Churches Threaten to Withhold Funds Over Southern Baptist Response to Abuse Inquiry

More leaders and state conventions are putting pressure on the Executive Committee ahead of this week’s meeting.

Brandon Porter / Baptist Press

As controversy escalates surrounding an investigation into mishandlings of sexual abuse by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee (EC), pastors and state conventions are calling on the committee to finally vote to waive attorney-client privilege at its upcoming meeting.

In official statements and social media threads, Southern Baptists condemned trustees’ failure to heed the directive of the messengers in the EC’s two previous meetings, and many threatened to withdraw giving or redirect monies.

“Should the Executive Committee fail to comply, we will lead our churches to consider how to reallocate funds away from the Executive Committee while continuing to fund the cooperative mission and education endeavors that have always made Southern Baptists great,” read a statement from South Carolina pastors. Among its signatories were two Executive Committee trustees and a member of the task force overseeing the investigation.

David Sons, one of the trustees who signed the statement, told CT that it was born out of a concern for the “egregious nature of the accusations” and worries that Southern Baptist polity is being violated.

“The EC has a responsibility to carry out, to the best of our ability, the will of the messengers,” Sons said. “Not to tell the messengers why we can’t, or won’t, comply.”

Withholding or reallocating funds “shouldn’t be used as a threat,” he added, “but [it] can be done as a last resort to express to an entity that they have violated the trust of the messengers.”

In June, 15,000 convention messengers overwhelmingly approved a motion to launch the investigation, conducted by a third-party and overseen by a task force appointed by the new SBC president. The motion instructed the EC to abide by the investigator’s best practices, including waiving attorney-client privilege—which so far, the group has refused to do, citing fiduciary commitments and fear of legal liability.

The EC is scheduled to meet on Tuesday for the third time in as many weeks. As of Sunday night, over 25 statements had been released on behalf of state conventions, local associations, or groups of concerned pastors, though not all of them directly threatened withholding or reallocating money.

Louisiana pastor Jay Adkins wrote a blog post last week detailing how pastors can allocate funds so that they continue to support Southern Baptist causes without giving to the Executive Committee.

“I was concerned about my pastor friends who were talking about leaving the convention altogether or escrowing funds,” Adkins said. “I’m not suggesting people give away from the EC, although I’m for that. I’m just saying please don’t leave.”

Adam Blosser is the pastor of Goshen Baptist Church in Virginia, which forwards 10 percent of its undesignated giving to the SBC’s denominational funding mechanism known as the Cooperative Program. Blosser told CT he is concerned about the Executive Committee’s actions and is watching the situation closely.

“We aren’t ruling out the possibility of making a change in the future, but at this time we intend to continue giving as we have been doing,” he said.

At the heart of the crisis is the question of how Southern Baptists will respond to sexual abuse. There are also concerns about safeguarding the convention’s polity—wherein churches make decisions on behalf of the convention rather than central leadership—and whether waiving privilege would expose the Executive Committee to liability or void their insurance.

Scott Colter, a leader with the Conservative Baptist Network, recently wrote the EC to praise the body for so far refusing to waive privilege and not putting the entity at risk. He described his position in contrast to the “rising pressure of the mob-mentality” and those who say “you must either choose to follow Jesus or follow lawyers.” (Colter worked for years alongside Paige Patterson, the SBC leader who was fired and remains under litigation for his handling of abuse cases at Southwestern Seminary.)

Much of the pressure on the Executive Committee is from pastors concerned that the entity’s reluctance to waive privilege upends the convention’s bottom-up structure.

“Southern Baptists are no strangers to denominational crisis, but this one represents a perfect storm because of the intersection of power dynamics, polity concerns, and pleas for justice to be done,” said Southern Baptist historian Nathan Finn. “If the EC remains recalcitrant, it is almost certain that hundreds and maybe thousands of churches will direct their giving around the EC.”

Executive Committee chairman Rolland Slade, who has twice voted in favor of waiving privilege, told CT that he shares those polity concerns.

“The messengers made clear in June what they wanted us to do,” Slade said. “To me, that’s what we have to do, the way I understand Southern Baptist polity. We are bottom-up, and the messengers spoke clearly.”

Slade also told CT that three EC trustees have resigned in the past week and that he is expecting more resignations before tomorrow’s vote.

One Executive Committee trustee told CT that he planned to call for a vote of no confidence in CEO Ronnie Floyd and Vice President Greg Addison at last week’s meeting and that he shared his intent with Floyd, who requested he not do so. The trustee said that Floyd and Addison “had not led or supported the efforts of this trustee body to abide by the will of the messengers of our convention” and that their removal would be the best thing for the convention’s ability to move forward.

Based on the events of the last week and the grassroots uprising from Southern Baptists, however, he expects the board to waive privilege tomorrow and is no longer planning to move forward with the no-confidence vote.

Executive Committee lawyers have continued to balk at a blanket waiver of privilege, instead offering solutions that fall short of what the messengers mandated in June. Among these options is the “Michigan Model,” in which a law firm serves as an intermediary between the task force and Executive Committee but privilege is not waived.

“Southern Baptists of all stripes have spoken resoundingly that when it comes to the sexual abuse investigation of our Executive Committee, we will not settle for an agreement unless it includes the EC waiving their attorney-client privilege” said Tennessee pastor Grant Gaines, who offered the motion that instigated the investigation.

“We don’t want the ‘Michigan Model.’ We insist on the ‘Messenger Model’—the one approved by an overwhelming majority of thousands of SBC messengers at our annual meeting this past June.”

- More from Rob Collingsworth

Culture

‘The Jesus Music’ Is a Love Letter to Fans

Kelsey Kramer McGinnis

But like the CCM industry, it speaks an insider language.

Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant in “The Jesus Music.”

Courtesy of Lionsgate

I have a memory of being five or six years old and helping my mom prepare for a party with Amy Grant’s album Heart in Motion playing in the background. I knew (and still know) all the words to “Baby, Baby” and “Good for Me.” When I got married, my three sisters sang a parody of her song, “Lucky One” at the reception.

I know every song on Steven Curtis Chapman’s Speechless by heart. I saw DC Talk in concert at eight, tagging along with a friend whose parents led youth group. In high school, I worked in the music department of a Christian book store.

In other words, I grew up on Christian Contemporary Music (CCM).

The Jesus Music, a new film directed by Jon and Andrew Erwin about the rise of the genre, was made for me and for people like me—whose musical and spiritual worlds were formed and influenced by the music, musicians, and subculture of CCM. I enjoyed revisiting the music my parents and I played on repeat during the ’80s and ’90s, and I suspect that many viewers like me will as well. Viewers like me.

“This music,” musician Joel Smallbone (of the band For King & Country) says in the opening line of the trailer, “offers people a sense of hope and a sense of togetherness and a sense of joy, maybe that they’ve not experienced.”

That’s a sweeping claim, one echoed on the film’s website, which refers to the “universal power of music from these artists.”

Is this music really for anyone and everyone? Can everyone find in it a sense of hope, joy, or togetherness? No. Music isn’t a universal language, and the music featured in The Jesus Music comes from a brief fifty-year window and a small group of artists in a very niche music market.

For many American evangelicals, this music has been an important part of our lives. It is a mistake, however, to think that our tastes, preferences, and the music we have loved and worshiped with are somehow universal.

Evangelicals (particularly white evangelicals) and our subcultures are more insular than we like to admit. This is one reason why we so quickly attach ourselves to “crossover” celebrities like Amy Grant or Lauren Daigle. We tell ourselves that the music produced by our darlings is appreciated outside of our Christian spheres. But the reality is that most of the music produced by the Christian music industry in the US thrives within its own silo.

Ethnomusicologist Andrew Mall observes that the Christian music industry has always been a niche market that grew in part to “offer a Christian alternative” to mainstream popular music.

“Christian music remained marginal to the general market,” writes Mall, “its artists’ explicit identities endeared them to the Christian market but segregated them from the general market, establishing boundaries more clearly than did their music.”

The film makes much of moments when a Christian band like Stryper showed up on MTV and topped charts, beating out hits by bands like Mötley Crüe. But those anecdotes are exceptions to the general rule that Christian popular music has its own fandom and its own subculture.

Despite references to CCM’s “power” and broad appeal among Christians, the directors acknowledge that they made The Jesus Music for a specific population. “It’s a love letter to the fans,” says director Jon Erwin, who also directed I Can Only Imagine (2018) and I Still Believe (2020). “It’s a love letter to the artists. And if you love the music, I think it’s going to be a very nostalgic soundtrack to your faith journey.”

If you are expecting a documentary that plumbs the complexities of the Christian music industry, this isn’t it. It isn’t a project that seeks to critique the world of CCM and the subcultures that spawned and have grown out of it. It certainly isn’t a documentary that seeks to expose secrets or salacious biographical details of the lives of CCM artists. It isn’t a documentary at all.

The goal of the film is to tell a curated, entertaining story about the rise of CCM. “Our job is to entertain,” says Erwin. “We’re entertainers, and I love to entertain an audience.”

And the story the Erwins tell is entertaining. Like this year’s Netflix movie, A Week Away (a High School Musical- inspired teen drama featuring CCM hits), The Jesus Music is a sugary, light-hearted package of American contemporary Christian nostalgia. Those of us who are cultural insiders can bask in the pleasure of rehearing old favorites and watching artists reminisce about the glory days of CCM and their paths to success in the industry.

The film briefly acknowledges some of the “scandals” and personal trials of CCM stars, like Amy Grant’s divorce or the relational drama within DC Talk, but these reflective moments are short and vague. There is no attempt to dig deeply into the reasons why the industry and its fandom would turn so quickly on artists.

I watched The Jesus Music with my husband, who did not grow up with any exposure to CCM, and there were some important differences in our viewing experiences. He didn’t have parents who purchased CDs from Christian bookstores; he didn’t listen to Christian radio. For him, there is nothing nostalgic about the music of Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, DC Talk, or Steven Curtis Chapman, aside from the general aesthetic of the ’80s and ’90s.

For people like my husband, “outsiders,” the reverent footage of CCM royalty Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith may be confusing. The film presents these two artists (also executive producers of the film) as CCM’s two figureheads, icons of the industry whose careers become the frame for the entire film. The storytellers assume a certain amount of knowledge of the CCM canon and its major players that, to those on the outside, may be exclusionary.

The Jesus Music does try to acknowledge one troubling aspect of CCM’s exclusivity: its whiteness and the barriers that have long existed for people of color, specifically black artists, in the Christian music industry. Through interviews with Kirk Franklin, Lecrae, and Michael Tait, the film gives a passing nod to the role of black artists (also briefly discussing Andraé Crouch) in the growth of CCM.

Among the photos and footage used in the film are images of Kirk Franklin with Kanye West and footage of CeCe Winans singing with Whitney Houston. These CCM powerhouses have been bridge-builders between Christian music and the mainstream for decades, but are pushed to the periphery of the documentary, much like the place of gospel music in the industry.

