News

Syrian Christians Are Anxious About New Regime

Through prayer and protest, believers struggle to interpret the promises of newly ascendant Islamist leadership.

Christian Syrians lift crosses and independence-era flags as they rally in the Duweilaah area of Damascus

Christian Syrians lift crosses and independence-era flags as they rally in the Duweilaah area of Damascus.

Christianity Today January 9, 2025
Louai Beshara / Getty

For years, “Maria” (we’re using a pseudonym, given the political situation) thought little about her apparel or how to greet her colleagues. A Christian and longtime Syrian government employee, she kept her head uncovered and wore Western business-casual attire. She greeted her coworkers with “sabah al-khayr,” which means “good morning” in Arabic.  

But an alliance of rebel forces, some connected to jihadist groups, has now seized government power. The new leaders in Damascus repeatedly say Christians, some of whom had allied with the Assad regime, face neither persecution nor displacement. Yet small aspects of Maria’s work life have already begun to change.

Recently, a new boss for her department informed the office that coworkers would now greet each other with “salamu alaykum,” Arabic for “peace be upon you.” That’s the standard greeting between religious Muslims. Maria wonders if changes might be gradual, that next week, or next month, or next year, she will be required to wear a hijab.

Maybe the new greeting requirement is a good sign. Since many radical Muslims refuse to exchange peace greetings with nonbelievers, maybe this new boss is inviting Maria into the traditional religious exchange. The new regime might be Islamic, but it might also be welcoming. Maybe.

Some gestures may have big meanings. The new government declared December 25 and 26 national holidays. Roughly 125 miles north of Damascus, in the Christian-majority town of Suqaylabiyah, hooded figures dressed in black burned the community’s Christmas tree two days before the holiday. Within a day, the new authorities vowed to replace the tree’s charred remains.

In Damascus, the country’s capital, residents of the Christian neighborhood of Bab Sharqi hung up a neon sign with “Merry Christmas” in cursive lettering. As in years prior, they set out Christmas trees on the “street called Straight” (Acts 9:11, ESV) a road which for centuries has commemorated the conversion of Paul.

But disturbed by Christmas tree arson, hundreds of Christians filled the Bab Sharqi streets on Christmas Eve, carrying crucifixes and Syrian flags. Some shouted, “We demand the rights of Christians.”

What are those rights? Pastor “Bassem,” who heads an evangelical church in Aleppo in northern Syria, watched a video of rebels entering a church in Latakia, a city on the Mediterranean coast that is also an Assad stronghold. They promised the Christians good treatment, but Bassem wonders how to interpret frequent declarations of religious tolerance.

Islamic law, Bassem noted, traditionally assures “people of the book”—Christians and Jews—of their place in a Muslim society. But for Bassem, behind such announcements rests an attitude of religious superiority: You are under our rules, but you will be okay. Maybe.

He does reflect on how, as the rebels advanced in November and early December, the clash between the fighters and military could easily have been violent. As forces advanced to the outskirts of Aleppo, Bassem gathered around 150 people in his congregation for a prayer meeting. Other churches in his evangelical network met similarly throughout Syria to pray that “there be no bloodshed.”

The new Syrian government’s consistent rhetoric of tolerance has some analysts asking: Is the talk merely an attempt to assuage a nervous international audience? Following the initial weeks of relative calm, the US removed a $10 million bounty on the new leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly with al-Qaeda. But it kept in place economic sanctions enacted against the previous regime, pending further developments.

Theology

Jimmy Carter at the Judgment Seat

Editor in Chief

The former president’s death at 100 has a lesson for the American church.

Christianity Today January 8, 2025
Illustration by Christianity Today / Source Images: Getty

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

Since the dawn of the modern media era, every American president’s funeral has been televised live. Since the dawn of the social media era, all those aspects of a presidential postmortem—the announcement of death, the lying in state, the funeral procession, the eulogies—are video-clipped and discussed across platforms.

Until the death of Jimmy Carter, though, we’ve not been accustomed to seeing a livestream of the judgment seat, when the deceased stands to give an account of his life and to hear the pronouncement of his eternal destiny. The judgment seat was not that of Jesus Christ, though—our technology is still not that good—but of the guardians of politicized American Christianity.

What I mean by this is not that some American Christians demonstrated a mean-spirited glee in denouncing at death someone they deemed an “enemy.” For those of us who grew up in the funeral culture of the Bible Belt South, we were taught this was at best impolite and at worst impious.

Those standards are long gone, but I was still disheartened to see how some American Christians have taken to social media to imply that Carter, who professed faith in Jesus Christ publicly and privately for the full lifetime of almost every person alive today, might be in hell.

Those outside of the evangelical Christianity subculture might not be aware that on some matters, we have developed unwritten rules of Jesuitical complexity to enable us to disobey certain clear directives of Jesus without having to admit to doing so. The elderly women in my home church would never approve of bragging about themselves, but doing so is made alright by adding the words “if I do say so myself” right before or after the boast.

Similarly, it might be hard to justify questioning the eternal destiny of a professing Christian, given Jesus’ command not to judge one another. All one need do, though, is add some caveats such as “No one knows the heart” and “God is the judge, but …” and “We can only hope” (with an implied shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders). Then one is allowed without penalty to say of one’s just-dead enemy what secularists can say more directly but never as literally: “Go to hell.”

What should interest us in all of this is not that religious people can be judgmental; the empty tomb was still warm when the earliest disciples started arguing about who was in and who was out. Instead, what we should note is not the judgment but the criteria by which it is made. That is what is revelatory about the state of the American evangelical Christianity of which Jimmy Carter was once, in the minds of much of the American public, the grinning face.

When revealing himself to his followers, the fundamental question Jesus asked was “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, ESV throughout). This had to do, first of all, with who Jesus is, and then with what he has done.

The apostle Paul wrote, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9), assuring that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (v. 13).

There is a category in the New Testament, some may say, for one who claims the name of Christ but has not really believed in him—what the 20th-century martyr-theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously called “cheap grace.”

Just a few years ago, he and I talked privately about all of those commitments, extensively, and about sharing the gospel with those who haven’t heard it. That’s not really in question.

So is the implication that Jimmy Carter might not have been a “real” Christian an indication of a kind of “works righteousness”? Does it mean his faith was opposed to the New Testament apostles’ gospel of grace, a gospel that cannot be earned but can only be received by simple, trusting faith?

As much as we should reject that kind of false gospel, at least it would be understandable. After all, the gospel of grace was so startling—to religious people—that the apostle Paul had to clarify repeatedly that it did not mean “Sin all you want, because Jesus” (Rom. 3:5–8).

Works righteousness seems plausible enough that it could “bewitch” the faith of entire first-century churches (see the Book of Galatians), precisely because God does, in fact, call us to obedience and holiness. A faith that does not work itself out in love is, James writes, “dead” (2:17).

Almost no one charges Carter with rejecting the affirmations of the person and work of Christ found in the New Testament and reiterated in the historic creeds: the deity and humanity of Jesus, his atoning work on the cross, his bodily resurrection from the dead. Almost no one questions Carter’s own sense of what the gospel was—that he saw himself as a sinner who could not justify himself in the eyes of God and as one who trusted in the blood and righteousness of Jesus for eternal life. Carter himself made that clear publicly.

Virtually no one questions the personal character of Carter, who was faithful to his wife, Rosalynn, to the point of asking that she be home for hospice so he could hold hands with her in bed. He can’t even be charged with self-righteousness over his sexual morality, given his infamous “lust in my heart” interview, which almost derailed his 1976 presidential campaign. In it, he pointed out that he could not judge others because, by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount standards, his internal heart-wandering meant he was an adulterer too, in need of God’s grace.

The expressed doubts over whether Carter was a “real” Christian has to do instead with a different standard—that of belonging to the right political tribe and holding to the right political and social opinions. Therein lies the tragedy of 21st-century American Christianity.

On many of those political tribal opinions, I too would differ with Carter, and I too would see many of them as of great importance. For over 30 years, I’ve worked in the pro-life movement in opposition to abortion. Carter said he personally opposed abortion and thought it should not be government funded, but he thought the state should allow it. I think he was gravely wrong on that. Carter also believed that Jesus’ principles of nonretaliation and opposition to the taking of life meant that capital punishment is always immoral. I disagree.

