US Will Accept 100K Ukrainian Refugees. Polish Pastors Face Millions.

Evangelical churches in Poland transform into care centers, seek more funds for heat and fuel.

Refugees fleeing Ukraine arrive at the border train station of Zahony, Hungary, on March 8, 2022.

Christopher Furlong / Staff / Getty

The United States will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing Russian aggression, President Joe Biden announced Thursday.

Details of the plan are still being worked out, but both the US refugee resettlement program and the humanitarian visa program will be utilized, with an emphasis on reuniting families. The US hosts the third-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world, after Russia and Canada.

Biden also pledged $1 billion in humanitarian assistance for Ukrainians internally displaced by the war. World Relief, which has resettled 7,300 Ukrainian refugees—representing 4 out of 10 admitted to the US—over the past decade, welcomed the announcement.

“We are in close contact with many of these individuals, almost all of whom have loved ones now at risk in Ukraine,” stated president and CEO Myal Greene in a press release, “and we’re grateful that President Biden’s announcement today seems to open up the likelihood of expedited family reunification and other avenues of protection.”

World Relief also noted its current work with local churches in Western Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova, Poland, and Hungary.

“Most Ukrainians who make the difficult decision to leave their homes are relatively safe in neighboring European countries, where most would prefer to stay, in part because they hope and pray to return soon to a safe, free Ukraine,” stated Greene. “But for those who have family in the US or for whom voluntary repatriation is impossible, some may prefer the option of resettlement to the US, where we are also eager to welcome and support them as they replant their lives.”

Valentin Siniy, president of Tavriski Christian Institute (TCI) in Kherson, told CT that Ukrainians “are grateful to everyone who helps us in such a difficult period of our history.” But he noted the length of time and uncertain process that any relocation to the US would require.

More than 4 in 10 Ukrainian families have now been separated by the war. His evangelical seminary and its city are now under Russian control. “We all have to learn how to live in a different reality,” he said.

Siniy has observed that governments often respond to refugees based on the level of hospitality that private citizens are already offering—and especially to the extent local churches have gotten involved.

“It is very important for the modern church to raise its bold prophetic voice in denouncing the evil that is present, such as war, and to encourage society towards virtues and human relations,” he said.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/FURKC

Over the past week, CT visited nine churches and church-run refugee centers in Poland, including in Warsaw, Krakow, and smaller cities near the Polish-Ukrainian border.

Local pastors told CT they don’t know of any evangelical church in Poland that’s not involved in helping Ukrainian refugees in some way, whether hosting them, picking them up at the border, feeding and clothing them, finding longer-term accommodation, providing transportation to other cities or countries, or sending trucks and vans full of supplies to Ukraine.

“I’d be surprised to know of any church that isn’t involved,” said Czeslaw Kushider, lead pastor of Nazaret Pentecostal Church in Przemysl, a city about a 20-minute drive from the Ukrainian border. His congregation has turned every room in the church building, including his pastor’s office, into sleeping areas for passing refugees, with volunteers working round-the-clock.

Most evangelical churches in Poland are small, averaging about 80 to 100 members per congregation. But from the day the Russian military invaded Ukraine on February 24, causing now more than 2 million people to flee into Poland, churches were one of the first groups to respond, mobilizing at a speed and efficiency rivaling or surpassing government agencies and big humanitarian organizations.

For example, Chelm Baptist Church, an 80-member congregation about a 30-minute drive from the border, was already hosting up to 200 refugees a day in its church building within the first week—a full week before city officials opened up a bigger government-run refugee center in Chelm. Within the first two weeks, this little Baptist church had already hosted more than 3,000 refugees with its small team of volunteers comprised of church members and neighbors.

Part of the reason churches were able to move so quickly, Polish pastors told CT, is because these churches already have existing relationships with churches in Ukraine and other churches across Poland and Europe. Since most of the refugees are women and children, many worry about the risk of human trafficking but trust churches as places of refuge. For those who don’t know where to go, churches from other cities and towns in Poland, or from countries as far out as Spain, connect with each other and help refugees transit from one church to another.

Kushider, the pastor in Przemysl, said like many churches in the US his congregation has been divided amid the pandemic. But today, he’s witnessing a unity within his church and others that he hasn’t seen before.

“This challenge changed us. People are working together,” he told CT.

“If someone had told us that we would be able to do what we’re doing now, we would have said that’s impossible. But God surprised us and said ‘With me, it’s possible,’” said Kushider. “This experience has expanded our horizons of what we can do as a church together.”

https://twitter.com/SophiaLeeHyun/status/1505909951595696129

However, many of these churches are also running out of resources. One pastor in Warsaw told CT his church used to operate its building about once a week. Now it’s running 24/7, and he’s dreading the electricity and heating bill coming at the end of this month.

Every Polish pastor CT talked to said they don’t need more people from other countries flying into Poland, especially in large groups with volunteers who don’t speak Ukrainian, Russian, or Polish. They need every space they can get for the refugees.

Instead, what they need most is money to fund the already-existing efforts on the ground. They need money to pay bills and rent, and to fuel the cars and buses and trucks that deliver supplies and evacuate refugees. (Gas is one of the biggest expenses right now.)

Polish pastors also urge Christians across the globe to pray.

“We never expected that 75 years after World War II, and 67 years after the collapse of Stalin, someone else would rise up with the same evil spirit,” said Marek Kaminski, bishop of the Pentecostal Church of Poland. “Pray globally. Fast globally. We need this war to be stopped.”

Signs of support placed in front of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC on March 24, 2022.

This article will be updated.

Sophia Lee reported from Warsaw, Poland. Jeremy Weber reported from Washington, DC.

- More from Sophia Lee

News

Is It ‘Christian’ for Europe to Welcome Refugees from Ukraine but Not Syria?

Jayson Casper

Middle Eastern and European evangelicals assess the vastly different continental response and the Bible’s teachings toward the stranger.

Left: Displaced Syrians light a fire outside their tent at a refugee camp. Right: Ukrainians in Poland seeking refuge from Russian invasion.

Edits by Christianity Today / Source Images: Chris McGrath / Sean Gallup / Getty

As Ukraine continues to be battered by Russia, Syrian refugees know what to pray for better than most.

“This is what happened to us,” said refugee students at the Together for the Family center in Zahle, Lebanon. “We don’t want it to happen to others.”

Born in Homs, Syria, to a Baptist pastor, Izdihar Kassis married a Lebanese man and then founded the center in 2006. She shifted her ministry to care for “her people” when the Syrian civil war started in 2011. About 50 traumatized teenagers find counseling there every year, and 300 have graduated from the center’s vocational programs.

As the refugees discussed the “horrible” situation in Europe during the weekly chapel service, Kassis suggested intercession. The 40 children and 30 Syrian staff and volunteers bowed their heads.

But one child wanted to be sure the Ukrainians would know of their solidarity. He went outside into the cold and snow of the Bekaa Valley, where most of Lebanon’s 1.5 million Syrian refugees take shelter.

His sign proclaimed, “Praying for peace.”

A Syrian refugee in Zahle, Lebanon

Since the invasion, about 4 million of Ukraine’s population of 43 million have become refugees. Another 6.5 million are internally displaced.

Yet 11 years since its civil war, most of Syria’s 6.8 million refugees—out of a population of 20 million—still live in limbo. Europe largely shut its doors, certainly in comparison to its warm welcome of those fleeing Russian aggression.

Many have taken offense.

“There is the perennial double standard and selective outrage of global news media, Western governments (and, sadly, even Western Churches) when it comes to reporting on wars, conflicts and the plight of refugees,” stated Vinoth Ramachandra from Sri Lanka, a senior leader with the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES), affiliated with InterVarsity.

“If Ukrainians were not blonde and blue-eyed, would their plight have occasioned [this] outpouring of compassion?”

It is a fair question. Is European hypocrisy—even racism—on full display?

Arab Christians are not quick to judge.

Born in Syria, Joseph Kassab today heads the Beirut-based Supreme Council of the Evangelical Churches in Syria and Lebanon. He notes the more than one million countrymen taken in by Europe—Western Europe, primarily. Eastern nations, he said, are still recovering from the communist era and have not yet developed the same sense of human rights.

