a lot of married women who are wrestling because a spouse doesn’t support them or because they don’t have a man who was holding their purse. That man at home might even be saying, Why are you going? But there is a sense of love that goes beyond us that can empower us and drive us to ministry, unlike any other force.

Joyce: Nicole, it took… You were saying it was hard for you not to… It was hard for me not to stand up and be like, Preach.

Nicole: Trying not to spin in my chair?

Joyce: So thank you for that. I am looking at the time. I have one kind of final question, and then I don’t know if we have time for questions from the chat.

But one thing that I feel like is still going on broadly across America and at least locally in where I live, is that church too issues have been coming up, and women have courageously come forward with some of their stories. And this has been happening for a long time, but they’re coming to light. And I just wonder if you all have seen positive models. How have churches been able to bring about healing in this time, how have churches been able to empower women?

And I almost feel like there’s both care for the individual women, but there’s also systemic issues that there needs to be changes to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and also to equip and empower women in churches as well. So how can we be catalysts for this kind of change to bring flourishing for everyone, for all in the church?

And I know that’s a huge question to be the last question, but I’m just going to throw it out there for any thoughts. We won’t be able to cover this comprehensively, but I’d love to just kind of hear from any of you all who want to answer that.

Nicole: Well, one thing that I would say is I think the pandemic has given us an opportunity to talk about the language of trauma in a way that maybe people hadn’t been as comfortable talking about before. So because we’ve all had this kind of collective traumatic experience, whether that’s with quarantine or loss or all of the things we’ve had to navigate, we now have a language to talk about the impact of horrible things that happen to us.

And I just wonder, you know, is there a way that we can equip the church to deal with trauma, to deal with pain and to deal with loss as a language of our faith and not just a thing on the side, that might make room for the reality that trauma even happens in the church. I think that’s part of the barrier. When you think about just this culture of narcissism that seeps into the pulpit and, you know, this consumerism that drives people to listen to soundbites and people that may not have the authentic ministry of Christ. What does it look like to create within the church spaces of healing and hope so that those with stories about trauma can feel safe?

My biggest concern about the church too movement are the number of women and the percentage of men who have been wounded in the church and leave. As a person in the church, as a minister of the gospel, I grieve that. I don’t want you to leave to have to find healing. My prayer is that you can still stay within the body of Christ. You may have to leave your local church, you may have to make adjustments, but please don’t forsake the gathering of the saints. So what does it look like within the body of Christ to create spaces of healing? I think that’s something that we can wrestle with now that maybe we couldn’t wrestle with as much in 2019.

Beth: I’ll say quickly, one of the most encouraging things about having had the privilege of writing The Making of Biblical Womanhood… when I published, I had no idea what’s going to happen. I tell people all the time that as a historian, if 500 people read our books we’re really ecstatic. So this has been really amazing. I also tell people all the time, I’m actually really an introvert. And so doing things like this is even not something that is natural to me. But the encouragement that I have received from male pastors behind the scenes, and the amount of people who formerly would have identified as complementarian or perhaps still do, and reach out to me and tell me that they are not only reading my book but they are leading, that they are having book studies on it, and that they are listening to women. And that has given me hope that I never imagined.

And so, I’m usually a hopeful person, but I have become so much more hopeful because people are listening. And even people who may not come to agree with me, but they are listening and they realize that there is a problem with how women have been treated in the church. They realize that the problem with how we have treated women is also rooted in racism and is rooted in colonialism and imperialism, and that we are going to have to pull all of it out together. And I am so encouraged that people are just willing to listen.

Kat: Thank you both. And I just want to add also, when I think of the life of Jesus, I think that Jesus… He was a really good guest, right?

Like he sat at unfamiliar tables, and He was a guest. Like, He wasn’t a host. And I feel like, you know, I talk about this also in Abuelita Faith, this notion of a decolonized notion of hospitality, or even discipleship, if you want to think of it that way. And it’s the idea that Christians, primarily those with power and privilege and varying levels, right… Power and privilege kind of – there are different levels. But those with power and privilege always want to be the host and they always want, Hey, come sit at my table.

But I saw it in the chat. Someone asked a question, What do you say to the men who are allies? And one thing that I want to say, and also as an answer to your question, Joyce, is just be a really good guest. Sit at someone else’s table, sit at a woman’s table. Don’t invite women to sit at yours. I think that we need to take that from Jesus, and just be willing to sit at someone else’s table, to listen and to learn, for no other ulterior motive, to just listen and to learn from the overlooked theologians in our midst.

And so, something that I think that can help us move forward is if those with power and privilege can just be a good guest. I mean, I think, imagine you know, we’ve been talking – or I’ve been talking – about colonialism, but imagine if that were the case when the colonizers arrived. Imagine if they were just guests.

And so, I like to think that we can emulate Jesus in that way.

Amanda: I love that, Kat. And I have to say that when you mentioned that in your book, like, I’ve got big circles and like, highlighted stars. That’s a keeper. Just to add one more thing. And I agree with everything that Nicole and Beth and Kat have said.

But as leaders in the church, I think we need to learn how to ask ourselves, how are we using our power? When you’re a leader in the church, there is a sacred trust between you and the people to whom you minister, and they expect that you’re going to use that sacred trust in a way that contributes to their flourishing and their growth as disciples of Jesus. And when that doesn’t happen, that can be extremely painful. That actually creates even more rupture than if it were just a normal relationship, an equal relationship between two people and something… you know, one person does something negative to another person. But if it’s a church leader and they violate that sacred trust, there’s a sense in which a person’s own spiritual life and spirituality feels like it has been ruptured.

And so I think, you know, I’m mindful in my own tradition, we tend to talk about church leadership as servant leadership, and I think there’s something really beautiful about that. But when we don’t acknowledge that there’s power in the position as well, we’re more inclined to abuse or misuse that power to bring harm to others. And so I think we need to train our church leaders to ask, How am I using the power that has been given to me, and am I using it for the flourishing of others, or am I using it to stoke myself and for my own benefit. And so, yeah, just wanted to add that to the mix.

Joyce: Yes, thank you. And I do feel like if there, you know, the analogy of the body of Christ and we’re all different members of the body, if one member is wounded, it hurts all of us.

And similarly, if that member of the body isn’t utilized or honored or developed then it’s a detriment, not only just for that particular part of the body, but it becomes a detriment to the whole body. And so, my prayer is that this conversation would be a blessing to the whole body of Christ, to the whole church for the flourishing of all.

And I just want to thank all of the panelists. This has been such a thought-provoking and stimulating conversation. If you all have not read their books, go out and buy them because they are… You can take a deeper dive in some of the things that were just touched on today in the panel.

So I want to thank you all so much, panelists, and then I want to turn it back over to Kelli.

Kelli Trujillo: This has felt way too short. I’ve seen so many comments of people wanting to have an ongoing conversation. One person, Shelly, asked for a weekend retreat, so maybe we can plan that in the future.

I also want to thank the panelists for your insights and your honesty and your testimony, and even your tears.

And also thank you, Joyce, for leading this really important discussion.

Please visit us christianitytoday.com for more insightful content on this topic and a variety of topics. And please look for a follow-up email that every registrant will get on Monday. And that email is going to have a video of this that you can also share, if you have folks you want to share it with. It will have a link to where you can download this free, special issue as a PDF. And it’s going to have links to the books of all of our panelists. And so, you’ll find all this information collected in that email. So until next time, thanks for joining us.

And I just pray that God bless all of you, our speakers, and all of our listeners. May you follow Jesus boldly and courageously, and embody His love in your church and in your community. Thanks.

Ideas

We Fell Short in Protecting Our Employees

President & CEO

How one organization—our own—got it wrong in responding to sexual harassment. And how we can do better.

Christianity Today March 15, 2022
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Vandervelden / Getty

I joined Christianity Today as its president and CEO in May of 2019. In August of the same year, it came to my attention that one of our editorial leaders had treated his female reports unprofessionally, engaging in unwanted touch despite repeated communications that such behavior was wrong, unwelcome, and needed to stop. I gathered more information about the history of the issue, and it was clear that earlier incidents with this individual had been addressed primarily through one-on-one conversations.

Without any written warnings in place, our options in August of 2019 were limited. We disciplined him, we documented it, and we warned him that he would be suspended or fired if it should happen again. No further allegations of unwanted touch or other inappropriate conduct arose between then and his retirement.

However, in September of 2021, two current female employees approached me and CT’s executive editor, Ted Olsen. They presented a more thoroughgoing narrative regarding this individual’s conduct, one that extended back many years and continued even after his retirement.

We hold these women in the highest regard and were deeply saddened to hear their stories. They described highly inappropriate comments and unwanted touch that left them feeling disrespected, objectified, and unsafe. Our immediate response was to grieve with them, thank them for their courage, and commit to a process that rigorously examines what we got wrong as a ministry and what we must do differently going forward.

(We were also aware of a second narrative, also years ago, in which another CT employee, who worked in advertising, was charged with a sex crime outside of the workplace and was fired from the ministry as soon as possible thereafter. We wished to examine whether we should have done more in that case as well.)

Committed to change

Confronted with the full scope of these narratives, and committed to change, we invited the women who made the report to be a part of shaping the institutional response. It was important to us that they should have a voice, and they have spoken into the process throughout with wisdom, care, and integrity.

We also reached out immediately to Rachael Denhollander, an attorney who has proven to be an invaluable source of wisdom on these matters. She has provided support to our employees and given insights into the process we should follow. I informed CT’s board of directors about the situation. The board supported strong action.

At Denhollander’s recommendation, we hired Guidepost Solutions, a respected company helping organizations establish best practices related to harassment and misconduct prevention, compliance, monitoring, and investigations. Guidepost conducted an independent assessment of our ministry and its response to the allegations we received. We also wished to know whether there was a wider problem with harassment or abuse at CT and how we might develop our culture, policies, and practices so that harassment is prevented, identified, investigated, and disciplined properly.

There was little we could say publicly before this assessment was completed. We did not want to distort or preempt Guidepost’s work, and we hold confidentiality obligations to our current and former employees. But we committed from the outset that we would publish Guidepost’s assessment. We felt a strong responsibility to operate as transparently as possible about what we learned and how we intend to move forward.

Why is this transparency important? We owe it to the women involved to say we believe their stories and we are deeply sorry the ministry failed to create an environment in which they were treated with respect and dignity.

We also owe it to our readers, our employees, and the church. Christianity Today as a ministry exists to serve the church, and one way we serve the church is by holding ministries accountable to the ideals of our faith. As such, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards, too. When we fall short of those standards, we must demonstrate transparency, accountability, and confession. Perhaps the best way we can serve the church in this season, when so many churches and ministries struggle with questions of harassment and the proper relationships between the sexes in the workplace, is to be as open as possible throughout our journey and invite others to learn with us.

A comprehensive assessment

Given that commitment, we publish today the assessment made by Guidepost. Guidepost surveyed current employees, conducted interviews with many current and former employees, and examined numerous documents.

We are grateful that Guidepost, as the report states, “did not find any pervasive harassment or abuse problems at CT.” But we lament the areas in which our institutional responses were significantly lacking, and we thank Guidepost for identifying what we should do differently henceforth.

Along with the Guidepost assessment, we also invited Daniel Silliman, CT’s news editor, to consider reporting on our ministry’s situation just as he has reported so expertly on others. We allowed Daniel and our senior news editor, Kate Shellnutt, to evaluate independently whether this was a story CT would publish if the same circumstances involved another church or ministry. They decided it was.

Daniel’s investigation ran parallel to the Guidepost assessment, without intermixing the two. We did not provide Daniel or Kate with documents we cannot legally share with our own employees, and the first time they will see Guidepost’s assessment is when it is published today. However, we have invited them to follow the story wherever it might lead.