Before the abortion debate became what it was in the mid- to late-1970s (largely due to the advocacy and public education work of mostly Roman Catholic pro-life thinkers and activists), not a few very conservative evangelical Christians, such as Southern Baptist conservative patriarch W. A. Criswell and Christianity Today’s founding editor in chief Carl F. H. Henry, were in the same camp as Carter—personally disapproving of abortion but believing it should be legal in many cases. I’m glad they changed their minds.

The question is, though, after they changed their minds, should they have sought baptism? In other words, were they non-Christians when they had the wrong view? Would they have gone to heaven if they had died five minutes before they came to the right view?

Many have noted that virtually no one who question Carter’s personal salvation—given his positions on justice issues for unborn children (in addition to other, much less important, social and political matters)—questions the personal salvation of 18th- and 19th-century professing Christians who opposed the abolition of a system that kidnapped, bought, and sold people as chattel property, separated families, exploited their labor, and systematically raped those made in the image of God.

And most of those who would question whether Carter was “really saved” also defend those who deny historic, creedal, and doctrinal non-negotiables on matters such as the doctrine of God and the Trinity. They defend such people not just as Christians but as Christian teachers and leaders, so long as they are in-bounds on what really matters: support of the right politicians and opposition to the wrong ones. That’s what the old “fundamentalists” would have called “modernism.”

That kind of Christianity is easier than both the true gospel of grace and the false gospel of works. To hold to a true works righteousness, after all, one would have to at least pretend to obey the moral demands of God—both in pursuit of public justice and in fidelity to personal virtues. We all fall short, though, of the glory of God. So to pretend to be justified by such things requires deception of others (Rom. 2:17–24) or of self (1 John 1:8).

American Christianity has found a much easier form of works righteousness—one that doesn’t require, well, work. One can be in a horrible marriage, filled with envy or rage or pride, piling up wealth for oneself while disregarding neighbor, but be justified as a “real” Christian by pontificating all the right political and social positions.

That doesn’t cost a thing. In fact, if you do it right, it can even make you rich.

Justification by ideology alone is also much easier than faith. To follow Jesus, after all, means declaring personal moral bankruptcy. It means giving up hope in being good enough or right enough to be the right kind of person for heaven.

It means realizing that external conformity—whether of hard things, like building houses for the poor or eradicating guinea worm, or easy things, like expounding a “Christian worldview” in which, surprisingly enough, the principles and priorities are the same as those of your political party—can never be enough. You must be born again.

For years, a certain kind of politicized evangelical has used Jimmy Carter as an example of why personal character and piety is not enough for public leadership: “The qualifications to be president are different than the qualifications to be a Sunday school teacher.”

Fair enough. But what if, all along, what they really meant is that they want the qualifications for a Sunday school teacher to be the same as those of a politician?

The sort of world that defines one’s politics as the whole of one’s identity is bad for a country, bad for a person. But the sort of world that defines one’s gospel by such things is infinitely worse.

If Jesus is right about the gospel, Jimmy Carter is in heaven. And so are a lot of other people—a number no man can count—who were wrong on some or another serious political or moral or social question. As a matter of fact, I think that description will include every human being there, except for the one actually sitting on the judgment seat.

Russell Moore is the editor in chief at Christianity Today and leads its Public Theology Project.

Ashley Lande
Testimony

I Turned to New Age Psychedelics for Salvation. They Couldn’t Deliver.

Shrooms glittered on the surface—but hid a dark chasm underneath. That’s where Jesus found me.

Photography by D.C. Williams for Christianity Today

As I danced down the sidewalk, the monstrous cockroaches that emerged in hordes at night fled beneath my bare feet.

I was 23, very high on LSD, and starring in a rousing dance number of my own creation, choreographed to music only I could hear. I was aflame with infinite love light beauty wisdom awareness truth compassion (whichever abstract word or emotion I felt), a litany I shared with baffled friends once I’d reached my destination. I believed I was alive—really, truly alive. And LSD got me there.

A year earlier, a self-styled acid guru had offered me the drug at a low point in my young life, and I’d accepted. It changed everything—the series of botched jobs I’d had since graduating college didn’t seem to matter anymore.

My second trip on LSD felt so transcendent that I called my dad the day after to tell him, tearfully, that I believed in God now. Of course, I omitted the fact that I’d come by this revelation while on drugs and that I couldn’t begin to define this “god.” To my dad, a believer, it must have appeared to be a step forward, or at least a step away from the combative atheism of my youth.

After that, I became a rabid proselytizer for psychedelics. I had felt an unbearable chasm between me and the source of life, whatever or whomever that was. I thought maybe LSD could bridge it—and it seemed to for a while.

“It’s like it breaks you out of linear time!” I yelled to a bewildered former colleague at a noisy bar, scrawling an illustration on a napkin. “It’s like you inhale the whole world.”

I couldn’t have said where LSD was taking me. Here, there, everywhere, and that was enough for me. Or so I thought. But soon, a shadow of dread, barely perceptible, eclipsed my ecstasy. Where was I going? I couldn’t have said. What was life? What was death? Did it matter?


I met my husband at our drug dealer’s house during a snowstorm, in a giddy fever of acid-saturated infatuation, and we were married in less than a year. We were certain we were on the cusp of a psychedelic revolution.

After our first child was born, though, I began to question the New Age ideals I’d embraced, the ones that dovetailed so readily with my LSD trips. I believed we were all one and we were all God: The icon of the Hindu goddess Kali on our wall was as much a manifestation of God as the Ganesh statuette on a shelf. There was no such thing as sin. Suffering was an illusion to be overcome.

Yet the suffering of childbirth had felt very, very real. And the harder I tried to police my own thoughts, the more I found I couldn’t purify my own rancid heart, even though the concept of sin was anathema to the circles in which I ran.

A friend gave us a children’s book that aimed to introduce New Age concepts such as how we will be absorbed back into cosmic oneness upon death. “I am my ball, I am my feet,” the little boy in the illustrations stated happily. “I am the puppy across the street!”

I’d uncritically accepted these concepts when they came through more sophisticated words—but now that they were distilled into a child’s simple declaratives, my heart reared back in disgust. I looked at my precious son, golden haired with squishy toddler rolls, and I realized I didn’t want him to be absorbed back into the oneness. My heart rebelled and grew faint at the very idea, yet I didn’t know where else to turn.

Rock Texture

With my pregnancy and the birth of our son, our psychedelic use had largely given way to practices like yoga and meditation, but we still relished the rare night to ourselves when we could trip. It was better this way, I convinced myself—rarer and therefore more transcendent.

But the truth was I could no longer seem to have a good trip. There was, at best, a hum of dread underlying the whole experience—or, at worst, terror and disintegration. And I couldn’t seem to shake the idea that LSD was no longer a glimmering path to destinations beyond.


Kerry was a childhood friend of mine who had never abandoned the Christian faith in which she was raised, and she embraced it with a fresh fervor in college. It made me roll my eyes. I cringed at the earnestness of her genuine belief that there was a God who acted directly in her life, and I felt allergic to hearing anything about Jesus.

We reconnected after we both had children, and she invited me into her home for playdates. She had a son a year or two older than mine and a daughter named Joella, an adorable baby with large blue eyes and a pigtail on each side of her head.

Joella and her older brother would sit next to my son and sift through Cheerios while I would talk to Kerry about whatever New Age theory I was into lately. Kerry would never balk or start in outrage at anything I said, but she would also never affirm me, only quietly and gently refute me with Bible verses, many of which she had memorized.

The Word of God had no immediate effect on me, but her persistence in reciting from it was like a consistent flow of water over rock. In the still of the night, after I’d gone home, my confident dismissal of it didn’t seem so firm. But I couldn’t yet yield to the mysteries of sin, blood, sacrifice, and God-with-us that Christianity offered.

And then Joella died.

Three weeks after her diagnosis, the leukemia did its evil work. She had just turned two. At her funeral, I approached the tiny casket, trembling, while my own eight-week-old baby moved imperceptibly in my womb.

Almost as confounding as the tragedy itself was how Kerry and her husband were being sustained through it by something that I couldn’t yet fathom. They were heartbroken yet not completely destroyed. They grieved, but as Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, they did not grieve as those without hope. I was mystified.