There should be no discrimination, yet even this he understands. The early church struggled to open its mission to non-Jews.

“Racism is in every society,” Kassab said. “But Europeans have been more welcoming to the Syrians than many Lebanese.”

Being Muslim is a factor, said Elie Haddad, president of Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut. But also important is that most are rural, uneducated farmers. Legitimate or not, people are uncomfortable with difference.

Europe is a bit hypocritical, but so is he.

“If a faculty member needs shelter, I will open my home,” Haddad said. “For a stranger, not so much.”

A mural painted by Syrian artists to protest against Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, amid the destruction in the rebel-held town of Binnish in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province on February 24, 2022.

One who did open his home is a Frenchman of Lebanese descent in Nice.

A nurse at a local hospital, in 2018 François Nader was the only available Arabic speaker to assist a refugee family whose working-age son needed emergency kidney dialysis. He walked them through the necessary paperwork and for three months gave boarding to the recovering Syrian. Nader even offered him above-average wages for housework, providing informal work since French law forbade formal employment.

Yet France today is permitting Ukrainians up to three years of residence and employment (per a European Union directive).

And Nader, now in Bordeaux and married to a Russian with Ukrainian relatives, applauds. A simple phone call from authorities validated the legality of four refugees he now has in his home. A nondenominational Christian, he believes the gospel calls people to treat everyone the same.

But not nations.

“Muslim values are totally opposite to ours,” Nader said. “It needs generations to have their mind adapt to the European way.”

The fear of terrorism is an issue. But so is adaptation. Muslims concentrate in the banlieues, ghettos that reinforce a separatism damaging to French society, he said. Meanwhile, Ukrainian tourists visit the Louvre, where their children behave, he said. On the tramway they sit quietly, reading books.

“It is a stereotype, and it is a little bit cruel,” Nader said. “I’m sorry to say this, but it is also human.”

But is it biblical?

God has created both similarity and difference, said Leonardo De Chirico, chair of the theological commission of the Italian Evangelical Alliance. According to Galatians 6:10, he said, it is proper to give preference.

“The principle of proximity calls us to give special attention to those who are near us,” he said, “in the faith, in the family, in the nation, and in our surrounding context.”

While this applies to ethnicity, it does not apply to culture or education, said De Chirico. All should be welcomed and helped to integrate. But where resources are limited and governments overwhelmed, it is not wrong to discriminate.

The Bible even does so, he said, as the original Hebrew differentiates between “aliens.” The gerim (Lev. 19:33–34) are to be treated justly like fellow Jews, but the zarim (Ex. 12:43) are barred from celebrating Passover.

A modern distinction is between refugee and migrant.

“Freedom of movement is not absolute,” said Marc Jost, general secretary of the Swiss Evangelical Alliance. “I like diversity, but it entails risks that must be regulated.”

Cultural proximity led Switzerland to waive for Ukrainians the case-by-case examination required for Syrians. Jost rejects the privilege many wanted to give for faith and ethnicity, but Swiss authorities thought distinction necessary to weed out potential terrorists.

Still, the difficulties of integration are real, and the government wanted to reduce the “pull factor,” especially for economic migrants seeking a better life. Those “threatened by life and limb” should be permitted with no discrimination.

But many say such cases are the minority.

Greece has accepted nearly 5,000 Ukrainians since the war began. Up to 30,000 could be accommodated, authorities said. The Mediterranean nation has been especially attentive to Mariupol, repatriating nearly 200 nationals from an area originally settled by Greeks in the sixth century B.C.

But Greece already hosts about 42,000 refugees from various countries. Many others are turned away by boat. The Greek government stated that as it processes applications, 7 out of 10 applicants are not refugees.

“We should not equate migrants with refugees,” said Slavko Hadžić, Langham preaching coordinator for the West Balkans, from Bosnia. “Migrants can use legal means to apply for jobs.”

His nation has been criticized for “inhumane” migrant camps. But according to a 2020 report by Human Rights Watch, out of 18,000 asylum seekers, Syria was only the fifth-most-common nation of origin, behind Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Iraq.

Churches helped them all, said Hadžić, as they should. But he criticized an idea heard frequently in Eastern Europe about the preservation of “Christian civilization.” While believers have a special responsibility to help all followers of Jesus, this does not include the nominal in faith.

“Whatever label a secular government puts on itself,” he said, “there are no Christian nations in the world.”

But it is good there is Christian heritage, said Samuil Petrovski, president of the Serbian Evangelical Alliance, and it should be protected against new waves of Western-imported identity politics. But as the government should “bring light to dark places,” it must not be at the expense of refugees or migrants, regardless of their religion, he said. The Bible teaches that assistance should be given to all who are truly in need.

Hungary simply defines them differently.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán calls his nation a “Christian democracy,” and the Catholic-majority country maintains a cabinet-level ministry to support persecuted Christians in the Middle East. But, while now saying Ukrainian refugees are coming to a “friendly place,” two months before the war Orbán stated, “We are not going to let anyone in.”

Eastern Europeans have held onto the heritage of Christendom longer than their Western neighbors. But it is an old Orthodox idea—rejected as heresy in 1872 by the Council of Constantinople—that merges political nationalism with an ethnic church. And given Russia’s argument that Ukraine properly belongs to the Moscow patriarchate, over 1,100 Orthodox clerics and scholars condemned phyletism again.

“The battle is won in the hearts and minds of others, not in restrictive laws, even when created with good intentions,” said Bradley Nassif, author of The Evangelical Theology of the Orthodox Church and a former professor of theology at North Park University. “The best approach would be for the state to support the church without enacting laws and policies against religious minorities.”

Jost believes that to defend a nation’s Christian heritage, it must continually be demonstrated to benefit society as a whole. Human rights, he said, are derived from Christian ethics.

But other evangelical leaders protested. De Chirico, from majority Roman Catholic Italy, said a Christian identity of a state is “fraught with problems.” Kassab said if the Middle East promotes its Islamic identity, it would “multiply the misery” of Christians.

The state should protect the heritage and identity of all, said Tom Albinson, president of the International Association for Refugees, an affiliate of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA). There is good reason for communities to serve through networks and relationships of trust. And it is within the rights of a nation to protect its borders and to deport migrants.

But it is not right to pit the migrant against the refugee.

“Many nations today are spending much more money and energy on finding ways to prevent refugees and asylum seekers from ever crossing their border than they are in protecting people who have been robbed of place and are among the most vulnerable people on the planet,” said Albinson. “This needs to be exposed and confronted for what it is.”

Mixed migration confuses the issue, and human traffickers prey on them all. Meanwhile the refugees among them are often treated as guilty until proven innocent.

Having served eight years as the WEA’s ambassador for refugees until last year, Albinson counsels nations to invest in the infrastructure necessary to process claims fairly. Currently 86 percent of the world’s refugees are hosted by developing nations, he said. And out of a total of 26 million, only 1 percent are resettled in any given year.

The church, he counsels, should fill in the gaps.

“Government services and nongovernmental humanitarian agencies can offer help, but they are not able to strengthen hope,” Albinson said. “We are at our best when we care for those unlike ourselves, those who are strangers to us.”

And who is stranger to a Ukrainian than a Syrian?

Mother’s Day in the Arab world falls in March. Besides offering prayer, Together for the Family is collecting advice from Syrian wives and widows on how to deal with life when torn from husbands and sons.

They will send cards—and the little money they can spare. Graduates from the center’s carpentry program earn $2.25 per week. But due to the shortage in imported Ukrainian grain, their daily bread now costs 75 cents.

“The Lord has helped them here and lifted them up,” said Kassis. “They want to encourage Ukrainian women in the same way.”

- More from Jayson Casper

News

Christian Ministries: Say No to Orphanages

Adam MacInnis

COVID-19 crisis puts pressure on hard-hit nations with millions of caregivers dead. But family care is still preferred.

Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

More than 5.2 million children around the world have lost a caregiver to COVID-19, according to a new report released by The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health journal.

