News

Wheaton Pulls Jim Elliot Missionary Plaque to Reword ‘Savage’ Description

The college plans to update the inscription to “reflect the full dignity” of the Waorani tribe.

Edman Chapel

Edman Chapel

Christianity Today March 19, 2021
Courtesy of Wheaton College

In this series

More than 65 years after two of its alumni were killed in what became the most famous example of missionary martyrdom in the 20th century, Wheaton College wants to tell a better story to honor their work.

Wheaton president Philip Ryken announced this week that a plaque honoring alumni Jim Elliot and Ed McCully along with Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, and Pete Fleming has been taken down from the campus chapel while a task force meets to suggest new phrasing to remove the word “savage.”

Elliot and McCully graduated from Wheaton in 1949. The five men were killed in January 1956 after making peaceful contact with the isolated and hostile indigenous group in Ecuador. The following year, their classmates donated the plaque, which includes relief images of Elliot and McCully.

In describing the tribe, then called “Aucas” (“savage” in the lowland Quichua language), the plaque reads, “For generations all strangers were killed by these savage indians.” Contemporary accounts of the mission now refer to the tribe by the name they call themselves, Waorani.

In his emailed statement, Ryken said the term “savage” is a pejorative term that “has been used historically to dehumanize and mistreat indigenous peoples around the world. Any descriptions on our campus of people or people groups should reflect the full dignity of human beings made in the image of God.”

Ryken and other members of Wheaton leadership have received about a dozen comments about the plaque this school year from students and members of the campus community, said Joseph Moore, Wheaton’s director of marketing communications. He said the president released the statement because the plaque has been temporarily removed, and leadership wanted the campus community to “know about its review, rewording, and return.”

The change comes at a time when Gen Z Christians are rethinking the church’s historical approach to international missions. Last year, a Barna study found that 38 percent of adults under 35 agreed with the statement, “in the past, missions work has been unethical,” compared with 23 percent of older adults.

The rewording of the Wheaton plaque also reflects how the narrative around the Ecuador missionaries has evolved. Elisabeth Elliot’s Through Gates of Splendor—written in just eight weeks and submitted right before the first anniversary of her husband’s death—became the “go-to evangelical account” of what happened, said Lucy S. R. Austen, author of a forthcoming biography of Elisabeth Elliot.

In subsequent writings, though, Elisabeth sought to dispel the idea of the Waorani as wild savages and Americans as the great saviors, particularly in her third book The Savage My Kinsman. She continued to minister and live among the tribe for years after the killings.

“But in evangelical America we have tended to keep right on telling and retelling the same little sliver of time, in the same streamlined version of events, with the same triumphal gloss that Elliot laid down in 1956, and the same almost exclusive focus on the five men themselves,” Austen said.

She hopes as Americans revisit the story of the slain missionaries, they will re-examine their attitudes toward it and what we focus on when we remember and retell such accounts.

“It seems to me that white Americans tended to have a faulty understanding of non-Western cultures when the plaque was given, and that now that we know better, changing the plaque would be a great chance to do better,” said Austen.

In recent years, several evangelical institutions have taken the opportunity to “do better” in the ways they remember their missionary past.

In 2016, Whitman College, named in memory of slain missionaries Marcus and Narcissa Whitman, dropped the mascot “Fighting Missionaries.” The Whitmans wanted to bring the gospel to the tribes living in the Oregon Valley, but their good intentions were mired by their sense of cultural superiority.

Members of the Cayuse tribe killed the Whitmans in November 1847, more than 11 years after the Whitmans first arrived and in the midst of a measles outbreak brought by white settlers that killed far more natives than white people.

“I do not think a mascot … should precipitate the difficult conversations around challenging ideas. A mascot is meant to be something around which supporters of a college, and particularly athletic teams, rally,” Whitman College president Kathleen Murray said at the time.

And the Haystack Monument, a marker on the Williams College campus commemorating five students who hid in a haystack during a violent storm and dedicated their lives to foreign missions, has received extra scrutiny in recent years, though it remains in its place on campus.

Wheaton has grappled with missionary violence in the past, too. For its first 73 years, the school’s mascot was the Crusaders, a name it dropped in 2000. In announcing the change, then-president Duane Liftin said, “I came to realize that those [Crusades] were not very happy episodes in Christianity. They are not something we want to glorify." The school is now known as the Wheaton Thunder.

Cross-cultural missionaries have always had to navigate the complexities of their role. Even in previous generations, Christians see examples of how leaders did so with cultural sensitivity and humility, said Lloyd Kim, coordinator for Mission to the World. He points to 19th century missionary Hudson Taylor—who dressed in Chinese clothing, grew out his hair like Chinese men, and required the missionaries with his China Inland Mission to do the same—as an example of humility in evangelism.

As international missions becomes more culturally diverse, one of the most significant changes is that mission agencies are letting national partners lead. Western missionaries, instead, come in as guests. “We’re trying to dispel the attitude that says, ‘We are the heroes coming to save you.’ We are coming in as learners,” Kim said.

News

Beat, Pray, Give: Catholics Want More Done for Persecuted Christians

Survey finds surge in US concern for the global church in need, in run-up to Pope Francis’ visit to Iraq.

Salvaged items placed around the altar of a Qaraqosh church burned and destroyed by ISIS during its occupation of the predominantly Christian town in Iraq, on December 27, 2016.

Salvaged items placed around the altar of a Qaraqosh church burned and destroyed by ISIS during its occupation of the predominantly Christian town in Iraq, on December 27, 2016.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
Chris McGrath / Getty Images

American Catholics are signaling a dramatic surge in concern about the persecuted church.

And prayer, alone, is no longer good enough, as more say money and arms are needed too.

Asked their opinion about Christian persecution worldwide in the fourth annual survey by Aid to the Church in Need–USA (ACNUSA), 67 percent stated they were “very concerned.”

Last year, only 52 percent said the same.

Similarly, 57 percent stated the level of persecution suffered by Christians is “very severe.”

Last year, only 41 percent said the same.

The increase is “heartening,” said George Marlin, ACNUSA chairman.

“Christian persecution around the world is very grave,” he said. “[Catholics] want both their church and their government to step up efforts to do more.”

They have already been praying: 7 in 10 stated prayer is a “very important” initiative to help—the same share as last year, and up from 64 percent in the first survey in 2018.

But now, 62 percent say it is “very important” to donate to agencies that support the persecuted, up from 53 percent last year. Half say they are “very likely” to do so, up from 35 percent. And 61 percent say they gave within the last year, up from 53 percent in 2020.

And while about half believe Pope Francis is “very engaged” on the issue of persecution (52%, up from 47%), they believe their local bishop lags behind. Only 3 in 10 (30%) find him “very engaged,” marginally improved from the perception of 27 percent the year before.

The local parish seems to them similarly disconnected, with only 28 percent perceiving it to be “very engaged,” up from 22 percent last year.

It is not enough, per American Catholics: 2 in 3 said raising awareness at the parish level is “very important” (67%, vs. 59% last year).

Other church priorities have fallen a bit behind the persecuted.

The half of Catholics who said it is “very likely” they will give to church aid to the persecuted is matched by the 50 percent who will financially support missionaries. Commitments are lesser, though still strong, to donate toward church buildings (46%), Bible distribution (43%), and the training of priests (44%) and nuns (42%).

But as they desire the church’s concern, American Catholics also increasingly want Washington to help.

Diplomatic pressure on persecuting governments is a “very important” measure for 65 percent of Catholics, up from 55 percent a year ago. Economic sanctions are favored by 62 percent, up from 53 percent. Emergency asylum received 60 percent support, up from 52 percent, while 55 percent want the US to provide financial aid, up from 48 percent.

Militant options also grew in favor: Fifty percent said outside military intervention to protect persecuted Christians was “very important,” up from 46 percent, while 48 percent said the same for the provision of arms and training to communities facing genocide, up from 40 percent last year.


Harold John Ockenga’s distinguished career as a pastor, educator, administrator, and author has spanned more than half a century since his graduation from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1930. Upon completion of 25 years as chairman of the board of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dr. Ockenga reflected on some of his noteworthy experiences.


For 33 years he occupied the pulpit of Boston’s famed Park Street Church. His preaching and his leadership restored the church’s dynamic and brought new life to the cause of evangelicalism in New England. While there he set the pattern for world missions involvement that many churches have followed since. In the field of education, he was the first president of Fuller Theological Seminary and served in that capacity for 11 years. Most recently he was president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His major contribution to the cause of evangelicalism in the U.S. and around the world came through his pioneering efforts on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Fellowship. The author of 14 books, he is retired and lives with his wife Audrey in Hamilton, Massachusetts. He will be 77 on his next birthday, but continues active in speaking and writing.


You started your pastorate at Park Street Church in 1936. How did you build up your congregation?

I put my hardest work on the Wednesday night message, because fewer people came to that service. I put my next hardest work on the Sunday night sermons because it’s harder for people to get out Sunday night, so you’ve got to have something interesting. I put the least work on my Sunday morning sermon, because I would get those people anyway. Incidentally, I got this idea from Dr. Withrow, who was pastor there years ago.

Did it work?

Yes. Things began to grow when I preached a series of Sunday evening sermons on “Our Protestant Heritage.” I took a number of different men—Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, Cromwell, William of Orange. What I didn’t know then was that there were a lot of Orangemen [Irish Protestants] in New England. They must have gotten wind of what I was doing. They began filling up the church Sunday nights. From then on I had the evening congregation for whatever I preached. The morning congregation did seem to come in the evening.

You started the Boston Evening School of the Bible, too, didn’t you?

It ran for 25 years. There I taught something I had been working on for my sermons, so I could handle it without preparation.

But you still had to give four messages a week?

Yes, and then I added a fifth, the one on television on Thursday morning.

How did you find time?

I blocked out the whole week in half-hour segments, either for studying, or calling, or interviewing, or whatever. I worked hard and things began to grow. But then I got into trouble. We had no amplification system at that time and I began forcing my voice. I ripped a blood vessel in my vocal cords and was out for five months. But we turned the corner, and gradually got up to 2,400 members. It was a gradual, hard job. I used to wonder if I would ever have the crowds they had at Tremont Temple [a prominent downtown Boston church]. On Sunday night I’d look up and see 300 or 400 people and know that over there they had 2,400. I wondered what in the world was going on. But I worked and worked and worked, and finally it came. We had overflow congregations in the morning and were full at night.

Some people say that to do a really good sermon you have to work 20 hours on it. How did you do all the studying required for your sermons?