Kerry told me the hymn “It Is Well with My Soul” had ministered to her and her husband in the wake of Joella’s passing. Horatio Spafford composed it just days after losing four of his daughters at sea, she said. I put it on a playlist but then promptly forgot about it.

It wasn’t until several months later that I listened to the hymn. Sitting on the front porch while my children played, my attention was drawn to the rich harmony of voices coming through the screen door:

My sin, oh, the bliss of this
glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross,
and I bear it no more.

Suddenly, all the trifling New Age conceptions of what ailed humanity were insufficient to account for the sordid mess of history. There was something very wrong with me, with us. The tragic death of a child woke me up to the fact that the world was broken, and so was I. All my journeys into the psychedelic hinterlands, all my attempts to clear my mind through meditation, all my grueling yoga sessions for the sake of some elusive “enlightenment” were worse than worthless. I couldn’t save myself. But Jesus could.

Jesus on the cross. Jesus resurrected. God who became flesh to save us. There could be no other savior, no other path to transcendence, I knew. It was humbling and wondrous to realize that Jesus Christ would not be co-opted into my pantheon of gods. He made a claim upon my whole life that demanded a response.

When my husband got home from work that evening, I told him we needed to toss all our syncretistic bric-a-brac. With gods like these, I thought as I pulled down the image of Kali, with her lei of decapitated heads, who needs demons? My husband readily agreed. All the while, God had been at work in his life too.

A couple months later, I met Kerry at a busy playground. While the buzz of screaming children whirled around us and our own children played in the sand nearby, I tearfully told her that I had embraced Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

“Praise God!” she said, her own eyes glistening with tears.

My husband and I started going to church regularly, and we never tripped again—though it took years to heal from the damage I’d inflicted on my fragile mind with drugs. I don’t thank the Lord enough for restoring me to relative sanity after how many times I assailed my brain with chemicals.

In the end, I finally found the thing that would make everything okay forever—in the last place I wanted to look.

Ashley Lande is a writer and artist living in rural Kansas with her husband and four children. She is the author of the memoir The Thing That Would Make Everything Okay Forever: Transcendence, Psychedelics, and Jesus Christ.

Church Life

The False Gospel of Our Inner Critic

Guest Columnist

Our capacity to experience intimacy with Jesus is linked to our internal dialogue.

The shadow of a man being mean to himself
Illustration by Keith Negley

The well-worn cliché is true: They don’t teach you everything you need to know in seminary.

When I was pastoring, I navigated my church through a highly combative and politically volatile building project. We had been meeting in a school cafeteria and were trying to transition to our own building. I had never led a church through a capital campaign, and I had little understanding of local politics. The mistakes I made were legion.

The problem with leadership mistakes is that most of them are on display for others. It’s one thing to make a mistake contained to yourself or your close circle; it’s another to make mistakes in public for all to see. Public mistakes are exposing, and my inner critic had much to say: You should know better—even though I had never done it before. More pointedly: See how stupid you are? Everyone can see it.

I have battled a low-grade feeling of stupidity my whole life and never outgrown it. Even as an adult, it doesn’t take much for me to feel stupid—and consequentially, exposed. Leading through a building project helped me get very familiar with my inner critic. (Are you familiar with yours?) I decided it was time to learn to wrangle it, so I began to pay close attention to its messages.

Here are the statements it would tell me over and over: You should know better by now. You are stupid and everyone knows it. You are not worth being loved. You are not worth people’s time.

It is quite arresting to read the message of my inner critic written plainly like that. If I don’t wrangle him, his words become like a stagnant pond in my soul, breeding and growing all manner of shame toxins. How can we learn to turn down the noise of our inner critic and hear what God has to say about us?

When I dug deeper inside my soul to learn what was going on, I realized my inner critic was speaking a “gospel” to me. I had never considered that I was believing a false gospel when I gave this unwelcome character a seat at the table.

Every gospel—every belief—offers you something (a promise), tells you what you must do to get it (a path), and reminds you there is a cost (a payment). When I look back at the ancient Egyptian religion or even the Roman Empire in Jesus’ day, I see path, promise, and payment on display.

Rome offered the promise of peace, for example, but the path to get it cost a tremendous payment in taxes, slavery, and often the deaths of loved ones.

When I was a teenager in Australia, the gospel promise I chased was belonging. The path was to make a girl laugh, get good grades, or be a standout athlete. In the words of the late, great Meat Loaf, “Two out of three ain’t bad.” I would happily get a C in physics if I could get a girl to laugh. For those who like to keep score, I was zero for three in the gospel of teenage boys.

My inner critic’s gospel promises protection. He stands like a sentry guarding me from outside threats, and he condemns me out of a weird self-protection. He tells me it is better to criticize myself than to let my guard down, be vulnerable, and receive the criticism of others. Better to condemn myself than to perceive the crushing condemnation of others.

But my goodness, my inner critic makes me pay. As I examined my belief structure, I discovered that I never got the promise of protection; instead, I just got condemnation.

In every gospel except one, the humans do the paying and the “gods” get the benefit. If we look back at ancient Rome, we see that the people did all the paying and Caesar got all the benefit. Not many in the Roman Empire would have described their lives as peaceful—quite the opposite.

My teenage gospel also made me pay. I would spend hours agonizing over what I said to someone and how I might fit in the next day at school. It is only in Jesus’ gospel that God pays and we benefit. As I paid attention to this simple “path, promise, and payment” idea, I realized I could compare the gospel of my inner critic to the gospel of Jesus and see who is telling the truth. I doubt you are in much suspense at this point.

John reminds us in 1 John 3:19–20,

This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in [God’s] presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

John shows us how our inner critic condemns us when we feel vulnerable and exposed, but he also reminds us that we are safe in God’s presence. We can instruct our inner critic to stand down and relax. It does not need to protect us from outside harm, because God is our refuge and strength. And, thankfully, he—not others and not our inner critics—has the final say over who we are.

Fans of the Netflix show The Crown are aware that there are rules when you are summoned to Buckingham Palace. If King Charles were to ever summon me, I would happily—and dutifully—go.

But there are strict rules for meeting a human king. Traditionally, the king gets the first word, and the king gets the last word. You are permitted to speak in the middle of the dialogue. I’ve found this helpful as I approach my sovereign, King Jesus.

Because the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, because God is who he says he is, and because I am who he says I am, I orient my life around his Word first. When my inner critic speaks up, I let him run his mouth for a while, but once he’s done, I read God’s Word as the last word.

I tried to fire my inner critic once, but he still showed up to work the next day. He’s not going anywhere. I cannot eliminate his words, but I can contain them so he no longer gets the last word.

Steve Cuss is the host of CT’s podcast also called Being Human.

Theology

How a Book Club Taught Me to Live and Die

Editor in Chief

The point was not the reading—it was the friendship.

A circle of chairs made out of books
Illustration by James Walton

Addressing the complaint that her writing wasn’t uplifting enough, Flannery O’Connor once quipped, “One old lady who wants her heart lifted up wouldn’t be so bad, but you multiply her 250,000 times and what you get is a book club.” She did not mean this as a compliment.

For most of my life, I would have taken O’Connor’s side in this (as I would in most arguments). Even apart from the least-common-denominator “book of the month” clubs she implied, the term book club often connotes a grown-up version of middle school kids trying to start an oral class report on Moby-Dick with “Herman Melville was a very, very important man.”

That all changed for me about five years ago, when I joined a book club that changed my life.

I was reluctant to do it because the last thing I wanted was another Zoom meeting in my schedule. But being present on those Wednesday nights has become one of the most important ways I have survived the tumultuous last several years.

At some point, I noticed that what was most important about this book club was not the intellectual conversations about books. As time has gone on, it takes us longer and longer to get to whatever book we’re discussing that week. Instead, we talk about what’s really happening with us—who’s thinking about changing jobs, who’s worried about a son or daughter, whose elderly parent is falling more these days, whose friend is grappling with depression.

Over time, one member and then another, and then two others, grew ill with cancer. Two of them went through treatment and are doing well. Two of them—Tim Keller and Michael Gerson—died. Almost all of them logged in to the book club from their hospital rooms to talk about Dallas Willard and Alexis de Tocqueville, while what we were all really learning from one another was how to die well.

