Cover Story

Noonday Collection: Where Fashion Statement Meets Mission Statement

One of the fastest-growing companies in the country supports global artisans and funds Christian adoptions.

Courtesy of Noonday Collection

Jessica Honegger began selling handcrafted, fair-trade jewelry to help cover the costs of adopting her son from Rwanda. Five years later, her fundraiser has turned into one of the fastest-growing companies in the United States—enough to rank 3rd on Inc.’s list of fastest-growing companies led by women, and 45th overall.

With 950 “ambassadors” holding in-home trunk shows to sell eclectic jewelry and accessories, Noonday Collection, based in Austin, brought in $11.8 million in 2014. All of its products are made by hand by artisan businesses in 13 countries.

The ambassadors are mostly Christian women, and take home a 20 to 25 percent commission. Like Honegger, a quarter of them are funding their own adoptions; last year, the company gave $120,000 to families in the adoption process. Others use the income to fund church projects, mission trips, or other charitable efforts.

“I launched Noonday Collection…not knowing that it was to become viable company but kind of knowing on the inside, in that deep place where God whispers to you,” said Honegger, 39.

Following a trip to Uganda in 2010, Honegger and her husband, who met while working for Food for the Hungry, felt called to adopt. With two kids already, she began selling jewelry made by Ugandan artisans for extra income. Honegger earned around $4,000 at her first trunk show, and before long, other women began holding their own parties and placing orders. Once her sales outgrew her capacity, she enlisted Travis Wilson, a friend with an MBA from Wharton and experience in microfinance, as co-CEO.

Even with a partner, a booming business, and help from friends, Honegger admits it wasn’t easy. She looked around for fellow Christian women running startups with small children for inspiration. “I didn’t have anyone,” she said. “I was reading Lean In and Tina Fey and Brené Brown. I’m like, ‘Somebody help me!’ Now I’m happy to hopefully pave the way.”

We’re seeing more “social entrepreneurship” companies that include a philanthropic component. Given your mission, why is it important for you to be a for-profit business rather than a charity?

I believe in business. God used his power to create the world and to create us, and he asks us to use our creative power to go and create more out of the world. So he left this world untapped and undeveloped so that we could go and tap and develop it.

Our artisan partners are entrepreneurs themselves. They’re learning how to scale a business, how to create middle management, and how to create jobs in their community that are dignified and good. To me, it’s an equal exchange.

Noonday Collection takes its name from Isaiah 58:10: ‘If you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.’

As the leader of a company that makes and sells fair trade products, what would you want consumers to know in an economy that in many ways is not built on fair trade?

I’m a capitalist. I call it compassionate capitalism. So it’s not that fair trade isn’t capitalism. There are really talented people living in resource-poor areas of the world, and all they need is access to a marketplace. And I’m going to start something for them. It was creating market access to underrepresented people and ensuring that as these artisans build their businesses, it’s being done in a beautiful way.

What are the biggest challenges for you as a Christian woman involved in business and entrepreneurship?

We’re each created in God’s image to work. Sometimes that means staying home with your kids, and that is your work for a season. It might also mean becoming the CEO of a company…. I knew in the Christian subculture that the whole women leading, working, business can have some baggage with it, but then in general there aren’t as many female-owned businesses as there are male-owned businesses (either)…. It’s been a hard road. I definitely struggled with balance and guilt and shame and all of that. But so much of it was not having a real confidence level in what God created me to do.

Tell me about the women who become Noonday ambassadors.

They are extremely motivated by issues of justice. They enjoy women. They are relational. They are looking for a way to not just give money to an organization or a charity, but to be an active part of building a flourishing world. They’re women who are already practicing leadership in their communities, whether it be in their churches or in their schools, but want to influence and want to channel their passion. And obviously a lot of women love fashion and appreciate aesthetics.

Where do you see Noonday in relationship to the multilevel marketing trend?

What we’re doing is pretty distinct, which I think is why we’ve grown so quickly. A lot of these women have been approached by other direct sales companies because they are outgoing and are influencers or have that potential to be really great at sales. We don’t have the robust compensation structure that other direct sales companies have, and we don’t have this ability to build out multilevel teams. The main way we are distinct is that people are doing this to be part of building a flourishing world. With us, they’re extremely driven by that and less by money.

Who has inspired you along the way?

My first partners in Uganda, Jalia and Daniel, were extremely poor when I partnered with them five years ago, and they were the ones making everything. Now they oversee a workshop of 100 employees. She and I walked a very similar journey of having to scale a business when we were young moms. Comparing that experience with my own experience running a business here in America has definitely provided an immense amount of encouragement and inspiration to me.

Ideas

To Be Human Is to Be Homesick

God hardwired us for home, but we’re living in exile.

Shutterstock

Carolina first left the Gaza Strip to study journalism in Toronto. At age 20, she arrived newly pregnant and, as a result, lost her scholarship—though not her valuable student visa. Without educational opportunity, she eventually went back home.

Carolina returned to Canada this March. This time, with a toddler in tow and another on the way, her travels included hungry hours on a hot bus and repeated attempts to cross the border into Egypt, where she and her child finally boarded a 12-hour flight to North America.

Carolina was fleeing hopelessness for the sliver of light that is this New World.

“In Gaza, there is no work. There is no dignity. Any day, you can die.” She pauses. “But it is difficult here. Very difficult.” Her immigration status hangs in the balance. She cannot know when—or if—her husband will join her.