I did a lot of reading. I’d read on the subway going to church and home. I’d read at night. I’d even read some in my office. I had certain times for each thing I did. I always kept Mondays free, if I could; sometimes I visited people in the hospital on Monday. On Tuesday I started getting my topics ready for Sunday, if I didn’t have them in advance—which I usually did. I’d get those topics ready, get the material ready for the church bulletin, and that sort of thing. Then I would work for my Sunday evening sermon. That was the last thing I would unload, so I did it first. I’d work on that until late afternoon, and then go calling.
Wednesday morning I’d start on the Sunday evening sermon again and pretty much finish it up. At noon I’d go to the Rotary Club, and on Wednesday afternoon I had interviews. Wednesday night I’d have some meeting of the church, or be out somewhere.
Thursday morning I would start on my Sunday morning sermon. In the afternoon I’d go calling. Because our midweek meeting was Friday night, I would put everything aside on Friday morning and work on that topic until I got through. Then I’d do organizational work.
On Saturday morning I would go back to the Sunday morning sermon and work on it until I got done. I never worked at home. I always went to my office and I stayed there until I was finished with the morning sermon. Because I had to unload that first I put it in last, making it the freshest in my mind.
Sunday afternoon we would go home, have dinner, and a nap. Then I would get up and work on my Sunday evening sermon to get it in mind. I wrote out my sermons and memorized them, and always preached without notes.

Tell us about your reading.

I try to read a book a week, something I have done for years. Everywhere I go I take books. I have long-term reading, where you can go through a whole book, like on a plane trip to California. And I have short-term reading, when you have 15 or 20 minutes, like standing in the subway. I read at night. On Monday I’d go off somewhere, or I’d stay at home and read or work outside.

Over the years, what books have been crucial building blocks, or just something special to you?

Someone asked me to list the 12 most important books I had read. This is my list: What Is Christian Civilization?, by John Daley; Crisis of Our Age, by Pitirim Sorokin; What Is Christianity?, by Herbert Butterfield; What Is Faith, by J. Gresham Machen; Therefore Stand, by Wilbur M. Smith; The Battle for the Bible, by Harold Lindsell; How to Be Born Again, by Billy Graham; Fire in the Fireplace, by Charles Hummel; On Human Understanding, by John Locke; The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx; and The World and the West, by Arnold Toynbee.

Do you agree that preaching is the basis of the pastor’s authority?

One hundred percent. You can’t stand and converse with people from the pulpit; you’ll lose them. If you have a strong pulpit ministry, you’re going to have a strong church, no matter if everything else is lacking. If you have a strong counseling church without a strong pulpit, you’ll have a weak church. Preaching has got to be there, or people are not going to come. It has to be enlightening, interesting, and challenging. Conversational preaching is a mistake. You’ve got to develop certain points, like a syllogism. You have to develop something people can follow, an outline with alliteration. When you get through, people can say, “That’s what he said about this and that’s what he said about that.”

Is there too much of an emphasis today on the pastor as a teacher rather than as a preacher?

The pastor-teacher is the essence of the pastor-preacher. A man can’t preach two or three times a week without teaching. He has to have content. One fellow once told me, “I never thought content would be the attractive power of the pulpit until I went to hear you. The thing that brought me back always was the content.” I preached through books of Scripture. This was not running comment—I preached: 30 or 40 sermons on a book of Scripture. The people would come back; they would want to hear the next one and the next one. We didn’t have any advertising. It was preaching that filled the church.

What really distinguishes the preacher from the teacher?

I’ll tell how I learned the difference. When I was in college, I preached one whole summer as part of an evangelistic team. Later I was asked to preach again in one of those churches. In the meantime, I’d had a religious experience, so I took the Scripture and illustrated it by that experience and applied it to the people. When I got through, one of the members of the team came to me and said, “That’s the first message I’ve ever heard you give.” The difference is, you’re pouring out your soul to get something across. You must have urgency. You want to move people so they will act and respond.

You mentioned strong counseling ministry without a strong preaching ministry. Some pastors are spending 20 to 30 hours a week counseling. Is this a good trend for the church or not?

It’s a cop-out from able, dedicated preaching. Pastors are glad to do it because they don’t have to prepare for it. They don’t have to do anything but sit and listen to people, and then give them their best advice. In some cases their advice may not be good, because they’re not trained well enough. I never got any counseling from anybody in my life; maybe one or two cases, but that’s all.

You did no counseling as a pastor?

I always had a counseling period. Wednesday afternoons when people could come and interview me were always full. But I’d go home tired and unsatisfied with the whole thing. It’s dirtying to listen to these things. I just don’t think that is what the Lord wants us to do. If your preaching is biblical, people will get the same ideas you give in counseling. You might as well handle a thousand people as one or ten. Counseling takes time. You can’t do that and preach.

How did you handle the growing pains at Park Street Church?

What discouraged me the most was that the New Englanders thought differently than people elsewhere. In the Midwest, South, or West, if a preacher has an idea and he wants to put it across, he can put it across. I’d have to suggest it, and suggest it. Then I’d have to let it sit for four or five years until somebody else thought it was his idea and he advanced it. Then we would be able to do it.

Do you recall any really hot controversies?

We used to keep quite a large sum in reserve for emergencies—like bringing missionaries home, or to use if the church burned down. It was 0,000 or 0,000. We were supporting 145 missionaries. Well, one of my men got the idea we ought to spend everything. We had a knock-down, drag-out fight one night in the board of deacons. I told them that as long as I was pastor, I was going to have the say as to where we spent our money. He finally came around, but it wasn’t easy.
Another time two of our trustees were at loggerheads over our investment policy. So I got the trustees together one night and said, “Look, men, we’re having a lot of blessing in this church. It would be easy to lose it all if you start fighting. Now, either you can tell the board that you’re sorry you have put these things in one another’s way, or you can both leave. One or the other, but we’re not going on with this anymore.”
One fellow got up like a gentleman and said, “I apologize to you. I’ll not insist on my way any longer.” The other fellow sat there, glum as an ox, and finally he said, “Well, I’m not going to change.” He left and never came back.

How did you develop your interest in missions?

When I was a student at Princeton, I volunteered to be a missionary. I was planning to go to China. One day Clarence Macartney and some other prominent preachers got hold of me and said, “Look, we’re not going to be able to do anything for missions if we don’t hold some of these churches in this country. You ought to take a church here, build it up, and raise money for missions.”
That’s what I did, first with Macartney at First Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, then at Point Breeze, and then at Park Street. I tried to put missions first at the time. The first year I was at Park Street we had ,200 for missions. We soon changed that. Missions were first in our interest—in our giving, and everything else. We did it by voluntary giving. We never raised any money with chicken pot pie suppers.

You’ve raised a lot of money in your time. What insights do you have about money management in the local church?

The pastor should sit on the board of trustees, not as a member, but just as he should sit on the board of deacons, or elders. He ought to know where everything goes. He has to raise the money, therefore he ought to be able to see where it goes. He ought to be able to agree with where people want it to go. But if it is raised for one thing, don’t take it from that for something else.
He ought to have a good bit to say about the final disposition of funds. I didn’t do that directly; I did it through the boards. I sat on every board that spent a dime, because I didn’t want the money to go to the wrong place. It was too hard to raise.

While you were pastor at Park Street Church you were also president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. How did you handle both responsibilities?

I commuted a great deal and used the telephone a lot. I guess I went back and forth 200 times. I used my assistant, Harold Lindsell, a lot. He executed what I determined as policy—with the trustees, of course.

You were also president of the National Association of Evangelicals for a while and chairman of CHRISTIANITY TODAY for 25 years.

I have always been very busy, but there is a secret to that. You can do things okay if you keep a prayer list. I’ve kept one for 41 years and I have everything on that list. When I go over it, I’m reminded by the Lord if I haven’t tried to solve a problem; I’m very alert to that situation. If I have enemies I’m praying for, something may come to my mind that I can do about that.
Everything goes on that prayer list: faculty, evangelism, family. I write a very brief summary of what the petition is, and I number it and date it. When it’s answered, I write across it “answered.” As I pray, I don’t look at those, I just go to the next one. Some have been answered in the negative—not very many, but some of them. I just put crosses right across those, and I know immediately that they have been denied. This keeps a person alert to his responsibilities.
For instance, if I had a problem at Fuller, I put it on the prayer list. When I would go over the list I was reminded of that problem. I either prayed about it or did something about it that needed to be done. That was a way to keep alert to administrative activities so I could run Fuller, the NAE, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and my church.

This gives you a tremendous release from tension. When do you find time to pray?

That’s right—I never worry about it. I pray every morning. First I do my exercises, then shave and bathe, then pray until my wife has breakfast ready. I pick up where I left off on my prayer list and go on through the whole thing. I’ve had this prayer habit from the time I went to college.

Speaking of your college experience, it’s been said that you are the heir of a blend of Reformed and Wesleyan traditions. Is that how you would describe yourself?

There’s some truth to that. I went to Taylor University from a large Methodist church in Chicago. There I came under the influence of the holiness club. I felt I needed another, or deeper, Christian experience. Things weren’t going well on the evangelistic team. I was going to quit preaching, but one of the fellows told me I was the trouble.
One Sunday morning one of them preached on Acts 1:8, “You will have power, after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you,” a sermon I’d heard him preach before. He gave the invitation and nobody responded. As we came to the last stanza, it was as if somebody spoke to me out of the blue, “You want that bliss …” I went forward and it has made the difference in my life. I recognized that I needed a different quality of experience through the Holy Spirit, which I didn’t have at that time. I told the Lord I wanted it.
I found out that there is a higher standard than just being a believer. There is such a thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit for a purpose. The Lord does that.
So, I got the Wesleyan emphasis at Taylor. I rejected sanctification in the sense of being without sin. I left Taylor and went to Princeton. Then I went to Westminster and more or less absorbed the Reformed and Presbyterian viewpoint. But I think there is a lot of the Methodist in me when it comes to preaching.

Your pastoral ministry was also an interesting blend of a large major denomination and a smaller one. How do you compare the two?

I started pastoring a Methodist church in the summer resort town of Avalon, New Jersey, during my last year at Princeton. The people wanted me but the bishop told them I had gone to the wrong seminary; it wasn’t Methodist. In the meantime, Clarence Macartney had invited me to be his assistant at First Presbyterian, Pittsburgh. But I stayed in the Methodist church for a year until the annual conference. Out of the blue, Macartney wrote me again. I decided to test the people at Avalon over the summer. That’s when everybody makes money, but they don’t go to church. The summer went by and I didn’t see any of my faithful people until September. So I decided to accept Macartney’s offer.
I joined Chambers Wiley Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, was licensed by the Philadelphia presbytery, and then transferred to the presbytery of Pittsburgh. I became a Congregationalist the minute I went to Park Street Church. I was installed by the Congregational Church. I held standing in both denominations. The Pittsburgh presbytery had me laboring outside the bonds of the presbytery and the Suffolk West Association (Congregational) accepted me as a member of their association.

Didn’t you subsequently leave both denominations?

The Los Angeles presbytery didn’t want Fuller seminary there. Half of our students came from local Presbyterian churches, and in ten years we would have controlled that presbytery and several others if they would have given us the green light. They asked my presbytery to enjoin me from laboring out there. I was told I could fight it, and probably win, but the seminary would have been launched in a controversy, so I didn’t.
When the Congregational Church merged with the Evangelical and Reformed Church (to form the United Church of Christ), they allowed those who didn’t come in—many churches like Park Street didn’t—to have their names published in the annual minutes. I still have my name there, although I am not a member of the United Church of Christ.