Mall notes the segregation in both the general markets and the Christian markets, “with separate record labels to distribute and promote gospel artists.”

While the film is truly entertaining for CCM fans, the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves matter. Stories that entertain us and simply make us feel good about our cultural silo let us avoid grappling with the failures of our icons, leaders, institutions, and industries. The stories we tell about our music matter too.

White evangelicals in particular need to be circumspect in how we talk about the power, appeal, and reach of our music. Our music is not a universal language; what we perceive as a “universal” appeal is not universal at all. If CCM and the contemporary worship music produced seems universally appealing, maybe our circles are not as reflective of the diverse body of Christ as we think.

Kelsey Kramer McGinnis is a musicologist, educator, and writer. She holds a PhD from the University of Iowa and researches music in Christian communities and music as propaganda.

- More from Kelsey Kramer McGinnis

News

Pat Robertson Retires from The 700 Club at 91

Kate Shellnutt

The outspoken host and pioneering Christian broadcaster has been the face of CBN since its founding 60 years ago.

YouTube screenshot / The 700 Club / CBN

After decades of offering Christian viewers his commentary on natural disasters, 9/11, AIDS, pot, divorce, diplomacy, plastic surgery, homosexuality, Islam, secular colleges, the end of the world, critical race theory, and a range of other moral issues, Pat Robertson has signed off as host of The 700 Club.

On the 60th anniversary of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), its 91-year-old founder announced that he would be stepping down and that his son, Gordon Robertson, would take over as full-time host of its flagship talk show.

Robertson, also the founder of Regent University and the Christian Coalition, has been a pioneer in evangelical broadcasting. He launched CBN as the country’s first Christian network in 1960, and CBN has grown to air in 174 countries and 70 languages. It added a 24-7 news channel in 2018.

At the helm of the Virginia-based network, Robertson was ambitious and creative, believing that CBN could grow to a place alongside major channels and thus have a greater impact for the kingdom.

As CT reported in 1982, “CBN began replacing pulpits and King James English with Johnny Carson-style sofas and soap-opera vernacular. Its anchor show, The 700 Club, assumed an upbeat, magazine format, complete with news spots from Washington, D.C. Other programs resemble familiar TV Guide lineups, with a top-quality soap opera, early morning news and chatter, a miniseries on pornography, Wall Street analyses, and entertainment for children.”

But particularly in the past couple decades, the long-running host became known for controversial declarations on politics and prophesy, which stirred even fellow evangelicals.

When Robertson called on the US to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez 15 years ago, for example, top evangelical leaders called it an “embarrassment” and “in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Over the years, he’s had to backtrack and apologize for certain comments.

During his career in front of the camera, Robertson—a Southern Baptist minister who campaigned for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1988—interviewed five US presidents and dozens of global leaders. He was among the Christian leaders who prophesied Donald Trump would be reelected in 2020.

Robertson responded to questions from viewers and spent a portion of each show praying for his audience.

He saw his role at CBN as his form of evangelism, previously telling CT, “I believe that Jesus Christ is part of everything that we do in our lives. We want to show the full-orbed life through the perspective of Jesus Christ. You have to deal with people as they are and not as you would like them to be, because the world is not a giant church service.”

Robertson suffered a stroke in 2018, but continued appearing regularly on the show. The network said that after his retirement from hosting he will continue to teach at Regent and appear occasionally on CBN broadcasts, including a monthly Q&A episode.

- More from Kate Shellnutt

How a Jewish Evangelical Won Trust with Arab Muslim Leaders

Jayson Casper

Apocalyptic fiction writer Joel Rosenberg’s new book describes his behind-the-scenes interactions with crown princes and presidents in search of peace and religious freedom.

Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (right) greets Joel C. Rosenberg at the Royal Court in Jeddah on September 10, 2019.

Courtesy of Joel Rosenberg

Fans of Joel Rosenberg’s Middle East apocalyptic fiction can now read his real-time account of real-world peace.

Through behind-the-scenes meetings with kings, princes, and presidents, the Jewish evangelical and New York Times bestselling author had an inside scoop on the Abraham Accords.

For two years, he sat on it.

His new nonfiction book, Enemies and Allies: An Unforgettable Journey inside the Fast-Moving & Immensely Turbulent Modern Middle East, released one year after the signing of the normalization agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), finally tells the story.

During an evangelical delegation of dialogue to the Gulf nation in 2018, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), told Rosenberg of his groundbreaking and controversial plans—and trusted the author to keep the secret.

Named after the biblical patriarch, the accords were Israel’s first peace deal in 20 years. In the five months that followed, similar agreements were signed with Bahrain, Sudan, Kosovo, and Morocco.

Might Saudi Arabia be next? Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) comments to Rosenberg remain off the record. But asked if his reforms might include building the kingdom’s first church, the crown prince described where religious freedom falls in his order of priorities.

Enemies and Allies provides never-before-published accounts of Rosenberg’s interactions with these leaders, in addition to Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah. Included also are exchanges with former president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.

CT interviewed Rosenberg about navigating politics and praying in palaces and about whether he would be willing to lead similar evangelical delegations to Turkey or Iran:

Courtesy of Joel Rosenberg

Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi (center), welcomes a delegation of American evangelicals including Joel C. Rosenberg (left) and Johnnie Moore (right) into his home.

You describe your relationships, especially with the UAE’s MBZ, as ones of “trust.” How did you nurture that? Did you sense it was different than their official diplomatic connections?

I’m not sure I have a good answer for that. Why would Arab Muslim leaders trust a Jewish evangelical US-Israeli citizen?

In the case of King Abdullah, he had read my novel and decided to invite me to his palace rather than ban me from his kingdom forever. The book was about ISIS trying to kill him and blow up his palace. In our first meeting, we spent five days together, and it was not on the record. We were building trust.

I didn’t have that with any of the others. In every case, we were invited rather than us going and knocking on the door. With the case of [MBZ], his ambassador Yousef Al Oteiba had seen the coverage of our Egypt and Jordan trips. He has very good relations with these countries and was able to get the backstory, asking, “Who is this guy Rosenberg? How did it go? Should we do the same?”

I think it has much more to do with being a follower of Jesus Christ. They didn’t know me, but they seemed to trust that followers of Christ who call themselves evangelicals would be trustworthy. That we are genuinely interested in peace, in security in the region, and in a US alliance with the Arab world. And in terms of the expansion of religious freedom, all of them wanted to talk about these things.

They were making a bet that the evangelical community in the United States, while being deeply—though not uniformly—pro-Israel, still has a deep interest in peace and assessing their countries and their reforms fairly. It was the sincerity of our faith that led to trust.

But you still had to nurture trust. How?

I’m sure they vetted me, and in reading my work, they saw I have a deep respect for Muslims. I’m not infected with Islamophobia. I’ve traveled from Morocco to Afghanistan. And I’ve done what I can to strengthen Christian communities in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

I’m not your classic high-profile Christian Zionist who tends to speak of Israel almost exclusively. But in the end, it is sitting there and the type of questions we ask and the tone of our conversation. In John 12:49, Jesus says that the Father commands him what to say and how to say it. Substance is important, but so is style.

You speak of opportunities to pray with different Muslim leaders and even how your delegation explained the gospel to MBS of Saudi Arabia. How do you measure the spiritual impact your efforts had in their lives and nations?

I don’t think it is possible to assess this. We were there to be witnesses for Christ.

In the case of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, if you were accused of proselytizing the future king, it might be a capital offense. But in asking him if the term evangelical is used much in the kingdom, he laughed. We told him we had an ordained pastor in our delegation and asked if we could take a moment to explain what we believe. This was having a respectful conversation, not proselytizing. But it was beautiful.

You could argue there’s not a church built yet in Saudi Arabia, so it wasn’t a huge success. But the fact that he invited us back for a second, longer trip, completely off the record, suggested that we were building trust and that he wanted to go deeper.

Each of these leaders, including MBS, told us some very sensitive things about what they think about peacemaking with Israel. And in the case of MBZ, the biggest fruit is nothing that we take credit for, but the decision of the UAE to make peace with Israel is an answer to decades of people praying for the peace of Jerusalem.

He told us he would do it, and we didn’t leak that. He took a big risk. Why? I think he was trying to build trust with us.

But trust goes both ways. By not leaking it, it created a sense of safety. He could judge that these people are sitting on a massive headline but they have self-restraint to care more about the relationship.

Courtesy of Joel Rosenberg

Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (right) hosts a delegation of American evangelicals in the Royal Court in Jeddah in September 2019.

In Egypt and Jordan, you involved the local Coptic and evangelical communities in your meetings. Have your visits resulted in any tangible gains?

I would defer this to their local leadership. The Christian leaders in some of these countries were rather anxious when they learned this evangelical delegation would be led by a Jewish Israeli American. I was not the poster child for whom they might expect to help them expand relations with their governments. Ironically, the Muslim leaders of their countries were far more secure in reaching out to me than they were—understandably, as they are in charge.

In Egypt, President Sisi, a devout Muslim, met with me five times and invited us to a second visit. This may have provided more confidence for Coptic and evangelical leadership to say this is okay. And in the protocol photo, it was Andrea Zaki who was next to Sisi, while I was out on the edge.

Later, Zaki told me that this was the first meeting he had with Sisi and evangelicals only. This was Sisi honoring them.

I don’t want to overstate this, but it was part of our core values to ask how we could strengthen the local Christian community rather than work around them.

So there may not have been tangible gains, but there were intangible.

To have a photo on the front page of every newspaper in Cairo with the president next to the head of the Protestant community—in his distinctive purple shirt—sent a positive message that our voice is being listened to.

Egypt has a lot of systemic and institutional problems in its relations with Christians. The fact that Sisi honors them and sees them as part of the Egyptian family is important—but it is not sufficient. The question is: How deep will it go? Will every judge, mayor, and policeman also treat Christians respectfully? This is going to take time. Our meetings are not going to solve 1,400 years of troubles.

Your book contains many references to foreign intelligence. A retired CIA station chief helped set up your first meetings with MBZ. How did you navigate such waters? Did you ever feel you were being used for political purposes?

We navigate by being willing to speak with whoever wants to talk to us. Let’s be crystal clear: These Arab leaders have objectives. Their prime objective with us was for their leadership and reforms to be seen positively by the American people—not just in the White House, the National Security Council, the State Department, or the Pentagon.

They realize that Israel has a deep cultural connection to America, such that even amid disagreements the relationship will not break. I think these Arab leaders are concerned—20 years after 9/11—that they have built strong relationships with Washington on the executive level but sometimes not so strong with Congress and almost not at all with the culture or the people.

So how would they do this? [They reasoned:] If there are 60 million evangelicals in the US, maybe we should start meeting some of their leaders. They seem to be peacefully minded and fair. If we get to know them, maybe they will be impressed by our reforms and start thinking about us differently.