We seemed to know that in days filled with medical charts and blood levels, there was something healing for them—for all of us—to talk about Abraham Kuyper or Jacques Ellul. And the subtext of all those conversations, even for this group of bookish, cerebral men, was saying, “We love you, we’re with you, and you’re not alone” to the one in the hospital room.

One day, I said to my wife, “The secret of all this is that it’s not really a book club; the books are the excuse we give ourselves to make sure we’re all there.” In that sense, the reason I keep coming back is akin to the lonely man whom songwriter Don Williams talks about, the one who insists about his neighborhood bar, “I just come here for the music.”

Political scientist Robert Putnam, who wrote Bowling Alone, a study of the American loss of community, told The New York Times this year that his lament for the loss of bowling clubs is sometimes misunderstood. We need those kinds of mediating institutions—outside the family and outside the state—in order to build civil society, he said, but “you don’t bowl so you can build a better community, you bowl because it’s fun.”

“And in the doing of the bowling, in a team, you’re hanging out with folks and sometimes you’re talking about the latest TV show, or occasionally you might talk about the garbage pickup in town. And that’s democracy.” In other words, we come to community not by setting out to “commune” but by coming at it sideways.

C. S. Lewis described the love of friendship itself as dependent on that kind of dynamic. Friendship, he said, is not mere companionship—doing the same thing together—but it starts out that way: “Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice.” Or books. He continued,

The Companionship was be-tween people who were doing something together—hunting, studying, painting or what you will. The Friends will still be doing something together, but something more inward, less widely shared and less easily defined; still hunters, but of some immaterial quarry; still collaborating, but in some work the world does not, or not yet, take account of; still travelling companions, but on a different kind of journey. Hence we picture lovers face to face but Friends side by side; their eyes look ahead.

One doesn’t apply somewhere to find friends—the way one might find a date on an app or a job on the internet. Often, we have to have something we love in common to keep us coming back, to keep us from withdrawing into ourselves. For my group, it was books. And maybe for us, that was the best way to do it.

Reading, after all, is a solitary activity. It’s hard to read in community. One has to ponder, to think. As a matter of fact, scholars tell us that literacy is what led to the concept of individuality, which has led civilization to great good—human rights and dignity, democracy, scientific research that has saved billions of lives. But it’s also brought loneliness and isolation.

And yet even reading—one of the most individual of acts—can be used to gather people together, to talk, to discuss, to realize the sort of exclamation that Lewis described as the fundamental core of friendship: “You too? I thought I was the only one.”

A book club is not for everybody. For some people, it’s building barns or sitting in a deer stand or, yes, bowling. But when—in any of those circumstances—one finds a genuine circle of friends who trust each other, who aren’t afraid to lose face in front of or be vulnerable with each other, what’s gained is immeasurable.

I suppose I realized this when, one night after book club, I realized I had to update my funeral plans, tucked away in the “just in case” file for my wife.

A lot of the people I had written down to give eulogies or pray prayers no longer speak to me—mostly over our differing views on politics. I noticed that the people I wanted to be sure were there included the men I gather with on Wednesday nights to talk about books. Twice before, we’ve gathered at a funeral for one of us, and it comforts me to know they might gather at mine.

Being a reader is not just about the mind. It’s not even just about the heart. Sometimes, a reader multiplied by 12 or 13 is a book club. Unlike Flannery O’Connor, I mean that as a very good thing.

Russell Moore is editor in chief at Christianity Today and leads its Public Theology project.

Culture

Something Holy Shines

Malcolm Guite on how Coleridge, Shakespeare, and C.S. Lewis help us understand the poetic imagination.

A woman is in the field, looking up at the sky.

Illustration by Sally Deng

Why might a thoughtful Christian choose to take an interest in poetry? Is there something in the poetic imagination that might be of special importance in an age that has been so heavily weighted toward the analytic reasonings of the mind?

In our compartmentalized, individualized, and divided world, the arts are often relegated to something purely subjective, a matter of individual taste, a private aesthetic thrill to compensate for—or numb our minds to—the grimness of a fallen world. Poetry has been reduced to something niche and peculiar; most people aren’t sure what poetry even is, and they assume it’s not for them, irrelevant to their lives. But this view is the exact opposite of how the arts and artists were once seen.

The Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge saw poetry as a way of knowing, a way of discovering objective facts as valid as any scientific reasoning. For Coleridge, poetry’s function is to help us—just as science might—look out and see what is really there.

In Biographia Literaria, Coleridge writes that we have come to treat nature as an agglomeration of stuff for us to exploit. Through what he calls “selfish solicitude,” we demand from the world all its goods and resources for our own ends without considering its intrinsic being or purpose.

To make that exploitation easier, we throw a “film of familiarity” over it, thus avoiding being challenged by nature’s beauty and otherness. This veil has now come between us and the radiant reality of things, dulling our own vision of the world. Then, because of what Coleridge calls the “lethargy of custom,” we forget that the veil is there at all and think that nature is as dull as we are.

The whole purpose of the arts—not just poetry—is to awaken the mind’s attention. Art helps us remove the film of familiarity and find new ways of glimpsing and telling the truth. The imagination is the vehicle of attention.

We all can think of times when imaginary stories—parables, myths, legends, novels, and films—have suddenly awoken our minds to important truths we had missed or had been denying. We see this supremely in the parables of Jesus, where “made up” stories teach and embody eternal truths, or often many layers of truth at the same time.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the simple question “Who is my neighbor?” is answered on multiple levels. We receive insight to see that our neighbor may be the very person we have despised or excluded; at the same time, we are shown what real, practical love for one’s neighbor looks like. And of course, at a deeper level, we have a hint of the supreme love of Christ: how he has come down to tend our wounds and see to our healing.

But stories that help us encounter truths are not only biblical. J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth is the imaginary world of the Lord of the Rings series, and there we can learn more than we ever knew about loyalty, friendship, courage, and hope. In the enchantments of a fictional realm, we find strength for our trials in this world. The veil is lifted a little. Our sense of wonder is restored. In flashing moments, we discover that reality is itself translucent with glimmers of the “supernatural,” of something holy shining through it.


But how does this happen? The great poet William Shakespeare’s account of his own art in A Midsummer Night’s Dream helps us understand. In describing the work of poetry through the voice of the character Theseus, the Bard gives insight not only into the art of poetry but also into the mysteries at the heart of our faith. Shakespeare writes,

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends. …
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.

The first thing to notice is that Shakespeare distinguishes between two different ways of knowing. To apprehend something is to stretch out your mind and touch just a little bit of it, realizing you have not yet comprehended the whole of it; it is a glimpse, an intuition. To comprehend something, on the other hand, is to know it completely, to get the whole of your mind around it. So we can only begin to apprehend heavenly, invisible things, but we can much more easily and more fully comprehend earthly, visible things.

Poetic imagination can be exercised only by scaling both trajectories: from apprehension to comprehension and back, from heaven to earth and from earth to heaven. We move from a fleeting intuition or an invisible abstraction, a word like love or beauty, down to a real, earthly example of that love or beauty. Or we move from a familiar object to a sudden intuition that what we thought we knew portends much more, as in the poetry of Psalm 1. The tree planted by the waters becomes an emblem of righteous life, and the chaff blown in the wind a symbol of rootlessness.

Some art starts with a glance to heaven, an intuition of the numinous, the sublime, in the invisible realm of qualities. And having had that glimpse, it seeks to find on earth some way of manifesting that apprehended, invisible quality. So the poet and priest George Herbert, trying to embody a little of our experience of speaking to God, offers one image after another—“the church’s banquet,” “the soul in paraphrase,” the “heart in pilgrimage,” “a kind of tune”— hoping that one of these images will unfold a little more of the mystery of prayer for his readers.

Other kinds of art start with attention to the particular, visible material at hand, the world in front of the artist. This art begins with a glance to earth but then moves from earth to heaven. The artist strives to manifest within their earthly material—the paper, canvas, pigment, clay, or metal with which the art is made—those transfiguring glimpses of form and quality that can at any moment shimmer through the stuff of this world, the blaze of hidden flame that makes a burning bush. So R. S. Thomas in his poem “The Bright Field” puts ink to paper:

I have seen the sun break through
to illuminate a small field
for a while, and gone my way
and forgotten it.