Neither I nor any other member of the executive team at Christianity Today have shaped their report, nor will I or any member of the executive team see that report before it publishes. We believe in the power of journalism to shine a light on the truth and promote accountability, and we should hold ourselves to the same high standards as other ministries. We will link to Daniel’s report here as soon as it is published.

What we are learning

What, then, have we learned? Guidepost’s assessment is full of excellent recommendations that would be helpful to any church, ministry, or business. We encourage everyone to read it.

For Christianity Today, we hereby commit publicly to implementing the six high-priority recommendations Guidepost makes on pages 5 and 6 of its report. We also commit to informing our readers of the ministry’s progress through another editorial within the next six months. Beyond the (important) details of policies and processes, however, let me emphasize three immediate points we are learning.

First, our ministry succumbed to the temptation to explain away inappropriate conduct as misunderstandings—misunderstandings between men and women, or misunderstandings between members of different generations who have different expectations for appropriate workplace behavior. In other words, as Guidepost expressed so well, we overemphasized the intent of the perpetrator and underemphasized the impact on the recipient.

Divining intent is always a dubious enterprise, but sexual harassment is sexual harassment whether or not it is sexually motivated. It makes the person on the receiving end feel objectified, manipulated, and mistreated because of his or her sex. Rather than saying, “He doesn’t really mean anything by it,” we should have heard, “But it means pain and humiliation for her.” We should have responded more forcefully earlier to protect our colleagues and to communicate that such behavior will lead swiftly to termination.

Second, representation matters. Over half of CT’s employees are women. Over half of the editorial staff members are women, including some in mid-level leadership positions. But the top leadership of the ministry and the CT editorial team has been predominantly male. We see in ourselves what we have seen in countless other organizations: Decisions concerning the interests of women will rarely be wisely made when women have little or no voice in those decisions.

CT presently has one woman on the executive team (having lost another to retirement recently). We plan to have three women on the executive team by the end of the year and to continue working toward better representation and diversity in the ministry’s leadership and staff in the years to come. Furthermore, since talented women are the heart of our ministry, we will examine other ways in which we can make absolutely certain our female employees are valued and flourishing in their work.

And third, communication is paramount. The staff needed to hear from CT leadership clearly and consistently that sexual misconduct will not be tolerated and that reporters of misconduct or harassment will be received in a loving and thoughtful manner. We might have avoided a great deal of hardship, for the victims as well as the ministry, if we had offered an independent and anonymous reporting mechanism and if we had been more committed to formal discipline and documentation procedures.

Committed to truth

We pray that transparency about our errors will help other organizations avoid their own.

We anticipate, especially in this hyperpolarized moment, that we will receive criticism for this. We welcome feedback. There are, however, two possible criticisms I want to address preemptively.

One line of criticism might be that these revelations undermine our reporting on cases of church or ministry misconduct. I do not believe that to be the case. The news reporting team at Christianity Today has done outstanding work, recently as well as historically, holding some of the most powerful ministries accountable when they fall short of their calling. What would undermine our credibility is if we showed that we were only committed to the truth selectively because we sought to protect ourselves through concealment of the sin in our own house.

We have seen too many cases where Christian organizations cover up their failures because they believe the mission they serve is too important to be derailed by a few hurting people. This argument is tempting but wrongheaded. We cannot love the many by being cruel to the few. We cannot serve the truth by covering it up. It is because we are more committed to the kingdom of God than to our own institutional interests that we must be honest about our failures and share what we learn from them. We remain committed to rigorous journalism about ourselves and about others.

Another line of criticism may be that we are genuflecting to radical feminism and overreacting to behavior that is not truly harmful. We are not aware of any sexual abuse, assault, quid pro quo efforts, or the like within the ministry. The misbehavior we know of, however, persisted long after it had been expressed that it was unacceptable and needed to stop. Women we hold in the highest regard were hurt because we did less than love requires of us. The harassment itself left them feeling as though their dignity as women, their standing as professionals, and their ability to feel safe and valued in the workplace were taken away from them. This was deeply harmful not only to the two women who brought forth their report in September of 2021, but to other women as well. They were left to wonder whether we truly stood on their side. We grieve with them, confess our sin, and ask for their forgiveness.

In closing, we again encourage you to read the Guidepost assessment and to read Daniel Silliman’s independent report when it publishes. We hope the church can benefit as often as possible from things we do well. If the church can also benefit through us sharing honestly what we have done poorly, then to God be the glory. It is, after all, God’s glory and not our own that is the point of all we do.

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

Church Life

Two Hundred People Left Our Small Church

So we called our missing sheep, and found four main reasons that suggest four actions.

Christianity Today March 14, 2022
Edits by Christianity Today / Source Images: Andrew Jalali / Getty / Taylor Brandon / Unsplash

About 200 people have left our small church. The number probably sits closer to 350 when counting their children. But they didn’t leave the way you might expect—no church split or splinter. They left slowly, with neither fanfare nor fireworks. Some, if not most, left without a goodbye. And they left not over seven weeks or seven months, but over the course of seven years.

I got to thinking about this when I came back from my summer sabbatical, because I was pleased to see that not only did our church still exist, but there were also a few dozen new people.

The new attendees shake my hand and introduce themselves. They smile at me as I preach. They participate in our membership class and ask about small groups and opportunities to serve. One couple invited my wife and me out for a date. Still, I struggle to open my heart to them the way a pastor should, fully and without reservation. And I wonder why.

Then it hit me. In seven years, our church—in terms of net attendance—has grown from around 150 to 350. But in the same amount of time, our church has lost as many as have stayed. The losses never occur rapidly, as though a levee burst, but more as a steady trickle or slow leak.

A few of our members died. One went to jail. One wrote me an eight-page letter of grievances I was instructed to share with the elders; another wrote a chapter-length blog post suggesting we’re not even a church. Some parishioners didn’t let the door hit them on the way out because they kicked it off the hinges and left us to pick up the shattered pieces.

These departures are by far the exceptions. Many of those who left told me neither why they left nor even that they had left. I often find out via back channels like social media and other impersonal means. And I don’t believe our church has an exceptionally large back door—I suspect we’re typical.

How does a pastor keep his heart from growing cynical when, over 350 weeks of pastoring the same church, I have lost an average of one person each week? And why are these congregants leaving our church anyway? What role might I play, even unintentionally, in sending sheep to what they perceive to be greener pastures?

I don’t know. But I recently spent a lot of time and effort to find out.

Why do sheep leave?

For a few months I brought these questions up with those I discipled and other pastors to see what I might be missing. One morning, I sat at Starbucks with a retired missionary who now teaches Christian leadership to PhD students and expressed my confusion and sadness over our lost sheep.

I told him I’d like to know the true narrative explaining the trickle of departures so that I don’t project a false one, which would likely be more dystopian than required. My friend and church member suggested we create a phone survey to see what we might learn. So we did.

A woman from our church called dozens of former members and attendees to ask them a few simple questions. We hoped those who left might be able to help the church they seemed to appreciate—at one point anyway—learn how to better serve those still under our care.

The overwhelming majority of former members and attendees received the phone calls well. We can’t talk unequivocally about statistically significant trends, but below are the top four reasons people left. Perhaps they resemble the reasons people consider leaving your own church.

Geographic relocation. The largest reason by far that people leave involves geographic relocation. People move—quite often, apparently. Only infrequently, however, do people tell us in advance of a potential relocation, inviting pastoral input and asking for prayer as they make big life decisions. I assume these conversations happen more often at the level of small group Bible studies. A measure of encouragement and relief comes from this data, though. Our pastors can’t do much of anything about the single largest reason people leave.

Doctrinal disagreement. Other people leave because of different interpretations of the Bible. One man told me I trashed the Bible because of my view of Creation, a view generally considered orthodox. Another man took exception with my view of the Millennium. One couple with a Seventh-day Adventist background saw, as you might expect, the Sabbath differently. Others left our church frustrated by our occasional attempts to speak biblically about issues of race—too bold for some yet too timid for others.

It’s possible for these sorts of doctrinal disagreements to serve as a spiritual mask for something less spiritual, but I want to take people at their word. And although I wished each of these people had stayed, their reasons for leaving also encouraged me that they involved important issues.

Christian cliques. The feedback from some families suggested they experienced youth group as too established and too closed off to newcomers. As much as pastors and youth directors try to work against this, I’m sure it still happens. And while this kind of feedback tends to focus on student ministries, I suspect adult groups are prone to the same pitfall. Even as the lead pastor of the church—and in this way probably the most trained and equipped member—it’s easy for me to spend much of Sunday morning talking with those closest to me rather than pursuing newcomers and those on the fringes.

Personal difficulties and unresolved conflicts. The final—and thankfully the smallest—percentage of departures had to do with conflict. We could lump in this group controversies over everything from mask protocols, philosophies of ministry, and pastoral blunders to a host of other miscellaneous misunderstandings too private and painful to write about in anything other than a prayer journal.

Despite the small number of departures that fit in this category, these issues and situations take up a disproportionately large share of pastoral resources, both in their time and emotional capacity to keep coming back Sunday after Sunday with a warm heart.

For example, at one point my wife asked to hear the names of those who left due to conflict. As I read the list, she told me her chest started to tighten—and I could see her face start to grimace. I had similar reactions at first. And from the phone survey, clearly a few of those who left felt the same toward us.

The only other discernable categories worth mentioning are the handful of those who left after a divorce or ghosted us altogether, whose reasons are yet unknown.

The church member who conducted the phone survey sent me a few text messages along the way with updates. Near the end of the calls she wrote, “This project has made me profoundly grateful I don’t have your job.” Some days I know the feeling.

What can shepherds do?

For years, both church culture and the broader culture have habituated pastors and parishioners to be consumers; we should not be so surprised when we act like it. Whereas institutions like churches were previously seen as the places we sought out to become molded by them, writes Brett McCracken, “now we expect institutions to be molded around us.”

I don’t want to shirk personal or pastoral responsibility for our missing members. But trying to fix problems without considering broader cultural trends is a little like standing in a burning church building contemplating how to extinguish the fire inside while ignoring a larger forest fire raging outside.

To say an individual church can’t fix everything, however, should not stop pastors from doing what they can. If you were trying to fill the baptismal and noticed water seeping across the floor, you’d address the leak as quickly as possible.

And as I personally reflect on the way forward, I believe pastors can respond to missing sheep in two principal areas: actions to do and truths to treasure.

Actions to do. I’ll just mention a few actions that seem most relevant.

First, a church should have meaningful membership practices.

Most people who left without telling us were regular attendees but not members—which means they never formally requested the kind of shepherding that invites us to look for them when they stray. In our membership class, we already give special attention to the topic of leaving well. And so many, if not most, of our members do leave well. But I think that for all the attention we give to joining a church well, most churches could turn up the volume a bit on how to leave well.

Second, I’d encourage pastors, especially lead pastors, to name the struggle of disappearing sheep out loud. It helps. When I made an initial list of the people who left our church, my 15 minutes of brainstorming captured nearly 75 percent of the people. Only after weeks of reflection and input from other staff and elders did we fill out the rest of the names on that list.

Thus, as painful as it felt to look at those names, my ability to make a list told me a meaningful truth: I am a shepherd who knows his flock. It might seem strange but acknowledging this is an aspect of pastoring—knowing not only the sheep who stay but also the ones who leave—has helped me navigate the pain and take away the sting.

Third, go after straying sheep. Every seasoned pastor knows the warning signs: a drop in attendance, a resignation—officially or unofficially—from regular serving, like leaving the nursery rotation, followed by an email that says they now attend elsewhere.