Like the stories of the millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan, Eritrea, and Nigeria, Carolina’s story is the Christmas story, although not in the ways we usually think. The immutable “I AM that I AM” entered a womb and took up a body. But these were not his only vulnerable acts. Jesus of Nazareth also claimed an earthly home, which, as Carolina and many others know, is less a promise of permanence and more a risk of grief. When mobility, death, divorce, ecological crisis, and war reign, there is nothing certain in life, not least a home.

“To have a home is to become vulnerable,” writes James Wood in an essay for The London Review of Books. “Not just to the attacks of others, but to our own adventures in alienation.” Wood recalls that the battle prowess of the Scythians was often attributed to the fact that they were nomads, without a home. Because “they carry their houses with them and shoot with bows from horseback,” Wood writes, they were invincible, leaving behind no settlements for enemies to attack. Without a home, one has less to lose. With a home, happiness is the rug that can be jerked, without warning, from under our feet.

But we are hardwired for home and for the refuge it promises. The Creation narrative introduces a home-making, home-keeping God, who lays a feast and welcomes guests. Twice in Genesis 2, we hear that God “puts” Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The second time, Scripture doesn’t use the common term for “put” (like putting our shoes in the closet), but instead uses a word that connotes rest and safety. They are put in the Garden in the same way God put Lot outside the city before he rained sulfur and fire on Sodom (Gen. 19:16), that he put the Israelites in the Promised Land as a gift of rest (Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19).

This Hebrew word for put can also refer to something dedicated to God, like the manna that was “put” in the ark of the covenant. Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer suggests that the author of Genesis intends both meanings in verse 15: “The man was ‘put’ into the Garden where he could ‘rest’ and be ‘safe,’ and the man was ‘put’ into the Garden ‘in God’s presence’ where he could have fellowship with God.”

Our first human parents were given a home and invited to sit and stay awhile. But they, and we, have chosen rebellion. So the drama of life unfolds not at home, but in exile. “Home is the mouth of a shark,” writes Warsan Shire, a Somali poet. “Home is the barrel of the gun / and no one would leave home / unless home chased you to the shore.” Because of sin, we are all on foot now. To be human is to be homesick, longing for paradise lost.

Christmas is a time when many families return home, buoyed by starry expectation for the transcendent meaning we are supposed to be finding around our tables. But our celebrations, good in their own right, do not ultimately sate our longing for home. Even in Middle America, the specter of exile haunts the human experience.

Christmas reminds us that the riskiest business of the Incarnation wasn’t ultimately the manger but the cross. God exiled his own Son in order to restore home to the sinner, the sinner to home. And because the longing for home is the ache of every human heart, the good news is as deliciously true as Jesus told it in Luke 15: Once upon a time, there was a patient father with two rebellious sons. One came home, and a feast was laid.

Salvation, as homecoming. Forgiveness, as eternal feast. Welcome home.

Jen Pollock Michel is the author of Teach Us to Want (InterVarsity), CT's 2015 book of the year. She is currently writing a book about home.

News

How 1,000 Women Who Aborted Feel About the Local Church

Survey: Two in three evangelicals were attending monthly or more at the time of their first abortion.

Shutterstock

On behalf of Care Net, a national network of crisis pregnancy centers, LifeWay Research surveyed more than 1,000 American women who have terminated one or more of their pregnancies.

Here’s what evangelicals and churchgoers, defined as those attending church once a month or more, as well as all women who have had abortions, said:

Church Attendance at Time of First Abortion

2 in 3 evangelicals were attending monthly or more. [Note: "Evangelicals" based on self-identification.]

Judgment vs. Care

Both churchgoers and non-churchgoers equally reported receiving or expecting reactions from local churches that were "judgmental" (1 in 3) or "condemning" (1 in 4).

But churchgoers were much more likely than non-attenders to report or expect reactions that were "caring" (31% vs. 7%), "helpful" (28% vs. 7%), "loving" (25% vs. 6%), and "informative" (17% vs. 5%).

Still, less than one-third of churchgoers said they received or expected such positive reactions from their local church.

Reaction of Local Church (Received or Expected)

In the Secret, Quiet Place

52% of churchgoers say no one at church knows they terminated a pregnancy.38% say someone at church does know (including 55% of evangelicals).10% don't know if someone at church knows or not.

Who Churchgoers Were Most Likely to Consult

Of note: Evangelicals were significantly more likely than non-evangelicals to consult their mother before aborting (40% vs. 31%). Churchgoers were unlikely to consult their local church (16%) or a crisis pregnancy care center (9%).

Who Was Most Influential on Decision to Abort:

Influence of the Local Church

Those who said local churches had "no influence" on their decision to terminate their pregnancy:

[Note: Based on self-identification. "Protestants" include those who said "nondenominational."]

Women Who Have Aborted Believe That:

It is safe to talk with a local pastor about abortion.

Pastors’ teachings on forgiveness don’t seem to apply to terminated pregnancies.

Pastors are sensitive to the pressures women face with unplanned pregnancies.

Churches are a safe place to talk about pregnancy options.

Churches do not have a ministry prepared to discuss options during an unplanned pregnancy.

Churches are prepared to provide support to women who chose to keep a child from an unplanned pregnancy.

Church members are more likely to gossip about women considering abortion than to help them understand options.

Additional findings can be viewed at LifeWay Research and Facts & Trends.