I don’t mind this objective. I don’t feel like we’re being used, because we have our own objectives, and they are being mutually achieved. Our objective is to sit in the room with the people who make decisions that affect Christians on the ground in their countries.

And in every case, we were told we were coming off the record, very quietly, just to build a relationship. We said, “That’s good; that’s what we want. We’re not here to get on the front page of your newspapers.” And in every case, at the last moment, they changed that.

Had they always intended that? Maybe, but our motive was to have the relationship and be able to talk not just once but over time.

Were you also a backchannel, expected to take off-the-record comments to American officials?

I don’t think there was any expectation; they have direct channels already. No one asked me to bring a specific type of leader in these delegations. I chose a range, some of whom had close ties with Trump and some who did not—myself included. Some who had good relationships with Congress and some who stayed clear of politics at every level.

I would say we briefed US leaders (and I briefed Israeli leaders) at very senior levels, even about things that were off the record—just so they were aware. I figured in terms of the American and Israeli intelligence services, they probably already knew anyway, but I never got the sense that what I told them they hadn’t heard before.

I did get the sense that they were intrigued how things they knew had been told to us. It suggested not only a level of trust but also a desire to have a more public posture. They weren’t aware the Emiratis or Saudis were willing to do this.

I don’t think they needed a backchannel. They needed a channel to the American evangelical community—to make their case that they are working very hard on sweeping social, economic, and even religious freedom reforms.

Your goal was to build “long-term friendships.” Since the election of President Joe Biden, have Arab leaders continued to reach out to you even as evangelicals are no longer central to the administration?

Yes. Bahrain’s king has invited me to bring a delegation early next year. We will probably also go to the UAE on this trip. I am keeping very close relations with these leaders and their inner circles.

You make a sympathetic case for why we should support these regional leaders, but you also deal with criticisms of their human rights records. How do you keep the balance or decide what to speak about privately as opposed to reporting about on your websites?

The baseline for religious freedom in most of these countries is miserable. I think Jordan is the best; Bahrain is probably second best. The UAE is actually pretty good. If you go back 1,400 years, it’s bad for Christians, and in the last 100 years, it’s been very challenging. But there has been a lot of positive movement. In the UAE, there are 700 freely operating churches, compared to none in Saudi Arabia.

But let’s go to Egypt. They have had a terrible human rights record for centuries, and during [the presidency of former President Hosni] Mubarak, it was terrible. Is it getting better at all? But my baseline is not Mubarak; it is [former President] Mohamed Morsi.

The question is not whether Sisi is doing better than King Abdullah or MBZ. It is: Has Sisi liberated 100 million Muslims from the reign of terror of the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes. Has he rebuilt all the churches burned down or damaged during their era? Yes. Did he build the largest church in the Middle East and give it to Christians on Christmas Eve as a gift? Yes.

He is encouraging religious pluralism and moderation. These are human rights issues, all of them. I think he gets very high marks compared to Morsi and Mubarak.

That being said, is it enough? No. Is he jailing human rights activists and journalists unfairly? Yes, and I say that in the book. There is an overreaction in the Sisi government to ever letting the Muslim Brotherhood emerge again. They have to dial it back.

But I would compare it to Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. If you don’t have a state, there are no human rights. And the very existence of the state of Egypt was very much in doubt over the last decade. Lincoln arrested journalists and suspended habeas corpus. But we have to understand the context in which he did it. And a lot of my Coptic Orthodox friends are not giving the Egyptian government enough credit.

You spoke to leaders of your theological commitment to the state of Israel that goes beyond politics. Is there a distinction between your efforts of seeking peace with Israel specifically and regional peace in general?

Religious freedom was far and away our No. 1 objective. Certainly, advancing Arab-Israeli peacemaking was a high objective for us all. Whether a reader of Christianity Today sees current Israel as the beginning of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies or not, I think every reader would want to see it as a secure country living in peace with the other countries of the region, just as they would for Brazil or Ghana.

In a post-Holocaust, post multiple Arab-Israeli war era, advancing peace is a good thing, biblical, and certainly one of our important objectives. Helping advance it is a very important human rights objective—and a Christian virtue.

What about peace with Iran? Several evangelicals took hope in the nuclear deal, but in your book you are critical and clear about the threat. You also mention frequently the challenges posed by Turkey’s President Erdogan. Would you make yourself available to these leaders also to bring an evangelical delegation?

I picture a ticket to Tehran as one-way. I see no scenario where I can picture me personally sitting down with the supreme leader of Iran. If there are other Christian leaders who get an invitation and get to go and be a witness for Christ and talk about these issues, I would strongly support it. But as an Israeli Jewish evangelical, there are certain roles in the body of Christ that I can play and certain ones I can’t.

In terms of Erdogan, I probably would go and meet with him, and I am encouraged that leaders in the Jewish community have met with him. But you’re right; I am very critical and am very concerned. I love the nation of Turkey, and I think he is leading it to the dark side. When I look at Andrew Brunson, basically I see Erdogan as someone who took a hostage. It took two years of the president of the United States imposing sanctions to get him out. This is telling us something diabolical about Erdogan.

I’m grateful for the doors that have opened, but I don’t believe I’m the one to lead every delegation to every country. There are real risks. But the apostle Paul believed he was supposed to go to Rome and meet with Nero. He was in chains, and he knew he probably wasn’t going to get out. And he was right. But he wanted to do it, the Holy Spirit wanted him to do it, and it happened.

We need to be willing as followers of Christ to meet with any leader God tells us to and be a witness for him regardless of the consequence—because we serve a King higher than these leaders.

Your conclusion states, “I cannot fully explain why doors to such intriguing leaders have opened for me.” From your first invitation by King Abdullah through the signing of the Abraham Accords, how do you interpret the role God has given you in the Middle East?

Psalm 119:46 says that we will be God’s witness to kings. Most of Christianity is about day-to-day life, ministering to ordinary people in their struggles. And so much of the Scriptures is about showing particular concern for the poor, vulnerable, and powerless. But sometimes we forget that kings and governors also have to have a friend who knows Jesus and speaks of him with love and respect. Paul was given a mission to speak to leaders, not just to the lost.

A lot of it is checking your own motive. Am I there for a photo op or to be a witness? Or did God open a door, and now it would be sinful not to go through it? I’m not saying it is easy, but these leaders need to be engaged. We’ve met with senior Muslim clerics and spoken about our faith. These are very rare moments.

Yes, people will ask how we could sit down with MBS, a man accused of such a heinous murder [of journalist Jamal Khashoggi]. I’ll say: How could Paul meet with Nero? Even if MBS isn’t Nero—but especially if he is—why shouldn’t I meet with him? Interacting with the government is not verboten in the Christian world.

Justice [Louis] Brandeis used to say that sunlight is the best disinfectant. This book will allow people to look at what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and maybe some people will have constructive criticism. And maybe God will raise up someone to learn from it and speak with the supreme leader of Iran. Or Turkey. Or China. There are a lot of countries that are not going in the right direction.

[But] I find in some Christian circles a resistance, sometimes even a revulsion, to spend time with high officials out of a feeling that it is courting power and ingratiating yourself for your own ambition or vanity. That we should avoid such contact and remain devoutly nonpolitical. But this runs the risk of missing the mission: Everybody in the world needs a friend who loves Jesus. And God changes the hearts of leaders.

- More from Jayson Casper

CT Then and Now

You can help CT pursue the next decade of kingdom ministry.

The Holy Spirit inspired Billy Graham’s vision for CT. And, for decades, CT has pursued that vision—advancing the stories and ideas of the global church. Today, with your help, CT will inform, transform, and inspire new audiences and new generations with these stories of the kingdom of God.

Give Today.

News

Pew: Religious Terrorism at Record Low, Government Persecution at Record High

Jayson Casper

Countries with religion-related terrorist activity at a record low of 49 after five consecutive years of decline. Yet 28 nations still suffered more than 50 people injured or killed.

A man cries as he prays in the street near St. Anthony's Shrine one week on from Easter terrorism attacks that killed more than 250 people, on April 28, 2019 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Carl Court / Getty Images

Government restrictions on religion are at a global high.

Social hostility toward religion, however, is at its lowest level worldwide since ISIS.

So says data analyzed by the Pew Research Center in its 12th annual measurement of the extent to which 198 nations and territories—and their citizens—impinge on religious belief and practice.

The 2021 report, released today, draws primarily from more than a dozen UN, US, European, and civil society sources, and reflects pre-pandemic conditions from 2019, the latest year with available data.

Matching a peak from 2012, 57 nations (29%) record “very high” or “high” levels of government restrictions—an uptick of one nation from 2018. The global median on Pew’s 10-point scale held steady at 2.9, after a steady rise since the baseline of 1.8 in 2007, the report’s first year measured.

Regional differences are apparent: The Middle East and North Africa scored 6.0; Asia-Pacific scored 4.1; Europe scored 2.9; Sub-Saharan Africa scored 2.6; and the Americas scored 2.0.

But across the globe, restrictions are present.

Most common, according to Pew, is “government harassment of religious groups.” More than 9 in 10 nations (180 total) tallied at least one incident. Also common is “government interference in worship.” More than 8 in 10 nations (163 total) recorded incidents.

And nearly half (48%) of all nations used force against religious groups. China, Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), Sudan, and Syria tallied over 10,000 incidents each.

For example, Pew noted: “Renewed fighting between the military and armed ethnic organizations in the [Myanmar] states of Kachin and northern Shan ‘deeply impacted’ Christians, according to USCIRF. In 2019, thousands were displaced—including many Christians—in addition to more than 120,000 Rohingya who already had been internally displaced, and the military damaged over 300 churches.”

While increases were noted in the above categories, the overall median score stayed level due to decreases in two categories. Fewer countries had limits on proselytizing and on foreign missionaries (on both metrics, 77 nations in 2019, down from 81 in 2018). And there were fewer reports of countries denouncing religious groups as “cults” or “sects” (26 nations in 2019, down from 30 in 2018).

The number of nations recording “very high” scores also decreased, from 26 to 23, matching the lowest total since 2015. Kyrgyzstan and Sudan were added to the ranks of the “very high,” while Mauritania, Morocco, Vietnam, Western Sahara, and Yemen scored lower this year.

Overall, all but 14 nations scored about the same as the prior year. “Modest” increases of 1.0 or more were recorded in six countries, while eight declined similarly. No nations registered a “large” variance of 2.0 or more in their score.