The number of newly bereaved children increased so rapidly between March 2020 and October 2021, experts in Christian orphan-care ministries can compare the crisis only to the one caused by HIV/AIDS, which has orphaned a total of 16.5 million people since the 1980s. The response, they hope, will be as earnest as it was in response to AIDS—but different.

Orphan-care ministries see the current crisis as an opportunity to fully turn away from institutionalization, throwing all their support to a family-care model.

“We’ve learned from the past,” Elli Oswald, executive director of the Faith to Action Initiative, told CT. “We know that residential care facilities, orphanages, and children’s homes are only Band-Aid responses that don’t address the real challenges that children and families are facing—and in fact they can cause more trauma and harm to children.”

In the 19th century, Christian organizations built orphanages as a swift solution to the dire need of abandoned and neglected children. American Protestants funded orphanages around the world, and Christians became the primary provider of orphan care. What might have been seen as a temporary solution, however, became in many cases permanent.

“While it was incredibly generous and well-meaning, it caused harm that we didn’t realize,” Oswald said.

American Christians give an estimated $3.3 billion to orphanages annually. And orphanages may still sometimes be the best available option in the short term in some situations, Oswald said. But long term, the Faith to Action Initiative and other leading orphan-care ministries seek to support family and community solutions.

A coalition of faith-based ministries, led by the Faith to Action Initiative, wrote a letter to the United Nations last fall in support of family-based care. At the time, 1.5 million children had lost a caregiver to COVID-19.

In 2019, the United Nations passed a resolution prioritizing family-based care and calling for the eventual elimination of institutional homes. Every member state signed on to the resolution. The current crisis, however, could cause some nations to become desperate for easier options. Christian ministries hope the UN will help them solidify government support for best practices.

“As we did during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, World Vision seeks to be a leader in a global response to support families ensuring that children can remain with their loving caregivers,” said Lisa Bos, director of government relations with World Vision US. “But we also need government leaders to prioritize children and address issues like caregiver loss in their COVID response.”

Jenny Yang, senior vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, said the pandemic has wiped away 20 years’ worth of work at decreasing extreme poverty around the world. The hardest-hit nations—including India and Brazil—are feeling the urgent need to respond to the crisis.

“The earlier we’re able to intervene, the [better] we’re able to address the root causes of what is causing extreme poverty to rise,” she said.

Even in a time of crisis, though, there’s a reason to support families, whether that means a single-parent home, a relative, or an extended family.

“Families are the God-given institution through which children can experience social, emotional, and economic support,” Yang said, “so … making sure that orphans are able to be with family, if they’re able to care for them, is extremely important.”

Having a family member care for a child is not only in line with biblical principles, but there is evidence it’s the most practical solution, according to Phil Green, one of the coauthors of The Lancet report and a leader with World Without Orphans. There is a variety of research on the topic, he said, but it generally shows family-based care is more cost effective.

“The myth that building orphanages is cheaper and countries can’t afford to do it other ways really doesn’t stand up to the evidence,” he said. “We know what works. Let’s make a difference in the lives of these children—because children are resilient and can go on to thrive.”

Green said his research has also allowed organizations to see the areas of greatest need. The majority of caregiver deaths have been male, depriving many children of fathers. The majority of children impacted by COVID-19 deaths (64%) are between the ages of 10 and 17.

They face increased vulnerabilities to poverty, sexual violence, and other kinds of exploitation. There is potential for the negative impacts of losing a caregiver to ripple into the future, but there is also an opportunity for the church to act now to prevent future harms, Green said.

Religious organizations that might once have taken responsibility for running orphanages can play a pivotal role in placing children in families. Religious leaders can be intimately integrated with a community, according to Green, which enables them to identify needs, empower communities to find solutions, and connect people with necessary resources.

“We’re seeing around the world that churches are an excellent place to do that family-strengthening piece,” he said.

That’s how Bethany Christian Services sees it too.

“We have social workers on the ground that are walking alongside the families and providing them and connecting them with services so they can be strengthened and empowered,” said Leena Hill, vice president of global services at Bethany.

Over the years, their social workers have also learned that it’s important to help in the right way.

She said the natural response when looking at horrific statistics from COVID-19 is to want to do something—anything. And that’s good, but it’s important to respect and strengthen the communities that need help.

“Often the solution is available in the communities themselves,” she said. “More often than not, these children do have a living relative.”

The great need to care for orphans could send some back to old models, but Hill hopes people will instead think about how to help pair the children with local solutions or work alongside local solutions already in place.

It could be, she said, a really critical moment for Christians.

“What an amazing opportunity,” she said, “to demonstrate more powerfully the love of Christ by responding well.”

- More from Adam MacInnis

Theology

Hillsong Leaders Need Character More than Charisma

Michael Bird

Brian Houston’s resignation reminds us we need godly pastors, not just gifted ones.

Marcus Ingram / Contributor / Getty

In Sydney this week, Hillsong megachurch founder and senior pastor Brian Houston resigned in light of a pending court case and following revelations of pastoral misconduct.

The court case pertains to Houston’s alleged concealment of his father sexually abusing a boy in New Zealand in the 1970s. Although Houston removed his father from ministry, reported him to denominational authorities, and has publicly acknowledged that the abuse took place, New South Wales state police claim that Houston “knew information relating to the sexual abuse of a young male in the 1970s and failed to bring that information to the attention of police.”

The trial is scheduled for October this year.

More recently, the Hillsong global board wrote an email to members about two complaints against Houston. The first, which took place ten years ago, “involved inappropriate text messages from Pastor Brian [Houston] to a member of staff, which subsequently resulted in the staff member resigning.” This indiscretion was explained as the accidental result of Houston being “under the influence of sleeping tablets.”

The second complaint took place in 2019 when Houston knocked on the door of a hotel room with a female occupant and spent a significant amount of time in the room. Similar to the other case, his behavior was explained away as the unfortunate result of anti-anxiety medication mixing with alcohol in his system.

Hillsong has made a significant international impact by planting churches all over the world and taking Pentecostalism into the digital age. But with success comes the temptation to do anything to keep the machine running, protect the minister and the ministry, and maintain the rivers of money flowing in—even if it means turning a blind eye to indiscretions or giving excuses for the inexcusable.

What I find disappointing are the explanations for Houston’s actions. While medication can adversely affect a person’s mental state, it is never a justification for inappropriate behavior. These excuses ring hollow, especially for victims of sexual harassment.

One obvious issue, rightly noted by the Hillsong board, is that “Hillsong’s governance model has historically placed significant control in the hands of the senior pastor.” Freighting one person with authority is not indicative of a healthy leadership culture. We would do well, then, to reflect on which model of church governance and which style of leadership are more conducive to transparency and accountability.

As biblical scholar Andy Judd suggests, we should always ask, “Where is power distributed? how are decisions made and reviewed? and what happens next when a leader is forced to move on?”

But more important than leadership structures is a person’s character. The biblical qualifications for a pastor don’t rely on clicks, downloads, book sales, revenue, conference circuits, the number of bums in pews, or how many celebrities attend your church.

Instead, they require a pastor to be “above reapproach” and “self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Tim. 3:2–3). Jesus taught that “the greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Matt 23:11–12).

During my time in seminary, I joined a wonderful Bible-believing church, and when I was being considered for a place as a pastoral intern, I met with one of the pastors. Having known me only for a little while, he was optimistic about my potential but wisely cautious about my character.

He said, “I know you’re gifted, but I don’t know if you’re godly.” Those words have stuck with me ever since.

There is a difference—a big one—between being gifted and being godly. It’s the difference between the show you can put on and what desires you harbor in your heart, between what you do on stage and what you do when you think nobody is watching you.

The events surrounding Houston are a reminder that the evangelical world needs leaders who demonstrate Christlike character, not simply public confidence; who grow disciples, not groom sycophants; who see themselves as naked before Christ, not robed in the prestige of their platforms. We need leaders who know that when success becomes an idol, cover-ups become a sacrament.

Michael Bird (PhD University of Queensland) is academic dean and lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College in Melbourne.

- More from Michael Bird

Theology

Divorcing an Abusive Spouse Is Not a Sin

Russell Moore

Not only is it morally justified, it also aligns with Christ’s heart for the vulnerable.

Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: Summerphotos / Bartosz Michalski / EyeEm / Getty

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve received lots of questions about divorce in the case of abuse. At least some of those questions most likely come from reports of a church disciplining a woman for leaving her allegedly abusive husband. In case you or someone you love is in that situation, let me start with my conclusion: You are not sinful for divorcing an abusive spouse or for remarrying after you do.

The reason this is even a question for people is because they know that the Bible says God hates divorce. In Scripture, marriage is a covenant—meant to embody a sign of the union between Christ and his church. Jesus spoke very strongly against divorce, even framing the law of Moses’ allowance of divorce as a temporary concession to hardheartedness, not as God’s plan for marriage (Matt. 5:31–32; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18).

When a minister in a more traditional wedding service pronounces the couple married and says, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder,” this minister is citing the words of Jesus himself.

Even those in the church who rail at the outside world on issues that are unclear in Scripture often tend to mute themselves on divorce, where the Bible speaks emphatically. Usually this is just one more case of tribal culture-war identity politics: There are more divorced and remarried people inside our churches than there are people with other issues.

That’s all true. Even so, I believe the Bible treats the question of divorce in cases of abuse not as a matter of sin for the innocent spouse.

Some people, in the Roman Catholic communion for instance, hold that there is never any moral reason for divorce. Yet even then, the dispute is over whether any institution has the authority to pronounce the marriage dissolved. In that case, the dispute is not over whether a spouse should stay in an abusive situation.

I don’t know a single faithful Catholic priest or bishop who would say that a person should stay in an abusive environment. They would counsel in such situations a removal of the person (and his or her children) and, if the threat of abuse persisted, would keep them away from such a home, even if that meant for life.

As most of you know, I don’t hold to the view that divorce is, in every case, a sin. Along with most evangelical Protestants, I believe that there are some narrow instances in which the sin of a spouse dissolves the marriage covenant and that divorce is warranted in those cases. Almost everyone in this view would see unrepentant adultery as one of those exceptions. And most of us would see abandonment by a spouse as another.

The apostle Paul counseled new Christians in the first century that they were not obligated to leave their unbelieving spouses (1 Cor. 7:10–16). Those marriages were not unholy because of the spouse who worshiped some other god; they were made holy by the one who worshiped the living God.

While God has called us to pursue peace and reconciliation with all people, Paul wrote that in the case of a spouse who walked away, abandoning the marriage, the remaining spouse should “let it be so” and not consider himself or herself “bound,” strongly implying the freedom to remarry.

An abusive spouse, in fact, has abandoned the marriage. Abuse is much worse than abandonment, involving the use of something holy (marriage) for satanic ends. Abuse of a spouse or a child is exactly what God condemns everywhere in the Bible—the leveraging of power to hurt the vulnerable (Ps. 9:18; Isa. 3:14–15; Ezek. 18:12; Amos 2:7; Mark 9:42; etc.). While abuse is worse than abandonment, it is no less than abandonment.

If one spouse abandons the home, the Bible reveals, it is not the fault of the innocent party. And if a spouse makes the home a dangerous place for the other spouse (or their children), that is not the fault of the innocent party either. In those cases, divorce is not a sin but is, first of all, a recognition of what is already the case—that the one-flesh union covenant is dissolved—and the abused spouse should feel no condemnation at all in divorcing.

Suggesting that marital fidelity entails subjecting oneself or one’s children to abuse is akin to implying, based on the Romans 13 command to submit to the governing authorities, that Jesus was immoral for urging those in danger in Judea to “flee to the mountains” in the time of great tribulation (Matt. 24:15–19). God forbid.

According to a 2015 survey, the overwhelming majority of Protestant pastors would say that divorce in cases of domestic violence is morally legitimate. Yet I would go even further to contend that, in many cases, divorce not only is allowable, as it would be for adultery or other forms of abandonment, but is necessary to protect the abused person from further harm.

Both the church and the state have a role in making sure that the abuser does not bully the abused person, which often happens through the deprivation of income or housing. A divorce usually involves society’s acknowledging that the marriage is over, helping to divide resources, and providing some ongoing protection (often through restraining orders or police files) for those who have been abused.

If you’re a minister, you can almost guarantee that someone in your pews or in your immediate community is experiencing domestic violence. Sometimes the victim will have internalized the abusive rhetoric of the abuser and blame herself for bringing on the abuse to her or her children.

Sometimes the one being abused will believe that there is no other option but to stay, feeling trapped in the marriage. In the case of domestic violence, the church has a responsibility not only to alert the relevant civil authorities but also to bear the abuse sufferer’s burdens by arranging a safe place of refuge and meeting other needs.

The very least that one can expect from one’s church is not to be condemned as a sinner for escaping danger.

Recognize that abusers often weaponize spiritual language to cover the abuse. They might suggest that the abused spouses are “unforgiving” if they leave or that they would be sinning against Jesus if they were to pursue divorce—quoting out-of-context Bible verses all the while. As the steward of the oracles of God, the church has a mandate to call such misuse of the Scriptures what it is: a taking of the Lord’s name in vain, in one of the worst ways imaginable.

Divorce for domestic violence is not a sin. It’s about sin all right—but it’s the sin of the abuser, not the sin of the abused who decides to divorce. The abused in our churches and in our communities need to see us applying the Bible the right way, and they need to see us embodying the Jesus Christ who protects the vulnerable.

What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. Yes and amen. But sometimes Jesus also would have us recognize that man should not force together what God has put asunder.

Sometimes the path to divorce court is not a way to destruction but a road to Jericho. We should look to see who is beaten on the roadside and be for them who Jesus told us to be.

Russell Moore leads the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today.

- More from Russell Moore

News

Leading Church Exits Vineyard

Daniel Silliman

National board questions Anaheim pastors’ “spiritually implausible” reasons for disassociation.

Alan Scott preaching at Vineyard Anaheim on Sunday.

Screengrab / Vineyard Anaheim YouTube

The “mother church” of the Vineyard movement announced Sunday that it is disassociating from the charismatic denomination.

The division isn’t theological, pastor Alan Scott told Vineyard Anaheim, the California congregation he and his wife, Kathryn, have led for four years. There aren’t any big disputes over the direction of Vineyard USA. No personal grievances causing a rift.

It’s just that the leaders of Vineyard Anaheim believe that God is guiding them to leave the denomination their church helped start. So they are leaving.

“We don’t really understand why,” Alan Scott said in a recording of a Sunday service obtained by CT. “I wish I really could sit before you today and say, ‘Here are the six reasons,’ ‘Here’s our issues,’ ‘Here are our grievances,’ or whatever. … We don’t always know what’s on the other side of obedience.”

A spokesperson for the church declined to speak to CT and pointed to an official statement posted on its website. The statement says the decision is “our best effort to respond to the distinct calling on our church at this time, and a desire to say yes to the Spirit.”

National Vineyard leadership is not so sure that’s the Holy Spirit speaking.

John Kim, a New York City pastor and member of the Vineyard USA board of trustees, writing to the church leadership on behalf of the board in a series of emails obtained by CT, described the statements as “spiritually implausible.”

“Do you understand this lightning-fast, seemingly unaccountable process as having been subject to biblical standards of discernment?” Kim wrote.

According to Kim’s emails, the church’s explanations of its decision-making process, its process of spiritual discernment, its reasons for leaving, and the timeline for departure have left the national leadership in “bewildered astonishment, profound pain, and lack of comprehension.”

The spiritual significance of Anaheim

The association of Vineyard churches, formed in Southern California in 1975, has historically been fairly loose. Individual congregations are autonomous and own their own buildings. The national organization didn’t have a statement of faith for the first 20 years; didn’t set standards or record Vineyard ordinations; and didn’t, until recently, even track the reasons departing congregations gave when they chose to disassociate from the movement.

Vineyard Anaheim isn’t just any congregation, though. It holds serious spiritual and symbolic significance for the charismatic denomination.

Vineyard Anaheim was planted in 1977 by John Wimber, a born-again rock musician who believed Christians should “do the stuff” of the Bible—heal the sick, cast out demons, listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, and reach lost people with the good news of a God who saves. He combined the practices of “signs and wonders” Pentecostalism with an evangelical commitment to Scripture, developing a movement that could be dynamic and surprising, yet also grounded.