Q&A: A Church-Based Solution

When Roland Warren and his wife, Yvette, were students at Princeton University, the dating couple faced a dilemma: Yvette became pregnant. A health counselor suggested she have an abortion, saying she would never graduate with a child in tow. The counselor was wrong: Roland and Yvette (who later became a doctor) married, and she graduated as the mom of two children. Warren brings his experience to his work as CEO of Care Net, a 40-year-old national network of crisis pregnancy centers.

CT senior editor for global journalism Timothy C. Morgan spoke to Warren about the recent LifeWay Research survey, sponsored by Care Net.

What’s the most surprising or thought-provoking finding here?

The father of the child is so significant in this decision. When women were asked who they were likely to talk to about their decision, 61 percent said the father—more than medical professionals, abortion providers, mothers, girlfriends, friends—was the one they were most likely to talk to.

When a woman tells a guy that she’s pregnant, I believe that somewhere deep inside of her, she hopes he’ll respond the same way Joseph responded to Mary: I’ll be a husband to you, and a father to the child growing inside of you.

Also, the finding that many women were attending church at the time they had their abortion. We talk about defunding Planned Parenthood. We can defund Planned Parenthood if Christians stop having abortions themselves. There are about 1 million abortions a year [in the United States]. Roughly 650,000 are women who profess to be Christians in some way, shape, or form.

Say some of those folks are cultural Christians—then cut that figure in half. That still leaves a significant number of Christians having abortions, and the average abortion costs $500. Do the math: Christians are providing more than $100 million to the abortion industry.

What keeps Christian women from seeking help during an unplanned pregnancy?

One big issue is shame. There is a woman in Care Net’s office who had an abortion. She had gone to church all her life. When she was growing up, a young lady in church got pregnant, and they [church leaders] had her come up before the entire congregation. This woman remembered that moment and said, “I’m not going to be that girl. I’m not going to let that happen.”

Mary [mother of Jesus] didn’t make value judgments about the baby growing inside of her. She knew that how she got pregnant had no bearing on the worth of the child growing inside her. But that’s not what we do.

What can churches do to change that perception problem?

If you have a drug problem, a porn problem, a marriage problem, a problem with finances, there’s typically a ministry on-ramp that connects you to support. But if you find out Sunday morning that you’re pregnant and you walk into a church, exactly whom do you tell? In most cases, there’s no on-ramp to ministry. If you look at all the reasons women have abortions—economic issues, housing, the father doesn’t have a job—there are people in the body of Christ who can help.

Church Life

True Love Consents: Why Teach Christian Youth about Boundaries

“No means no” matters at every stage.

Her.meneutics November 23, 2015
Bailey Foster / Flickr

This year, my teenage son overstepped boundaries while texting a girl his age. He didn’t send anything inappropriate, per se: when I read the texts myself, they seemed a rather banal sequence of “hey there” and “how r u?” messages, interspersed with nonsensical emojis.

Still, the girl’s mom was upset. And, when I talked with my son, I was too. Even though the girl requested he stop texting, that she needed to go to bed, that he was bombarding her with silly notes, my son continued to send them, certain that she wanted him to continue—that she was, in his words, “just kidding around.” Finally, her mother stepped in and sent a text, telling him to stop, and that’s when he came to show the messages to me.

This incident might have seemed harmless, just two eighth graders learning to navigate electronic communication. Yet he and I spent a long time processing what had happened, concerned that he didn’t understand that when a girl told him to stop, she really meant it. As he matures and begins dating, I wanted him to know that no always means no, even when the interaction seems relatively benign.

I have become finely attuned to the issue of consent lately, in some part because my boys are too quickly turning into men. As a college professor, I am also aware of conversations on campuses across the United States about sexual assault and about the lack of clear institutional policies protecting students from nonconsensual sexual behavior.

Faced with surveys showing that one in four college-aged women have experienced unwanted sexual contact and 11 percent of them have experience a form of sexual assault, Vice President Joe Biden promoted last week a nationwide campaign to end college sexual assault. Biden addressed the current culture of sexual coercion, where a person’s no is too often considered an unmitigated yes. The It’s On Us pledge asks supporters to acknowledge “that nonconsensual sex is sexual assault” and that we agree “to intervene in situations where consent has not or cannot be given.”

Last month, California became the first state to require high school students to be taught about affirmative consent in sex ed classes. Teenagers will learn that they must give verbal consent before kissing and touching, as well as before proceeding with any sexual activity. For students new to the mysterious world of sexuality, these programmed discussions about affirmative consent are decidedly murky. According to some, they provide only minimal protection from sexual coercion or assault, especially for those who feel pressured to say “yes.”

We may assume that Christian teaching on sex and sexuality inures us from having such discussions about affirmative consent: because abstinence education teaches young people to avoid situations where consent might be needed; because Christian youth will not be incapacitated by substances that often complicate questions about consent; and because talking about “yes means yes” promotes sexual activity outside of marriage. (Never mind that that affirmative consent needs to occur within marriage as well.)

Helping young people understand affirmative consent might be difficult given Christian teaching about abstinence, but such conversations are imperative. Fundamentally, the Christian faith relies on outdoing each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:10), and on loving one another as Christ loved us (John 13:34). Affirmative consent challenges us to honor the worth of each person. Nonconsensual activity challenges this notion, suggesting that a person is worthy as an object for our own pleasure. Surely we can see the problems in this kind of coercion, whether it happens within or outside the bounds of marriage.

In her excellent new book, Facing "The Talk": Conversations with My Four Daughters about Sex, Wendy Elizabeth Chapin suggests what many of us now acknowledge: Christian conversations about sex have too often been based in fear and shame. Parents worry open discussions about sex might signal acquiescence and implicit approval for their children to have intercourse. Some studies suggest the opposite. The parents who speak most openly and comfortably about sex tend to have children who delay having sex as a result.