If you really love Jesus, don’t honk!I thought for a while that there was something wrong with me. A part of me was pleased with what I shall term the “divine détente” that appeared to be developing quite rapidly in Christian community.However, an uncomfortable question mark tended to hover over what seemed to be not so much détente as impropriety in the expression of our relationship with the diety. God is our personal God; Jesus did say that we are his friends; the Savior used the familiar “Abba” when speaking of the heavenly Father.Yet the model prayer opens the gates of heavenly communion by stating that the name of the One upon whom we call is “hallowed”: holy, consecrated, sacred, revered.In an attempt to break from errors embraced by some traditionalists, is it possible that many in today’s church have also unwittingly tossed aside basic tenets of our faith? In an honest desire to take the church into the streets—and rightly so—are we dangerously close to bringing the streets into the church? The language of today’s liturgy often gives indication that holiness is passé, and we must be careful that we not season our speech with terms that might sound sacred.The old cliché “is nothing sacred anymore?” becomes all too real.In a recent editorial, a Catholic leader, John Catoir, expressed something of the same concern. “Worship cannot be reduced to a coffee klatch where people can smile at one another and feel chummy. We should realize that we are participants in a mystery to which we adhere by faith.… Speech has much to do with language. After all, speech is the language of communication. To convey a sense of mystery one can hardly use the same language spoken at a cocktail party.“Today, unfortunately, the language of worship has become dull, prosaic, without fire of life.… A return to old language is not the answer, a return to poetry is.”I was greatly encouraged to find a kinship in my own thoughts expressed so beautifully by a fellow traveler. For months my spirit had been reiterating the same idea: Bring back the poetry!At a mass youth conference where my late husband and I were scheduled to speak, a popular young minister chided the gathering, “You aren’t enthusiastic! Look at you, sitting there so calmly. You don’t act like this at the ball game!” (No, they don’t, and they were not at a ball game.) The well-meaning minister proceeded to lead some 2,000 youth in a loud, rousing “yell for Jesus.”“Gimme a J! Gimme an E!”As the multitudes moved the stadium into the sanctuary, I cried silently, “Bring back the poetry.”In a small Bible study group, a 60-year-old woman who is gaining increased popularity as a leader in the Christian community told a group of mature women, “We are kids of the King, and isn’t that neat?”I cringed inwardly. As a child of the Creator-God and joint-heir in his kingdom, I am immensely grateful. Being called a “kid of the King” is not a “neat” concept of my faith at all. Bring back the poetry!One senses that society today is grown weary with plastic people trying to sell to a passive public a holy God with unholy speech. No wonder honest seekers become confused. How easily can the Divine be defined when his person and his message are parroted in the language of the coffee klatch or a stadium cheer or in the current vernacular offered by Nielsen’s number one?When well-meaning believers are purporting that we address “Daddy God”; when the Christian community calls upon others to “honk” if they know Jesus; when that redemptive faith that cost the very life of the Son of God is labeled as “really neat,” I continue to struggle with mixed emotions.I sincerely rejoice in the fact that Christians have moved from a lethargic silence into ministry and service. Yet, I do believe that I join multitudes of the faith who applaud outwardly yet plead inwardly for the church to return to a language that defines the Divine.Bring back the poetry.Elaine Herrin is assistant director of public relations with the Georgia Baptist Convention. She is a former missionary and high school English teacher, and author of Two for the Show (Convention Press, 1979).

Pew noted that due to the inability of independent observers to have regular access, North Korea has not been included in the report. Also not included are two new measures among the 20 in Pew’s Government Restrictions Index, in order to maintain continuity with previous reports.

But adapting their methodology in step with a changing world, Pew will hereafter track online restrictions on religion as well as the use of new technologies for surveillance of religion.

For online restrictions, researchers identified 28 nations, including 50 percent of the Middle East and North Africa (10 nations), and 30 percent of Asia-Pacific (15 nations). Two European nations and one from the Americas complete the list.

For surveillance, six of the 10 nations are concentrated in Asia-Pacific, with two in the Middle East and North Africa and two in Europe.

For example, the United Arab Emirates blocked online testimonies from Muslim converts to Christianity. And in China, authorities used facial recognition technology to monitor and collect biometric data on Uyghur Muslims and other groups deemed to be potential threats.

But while governments around the world increasingly restrict religious freedom, the people of the world appear to be growing in their respect for it.

Social hostilities toward religion are present at “very high” or “high” levels in 43 nations (22%). This is down from 53 nations the prior year, and a peak of 65 nations in 2012. Meanwhile Pew’s global median score declined from 2.0 to 1.7, its lowest level since 2014.

“Social hostilities declined in 2019 partly due to a decrease in reports of terrorism, mob violence, and hostilities against proselytizing,” Samirah Majumdar, the report’s lead researcher, told CT.

“Nothing short of a thunderbolt striking York Minster [cathedral] can stop the consecration of the bishop of Durham taking place.…” So said Richard Harries, dean of London’s King’s College, during a BBC Radio talk.Harries was referring to the appointment of David Jenkins as the Church of England’s fourth most-senior bishop. A former Oxford don, Jenkins’s doubts concerning basic Christian beliefs had been widely covered in the British media.Much to Harries’s astonishment, lightning did strike York Minster—England’s largest medieval cathedral—but it was three days too late to prevent Jenkins’s consecration. Fire caused by the lightning gutted the cathedral’s 750-year-old south transept. Some speculated that the fire might signify God’s hand of judgment at work.The 59-year-old Jenkins was a little-known professor of theology when he was chosen in March to succeed John Habgood as bishop of Durham. But within six weeks he was making national headlines. The controversy began when he was questioned about the divinity of Christ on a national television program. He told an interviewer that he was “pretty clear” that the Virgin Birth was “a story told after the event in order to express and symbolize a faith that this Jesus was a unique event from God.”In addition, he said the Resurrection was not a miracle. “It doesn’t seem to me that there was any one event which you could identify with the Resurrection.” He said Jesus’ miracles do not represent “the literal truth today,” nor was it necessary for a Christian to believe that Jesus was God made flesh.Those assertions outraged many in the Church of England, especially in its Anglo-Catholic and evangelical wings. A petition signed by 12,500 churchgoers urged the archbishop of York to withhold Jenkins’s consecration if he declined to affirm publicly the creeds “as the church has consistently interpreted them.” A number of leading churchmen called for the consecration to be delayed until the appointment had been discussed by the church’s general synod.Two weeks before the consecration, the TV program that first aired Jenkins’s doubts polled 31 Anglican bishops to see how closely their views matched his. The result sounded fresh alarms for the church’s growing evangelical constituency.Nine of the bishops sided with Jenkins on the Resurrection, 10 on the Virgin Birth, and 15 on miracles. Nineteen agreed with him that Christians did not need to believe that Jesus was God made flesh. A public opinion poll commissioned by the TV program indicated that 78 percent of regular churchgoers and 52 percent of all those questioned believed Jesus was the Son of God.Robert Runcie, archbishop of Canterbury and primate of all England, identified with the traditionalists. “It won’t do for us as Christians simply to think of the stories about Jesus as beautiful or helpful or meaningful,” he said. “It won’t do for us to strain out of the stories all that we find difficult because it has an element of miracle and mystery about it.”Evangelical pressure groups, slow to respond initially, have begun rallying the faithful. An Essex clergyman sent letters to all 11,000 Anglican clergy to solicit their support for a campaign against liberal theology and permissive morality in the church. He received more than 1,000 supportive replies.As for Jenkins, now bishop of Durham, he stands by his televised assertions. However, he insists that he accepts the divinity of Christ and believes in the Resurrection “as Saint Paul believed in it.”JOHN CAPONin LondonU.S. Says ‘No’ To Overseas Abortion FundingU.S. delegates to the International Conference on Population, held in Mexico City last month, presented a policy statement staunchly opposed to the use of government funds for abortions overseas. “The United States does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it is a part,” the paper said.This shift in government policy will affect private organizations, such as International Planned Parenthood Federation, and it requires nations that support abortion to segregate U.S. aid into separate accounts. International Planned Parenthood could lose one-fifth of its budget, or million per year, if it does not change its proabortion policies.The first International Conference on Population met in Bucharest in 1974 and strongly endorsed governmental family planning measures to curb population growth. Reagan administration spokesmen say these efforts must be balanced with an emphasis on spurring economic growth overseas because prosperity results in lower population growth.“Our primary objective,” said the policy paper, “will be to encourage developing countries to adopt sound economic policies and, where appropriate, population policies consistent with respect for human dignity and family values.“Attempts to use abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive measures in family planning must be shunned.”Four U.S. congressmen who oppose abortion pressured the administration to issue a firm policy statement. Reps. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), and Vin Weber (R-Minn.) met with While House chief of staff James Baker to urge a permanent separation of abortion funding from population programs.Smith, head of the congressional prolife caucus, vigorously opposes the well-documented use of coerced abortions and female infanticide in China. He was particularly alarmed about the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), sponsor of the Mexico City conference,because of its four-year, million grant to the Chinese government’s population control program. UNFPA receives millions of American aid dollars.Organizations that promote abortion as a family-planning alternative call the new administration policy “a significant setback.” They may challenge it in Congress by encouraging prochoice representatives to try to legislate a repeal of the strictures on funding.North American SceneThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a Maryland law that limited the fund-raising costs of charities. The law sought to forbid fund raisers from charging charities a fee totaling more than 25 percent of contributions raised. The court’s majority opinion said the law operated on the “mistaken premise that high solicitation costs are an accurate measure of fraud.”A federal judge has ruled against municipal sponsorship of a Michigan nativity scene because it promoted only one set of beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier upheld a nativity display on public property in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. However, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor noted that the Pawtucket display included secular holiday symbols. She ruled that the Birmingham, Michigan, nativity scene was strictly religious.A number of proabortion and feminist organizations are urging President Reagan to denounce violence against abortion clinics. The National Abortion Federation, whose Washington, D.C., headquarters were damaged by a bomb blast in July, reports that 10 clinics have been bombed or damaged by arson this year.A group of Methodist clergymen and the American Jewish Congress are challenging a federal program designed to discourage adolescent sexual activity. Filed through the American Civil Liberties Union, the suit argues that the Adolescent Family Life Program promotes religious teachings in violation of the First Amendment. Under the law, the government has distributed more than million to hospitals, universities, social service agencies, and religious organizations.The U.S. Army is using a version of theFocus on the Familyfilm series to help provide positive role models for soldiers and their spouses. Christian author James Dobson, whose organization produced the film series, is a member of the army’s Task Force on Soldiers and Families.An association of 51 Southern Baptist churches in North Carolina has taken its denomination to task for adopting an antitobacco resolution. Southern Baptist Convention messengers (delegates) in June urged Congress to terminate subsidies to tobacco farmers and encouraged Southern Baptists who grow tobacco to switch to another crop. A recent resolution adopted by the Johnson Baptist Association in North Carolina calls the crop “the lifeline for many of our people and the majority of the churches” in the association.The science education program at Liberty Baptist College has gained the approval of Virginia’s state board of education.Last year the program won conditional approval after a battle over whether Liberty graduates would teach creationism. College chancellor Jerry Falwell had sparked the dispute by saying Liberty graduates would teach evolution only to show that it is “foolish.” Recently, a committee appointed by the state board of education found the college’s biology curriculum to be scientifically sound.A Washington, D.C., newspaper owned by Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church has fired its editor and publisher. Officials at the Washington Times said James Whelan had made outrageous contract demands, including a salary increase from ,000 to 5,000 by 1989, a rent-free 0,000 house, and a new luxury car every two years. Whelan charged that Moon’s church had assumed direct control of the newspaper. The Unification Church has pumped 0 million into the two-year-old operation to keep it alive.A group of religious radio stations and a music licensing agency have resolved more than seven years of litigation. U.S. District Judge Whitman Knapp approved a settlement between some 75 radio stations and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). The stations had challenged the method ASCAP uses to charge fees to radio stations that broadcast music licensed by ASCAP. The settlement provides for a judge to determine reasonable fees when religious radio stations and ASCAP fail to agree on terms for licenses.