Wimber took over leadership of the Vineyard movement in 1982 and continued until his death in 1997. The church in Anaheim became an unofficial headquarters and, for many, a sacred space.

“While it was not the first Vineyard church, it was undoubtedly the church through which the Vineyard movement was built,” Caleb Maskell, associate national director of theology and education, said in a written statement to CT. “Thousands of pastors and leaders who call the Vineyard movement their family have had profound, life-shaping encounters with God at Vineyard Anaheim.”

J. T. Meyer is one of them. He grew up in the Vineyard—both his parents were pastors—and though he was never part of the historic Southern California congregation, that physical space is special to him.

“I can think of at least a dozen different times where I had really powerful experiences with God at the Anaheim Vineyard at a national conference,” said Meyer, who now leads a Vineyard church in Cleveland. “I can’t speak to whether the decision they’re making was moral or immoral or wise or unwise, but it feels really hurtful. It feels like your parents are selling your childhood home.”

‘The Scotts are very intentional’

Some with close connections to the church feel deeply betrayed by the disassociation. Christy Wimber, John Wimber’s ex-daughter-in-law, who was mentored by him in ministry, said on social media that this is a spiritual hijacking. While Alan and Kathryn Scott may talk about obedience to God, she sees it as a crass power grab.

“The Scotts are very intentional,” she said in an Instagram video. “Listen, I love them. They’re my brother and sister in Christ but … they’ve been very intentional to have that church. Very intentional in what they’re doing now.”

The Scotts were called by the leadership of the congregation four years ago. Alan Scott is originally from Glasgow. He became a Christian at age nine after watching the Jesus film and joined a small group of Christians that became part of the Vineyard. He felt a call to ministry, and he and Kathryn, a songwriter and worship leader from Northern Ireland, planted their first church when he was 27 and she was 24.

The early years were a struggle, but then in 2003, Alan Scott started praying for 100 conversions in a year. The church moved its healing service out into a city street, setting up six chairs and a banner that said “healing,” to evangelize with Pentecostal signs and wonders.

“It located the supernatural beyond the building,” he said on a Vineyard USA podcast in 2020. “Yes, we need everything Jesus has for us in our gathered moments, but there’s something beautiful about engaging beyond the building.”

Scott wrote a book about “unleashing the church to bring life to the city,” and he and his wife applied for the leadership position at the “mother church” of the Vineyard movement. At the time, Vineyard Anaheim only had about 300 people in regular attendance, but a remarkable heritage, 5.7 acres of prime Orange County real estate, and a debt-free building.

A 12-member search committee voted unanimously to hire the Scotts, according to an email sent this month by longtime Anaheim church member Greg Scherer to the national leadership as a representative of the church board.

After the couple’s interview, one woman who had been an influential leader in the church since the 1970s exclaimed, “Do we even need to vote on the Scotts it’s so clear God has chosen them?”

During the interview process, someone asked if Alan Scott was “really Vineyard.” He said, “I am Vineyard to my core,” Scherer recalled. But no one asked whether they might lead the church away form the Vineyard movement. That idea hadn’t occurred yet.

An awkward dinner

The national Vineyard leadership first learned of the Scotts’ plans to disassociate on February 24, 2022. Jay Pathak, the new national director who took over in January, and Maskell went to Anaheim and met the Scotts for dinner at a local restaurant.

Pathak asked the Scotts how they could help lead the Vineyard movement, using their strengths and the strengths of Vineyard Anaheim, according to an account of the meeting he and Maskell wrote for the Vineyard USA board. The Scotts replied that, actually, a decision had been made to leave the Vineyard and they would be informing their staff the next day. They gave Pathak an envelope with a letter.

“As per our conversation tonight,” it said, “we are writing to formally notify you of our decision to withdraw Vineyard Anaheim as a member of the Association of Vineyard Churches USA with immediate effect.”

The Scotts went on to state their affection for the movement was “undimmed” and they would continue to honor the Vineyard, but they were nonetheless parting ways.

After the meeting, Pathak and Maskell contacted Anaheim church board members, calling two and texting a third to ask them to slow the process down.

“Give us time to process their grievances,” Pathak said in the text, “as well as the implications for the church and our whole movement.”

That Sunday, Alan Scott told his congregation he had “a little bit of family news on things that are important to us.” As part of a “process of renewal,” the church was entering a process of disassociation from the Vineyard movement.

Scott said the conversation with the national leaders was just starting and he and Kathryn had “misstepped” by trying to be kind and move quickly. He said he wouldn’t be talking about the details until the process was further along, but he wanted the congregation to know what was happening.

No agreement on the terms of a meeting

A few days later, the Vineyard USA board of trustees reached out to the church’s board to see if it would be possible to discuss the disassociation and other possible alternatives. The national leaders acknowledged that a congregation is legally entitled to separate from the denomination at any time, but they questioned how the process had happened and raised issues of transparency and accountability.

The two boards were in daily conversation for the next 12 days but couldn’t agree to the terms of a meeting or what the proposed conversation should even be about.

“Is Vineyard Anaheim still a local community of believers free to step into the story of God as the Spirit leads?” Scherer wrote on behalf of the California church board. “Or is Vineyard Anaheim primarily a custodian that exists to steward the legacy, memory and history of the global vineyard? And crucially, is she free to pursue whatever God calls her to do whether that lies within or beyond the Vineyard Movement?”

It is not clear from the emails between board members or any of Alan Scott’s teaching and writing what the church might want to do that would be limited by association with the Vineyard.

Kim responded the following day: “Frankly, we confess we do not understand this account of the reasons for disassociation.”

By March 17, Scherer wrote that he was afraid “we may never see eye-to-eye” on what it means to be obedient to the calling of the Holy Spirit.

What does it mean to follow the Holy Spirit?

The disagreement appears to tap into deeper Vineyard tensions over what it means to follow the Holy Spirit.

Some believe the organizational structures of the denomination prevent people from trusting God, taking risks, and following the Spirit wherever it leads. Vineyard pastors associated with the Toronto Blessing, the “Kansas City prophets,” and Bethel Church and Jesus Culture have critiqued what they see as a growing bureaucracy in the Vineyard and an increasing insistence on the importance of accountability.

Vineyard USA has reorganized in the past few years. It now has a leadership team and is developing standards and a process for ordination, as well as church affiliation.

Other Vineyard pastors insist that listening to the Holy Spirit involves discernment. And God’s leading should be discerned in community. They are concerned with the many charismatic leaders over the years who have claimed that their spiritual gifting frees them from any accountability.

“God does speak today!” Rich Nathan, pastor emeritus of Vineyard Columbus, the largest Vineyard church in the country, wrote on social media this week. “But whenever a so-called ‘leading’ is obviously self-seeking, fundamentally dishonest, lacking in accountable discernment, demonstrably hurts others and especially when money or power is involved, you can rest assured that it is NOT God who is leading!”

According to Nathan, “the Lord told me” is “too often used to justify breaking commitments, severing relationships and rationalizing away the hurt we cause to others!”

Christy Wimber told her social media followers that the real problem at Vineyard Anaheim is not the Scotts. The disassociation of the church points to deeper problems that have troubled the movement since John Wimber died in 1997.

“Something is broken in the system,” she said. “There are things here that are obviously pointing to some things that are broken, and that’s okay, because then it’s an opportunity for God to come in and bring healing to the whole of the movement.”

Reasons still unclear

Alan Scott announced the disassociation to the Anaheim congregation on Sunday, March 20, a little more than three weeks after he and Kathryn wrote their disassociation letter. The livestream of the service was turned off for the “family announcement,” and a statement was posted online later that day.

According to a recording of the service obtained by CT, Scott told the church they would change the name from Vineyard Anaheim to something else, but the new name has not yet been decided.

He assured them, though, that many things wouldn’t change.

“We will continue to teach God’s word,” he said. “We will continue to feed the poor. We will continue to heal the sick. We will continue to lead people to Jesus. And by God’s grace and with his power, we will continue to drive out demons, fingers crossed, we believe it.”