When sexual activity becomes shrouded in secrecy and shame, there’s the risk of doing more damage. Young people who experience assault may hesitate to report it, worried that engaging in sex—consensual or not—made them damaged goods. If this seems a far-fetched notion, one need only look at several well-publicized incidents at Christian universities in recent years, where women and men who reported sexual assault were expelled or faced disciplinary action for fornication, their judgment and morality called into question because they were under the influence or because they had consented to some but not all forms of sexual contact.

Chapin’s book provides an important framework for talk about sex and sexuality without resorting to fear and shame. She describes discussions she had about sex with her daughters, often during mother-daughter trips together. “The talk” was threaded through swimming at a hotel pool, watching movies, eating dinner. In a more relaxed atmosphere, Chapin felt, her daughters would be more candid with their mother; and also, Chapin chose to be more frank with them, sharing her own sexual experiences and lessons.

By being open and vulnerable, Chapin conveyed a message about sex and sexuality far different from what she received growing up. Her ideas seem applicable for those of us raising sons as well. Chapin makes the case that purposeful conversations can empower teens and equip them to decide far they are willing to go with a partner. Such agency is vital, especially for young women, who will have more confidence to avoid coercion, recognizing the power they have to say no when they really mean it.

And for those who have said yes? Chapin believes parents who initiate talks about sex and sexuality early and often are in a better place to help teens who have had sex. Open communication will foster an environment where children share their experiences rather than stay silent. And silence, too often, follows sexual assault, as victims wrongly believe they are to blame for what has been done to them.

Earlier this year, when I talked with my son about his barrage of uninvited texts, I wondered if I’d gone overboard: if I was making too much of his impulsive behavior, or if I was making too big a leap from “no means no” in texting to “no means no” in romantic relationships. Chapin’s Facing the Talk reinforced for me that such conversations, at every stage, are crucial. Open, grace-filled discussions about relationships, sex, and sexuality will help our kids become healthy teens and adults who can, in Chapin’s words, contribute to “God’s story of creative goodness for the world.”

I imagine, if more people were willing to discuss the necessity of affirmative consent in all stages of relationships, sexual assault—on college campuses and elsewhere—would also diminish, and that story of creative goodness might find a stronger voice. It’s on all of us, especially parents, to make sure that silence about nonconsensual sex, and the shame that often follows, is not an option any more.

Melanie Springer Mock is a Professor of English at George Fox University, Newberg, Oregon. Her essays and reviews have appeared in The Nation, Christian Feminism Today, Adoptive Families, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Mennonite World Review, among other places. Her books include the recently released If Eve Only Knew: Freeing Yourself from Biblical Womanhood and Becoming all God Means for you to Be; Just Moms: Conveying Justice in an Unjust World; and The Spirit of Adoption: Writers on Religion, Adoption, Faith, and More. Melanie blogs at Ain't I a Woman?

[Image source]

News

Here’s Where America’s 338,000 Christian Refugees Come From

Evangelical, Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, and other resettled believers hail from quite different countries.

Christianity Today November 20, 2015
European Commission DG ECHO / Flickr

In light of the debate on whether Syrian refugees should be welcome in the United States and why Christians compose less than 3 percent of those resettled so far, here's a look at where America's current Christian refugees have come from.

The United States has resettled 338,441 Christian refugees from more than a dozen denominations since 2003, according to the latest data from the Refugee Processing Center. This is approximately 44 percent of the total 762,000 refugees resettled.

Here's the worldwide breakout by denomination:

  • Nearly 180,000 refugees identifying as simply "Christians" have been resettled since 2003. More than half come from Myanmar/Burma (96,531), followed by Iraq (25,128), Iran (19,968), Liberia (12,335), and Bhutan (8,216).
  • Catholic refugees represent the largest denominational grouping, with 57,178 resettled in America. Together, Cuba (15,805) and Iraq (14,580) make up about a third of this figure; each country’s refugee total is larger than the next three countries—Myanmar (4,973), the Democratic Republic of Congo or DRC (4,496), and Sudan (3,988)—combined.
  • While the Protestant number—14,754—looks much smaller, it doesn't include those who self-identify with a specific Protestant denomination. About one-third of America's Protestant refugees come from the DRC (5,203). Vietnam (2,393) and Sudan (1,458) are second and third, respectively.
  • Evangelicals are also broken out into their own category. More than half (1,422) of the 2,677 evangelical refugees have come from Cuba. Sudan (237), Ukraine (196), Colombia (148), and Liberia (108) round out the top five.
  • About 10 percent of all Christian refugees are Pentecostal (31,778), the majority from Africa and Eastern Europe. About one-third (11,067) are from Ukraine. Elsewhere, the DRC is responsible for 6,222, Burundi for 3,985, Moldova for 2,102, and Belarus for 1,831.
  • Most Baptist refugees (23,247) hail from Myanmar (5,980) and Ukraine (5,937). Moldova is third, with 4,043.
  • Most of the Methodist refugees (3,305) come from Africa: 1,007 are from the DRC, 987 from Burundi, and 535 from Liberia.
  • The same is true of Lutheran refugees (940): 629 are from Liberia, 165 from the DRC, and 46 from Ethiopia.
  • Only five Mennonite refugees have been resettled since 2003. Three are from Cuba, one is from Somalia, and one is from Vietnam.
  • The majority of Seventh-day Adventist refugees (7,527) come from three continents: 3,542 are from the DRC, 905 from Cuba, and 625 from Ukraine.
  • The highest number of Orthodox refugees (17,151) come from Eritrea (7,907), Iraq (4,396), and Ethiopia (2,783).
  • Of the 391 Chaldean refugees, 386 have come from Iraq.