Pew highlighted declines in five of the 13 measures of its Social Hostilities Index.

Religion-related terrorism (including “deaths, physical abuse, displacement, detentions, destruction of property, and fundraising and recruitment by terrorist groups”) was recorded in 49 nations—a record low, down from 64 the prior year and from a high of 82 in 2014 (which led the US State Department to declare terrorism as the persecuted church’s biggest threat). In sub-Saharan Africa the number of countries experiencing religious terrorism stayed stable, in all other regions the tally dropped.

However, 28 nations did experience terrorist violence resulting in more than 50 injuries or deaths—a grim tally that has stayed relatively stable since 2013. When the report began in 2007, fewer than 10 nations suffered the same.

Pew highlighted Sri Lanka as the worst example in 2019. Over 250 people were killed and 500 injured during an ISIS-affiliated series of bombings at churches and hotels on Easter Sunday. But Afghanistan was also noted, for attacks carried out by the Taliban.

Mob violence was recorded in 34 nations, down from 41. And social hostilities stemming from proselytism were recorded in 28 nations, down from 35.

Efforts to enforce a dominant religion or religious norms also declined. Group hostility was recorded in 94 nations, down from 104, and individual hostility in 74 nations, down from 85.

Bolivia was highlighted, as unlike the year before there were no reports of Protestant missionaries expelled from rural areas by practitioners of indigenous belief. And in Egypt, while violence toward Christians continued, there were fewer abductions and displacements reported, leading to a reduction of social hostilities from “very high” to “high.”

Pew also tallied the type of force or violence inflicted around the world. Property damage (occurring in 59% of nations), physical assaults (in 40%), detentions (in 35%), killings (in 24%), and displacement (in 19%) were ranked from most to least common.

Again, regional differences were apparent: the Middle East and North Africa scored 3.8; Europe scored 2.1; Asia-Pacific scored 1.9; Sub-Saharan Africa scored 1.7; and the Americas scored 0.7. Only Europe ticked upward. In Denmark, Pew noted, vandals destroyed over 80 tombstones in a Jewish cemetery on the anniversary of a 1938 pogrom.

However, a federal appeals court bars a Bible club from meeting in a Pennsylvania school.Equal-access legislation, ardently supported by almost all evangelical and mainline church organizations, has become federal law. It prevents public secondary schools from disbanding student religious groups that want to meet for prayer, Bible study, or discussions of religion (see related editorial on p. 12).Heartfelt, sometimes rancorous, congressional debate about the measure hinged on a question that ordinarily lies dormant beneath the surface of national consciousness: May individual rights of free speech and assembly cross over the boundary between church and state?In response, the U.S. Senate voiced a resounding yes, voting 88 to 11 in favor of the bill. The U.S. House of Representatives followed suit in July with a 337 to 77 vote. But on the same afternoon the House took its decisive vote, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania said no. The court overturned an earlier ruling in favor of Williamsport high school students who organized a Bible club called Petros.To protect groups like Petros, the Equal Access Act makes it unlawful for any public secondary school to discriminate against student groups based on the subject matter they are discussing. It protects “religious, political, philosophical, or other” types of speech rather than singling out only religious speech. The law does not allow nonstudents to “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend” such meetings.The act does not authorize the government to withold federal financial assistance to schools that do not comply, a provision earlier drafts included. It defines “noninstructional time”—during which extracurricular groups may meet—as occurring before or after the school day begins. It does not specifically prohibit religious meetings during free periods throughout the school day, but court decisions around the country, including the recent Williamsport ruling, have done so.Conservative members of Congress, discontent over compromises in the wording of the act, pushed ahead with proposals for vocal and silent prayer during class time. A measure endorsing silent prayer passed in the House, while a more sweeping proposal failed. The silent-prayer amendment that passed the House stood slim chance of coming up in the Senate, which would have to debate and pass it before it became law.An earlier version of the Equal Access Act failed to pass the House in June after it was blocked by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Education Association (NEA), and several Jewish lobby groups (CT, June 15, 1984, p. 58). In the wake of that narrow defeat, Senate sponsor Mark O. Hatfield (R-Oreg.) redoubled his efforts to work out an acceptable compromise.Drafting the bill and nudging it through Congress proved to be a grueling decathlon of unusual procedures, power plays, and negotiation. Hatfield’s staff lawyer Randy Sterns met with strategists from the Christian Legal Society (CLS), National Association of Evangelicals, and Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. They painstakingly weighed and measured the nuances of each phrase troubling the bill’s opponents. Finally, the ACLU declared itself neutral toward the measure, and Hatfield attached it to a bill providing federal funds to upgrade math and science teaching—a program dear to the heart of the NEA. Once the ACLU declared a truce, “that broke the logjam and changed a lot of votes,” Sterns said.Hatfield’s involvement with the issue began in 1981 after a court decision in Lubbock, Texas, prevented a student religious group from meeting at school. In response, Hatfield shaped a coalition of 24 senators who filed an unprecedented friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Lubbock students. “We built a strong basis of support from which to introduce this bill,” Sterns said, including 50 cosponsors by the end.After achieving Senate passage, the bill went to the House. It was promptly shelved by House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, who sent it to two committees from which he never expected it to emerge. But Democrats who supported the measure threatened to use an obscure confrontational tactic to upstage committee chairmen who tried to block the bill.O’Neill backed down and agreed to suspend the usual rules of debate. That move was necessary to prevent opponents from choking off debate by offering hundreds of meaningless amendments.Opponents voiced fears of cults infiltrating student meetings; of “student-initiated catechism or baptism or other religious services”; and of school districts “inundated by demands from students for religious meetings of various types of cults, fringe groups, and allegedly religious movements.”Throughout the congressional wrangling, equal-access supporters drew attention to the Williamsport case, a classic illustration of the type of discrimination they wanted to remedy. To their relief, the appeals court decision opposing the students came down after Congress approved the Equal Access Act.The appeals court ruling acknowledges the students’ right to free speech and the school’s prerogative to allow clubs to meet in its classrooms. But the court applied a traditional three-part test of whether a religious activity is constitutional, and it gave the Petros club a failing grade because it would have the effect of “advancing” religion under the auspices of the state.The majority said high school students are apt to be immature and impressionable, thus “less able to appreciate the fact that permission for Petros to meet would be granted out of a spirit of neutrality toward religion and not advancement.” Some students may come to believe that the school endorses and encourages religious practice, the decision says, because “involuntary contact between nonparticipating students and religious groups is inevitable.” The club is unconstitutional, according to the court, because “public schools have never been a forum for religious expression.”A strong dissent by one circuit court judge pointed out that Petros is the only club in the school’s history to be denied the right to meet. This “selective exclusion,” he said, raises a more pertinent question: Is the school officially hostile to religion?Sam Ericsson of CLS, lead counsel for the Williamsport students, said he will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because a number of similar lower-court rulings conflict with a two-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting college students to meet on campus for religious purposes, it is likely that the high court will agree to rule on the Williamsport case.Court decisions have made school officials increasingly wary of allowing student religious groups to meet. But passage of the Equal Access Act trumpets a clear signal that these clubs are legitimate and acceptable. Even so, future court challenges are expected.“We have no sense of smugness about resolving every issue that’s going to come up,” Sterns said. “The particulars will have to be worked out in case-by-case litigation.” Meanwhile, it is up to students, parents, and schools to work out ways to exercise their equal-access rights.U.S. Churches Debate Wide Array Of Issues During Summer MeetingsThe General Board of American Baptist Churches (ABC) has affirmed the competence of Christians to make decisions regarding “covenantal, intentional family arrangements,” an apparent reference to homosexual unions. The board also asked the 1.6-million-member ABC to help strengthen family units of all kinds, including “covenantal family-like groups.”The action came as part of a policy statement on family life approved by the general board at its summer meeting. The statement was adopted by a vote of 140 to 24, with 4 abstentions.One denominational official stressed that the statement upholds an individual’s right to choose, and does not address the morality of all choices. Some board members asked if the reference to “covenantal, intentional family arrangements” could be construed as approving homosexual unions. Robert Chew, a member of the task force that prepared the statement, said it does not condone all family lifestyles. Instead, the statement is a “mandate to ABC churches to minister to every kind of lifestyle that exists,” he said.The statement also says remarriage for divorced Christians is “appropriate where the issues which ended an earlier marriage have been addressed.” However, it affirmed that God intends marriage to be monogamous and lifelong.The general board also urged the U.S. government to reject a military approach to problems in Central America and instead stress assistance in economic development. In addition, the board spent four hours debating American Baptist involvement in ecumenical organizations. At its December meeting, the board will vote on a statement that reaffirms the denomination’s commitment to the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.Other major American denominations met during the summer, debating issues from abortion to ordaining women as deacons. Actions taken include the following:• The all-male general synod of the 300,000-member Christian Reformed Church voted 82 to 75 to allow women to be ordained as deacons. The synod gave local congregations the right to decide whether to implement the decision. Women continue to be excluded from the offices of minister, elder, and evangelist.The 160-member synod also declared that theological support for apartheid—South Africa’s ideology of racial segregation—is heresy.• Delegates to the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) convention adopted a statement that says nuclear weapons must not be seen as a permanent deterrent to war. The statement deplored the sale of military arms and expressed alarm at the “proliferation of nuclear weapons.” The delegates, representing three million Lutherans, also condemned foreign military intervention in Central America and asked that U.S. economic aid be withheld from regimes that violate basic human rights.• Delegates representing the Church of the Brethren’s 164,000 members adopted a statement that reiterates its opposition to abortion. In other action, delegates appointed a committee to study and make recommendations on how the historic peace church should respond to the dilemma of paying for war through taxes.• Commissioners to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) general assembly voted not to call the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) “apostate.” The assembly said it did not want to put itself in the position of labeling more liberal church bodies. Commissioners also rejected a proposed study to explore a possible role for women as deacons in the 135,000-member denomination.As the world’s attention was fixed on Olympic athletes striving for the gold, another quieter yet massive effort was taking place. Some 11,000 Christian volunteers from 77 countries were sharing their faith with foreign visitors and Los Angeles-area residents.The evangelistic outreach—sprawling over an 80-mile radius surrounding the Olympic competition—was assisted by 1,800 area churches. Campus Crusade for Christ, Messengers International, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Youth With a Mission, and 10 other major organizations recruited volunteers. Participants served without pay, and were responsible to cover their living expenses during the effort. Some were housed by Christians in the area, while others lived in churches, schools, or missions.Several methods of evangelism were used, from one-on-one conversations to dramatic and musical presentations. Drama and music were employed in more than a thousand outreach sites, including stages set up near Olympic athletes’ villages. Singers such as Debby Boone, Andraé Crouch, and Donna Summer, and 150 groups, performed 700 hours of gospel music.Much of the Christian witness was focused on the athletes’ villages. The U.S. Track and Field Team contained 60 professing Christians among its 120 members. Some of these, including gold medalist Carl Lewis, gave public testimonies of their faith at an event organized by Laywitnesses for Christ International. Several Christian athletes sacrificed thousands of dollars in promotional fees from athletic clothing manufacturers by choosing to wear Christian T-shirts at public events.Volunteers witnessed to international visitors on the streets. The mayor of Paris expressed surprise at the numbers of Christians he saw engaged in evangelism. Egyptians involved in the outreach focused on Arabs, giving Bibles to athletes from Muslim countries that are difficult to penetrate with missionary activity.On Hollywood Boulevard, Christian groups performed on a stage set up near massage parlors and pornographic movie theaters. Other groups witnessed in Los Angeles’s many ethnic neighborhoods.A Fijian group called Island Review was warmly received in black and Hispanic areas. At one performance in an inner-city park, 20 gang members stepped forward to acknowledge Christ as their Savior.Olympics outreach chairman John Dawson estimates that during the Summer Games, at least 1,000 persons a day made decisions to follow Christ.JANICE ROGERS