By the time he gets to the end of the poem, that brief glimpse has become an invitation to see beyond the field, to turn aside

like Moses to the miracle
of the lit bush, to a brightness
that seemed as transitory as your youth
once, but is the eternity that awaits you.

Whichever end of this divine axis between heaven and earth an artist starts from, the artist’s only means of seeing and establishing a connection between them in art is imagination. Imagination is at the heart of all artistic making, knowing, and seeing, whether that art is poetic or visual. And whether we are poets, artists, or appreciators of art, when we don’t attend to our poetic imagination, we risk numbing ourselves to meaning-making and even to God, the meaning-maker.

Listen to Malcolm Guite read this article, “Something Holy Shines.”


Of special importance to believers is how Shakespeare’s description of the work of poets is ultimately underpinned by the work of God. God is the great maker, the prime embodier; in fact, Shakespeare’s words are a riff on the prologue to John’s gospel: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14).

In Shakespeare’s words, “As imagination bodies forth / The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen / Turns them to shapes.” Imagination and bodies—as contrasting as heaven and earth—are as mysterious as the words Let there be. From darkness comes light; from “airy nothing” comes hospitality, particularity, and availability, “a local habitation and a name.” All poetry is a creative act.

For most people, the “glance” to heaven is just that: a fleeting glimpse, easy to dismiss and overwrite, ignore and explain away. Watching a sunset or standing by a lake, we have a momentary sense of wholeness that is soon overlaid with distractions. A poem can restore that moment and its meaning. The poet—and indeed any artist—by the power of imagination can make a body for that momentary sight, that airy nothing that is always escaping us.

We have that experience constantly returning to poems, paintings, and sculptures that keep giving more than they have, flowing with new life on each visit. The glimpse that imagination has bodied forth in them has a home from which it can grow “to something of great constancy,” as Shakespeare goes on to say.

As a young man, I returned again and again to John Keats’s “Ode to a Nightingale” for the rich beauty, the sensuous intensity of tiptoeing into the darkened garden:

I cannot see what flowers are at my feet,
Nor what soft incense hangs upon the boughs,
But, in embalmed darkness, guess each sweet.

Now, in my 60s, I return to the same poem and am drawn in by “the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home, / She stood in tears amid the alien corn.” Yet I cherish still the poem’s window on something beyond this world: “magic casements, opening on the foam / Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.”

The work of imagination is a birthing into life of what was hitherto invisible—the making of something that will have its own life, growth, and history after the artist has passed on. All great art is a bridge with one foot in the world of comprehension—the visible, the earth—and the other foot in the realm of apprehension—the invisible, heaven.

If we are new to poetry, we can begin to walk that bridge through the simple, familiar images a poem gives us—a door, a rose, a mountain—and then wait for those images, in their own good time, to open up the new things that they have to disclose from the world of apprehension. It doesn’t have to happen all at once; it can take a lifetime over many readings, each encounter giving us a little more.

We take the time to do this because what shines beneath the text is of divine import. The divine imagination “bodies forth” all heaven, all meaning, all apprehension into a particular living body born in Bethlehem, whose name is Jesus.

The Incarnation indwells and gives meaning to all our own artistic bodying. All art, whether explicitly Christian or not, depends on and participates in that connection made for us by the one who came “from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,” who is, and always will be, the living bridge between the two.


Coleridge and Shakespeare are not the only poets who have tried to resolve the tension between reason and imagination as ways of knowing. In his spiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy, C. S. Lewis looks back on the time before his conversion and writes,

The two hemispheres of my mind were in the sharpest contrast. On the one side a many-islanded sea of poetry and myth; on the other a glib and shallow “rationalism.” Nearly all that I loved I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I believed to be real I thought grim and meaningless.

Lewis wrote those words in the 1950s, looking back on his life in the 1920s. But we also have a poem he penned at the very time he was experiencing this divide between his reason and imagination.

In his posthumously titled poem “Reason,” Lewis compares his soul to the city-state of Athens—the same setting as Theseus’s speech in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. High on “the soul’s acropolis” Reason stands, in the figure of the goddess Athene, amid the pure geometry of the Parthenon. She has access to “celestial light,” and “he who sins against her has defiled his own / Virginity: no cleansing makes his garment white.” In contrast, Lewis describes the figure of Demeter, the fertility goddess whose mysteries were celebrated in the caves below Athens. Demeter, representing imagination, is “warm, dark, obscure and infinite,” the “daughter of Night.”

Then comes the sharp dilemma: Lewis must be true to both goddesses, even though they pull him in two directions. “Tempt not Athene,” he writes, and “wound not in her fertile pains / Demeter.” This tension leads him to cry out for a reconciler. Who can help him integrate both the imaginative depths and the rational heights of his soul? Only then, writes Lewis, could he truly say, “I believe.”

There are a number of remarkable things going on in this poem. First is the suggestion of inner space within the human psyche itself. The soul, the inner Athens, has not only its heights, its acropolis, but also its depths and caves. Who can know it?

Second, the bodying forth of the soul’s distinct powers of reason and imagination in the form of the two goddesses is not a random classical allusion from Lewis to show off his learning. Rather, it is a symbolic reimagination of the inner self as one in which powers beyond the self are at work. Lewis expresses his inner life by saying, essentially, “My problem is I can’t get my inner goddesses together!”

After exploring many paired contrasts—touch and sight, light and dark, clean and defiled—the poem ends with a plea that subtly summons the echoes of its own answer: “Oh who will reconcile in me both maid and mother, / Who make in me a concord of the depth and height?” These are, of course, anticipatory echoes; the poem witnesses to an impasse and points to a hoped-for concord that has not yet arrived. But we who believe know the answer well—as Lewis himself was on the cusp of knowing too.

The answer to Lewis’s question, as it was for Shakespeare, is the Incarnation. The pagan goddesses must be either maid or mother, but the Virgin Mary is both. Through her yes to God, Christ the reconciler comes into the world—the one who reconciles not only man to God but also time to eternity, depth to height, earth to heaven, reason to imagination.

In Christ the reconciler, Lewis found the one who embodied the inner truth of the imaginative myths he loved before he came to faith. In the famous conversation Lewis had with Tolkien on Addison’s Walk in Oxford, Tolkien showed him that the story of Christ was not merely mythical “lies … breathed through silver” but factually true. It was myth made history, a story that could move his imagination and also satisfy his reason. The “two hemispheres” of his mind that had been “in sharpest contrast” now came together, centered on the reconciling figure of Jesus Christ.


Now let us return to our original question: Why might a thoughtful Christian want to take a particular interest in poetry? As Coleridge, Shakespeare, and Lewis have shown, the answer is not only because poetry is beautiful or memorable or speaks to the heart. We read poetry because it is itself a way of knowing. It gets us past the veil to the truth that shimmers beyond it. It reconciles our imagination and our reason so that, together, they bring us to greater faith. If, as Shakespeare says, it “bodies forth / The forms of things unknown,” then perhaps some of those unknown things can be known in no other way.

Science and reason can help us understand what the world is made of, but poetry and the arts can help us understand what it all means, to lift the veil a little and help us see the glory of the Maker shining through all he has made. And to make that clear to us, we have set in the very center of our Scriptures a collection of poems: the Book of Psalms.

We know far more about astronomy and astrophysics than the writer of Psalm 19, but it is too easy to forget the other, more vital knowledge that was given to that inspired poet through poetry:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge. (vv. 1–2)

The capacity to make and to enjoy poetry is part of the image of God within us—the image of a maker. For God himself made the poem of the cosmos and bodied forth within it the greatest poem of all: Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.

Just as surely as coming to Christ reintegrated Lewis’s ways of knowing, reconciling his reason and imagination, so for every Christian, to draw closer to Jesus is to find that both our reason and our imagination are awakened, engaged, and deepened. Likewise, to read poetry, to exercise and engage our poetic imagination, is to come a little closer to the mystery of the Incarnation—to be more and more able to apprehend, and begin to comprehend, that in Christ heaven has come to earth. The very heaven of heaven, which is the love of God, has been bodied forth for us in our Savior.