These signals of straying should be seen as invitations to discuss what might be bothering your people and as opportunities to nudge sheep back into the fold. Maybe the reasons people leave your church are different than mine, but take the initiative to ask them why they’re pulling back. They’ll probably tell you.

Last spring, our elders did three rounds of what I privately but affectionally dubbed “Operation Lost Sheep,” where we identified the members and attendees in our church who were hurting or straying and then provided pastoral care accordingly, as best as we could. It might sound cold and mechanical to phrase pastoral ministry in terms of “triage”—combing through church directories and Microsoft Excel files—but we saw this kind of care as an expression of our love, not the absence of it. Whether formerly or informally perhaps your church leaders may benefit from considering a similar process.

Finally, pastors must fight to keep our hearts both soft and humble toward our church, even when so many situations could cause us to become embittered toward the very bride of Christ God calls us to serve. You can’t truly pastor wearing Kevlar or bubble wrap as vestments. So repent if you have cynical feelings about an influx of people each fall just because you’ve seen a similar exodus each spring. Don’t become a pastor who quits pastoring without actually quitting.

As I talked about these issues with another elder, he told me, “Benjamin, I think you might hold sheep too tightly. When people leave, it’s not all about you.” Then he added, “I mean, if they stayed at our church, would you take credit for that?” His question hung rhetorically in our conversation, but I think part of my heart did believe I could take credit. And that’s wrong.

Truths to treasure. There is more to healthy pastoring than mere striving and strategies; pastors must also treasure truth. It’s not clichéd for pastors to go back—again and again and again—to our gospel identity: We are at once sheep, servants, stewards, and shepherds.

Before we care for others, pastors must remember we ourselves are sheep in the Good Shepherd’s flock. His rod and staff comfort us. And as we serve the Lord, we are, in the words of Jesus in Luke 17:10, unworthy servants who have only done our duty, stewarding each member of our flock until the Lord leads them to the care of another. While tending to our flock often requires sweat and sorrow, it is the work we’ve been called to do. Shepherding is not a distraction from the job; it is the job.

Could these gospel identities be the sorts of truths a pastor tells himself to make himself feel better about himself? Could these gospel identities be the sorts of truths a pastor tells himself each week to resurrect his heart for another sermon, another counseling session, or another funeral?

Yes—but that doesn’t make them untrue.

Benjamin Vrbicek is the lead pastor at Community Evangelical Free Church in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the managing editor for Gospel-Centered Discipleship, and the author of several books.

News

Russian Evangelical Leader Apologizes to Ukrainian Christians

Carefully worded statement expresses solidarity with fellow believers and “bitterness and regret” over Russian “military invasion.”

A priest conducts the burial service for a Ukrainian soldier killed in the Donetsk region, at the home cemetery in Bila Krynytsia on March 6, 2022, in the Chernivtsi region in western Ukraine.

A priest conducts the burial service for a Ukrainian soldier killed in the Donetsk region, at the home cemetery in Bila Krynytsia on March 6, 2022, in the Chernivtsi region in western Ukraine.

Christianity Today March 14, 2022
Alexey Furman / Getty Images

In the highest-profile statement yet of its kind, the leader of the Russian Evangelical Alliance has announced his “bitterness and regret” over decisions taken by his government.

Will it be enough to rebuild bridges with fellow Ukrainian believers across the border?

“I mourn what my country has done in its recent military invasion of another sovereign country, Ukraine,” stated REA general secretary Vitaly Vlasenko in a March 12 open letter. “In the worst-case scenario, I could not imagine what is now being observed.”

His language is precise, but also careful.

On March 4, the Russian parliament amended its criminal code to impose prison terms for up to 15 years for spreading “fake news” that “discredits” the military.

Notably, Vlasenko did not use the Russian government’s designated label of “special military operation” to describe the violence in Ukraine. Utilizing “conflict” and “invasion” instead, he avoided describing it—though he did imply—with terms that have been officially banned, such as “war.” And alongside recognition of Ukraine’s fear of “occupation,” he cited Russia’s goal of “demilitarization.”

Two days earlier, a Russian court fined an Orthodox priest 35,000 rubles ($261) for discrediting the army during his Sunday sermon. His congregation helped pay the fine.

Russian media lawyers are debating whether the law prevents citizens from questioning the “special military operation” or calling for it to end.

Vlasenko’s statement (the full text is below) toes the line.

“Everything I could do to prevent war, I did,” Vlasenko lamented. “I apologize to all those who have suffered.”

Chief among his efforts was a statement released two days before the invasion, endorsing the appeal of Ukrainian religious leaders for a peaceful solution. And spiritually he has led Russian initiatives for fasting and prayer as well as joint meetings with European and Ukrainian believers to pray and seek reconciliation.

And since the war began, he said he has coordinated aid for 500 refugee families that fled east into Russia.

“Two peoples closely related to each other, many of whom are deeply devoted to the Christian (primarily Orthodox) faith, are now in a fierce battle,” Vlasenko stated. “Peaceful feelings are being destroyed amidst the bombing and shelling.”

So are Christian buildings—and lives.

On Saturday the shelling damaged the highest-profile location so far—the 16th-century Holy Dormition Svyatogorsk Lavra, a monastery complex revered as one of the three most sacred sites in Ukraine. A church statement said people inside were wounded, though it did not attribute blame.

In a statement released March 8, the Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations condemned Russian aggression against civilian areas. It listed three churches damaged in the fighting, including an evangelical prayer house near the besieged city of Kharkiv.

To that number can now be added Christ the Savior church in Mariupol.

The port city of 430,000 residents has been without drinking water for a week. The mayor stated 1,500 have died since the Russian attack began. Among them is Mykola, an evangelical, who was helping with evacuations, according to CT sources. Fellow believer Katya, a paramedic with the Ukrainian army, also perished.

Pope Francis is outraged at the “unacceptable armed aggression.” Noting the city is named after the Virgin Mary, he issued his strongest statement yet.

“Put an end to the bombings and the attacks!” Francis said on Sunday. “Let there be real and decisive focus on the negotiations, and let the humanitarian corridors be effective and safe. In the name of God, I ask you: stop this massacre!”

President Volodymyr Zelensky said Saturday that 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers have died as the war enters its third week. The deputy prime minister stated that only 9 out of 13 agreed-upon humanitarian corridors are open. Russian shelling killed seven people, including a child, who were trying to evacuate a northeast Kyiv suburb.

Russian ground forces are now within 15 miles of the capital, and British military officials stated the troops are thinning out in preparation to begin encirclement. Kyiv’s mayor Vitali Klitschko stated that half the population of three million has fled, but that every house is being fortified for the coming attack.

Meanwhile, the mayor of Melitopol, located in the oblast of Zaporizhzhia near Ukraine’s largest nuclear reactor, has been detained and replaced with a Russian sympathizer. The local population has protested for his release.

Sympathizing proactively is Zaporizhzhia’s Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), affiliated with the Moscow patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). Metropolitan Luka mobilized a caravan to attempt to deliver 90 tons of food and medicine to Mariupol.

At least six UOC parishes have ceased offering official prayers of recognition to Russian Patriarch Kirill: in Lviv, Cherkasy, Rovno, Sumhy, Ivano-Frankovsk, and Mukachevo.

And for the first time, Metropolitan Onufry, senior cleric in the UOC, acknowledged the conflict as a Russian attack. Like Vlasenko—though within the safety of Ukraine’s borders—he used the forbidden word.

“Our country is experiencing a time of difficult trials evoked by the attack upon our country by the troops of the Russian Federation,” he stated on Thursday. “There is no justification for those who start wars.”

In 2019, the Istanbul-based ecumenical patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Bartholomew I, recognized the national independence of the breakaway Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), while many parishes in Ukraine rejected this and chose to remain under the Russian-affiliated UOC. (Exact figures for OCU- and UOC-affiliated churches in Ukraine are difficult to determine.)

Russia has characterized events differently.

Where Zelensky emphasized that there was “no military target” near the UOC-affiliated Lavra monastery, the Russian military said it “liberated” the complex from a Ukrainian militia that was holding monks hostage. Similarly, the head of Russia’s National Defense Control Center said Luka’s caravan was also designed to evacuate citizens, until it was fired upon by Ukrainian nationalists.

Kirill blamed Bartholomew—and the West.

“They spared no effort, no funds to flood Ukraine with weapons and warfare instructors,” he stated in a March 10 letter. “Yet, the most terrible thing is not the weapons, but the attempt to ‘re-educate,’ to mentally remake Ukrainians and Russians living in Ukraine into enemies of Russia.”

Kirill was responding to a March 2 letter from the World Council of Churches (WCC), asking him to mediate to stop the war. The ROC joined the ecumenical body in 1961.

In polite church language, Kirill told them to butt out.

“I express my hope that even in these trying times … the [WCC] will be able to remain a platform for unbiased dialogue,” he wrote, “free from political preferences and one-sided approach.”

Dozens of worldwide Orthodox scholars and clerics have rejected Russian and ROC propaganda in an open letter replete with scriptural affirmations.

“The support of many of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate for President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine is rooted in a form of Orthodox ethno-phyletist [conflation between church and nation] religious fundamentalism, totalitarian in character, called Russkii mir, or the Russian world,” stated the 65 signatories, including one in Russia.

“We reject [this] heresy and the shameful actions of the Government of Russia … as profoundly un-Orthodox, un-Christian, and against humanity.”

Also pulling no punches is the Evangelical Association of Theological Education in Latin America (AETAL), coming to the defense of their co-seminarians in Ukraine.

“We demonstrate full support and solidarity to the Ukrainian people and the Church of Christ present in this country,” stated the association’s board of directors, condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “despotic” leadership.

“AETAL comes public to attest an unconditional and unrestricted refusal to [his] belligerent actions in eastern Europe.”

In Kherson, the first city to fall to the Russians, Tavriski Christian Institute (TCI) reported that troops are taking over the seminary to use as barracks.

Meanwhile, a Baptist World Alliance (BWA) statement—signed by Peter Mitskevich, president of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, and addressed to Putin, Zelensky, and the presidents of the US and France—avoided assignment of blame. Assuring Russia of its historic support, dating back to 1933, the BWA also recalled its resolution of 1968 that “war as a means of permanent solution is untenable.”

However, it did not use the term in reference to Ukraine. Instead, it lamented a “violent conflict,” called for the end of “hostilities,” negotiation for “mutual security,” and the limiting of “widespread harm.”

Of the 2014 crisis in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, it recalled sadness over the “severe tension” as well as support for initiatives of reconciliation.

“The whole Christian world prays for you in hope that the vision of the prophet Isaiah will be embodied as swords are transformed into plowshares,” read the statement, signed additionally by BWA general secretary Elijah Brown and Alan Donaldson, general secretary of the European Baptist Federation.

“And that the prayer of the Apostle Paul will be fulfilled as the conditions are created for a peaceful and prosperous life for all people.”

Such statements have consistently failed to satisfy most Ukrainian evangelicals. Will Vlasenko’s be any different?

“The bravery and honesty is something that has historically been in deficit among Christians in Russia,” said Jaroslaw Lukasik, director of Eastern Europe Reformation, who called it a “fresh breath of air.”

“However, before amendments can be made and talk of peace and solidarity, we need to work together in stopping the evil that Putin’s regime has unleashed on Ukraine,” he told CT. “So our question is will our brothers and sisters in Russia take an active stand with us in the fight against the Russian regime?”

Multiple Ukrainian evangelical leaders declined comment to CT.

In his open letter, the Russian evangelical leader wrote that he has done what he could.