The number of nations scoring “very high” levels of social hostilities also decreased, from 10 to 8, the lowest tally in over a decade. The Central African Republic and Egypt were removed from the list.

Overall, there was more variance in social hostilities year-over-year than in government restrictions. “Modest” increases in score of 1.0 or more were recorded in 10 countries, while 32 declined similarly. One nation—Burkina Faso—scored a “large” increase of 2.0 or more, while Armenia, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, and Romania declined by the same amount.

Christians and Muslims remain the religious groups receiving harassment most widely. The number of nations harassing Christians increased from 145 to 153, while the nations harassing Muslims increased from 139 to 147. Jews, harassed in 89 nations (up from 88), were the only group to receive more pressure from society than from government.

An “other” category of Baha'is, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians followed, harassed in 68 nations, followed by folk religions in 32. Violations against Buddhists (in 25), Hindus (in 21), and an “unaffiliated” category of atheists, agnostics, and humanists (in 22) were less widespread.

In addition to a tally of nations, Pew also organized data to measure the impact of restrictions and hostilities on a wide scope of humanity. Among the 25 largest nations—representing 75 percent of the world population—Egypt, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Russia recorded the highest overall levels. Japan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Italy, and the United States ranked lowest.

Porn opponents call for a boycott of 7-Eleven, a leading retailer of sexually explicit magazines.Pornography was put on center stage when former Miss America Vanessa Williams was dethroned after Penthouse magazine published sexually explicit photos of her. The National Federation for Decency (NFD) is working hard to keep the porn issue in the spotlight.Last month the group organized a nationwide, one-day picket of 7-Eleven, the convenience store leader. Demonstrators showed up at more than 400 7-Eleven stores in some 150 cities. The NFD says 7-Eleven leads the nation in retailing pornographic magazines. A 7-Eleven spokesman says the charge can neither be conclusively confirmed nor disproved.The NFD also has urged a boycott of the convenience-store chain until it changes its policies on porn retailing. The organization says its efforts already are netting results. A number of retail chains, other than 7-Eleven, have discontinued the objectionable magazines, says NFD associate director Steve Hallman. Handy Marts Corporation, which owns 78 7-Eleven stores, has pulled the magazines on a two-month test basis.There are almost 7,400 7-Eleven stores in the United States. Most are owned and operated by the multi-billion dollar Southland Corporation, based in Dallas. Doug Reed, Southland’s media relations coordinator, says there will be no changes in his company’s policy on porn retailing. That policy allows for the sale of just three “men’s” magazines—Playboy, Penthouse, and Forum. These are covered with blinders that allow only the titles to show, and they are not advertised.However, independent franchisees own 35 percent of the nation’s 7-Eleven stores. Some openly display as many as 60 pornographic magazines. Reed says Southland urges compliance with corporation policy on the sale of such magazines, but has no legal control over independent owners.“We consider ourselves a public-minded corporation,” he says. “We don’t want to offend anyone, but we recognize that [the magazines] are products some people request. We are not in the position to make moral judgments for our customers.”The antipornography movement has embraced a boycott strategy partly because of perceived lax enforcement of laws regulating the pornography industry. Most states have enacted some form of antiobscenity laws. In addition, federal laws prohibit the shipping, mailing, and importation of obscene material.However, it can be difficult to determine what is obscene. The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973) defined obscenity in terms of what an “average person” would find “patently offensive” by applying “contemporary adult community standards.” For guilt to be established, someone must initiate legal proceedings against each violation.When a case does go to court, defense lawyers—heavily subsidized by the pornography industry—are often able to outmanuever prosecutors. Paul McCommon, legal counsel for Citizens for Decency through Law, says the current system, with its heavy emphasis on civil rights, favors pornographers. He adds that most authorities have not taken the initiative to prosecute and punish violators.Meanwhile, the pornography industry burgeons. Some analysts say it does billion worth of business annually. Accurate figures are hard to come by since some segments operate underground. “The pervasiveness of the problem increases every day,” McCommon says. “This is easily observable based on what’s available on cable TV, at video stores, corner stores, and gas stations.”The conviction that pornography degrades women has drawn feminists into the fray. City councils in Minneapolis and Indianapolis have passed bills that would outlaw pornography as a violation of women’s rights. (The Minneapolis measure was vetoed by the city’s mayor. The Indianapolis ordinance is being challenged in court.)The chairman of the Playboy Foundation, Burt Joseph, claims there is no connection between reading sexually explicit material and criminal behavior, such as rape. “The studies show that it’s the violence, not the sex, that causes antisocial conduct,” he says. Playboy does not publish photographs dealing with violence and refuses to accept advertising for guns, he says.Joseph, who does not consider Playboy to be pornographic, theorizes that censors and pornographers need each other to keep their trades alive. “Only when pornography is suppressed,” he says, “does it continue to have a market interest. If people wanted to stamp out pornography, they should let it proliferate, and it would lead to boredom.” Critics call Joseph’s solution naïve and his evaluation of Playboy inaccurate. Both those who agree and disagree with him cite studies to support their views.Not only has the pornography industry expanded, but its tone has changed markedly in recent years. Thirty years ago, when Playboy was alone in the field, pornography consisted of pictures of nude women. But Playboy, now considered relatively tame, has lost a large segment of the market. It now has 4.1 million subscribers, down from 7.2 million in its peak year of 1972. In many magazines, today’s pornography includes depictions of sadomasochism, rape, bestiality, and urination. In addition, some porn monitors estimate that more than 200 pornographic magazines exploit children. Some are published for profit; others serve a subculture of pedophiles.Pornography’s turn toward the violent, bizarre, and grotesque has given rise to sociological and psychological analyses of the problem. Robert Moore, a professor of psychology and religion at Chicago Theological Seminary, says people who have been deprived of loving relationships early in life are prime candidates for psychological addiction to pornography.Jean Bethke Elshtain, a University of Massachusetts professor of political science, writes in The New Republic that the porn plague mirrors “a world in which human beings … see themselves as objects of social forces over which they have no control.” She says pornography offers the viewer the illusion of “unlimited power to bend others to his will.”

If measuring just government restrictions, China, Iran, and Indonesia join Egypt and Russia with the highest scores. If measuring just social hostilities, then Bangladesh replaces Russia in the grouping.

Only China and Japan score “low” levels of social hostility, however. The United States, while lowest overall among the 25 most populous nations, is ranked along with Iran and Italy as “moderate.”

Grading took place on a scale. The top 5 percent of nations in each index are categorized as “very high,” while the next 15 percent are “high.” The following 20 percent are categorized as “moderate,” while the remaining 60 percent are “low.”

“Terrorism and war can have huge direct and indirect effects on religious groups, including destroying religious sites, displacing whole communities and inflaming sectarian passions,” Pew researchers noted. “Accordingly, [Pew] tallied the number, location and consequences of religion-related terrorism and armed conflict around the world, as reported in the same primary and secondary sources used to document other forms of intimidation and violence. However, war and terrorism are sufficiently complex that it is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored.”

- More from Jayson Casper

Theology

Why Don’t We Sing Justice Songs in Worship?

Michael J. Rhodes

Let’s swap “sloppy wet kiss” for “break the arm of the wicked man.”

Illustration by Mallory Rentsch

In 2018, an unusual Bible made national news. Published in 1807, the so-called “Slave Bible” offered Caribbean slaves a highly edited edition of the KJV. The editors presumably cut out parts of Scripture that could undermine slavery or incite rebellion.

If you want a pro-slavery Bible, it’s unsurprising you’d get rid of the exodus story or drop Paul’s declaration that in Christ “there is … neither slave nor free” (Gal. 3:28). But why did the creators of the “Slave Bible” cut out the Book of Psalms? After all, the portions that tend to be well known and well-loved draw our minds toward well-tended sheep sitting by quiet waters.

Yet upon closer inspection, Psalms is obsessed with the Lord’s liberating justice for the oppressed. And because the book offers us prayers and songs, it doesn’t just tell us how to think about justice—it offers us scripts to practice shouting and singing about it.

But when I recently took a quick look at the lyrics of the first 25 songs listed in the “CCLI Top 100” worship songs reportedly sung by churches and compared them to the way the Psalms sing about justice, I realized that we don’t necessarily follow that script. Here’s what stood out:

There is only one passing mention of the word justice in the Top 25. By contrast, just one of the Old Testament’s words for justice (mishpat) shows up 65 times in 33 different psalms. The oldest title for the Book of Psalms is simply “Praises.” When you ask what the Psalter says we should be praising God for, though, the Lord’s justice stands at the top of the list. The Psalms shout for joy to the “Mighty King, lover of justice,” who has “established equity” and enacted “justice and righteousness in Jacob” (Ps. 99:4, NRSV).

There are zero references to the poor or poverty in the Top 25. But Psalms uses varied language to describe the poor on nearly every page. Psalm 146 declares that the Lord deserves praise because he is the one “who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry” (v. 7, NRSV).