If we are to fulfill the Great Commandment to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then somewhere in there must be included “all our imagination”—a baptized imagination that is alive to God and knows him as the one source of all goodness, truth, and beauty.

Malcolm Guite is a former chaplain and a life fellow at Girton College, Cambridge. He teaches and lectures widely on theology and literature.

News

The Balm of Gilead Grows Again, Maybe

And other news from Christians around the world.

Digital collage of birds and seeds
Illustration by Blake Cale

A team of scientists germinated a millennia-old seed from the archaeological excavation of a cave in the Judean desert. They grew it in an Israeli greenhouse, and it is now a 10-foot tree that produces a clear resin researchers say could be the biblical “balm of Gilead.” The famous balm, or tsori in Hebrew, was cultivated in oases by the Dead Sea for at least 1,000 years. It was a valuable export and frequently mentioned by ancient writers describing the region. The trees went extinct, however, sometime between the Fatimid Caliphate in the 900s and the end of the First Crusade in 1099. It is unknown today which exact tree produced the balm. This particular seed, nicknamed Sheba by the scientists, was probably left in the cave by a mouse or bird. It was recovered in 1987 and revived with a process called “resurrection genomics.”

Russia: CT and others censored

The Russian government’s efforts to keep information critical of the Ukraine invasion from its citizens has led to the censorship of multiple religious outlets, including Christianity Today. Forum 18, a human rights watch group, detailed the restrictions in an October report. CT was blocked after releasing a Russian-language article about the destruction of Ukrainian churches.

Philippines: Pastor sentenced for life

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence given to a South Korean pastor convicted of manipulating three teenagers into unpaid labor. Si Young Oh, a Presbyterian, moved to the Philippines in 2008 and took charge of a theological school in Pampanga. He recruited three 17-year-olds to the school, promising them pastoral training but requiring them to work on church construction projects. They agreed to do the work, the court found, but because they were minors, they could not legally consent. Oh was convicted of qualified trafficking and sentenced to life in prison.

Cake artist Jack Phillips speaks in front of the US Supreme CourtGetty Images
Cake artist Jack Phillips (center) speaks in front of the US Supreme Court Building in 2017 during the Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit.

United States: Another cake case dismissed

The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed another lawsuit against Christian baker Jack Phillips—12 years after he was first sued for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Phillips won that case in 2018, when the Supreme Court ruled Colorado’s antidiscrimination law did not adequately protect his religious freedom. The attorney who sued Phillips requested another cake celebrating gender transition and a third, according to Phillips’s attorneys, depicting Satan smoking marijuana. Phillips declined these and was sued a second and then a third time. The state court rejected the last case against him in October 2024.

Anti-Protestant attacks down

The FBI reported 27 anti-Protestant hate crimes in 2023, below the 10-year average of 33 per year. Over the past decade, the largest category of anti-Protestant crime has been vandalism. Also in 2023, the FBI counted 77 hate crimes committed against Catholics and 1,832 against Jews. The total number of antisemitic crimes surged after Israel responded to Hamas’s October 7 attack.

Paraguay: Sex education gets evangelical blessing

Evangelicals in Paraguay have endorsed a national sex ed curriculum. The country had previously left the question of sex ed to local school officials but then had the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in Latin America. In 2023, more than 400 girls below the age of 15 gave birth to a child. The new national curriculum is very conservative. It says that sex is “for adults committed to each other for life,” makes no mention of same-sex couples, and warns that no birth control is 100 percent effective. The curriculum will be rolled out in 2025.

Spain: Census finds church multiplication

Evangelicals opened 96 new places to worship with fellow believers in 2024. According to the Observatorio del Pluralisimo Religiosio en España, the number of evangelical congregations has gone up 25 percent in the past decade. There is now roughly one Protestant church for every five Catholic congregations in Spain.

United Kingdom: Review – Culture enabled abuse at Soul Survivor

An independent review of the inappropriate behavior of a prominent evangelical leader found a “wholesale” failure of organizational culture, which it said enabled the leader’s physical and spiritual abuse. Staff at Soul Survivor, a popular evangelical Anglican church and music festival, were afraid to voice concerns about founder Mike Pilavachi’s relationships with young men. This included private massages and lengthy, intimate wrestling matches with interns. When staff raised concerns with trustees, they were ostracized and forced out. The Church of England hired a private firm to investigate in 2023, and more than 100 people ultimately came forward with information, including worship leader Matt Redman. The independent review found that the allegations, stretching from the 1990s to the 2010s, were remarkably consistent. Pilavachi stepped down in 2023.

Ukraine: Christians allege torture

Christian pacifists say they have been beaten by government officials who want them to fight in the war against Russia. The Ukrainian constitution guarantees the rights of conscientious objectors, but it acknowledges the objections of only a few religious groups. Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not given alternative service options. Nine people have been sent to prison for refusing mobilization, and another 66 are facing prosecution, including three Baptist men and one Pentecostal. A growing number of conscientious objectors say they have been held without charges and physically harmed. “They beat me with their hands and feet on the back, body, and head,” one 27-year-old wrote. “The people who beat me insisted that I renounce my belief in God. They constantly said that belief in God is delusional.” The man was released after 24 days, but police said they may still bring charges against him.

Ghana: Church pays prisoners’ fees

An Assemblies of God church paid for the release of two people held in Awutu Camp Prison. The prisoners had committed minor offenses but remained incarcerated after many years because they could not afford to pay their court fees. The church is reviewing the cases of other prisoners and may pay for more to be released in the future.

Kenya: Election goes ahead after abduction

The Pentecostal Assemblies of God Kenya has chosen a new leader after six years of infighting. The outgoing general superintendent, Patrick Lihanda, led the denomination of 4,000 congregations for two terms, but disputes over his leadership divided the Pentecostals and sent the different factions to court. Lihanda sought election a third time but was abducted in October, hours before ballots were cast. Police found his white Mercedes abandoned on the side of a road with his glasses, notebook, and Bible. Lihanda is still missing. No suspects have been named. The new general superintendent, Kenneth Adiara, promises to lead “by building on what is already there and by uniting the church through prayers.”

Angola: Wife arrested for missionary murder

Jackie Shroyer, a mother of five from Minnesota, has been accused of offering three men thousands of dollars to kill her husband. Angolan authorities say she was having “a romantic relationship” with one of the suspects who lured Beau Shroyer, 44, into a remote area and kill him. “I’m so sorry and simply do not have words to express my disbelief and sorrow,” said the couple’s pastor at a Vineyard church in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Beau Shroyer was a police officer before following a call to missions in 2021. He will be buried in the US.

Books
Review

No One Told These Ink-Stained Dreamers to Make Books. They Just Did.

An Oxford professor traces the history of publishing through the lives of its most daring and dedicated pioneers.

An etching of a man and woman making books

Illustration by Doug Bell

I have been making books my entire life.

In grade school, my teacher assigned a series of reports on the provinces of Canada. After writing one each week, I gathered them up, added a table of contents and a title page, and bound them with yarn. No one told me to do that. I just did.

In high school, a friend and I self-published a novelty humor book and sold hundreds of copies to friends and family. That was decades before self-publishing was a thing.

No wonder that when I joined the editorial staff of InterVarsity Press 50 years ago, I felt like the town drunk who was given charge of the local distillery.

Unsurprisingly, then, I drank in Adam Smyth’s The Book-Makers, which celebrates the characters who have crafted books over the past half millennium. Through the lenses of 18 lives, Smyth, a professor at Balliol College, Oxford, provides not a complete history of the physical aspects of bookmaking but a representative and very human story centered in England.

We meet dedicated bookbinders, ambitious entrepreneurs, clever (and impoverished) inventors, innovative distributors, pioneering typographers, obsessed artisans, renegade publishers, and dreamers … always some dreamers. They dream of making art, of making money, of making a difference.


Smyth’s narrative begins in 1501 with Wynkyn de Worde, one of the first and most prominent printers on London’s Fleet Street, soon to become the center of British publishing. De Worde arrived as an immigrant from Germany, where Gutenberg’s revolutionary printing press had originated only decades prior.

In this early era of printing, much of England’s publishing industry relied on skilled workers from the continent. But this dependence generated pushback. Within a few decades, England passed laws limiting foreign workers. Yet “significant numbers of skilled bookmen continued to arrive from abroad,” writes Smyth, “particularly in periods of crisis.”