The percentage of Christian refugees from each country varies greatly, depending on the circumstances.

For example, of the nearly 9,000 Afghan refugees resettled in the US in the past 12 years, just over 1 percent are Christians. But of the almost 15,000 refugees from Eritrea, 85 percent are Christians. About 3 percent of Somali refugees, 30 percent of Iraqi refugees, 63 percent of North Korean refugees, and 75 percent of Nigerian refugees have been Christians. All of these countries top Open Doors' World Watch List of places where it's hardest to be a Christian.

In 2010, CT spotlighted how refugees and asylum seekers are today's pilgrims.

CT editor Mark Galli recently argued that the refugee crisis makes for a beautiful gospel witness. CT has also covered why the US is deporting Iraqi Christian refugees, how Croatia's Christians are serving the refugees flooding their country, and why Franklin Graham’s call to end Muslim immigration could backfire.

[Photo courtesy of European Commission DG ECHO / Flickr]

Culture

Conflicted Catharsis: On ISIS and Revenge Films

In movies and in life, should Christians celebrate when villains are killed?

Emily Blunt in 'Sicario'

Emily Blunt in 'Sicario'

Christianity Today November 20, 2015
Lionsgate
Benecio del Toro in 'Sicario'Lionsgate
Benecio del Toro in ‘Sicario’

Denis Villeneuve’s Sicario is a one of 2015’s best films. Artfully made and intense from start to finish, the drug war-themed thriller (starring Emily Blunt and Bencio del Toro) focuses on CIA operatives hunting down a high-ranking cartel chief whose brutal tactics have left a trail of victims via bomb, acid bath, dismemberment and beheading.

Sicario reminded me of Kathryn Bigelow’s controversial 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty, which chronicles the covert hunt for Osama bin Laden. Both films are about retributive justice and the CIA’s efforts to end the reign of bloodshed of a terrorist tyrant. Both films end with a violent climax that is simultaneously cathartic and conflicting: cathartic because an evil villain is dispatched in a fittingly violent manner, but conflicting because we aren’t quite sure we should feel so good about it.

These sorts of “conflicted catharsis” endings are common in films about revenge and justice. Quentin Tarantino includes denouements of this sort in nearly all of his films, often featuring some sort of previously disenfranchised victim exerting bloody vengeance on their abusive and powerful victimizer. Kill Bill and Death Proof show this in terms of women exacting vicious revenge on abusive males. Django Unchained shows this in terms of a black slave (Jamie Foxx) cathartically killing a comically evil slave owner (Leonardo DiCaprio). Inglourious Basterds gives Jews the weapons to inflict disturbingly mortal wounds on Nazis via knife, gun, explosive, and baseball bat.

'Inglorious Basterds'The Weinstein Company
‘Inglorious Basterds’

The climactic scene of Inglourious Basterds is perhaps the ultimate in conflicted catharsis. Inside a Parisian theater filled with Nazis and Adolf Hitler himself, Brad Pitt and his band of Jewish soldiers spray bullets from the balcony on the crowd of Germans below, mowing them down in a bloodbath as they stampede for the locked exits. If not killed by the bullets, they are blown up by planted bombs or engulfed in flames. Everyone dies, including Hitler. It’s a disturbing and brutal scene, yet undeniably cathartic, playing out like an almost eschatological vision of supernatural justice (the melting-face-Nazi ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark is another example). Its revisionist history offers a satisfying slaughter befitting the villains who exterminated millions of Jews.

I was thinking of this particular scene this week, reading articles and watching the news about the Paris terrorist attacks. Disturbingly, the Bataclan theater massacre bears an eerie resemblance to the ending of Inglourious Basterds: Gunmen in a Paris theater firing indiscriminately on an unsuspecting crowd, sometimes from the balcony, turning the victims’ night of entertainment into a horror-show bloodbath of cinematic proportions.

The difference is the Bataclan victims were not Nazis at the height of World War II, but innocent civilians enjoying a rock concert during peacetime.

'Zero Dark Thirty'Columbia Pictures
‘Zero Dark Thirty’

The outrage of these horrific events naturally leads us to desire justice for the perpetrators. I was glad to hear that the terrorists in Paris were killed. I was glad to hear that French fighter jets bombed ISIS strongholds in Raqqa.

But should I be glad? As a Christian, how does this square with Jesus’s command in Matthew 5:44 that I love my enemies and pray for those who persecute me?

Can Christians simultaneously pray for ISIS and feel a celebratory catharsis when they are killed?

Was it not a good and valid emotion for my grandparents to have felt joy and relief at the end of World War II when the Axis Powers were crushed and the concentration camps liberated? Is it not a good thing when a SWAT team puts an end to an active shooter situation by shooting and killing the gunman?

This is where “conflicted catharsis” becomes more than just a feeling at the end of a Hollywood movie but an inescapable tension of the Christian life.

Is it incongruent that Christians would pray for ISIS members to come to know Jesus and serve his church, while at the same time supporting government efforts to destroy ISIS via bullet or bomb, before they can behead or blow-up another life?