A Pulpit Primer

While serving as Dr. Ockenga’s student assistant at Park Street Church in 1937, I made my way to his tower study after a Sunday morning worship service. Intrigued by his sermon content and flawless delivery, I asked, “Dr. Ockenga, could you take time to explain to me your method of sermon preparation and delivery?” Without hesitation, while he showered and dressed, he launched into a homiletical lecture and study that surpassed all the college, seminary, and graduate speech courses I ever had.
It revolutionized my own preaching style. It challenged me to prayerful subject selection, thorough biblical research and preparation, careful word-for-word manuscript writing, detailed and comprehensive sermon outlining, memorization of the sermon outline, and utter dependence upon the Holy Spirit for preaching without notes.
Little did I realize that this impromptu lecture by one of America’s greatest pulpiteers was God’s crash course preparing me for Dr. Ockenga’s brief illness. In a few months (as a young theolog) I was preaching in his strategic Boston pulpit. It also became my model for over 40 years of teaching and preaching.
JOHN A. HUFFMAN, SR.
Dr. Ockenga’s First Assistant
Park Street Church

Should a young candidate for the ministry start in one of the major, liberally oriented denominations, or in a smaller evangelical body?

It depends on the individual and his background. If he’s a member of a smaller denomination, he’s got to consider the cost. On the other hand, if he’s a member of a big denomination, United Presbyterian or Methodist, he should stay there, preach, and bear his testimony, unless he’s hindered and limited by the denomination. If it becomes an issue of doctrine or principle, then he has to leave.

How can one prepare for ministry in a mainstream denomination?

Get your evangelical theological training first. Go to an evangelical seminary first, so you have the answers to the problems liberals raise. If you go to a liberal seminary first, and they raise the problems and you have no answers, you’re set adrift. Get your positive answers first and you can judge what you would like to do.
You can always go from a big denomination to a little one, but you can’t go from a little one to a big one. They raise too many questions. They press too hard on you. They have their own students trained in their own seminaries and they want them to have the jobs.

What do you think about the church growth movement?

It’s almost a fetish. I used the good things in the church growth movement before there was a movement. Some of the ideas are good. Get the head of a family converted first and the family probably will come. Get the leader of a group and you probably will get the people. But I don’t like some of the viewpoints, especially the one about making converts all of one class [homogeneous unit principle]. Supposedly, if they were all of one kind, your church could grow much more rapidly than by having converts of diverse backgrounds. Obviously, such churches will grow faster. People are much more at home in a group like that. But that’s not what the church should be. The New Testament church at Antioch, for example, had wealthy and poor people, educated and uneducated, blacks and whites. The church should cut across these things, so people feel at home in other than their own culture or class.
Take Park Street Church. We always had some wealthy people; not many. We had a great many poor people, a great many blue collar workers. Our deacons and trustees represented all classes of people. The wealthy ones didn’t look down on the others. The middle-class people didn’t demand that we put people from their group in office.

You were instrumental in the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals, were you not?

In 1936, J. Elwyn Wright conceived the idea of a national organization. He said that if we didn’t do this, we’d be frozen out by the Federal [later National] Council of Churches. I wasn’t quite convinced, but I went to the first meeting in Saint Louis. We met for a week, about 150 or 175 men. Wright asked me to give the keynote address (published in Great Speeches that Affected America). I told them we had to get together, to stand together. We had to do it in radio broadcasting, or we would be put off the air. The Federal Council was drawing up a broadcasting code of ethics. We had to do it in the military, or we wouldn’t have any chaplains. The impetus for NAE came from the fact that the fellows all felt they were being cut down.
At that time Carl McIntire demanded that we state categorically in our constitution that we were opposed to the Federal Council, and that our purpose was to hinder their work. It wasn’t the right thing to do, because we would have started on a negative rather than a positive basis. McIntire forced a vote on the issue and lost, but he pulled out 25 or 30 fellows with him and later they formed the American Council of Christian Churches. We went ahead and laid down our basic principles and formed the NAE.
They made me president—because I made the speech, I guess. The church permitted me to make three major trips across the country to speak in churches about the NAE and what we were going to do. Finally, in 1943, we met for a solid week in Chicago for our constitutional convention. We had a great time. I remember Bishop Leslie Marsden of the Free Methodists saying as we were leaving, “America’s revival is breaking.”

How did things go between you and McIntire?

You should know that Carl was in my wedding party, but when I refused to join the Independent Board for Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, he was so disgusted that he returned the gift I had given him, a couple of book ends of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Anyway, when he started his American Council it became very confusing for churches, schools, missions boards, and denominations. Rather than get into the scrap, many of them decided not to join either NAE or the ACCC.
But the ACCC did a very bad thing. They would home in on an individual, publish the reports in McIntire’s Christian Beacon, and undermine his work. They cut into his invitations. They went after Donald Barnhouse, after me, after somebody else. They began to whittle us down, one by one, who were the leaders of NAE. As a result, some of them dropped out. It was unfortunate that we had the ACCC and NAE division.

What dangers do you foresee for evangelicals now?

One of them is fragmentation. It looks like it might be over the question of inerrancy of Scripture. That could be a divisive thing when it comes to the future of NAE. However, I think that denominationally we’ve almost had all of the fragmentation we’re going to have. If NAE stays with a positive emphasis, it can have a great influence in the churches.

“In the secular media, there is still not enough coverage,” Joop Koopman, ACNUSA director of communications, told CT, speculating on the reason behind the increases from the 2020 survey.

“But in Catholic media, the news is out there, and I believe the effect is cumulative.”

The parish bulletin is the most trusted source of Catholic news, according to the survey, while CNN is most favored for secular news.

So while the ISIS-led persecution of Middle East Christians has faded from immediate memory, Nigeria and India have captured Catholic attention. Also significant, Koopman said, was this month’s visit of Pope Francis to Iraq.

Though the survey took place in February, just before the trip, there was significant media attention on the preparations and highlighting the nation’s declining Christian population.

Overall, American Catholics identified China, North Korea, and Pakistan as the worst persecutors of Christians today. These nations rank No. 17, No. 1, and No. 5, respectively, on Open Doors’ 2021 World Watch List of nations where it is hardest to follow Jesus.

China has received much attention from the Vatican as it negotiates the recognition of bishops in the underground church. A 2018 deal was controversially extended last October, against objections by the United States.

Catholics once represented a substantial portion of North Korean Christians. And Asia Bibi, a Catholic, attracted worldwide attention over her death sentence for blasphemy before being acquitted in 2018 and fleeing Pakistan one year later.

But according to ACNUSA, American Catholics lack awareness of many details:

  • Only 41 percent know that being a Christian in North Korea can warrant the death penalty.
  • Only 37 percent know of the abduction of underage Christian girls in Pakistan, who are then forced into marriage and converted to Islam.
  • Only 35 percent know that Mass attendance in China is subject to digital surveillance.
  • Only 36 percent know of the thousands killed for their faith in Nigeria.
  • Only 28 percent know of the hundreds of incidents of persecution in India.

And less than half (46%) correctly identify Christians as suffering half or more of religiously based attacks around the world. Researchers with Under Caesar’s Sword, a $1 million Templeton Religion Trust study, found that Christians experience 60–80 percent of the world’s religious discrimination. (More of it is experienced by evangelicals than by Catholics.)

Even so, that 9 in 10 American Catholics who find overall Christian persecution at least “somewhat severe” has stayed steady since 2018.

“The poll shows the great need to inform the public regarding specific instances of Christian persecution,” said Marlin. “US bishops and organizations like our own must step up our educational efforts.”

Devotionally, however, the church has been more successful.

Almost half of American Catholics (48%) now label themselves as “very devout,” up from 42 percent last year and 38 percent in 2018. Only 13 percent today say they are “not devout.”

But church attendance has not kept up with the trend. Only 38 percent attend Mass weekly, though that’s an increase from 33 percent last year.

The increase in reported devotion is accompanied by a shift toward the Democratic Party. The 28 percent who called themselves Republican has held steady since 2018. But the third who called themselves Independent or “other” has declined to a quarter, while Democratic identity has increased to 47 percent, up from 39 percent.

And while the percentage of American Catholics “very concerned” about persecution has dramatically risen, it still falls behind other global issues.