The national organization posted a response and answers to frequently asked questions the same day.

“We still do not fully understand the reasons that the leadership of Vineyard Anaheim has chosen to leave the Vineyard movement,” it said. “The stated reasons feel highly insufficient to the magnitude and impact of the decision.”

- More from Daniel Silliman

News

Wire Story

Hillsong Church Founder Brian Houston Resigns

CT Editors

(UPDATED) Top leader of global ministry leaves shortly after megachurch revealed a pair of investigations around inappropriate behavior.

Brian Houston has resigned as global senior pastor of Hillsong Church.

Marcus Ingram / Getty Images

Brian Houston has resigned from Hillsong Church, the congregation he founded nearly 40 years ago and led as global senior pastor.

The boards of the Australian congregation and the global ministry announced they accepted his resignation in a letter posted Wednesday.

Houston had been on leave from the church awaiting his appearance in court on charges he had covered up abuse by his late father.

Last week, news broke that Hillsong had also investigated the pastor in two instances of inappropriate behavior. One involved text messages sent to a female staff member; the other occurred when Houston drunkenly entered a woman’s hotel room after a Hillsong conference three years ago.

The letter from the board stated:

Irrespective of the circumstances around this, we can all agree that Brian and Bobbie have served God faithfully over many decades and that their ministry has resulted in millions of people across the world being impacted by the power, grace, and love of Jesus Christ.

Hillsong Church was birthed out of Brian and Bobbie’s obedience and commitment to the call of God and we are extremely grateful for all that Brian and Bobbie have given to build His house. We ask that you continue to pray for them, and the entire Houston family, during this challenging time.

Last Sunday, Phil Dooley—Hillsong’s interim global leader—apologized to the congregation and pledged to make it a safe place for healing.

“Where trust and aspects of transparency have been lost, we will do our best to rebuild that,” he said.

The church plans to undergo an independent review of its governance structure and processes.

“There is still much to be done and our church leadership continues seeking God for His wisdom as we set the course for the future,” the boards wrote. “We acknowledge that change is needed.”

———-

Earlier story (March 18, by Roxanne Stone and Bob Smietana – Religion News Service): The board of directors of Hillsong, the global megachurch and music empire co-founded by Australian pastor Brian Houston, released a statement Friday addressing two complaints about Houston, including an accusation that the married pastor had spent time alone in a hotel room with a woman in 2019.

The statement, which came as the story was breaking in the Australian press, said the Hillsong board has been “dealing with two complaints made against Pastor Brian over the last 10 years,” and said each was investigated by a board member or “a body appointed by the global board,” and dealt with confidentially.

The other complaint related to an accusation that Houston had flirted with a staff member over text message a decade ago.

Prior to the statement being released, Hillsong reportedly held a video meeting with 800 Hillsong staffers around the world in which interim senior pastor Phil Dooley, who is leading the church while Houston is on leave due to ongoing legal troubles, discussed the complaints for the first time with the church at large. Dooley explained the texts, according to Australia’s ABC News, as being to the effect of, “‘If I was with you, I’d like to kiss and cuddle you,’ words of that nature.”

The second incident, as reportedly detailed in the staff meeting, took place during its annual conference in Qudos Bank Arena in Homebush, New South Wales in 2019. According to ABC, Dooley said Houston had been “drinking with a group.”

“Later that evening, Pastor Brian attempted to get into his room but didn’t have his room key and ended up knocking on the door to the woman’s room,” Dooley reportedly said. “She opened the door and he went into her room.”

“The truth is we don’t know what happened next,” ABC reported Dooley telling the staffers. “The woman has not said there was any sexual activity. Brian has said there was no sexual activity, but he was in the room for 40 minutes.”

The Hillsong board statement said that Houston, 67, had become “disoriented” after taking more than the prescribed dose of an anti-anxiety prescription, mixed with alcohol. “This resulted in him knocking on the door of a hotel room that was not his, entering this room and spending time with the female occupant,” read the statement.

The board’s statement said Houston was also under the influence of sleeping medication at the time he sent the inappropriate texts, “upon which he had developed a dependence.” The text messages ultimately led to the staff member resigning, according to the statement, which also said Houston apologized to the staff member.

“We also worked closely with Pastor Brian to ensure he received professional help to eliminate his dependency on this medication, and this was achieved successfully,” the statement read.

After the hotel room incident, the board said there was an investigation “by the integrity unity,” and that “although all parts of the complaint were unable to be sustained, important elements of the complaint were sustained and the conduct was of serious concern.”

The board’s statement also said they agreed to refund money the woman had donated to the church, “in order to bring resolution in a spirit of love and care,” and to “abide by her request for confidentiality.” The statement said Houston repaid the money to the church.

At the time, Houston agreed to step down from leadership for a period and “take specific action,” but ultimately, according to the statement, he did not take all of the agreed upon steps, “which resulted in the board taking further action in late 2021.”

The statement did not indicate whether Houston would return to his position at the church.

The incidents are the latest controversy to engulf Hillsong, a Pentecostal powerhouse Houston founded with his wife, Bobbie, in 1983. The church, which draws a reported 150,000 to services in 30 locations, has also produced some of the most popular worships songs used in evangelical churches around the world, including “Oceans,” “What a Beautiful Name,” and “Shout to the Lord.”

In January, Houston announced he was taking a leave from his pastoral duties during 2022, in order to prepare for his trial in Australia on charges that he failed to report sexual abuse.

“The result is that the Hillsong Global Board feel it is in my and the church’s best interest for this to happen, so I have agreed to step aside from all ministry responsibilities until the end of the year,” Houston said in the January 30 video announcement.

Houston was charged in August 2021, with concealing a serious indictable offense of another person. Police say his late father, Frank Houston, also a preacher, indecently assaulted a young male in 1970. Court documents allege Houston knew of his father’s abuse as early as 1999 and “without reasonable excuse,” failed to disclose that information to police.

His son has long denied covering up his father’s abuse.

“I think I’m quite a tolerant person, but one thing I’ve really never had any tolerance for is sexual abuse, and especially child abuse,” Brian Houston said in an 2005 interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “So, I don’t think you could have kicked me in the guts with a bigger blow, in some ways.”

According to Australian news sources, Brian Houston’s trial will be held in late 2022.

- More from CT Editors

News

Wire Story

Voddie Baucham, Tom Ascol Want to Unseat ‘Liberal’ Southern Baptists

Bob Smietana - Religion News Service

The Conservative Baptist Network puts forth its nominees to lead the denomination.

Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries

Video screen grab / RNS

Two Baptist preachers known for their claims that the nation’s largest Protestant denomination is becoming too liberal will be nominated for top roles in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In a statement that blasted SBC leaders for abandoning biblical truth and embracing “radical feminism” and “Race Marxism,” a group of Baptist pastors and professors announced plans to nominate Tom Ascol, president of Founders Ministries and pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, for SBC president. They also plan to nominate best-selling author Voddie Baucham, a former pastor and dean at African Christian University in Zambia, to lead the SBC Pastors’ Conference.

The statement, posted on the conservative website Capstone Report, said Ascol and Baucham will help turn the SBC away from “wokeness” and back to the Bible and criticized Baptist leaders who worry that the “world is watching” how Baptists behave.

“But we believe that God is watching, that He alone defines our terms and sets our agenda,” the statement read. “And God is not Woke.”

A number of signatures on the statement belong to leaders of the Conservative Baptist Network, which has been critical of current SBC leadership. Among the CBN leaders signing the statement are Lee Brand, the current first vice president of the SBC and a seminary professor; Mark Coppinger, a retired SBC theology professor; Brad Jurkovich, pastor of First Baptist Church in Bossier City, Louisiana; Mike Stone, a Georgia pastor and failed SBC presidential candidate; and Ronnie Rogers, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Oklahoma.

Carol Swain, a retired professor and conservative commentator, and Texas pastor Tom Buck, a conservative social media agitator, also signed the statement.

Ascol joins Florida Baptist pastor Willy Rice as potential candidates for SBC president. Candidates for SBC president are nominated during the denomination’s annual meeting. Current SBC President Ed Litton, an Alabama pastor, announced earlier this month that he will not seek a second one-year term in office—the first time an SBC president has not served a second term in 40 years.