The widow, refugee, and oppressed are completely absent from the Top 25. By contrast, these victims of injustice are everywhere in the Psalms.

References to enemies are rare in the Top 25. When they are mentioned, they appear to be enemies only in a spiritual sense. By contrast, the psalmists constantly pray to God about the way the wicked prosper by exploiting or betraying their neighbors (Ps. 73).

Maybe most devastatingly, in the Top 25, not a single question is ever posed to God. When we sing the Top 25, we don’t ask God anything. By contrast, prick the Psalter and it bleeds with the cries of the oppressed, pleading for God to act.

Why, O Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor. (10:1–2, NRSV)

Protesting to and even raging at God about injustice is central to the hymnal God himself gives his people (Ps. 44:23–24). The Book of Psalms recognizes that suppressing feelings of anger and rage in situations of extreme violence does more harm than good. Humans need spaces to process the full range of our emotions, especially when we or our loved ones have been victimized. For the Psalter, worship is that safe place. But such language is completely lacking in the Top 25.

We need those who write worship music to help us sing the psalms, and to write new songs that echo the psalms’ outcry against injustice. Many are already doing so, including groups like Porter’s Gate, Poor Bishop Hooper, Sons of Korah, Urban Doxology, and others. But we can’t put all the responsibility on songwriters.

After all, the Top 25 isn’t a list of what our worship leaders write—it’s a list of what, broadly speaking, we like to sing. Even if the psalms were our only songbook, our desire for Top 25-like worship suggests that we might still only sing the “restore my soul” lines of Psalm 23. Likewise, if we rely exclusively on the Top 25, our worshiping lives will be fundamentally impoverished.

Our hymnals aren’t much better. Soong-Chan Rah shows that the major hymnals of mainline and evangelical churches downplay or outright refuse to lament. Even the lectionary doesn’t solve the problem. According to Brent Strawn, more than a third of the psalms get cut out of the Revised Common Lectionary’s weekly readings, and nearly half of those that are included get excerpted.

And what is it that gets edited out of our Psalter? Often, it’s the psalms that plead with God over injustice and demand that he do something about it. For white evangelicals at least, maybe that’s because we often place the affluent, middle-class American experience at the center of the choir, while the book of Psalms frequently centers the economically poor.

Worship that doesn’t sing like Scripture fails to relate to God the way God himself demands we relate to him. And because worship has a unique power to transform hearts and minds, when we refuse to sing Scripture’s justice songs, we reject one of God’s strategies for discipling us to become just ourselves.

Worse yet, we deny the poor and oppressed what Ellen Davis calls the “First Amendment for the faithful” that Psalms offers them. Meanwhile, by refusing to sing like the psalms do, those of us who are not poor and oppressed refuse to learn how to mourn and protest alongside them. We complain that our suffering neighbors sound too angry, rather than discovering the angry rage of the poor in the face of extreme injustice on nearly every page of Holy Scripture’s hymnbook.

Addressing our failure to sing justice the way the psalms do requires a long-term, significant investment by contemporary congregations. At the very least, our best first step is to reclaim the psalms themselves as scripts we use in prayer and song and then to evaluate other hymns and songs against the measuring stick of the Psalter itself.

White evangelicals like myself have tended to be particularly guilty of rejecting Scripture’s justice songs, but we can look for help on this journey from others. We can learn from traditions that continue to chant the psalms regularly and fully in worship and from traditions whose worship songs echo the language of the psalms. For instance, if we listen to the way the “Sorrow Songs” of the Black church tell “of death and suffering and unvoiced longing,” as W.E.B. Du Bois put it, perhaps we can learn what it might sound like to sing Scripture’s cry for justice in a new key.

Because we’re out of the habit of singing for justice, because many congregations are ill-equipped to understand the psalmists’ rage at injustice, and because the angry psalms can be dangerous if misused, we also need extensive teaching and preaching on the Book of Psalms.

We’re talking about a revolution in the way we sing and pray, a revolution driven neither by smoke machines nor by the theological flavor of the week but by the very scripts God has given us to use in our life with him. Sounds like a lot of work. But if we embrace it, we might find ourselves singing our way toward the justice that our God loves and our world longs for.

Michael J. Rhodes is an Old Testament lecturer at Carey Baptist College and an assistant pastor at Downtown Church. He is the co-author of Practicing the King’s Economy, and is currently writing a book on justice-oriented discipleship (IVP Academic).

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

- More from Michael J. Rhodes

News

CT Premiere: ‘See How Good It Is (Psalm 133)’

Wendell Kimbrough

An already/not yet psalm of unity.

Image: Caroline Combs

Update: “See How Good It Is (Psalm 133)” premiered on CT’s website Thursday. It is now widely available.

When Sandra McCracken and I sat down to write this song at The Porter’s Gate gathering in January 2019, I had no idea what it would mean to me in 2021.

That gathering was a glorious pre-COVID-19 event, the kind I look back on now and wonder if we’ll ever do again. I sat at small tables with artists, songwriters, and theologians from all over the world. We had rich conversation and ate delicious food. The group was diverse—culturally, theologically, and generationally—but there was a beautiful spirit throughout, as if everyone was eager to listen and learn from one another. I think many of us went home feeling like we’d tasted a bit of heaven.

The song Sandra and I wrote, based on Psalm 133, no doubt gathered its energy from the joyful experience of that weekend. “See how good it is gathering with friends, welcoming the stranger in. See how good it is!”

But Psalm 133 is one that, if you just picked up a Bible and started singing it, would very quickly mire you in confusing imagery. There’s oil running down the beard and making a mess all over the clothes of some guy named Aaron. Yikes! Not the kind of lyrics that immediately bring tears to your eyes if you’re an American reader like me. Yet as Sandra and I and several others at that Porter’s Gate gathering discussed this psalm, it unfolded like a flower, revealing a glorious picture of the kingdom of God.

Turns out what we’re viewing here is an ordination service. Aaron is being anointed as priest—one who is uniquely called to represent God’s love to the world. But wait! This poem isn’t about Aaron’s ordination. It’s about our ordination as priests of God to the hungry, lonely world around us.

And what is it that precipitates our ordination into this glorious priesthood? “When God's people live together in unity.” When believers live in unity—valuing being together more than agreeing on everything—God says we are transfigured into glorious priests, images of God’s love, and through us his blessing of everlasting life is extended to all the world, like dew falling on a mountain and causing it to spring up green again.

I remember a time I was a stranger and became the recipient of this kind of priestly, loving embrace of unity. After graduating college, I spent a year on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. One Sunday I wandered into St. Stephens AME Church. I was clearly out of place—a 22-year-old white kid from Alabama in a mostly gray-haired African American congregation. But I was welcomed with warm hugs and huge smiles, like a long-lost son coming home. The welcome was so moving that I became a member of that church for the short year I lived nearby. God worked powerful things in my life, ultimately using that experience to call me into my vocation as a musician.

Experiences like that are what bring Psalm 133 to life. “How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity!” (v. 1). It is truly so, so good.

When you experience genuine love across differences of culture, theology, and politics, it changes your life. Such love presents the watching world a portrait of God’s generous kindness. Is it not the character of God to welcome into his family not only those who are different from him but also those who have made themselves his enemies? Does anything reflect God’s love more beautifully than when we overlook differences and extend our arms in embrace?

When Sandra and I began recording this song in April 2021, there was a brief moment where it seemed the world was coming out of its long COVID-19 winter. I hoped this song might be an unambiguous anthem for us as we regathered to “normal” life. But as we send this song out into an anxious world of continuing pandemic, societal unrest, and deepening divisions, it has taken on new meaning for me. It’s a challenge, a hope, and a vision. Am I courageous enough to love even those I disagree with, no matter what the future holds?

“When God's children live as one, by the Spirit we become the open arms of God to a world in need of love.” May it be so.

Wendell Kimbrough is a singer/songwriter, worship leader, and Artist-in-Residence at Church of the Apostles in Fairhope, Alabama.

- More from Wendell Kimbrough

News

Died: Eberhard Jüngel, Theologian Who Saw Trinity Revealed in the Cross

Daniel Silliman

East German student of Karl Barth and Martin Heidegger believed “God has become speakable.”

University of Tübingen / edits by Rick Szuecs

Eberhard Jüngel, the leading Protestant theologian to emerge out of Stalinist East Germany, died on Tuesday at age 86.

Jüngel’s work was never popularized, and he was overshadowed in some ways by his peers and colleagues—notably Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, and the future Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger. As a philosophical theologian, his scholarship could seem “out of joint,” one scholar noted, with contemporary concerns and popular trends.

But the theologians who did discover Jüngel were often drawn in by his dense arguments and intense focus on God’s self-revelation, the centrality of the Trinity in understanding God, and the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith.

“God’s being-as-object,” Jüngel wrote, “consists in the fact that God as God has become speakable. And the knowledge of God consists in the fact that the God who as God has become speakable comes to speech in that ‘he is considered and conceived by men.’ This event, in which the God who as God has become speakable comes to speech in human words, is faith.”

His passing was mourned by his former students in Germany, including the Protestant bishop and popular religion columnist Petra Bahr.

“Scholars of heaven, brace yourselves,” Bahr wrote on Twitter. “There will be long nights.”

https://twitter.com/bellabahr/status/1442970101033041921

Jüngel was born in December 1934 in Magdeburg, about halfway between Hanover and Berlin, immediately after Adolf Hitler consolidated power. Jüngel’s childhood was dominated by World War II. Then in 1945, Magdeburg was liberated by US soldiers. When the Allied powers portioned out responsibility for the defeated Germany, however, Magdeburg was turned over to Russian forces. The country divided, and East Germany aligned itself with the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin.

As a teen Jüngel struggled with the totalitarian state. He wanted to explore the intellectual horizons and that was forbidden.

“The socialist ideals were implemented by a kind of power politics,” he later said. “One can argue about the ideals of socialism. But that also entails the possibility of arguing against them. And precisely this was not allowed.”

Jüngel’s one reprieve was the Protestant church. In church, he was allowed to think, explore, debate, and discuss ideas. Church became the one place where he could pursue the truth.

Jüngel decided he wanted to become a pastor and theologian.

The decision surprised his mother, who was mildly devout and taught her four children to pray at the appropriate times, but did not think ministry was a good career choice. It baffled his father, who was not a Christian and had nothing but ridicule for theology, Jüngel told The Christian Century in 1990.

The decision also angered people at school. When Jüngel was 18, he was denounced as an “enemy of the republic,” along with a group of fellow Christians, and expelled from school. He was not allowed to take the exam to enter university. Jüngel instead enrolled in a church school in Berlin.

Later, when he and other post-war theologians debated whether theology should be political, Jüngel would come back to this experience.

“The political relevance of Christian faith consists, from beginning to end, in its ability and obligation to speak the truth,” he said. “The political activity required of the church aims, above all else, to assist the cause of truth.”