Parachurch youth ministries are gathering them up where mainline denominations began dropping them a decade ago.The dinner party included some of the cream of the leadership of a major Protestant denomination. Present with their spouses were two professors from a nearby seminary, three denominational executives, and the president of a church-related liberal arts college.Most were Democrats. They were appropriately committed to massive governmental programs to solve social problems, and to church involvement in the process. They were concerned about world hunger. They shared an intellectual commitment to a simpler lifestyle (“Live simply that others may simply live”) and had somewhat guilty consciences about their own affluence. They deplored the exploitation of Third World countries by multinational corporations, and generally approved various liberation theologies. They were scornful of conservatives in the denomination who accused the World Council of Churches of fostering Marxist movements.They deplored the “narrowness” of the group of evangelicals now in control of the Student Christian Association on the college president’s campus, and the lack of interest in religion on the part of the majority of students. They shared the frustration of the seminary professors at having to cope with the increasing conservatism of each incoming class, and laughed as one of them jested that they seemed to be training the future leadership of the Orthodox Presbyterians and the Conservative Baptists.Then the hostess got a telephone call from her teen-aged son, who was attending a meeting of Young Life. The conversation turned to Young Life, and the fine young man who headed up the program in the local high school. The host couple had two children involved, and they were delighted with what was happening. Another couple, one of the seminary professors and his wife, reported that their two sons were also deeply involved in Young Life in another high school in the city. They, too, were pleased about it; the wife wondered with pardonable pride how many mothers had sent two sons off to summer football camp, both with their Bibles packed on top of their sleeping bags.One of the denominational executives began to talk about the absence of any kind of solid content at the parish youth fellowship his kids attended; it seemed to be largely recreational. Another deplored his inability to get his kids to participate in his congregation’s youth program at all, although he admitted it was so inconsequential and poorly attended that he couldn’t blame them. He recalled the significance of his own church youth group experience when he was growing up, the familiarity with the Bible that came out of his Sunday school attendance, and the spiritual intensity of his adolescent religious experience. He frankly—and sadly—saw nothing in the parish where he and his family were involved that could provide anything similar for his own children. And he wished his kids would join Young Life!Major Denominational Youth Programs: The SixtiesThese dinner party guests were leading establishmentarians. Nothing could more vividly portray the youth dilemma in the churches of the so-called mainline denominations than their conversation. Where have all the young folks gone? Mainly to Young Life, or Youth for Christ, or Campus Crusade, or Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, or the Sunday evening program of a nearby Southern Baptist church. Or else nowhere. Mainline Protestant parish youth programs, with some notable exceptions, are moribund. Mainline campus ministries play to empty halls. Mainline denominational youth ministry bureaucrats, by and large, are still hooked on the greening of America.This is our heritage from the sixties. Nowhere in American society did the youth countercultural values of that decade receive a more sympathetic hearing than in mainline churches. And for understandable reasons. The idealism, the activist involvement, the commitment to radical change—all these the mainline groups applauded. We marched alongside the counterculture in the civil-rights movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement. We had a common cause. Draft card burnings nearly always featured a William Sloan Coffin or Dan Berrigan right up in front of the TV cameras. Youth was the “cutting edge.” Innumerable religious retreats plumbed the theological profundity of Beatles’ songs (especially “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” the tunes of which can still bring on an attack of acute nostalgia for anyone who, like me, was working with young adults during that period).Many of today’s mainline denominational executives cut their teeth on the counterculture. Radical protest was the norm of their formative years. Today they find a newer generation of young people to be baffling and unsettling, success oriented, nonprotesting, traditional in values.Another major influence on their own spiritual formation was the human relations movement, which also reached its peak in the sixties and early seventies. Its groupiness, its “touchy-feely” games, its self-discovery and self-affirmation, its simulation and trust-building exercises were the “methodologies” of the period. The fact that they were all methodology and no theology seemed irrelevant at the time. It was a compliment in human relations circles to be called “process oriented,” an insult to be known as “content oriented.”Major Denominational Youth Work TodayThe above picture may be overdrawn, but it is accurate enough to have affected significantly the current shape of youth work in these mainline denominations. The counterculture is dead, except as the context for denominational youth programs. Campus ministry, especially, has provided it with a last bastion. Mainline campus ministries are often isolated from parish life and accountable only to ecumenical bureaucracies far removed from and independent of either the university administration or the people in the pew. Yet they are still trying to fan the embers of radical protest. And local church youth groups are all too often still playing the trust games or engaging in “value clarification.” Church members, by and large, do not understand what is wrong with youth programs in their congregations, and they are not sure what should be done to fill the vacuum. But they know a vacuum exists, and they want something done about it. No concern is higher on their agenda, as they press church hierarchies for action.Whatever the answer for mainline churches may be, many young people have not waited for their parents, or the young associate ministers who run the programs in their parishes, or their denominational bureaucracies to find out. Vast numbers of them have found theft own answer outside the mainline churches, in the evangelical, nondenominational youth movements.Evangelical Youth MovementsMost of the major evangelical youth movements antedate the sixties, but their greatest impact on mainline young people has come since the sixties. Bible study is their stock in trade. They work through young, dedicated, full-time staff workers, who are often required to raise theft own salaries. And in contrast to moribund denominational youth programs, these movements are flourishing.At the high school level, the largest is Youth for Christ. It operates campus-oriented evangelistic teen clubs at well over a thousand American high schools. Young Life is also a high school (and sometimes junior high) movement, with something over a thousand clubs. In addition, it operates weekend and summer camps. It has recently added an urban Young Life operation for inner-city teen-agers, mostly black, with an emphasis on justice and jobs as well as on its usual spiritual concerns.Campus Crusade is by far the largest and most aggressive of the evangelical youth organizations. It is probably the most conspicuous Christian organization on college and university campuses, and it has branched out into a number of other specialized youth and young adult ministries. It has a high school branch, and an extensive ministry to young adults in the American armed forces all over the world.Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship has chapters on over 800 American campuses. They are student-controlled, although IVCF does have staff personnel. Its style of evangelism is lower key and considerably less aggressive than that of Campus Crusade, and its lifestyle expectations are less legalistic. Inter-Varsity is well known for its Urbana (University of Illinois) missionary conventions. Urbana ’79 undertook to motivate at least a thousand young people a year to enter overseas missionary service for the next five years. The majority attending were from mainline churches, the largest single group being United Presbyterians with 1,104 delegates.Another predominantly youth-oriented organization is the Navigators, which originated as a movement among enlisted men in the navy during World War II. In recent years Navigators has expanded its ministry beyond the armed forces to other young adult communities, primarily college campuses. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is an organization of athletes and coaches banded together to influence young people. It sponsors high school “Huddles” and college “Fellowships.” Coaches’ clinics, rallies, and banquets are all widely used in a ministry aimed at personal evangelism.Although these are the best known, they are by no means the only evangelical youth and young adult movements. Collectively, the independent evangelical youth organizations are by far the most significant and influential Christian youth movement in contemporary American society. Theft influence, however, is reinforced from other sources.Christian Academies And CollegesMy young teen-aged daughter reported recently that she “can’t stand” the superiority of one girl in her Sunday school class, whose one-upmanship consists of frequent reminders in class discussion, “Of course, I go to a Christian school.” The Christian academies found in most cities are almost without exception evangelical in orientation, and frequently they represent the fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism. At the end of the seventies, between 700 and 800 new private Christian elementary schools or high schools were being launched each year. More than five-and-a-half million students are currently enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, two-thirds of them in Christian schools.What is widely perceived as a decline in the public school system with its emphasis on social goals, the “professionalization” of the educational establishment, the succession of educational fads (“progressive schools,” “whole-child” and “child-centered” emphases, “existential” education, “open classrooms”), the demise of discipline, and the widely documented decline in standard achievement and SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores, all have led many to seek alternatives. The traditional upper-class private schools are largely for the rich. The Christian academies, which frequently have higher academic standards than public schools, have provided the only real alternative for the not-so-rich, including many liberals from mainline groups.The evangelical colleges provide a continuation of the same educational influences at a higher level. They are unlike the Christian academies, to which many children are sent for reasons unrelated to evangelical orientation by parents seeking discipline and academic emphasis; the evangelical colleges are usually chosen explicitly for their religious stance. Parents distrusting the secular scientific world view, and the absence of constraint in the student environment of secular universities and the liberal mainline denominational colleges, have chosen evangelical colleges for their children. Young people of evangelical convictions have chosen them for themselves.Attitudes And TrendsReports from nondenominational evangelical youth organizations, Christian academies, and evangelical colleges are not the only source of data on what is happening to young people of mainline churches. The Princeton Religious Research Center, which bases its reports of religious trends on polls conducted by the Gallup organization, reports that the evangelical movement is strong among the nation’s youth. Evangelical gains, “often at the expense of mainline churches,” according to the center, are evidenced by the high percentage of teen-agers (44 percent of those identifying themselves as Protestants and 22 percent of the Catholics) who say they have had a “born again” experience.Similar evidence came from a Religious News Service tum-of-the-decade report on increasing interest in religion among college students in the second half of the seventies. The RNS survey saw the trend as conservative, pointing to such indications as the growing popularity of religion courses, with the addition of such courses and of departments of religion by responsive administrations, increasing attendance at religious assemblies, and growing willingness to voice religious opinions in class.The report noted the popularity of informal Bible reading or study groups in dormitories. Military chaplains have also observed a striking increase in such Bible study groups in barracks, camps, and ships. The Princeton Religious Research Center reported that 33 percent of Protestant teen-agers and 20 percent of the Catholics say they are involved in Bible study groups.The Princeton Center sees one of the characteristics of youth in the dawning eighties to be a return to traditional values. Except for marked differences on certain social issues (acceptance of the use of marijuana, and sexual freedom), the study found remarkably little difference between the attitudes of teen-agers and college students on one hand, and those of older Americans on the other. This shows a marked swing toward traditional values.These findings were further confirmed by a 1979–80 survey of students listed in Who’s Who Among American High School Students. It identified a decidedly conservative trend among high school leaders. Though religion has always played a significant role in the lives of this particular group, a striking 86 percent in this survey said they belonged to organized religion, up sharply from 70 percent in the 1969–70 poll 10 years earlier. Three-quarters said religion was an important part of their lives, and 67 percent claimed to have chosen their religious beliefs after independent personal investigation.What are young people looking for? All too often the liberal mainline establishment envisions them as seeking channels for idealism, for protest, for action aimed at bringing about social change. The youth counterculture of the sixties and early seventies, Christian and secular, was indeed seeking such channels. But it is questionable if even then a significant number of young people were seeking such channels to express a distinctively Christian idealism. Today’s social activists in the mainline church establishment are, by and large, responding to a Christian dynamic. Their meaning structure is a deep faith, acquired often in a more conservative church environment in their youth. But the generation they have produced in mainline churches, where attention is fixed on social change, lacks that rooting in a deep faith. Members of this generation are finding the meaning structure the seek in the evangelical youth movements, the evangelical colleges, and in a turn toward traditional values and conservative religion.All these reflect the theological stance of evangelical Christianity. Thomas C. Oden, a mainline seminary faculty member who refers to himself as a reformed liberal, speaks of “postmodern orthodoxy.” He says: “The sons and daughters of modernity are rediscovering the neglected beauty of classical Christian teaching.… They have had a bellyful of the hyped claims of modern therapies and political messianism to make things right. They are fascinated—and often passionately moved—by the primitive language of the apostolic tradition and the church fathers, undiluted by our contemporary efforts to soften it.… Finally my students got through to me. They do not want to hear a watered-down modern reinterpretation. They want nothing less than the substance of the faith of the apostles and martyrs.”Significance is generally ascribed to trends among young people in terms of what they foreshadow for the adults of tomorrow. A fairly clear picture seems to be emerging. Many of our youth have left us. They no longer see the church as a meaningful part of their lives. But a significant part of those still with us are young evangelicals. In 1979 the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. began for the first time to record the results of a straw vote of the Youth Advisory participants alongside the official action of the commissioners. On a surprisingly large number of issues with an identifiable “conservative” and “liberal” side, the youth vote has been more conservative than that of the adults. Some of these evangelical young people are being shaped in our own congregations, particularly those congregations that make up the evangelical wing of the mainline denominations. But many are finding their meaning structure elsewhere.Youth for Christ, Inter-Varsity, Christian academies, and nondenominational evangelical colleges are all now playing a part in shaping the new generation in the mainline churches.Nowhere is the future leadership of the church more clearly foreshadowed than in the seminaries. It was the seminaries of the fifties, sixties, and seventies that nourished today’s leaders on a diet that progressed from Barth to Bonhoeffer to Bishop Robinson and Harvey Cox to Gustavo Gutierrez. If denominational seminaries seemed too confining to earlier generations, the more adventurous went off to interdenominational Yale, Harvard, Union, Chicago, or perhaps to Berkeley. Now the more adventurous are forsaking denominational seminaries to go in the opposite direction. They are going to Fuller and Gordon-Conwell. The largest Presbyterian seminary in the world (in terms of the number of Presbyterian candidates for the ministry enrolled) is Princeton. But the second largest is Fuller. And third is Gordon-Conwell.Further, there is evidence that students in the mainline denominational seminaries are coming from conservative backgrounds. Those seminarians whose sense of calling has been nourished in their home churches are coming from the evangelically oriented mainline congregations.A 1979 study of candidates for the ministry within my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., showed that 44 percent of all candidates came from just 82 congregations—2 percent of the PCUS congregations, with 10 percent of the membership—and that most of these were known as conservative congregations. Student bodies are more and more evangelical. The seminary professor quoted earlier as saying his seminary was training the future leadership of the Orthodox Presbyterians and Conservative Baptists was dead wrong; it is training the evangelical future leadership of his own mainline denomination.There are some indications that mainline denominations may be getting the message, and that a genuine renewal of youth work may be developing. The early eighties have seen a spontaneous movement among many mainline groups in the direction of the recovery of a pattern of an earlier day with the reemergence of youth councils, youth rallies in local areas, and a growing call for denominational resources with Christian content, rather than just methodology. Whether a real recovery of mainline youth programs is on the horizon remains to be seen, but early signs are encouraging.Meanwhile, however, the wave of the future is already upon us. Where have all the young folks gone? They’re over at Young Life, studying their Bibles.