The nominations of Baucham, author of Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, and Ascol, who has produced videos critical of the SBC, are the latest salvo in the “woke wars” being waged in the SBC and other evangelical groups.

A group of vocal critics in the SBC sees attempts to address racial injustice or other social ills as antithetical to the Christian gospel—in messaging that parallels that of Republican leaders and former President Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/tomascol/status/1506353032828792840

Ascol told The Daily Wire, a conservative media company cofounded by Ben Shapiro, that his concerns and the concerns of his church about the SBC have long been ignored.

“We’re told, you know, there’s nothing to see here. You’re meddling in business that doesn’t pertain to you,” he said.

Ascol has gained a higher profile in the SBC for his opposition to a resolution on critical race theory that passed during the SBC’s 2019 annual meeting. Ascol’s 2021 campaign to rescind that resolution failed.

Stone, who narrowly lost the 2021 election for SBC president to Litton, posted a note on social media endorsing Ascol.

Since losing the election, Stone has missed a number of high-profile meetings of the SBC’s Executive Committee, where he is a trustee and former chairman. He also blamed Russell Moore, former head of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, for his loss and sued Moore for libel. That lawsuit was later withdrawn.

Like Ascol, Stone has long been critical of what he sees as a liberal drift in the SBC.

“Tom is a pastor, a preacher, a writer, and a staunch advocate for conservative Bible principles,” Stone wrote on Twitter.

Ascol told Religion News Service in an interview last year that he believes SBC churches have been shaped more by pragmatism than by the Bible in recent decades. As a result, he said, SBC churches are filled with people who think they are Christians but really aren’t.

“We still have churches filled with unregenerate people,” said Ascol, whose ministry produced a documentary that criticized former SBC Bible teacher Beth Moore and former SBC President James Merritt of bringing the “Trojan horse of social justice” into the denomination.

In recent weeks, rumors that Baucham would be nominated for SBC president circulated on social media. Baucham has confirmed those rumors but said he was not likely eligible to be SBC president because he is not technically a member of an SBC church. Though he is the former pastor of an SBC church and was sent as a missionary by that church, Baucham is a member of a church in Zambia.

According to the SBC’s constitution, “Officers of the Convention, all officers and members of all boards, trustees of institutions, directors, all committee members, and all missionaries of the Convention appointed by its boards shall be members of Baptist churches cooperating with this Convention.”

“I have indeed been asked to accept a nomination for SBC President. While I am honored to have been asked, I am not sure I am eligible,” Baucham said in March, according to Christianleaders.com.

Elections for the SBC Pastors’ Conference, which features a series on sermons held the two days before the convention’s annual meeting begins, are not subject to the same rules as the president of the denomination. The vote is usually held during the conference and in the past has been done by voice vote.

Baucham said that if nominated as president of the Pastors’ Conference, he would focus the conference on “biblical preaching” and support Ascol.

“I would love to see a revival of great biblical preaching in the SBC,” Baucham said. “The Pastors’ Conference has the potential to play a significant part in that, especially if it is part of a larger movement that brings a man like Tom Ascol into the SBC presidency.”

Despite the success of the Conservative Resurgence, which ousted more-moderate Baptists from the convention in the 1980s and 1990s and promised a golden age of evangelism and growth, the SBC has seen significant decline in recent years. The denomination lost more than 2 million members since 2006, with no turnaround in sight.

- More from Bob Smietana - Religion News Service

Why Haven’t There Been Any Evangelicals on the Supreme Court?

Megan Fowler

With their overlapping views with conservative Catholics, not having a seat on the bench may not matter much.

Justices of the US Supreme Court in 2021

Erin Schaff-Pool / Getty Images

With the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson last month, the US Supreme Court could get its first Black female and first nondenominational Protestant justice.

Six of the current Supreme Court justices are Catholic (Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas), and with Stephen Breyer’s retirement, Elena Kagan will be the only Jewish justice. In response to a question during her confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Jackson described her faith as “Protestant” and then added “nondenominational.”

When Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the US Supreme Court in 2017, he ended a seven-year stretch when no Protestants sat on the nation’s highest court for the first time in history. Of the 115 justices appointed to the Supreme Court since 1789, the overwhelming majority have been Protestants, but none have identified as nondenominational or evangelical.

“Since the rise of politically active evangelicals in the 1970s, not a single evangelical has served on the Supreme Court,” Dan Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. professor of law at University of Michigan, told Christianity Today. “It’s not that they don’t care about the court, but they haven’t served on the court.”

The high court’s decisions on abortion and school prayer helped galvanize the Religious Right, but conservatives have focused more on outcomes than the identities behind the bench.

“Activism is usually mentioned as one core distinctive of being an evangelical, but we oppose it on the bench,” CT observed in 2006. “Is this why there are so few top-level evangelical judges?”

The lack of evangelicals on the Supreme Court is partly a supply issue. While evangelicals make up a quarter of the American population, Crane found that they’re just 7 percent of the student body at the country’s top law schools. Harvard and Yale are seen as the Supreme Court “pipeline,” with eight of the nine justices—and nominee Brown—having attended law school there.

There are also differing attitudes among evangelicals around legal scholarship. Crane remembers that when he attended Wheaton in the late ’80s, the faculty discouraged students from applying to law schools. He thinks there’s still some baggage around legal practice—which can be seen as a worldly, greedy profession—and fewer evangelical students want to work to distinguish themselves in elite legal circles the same way they embrace the ambition needed to succeed in other areas like elite sports or business.

It’s also a result of a stubborn current of anti-intellectualism still prevalent in evangelicalism, the same issues Mark Noll addressed in his 1994 book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

“Because evangelicalism comes out of fundamentalism, which is anti-intellectual, American evangelicalism continues to operate in the long tail of this,” Crane said. “It’s not inherent in Protestantism, but it’s a manifestation of American evangelicalism.”

As a whole, evangelicals tend to pursue less formal education than Catholics and Jews. A Pew Research Center study found that in 2014, 7 percent of evangelicals had a postgraduate degree, compared with 10 percent of Catholics and 31 percent of Jewish people.

“The reality of social conservatism: Evangelicals supply the political energy, Catholics the intellectual heft,” Franklin Foer wrote in The New Republic in 2005. “Evangelicals didn’t just need Catholic bodies; they needed Catholic minds to supply them with rhetoric that relied more heavily on morality than biblical quotation.”

Catholic and evangelical legal thought overlap considerably, particularly in their understanding of natural law, which dates all the way back to Thomas Aquinas. But where Catholics have a body of legal thought that is systematized and steeped in logic and scholarship, evangelicals are more likely to appeal solely to Scripture for their natural law arguments, said Robert Cochran, Louis D. Brandeis professor of law emeritus at Pepperdine University School of Law.

“Natural law proponents draw insights from Scripture, but the primary source of natural law—reason—is available to all, creating the possibility of a common legal agenda for people of all faiths and of no faith,” Cochran said. “Evangelicals tend to express themselves and their moral convictions in biblical terms that have great insight, but are less likely to draw the broad support in an increasingly pluralistic society.”

Evangelicals also tend to see the church as the primary cultural institution, encouraging their sharpest minds to pursue pastoral ministry rather than more worldly pursuits.

“Many evangelicals still tend to think in separatist terms,” he said. “They see the church as the primary cultural institution, their brightest young people become pastors, and they focus their attention on what Christ is doing in their church, rather than what he might be doing in law or other aspects of culture.”

Still, a few evangelicals have made the Supreme Court short lists.

Former federal circuit court judge and constitutional law scholar Michael McConnell—a devout Presbyterian—was suggested as a possible nominee during the John McCain and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. Raymond Kethledge, an evangelical judge from the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, made Trump’s short list in 2018. And George W. Bush nominated evangelical attorney Harriet Miers in 2005. Kethledge was never nominated, and Meyers withdrew her nomination, and in both cases the judge confirmed was a conservative Roman Catholic (Alito and Kavanaugh, respectively).