“My prayer is that you will find strength from the Lord to extend your hand of solidarity and forgiveness, so we can live as the people of God to our world,” Vlasenko stated. “May our heavenly Father help us all.”

Full text of Vitaly Vlasenko letter:



March 12, 2022

To my dear brothers and sisters around the world:

As the General Secretary of the Russian Evangelical Alliance, I mourn what my country has done in its recent military invasion of another sovereign country, Ukraine.

For me, as for many other Christians, the military invasion was a shock. In the worst-case scenario, I could not imagine what is now being observed in Ukraine. Two peoples closely related to each other, many of whom are deeply devoted to the Christian (primarily Orthodox) faith, are now in a fierce battle—one side pursuing the goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, the other seeking to save their country from occupation.

Many Russians and Ukrainians have close family relations in the opposite country. A Russian may have daughters and grandchildren living in Kyiv; a Ukrainian may have children living and working in Moscow. Today, pain, fear, and deep sorrow for their loved ones and for the future of their own lives and countries pierce the hearts of many people like lightning, because since the Second World War no one knows what the limits of war and its consequences may be.

Today, soldiers from one side and the other are dying. Peaceful feelings are being destroyed amidst the bombing and shelling, and a stream of increased attention has rushed across Europe in the form of refugees: women, the elderly, and children.

All these events cause me deep sorrow, bitterness, and regret for decisions taken by the leadership of my country, and a great compassion for those suffering as a result of this decision.

Everything I could do to prevent war, I did in an attempt to stop this military invasion:

• In my capacity as General Secretary of the Russian Evangelical Alliance, I wrote an open letter to President Vladimir Putin the day before the invasion, in which I supported the request of the religious leaders of Ukraine for a peaceful solution to all conflict.

• We initiated fasting and prayer for peace and harmony between Russia and Ukraine.

• Our Alliance took part in public prayer alongside Russian, Ukrainian, and European leaders for the reconciliation of all parties.

• The Russian Evangelical Alliance provided humanitarian assistance to more than 500 refugees from Ukraine stationed in southern Russia.

• We initiated a roundtable and subsequent international conference on the topic of military and political conflicts.

Today, as a citizen and as General Secretary of the Russian Evangelical Alliance, I apologize to all those who have suffered, lost loved ones and relatives, or lost their place of residence as a result of this military conflict. My prayer is that you will find strength from the Lord to extend your hand of solidarity and forgiveness, so we can live as the people of God to our world.

May our heavenly Father help us all.

With deep respect, your brother in the Lord,

Vitaly Vlasenko

Theology

The Wartime Prayers of Ukraine’s Evangelicals

Local Christian leaders invite readers to share in their ministries, Bible meditations, and personal struggles amid Russia’s invasion.

A Ukrainian soldier photographs a damaged church after shelling in a residential district in Mariupol, Ukraine, on March 10.

A Ukrainian soldier photographs a damaged church after shelling in a residential district in Mariupol, Ukraine, on March 10.

Christianity Today March 11, 2022
Evgeniy Maloletka

The Ukrainian church needs support. But so do the individuals who shepherd the body of Christ. Often they are lost behind the headlines and statistics of war. Even their quotes fail to convey the full depth of their struggle.

Christianity Today asked Ukrainian evangelical leaders to help readers enter their war-torn world by sharing a glimpse of it. Each provided a Bible verse that has proven meaningful for perseverance, prayer requests for both concrete personal needs and more profound spiritual longings, and a referral to how readers can get involved.

Taras Dyatlik, engagement director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia for ScholarLeaders International:

Currently supporting a network of Ukrainian seminaries, Dyatlik has identified three stages of need. The immediate need is to evacuate, relocate, and find safe locations to save the lives of students, staff, and faculty. In another week or so, their situation must become stabilized in longer-term accommodations. And then, pending the developments of war, they will figure out how to continue theological education.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

Mark 14:27–28 – “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

Sometimes we find ourselves with Jesus, not because we followed him, but because he comes to us—as now, in our brutal war with Russia. And he asks us as he asked Peter at the Sea of Galilee: “Do you love me?” (John 21:16–17). Still, this comes after breakfast, when he has taken care of us, first. Even when we fail in the challenges of this war, his friendship is available for us to revive in.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for my wife and many other wives who refused to be evacuated while their husbands stayed behind. But I am also praying that this war will shake the conscience of humanity and the theology of the church. No longer can we elevate a nationalism that so often requires others to be brought low, as we see so many Christians adopting now in Russia.

Oleksandr Geychenko, president of Odessa Theological Seminary:

United World Mission has been a decades-long partner of OTS, located on Ukraine’s western Black Sea shore. As his fellow seminary heads in other cities have turned their campuses into places of refuge, Geychenko has been trying to evacuate the school’s staff and students and provide for them as best he can.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

1 Corinthians 12:26–27 – If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Last Sunday, we celebrated our monthly Lord’s Supper for the first time since the war began. The high point was in identification with the suffering of fellow believers who have loved ones in neighboring nations, still on the road searching for accommodation, or who have perished in the attacks on our many cities. But as I took the bread, I knew I was part of the body of Christ.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying through the rage of an almost tangible pain. Instead of my seminary routine, I am an emergency volunteer. Our lives have been smashed, our souls have been burnt, and there is no end in sight. For the wholeness of our country to be restored, we need God to give spiritual insight and moral clarity to the world. Then this storm can turn against the aggressors, and disperse them.

Yuriy Kulakevych, foreign affairs director of the Ukrainian Pentecostal Church:

As the largest union of charismatic churches in Ukraine, Kulakevych is part of an administration that is facilitating aid for evacuees throughout its regional networks. Warehouse managers, call center operators, accountants, cooks, and drivers represent the behind-the-scenes work that make direct physical and spiritual care possible.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

2 Corinthians 6:9–10 – Known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

Despite our many troubles, we must remember that today is the day of salvation. We do not feel it, but in Christ we have enough to open wide our hearts to serve the needs of those around us.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for supernatural restoration during short nights of sleep! Everyone is doing their best—physically, mentally, and spiritually—but some, and especially the youth, need delivery from posttraumatic stress. Yet amid the darkness of war, I am praying for the evangelization of the nations in the Russian Federation, with the gospel hidden by the black robes of the Orthodox priests.

Vadym Kulynchenko, missionary with Our Legacy Ukraine:

Part of a disciple-making movement in Kamyanka, 145 miles south of Kyiv, Kulynchenko has overseen the supply of food, medicine, hygiene products, and fuel for evacuees fleeing the violence. He is also earmarking funds, in faith, for the eventual rebuilding of Ukraine.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

Mark 14:35–36 – Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

We can bring God our honest questions and struggles, and we must—so that we do not fall into the temptation to lose our peace or hate the Russians. But once we give our lives to God, we must accept and obey the answers he gives us.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for clear leading from God if I should relocate my family outside Ukraine. Our central region is safe right now, but things can change quickly. Eurasia and the Middle East are at the epicenter of God’s end times prophecies, so we need understanding for how to behave both now and in the terrible events to come.

Ruslan Maliuta, strategic networks liaison at One Hope:

Dedicated to church cooperation and Scripture distribution for children, Maliuta is also connected to ministries helping orphans and unaccompanied children to evacuate from areas of Russian assault. Originally from Kyiv, he has relocated with his family to continue serving from Western Europe.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

John 8:31–32 – Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Genuinely following Jesus makes it possible for us to discern reality. The media offers competing narratives, but this is a war, its author is Putin, and its purpose is to destroy Ukraine as a free country and break our spirit. And unless it is stopped, it will eventually continue deeper into Europe.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for the parents of my wife, who remain in Kyiv, and for wisdom that we would know how to shepherd our five sons in this very challenging season. But beyond Russia, we must pray that the lies and deception that characterize so many issues, identities, and histories will drive Christians to better discipleship in how to be the light.

Maxym Oliferovski, project leader for Multiply Ukraine:

This Mennonite Brethren mission operates the New Hope Center in Zaporizhzhia, 40 miles from the now-Russian-controlled nuclear reactor. While evacuating and resettling refugees to Eastern Europe, Oliferovski assists the Anabaptist network of local churches in southeast Ukraine as they continue to serve their communities.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

Psalm 11:5 – The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

We see violent deaths all around us in Ukraine, and our only prayer can be for God to stop it. But we can be encouraged to know that God hates such violence also, and in time will bring his righteous judgement upon those who practice it.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for my family to endure this hardship we are going through, but with wisdom to know how to best continue serving those around us. But we are also praying for miracles, that as God meets the physical needs of people, he will also give peace to their soul, and through it all, his name will be glorified.

Sergey Rakhuba, president of Mission Eurasia:

With a vision to equip the next generation of evangelical church leaders in 12 countries of the former Soviet Union as well as countries with significant Russian populations, Rakhuba is currently in Moldova overseeing the crisis-driven shift to provide food, shelter, medicine, and pastoral care in three refugee hubs in Eastern Europe. And within Ukraine, he says 1,000 volunteers have been mobilized to assist those evacuating from—and staying in—the various war zones.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

Isaiah 43:2 – When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.

It is easy to trust God when nothing is happening, but it is when we are in the middle of an evil that is sweeping all around that we must rely on God. The heart is bleeding; but as the love of Jesus shines through tragedy, we can still find hope and joy.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for strength and courage in leadership. I cannot be on the ground in Ukraine, but my staff and my friends are, some of whom are driving food to the most dangerous areas, and our center in Lutsk was shelled last night. But more than just politics, this is a spiritual attack on the church. Within the church’s very limited resources, I am praying that God will show his power and make the gospel shine.

Mykola Romaniuk, senior pastor of Irpin Bible Church:

Heading the largest Baptist church in Kyiv’s suburban “Wheaton,” Romaniuk and his congregation have been displaced by the recent Russian attack. But they continue to support both members and nonbelievers as they scatter, as well as their partner churches in the western cities of Vinnytsa and Rivne, which are hosting many evacuees.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

Ecclesiastes 3:8 – A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Now is the time for hate and war. Loving an enemy who comes with a weapon requires turning him back, and those who do not mobilize militarily must do so spiritually—in unceasing prayer. When the time of love and peace return, we will then seek to repair relations with Russian believers who admit the sin of their silence in the face of fratricide.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for my heart, identical to David’s when he was surrounded by an identical army of deceitful and evil men (Ps. 43:1). A young brother, a member of our church, was murdered on the street while helping others, as our peaceful cities suffer daily bombardment. I am praying for those stuck in the cold and the snow, and the Christian refugees, that they might find spiritual community in their relocation.

Valentin Siniy, president of Tavriski Christian Institute:

Located near the Crimean peninsula, TCI is in the port city of Kherson, which has fallen to Russian occupation. The campus is now under threat of being made into a military barracks. No longer able to provide seminary education, Siniy has switched to help with evacuations, and the provision of basic needs to churches within Ukraine’s Russian-controlled regions.

The Bible verse helping him persevere:

1 Corinthians 15:51–52 – Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

It is hard to find the right Scripture that can comfort our hearts. But I recalled this verse as I drove away from my home city, hearing behind me the rocket launchers bombing it. This war will transform us—for good—and we will never be the same.

What he’s praying for:

I am praying for my family and the emotional hell we are going through. We hardly slept last night, we got food poisoning, my sister-in-law has a bad medical condition, and we are far from the doctors and hospitals that we know. But as I see this sinful world and the kingdom of destruction, I am asking God that more people would condemn the sin of war. We need his heavenly kingdom to come and restore his original purpose for creation.

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

Select articles are offered in Russian and Ukrainian.