Human trafficking (78%) and poverty (71%) have held steady among top concerns, occupying first and second place in the yearly list. Persecution now ranks third, though concern for climate change (62%) and the refugee crisis (61%) have also risen (from 57% and 55%, respectively).

Last year, Christian persecution ranked last.

However, a new question about COVID-19 displaced all but human trafficking, with 77 percent of Catholics “very concerned.”

The survey drew from 1,000 Catholics, with a margin of error of about 3 percent. In the sample, 58 percent were white, 34 percent were Hispanic, 4 percent were black, and 3 percent were Asian.

Across the board, they want more than prayer for the persecuted church.

“It is my hope that leaders around the world embrace the fundamental human right of religious freedom,” said Marlin, “and promote a society that respects ethnic, cultural, and especially religious diversity.”

News

Sri Lanka Mulls Banning Burqas and Closing 1,000 Madrassas

Local evangelical alliance favors religious freedom for Muslim women in majority-Buddhist island nation.

A burqa-clad Sri Lankan Muslim woman walks in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on March 13.

A burqa-clad Sri Lankan Muslim woman walks in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on March 13.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
Eranga Jayawardena / AP

COLOMBO — Sri Lanka’s government said Tuesday it would take time to consider a proposed ban on the wearing of burqas, which a top security official called a sign of religious extremism.

The minister of public security, Sarath Weerasekara, said Saturday he was seeking approval from the Cabinet of Ministers to ban the outer garment worn by some Muslim women covering the body and face.

“The burqa has a direct impact on national security,” he told a ceremony at a Buddhist temple, without elaborating.

“In our early days, we had a lot of Muslim friends, but Muslim women and girls never wore the burqa,” Weerasekara said, according to video footage sent by his ministry. “It is a sign of religious extremism that came about recently. We will definitely ban it.”

However, government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said a ban was a serious decision requiring consultation and consensus.

“It will be done in consultation. So, it requires time,” he said without elaborating, at the weekly media briefing held to announce the cabinet decisions.

The wearing of burqas in Sri Lanka was temporarily banned in 2019 soon after the Easter Sunday bomb attacks on churches and hotels that killed more than 260 people in the Indian Ocean island nation. Two local Muslim groups that had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group were blamed for the attacks at six locations: two Roman Catholic churches, one Protestant church, and three top hotels.

Earlier, a Pakistani diplomat and a UN expert expressed concern about the possible ban, with Pakistani Ambassador Saad Khattak tweeting a ban would only injure the feelings of Muslims. The United Nations’ special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, tweeted that a ban was incompatible with international law and the rights of free religious expression.

Separately Tuesday, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry said the government would take the time to consult with all parties concerned and reach a consensus.

Sri Lanka also has plans to close more than 1,000 Islamic schools known as madrassas because they are unregistered and accused of not following national education policy.

The proposal to ban burqas and madrassas is the latest move affecting the Indian Ocean island nation’s minority Muslims.

Muslims make up about 9 percent of the 22 million people in Sri Lanka, where Buddhists account for more than 70 percent of the population. Ethnic minority Tamils, who are mainly Hindus, comprise about 15 percent of the population.

Regarding the proposals, the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka (NCEASL) told CT the group favors freedom of religion or belief.

“We believe it is a woman’s right to decide what she wears,” said Godfrey Yogarajah, NCEASL general secretary. “Also, if she has grown up wearing the burqa for religious reasons, then for the state to try and regulate is a violation of religious freedom.”

Regarding security concerns, Yogarajah—also the World Evangelical Alliance’s ambassador for religious freedom—noted that the suicide bombers in Sri Lanka have all been men “dressed in normal attire.” He also noted how Sri Lankans are currently required to wear face masks as they go about daily life.

“In this context, to propose a ban on Muslim women wearing burqas is not prudent,” he said, “and discriminatory.”

Additional reporting by Jeremy Weber of CT.

Dead Sea Scrolls Discovery Reveals New Details About the Bible’s Earliest Translations

Tiny fragments of the Minor Prophets in Greek show that scribes adapted texts in similar ways to our contemporary versions.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
Sebastian Scheiner / AP Images

Israeli researchers and archaeologists unveiled this week several groundbreaking discoveries, including dozens of biblical scroll fragments that represent the first newly uncovered Dead Sea Scrolls in more than half a century.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain some of the earliest known Jewish religious documents, including biblical texts, dated from the third century B.C. to the second century A.D. The manuscripts were first unearthed in the immediate aftermath of World War II in the caves near Qumran and the Judean Desert.

Even an initial review of the new fragments—which will be analyzed and scrutinized for years to come—offers some exciting findings about how the earliest biblical texts were translated and adapted in ways like our own.

The discovery comes at a time when demand for antiquities has skyrocketed, spurring looting and forgeries over the past several years as wealthy collectors hope to acquire any remaining scraps of the priceless scrolls.

Starting around 2002, a number of widely publicized “Dead Sea Scroll” fragments emerged with questionable origin stories. After a series of illegal attempts to acquire artifacts and scrolls, Israeli Antiquities Authority conducted a series of archaeological surveys to reexamine the interiors of the caves along the cliffs of the Judean Desert.

Beginning in 2017, its researchers uncovered two dozen scroll pieces, each measuring only a few centimeters across, from the so-called Cave of Horror near the western shore of the Dead Sea. It’s a site where insurgents were believed to have hidden during the uprising led by Simon bar Kokhba against the Roman empire in A.D. 133–136. It gets its name from the discovery of 40 bodies during initial excavations decades before.

Unlike most of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the fragments from the Cave of Horror contain Greek letters. Scholars determined they came from a Greek translation of the Book of the Twelve in Hebrew, what many Christians call the Minor Prophets.

The job of reconstructing the original document is akin to trying to assemble a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle with only a handful of pieces. The largest fragment contains portions of Zechariah 8:16–17, and some smaller bits are identified as Nahum 1:5–6. These pieces appear to be connected to other previously discovered fragments from the same cave along the ancient gorge of Nahal Hever and were part of a single large scroll including all of the minor prophets.

The text comes from the oldest physical scroll of the Greek Bible we have, but it likely represents a development or revision of the standard Greek translation—often referred to as the Septuagint, LXX, or Old Greek.

Two characteristics found for the first time in this ancient Greek translation correspond in remarkable ways to our modern English Bibles.

First, the newly discovered pieces show a special treatment for the four letters of God’s name, the Tetragrammaton (see Exodus 3:14–15). Instead of rendering the name in typical fashion with the Greek word Kyrios, the name of God is represented in Hebrew letters written right to left. It would be similar to us using the Hebrew letters יהוה (YHWH) or possibly the Latin DOMINUS in the middle of an English sentence.

This representation is significant because using specialized characters for the divine name has carried through to our modern Bibles. Most English Bibles represent the name as “the LORD” with small capital letters, rather than representing its supposed pronunciation Yahweh, as many scholars suggest. This substitution follows the ancient tradition of reading Adonai, a Hebrew word meaning “Lord,” or even HaShem “The Name,” in place of representing God’s name according to its sound.

Moreover, the lettering for God’s name is not typical of most of the other Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew manuscripts. It is an even older script, sometimes called paleo-Hebrew, which was mostly abandoned in everyday writing during the second temple period. Think of it as the difference between our modern Latin lettering and the calligraphic Fraktur or Gothic script, or possibly even like Greek letters. Putting these representations into a translated text provides both a foreignness to the writing and a type of reverence for the name’s uniqueness.

The second correlation we find in the new fragments is evidence of changing words to try to improve a new translation. The Minor Prophets scroll represents a revision of an older Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The original version was used widely by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century throughout the Mediterranean world, but at some point, a new translation became warranted.

For Zechariah 8:17, the Old Greek translated the first word in the Hebrew text (אִישׁ) as a distributive term meaning “each other, another,” which put at the end, similar to every major English version. For example, the NIV reads, “Do not plot evil against each other.”

In the new fragment, the same term is translated by a different Greek word at the beginning. Using an interlinear approach—finding a corresponding word without accounting for the context of its use—the verse starts by representing the same Hebrew word as “man.” It forms an overliteral translation: “As for a man, do not plot evil against his neighbor in your heart.”

It would seem that the efforts to render the Bible accurately into common languages date back to our earliest textual evidence of the Scriptures. Yet this difference anticipates the various modern opinions about how best to represent God’s word in our vernaculars.

These texts will undoubtably launch an array of research in years to come, with other features possibly revealed through multispectral imaging and digital magnification. As a biblical scholar, I can imagine these ancient readers striving to translate the Hebrew Scriptures that we read today and then carrying these meaningful texts into the darkest moments of their history to help them better understand God and their world.

Our connection to these people through this ancient text—now brought forward in tiny pieces, bit by bit—demonstrates the profound human desire to seek God especially in our moments of greatest trial and uncertainty.

Chip Hardy is associate professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of Exegetical Gems from Biblical Hebrew: A Refreshing Guide to Grammar and Interpretation.

News

Many Adventists in Asia and Africa Believe You Must Be Vegan to Be Saved

(UPDATED) As the church’s global growth continues, leaders must disentangle its “health message” from views on salvation.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
Illustration by Rick Szuecs / Source images: Pcess609 / Getty / Envato

While Seventh-day Adventists around the world have heeded their co-founder’s teachings on eating a plant-based diet, many adherents in parts of Asia and Africa have raised veganism to a place next to godliness.

Denominational researchers found that many members in South Asia believe salvation is ensured two ways: through Jesus Christ (92%), and through giving up meat, animal products, alcohol, and tobacco (80%). Within the denomination’s East-Central Africa Division—which has the second-most vegan or vegetarian members (42%)—three-quarters of members (74%) maintain that dietary choices contribute to salvation. Globally, 47 percent of Adventists agreed that the health message “ensures salvation.”

“While it is possible to interpret this statement as meaning that practicing the ‘health message’ is an outgrowth of salvation, this interpretation is less likely when the item is read in the context of strict interpretations of Christian perfectionism that are historically and currently present in the Adventist Church,” wrote Andrews University sociologist Duane McBride, lead author on a recent paper in the Review of Religious Research.