But with many of the views and values evangelicals prioritize faithfully represented by the court’s conservative Catholic justices, Christian legal scholars don’t see the absence of evangelicals on the high court as a problem in itself. On the two issues that seem most important to evangelicals—religious liberty and abortion—conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic legal philosophies share common ground.

“To the extent social views influence Court decisions, my sense is that most conservative Catholic and evangelical legal scholars share similar views, so as to outcomes, it is not so important that there be evangelical, as opposed to Catholic, justices,” Cochran said.

And the enthusiasm evangelicals show for conservative Catholic justices is a sign of progress. According to Thomas Berg, that evangelicals will embrace conservative Catholic judicial nominees indicates how closely aligned evangelicals and conservative Catholics now are on social issues like abortion and religious liberty. Berg, the James L. Oberstar professor of law and public policy at University of St. Thomas School of Law, applauds this support as a welcome change from bitter anti-Catholic sentiment so prevalent in the 1960s.

There is the Constitutional prohibition against a religious test as a qualification for holding office, and scholars vehemently denounce the idea of identity politics on the Supreme Court.

“We should want justices who understand that their job is to say what the law is, not what it should be,” said Ernie Walton, associate dean of administration and admission at Regent University School of Law. “Having a justice who understands this and has internalized it is far more important than the religious, ethnic background, or gender of the justice.”

Berg also noted that there are many factors impacting a Supreme Court nomination that have nothing to do with faith tradition but are just the result of chance. Presidents seem to look for relatively young justices who will serve on the court for several decades. An evangelical might have the professional credentials, but the president might look for judges who more align with their political and judicial philosophy.

The qualities that caused Michael McConnell’s name to come up when speculating about a McCain or Romney win likely made him unappealing to Barack Obama. And while Kethledge reportedly made Trump’s short list in 2018, the nomination ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh.

“Conservative white evangelicals are underrepresented in the [Supreme Court candidate] pool because of educational, cultural, theological differences,” Berg said, “But once you get to the actual decision, so many things affect the decision that even the candidates who reach that point can be knocked out for any number of reasons.”

Berg also emphasized that there’s a difference between Black evangelicals and conservative white evangelicals, and most of his observations pertain to conservative white evangelicals.

Jackson’s friends and colleagues described her to ABC News as having faith that is “private and deeply personal, neither a frequent topic of conversation nor an overly outward display.” The African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church released a statement in support of her nomination, but the statement did not indicate that she is affiliated with an AME church.

“I’m certain her faith will come up [in this week’s hearings] in terms of how it has informed her views of the world and the law,” said ABC News legal analyst Sarah Isgur, “but I doubt it will be a point of contention so much as a point of pride.”

Isgur was right. Senator Lindsay Graham asked Jackson about her faith. “Personally my faith is very important to me,” she said, “but as you know, there’s no religious test in the Constitution under Article XI and it’s very important to set aside one’s personal views about things in the role of a judge.”

Jackson has rarely spoken at churches, but one instance—her most public faith display—involves her role on the board of Montrose Christian School, a now-defunct Southern Baptist school in Maryland. Jackson served on the school’s board from 2010 to 2011.

At her confirmation hearing for the DC Circuit in April 2021, senator Josh Hawley asked Jackson whether, based on her service at Montrose Christian, she believed in “the principle, and the constitutional right, of religious liberty.”

“I do believe in religious liberty,” Jackson told Hawley, calling religious liberty a “foundational tenet of our entire government.” But Jackson distanced herself from the Montrose Christian statement of faith, telling Hawley that she had served on many boards and did not necessarily agree with every statement those boards might make. And in this case, she added, she was unaware of the Montrose statement of beliefs.

Though there might not be an evangelical on the Supreme Court, that doesn’t mean that evangelicals don’t have influence in the judicial system.

“There are many evangelical judges on the lower federal courts and state supreme courts, as well evangelical lawyers who land top federal clerkships right out of law school,” Walton said. With time, he expects an evangelical will make it to the Supreme Court.

And evangelical legal institutions might be gaining momentum to compete with the traditional Supreme Court pipeline. Walton noted that in 2020 and 2021, over 20 percent of Regent’s law school graduates went on to work in clerkships, earning the school a top-25 ranking in the nation.

So as evangelical law schools produce top-notch legal minds and evangelicals value the changes that come not just through pastoral ministry but every vocational calling, the odds of an evangelical justice could increase.

“God knows what lies ahead of each of us,” Jackson said in a 2011 commencement address at Montrose Christian School. “The best that you can do, as you look forward, is to take the long view.”

- More from Megan Fowler

News

Americans’ Return to Church Has Plateaued

Kate Shellnutt

Two years in, more congregations are open without COVID-19 precautions, but Americans aren’t more likely to show up.

Damion Hamilton / Lightstock

Churches waiting for more people to return on Sunday mornings are still waiting, two years into the pandemic.

Over the past six months, nearly all houses of worship have reopened for services and, week by week, more have dropped mask requirements, social distancing, and other COVID-19 precautions. But the latest figures from Pew Research Center show that once-regular churchgoers aren’t much more likely to show up than they were back in September.

While people steadily returned to church services in the first half of 2021, the trend hit a plateau. Going into the third year since COVID-19, congregations and their leaders are left with the reality that the people who worshiped alongside them before may not be coming back.

Around two-thirds of people who usually attend church at least monthly said they were back in the pews in March (67%), roughly the same as in September 2021 (64%).

“2021 had many leaders clinging to the idea that the next season—Easter, the new school year, Christmas, etc.—would bring attendance back to 2019 levels. For most churches, that ‘magic season’ never materialized,” wrote Carey Nieuwhof, former pastor and church leadership strategist, at the start of the year.

“In 2022, the constant cycle of hope and disappointment will give way to the new reality that this is your church. It will become evident that some of the people who said they’re coming back later clearly aren’t coming back—ever.”

Churchgoing evangelical Protestants have returned at the highest rates, but their figures are also holding steady rather than growing: 75 percent attended in March and 72 percent the September before.

Black Protestants remain the most cautious, and under half of regular churchgoers from their tradition are back in person. Fewer reported they had gone to services in March (48%) than back in September (50%).

The recent Pew figures follow what other surveys have indicated and what pastors see in their still-not-full sanctuaries on Sundays. A 2021 American Family Survey found the biggest drop in church attendance among Black churchgoers, older adults, and couples without kids at home.

As CT reported last year, some Christians see the lagging attendance figures as signs of a much bigger crisis for churches, where the upheaval of the pandemic has changed the way people relate to church.

“We have to retrain people from the beginning on why you should bother to assemble,” said Collin Hansen, who wrote Rediscover Church: Why the Body of Christ Is Essential. “I think pastors take that for granted and are going to be surprised how many people never had that vision to begin with and never come back when the all-clear is given.”

Within weeks of COVID-19 taking off in the US, it became clear that livestream and other online service formats would not only keep church life going but in many cases expand their reach.

“While religious congregations as a whole may have experienced a large drop in physical attendance during the pandemic, there’s good reason to believe that virtual attendance is much higher today than it was before the coronavirus outbreak began in early 2020,” the Pew report said.

Black Protestant churchgoers are also the most likely to keep watching services online, Pew found. They’re twice as likely as churchgoers from other traditions to say their only recent church attendance has been online or on TV.

The number of Americans overall who have attended or tuned into a church service exceeds those who say they’re regular churchgoers. While overall reach has expanded, there’s a segment of Christians who used to belong to a church community who aren’t engaging at all anymore: 12 percent of formerly regular churchgoers say they’re not attending in person or watching online.

Pastors are left considering hybrid worship models and whether to invest in growing online engagement even though their church is open in person.

“We now live our lives in a hybrid of physical and digital, and there’s no going back,” Ian Harber wrote in a January article posted by the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Of course, we never want to forsake the physical—we are physical beings made in God’s image who are called to gather together in the name of Christ—but we shouldn’t forsake our people to the digital either.”

- More from Kate Shellnutt

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

The spiritual significance of Anaheim

‘The Scotts are very intentional’

An awkward dinner

No agreement on the terms of a meeting

What does it mean to follow the Holy Spirit?

Reasons still unclear

Share

Share

In this series

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share