Jüngel studied theology in East Berlin, pursuing a doctorate. In 1957, he managed to leave for an illegal year abroad. He went to Switzerland to study with the theologian Karl Barth and made regular trips to Freiburg, where he studied with the philosopher Martin Heidegger.

He was deeply influenced by both men.

Heidegger, he said, taught him that philosophy should be theological.

“Toward the end of his life,” Jüngel wrote, “I had a conversation with Heidegger about the relation between thought and language, and I asked whether it wasn’t the destiny of thought to be unterwegs zu Gott (on the way to God). He answered: ‘God—that is the most worthy object of thought. But that’s where language breaks down.’”

Jüngel agreed about the importance of thinking about God, but rejected the idea that is impossible to articulate. While it is true, he thought, that humans cannot comprehend God by their own intellectual powers, God had been revealed to humanity. Barth taught him to concentrate his thinking on Jesus.

“I was challenged to think about God from the event of his revelation, and that means from the event of his coming into the world,” Jüngel said.

The young theologian returned to Berlin and finished his doctorate in 1961. He was immediately thrown into teaching. The Protestant bishop made him a lecturer at the church school when the Berlin Wall divided the city, and students in the East were separated from the classrooms and professors in the West.

He turned his attention the philosophical problem of the human comprehension of God. Some German theologians at the time were arguing that God could only be known subjectively, through human experience. They argued God is fundamentally pro nobis (for us), and theologians should not describe the divine as an independent reality. Others countered that God is objective, and in essence pro se (for himself), and theologians err when they make God too accessible.

Jüngel rejected both these positions, pointing out that God is most fully revealed in the crucifixion of Jesus. In that historical event, God was fully pro se and pro nobis, with the truth of the one fulfilling the truth of the other.

“Jüngel envisages the cross as the supreme act of relation: The relation of God the Father to God the Son in the Spirit’s power, and the relation of the triune God to sinful humanity,” wrote theologian John Webster. “Although God comes always ‘from himself, to himself and through himself,’ he nevertheless comes ‘to the world and to humans.’ Indeed, God comes ‘as the mystery of the world by showing himself as the human God.’”

In 1969, Jüngel left East Germany and went to the University of Tübingen, near Stuttgart. The university was seen at that moment as the center of the universe of academic theology. Jürgen Moltmann had just been appointed professor of systematic theology and published his seminal work, Theology of Hope. Joseph Ratzinger held a chair in dogmatic theology and was intimately involved with the Second Vatican Council, addressing the Catholic Church’s relationship to the modern world.

Jüngel became close friends with Moltmann and Hans Küng, though he only briefly interacted with Ratzinger. He liked to have theologians over to his book-crammed apartment on a hill overlooking Tübingen, and talk about theology late into the night.

Jüngel was a popular teacher, filling university lecture halls. He said he thought this was because he was “a good comedian,” but also noted that many of his students came away from his classes confused. Real thinking, he said, echoing Heidegger, is not an easy task.

“Theological thinking is something like an adventure,” he told a graduate student, “not because you don’t know where it’s going—you know, you know where you’re from, you know where you’re going, there is an Alpha and an Omega—but you have to find your way in between, and that is an adventure in theology.”

https://twitter.com/FredFredSanders/status/1443095001202786305

Jüngel’s last major theological intervention came in the late 1990s, when he led opposition to an ecumenical accord between Lutherans and Catholics. Jüngel urged the German churches to reject the document, or at least acknowledge there was no consensus on justification by faith.

A few years later, Jüngel published a book on justification, calling it the cornerstone of Christian theology.

“At the heart of the Christian faith,” he wrote, “lies a declared belief in Jesus Christ. This confession, however, also has a centre, a living focal point, which turns the confession of Christ into something that vitally concerns my own existence. This heart of the heart of Christian faith is the belief in the justification of the sinner.”

Jüngel stayed at Tübingen until 2003, when he retired. He then took a position at a research institute at Heidelberg University, a few hours north, and in 2007 accepted the Hans-Georg Gadamer Chair in Theology.

He continued to read and write theology, but also had more time for hiking and crime shows. Jüngel never married, and he had no children. Funeral arrangements have not yet been made public.

- More from Daniel Silliman

News

Wire Story

Boy Scouts’ Bankruptcy Leaves Churches Liable for Abuse Suits

David Crary – Associated Press

Top denominations and thousands of churches are reconsidering whether to keep hosting scout units.

George Frey / Getty Images

Amid the Boy Scouts of America’s complex bankruptcy case, there is worsening friction between the BSA and the major religious groups that help it run thousands of scout units. At issue: the churches’ fears that an eventual settlement—while protecting the BSA from future sex-abuse lawsuits—could leave many churches unprotected.

The Boy Scouts sought bankruptcy protection in February 2020 in an effort to halt individual lawsuits and create a huge compensation fund for thousands of men who say they were molested as youngsters by scoutmasters or other leaders. At the time, the national organization estimated it might face 5,000 cases; it now faces 82,500.

In July, the BSA proposed an $850 million deal that would bar further lawsuits against it and its local councils. The deal did not cover the more than 40,000 organizations that have charters with the BSA to sponsor scout units, including many churches from major religious denominations that are now questioning their future involvement in scouting.

The United Methodist Church—which says up to 5,000 of its US congregations could be affected by future lawsuits—recently advised those churches not to extend their charters with the BSA beyond the end of this year. The UMC said these congregations were “disappointed and very concerned” that they weren’t included in the July deal.

Everett Cygal, a lawyer for Catholic churches monitoring the case, said it is unfair that parishes now face liability “solely as a result of misconduct by Boy Scout troop leaders who frequently had no connection to the parish.”

“Scouting can only be delivered with help of their chartered organizations,” Cygal told The Associated Press. “It’s shortsighted not to be protecting the people they absolutely need to ensure that scouting is viable in the future.”

Officials of several other denominations—including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)—have advised their churches to hire their own legal counsel if they fear possible sex-abuse litigation.

The Presbyterian Church said its national leadership can’t act on behalf of member churches because they are separate corporations. The leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran church also said its congregations were on their own, legally speaking, and must decide for themselves whether to continue any relationship with the BSA.

“As a result of the bankruptcy, the congregation cannot confidently rely on the BSA, the local council, or their insurers to defend it,” the Lutheran church warned. “The congregation needs to make sure that it has sufficient insurance and that its own insurance will cover them.”

The Boy Scouts, in a statement provided to the AP, said its partnership with chartered organizations, including churches, “has been critical to delivering the Scouting program to millions of youth in our country for generations.” It said negotiations with those organizations are continuing, and it hopes to conclude the bankruptcy proceedings around the end of this year.

Negotiators face a challenging situation.

According to lawyers representing different parties in the bankruptcy case, the Boy Scouts have suggested chartered organizations have some protection from liability for abuse cases that occurred after 1975, due to an insurance arrangement that took effect in 1976. The BSA has said there’s little or no protection, however, for the many pre-1976 cases, and the best way for organizations to gain protection for that era would be to make a substantial financial contribution to a settlement fund.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took such a step last week, agreeing to contribute $250 million to a compensation fund in exchange for a release from further liability. The denomination, widely known as the Mormon church, pulled its units out of the BSA on Jan. 1, 2020, after decades as the biggest sponsor.

One key distinction: The Latter-day Saints have a centralized governing structure, making possible a contribution covering its vast former network of scout units. The remaining faith-based charter organizations are more decentralized, complicating the question of how contributions to the compensation fund would be mandated and organized.

Jeremy Ryan, a lawyer representing United Methodist churches, said his clients believe there is some pre-1976 insurance available to them under policies the BSA and its local councils held at the time.

Cygal, the lawyer representing Catholic churches, made a similar argument but said some chartered organizations eventually may have to make an appropriate financial contribution “to put an end to this dispute once and for all.”

Another complication in the negotiations: differing views on how much blame lies with the churches.

Some of the churches argue that they merely provided a venue for a local scout unit to meet, while scout leaders were responsible for hiring decisions that might have led to sexual abuse. Some lawyers for the plaintiffs disagree, saying church leaders were often actively involved in those decisions.

“The Scouts had plenty of fault due to their negligence, but the local institutions had plenty of fault also,” said Christopher Hurley, whose Chicago law firm says it represents about 4,000 men who filed claims in the bankruptcy.

“It’s just not OK to pass the buck on this,” Hurley added. “Everybody’s got to suck it up and make a fair contribution to get justice for these guys.”

Richard J. Mathews—an attorney who advised the Boy Scouts for 11 years, including in the midst of its abuse crisis—has spoken out for years about the importance of churches adopting vigorous prevention protocols and insuring themselves against child sexual abuse cases.

Mathews told Church, Law, and Tax in 2017 that he thinks churches “don’t recognize the danger and how widespread the problem is. We all think it’s never going to happen to us.”

But churches can be particularly susceptible. Predators often seek out trusting environments where their behavior may be overlooked. And courts end up finding churches liable for not adequately screening or monitoring those working with children.

“Because victims of child sexual abuse generally allege that the organization (church) is responsible for their injuries on the basis of negligent selection, retention, or supervision of the perpetrator, many such cases have been lost due to the failure to implement appropriate safeguards in the selection and supervision of employees and volunteers who work with children,” Matthews said.

“This even applies to other children volunteers (e.g., youth staff). Therefore, screening, background investigations, reference checks, and interviews before the individual’s involvement are essential.”

Stephen Crew, whose Oregon-based law firm represents about 400 plaintiffs, said he sympathizes with faith-based chartered organizations who “worry about being hung out to dry.”

“But survivors also have a lot of anxiety,” said Crew. “And the problem now is that the insurance companies are balking at everybody.”

A third lawyer for plaintiffs, California-based Paul Mones, blamed the churches’ predicament on the BSA, saying its initial bankruptcy strategy failed to properly anticipate the impact on chartered organizations.

“For decades, the religious organizations have been the backbone of the BSA,” Mones said. “They did not sign up thinking they’d have any kind of liability … and all of a sudden they’re being told, ‘You’re going to get sued.’ It’s a hot mess.”

Some church leaders, such as United Methodist Bishop Ruben Saenz Jr., have been blunt in their dismay over the bankruptcy fallout.

“This is a very sad and tragic matter that has occurred within our nation and the Church,” Saenz said in a recent letter to the clergy he oversees in Kansas and Nebraska. He said there might be 110 abuse claims in the bankruptcy case potentially connected to UMC churches in his region.

Saenz said the BSA might struggle to move forward post-bankruptcy without participation of the UMC, the biggest active sponsor of Scout units.

But due to BSA positions in the case that are detrimental to the UMC, Saenz wrote, “We simply cannot currently commit to the relationship with the BSA as we have in the past.”

Additional reporting by Christianity Today’s ChurchLawandTax.com.

- More from David Crary – Associated Press

Share

In this series

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

In this series

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share