News

$100M Ad Campaign Aims to Make Jesus the ‘Biggest Brand in Your City’

“He Gets Us,” an effort to attract skeptics and cultural Christians, launches nationally this month. But Christians still have questions about how the church markets faith.

Christianity Today March 11, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: EnriqueM / Getty / James / Unsplash

If you haven’t seen the commercials yet, you will.

This month, what is thought to be the biggest-ever Christian advertising campaign will go national. Television commercials, along with online ads and billboards, will target millennials and Gen Z with a carefully crafted, exhaustively researched, and market-tested message about Jesus Christ: He gets us.

Those behind the “He Gets Us” campaign say they’ll spend $100 million—donated by a small group of wealthy anonymous families—on the national launch, putting the campaign in the same financial arena as big-name brands like Old Navy, TD Ameritrade, and Mercedes-Benz.

The video ads, some of which are already garnering millions of views on YouTube, feature striking black-and-white photos and a stirring piano track. Made under the direction of Michigan-based marketing agency Haven, each ad focuses on an aspect of Jesus’ earthly experience with which today’s “the struggle is real” crowd might resonate: Jesus was judged too. Jesus had fun with his friends too.

The ads direct viewers to HeGetsUs.com, where they can choose four ways to engage: chat live, text for “prayer and positive vibes,” sign up to join a small group with Alpha, or click through to a Bible reading plan on the YouVersion app.

It might be the largest campaign of its kind, but “He Gets Us” is hardly the first time Christians have adopted secular media strategies for spiritual ends. From televangelism to God billboards to viral videos, every time technology advances, many Christians see new opportunities to share the gospel of Jesus. This time, though, it’s being branded by professionals and boosted with a big-bucks budget.

There’s a marketing term for when someone who views an ad ultimately buys the product: conversion. Christians have another definition for that word: turning a life over to Jesus. It’s this tension between “selling” and “converting” that prompts some Christians to object to deploying business strategies in church or using the secular marketing playbook to promote Christianity.

“A lot of churches don’t use the ‘M-word’ when referring to marketing,” said Haley Veturis, a digital communications expert who’s worked with some of the biggest ministries in the US. But marketing “is exactly what they’re doing,” she said, whenever they serve their communities or invite people to a worship service.

Veturis, former social media manager for Saddleback Church, now runs the firm digifora with partner Justin Brackett, former marketing consultant for Lakewood Church. The two agreed that if evangelism is just marketing by another name, then whether churches have megachurch-size budgets or not, they’re always focusing some energy on marketing. It’s how they do it that often creates tension.

When firms like theirs encourage clients to “distinguish” their church from others or when they begin to advertise through billboards and online banners, it can weary some Christians. Marketing skeptics view such strategies as blurring the lines between sharing the gospel and “productizing” the church, as Brackett put it. They worry such ads could be seen as nothing more than luring future tithers into local pews.

The creators of He Gets Us say this is a strength of their particular campaign: It can’t be misunderstood as promoting a single congregation, because churches all over the country and across denominations are involved. The campaign partnered with Gloo, a company that specializes in using data to help churches, to help answer the calls and texts for prayer and recruit congregations to receive visitors who click for more information on HeGetsUs.com.

In an ad created by Gloo to recruit churches for that effort just before Christmas last year, a narrator asks, “What if, instead of all these consumer ads, Jesus was the biggest brand in your city this holiday?”

Decades after Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan introduced the idea that “the medium is the message,” some Christians object that treating Jesus like a consumer product could encourage non-Christians to treat him the same way once they get to church.

“The story of Jesus … doesn’t need to be sold, but it is worth sharing,” said Brad Abare, who used to run Church Marketing Sucks, an online resource that explored the tension Christians faced in differentiating evangelism from sales.

Since the “product” of the gospel message is transformation, people’s testimonies—their actual changed lives—advertise for themselves.

“Jesus knew the best way to spread the word was to live a life worth following,” Abare said. “So while the He Gets Us campaign is admirable for its intent, it does make me wonder that if we had more followers of Jesus worth following, what else we could put $100 million to work doing?”

The $100 million for He Gets Us comes from The Servant Christian Foundation, a nonprofit backed by a Christian donor-advised fund called The Signatry. (Both declined to name the donors who helped envision and pay for He Gets Us, who want to remain anonymous.)

Donor-advised funds are popular with evangelical investors who want to make large gifts without setting up their own private foundations. Wealthy clients invest with The Signatry, which will then either manage the money in an investment fund or help them find nonprofits to support. So far, The Signatry has given away over $3 billion from Christian philanthropists.

Last year, The Servant Christian Foundation approached Bill McKendry, founder and chief creative officer at Haven, concerned that too many young Americans are leaving Christianity and that more people were growing hostile toward faith. Their idea: a national media blitz for Jesus at a scale that no single church could afford.

McKendry said approaching American Christianity’s image problem with business savvy is what Jesus would have done. “[Jesus] crafted his language and his storytelling to resonate with people,” he said. “He told agricultural stories to farmers. He told fish stories to fishermen. … This culture is immersed in media, and we’re using media to reach them for Christ.”

McKendry, which has been involved in campaigns for Christian brands like Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom, and American Bible Society, had Haven develop—to put it in marketing terms—a “problem statement” that their campaign would answer: “How did the world’s greatest love story in Jesus become known as a hate group?”

The project began with six months of market research, including online and telephone surveys, to try to learn more about what McKendry calls the “movable middle.” Their research found that over half of American adults are religious skeptics or cultural Christians—people who believe in Jesus but don’t have an active relationship with him.

Prior to the national campaign, which will run through the end of the year, He Gets Us had a two-month test launch in ten cities in late 2021. During that time, it led 17,000 people to engage with the site’s offers to chat, join an Alpha group, or start YouVersion’s Bible reading plan. More than half of those who clicked through to begin YouVersion’s seven-day reading plan went on to complete the full week.

Steve French, president and CEO of The Signatry as well as The Servant Christian Foundation, said he hopes the campaign has an impact like the 1979 movie Jesus, which was created as an evangelism tool by Campus Crusade for Christ (now known as Cru). The film made a blip at the box office, but according to the Jesus Film Project, it has since been seen by 5 billion people and translated into over 1,000 languages. By 2004, The New York Times suggested it might be the most-watched and most-translated movie of all time.

So far, hundreds of churches have signed up to respond to people who fill out connect forms on HeGetsUs.com. Scott Beck, CEO of Gloo, which is running that digital infrastructure, said he expects many more churches will join when the campaign launches nationally. There is no theological criteria or statement of faith that churches must adhere to in order to take part.

“We hope that all churches that are aligned with the He Gets Us campaign will participate,” said Jason Vanderground, president at Haven. “This includes multiple denominational and nondenominational church affiliations, Catholic and Protestant, churches of various sizes, ethnicities, languages, and geography … ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.”

That goal has made the ads somewhat controversial even apart from church marketing concerns. McKendry at Haven said some Christians have criticized the ads, saying that by emphasizing a God who “gets us,” they don’t give a full picture of Christ’s deity. (Some YouTube commenters, for example, took issue with a video released before Christmas about how “Jesus was born to a teen mom.”)

The criticism carries echoes of a longstanding rift among evangelicals: Does becoming “seeker sensitive” risk watering down the gospel?

“The church needs to understand that this campaign isn’t for them, it’s for Jesus,” McKendry said. “It’s to reach an audience we’re not currently reaching.”

But even bringing someone into the doors of a church isn’t necessarily “enough,” said Jason Daye, who formerly worked as a vice president at Outreach, which creates marketing materials for churches.

“The goal [of marketing] shouldn’t just be to get a bunch of people to show up,” Daye said. “If that’s your goal … then you’re missing out on the bigger piece of what we’re called to do. And that is to build those relationships that lead people to Jesus.”

McKendry said He Gets Us has the same goal; they’re just playing the long game.

“Is the goal that people become Christians? Obviously,” he said. “But more importantly for now … we need to raise their level of respect for Jesus, and then they’ll move.”

Despite disagreements about tactics or even the content, the He Gets Us team is confident that they’re starting where every successful ad campaign starts: with a good product. Market research, McKendry said, found skeptics were more likely to be convinced their values lined up with Jesus’ than with other religious figures like Mohammad or Buddha.

“Jesus,” said French, “is really the strong brand here.”

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to indicate that Bill McKendry has worked with Focus on the Family and Alliance Defending Freedom as clients, though not under the Haven agency.

News

Do Russian Christians Need More Bonhoeffers?

European evangelical leaders discuss how membership in the body of Christ should guide believers when their nations are at war.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the flag of Russia

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the flag of Russia

Christianity Today March 11, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons

The first cleric has fallen to Russia’s new law.

Ioann Burdin of Resurrection Church in Kostroma, 215 miles northwest of Moscow, was detained for “discrediting the Russian armed forces” in his Sunday sermon.

His parish also allegedly shared an antiwar petition.

“We, Christians, cannot stand idly by when a brother kills brother, a Christian kills a Christian,” the statement said, as reported by the BBC’s Russian service. “Let’s not repeat the crimes of those who hailed Hitler’s deeds on Sept. 1, 1939.”

Does Russia—and the world—need more like him?

Christianity Today previously reported the frustration of Ukrainian Christian leaders that their Russian counterparts should be like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The famous German theologian was executed in the waning days of the Third Reich for complicity in an assassination plot against the führer.

Ukrainian evangelicals want Russian evangelicals to at least speak out.

Hundreds have. But is it fair to ask them to do so? Russia’s new law, passed March 4, provides penalties of up to 15 years in prison for simply calling Putin’s “special military operation” a “war.”

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

Five European evangelical leaders advised CT on which should be paramount: safety or solidarity.

CT: Esther in the Bible, and Bonhoeffer in history, are exceptional examples of faith. But are they normative for Christians—especially Christian leaders—in times of conflict?

Leonardo De Chirico, chair of the theological commission of the Italian Evangelical Alliance:

In a sense, the whole church has been given a prophetic responsibility to denounce evil and injustice. Then there are specific prophetic callings that individuals receive from God, and they are ready to pay the price of exposing themselves to retaliations and persecutions.

Not all of us are called to be Esthers and Bonhoeffers in all circumstances, but some should. And all should support them in the priestly role of prayer and solidarity.

Loyalty to our nations is good, although it can become an idol. But loyalty to God and his global church takes precedence. I hope and pray that believers across the nations involved will show that their unity in Christ is stronger than their national allegiances.

Marc Jost, general secretary of the Swiss Evangelical Alliance:

I was very pleased and encouraged to hear that my Russian counterpart had courageously spoken out against his own government. But this is primarily a matter of personal calling and mandate, rather than a general duty of Christians, or of critically thinking Russians.

Although, of course, I very much welcome it.

Loyalty among Christians transcends all boundaries. The bond through Christ is stronger than that of a nation, even stronger than that of one’s own physical family.

Samuil Petrovski, president of the Serbian Evangelical Alliance and IFES Serbia:

This question is not new. Many years ago, when Ukrainian pastors asked Russian pastors to speak out against Putin, I remember not agreeing with that.

I know that most Christian leaders in Russia are against the war. They are praying for peace in their churches, and some of them are publicly demonstrating. They are under a lot of pressure. What is most important is the unity of believers in Ukraine and Russia.

Instead of being one-sided, as some people have done by displaying the Ukrainian flag and creating events for prayer for the Ukrainians specifically, they should also advertise the Russian flag and pray for the Russians too.

Christians should stand up in prayer, offer practical help, and appeal for peace—praying for the leaders on both sides. We must be extremely careful to avoid strong political debate, through which our Christian leaders can lose focus and forget the importance of Christ.

During the conflict between Serbia and Croatia, some pastors of evangelical churches gave strong statements where they encouraged NATO to bomb another country. Other pastors condemned them for this.