“The data suggest that Adventist Church leadership needs to engage in further member education to differentiate and avoid confusion between the benefits of adhering to the Adventist Health Message and the Church’s belief that the actual source of salvation is through Jesus Christ alone,” wrote McBride.

Overall, 95 percent of Adventists globally held to salvation “through Christ alone,” and adherents in North America and Europe were far less likely to believe their healthy lifestyle contributes to salvation. While over half of Adventists in North American are vegetarian or vegan—more than any other region of the church—just 4 percent see the diet as necessary for salvation.

Globally, most Seventh-day Adventists see the benefits of giving up meat and animal products, alcohol, and tobacco. Over 80 percent agreed the practice promotes spiritual growth and longevity, following the prophecy of co-founder Ellen G. White.

She taught that “those who are seeking to become pure, refined, and holy” should not continue to eat “flesh foods” or “anything that has so harmful an effect on soul and body.” White cited health reasons for avoiding meat and dairy as well as spiritual reasons; the denomination’s veganism was part of efforts to set the church apart as a “remnant.”

Some Adventists do not practice veganism or vegetarianism, with many reducing meat (32%) or choosing a pescatarian lifestyle (11%) as an alternative. About 1 in 10 Adventists surveyed said they eat meat most days. A vast majority do not drink alcohol or use tobacco, but only the use of substances is subject to church discipline.

Today’s church doctrine calls for healthy living to glorify God but does not view dietary practice as a requirement for salvation: “…because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures.”

The recent findings come from research conducted by teams at Adventist universities in 13 regions around the world to measure global church members’ perception of the “health message,” as it’s called within the denomination. More than 63,700 members across 60 languages were given the survey, mainly at church services in 2017 and 2018.

Researchers wondered whether the drastic difference between North America and other parts of the world is due to younger churches abroad. According to data from the denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is among the fastest growing around the world as well as one of the biggest Christian communions, with over 21.4 million reported adherents.

While North American Adventists have in the past made moves toward mainstream evangelicalism, the denomination has held on to its separatist identity.

Among Christians more broadly, believers have adopted plant-based diets as a form of fasting, including during Lent, or as a form of environmental stewardship.

Editor’s note: This research blog has been updated to clarify how Adventist researchers discovered and examined why many survey respondents both agreed to “salvation through Christ alone” and agreed that the health message “ensures salvation.”

News

Streaming in the Desert: Middle East Discipleship On-Demand

Christian broadcaster SAT-7 tries to balance security and isolation in letting the Arab world binge watch programs of hope.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
Courtesy of SAT7 International Office

Growing up in civil war–era Lebanon, Rita El-Mounayer’s family often had to hook up the television to a car battery.

Last month, her ministry launched the first Christian on-demand streaming service in the Middle East.

“Television was our only refuge during the war, and was a communal activity,” said the international CEO of SAT-7. “This is what we will miss with , but we have to be where the technology leads.”

SAT-7 is a pioneer in the field. Beaming Christian satellite TV programming into the Arab world since 1996, it now hosts channels specializing also in Turkish and Farsi.

In 2007, it launched a dedicated kids channel. Ten years later, a separate academy brand was created to provide schooling to Syrian refugees and later to assist with at-home COVID-19 education.

Each is now available at SAT-7 PLUS, through web and mobile apps accessible via Android or iOS. Approximately 20 percent of the broadcaster’s 25 years of content can be streamed, along with all current live programming.

“In Morocco, it used to be that viewers had to wait for days until the Christian teaching program was scheduled,” El-Mounayer said.

“Now, they can binge watch.”

While the advantages for the ministry are obvious, the drawback lies in contributing to a culture of isolation. But Arab youth today are comfortable alone, El-Mounayer said, and Christians must find ways to reach them.

The media giants certainly are.

The Middle East was relatively slow in adopting on-demand video. In 2014, a mere 1 percent of households subscribed to a streaming service. Showtime’s local affiliate launched the service in 2008, and Netflix established a regional presence in 2016. Amazon, Apple, and Starz are also available.

By 2019, an estimated 30 percent of households were streaming online. By 2025, they are expected to outpace cable subscriptions.

And youth are especially addicted. SAT-7 research finds that 66 percent watch content primarily on smart devices. And gaming is especially popular for all ages, with Egypt on top at 68 percent.

But only 14 percent in the Nile River nation play on a traditional console.

These numbers are reflected in Christian media also, boosted by COVID-19.

SAT-7 reported a 16 percent rise in audience engagements in 2020, and a 70 percent rise for its children’s channel. With 50 million views on Facebook and 45 million on YouTube, it was a banner year for the once-satellite-only ministry.

More engagements lead to more opportunities to share the gospel.

Miracle Connect reported a 375 percent increase in audience connections, resulting in 5,000 presentations of the Good News. Heart4Iran, meanwhile, reported a 10fold increase in decisions for Christ in 2020. And 90 percent of its 12,000 decisions in the first four months of COVID-19 lockdown originated through the internet, reflecting the increasing millennial trends in the region.

Half of the population in the Middle East and North Africa is under 24 years old, according to UNICEF.

And for these, the largest increase was practical. SAT-7 reported a 335 percent increase through its academy channel, with hundreds of daily engagements.

It was a lifeline for many.

Even prior to the pandemic, 15 million children were out of school due to armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And the Beirut port explosion last year damaged or destroyed 120 schools, resulting in another 55,000 children deprived of education.

“The first thing 19th-century Christian missionaries did when they went to a new country was to open schools and build hospitals,” said George Makeen, SAT-7’s programming director.

“With modern technology, social media, and the power of satellite television, [we] have the ability to reach beyond previous boundaries, and help millions of children.”

And now, streaming services are the latest tool in the toolbox to reach their audience, said Febe Armanios, professor of history at Middlebury College. From handwritten letters to dedicated call centers to texting apps, on-demand video is the next step in creating intimate connections with viewers.

“In a crowded mediascape, Christian satellite ministries are continually distinguishing themselves and their brand from one another,” said Armanios, author of the forthcoming book Satellite Ministries: The Rise of Christian Television in the Middle East.

“But I don’t expect it to fully displace satellite TV any time soon.”

Neither does SAT-7.

“This is a means of communication for those who can,” said Antoine Karam, SAT-7’s information technology and broadcast director, speaking directly to the question of security. “Our audience is vulnerable, but the newest generations are already aware of the risks.”

Many in restricted societies are already competent in VPN technology, he said. But to protect them further from snooping governments or malevolent hackers, SAT-7 has minimized data collection from online users. Anyone can watch content without registration, and full platform access requires only one’s first name, email, and age range.

SSL certification is built into the system, with opt-in multiple-factor authentication and geoblocking.

But while individual users—especially those of a Muslim background—must always weigh carefully their privacy concerns, El-Mounayer does not expect any pushback in the region. SAT-7’s board of directors has members representing the respected traditional churches of the Middle East, and maintains a strict policy to never criticize another faith.

In a region torn by sectarian division, it is a welcomed stance.

But recalling her youth, El-Mounayer finds the challenges today to be different. So while SAT-7 PLUS may accommodate the spirit of isolated binge watching, it will not surrender to the oft-resulting escapism.

The risk is acknowledged but considered to be minor. SAT-7 will monitor user patterns as closely as possible but doesn’t play the commercial game of cliff hangers at the end of every episode. Instead, the ministry focuses on discipleship.

Past episodes are chosen not only according to their HD quality, but also their educational value. SAT-7’s music, teaching, and dramas have always aimed to build up the church.

Now, they also address the need of the region.

“The biggest problem in the Middle East is not war or poverty, but hopelessness,” El-Mounayer said.

“So with every program we make, we convey a message of hope—spoken by fellow Middle Eastern people, who have put their faith in Jesus Christ.”

Books
Excerpt

Russell Moore: Real Christian Courage Looks like Elijah at His Most Pathetic

My caution to those who “stand for truth” by calling down “fire from heaven” upon its enemies.

Christianity Today March 18, 2021
WikiMedia Commons / Edits by Christianity Today

At the moments in life when I’m feeling especially scared, I’ve noticed that Elijah is the last person I want to see.

The Courage to Stand: Facing Your Fear without Losing Your Soul

The Courage to Stand: Facing Your Fear without Losing Your Soul

B&H Books

304 pages

During one dark period, without any conscious decision, I remember altering my daily Bible reading of the Old Testament ever so slightly. I had been reading through 1 and 2 Samuel, then on into 1 Kings through the life of Solomon, when suddenly I veered over to the Psalms. As I thought about it, I became convinced I was avoiding that middle section of 1 and 2 Kings because I knew who was there: a prophet called Elijah. I wanted to avoid him the same way a laid-off person wants to avoid her “Employee of the Month” neighbor or the way an obese person wants to avoid his marathon-running brother-in-law. The comparison only highlights one’s inadequacies, whether real or perceived.

When we think of Elijah, we think of steely determination, the willingness to defy gods and kings, in scorn of the consequences. If you asked me as a child in Sunday school to draw a picture of Elijah, I would have drawn the scene on Mount Carmel, where he calls down fire from heaven. In that moment, Elijah is everything I want to be. He verbally spars with his opponents—sarcastically mocking their impotent god. He confidently pours water on his own sacrifice, he cries out to the skies, and then, with a bolt of incandescence, the fire falls.

That is strong; that is “prophetic.” And so, in moments when courage is lacking, I just want to do an end run around that hair-suited seer. But that’s harder than it may appear. Try to avoid Elijah in moving through the Bible, and one will find, much as King Ahab and Queen Jezebel did, that he has the annoying habit of showing up persistently, often when he is least expected.

That’s somewhat surprising because, at least in terms of space devoted to him, Elijah is not a major biblical figure. As a matter of fact, he is a kind of mayfly in the sunset of the Scriptures; one moment we see him, and the next he is gone in a literal blaze of glory. But Elijah’s absence is felt all over the rest of the Bible, even as his mantle and his spirit move on through the line of prophets. Indeed, the very last words of the Old Testament are about Elijah. As God told the prophet Malachi, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes” (Mal. 4:5, ESV throughout). And then there’s silence for 400 years.

When the story resumes in the New Testament, Elijah is everywhere, in hints and allusions and images. John the Baptist carried out the motif of the wild man of the woods with a word of impending judgment. And Jesus identified this baptizer—his own cousin—with the prophecies of the return of Elijah. At the same time, in his inaugural explanation of his ministry, Jesus pointed to Elijah and his successor Elisha as demonstrating that the good news of God’s kingdom was always meant to overwhelm national and ethnic boundaries (Luke 4:25–27). And, in the Gospels, many aspects of Jesus’ calling evoke scenes from the life of Elijah—from the raising of a widow’s son from death to miraculous provision of food to a visible ascent into heaven.

The real climax point

The Elijah narrative is certainly about courage, but not in the way that I always assumed. That’s because I, like many of us, often misunderstand both the definition of courage and the meaning of Elijah. Much of what I admired about Elijah is not actually the point of the story. I aspire to the sort of fearlessness that could respond right back to Ahab that the king, not the prophet, was the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17–18). The same sort of sass and swagger seems present when Elijah threatens drought, holding back rain by his word, and when he challenges the prophets of Baal to their contest on Mount Carmel. He doesn’t just defeat them; he humiliates them. Though they screamed and cut themselves, trying get the attention of Baal, “there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention” (v. 29).