Eli Roth and Brad Pitt in 'Inglorious Basterds'The Weinstein Company
Eli Roth and Brad Pitt in ‘Inglorious Basterds’

Part of the answer to living in this tension is making a distinction between the church and the government. They are not the same thing, but God does involve government in his purposes. Paul said as much in Romans 13:4, where he compares governing authorities (with militaries) to “God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Expanding on this verse in his book The Skeletons in God’s Closet, pastor Joshua Ryan Butler notes that Paul is talking about the purpose of government here: “The reason [government] is given the sword is ‘for our good’—for the well-being of society, the flourishing of God’s shalom in the world. Whether the Roman authorities know it or not, God’s purpose for them is to protect and preserve the thriving of his world.”

The police, the military, the enforcement agencies who preserve peace in the world—when they are not abused—are agents of temporal justice in a world desperately seeking shalom.

In an article entitled, “Should We Pray For ISIS to Be Defeated or Converted?” Russell Moore says Christians are called to be “a people of both justice and justification” who simultaneously pray for the salvation of enemies like ISIS and for justice against them.

'Zero Dark Thirty'Columbia Pictures
‘Zero Dark Thirty’

“This terrorist group is raping, enslaving, beheading, crucifying our brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as other innocent people. To not pray for swift action against them is to not care about what Jesus said we should seek, what we should hunger and thirst for, for justice. A world in which murderous gangs commit genocide without penalty is not a ‘merciful’ world but an unjust horror show.”

The complication, of course, is that sin infects not just the “murderous gangs” but also those sword-wielding protectors charged with keeping the peace and crushing the gangs. This is why we must have body cameras on policemen and military courts for errant soldiers. This is why the abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay happen. This is why we feel unsettled in that “conflicted catharsis” way at the end of Sicario and Zero Dark Thirty.

Little “j” justice is a good thing but will always be an imperfect thing. It will always be a justice that makes us long for the big “J” Justice of the ultimate Judge, Messiah Jesus. He’ll arrive in a manner more cinematic than any Tarantino film: Riding a white horse, eyes aflame, sword coming out of his mouth. He will bring a cathartic justice that every revenge film has only faintly foreshadowed: a justice that makes all that is wrong right and all that is sorrow joy; a justice that inaugurates a perfect kingdom and a shalom that lasts.

Brett McCracken regularly writes about film and culture for CT and recently contributed an essay on Quentin Tarantino to the newly published book, Tarantino And Theology. Follow Brett on Twitter @brettmccracken.

News

Why Are There Only 53 Christians Among America’s 2,184 Syrian Refugees?

Amid claims of discrimination, World Relief points to other explanations.

Syrian refugees disembark on the Greek island of Lesbos after crossing the sea from Turkey last week.

Syrian refugees disembark on the Greek island of Lesbos after crossing the sea from Turkey last week.

Christianity Today November 20, 2015
Santi Palacios / AP

Since civil war erupted in 2011, half of Syria’s nearly 22 million people have been displaced—including many of its Christians.

Before the conflict, approximately 1.1 million Syrians, or 5.2 percent of the population, were Christians. The majority—at least 700,000—have now fled.

That means that roughly 18 percent of Syria’s estimated 4 million refugees are Christians. So why have only less than 3 percent of the 2,184 Syrian refugees resettled in the United States from 2011 until now been Christians?

As Christians debate state bans on Syrian refugees after the Paris attacks, American Christians are “curious, and somewhat concerned, that there appear to be no Christian refugees in sight,” wrote Faith McDonnell of the Institute on Religion and Democracy for The Stream. She faults the Obama administration and US resettlement agencies which plan to increase the number of refugees resettled but have failed to support legislation that would fast track Christians for resettlement in America.

Christian refugees need special treatment, argues Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, because the United Nations refugee processing system “disproportionately excludes them.” According to Shea, it’s difficult for Christians to pass through the bureaucratic channels necessary to obtain refugee status, and they face dangers along the way.

No one is disputing the fact that the US has resettled 2,098 Muslims and 53 Christians from Syria since 2011, according to the latest statistics from the Refugee Processing Center.

However, the situation may not be as discriminatory as the numbers seem, said Matthew Soerens, US director of church mobilization for World Relief. The humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), World Relief is one of nine agencies authorized to resettle refugees in the US, and has resettled more than 250,000 over the past 35 years.

A typical security check for refugees takes 18 months—but it’s often longer for Middle Eastern refugees, he said. For example, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi refugees didn’t start arriving in the States until about five years after the beginning of the conflict in Iraq. So the bulk of Syrian Christian refugees are likely still waiting to be processed, he said.

“For a refugee, from the time they flee to until they’re in a permanent situation is 17 years,” said Soerens. “So five years is actually on the really short end. There are some refugees who might wait 30 years.”

And many Syrian Christians didn’t begin the resettlement process immediately after the civil war sparked in March 2011, he said. Instead, many Christians stayed longer in Syria because they felt protected by the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Other Christians fled to neighboring Lebanon. Now home to more than one million refugeesmore than one-third of its population—Lebanon has taken the longest to resettle displaced people, says Soerens.

Socioeconomic status also plays a part.

“Christians tended to be better off economically than the average Muslim in Syria,” said Soerens. For the wealthier refugees, applying for a tourist visa is a quicker avenue of escape. Once they arrive as tourists, they can petition the US government for asylum.

Since the start of the war, the number of Syrian asylum petitions has steadily risen. In 2010, 36 petitions were filed. Last year, petitions totaled 1,586.