Initiatives on both sides tried to bring us together, to pray in a nearby neutral country. But some rejected this offer, saying, “The only place we can meet together and pray is in heaven.”

It ought not to be this way—whether in Serbia, Russia, or Ukraine.

Slavko Hadžić, Langham Preaching coordinator for the West Balkans, from Bosnia:

Christians need to take a stand for justice and truth, and against war and violence. But while we should not be silent because of fear, neither should we speak because of expectations from others. Our motive must be to please God alone.

In God’s kingdom there are no Bosnians, Serbs, or Croats. There are no Ukrainians or Russians. There are only those who are children of God, and those who are not. And the Devil uses some for evil on all sides.

Instead of condemning those who are still silent, we need to pray that God will give them guidance, courage, and wisdom to know what, when, and how to speak.

Vlady Raichinov, vice president of the Bulgarian Evangelical Alliance:

The Bible is abundant with stories of faith-based defiance against cruel monarchs and autocrats. Church history has also had its fair share of voices speaking up against injustice.

Paul said: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6, ESV). This combination of grace and salt should characterize our response to any public conflict. With love and veracity, mercy and virtue, poise and sting, we avoid the temptation to be either thick-skinned and unkind, or diffident and withdrawn.

This is especially true of authoritarian regimes.

Conscience sometimes whispers discreetly and unobtrusively, a shy voice reminding us of our identity, values, and commitments. At other times it is loud, blunt, and shrill, an internal whistleblower forcing us to seek a prominent change.

As a “conscience of society,” the church often speaks in a low-key, underground, word-of-mouth manner. It subverts social values one person at a time, slowly and patiently spreading its salt and light, until it manages to drill so many holes in the tyrant’s moral foundation that eventually his license runs dry and his dominance tumbles.

But at other times, the Spirit leads Christians to raise a sharp, uncompromising voice against crimes that have escalated too far. And then the church, still fueled by God’s Spirit, becomes a trigger and a flag-bearer of major, society-wide tectonic shifts. Its salt and light then influence the masses to perceive the injustice and motivate them to finally do something about it.

Our prayers are that God would lead Christians in Russia to carefully listen to God’s still and quiet voice, to faithfully hold to their calling to preach the gospel, and to courageously follow his prompting of what needs to be done in their terrible situation.

CT: What level of threat is necessary before a Christian is compelled to do something against evil?

De Chirico (Italy):

The less personal and immediate the level of threat, the more difficult it is to be motivated against it. If we are talking about systemic evil, some people do not even recognize it, let alone speak against it.

Here we are confronted with a war, with people dying, with destruction and despair, and with the threat of nuclear weapons. Things might be geographically distant now, but if not stopped, its ripple effects will soon reach out to the world.

This level of threat compels all of us to do something.

Jost (Switzerland):

Every injustice, and everything that puts our fellow human beings in danger, should be a call for Christians to do something about it.

But not every evil is my responsibility. When God shows an individual Christian an injustice, and touches the heart to act, then that person should be obedient to God.

Petrovski (Serbia):

Christians need to raise up their voice in all settings, not just when tragedy strikes. This should especially be when the evil is in our own neighborhoods, and sometimes this can be unpopular.

But it is very interesting that in the New Testament, we do not find the apostles writing directly against Caesar and the Roman authorities, but rather giving a strong call to prayer, perseverance, and the challenge to be salt and light in times of crisis.

Hadžić (Bosnia):

As Christians, we always need to stand against evil. Greater evil requires greater response, but we do not need to wait for it to grow.

It is very important to remember that our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against heavenly principalities. If we look with secular standards, there is one side which is guilty, and the other which is innocent.

But by biblical standards we are all guilty. There are people suffering on all sides, there are children of God on all sides, and there is need for God’s mercy on all sides.

When suffering and in pain or fear, it is hard to not look at the other as evil. Instead, we must recognize the Evil One, and stand against him.

Raichinov (Bulgaria):

As the Book of Proverbs states: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute” (v. 31:8). This is a general call of action, valid for Jesus’ followers, everywhere. However, on a day-to-day level, when Christians are in the gutters, busy bandaging wounds and counseling victims, the level of threat is to be evaluated on the spot, according to what God imprints into our hearts.

A silent cry caused by abuse would be most recognizable to people who have gained experience in dealing with violence or trafficking; others might be oblivious to the signs of danger. A loss of life during war or pandemic may end up as a statistic on a TV screen; when it hits closer to home, or when ministering to grieving people, desperate refugees, or broken families, then the level of threat is perceived differently.

But on a broader scale, Jesus’ new command to love creates in us a sensitive and caring heart that identifies with and ministers to people in pain, however severe.

How low is that bar? It’s as low as the personal dignity, health, or life of any human being threatened by another person, or by a natural disaster.

Is the chance of success a legitimate factor to consider? Or is a small act a mustard seed?

De Chirico (Italy):

Prophets act regardless of the outcome, ready to face opposition rather than winning the case. They care only about affirming truth and denouncing evil, calling all to repent.

But the Bible also calls us to a royal responsibility—living orderly lives and caring for others. In this role, we must weigh different factors. It all depends on which role—prophet, priest, or king—that we give precedence.

Jost (Switzerland):

As Christians, we are always invited to reckon with both our entrusted thinking capacity, and God’s immeasurable possibilities. Combining the two constitutes true wisdom.

Petrovski (Serbia):

Christians should stand up against any form of evil—especially war—but not only when the war has started. We should teach every believer to not take sides, to not accuse brothers and sisters in Christ, and to not demand action from them without knowing the full story.

Instead, we should invite all Christians in the world to pray for Ukraine, Russia, the European Union, and America. This is a global threat, and it is essential that we be peacemakers.

Hadžić (Bosnia):

Success is found in fighting fear—or the expectations of others—and in standing for truth and justice. If we do nothing, we will never know what would happen if we did. We must do what is right, and what God is calling us to do, regardless of any possibility of greater success than this.

Raichinov (Bulgaria):

This is not an easy issue. Our collective memory is replete with stories of totalitarian persecution. But as leaders suffered pressure, congregations held to their faith, met in secret, and smuggled Bibles despite the imminent danger of being reported to communist watchdogs.

Did they anticipate success and how would it have been measured? The one lesson standing out is their commitment to the subversive power of the gospel. Their sedition was spiritual: proclaiming Jesus, praying for governmental change, teaching their children to memorize Scripture, living a life of integrity, and loving their neighbor.

Eventually, the regimes disintegrated from the inside out. Consciously or instinctively, the church contributed by undermining the autocratic value system and quietly spreading a different worldview.

Jesus counseled in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not resist an evil person” (Matt. 5:39). How does this factor into the decision?

De Chirico (Italy):

There are entire libraries on the interpretation of the Sermon of the Mount. I take it as not addressing primarily the role of the state, but on personal dealings with evil people, ready to pay the personal price of their evil.

Jost (Switzerland):

The Sermon on the Mount challenges us in our personal relationships and encourages us to be peacemakers. Christians in political responsibility also have state power to execute and, for example, an army to lead.

But John the Baptist did not ask the [Roman] soldiers to lay down their arms, rather, to be just and fair in their efforts (Luke 3:14).

Petrovski (Serbia):

Jesus never called for riots or politically based movements in the Sermon on the Mount. And Paul calls us to bless our enemies, rather than curse them.

During our war, a few churches on both sides publicly prayed a blessing over their “enemies,” but there were other pastors who looked to the government for influence.

They were listening to Caesar rather than to Christ.

Hadžić (Bosnia):

We should not seek revenge, and we should not return evil with evil. Christians fight evil not with hatred but with love, not with curses but with prayer and blessing.

Where evil seeks to destroy, we seek to build.

Raichinov (Bulgaria):

At the end of the day, justice and vengeance belong to the Lord. Jesus has told us to be ready to turn the other cheek, and this is a basic value of our Christian faith. It involves not only seeking peace and building bridges, but also appreciating even the abuser as a human being created in God’s image and in need of God’s grace.

As the church grows more organized in its structure and recognized in society, it becomes a visible image of how God imagines people should live. At this level, the church has yet another task: to challenge the world order and offer Jesus’ upside-down value system in its place.

As a countercultural entity, the church is supposed to be a dissident, declaring God’s mind against injustice and evil. In a world of disorder and disinformation, broken beyond repair, the church should serve as a beacon of peace and truth.

Its responsibility is to defy demonic forces, call them out by name, and earnestly pray against their spread. By resisting hate and depravity; by identifying things like “war” and “tyranny” with their real names; and by drawing a clear line on moral perversity, self-absorbed power, and human sin, the church is providing this world with a frame of reference and pointing to another kingdom, one of shalom and love.

Editor’s note: CT’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage, including the evacuation of the “Wheaton of Ukraine,” a protest letter by hundreds of Russian pastors, and churches receiving 100,000 refugees in Moldova, can be found here. Select articles are offered in Russian and Ukrainian.

Follow CT on Telegram: @ctmagazine (also available in Chinese and Russian)

Self-Care Only Works in God’s Care

Christian faith calls not for indulgence or self-denial but something else entirely.

Christianity Today March 10, 2022
Johan Armang / Pexels

A few decades ago, you might have found me taking pot-shots at John the Baptist’s “I must decrease” (John 3:30). Having witnessed the havoc it wreaked upon Christian women prone to self-abnegation, as well as the license it gave to authoritarian leaders prone to spiritual abuse, I was not a fan of this particular phrase.

That changed when I happened upon my 12-year-old daughter’s Pinterest board titled “Self Care” (alongside “Cute Animals” and “Cool Outfits”). I opened it and discovered bubble bath recipes, sassy girl-power quotes, yoga poses, pampering skin care routines, and promos for self-care products (read: luxury goods). Harmless? I wasn’t so certain.

It made me wonder if I had traded in John the Baptist’s camelhair tunic for luxury camelhair boots.

Christian theologians have always had revolutionary messages about the self, which are often paradoxical and profoundly countercultural. They take their cue from Jesus, who talked about losing one’s self in order to find it. About coming to serve, not be served. About death being the doorway to life. In none of these messages is Jesus downgrading the self. He is simply giving our selfhood a new foundation.

The early church followed in his footsteps, baptizing people and proclaiming the termination of a selfhood that was already leading to death. They remodeled Roman mausoleums into baptistries, sending a clear message through the architecture: You are going here to die. A deceased person is being buried here. Sin killed you—you were already dead—you are just enacting a death that has already happened.

When the convert rose from the clear waters of baptism, they were raised into a revolutionary idea of what it means to be a self.

For early theologians, this symbolic death of the self was the discovery of the true self in Christ. They believed they could “be” themselves while being a self-for-others. The secret to this fully developed selfhood was neither self-care nor self-abnegation—which, it could be argued, are simply different sides of the same theological coin.

Instead, when a person’s life “is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3, KJV), their identity is fully stable, for it’s connected to the one who truly knows us, loves us, and doesn’t change. Knowing oneself and being oneself can only happen in relationship with knowing and being known by God and others. And to go one step further: Truly caring for oneself only happens when we have something bigger than ourselves to care about.

This is the secret to Lent. The early church, like a good parent, wanted to direct its children annually into a journey that would remind them of their primary selfhood: in Christ.

Historically, Lent arose from the 40 days when baptismal candidates fasted and prayed in preparation for their baptism on the eve of Easter. It didn’t take much time, though, until the whole church realized it wasn’t just the new converts who needed this cleansing process. Everyone needed it again and again. The entire early church, then, committed itself to remembering baptism and the new identity that it offers. Lent was not so much about self-hatred or self-punishment but the rediscovery of the self in Christ.