Elijah needs no such theatrics. He simply calls for fire, and the fire falls. He was vindicated, uncontestably, as the one who bears real prophetic power.

When it comes to bold and unflinching courage, Mount Carmel is not the hinge point of the Elijah story but a prelude to something else. Right after this moment of triumph, Jezebel—the murderous wife of Ahab—vows to see Elijah dead by the next day. The Bible states, “Then he was afraid, and he arose and ran for his life” (19:3). The story only goes downward from there, as Elijah treks out into the wilderness to flee from this threat.

Far from the flannelgraph Spartacus I have expected since Sunday school, the picture of Elijah in the wilderness is almost pathetic. He is afraid. He is weak to the point of collapse. He is lonely and exhausted. He is questioning his own calling and mission. He seems depressed to the point of, at best, whining and, at worst, self-harm. And even when the crisis is resolved, God speaks to him not of his own bright future but of what God will do through others, rendering Elijah seemingly irrelevant.

Most often, when I have heard this account taught or preached, the focus has been on Elijah facing some form of “burnout.” The application is that human beings must protect ourselves from overextension. We hear practical recommendations drawn from God’s provision for Elijah—proper nutrition, adequate sleep, and time for prayer and reflection. This seems immediately relevant, of course, because many people find themselves in a place of exhaustion, caring for small children, elderly parents, or disabled spouses. Or perhaps they have invested all their identity in a career only to come to midlife and find numbness and disillusion.

But what Elijah was facing in the wilderness was no mere burnout, it seems to me, but something more comprehensive: a breakdown. In the wilderness, God was doing for Elijah what Elijah had done on the mountain—removing the Baals, this time from the prophet’s own heart.

The way of courage, as defined by the gospel, is not the pagan virtue of steeliness and fearlessness, much less our ambient culture’s picture of winning and displaying or strength and swagger. If we misunderstand the true climax point of the Elijah story, we will follow him somewhere other than where he ultimately was led: to the crucified glory of Jesus Christ. We will conclude, mistakenly, that Elijah was the picture of courage we think we need: the ideal celebrated in everything from ancient Greek legends to modern action films to the cavalier confidence we feign in ourselves.

Elijah is not a picture of courage through triumph but of courage through crucifixion. His life was a dramatic enactment, ahead of time, of the Cross—just as your life is a dramatic enactment, after the fact, of that same Cross. That’s why he’s the model we need.

Starkly vulnerable

Consider the way Jesus identifies the “spirit of Elijah” in the life of his cousin, John the baptizer. Like Elijah, John’s ministry is not all boldness and bluster. Yes, John, like Elijah, calls a rebellious people away from their idols to a living God. And yes, like Elijah, he delivers a word of rebuke to a wicked ruler.

John the Baptist in the WildernessWikiMedia Commons / Illustration by Mallory Rentsch
John the Baptist in the Wilderness

But John is no untouchable hero. Even after baptizing Jesus and hearing God pronounce the Nazarene his beloved Son, John feared he was wrong. From his jail cell, he sent messengers to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3). A narcissistic cult leader or political guru would be offended by this wobbliness, but Jesus was not. He commended John as the greatest of all the prophets up until that time.

For Jesus, John’s continuity with Elijah was not, as assumed, in his power and confidence but in this weakness and fear. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force,” Jesus said. “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” (vv. 12–14).

Later, after Elijah appeared on a mountain with Jesus before his disciples, Jesus said that his followers misunderstood what they should expect from Elijah. They were perplexed that, after manifesting briefly, Elijah would go away, leaving Jesus alone—and on his way to crucifixion. They asked why the teachers of the Scripture said that Elijah must return first, before the restoring of all things. Jesus pointed them not to Elijah’s winning argumentation or his miraculous scenes but to his humiliation and suffering. “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?” Jesus taught. “But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him” (Mark 9:12–13).

Indeed, Scripture presents John from start to finish as starkly vulnerable. Even when we do find the fiery prophet we expect, he is essentially exiled from his home and community, eating an unpalatable diet and preaching an even more unpalatable message. Ultimately, of course, we see him as a head on a silver platter. None of this is a deviation from the way of Elijah. It is the way of Elijah. That’s why Jesus, soon after identifying himself with Elijah, was exiled from his community and in danger of an angry hometown crowd throwing him from the precipice of the mountain overlooking his village (Luke 4:28–30).

We can see, then, how the “fire from heaven” Elijah is explained by the “lost in the wilderness” Elijah, not the other way around—just as Christ’s glory is revealed in his crucifixion. The Cross is not a momentary deviation from glory but where we find a glory different from that of the world, different from what we would create for ourselves.

Elijah encounters God at the moment of crisis and collapse. And that’s where he, and we, can find the courage to stand. But even that language of “standing” can deceive us. We talk about standing for what we believe, and by that we typically mean a pose of confidence, like leadership coaches who tell their clients to project strength through body language. What it means to stand for Christ is not, it turns out, to rid ourselves of all fear or to humiliate our enemies with incontrovertible “winning” but instead to live out in our very lives the drama of the Cross. Courage comes not from matching the world’s power and wisdom with more of our own but by being led, like Elijah, where we do not want to go (John 21:18).

The crucifiable self

This sort of courage is formed not only in crisis but also amid the little turning points in life that shape, over time, who we are, what we love, what we fear, and how we stand. These are the moments where things could go one way or the other, and they usually aren’t dramatic and cinematic. Thus, the chief need in every era is not what first leaps to mind when we think of courage—physical bravery—but instead what might be called “moral courage.” Mark Twain once wrote, “It is curious—curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare.” Twain was reflecting on a moment of unwillingness to take an unpopular public stance for fear of “saying the disagreeable thing” and being out of step with his peers. That sort of fear, he said, is part of human nature, and he didn’t see it changing.

Scripture gives insight into why moral cowardice is so universal among human beings. Jesus did many signs before the crowds, the apostle John wrote, and yet most of the people did not believe. Quoting the prophetic writings, John said, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him,” and yet: “Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:41–43).

This is hardly unique to these first-century Jewish people. Everyone, no matter whom or where or when, has similar “Pharisees”—gatekeepers of who is “in” and who is “out.” Everyone fears being cast out of some sort of “synagogue.” For some, it’s a political tribe, a religious group, a generational cohort, or just a sense of being “normal” in the world. We want, if not applause, then at least not rejection and insecurity.

The problem is that much of what Scripture defines as courage—kindness, humility, the bridling of the passions—our culture sees as timidity. Meanwhile, many who feel themselves courageous because they “tell it like it is” are really just playing to their protective tribes. They may believe they “stand” for something, but this is not courage, if courage is defined by Christ. Following him isn’t a matter of taking the correct side of issues and doctrines. It’s about walking alongside him, even when, like Christ’s first followers, we can’t see what’s ahead.

Your courage will not be found in triumphant Mount Carmel moments, when you scatter your enemies, real and imagined. It will be forged, instead, when you cannot stand on your own at all, when you are collapsed in the wild places, maybe even begging for death. Elijah thought he was walking to Mount Sinai, but he was really walking toward Mount Calvary. And so are you. Only the crucifiable self can find the courage to stand.

Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This article is adapted, with permission from the publisher, from his book The Courage to Stand: Facing Your Fear without Losing Your Soul (B&H).

News

Is COVID-19 God’s Punishment? African Christians Debate as Their Presidents Die

The deaths of Tanzania’s John Magufuli, announced today, and Burundi’s Pierre Nkurunziza last summer feed discussion over God’s approach to corporate sin and repentance.

Tanzania's President John Magufuli speaks at the national congress of his ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi party in Dodoma, Tanzania, on July 11, 2020.

Tanzania's President John Magufuli speaks at the national congress of his ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi party in Dodoma, Tanzania, on July 11, 2020.

Christianity Today March 17, 2021
AP Photo

The Tanzanian government confirmed today that President John Magufuli has died.

“It is sad news. Our beloved president passed on at 6 p.m. this evening,” said Vice President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who per the East African nation’s constitution will now become its first female president. “We have lost our courageous leader. All flags will be flown at half mast for 14 days.”

What officials did not confirm was weeks of speculation by opposition leaders and regional media that the 62-year-old had contracted COVID-19. The official cause of death: heart complications.

However, the situation echoed the chatter in neighboring Burundi last June, when President Pierre Nkurunziza died of COVID-19 at age 55, as both leaders drew criticism for their approach to the pandemic.

During a recent prayer service at Rugombo Pentecostal Church in the Cibitoke area of Burundi’s capital, Bujumbura, more than 100 worshipers followed pastor Joseph Ndayizeye as he led them in prayer.

He addressed the ongoing pandemic, stating that God is punishing human beings for their sins.

“It is not normal for the virus to invade the country and even kill the president,” prayed Ndayizeye, referring to Nkurunziza. “God punished us with the coronavirus pandemic because of our sins. Let us repent our sins and ask God for forgiveness and our prayers will be heard.”

His prayer is mirrored across the country of almost 12 million people. Many religious leaders in Burundi are reminding their congregants that God is angry with mankind for constantly sinning without repenting.

Ndayizeye noted that Burundian authorities have continued to commit serious human rights abuses against civilians and detainees with impunity.

“You cannot kill innocent people and promote evil like same-sex marriage and go unpunished,” he warned. “But our God is merciful. When we pray to him, there’s nothing impossible. He will defeat the coronavirus and we will be free.”

Burundi has recorded about 2,500 coronavirus cases, with 3 fatalities. In response, many citizens have intensified prayers and sought divine intervention in the fight against the deadly virus.

Although the landlocked country has closed its borders as new measures against the pandemic, officials said they have no plans to accept COVID-19 vaccines after the health minister, Thaddee Ndikumana, expressed reservations.

“Since more than 95 percent of patients are recovering, we estimate that the vaccines are not yet necessary,” said Ndikumana, noting the nation will focus on prevention measures.

Pascal Nyabenda, a politician who served as president of the National Assembly of Burundi from 2015 to 2020, has claimed that the virus was brought by God to punish the nation for its sins and urges churches to continue praying so that citizens will be safe from the pandemic.

“Only God can save this nation as we continue to observe the health protocols laid down by the ministry of health. Let us pray and ask for forgiveness from God,” he recently said at a Pentecostal church in northern Burundi.

However, pastor John Bigirimana has warned religious leaders and government officials about misquoting Bible verses and using them out of context to misinform the public about the pandemic. He said being born again does not mean that people should stop thinking and act brainwashed as in a cult. Instead, he urged Burundians to protect themselves from the virus and to embrace vaccines, saying Christians should have faith in both science and God.