Since 2011, the US has approved just over one-third (37%) of the cases filed. Christians are likely overrepresented in these figures, said Soerens.

He rejected accusations that the US was trying to discriminate against Syrian Christians.

“I’m wary to assume a discriminatory factor here, given the reputation of the US resettlement program,” said Soerens. “It has helped more persecuted Christians than any other religious group.”

Since 2003, the US has resettled more than 762,000 refugees, and nearly 340,000 of them have been Christians, according to State Department statistics. The percentage of Christian refugees from each country varies greatly, depending on the circumstances.

For example, consider the countries that top Open Doors’ 2015 World Watch List of the countries where it's hardest to be a Christian. Of the nearly 9,000 Afghan refugees resettled in the US in the past 12 years, just over 1 percent are Christians. But of the almost 15,000 refugees from Eritrea, 85 percent are Christians. By comparison, about 3 percent of Somali refugees, 30 percent of Iraqi refugees, 63 percent of North Korean refugees, and 75 percent of Nigerian refugees have been Christians.

“We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” President Barack Obama told Turkish reporters this week.

That might change, as several bills have popped up in the US House of Representatives this year, aimed both at expediting the process for religious groups threatened by ISIS and at beefing up the screening of anyone from Iraq or Syria. Some voices, including Franklin Graham, have even called for ending Muslim immigration to America.

“Of course we want to keep terrorists out of our country, but let’s not punish the victims of ISIS for the sins of ISIS,” said Leith Anderson, president of the NAE. “Our system is designed to keep terrorists out and to help desperate families with little children. We want to help the victims of terrorism in the Middle East, not punish them.”

Russell Moore argues in The Washington Post that it is time to "stop pitting security and compassion against each other." The Gospel Coalition offers an explainer on the Syrian refugee crisis. CT previously spotlighted how refugees and asylum seekers are today's pilgrims.

On Thursday, a veto-proof majority in the House voted in favor of the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act. Nearly 50 Democrats joined with Republicans to approve legislation that forbids Syrian and Iraqi refugees from being resettled until the director of the FBI, the director of Homeland Security, and the director of national intelligence confirm that each applicant poses no threat, reports The New York Times.

But the bill would only duplicate security systems in place and “effectively end the program,” said World Relief’s CEO Stephan Bauman. “Refugees are already the most vetted non-citizens in our country.”

Here is World Relief's full response to the SAFE Act passed on Thursday:

Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4038, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act, which would create an extra layer of certification in order for Syrian and Iraqi refugees to come to the United States as refugees in addition to additional reporting requirements.

World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, is strongly against this legislation and urges the United States to continue to welcome and protect Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

For 30 years, World Relief has partnered with local churches to resettle over 260,000 refugees to the United States and in addition since 1975, the United States has resettled more than 3 million refugees – three quarters of a million entered the U.S. in 2001 alone. During this time, there have been no recorded terrorists acts in the U.S. by a refugee. In fact, refugees are already the most vetted non-citizens in our country.

“The refugee resettlement program is a life-saving program that has helped millions of those who have fled persecution start their lives anew in a place of safety. At a time when the U.S. needs to show humanitarian leadership, it would be a mistake to effectively shut down a program that has saved millions of lives,” said Stephan Bauman, President and CEO of World Relief. “It is vital to maintain the integrity of this program by accepting the most vulnerable refugees, not excluding anyone based on their nationality or religion.”

World Relief strongly opposed H.R. 4038- The American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act 2015 due to the following reasons:

H.R. 4038 creates a bureaucratic review process that could take years to implement and would effectively shut down refugee resettlement. The bill requires the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Department of National Intelligence for each individual refugee. The certification process will have to be created and agreed upon by heads of each agency and could take years to establish. In the meantime, refugees would languish in camps and dangerous situations, Syrian Americans would not be able to reunite with their family members, and there would be very real ramifications for international refugee protection and U.S. foreign policy interests in the region.

The process, once established, would add months or years to the security screening process, which is already the lengthiest and most robust in the world, routinely taking between 18 and 36 months. In addition to obtaining approval from three heads of federal agencies for each refugee, the bill requires reporting to thirteen congressional committees on each refugee that is considered for resettlement. This is unreasonably burdensome and will effectively end the program. Furthermore, for reasons of security and safety, security and medical clearances are only valid for limited periods of time. During the certification process, these clearances will expire. This will mean that refugees will be caught in an un-ending loop of security clearances that will never end.

Refugees are already the most vetted non-citizens in our country. All refugees undergo thorough and rigorous security screenings prior to arriving in the United States, including but not limited to multiple biographic and identity investigations; FBI biometric checks of applicants' fingerprints and photographs; in-depth, in-person interviews by well-trained Department of Homeland Security officers; medical screenings; investigations by the National Counterterrorism Center; and other checks by U.S. domestic and international intelligence agencies. Supervisory review of all decisions; random case assignment; inter-agency national security teams; trained document experts; forensic testing of documents; and interpreter monitoring are in place to maintain the security of the refugee resettlement program. Due to technological advances, Syrian refugees are also undergoing iris scans to confirm their identity through the process.

The bill is a waste of resources. Funds used to establish and run this certification process would be better used in conducting actual security reviews of refugees and others who are vetted by these agencies.

The bill is a pretext and requires differential treatment of refugees from Syria and Iraq without providing a justification for the additional verification. It is a disguised attempt to stop refugees from two countries long beset by internal conflict, including refugees who have been in neither Syria nor Iraq for four years. Differential treatment, with no clear justification, amounts to discrimination on the basis of nationality without rational basis.