The problem with the self-care movement today is that much of it rests on a false dualism: that my selfhood and God’s are in competition, and that choosing something good for myself comes at the expense of God’s glory and vice versa. But this is just a modern dilemma, foreign to the church of earlier centuries.

Bernard of Clairvaux, a gentle pastor and abbot from the 12th century, helps us ground self-care in its proper relation to God and ourselves. For him, the love of self was a fitting and necessary part of being human and even a key part of our survival. At the same time, he understood that it was equally vulnerable to our disordered desires.

How is it possible to have a rightly ordered care for ourselves? Bernard took his monks on a pilgrimage of love, in which they moved beyond disordered self-love to one that was truly free for God and others.

Bernard begins by describing the first stage of love (self-love) as what he calls “natural human affection,” where we are weakened and nearly “compelled to love and serve ourselves first.” For Bernard, there is no intrinsic problem with having a self, but unfortunately, that self often gets infected with desires that lead to enslavement. This stage Bernard calls “love of self for self’s sake.”

In the second stage of love, we discover something larger than ourselves—God!—who is worthy of our love and delight. We begin to experience freedom from our disordered desires, even though this stage is still a subset of self-love, or the “love of God for self’s sake.”

But true growth in God comes at the third stage of love, when we begin to love God for who he is and not for what he can give us. This stage brings liberation, as our disordered desires begin to find their deepest calling in loving God and our neighbor.

“Once God’s sweetness has been tasted,” writes Bernard, “it draws us to the pure love of God more than our needs compel us to love him. Thus we begin to say, ​‘We now love God, not for our necessity, for we ourselves have tasted and know how sweet the Lord is.’”

But Bernard isn’t done with us.

There is the fourth stage. Here, we come around full circle to a purified love of ourselves. Bernard calls this the stage of “love of self for God’s sake.” At this level, we engage in the most difficult spiritual discipline of all: seeing ourselves with God’s eyes, knowing ourselves as beloved, and loving ourselves as one of God’s beloved creations—warts and all.

“Such experiences are rare and come only for a moment,” says Bernard.

To those of us accustomed to believing that my self and God’s are in competition, this truth comes as a shock: What brings God glory is not our self-denigration but rather humble gratitude and freedom in knowing ourselves as loved by him and made in his image. This is true self-care, where we’re given the gift of seeing ourselves as God sees us and loving ourselves with his unalloyed love (1 Cor. 13).

When you remove God’s love from the picture, self-care is not part of the fourth stage but the first. It doesn’t attend to things that truly satisfy, nor does it convince us of our lovability. Ironically, the first stage is tyrannical, because the love of oneself is a devouring monster. It will never be satiated. I call this kind of self-care a luxury form of despair.

By contrast, Bernard’s fourth stage is a truly purified love of self that reflects God’s own enjoyment and acceptance of us. This radical message is what we’re unsuspectingly baptized into. What masquerades as “healthy” self-love without also demanding the Cross offers only a false identity.

A spirituality that begins with the death of the self (that our baptisms proclaim) is worlds apart from the kind abnegation of the self that many have suffered. Baptism puts us in touch with our real needs, by plunging us into the much larger reality of God and his love of us.

“I am not certain that the fourth degree of love in which we love ourselves only for the sake of God may be perfectly attained in this life,” writes Bernard. “But, when it does happen, we will experience the joy of the Lord and be forgetful of ourselves in a wonderful way. We are, for those moments, one mind and one spirit with God.”

With this freedom, we are able to move into a “disinterested” love of ourselves that is neither dependent upon self-care practices nor eschews them as worthless. For all its help, self-care can never take the place of being loved unconditionally.

The season before Easter is the space when we get to lean into God’s love. Lent did not originate out of a desire to self-punish or to focus on our sinfulness. It’s even more black and white than that: Lent is about death. But this crazy Christian message goes even further: It’s only through death that we begin to live.

Lent is when the whole church remembers our origins—origins that began in our baptism and Jesus’ baptism, too, where he heard the word that we can hardly believe: You are my beloved.

We have been baptized. We have been plunged into Christ. We can leave behind anything that keeps us from knowing we are loved by God and anything that prevents us from loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Lent is not an endurance stunt. It’s about reclaiming the idea that we are loved long before we enter the wilderness.

Julie Canlis is the author of A Theology of the Ordinary (2017) and Calvin’s Ladder (2012), winner of a Templeton Prize and a Christianity Today Award of Merit.

Theology

Revenge of the Black-Letter Christians

In our effort to honor all of Scripture, let’s not forget that Jesus is at the heart of it.

Christianity Today March 10, 2022
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: WikiMedia Commons / Tim Wildsmith / Susan Holt Simpson / Unsplash

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

I remember standing in a convention hall once, arguing with an elderly lady about the song “Jesus Loves Me.” Let me first say that I would thoroughly rebuke my 20-year-ago self for my overconfidence in the theological correctness of my “tribe.”

I even felt bad at the time—this woman reminded me of all the Southern Baptist ladies who taught me Sunday school (and “Jesus Loves Me”!), right down to the bouffant hairdo. I’ll bet she had peppermints in her purse, too. I was annoyingly polemical, and she would have had every right to pat me on the head, say, “Bless your heart,” and send me on my way.

We were on opposite sides of what was then a big doctrinal schism in my denominational tradition, and we were debating one of the points of contention in that controversy. I asked for her interpretation of a biblical passage dealing with whatever the subject was, and she said, “That’s Paul; that’s not Jesus. Jesus never said anything about that.”

When I turned back to another passage, she said, “That’s the difference between you and me. Your authority is the Bible; mine’s Jesus.” I responded, “But what do you know about Jesus apart from the Bible?” And she said, “I know everything I need to know: ‘Jesus loves me, this I know!’” And to that I said, “… for the Bible tells me so.”

I cringe when I think about how proud I was of “winning” that debate. When this woman walked away, I assumed it was because she couldn’t respond to my retort. Now I know she was probably thinking, Who is this punk, and how do I get away from him? That said, while I better understand the point she was trying to make now, I still agree with the point I made—though not the churlish way I made it.

There was a time when I was really worried about “red-letter Christianity”—which is the idea that the words of Jesus (printed with red ink in many Bibles) are more authoritative than the rest of the Bible and can override theological or ethical teaching found in, say, the Old Testament or the Pauline Epistles.

I still share that concern, and this mentality can be found in many places to this day.

At first glance, a prioritizing of the “red letters” makes sense. Jesus is, after all, more authoritative as a person than Moses or Jeremiah or Paul or John. If we were to find ourselves in a crowd of resurrected saints in heaven and some point of biblical interpretation comes up, no one will be looking at Nahum if Jesus is there.

The fullest revelation of God is Jesus Christ, and he makes sense not just of the rest of the Bible (Luke 24:27) but of the entire cosmos (Col. 1:17). The problem with this direction is not that it becomes too focused on Jesus, but that it isn’t focused enough.

Jesus’ view of the Bible is that it is the Word of God and cannot be broken. He reinterprets the revelation of God and the story of Israel, explaining how it is about him. Even when Jesus says, Moses said ___, but I say unto you … , it is never to explain away the hard edges of the Old Testament. Rather, Jesus sharpened those hard edges even further: Moses said no murder, but I say no rage in your heart either.

Jesus also told his disciples that he had more to say, things God’s people weren’t ready to hear just yet (John 16:12–13). And then, just as God chose prophets through whom to speak, Jesus did the same through his apostles (Eph. 2:20). Even the direct speech we see from Jesus after his ascension, such as his letters to the churches of Revelation, comes through apostles he has chosen (in that case, John).

Moreover, without a view of the inspiration of all of Scripture, we don’t have red letters at all. Almost everyone acknowledges that the first writings of our New Testament weren’t the Gospels but some letters of Paul. And the Gospels, when written down, weren’t discovered in a cave. They came through Matthew and John, disciples of the Lord—as well as Mark and Luke, associates of apostles like Peter and Paul.

The Bible claims that all Scripture is “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV throughout), that the writers of any Scripture speak for God as they are “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21), and that the Spirit doing that carrying is “the Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11). If that’s true, then, as I used to tell my seminary students, “Every word of the Bible should be in red letters.”

Many could see in red-letter rhetoric a slippery slope that would lead, in its extreme form, to an attempt to split apart Word from Spirit, Father from Son, head from body. Those dangers are all real. But increasingly, I’m seeing its mirror image, a kind of “black-letter Christianity,” which is just as perilous.

As with many other things, we tend not to see, as C. S. Lewis warned us in Mere Christianity, that the Devil sends errors into the world not one by one but two by two—in “pairs of opposites,” on either side of the truth. Right now, we should see that it’s not just the temptation of red-letter Christians to try to separate the Bible from Jesus. Black-letter Christians do it too—and the stakes are just as high, if not higher.

In Jayber Crow, Wendell Berry described Jayber the barber listening to Troy, a waiting customer, rail about rounding up all the Communists and having them shot. Jayber stopped, looked at Troy and said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.”

Troy replied, “Where did you get that crap?” When Jayber said, “Jesus Christ,” Troy could only respond, “Oh.”

Jayber reflects: “It would have been a great moment in the history of Christianity, except that I did not love Troy.”

When I first read that, I assumed Berry was constructing a hyperbolic scenario, to contrast authentic Sermon-on-the-Mount Christianity with the cultural version of it we so often see in American life. Over the past several years, though, I’ve seen the exact same scenario in real life—from evangelicals who would all say that they believe the Bible.

Over the past several years, we’ve had some evangelical leaders, and the politicians they support, ridicule the “weakness” implied in “Turn the other cheek.” If that were just the Bizarro world of cable television news, I would perhaps dismiss it. But several pastors have told me about how when they cited, parenthetically, “Turn the other cheek” or “Love your enemies,” they had someone ask afterward where they were getting their “liberal” ideas.

Another told me that after preaching on the Sermon on the Mount, a congregant told him, “We’ve tried the ‘Turn the other cheek’ stuff, it doesn’t work; it’s time now to fight.”

To be clear, the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t “work,” and it never has—if what we mean by “working” is seeing the world’s definition of success on the world’s timetable. Ending up crucified is no society’s definition of winning. That’s exactly the point Jesus was making. He turns all those definitions and expectations upside down.

We can see in many of the scandals happening in the church—and the scandals that haven’t yet happened but are bubbling beneath the surface—a way in which it is easy for us to think of Christlikeness not just as optional for leadership but as an impediment to it. Many (though by no means all) churches will (rightly) fire and discipline a leader for sexual immorality.

But when is the last time we’ve seen someone held accountable for quarrelsomeness or vindictiveness—things explicitly addressed by Jesus himself?

We can also see this tendency in a kind of preaching that seems suspicious of Jesus’ way of teaching—of story and parable and narrative, a way of teaching that’s consistent with the way God speaks in the Old Testament. A way of teaching that is presupposed by Paul and the other apostles even in their letters.

If every passage of Scripture—whether proverb or psalm or parable—must be turned into an epistle with a point by subpoint by sub-subpoint structure in order to be preached, then we are not actually teaching the Bible but something else: a systematic theology or an ethics manual. We are not saved by Christology; we are saved by Christ.

Thomas Jefferson cut up the Bible, taking out all the miraculous parts that his scientific mind couldn’t accept, and left only the ethical teachings of Jesus. That is not Christianity at all. If Jesus is just a moral teacher, he is just another deceased guru. But neither is the opposite tendency—to cut up the Bible leaving all the miraculous but ignoring the teachings of Jesus.

If Jesus is just an abstract means of delivering the systematic category of atonement, not a person who speaks to us and claims lordship, then he is just another debating point to win an argument or to claim one’s own orthodoxy. In neither case would he be worth following.