“People should realize that COVID-19 is alive and seek medication and even get vaccinated,” said the pastor of Buterere Pentecostal Church in Bujumbura. “There’s nowhere in the scriptures where God commands Christians not to seek medical assistance. This is a pandemic all over the world. It’s not only to Burundians. Let’s not be cheated, unless we all want to die.”

Across the border, Magufuli on several occasions insisted that his country of 60 million, with a population roughly two-thirds Christian and one-third Muslim, had long defeated the virus through prayers. Before he was hospitalized, the president urged Tanzanians to pray for three days to defeat the new coronavirus variants amid warnings that the nation was seeing a deadly resurgence in COVID-19 infections.

“Maybe we have wronged God somewhere. Let us all repent,” Magufuli, who was a Catholic, told mourners at a funeral for his chief secretary, John Kijazi, on February 19. “God has never forsaken this nation. Let’s pray and fast for three days, I am sure we will win. We won last year, we will win this year and years to come.”

The Tanzanian president never locked down his nation to prevent the spread of the virus. Markets, churches, sport events, bars, and restaurants have remained open since the country confirmed its first case of COVID-19 a year ago. Authorities stopped updating virus cases last year when there were 509 cases and 21 deaths.

Magufuli also rejected COVID-19 vaccines for being promoted by foreign companies and countries, and had refused to embrace face masks and social distancing measures.

But the latest surge in COVID-19 deaths has left religious leaders and residents who initially believed in the power of prayer worried and concerned about their safety. Tanzania lost 10 other prominent citizens to coronavirus-like symptoms in recent weeks. Among them was Seif Sharif Hamad, the vice president of the semi-autonomous island region of Zanzibar, whose infection with COVID-19 had been announced by his political party.

Tanzanian pastor Joseph Mayala Mitinje said that although God heals virtually every known disease, it was time for Christians to understand that God often uses medicine to accomplish his healing.

“I don’t believe that there’s any disease that God cannot heal. He has given us the authority to cast out evil spirits and to heal every kind of disease and illness,” said Mitinje, an evangelical pastor who ministers at Africa Inland Church Tanzania in Arusha. “But God has filled men and women with the spirit of healing. Some go through medical college, and others God just fills them with the spirit of intelligence, knowledge, skills, and understanding like Bezalel and Oholiab [Exodus 31].”

“We should all understand that healing comes from God either through prayers or medical knowledge, because that’s a gift from God for the benefit of the public,” he said. “Jesus has healed a lot of people with coronavirus, but it’s not being reported because not everyone with COVID-19 is dying.”

Earlier this month, Tanzania’s Catholic church publicly acknowledged the reality that the virus was spreading. The leaders announced that the church had lost 60 nuns and 25 priests in the past two months who had shown symptoms.

“Priests are dying and sisters are dying, but this number within two months has shocked us especially considering the government has strengthened better health systems," said Father Charles Kitima, secretary of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference, in a statement in Dar es Salaam. “Please continue taking precautions against this disease by following the instructions of the Ministry of Health.”

As COVID-19 continues to ravage the globe, with about 121 million confirmed cases and more than 2.6 million related deaths, the debate among East African Christians over the role of faith and prayer in fighting the disease continues to escalate.

“Can God heal a person from coronavirus? The answer is both yes and no,” said Erick Onzere, a Pentecostal pastor with the Assemblies of God in Kenya. “To those who believe in the name of the Son of God will obviously receive any kind of healing because there is power in the name of Jesus. But it’s difficult to receive healing or anything from Christ if we don’t believe he can give it to us. God heals in response to faith.”

However, Damaris Parsitau, a senior lecturer at the department of philosophy, history, and religious studies at Egerton University in Kenya, said no amount of prayers or faith can cure the virus. She believes only science and medicine are a reliable solution to the pandemic.

“African Christians have been praying for a cure for AIDS/HIV and Ebola for decades, but not a single person has certainly been cured of these dangerous viruses. The same logic should apply to COVID-19,” she wrote in an article for The Elephant.

“Faith and science should not be in contradiction with each other. Each plays important and significant roles in our lives,” she wrote. “Faith and prayers hold us together in hope and community while science tackles the virus in scientific and practical ways.”

Meanwhile, back in Burundi’s capital, Ndayizeye said even countries that have strictly followed health protocols laid down by the government have lost thousands of people to the virus. The Pentecostal pastor urged his congregation to repent and turn to God—citing the example of the Israelites begging Moses for help receiving forgiveness—to avoid imminent deaths.

“We have no choice right now but to trust God,” he said. “Repentance would bring healing.”

Additional reporting by Religion News Service

News
Wire Story

Black Pastors Push for Compromise Rather than Equality Act

Dozens of leaders are advocating for the Fairness for All proposal, which would match LGBT protections with religious exemptions.

Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday.

Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday.

Christianity Today March 17, 2021
Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Fifty-seven Black Christian leaders have written a letter to members of the US Senate’s Judiciary Committee expressing support for sweeping LGBT rights but asking for a new bill that includes religious exemptions.

The signers, including representatives of the major black Christian denominations, said passage of the Equality Act would deny federal funding for faith-based programs that profess a traditional view of sexuality. For example, it would end free and reduced-cost lunch programs for children who attend religious schools and revoke federal loan eligibility for tens of thousands of students who attend hundreds of religious colleges.

“…We want to clearly state our support for federal protections for LGBT persons in employment, housing and the like,” the letter states. “We’re committed to embracing and advocating for those safeguards. Unfortunately, the collaborative process and substance of the Equality Act fall well beneath the standard necessary to cultivate a healthy pluralistic society.”

The Equality Act, which passed the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives on February 25, would amend the Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It does not include exemptions for religious groups, and it would override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from “substantially burdening” individuals’ exercise of religion unless there’s a compelling government interest.

The Senate’s Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Equality Act on Wednesday. Despite broad Democratic Party support, in its current form the bill probably has no chance in the Senate, given it will need 10 Senate Republican votes in order to beat back a GOP filibuster.

The faith leaders are advocating for a rival bill called Fairness for All, which would provide broad protections for LGBTQ people and, at the same time, provide exemptions for religious institutions that uphold traditional beliefs about marriage and sexuality. That bill was introduced in the US House last month and is modeled on the “Utah Compromise,” a 2015 state law that strengthened religious freedom and protected LGBTQ people from discrimination.

The letter was written as part of the And Campaign, a Christian advocacy group committed to bringing conviction and compassion into the public square. The group is led by Justin Giboney, an Atlanta lawyer and political strategist who was a delegate to the 2012 and 2016 Democratic National Convention.

“We want to be clear that we want to embrace and advocate for LGBTQ rights,” Giboney told Religion News Service. “But we have to do it in a more thoughtful manner than the Equality Act does. Religious liberty and LGBTQ rights are not necessarily in conflict. The Utah Compromise and Fairness for All has shown us that.”

The letter is noteworthy because many evangelical and conservative Christians, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, oppose the idea of adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Among the signatories are A. R. Bernard, pastor of a Brooklyn megachurch and onetime evangelical adviser to former President Donald Trump (Bernard stepped down from that unofficial board in 2017); the Rev. Suzan Johnson-Cook, who served as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom under former President Barack Obama; and the Rev. Barbara Williams-Skinner, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The signers said that the Equality Act was not the result of a collaborative process and that it excluded the voices of faith leaders. (Several faith groups on the political left advocated for it.)

“The Equality Act is a reflection of our broken system, not an example of the civic spirit and good faith measures necessary to heal it,” the signers said.

In addition to threatening free lunch programs and Pell grants to religious institutions, the pastors said the bill would convert houses of worship and other religious properties into public accommodations. That means churches might be compelled to rent out their facilities for same-sex weddings, for example, despite objecting to the practice.

Church Life

Capturing the Transcendent Heartbeat of Jerusalem’s Christians

Local photographer Ofir Barak documents the worship of the city’s religious stewards.

Capturing the Transcendent Heartbeat of Jerusalem’s Christians

Palm Sunday | Church of the Holy Sepulchre

1 of 11

Palm Sunday | Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Dome | Church of the Holy Sepulchre, traditional site of Christ’s burial and resurrection

2 of 11

Dome | Church of the Holy Sepulchre, traditional site of Christ’s burial and resurrection

Ofir Barak

Confession Booth | Church of All Nations in Gethsemane, Roman Catholic basilica that houses what is said to be the stone where Jesus prayed before his arrest

3 of 11

Confession Booth | Church of All Nations in Gethsemane, Roman Catholic basilica that houses what is said to be the stone where Jesus prayed before his arrest

Ofir Barak

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

4 of 11

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Good Friday | Onlookers at the Via Dolorosa processional route

5 of 11

Good Friday | Onlookers at the Via Dolorosa processional route

Ofir Barak

Good Friday | Onlookers at the Via Dolorosa processional route

6 of 11

Good Friday | Onlookers at the Via Dolorosa processional route

Ofir Barak

Stone of Anointing | Traditional location where Christ’s body was laid after the Crucifixion, housed at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

7 of 11

Stone of Anointing | Traditional location where Christ’s body was laid after the Crucifixion, housed at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Stone of Anointing | Traditional location where Christ’s body was laid after the Crucifixion, housed at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

8 of 11

Stone of Anointing | Traditional location where Christ’s body was laid after the Crucifixion, housed at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Holy Fire Ceremony | Orthodox tradition of passing the “miraculous” flame in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

9 of 11

Holy Fire Ceremony | Orthodox tradition of passing the “miraculous” flame in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Pilgrims near the Aedicule at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

10 of 11

Pilgrims near the Aedicule at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Ofir Barak

Jordan River Baptism | Qasr al-Yahud, traditional location of Jesus’ baptism

11 of 11

Jordan River Baptism | Qasr al-Yahud, traditional location of Jesus’ baptism

Ofir Barak

Log in or subscribe to view the slideshow.

Israel leads most other nations in vaccinating against COVID-19. But foreign tourism to the Holy Land remains largely shut down, and Jerusalem this Easter will again be defined by much emptier streets, hotels, and restaurants than usual.

In the run-up to Holy Week last year, media producers released a slate of products to help homebound pilgrims experience the city virtually. Filmmakers debuted a documentary about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Jesus’ death, entombment, and resurrection. Museums and travel promoters released virtual reality tours of many of the spots on Christian visitors’ must-see lists.

Jerusalem, however, has always been more than a destination. It is an ancient city with a transcendent heartbeat, the cradle of Judaism and Christianity, the center of both interfaith and intra-faith conflicts. “It is a place,” says photographer Ofir Barak, “where kings, prophets, and pilgrims have all stood through the ages.”

For years, Barak has documented local worshipers through whom those deep roots run. His images here, taken between 2016 and 2020, were included in his self-published book Stones and Bones. They center on the people who have been discipled in the shadows of the Old City, even as believers from abroad mingle among them.

The local Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians steward strains of faith that predate jet travel. In ways that a 360-degree digital walkthrough cannot, Barak’s choice of black-and-white imagery challenges the presumptiveness of our passport-acquired experiences. As enlightening as real-life and even virtual visits can be, they are but temporal glimpses of eternal realities. —CT editors

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