De Worde enjoyed some patronage from the aristocrats of his era, but his publishing model looked beyond the interests of the powerful to serve a wider range of readers. He combined what publishers have needed ever since—business know-how and a savvy understanding of one’s audience. He printed not only religious texts but also popular works such as Sebastian Brant’s highly successful 1494 satire, The Ship of Fools.

In emphasizing the physical nature of books, Smyth engages all our senses as he transports us back 500 years to de Worde’s workshop.

The place is surely cramped, and probably dark; too hot in the summer. Candles flicker. Just-printed sheets hang from high ropes like drying laundry. The windows are paper, not glass, a cheap way to block sunlight from the printed pages. But—in winter—so cold. Scraps of paper lie around—old proof pages, torn sheets—ready for reuse as improvised window covers, or wrappers, or to fill a thin space between wobbly letters: there is a thriftiness to everything, a spirit of maximal extraction. And the place stinks: from bodies printing 250 sheets an hour for twelve-hour days; from the strongly alkali lye, bubbling in a tub, used to clean the lead type; from the beer spilt on the floor, brought in every couple of hours by the young apprentice; from the linseed oil boiling in a cauldron over logs, nearly ready to be mixed with carbon and amber resin to make ink; and from the buckets of urine in which the inking balls’ leather covers soak and soften overnight.

Smyth has fun with his material, and as a result, so do readers. Take, for instance, his account of the delightfully named William Wildgoose, a prominent bookbinder of the era. “We might think it’s unlikely,” he writes, “that there were dozens of individuals named William Wildgoose honking around Oxford, but in fact records suggest an extended family in the Oxfordshire area in the seventeenth century.”

Wildgoose worked at a time when printers sold books as unbound stacks of paper, allowing customers to find a preferred bookbinder. The famed Bodleian Library at Oxford (founded in 1602) often turned to Wildgoose in its early years.

Typography receives its due in Smyth’s portrait of John Baskerville, a Birmingham-based printer, and his wife and business partner, Sarah Eaves, who brought stability and expertise to their joint enterprise. Beyond creating an elegant mid-18th-century typeface, Baskerville immersed himself in each aspect of the book—the paper, the ink, the page design, and the printing process itself. Baskerville’s books were objects of craft to be admired in themselves.

In Baskerville’s time, the world’s most famous American was a scientist, an inventor, a political activist, a diplomat, and a writer. But he most commonly identified himself as a printer. Benjamin Franklin learned that trade in Boston, Philadelphia, and London. (The recent Apple TV+ series Franklin shows him employing that training to illegally print pamphlets in France supporting the American Revolution.)

Consistent with centuries-old trends in his trade, the bulk of Franklin’s printing was transient and ephemeral. He made his fortune and reputation on job printing. Pamphlets, sermons, lottery tickets, paper currency, newspapers, government documents—these were Franklin’s daily diet. The major exception was his yearly almanac, which also had a temporary character despite taking the form of a book.

When Smyth turns to the history of paper, he reminds us that the human penchant for prejudice has been constant over millennia.

The Chinese invented papermaking 2,000 years ago, before their methods transitioned to the Arab world 800 years later. These techniques finally arrived in Europe around the 11th century. At first, Europeans distrusted paper because it was introduced by Jews and Arabs. Once they understood its value, writes Smyth, “they set about systematically forgetting its Arabic, Chinese past, appropriating paper as their own, and refashioning its history into a story of European ingenuity.”

The tale of Nicholas-Louis Robert delivers another blow to human nature’s reputation. Though the Frenchman gained a patent in 1799 for the first papermaking machine, he suffered from the greed of those who blatantly stole his designs, robbing him of recognition and remuneration alike.

The case of Charles Edward Mudie also proves there is nothing new under the book-publishing sun. A century and a half before Jeff Bezos and Amazon, Mudie dominated book distribution. This 19th-century purveyor of British culture “found a very cheap way for hundreds of thousands of new readers, including women, including those far from London, including those, indeed, scattered across the globe, to have access to books they could otherwise not afford.” His scheme was to loan books for an annual subscription price that cost less than three novels. And for those living in London, he even provided free delivery. Sound familiar?


Books have not been the sole domain of entrepreneurs. They have also been objects of devotion, even obsession. One fad straddling the 18th and 19th centuries was epitomized by collectors Charlotte and Alexander Sutherland. They (and many others) would take a volume of, say, British history and augment it with hundreds of separate portraits and illustrations. This could entail expanding a single book into dozens of oversized, beautifully bound volumes, all for personal delight rather than public consumption.

Another monument to obsessive book artistry was the career of English bookbinder Thomas Cobden-Sanderson, who produced a landmark five-volume Bible in 1904, followed by deluxe editions of Shakespeare’s plays. Cobden-Sanderson had commissioned a new, meticulously crafted metal-type font modeled after 15th-century designs. But his devotion turned monomaniacal in his last years, when he worried that second-rate mechanical printing outfits would deploy his handiwork without honoring his care and craftsmanship. In 1916, over several months, he secretly dumped hundreds of pounds of precious type and tools into the River Thames.

Smyth brings us into the last hundred years by highlighting the literary efforts of two small British presses—Nancy Cunard’s Hours Press and Virginia and Leonard Woolf’s Hogarth Press. Their community of authors included Ezra Pound, Samuel Beckett, E. M. Forster, Gertrude Stein, Sigmund Freud, and John Maynard Keynes. Emphasizing the manual (rather than mechanical) press and catering to specialized tastes, this movement sought “to uncouple publishing from the restrictions of the market.” In this, Cunard succeeded admirably, since her Hours Press lasted only three years before being sold off.

The Book-Makers compels us to ask, from the perspective of our digital world: Is reviewing the history of print merely an exercise in nostalgia or irrelevance? We may remember apocalyptic predictions from 20 years ago that print books were doomed. Yet they have survived.

Today, according to Association of American Publishers data, about three print books are sold for every digital book (ebook or audio), a ratio that has held steady in recent years. Within the US, combined sales have also remained stable, hovering around a billion units each year. That is bad in an economic system that often relies on growth for survival, but it is remarkably strong in the face of illiteracy trends, entertainment options, and the flood of news and social media. As readers and citizens, we are drowning in information yet starved for wisdom.

That is why, amid all the activities described in The Book-Makers, the gravitational center comes, for me, in chapter 3, where the book slows to a meditational pace. In the 1600s, there was a religious community at Little Gidding, 30 miles northwest of Cambridge, England. There, over decades, Mary and Anna Collett labored with great care and workmanship, cutting and pasting personal editions of the Bible to create a single harmony of the Scriptures. While this may look like an act of destruction, it embodied a posture of deep reading—of emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually encountering the text, all enhanced by physically engaging with the printed page. Though Smyth exhibits no overt religious commitments, he reveals rare sensitivity. He does not treat the Colletts with cynicism or ridicule, as would be so easy. He rather accepts them for who they are, much as they saw themselves: two people in community, seeking to grapple with the Word, to meditate on it deeply, and to let it change them.

Andrew T. Le Peau headed the editorial department at InterVarsity Press for three decades. He is the author of Write Better and Mark Through Old Testament Eyes, and he blogs regularly at Andy Unedited.

Books
Review

Good Readers Need More Than Good Reads

Without intentional practices for reading virtuously, even virtuous books can end up furthering vice.

A dedicated man, absorbed in a book, oblivious to his surroundings.
Christianity Today January 8, 2025
Illustration by Changyu Zou

Magazine articles, Substack newsletters, blog entries, Wikipedia pages, Tumblr feeds, Reddit threads, Facebook posts, AI overviews, WhatsApp messages, YouTube notes, TikTok captions, Instagram posts: These, and more, are the stuff of reading in the 21st century.

And this landscape doesn’t even account for the proliferation of books in many different forms. Audio, digital, and physical books are more widely available than ever. Given current rates of literacy, ready access to technology, and the sheer volume of words produced, we probably read more today than at any other time in history.

Has all our reading made us smarter? In some ways, it has. Though stretches of the internet are wastelands of misinformation, the average person can access answers to a dizzying array of questions, from the abstract and philosophical to the immediate and practical.