If all Scripture points to Christ and is interpreted in and through Christ, then that means all Scripture is “profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16), as Paul put it. When we hear any word of Scripture, then, we are hearing from Jesus, just as if he were speaking to us.

The question is whether these prophets and apostles are bringing a word from their own minds or a message they are carrying from their Lord. That’s always been the question, which is why Paul repeatedly says, “I am telling the truth; I am not lying” (1 Tim. 2:7). If we believe what the Bible claims for itself and what Jesus taught us about the Bible, then that question is resolved. The Bible is black and white and red all over.

But the red-letter Christians are right to remind us that when we see Jesus, we have seen the Father (John 14:9). Jesus is the full revelation of the glory of God (2 Cor. 4:6). As former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey put it, “God is Christlike, and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all.”

The whole plot line of the Bible holds together in one person—the living Jesus of Nazareth. Less clear passages are interpreted by those that are clearer—and the clearest revelation of all is this person who said to us, “Come follow me.”

In other words: Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

Russell Moore leads the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today.

News

Ontario’s Most Influential Pastor Resigns Following Abuse Investigation

Anabaptist Bruxy Cavey preached “Jesus over religion” and drew record crowds of Canadians who were put off by traditional church. Now they’re reckoning with their former leader’s misconduct.

Pastor Bruxy Cavey

Pastor Bruxy Cavey

Christianity Today March 10, 2022
The Meeting House / Facebook

Update (June 7): Three months after his resignation, former Meeting House pastor Bruxy Cavey was arrested and charged with sexual assault. Police in Hamilton, Ontario, say the allegation was reported in April of this year.

The Toronto-area Anabaptist megachurch confirmed Cavey abused his power and harassed a younger member of the congregation through an outside investigation earlier this year. Since then, at least one other woman has come to the church with allegations against him.

Police believe there may be additional victims and have issued a statement saying there’s no statute of limitations for sexual offenses. After his arrest on Monday, Cavey was released. He will appear in court on June 27.

The Meeting House in south Ontario calls itself “a church for people who aren’t into church.”

Under that motto and the leadership of its shaggy-haired, proudly Anabaptist preacher Bruxy Cavey, the megachurch grew to become the biggest in the Toronto area, drawing thousands to its movie theater seats and home church small groups.

Like his denomination, Cavey was known for being apolitical and pacifist; he was an introvert who turned on the charisma on stage. During his 25 years in ministry, around 35,000 Canadians who had been disinterested, disenchanted, or hurt by other churches found a spiritual home and family at The Meeting House, and 8,000 still belong to the church, according to the Handbook of Megachurches.

This large community of members and former members is now grieving a blow they hardly expected from their own “megachurch pastor for people not into megachurch pastors,” as one scholar called him.

After a three-month-long investigation, Cavey, 57, publicly confessed on Tuesday to an “adulterous relationship.” The church said it amounted to abuse of authority and sexual harassment against a woman under his pastoral counsel, asked him to resign, and removed his teachings from its website. The victim and her advocates say Cavey committed clergy sexual abuse.

“In a way, the stakes were so high for Bruxy, and his crash is intensified because he promised us that he would not be that kind of pastor. … He basically was the megachurch pastor for people not into megachurch pastors,” said Peter Schuurman, who profiled Cavey in his book The Subversive Evangelical and described him as gentle, generous, and good humored.

Bruxy preached a message of “Jesus over religion.” He liked to tell the story of how he got a tattoo of the verse barring tattoos, Leviticus 19:28, as a way to demonstrate how Jesus freed him from his sin as well as the letter of the law.

“His whole persona and branding was based on the vision of a church that was more like a counter-culture’s Jesus and less like the now-defamed evangelical trope of prosperity, politics and emotional hype,” Schuurman wrote for Canada’s Christian Courier.

The news trickled out this week through social media, blog posts, and streamed videos. In comments, members of The Meeting House vented their heartache.

They offered prayers and solidarity with the unidentified victim. Some who were themselves abuse survivors grappled with the idea that their pastor had done this; one wrote that she “started to wonder if anywhere is trustworthy.” Several members said they hadn’t attended in-person services since the pandemic and that the situation made them question whether to return.

Adding to the upheaval, not everyone at The Meeting House was satisfied with the results of a third-party investigation, which did not call Cavey’s behavior sexual abuse. Danielle Strickland, a fellow teaching pastor at The Meeting House, stepped down in solidarity with the victim on Monday—the day before the church released its report and Cavey announced his resignation.

Strickland, who had been on staff at The Meeting House since 2019, was first to hear the victim’s story last year. She lobbied behind the scenes for the church to change the language in its statement, seeing how the woman who came forward felt “unheard” and “unsupported” in the process. “The whole truth needs to be told, or else not only will there not be healing, but I think there will be further harm,” Strickland said.

The former pastor shared a statement from her on Wednesday morning. More than 15,000 people tuned in for the remarks on Instagram Live, cheering on Strickland’s advocacy and the victim’s bravery in the threads below the video.

Through Strickland, the woman described what happened as a “devastating twisting of pastoral care into sexual abuse” when she was 23 and Cavey was 46—a decade ago. The woman said she still didn’t feel safe going public. “The findings failed to name this abuse of authority for what it is: clergy sexual abuse,” she said in the statement.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ca43ERoIuAv/

Instead, the investigation’s designations of sexual harassment and abuse of authority have been repeated by The Meeting House in its official statements and a livestream town hall on Tuesday night.

When the question “Wasn’t this just an affair?” came up, Maggie John, chair of The Meeting House’s board of overseers, said no. “The investigator found that given how the relationship started, which was in a clergy counselor relationship, Bruxy abused his power and authority, and as the pastor Bruxy was responsible.” She said it went on for years.

Cavey did not use the word abuse or victim in his confession blog post, though he acknowledged the “dynamics of power and influence and an expectation of exemplary conduct” that come from his position.

“My failure is not a failure of the presence, power, or teaching of Jesus,” he wrote, “but an example of the pain someone like me can cause when I ignore his presence and fail to follow his teaching.”

https://twitter.com/Bruxy/status/1501378041896914948

Cavey’s misconduct and departure will affect his denomination, Be In Christ Church of Canada (BIC), formerly Brethren in Christ. In a statement to CT, BIC executive director Charles Mashinter said Be In Christ supports the church’s decision for Cavey to resign and has also removed his pastoral credentials.

The headquarters for Be In Christ are located at The Meeting House’s building in Oakville, Ontario (along with another Anabaptist-rooted network called Jesus Collective). The church makes up the biggest swath of BIC denominational members and is responsible for doubling its size over the past 20 years.

Under Cavey’s leadership, The Meeting House came to hold a pretty unusual place of influence in the Christian landscape. There are very few Brethren megachurches—a database by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research lists just four in the US—and all congregations tend to be much smaller in Canada, where worship attendance has been dropping for decades and as little as 6 percent of the population considers themselves evangelical.

“In Ontario, you’d struggle to find an evangelical Christian who hadn’t heard of The Meeting House and Bruxy Cavey … virtually everybody knows who he is and had tremendous respect for him,” said Robin Wallar, lead pastor at Lift Church in Hamilton. “It’s hard to know the immediate impact [of the recent revelations], but it’s generally pretty devastating to the church in Canada.”

Evangelical leaders couldn’t ignore the popularity of The Meeting House—many of them knew believers or even former members from their own churches who had landed at one of the church’s 20-some locations, which span from the Toronto area to Ottawa. And they also couldn’t bypass the points of theological tension with this Anabaptist, pacifist, egalitarian, yet conservative and evangelical pastor.

A few years ago, The Gospel Coalition Canada ran a series with Cavey, calling his church “our largest neighbour within the Evangelical world.”

The interviewer—Paul Carter, lead pastor of Cornerstone Baptist in Orillia, Ontario—asked whether Cavey’s “Jesus not religion” mantra maligns traditional evangelical churches and got him to clarify some of his theological beliefs, particularly his critique of penal substitutionary atonement. Despite theological differences, Carter remained friends with Cavey since.

Even with the shared leadership model Cavey described in a 2018 conversation with Carter and the team of pastors he referenced in his resignation announcement, he had been the face of The Meeting House, and it’s hard for people to imagine the church without him. One member from Strathroy commented on Instagram that she’s been a part of The Meeting House her whole life, having followed Cavey’s teaching since she was eight.

“The Meeting House without Bruxy Cavey at the front, it’s going to suffer a significant loss, but the legacy of an irreligious Anabaptist spirituality will linger,” said Schuurman, who lives in Guelph, Ontario, and directs a Christian network called Global Scholars Canada.

At the end of his dissertation, Schuurman considered what would happen when Cavey would eventually leave the church. He noted that megachurch research experts agree that fewer than 5 percent of today’s megachurch pastors end their careers in “significant conflict” such as sexual scandal.

Even in Canada, where Schuurman says they’re not “breeding superpower personalities,” the revelations around clergy misconduct seem to continue to come to light year after year (some recent, high-profile examples include Ravi Zacharias, Jean Vanier, and Todd Bentley).

US pastor Greg Boyd, a friend and fellow member of the Jesus Collective, had asked for prayer for Cavey in the wake of the allegations and amended his remarks to “acknowledge the power dynamics” of the situation. Matt Miles, executive director of the Jesus Collective addressed Cavey’s resignation, saying, “It is also important to recognize that this is not an isolated incident in the context of the wider church community. Abuses of power and sexual misconduct are antithetical to Jesus’ way of love and have caused deep hurt for many people.”

Cavey wrote the books The End of Religion and Reunion: The Good News of Jesus for Seekers, Saints, and Sinners and preached at The Meeting House, which was one of Canada’s early adopter of the simulcast multisite model, since 1997. The church has opted to remove recordings of Cavey’s sermons from its website as a result of his misconduct, which it believes represent a disqualification from ministry.

“We are followers of Jesus, not in a particular person. We’re grateful that Bruxy has pointed us to Jesus, to God. While we have amazing sermons and material, we also have a case of sexual sin, harassment, abuse of power and authority, that compromises the experience that we see in this person,” said John, the board chair, in the online town hall. “Because we want to avoid triggering the victim or any others that have experienced any sexual misconduct, we have chosen to not provide those resources at this time.”

[Editor’s note: On March 14, Herald Press announced that it would be pulling Cavey’s books. “We take our responsibility of resourcing the church seriously,” said publisher Amy Gingerich. “Given that The Meeting House asked Cavey to resign and removed all his teaching videos from their website and the Be In Christ denomination revoked his credentials for ministry, we at Herald Press cannot in good faith sell his books.”]

The Meeting House has made professional counselors available, in addition to pastoral care on staff, for those in the church who need extra support as they process the news and their own grief. The church said it hopes to continue to dialogue with the survivor.

Strickland, who also does ministry as a speaker and social justice advocate, told followers on Wednesday that the victim chose the name Hagar as a pseudonym. It’s a reference to the Old Testament figure who both suffered abuse and testified to a God who sees.

Hagar spent part of her statement offering a message to anyone in the throes of clergy abuse:

Maybe you feel confused because you deeply care for and want to protect your pastor from harm. Maybe you’ve been told you are the only one who understands them. Jesus sees you. He’s holding your face in his hands, looking you straight in the eyes, and speaking truth to you. You are being abused.

Jesus can rescue you from this abuse, and he can help you right now. Your life matters to him. He’s with you. Invite the light of truth to break the lies and secrecy that this pastor has trapped you in. Tell one person you trust. I know you can do it because I did.

Jesus is so much bigger than you can imagine, and he sees you, and he will never stop rescuing you.

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