Yet for all our added smarts, are we wiser and more virtuous? A quick look at a typical day’s headlines, feeds, or threads might lead us to answer pessimistically. Perhaps the problem, then, is that we’re reading the wrong things.

Maybe by reading virtuous books rather than whatever the algorithms feed us, we would become more virtuous. In Deep Reading: Practices to Subvert the Vices of Our Distracted, Hostile, and Consumeristic Age, authors and English professors Rachel B. Griffis, Julie Ooms, and Rachel M. De Smith Roberts assent to this idea, but only partly. If we want to derive intellectual and spiritual formation from our reading, they argue, then reading virtuous books is important—but ultimately insufficient.

More than some “perfect reading list,” the authors insist, “we need practices that will help us acknowledge and grapple with the distractions of the digital age, the hostility of a polarized culture—particularly for minority-culture groups—and Western consumerism with its demands that every action be marketable.” In other words, it’s not simply what we read that matters but also how.


Griffis, Ooms, and Roberts focus on overarching reading practices rather than on specific reading recommendations because we can’t separate reading from our technological, social, and economic environments. As they contend, the very realities that make reading so ubiquitous also contribute to various social ills. Even when the content we’re reading promotes virtue, the form that content takes can nurture vice.

You might, for example, read a devotional about the humanizing virtue of paying close attention to your family and friends. But what if you read it on a smartphone loaded with applications designed by companies to keep you as distracted as possible? Intellectually, you might encounter sound insights on the virtue of attention. Still, the more you scroll, the more you reinforce the vice of distraction.

The same principle applies to hostility and consumerism, the other cultural vices mentioned in the book’s subtitle. Even as we click on articles about charitable political discourse or the joys of tithing, we’re flooded with ads, pop-ups, and recommended stories enticing us toward the pleasures of gossiping and shopping. To enjoy the wealth of wisdom found in virtuous writing, we need practices that can keep countervailing vices at bay.

Following an introduction that provides a robust explanation of these problems, Deep Reading proceeds in three main parts. Each part takes up one of the three vices the book emphasizes, explaining the double bind it imposes on anyone who wants to read well: making us more distracted, hostile, and consumerist; and compounding the damage by compromising our ability to read well.

In part 1, the authors argue that distraction is not merely a detriment to attention spans but also a vice that disorders our lives. By itself, the challenge of distraction is nothing new. But as the authors observe, “recent advancements in information technology have exacerbated this problem, exponentially increasing our ability to access anything we might desire while simultaneously making us less able to temper our desires and focus our attention in meaningful ways.” This dynamic exposes how distraction is a spiritual and not just a cognitive problem.

Griffis, Ooms, and Roberts argue that we can subvert the vice of distraction with the virtue of temperance, or “inner order,” as philosopher Josef Pieper defines it. Deep reading combats distraction, the authors say, because it “requires practices of attention that not only train us to discern what and how much information is good for us but also enable us to order properly—to temper—our desires for what is pleasurable with our need to focus on what is good.” The book offers detailed explanations of five practices that aid this tempering process. These include well-known traditions of meditation and prayer like lectio divina but also more unexpected exercises like field trips.

The latter might conjure memories of elementary school, but the authors argue that field trips are valuable for people of all ages, independent of any formal educational setting. While we cannot always visit an author’s birthplace or the locale in which a book is set, we can get off the couch to involve our entire selves in the reading process.

Griffis, for instance, took her students to a wildlife refuge as they read a book about a Native American tribe living on the Great Plains. She hoped to give them a vivid, eye-catching experience that would cast their patterns of distracted reading into sharp relief. When you observe a bison up close, there’s no room for fooling around on a tablet with Netflix playing in the background while a book sits lazily in your lap. Field trips compel a heightened focus on one’s immediate surroundings. In this way, they can foster better reading habits by teaching us to temper the various thoughts, impulses, and desires vying for our attention.

The second chapter of part 1 outlines five practices to counteract the effects of distraction as we read. These include reading and responding to books in group settings and reflecting on our current practices by taking a reading inventory, for which the authors supply diagnostic questions. Each practice provides an opportunity to isolate distractions while strengthening focus on the task at hand.

It shouldn’t take much to convince people that we live in an age of hostility. In the first chapter of part 2, the authors concentrate on evangelical education, where the concept of worldviews organizes the ideological landscape into mutually exclusive bodies of thought such as Christianity, secular humanism, and Marxism, treating each as a closed system.

One benefit of this approach is the framework it provides for classifying and evaluating anything we read. The authors worry, however, that it can turn reading into an exercise in hostility, encouraging us to judge everything we read by tests of ideological purity. In their view, we should recognize that “authors, texts, and readers alike are shaped by historical and cultural forces that often, perhaps inevitably, include oppressive ideology.” We err when we regard written works purely as “vehicles for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ” thinking.

Reading deeply does not require switching off our critical faculties or simply accepting the bad with the good. Rather, it demands the cultivation of prudence, or practical wisdom, a virtue that supplies “wisdom about both everyday decisions and the meaning of life itself.” To combat hostility and develop prudence, the authors recommend reading books from different time periods and imagining their authors as neighbors today, among other practices.

They also pair ideas for diversifying required reading at colleges and universities with an attention to history and Christian tradition, which could help students measure their own convictions against others’. They even tackle divisive topics such as trigger and content warnings. The second chapter of part 2 offers practices for what the authors call reading “promiscuously,” which entails venturing outside “the echo chamber of one’s own perspective and biases.”


The final part of Deep Reading addresses consumerism, perhaps the most pervasive vice of our age in the authors’ telling. The consumerist mindset treats reading—and everything else—as a means to an end, reducing the value of reading to whatever measurable returns we receive from the time and money invested.

To break the hold of consumerism on our lives, the authors argue for infusing our reading practices with a spirit of generosity. Specifically, they encourage us to think of reading as an exercise in gift giving, in which we share what we learn and love with others, thus building a network of reciprocal relationships.

The authors also advocate the sheer joy of reading as a countermeasure to consumerism. Reading for the sake of enjoyment renders it resistant to cost-benefit analysis. A favorite practice the authors recommend is keeping a “commonplace book,” a kind of journal for jotting down memorable lines from whatever you’re reading. In my own commonplace book, I record things that move me, whether to tears or laughter or insight. Such practices upend the marketplace mindset by encouraging us to produce rather than merely consume.

Deep Reading concludes by touting the most subversive practice for anyone who wants to overcome distraction, hostility, and consumerism: rereading. Journeying through a written work more than once is radically antithetical to our age because it entails a willingness to revisit a task we feel we’ve already completed. All of us reread on the sentence-by-sentence level—one consequence of constant distraction—but the authors commend a patient dedication to understanding the shape of an argument as it develops and progresses.

If put into action, the practices outlined in Deep Reading have the power to renew our minds and facilitate greater spiritual maturity. Perhaps they may even further our capacity for meditation, that most biblical of practices. (Psalm 119 mentions it repeatedly.) If reading and rereading can transform both ourselves and our cultures, then surely we can say the same—and more—of reading and rereading God’s Word.

Matthew Mullins is associate professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University. He is the author of Enjoying the Bible: Literary Approaches to Loving the Scriptures.

Books

New & Noteworthy 2025

Seven books we’re looking forward to in the new year.

Illustration by E S Kibele Yarman

The Big Relief: The Urgency of Grace for a Worn-Out World

David Zahl (Brazos Press)

The Reason for Church: Why the Body of Christ Still Matters in an Age of Anxiety, Division, and Radical Individualism

Brad Edwards (Zondervan)

Bearing Witness: What the Church Can Learn from Early Abolitionists

Daniel Lee Hill (Baker Academic)

Made to Tremble: How Anxiety Became the Best Thing That Ever Happened to My Faith

Blair Linne (B&H)

Seeing the Supernatural: Investigating Angels, Demons, Mystical Dreams, Near-Death Encounters, and Other Mysteries of the Unseen World

Lee Strobel (Zondervan)

Beyond Church and Parachurch: From Competition to Missional Extension

Angie Ward (InterVarsity Press)

Scrolling Ourselves to Death: Reclaiming Life in a Digital Age

Edited by Brett McCracken and Ivan Mesa (Crossway)

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