This is not to say that we shouldn't carefully vet refugees, but let's get the facts first before making generalizations and shutting down a program that has literally saved thousands of lives.To turn our backs on refugees now would betray our nation's core values to provide refuge for the persecuted and affirm the very message those who perpetrate terrorism would seek to send.

Now is the time to act. www.wewelcomerefugees.com

Stephan Bauman

President/CEO – World Relief

Pastors

Meet the Press

5 starting points for handling your church’s media relations.

Leadership Journal November 20, 2015
microphone at lectern

In my tenure as communications director for a large church, I enjoyed the opportunity to serve as media spokesperson—although I admit that when I was in the midst of a crisis, the word enjoy rarely came to mind. In one especially tense situation, the senior pastor attempted to lighten the mood by saying, “Looks like you’ll earn a master’s degree in media relations!”

Looking back at all that came my way in that role, an honorary doctorate seems more appropriate.

Yet while I'm still waiting on that degree, my experience interacting with local, national, and international media outlets did teach me plenty I can share with other leaders who find themselves in similar situations. To avoid over-simplifying the complex realities of publicly representing a church or organization in the media, I offer five starting points to catalyze deeper thinking.

1. Be smart.

Public speaking skills and media relations skills are not the same thing. Watch the White House spokesperson for a while and this point will become clear. The person who represents the President rarely speaks eloquently or with polish, but he or she sure can think fast. If the ability to understand the question, weigh it against your organization’s mission/values/priorities, recall contextual and relevant facts, develop an articulate response, and then deliver it with authenticity and integrity seems more than you care to tackle, appoint someone else to media duty. A simple truth to seriously consider: what works in the pulpit might not work in the paper. Or on the air. So take a pass, and let someone enjoy the chance to earn a master’s degree.

2. Always prepare.

Request the topics a reporter wants to address prior to setting a time to talk. Media outlets rarely, if ever, provide questions in advance, so don’t bother to ask. But preparation still must take place. Gather, in writing, relevant facts on the topic. Make sure they’re solid facts—a reporter will check. Even better, find a story to share. Write the key messages you hope to deliver in clear, one-sentence format. Craft a few “spontaneous” remarks, too. In one 52-week stretch, our church appeared in 26 print stories—and I prepared before every interview. A reporter calls and catches you at your desk? No problem, if you have a quick fact sheet by your phone or accessible in some other fashion.

3. Take the bullet.

Accept all criticism and blame, or do battle if it’s unfair or inaccurate. For legitimate problems, describe how the organization (or you) plans to work toward a solution. But never cast blame on someone else in your organization. Ever. Consider how fast trust disappears when a person or group watches their spokesperson or leader publicly abandon the “we’re a team” philosophy—the same rhetoric that he or she so passionately shares internally to motivate everyone to give their best. Just as a coach who blames players loses their allegiance, a pastor who sidesteps responsibility and offers someone else as the sacrificial lamb will soon feel quite lonely. Solid leaders care for their people; they don’t use them as excuses or heat shields. What about situations that involve moral failures or illegal acts? Better question: Why are you talking about these topics to the media? Sometimes maintaining the moral high ground requires just two words: “No comment.” While the media loathes this response, it stunts a story’s life.

4. Acknowledge others.

Stubbornly deflect attempts to lay credit at your feet by sharing the names of others who deserve it. You will gain relational equity by recognizing other people, and this will set a positive perception for your leadership. Most people truly enjoy it when their name and efforts receive public mention. Likewise, most folks feel sick to their stomach when the interviewee gloats about how well he and/or his leadership team performed or prepared. If calling out a single person will demotivate those not specifically mentioned, recognize the entire team’s efforts, and credit them with success. The media likes to specify individuals but never wants to list several names—the two exceptions are a picture with caption and when a reporter needs filler to hit a word count.

5. When "someday" arrives …

Most people don’t need to think about how to work with the media—until the day they do. Decide now who will own the responsibility, and make sure that person deliberates over the starting points described above.

David Staal, senior editor of Building Church Leaders and a mentor to a third grader, serves as the president of Kids Hope USA, a national non-profit organization that partners local churches with elementary schools to provide mentors for at-risk students. He also chairs the advisory board for a nearby college, teaches marketing at another university, and served ten years in leadership for a local church following a corporate career. David is the author of Lessons Kids Need to Learn (Zondervan, 2012), Words Kids Need to Hear (Zondervan, 2008), and Show Up (2016 release). He lives in Grand Haven, Michigan, with his wife, Becky. His son Scott and daughter Erin attend Valparaiso University.

Ideas

Too Poor to Get Out of Jail

How unjust police detention exploits the most vulnerable.

Christianity Today November 20, 2015
International Justice Mission

There’s no swift justice for the millions of detainees around the globe who spend years or even decades in police custody before their case goes to trial.

To get out, they need one of the “three Bs”: bribe, bail, or barrister. A majority are too poor to afford any one of the options, so they remain locked up and unable to support their families while waiting to plead their case. For them, justice comes slowly—if at all.

In Kenya, police detained a man named Kelvin two years ago for a crime he didn’t commit. He didn’t have money to bribe the officers, so he went straight to jail. His bail was set at 20,000 Kenyan schillings, a little under $200US. It was an unimaginable sum for a man who grew up as an orphan and spent his adult life picking garbage from a dump.

Skyrocketing crime rates in Nairobi have put pressure on police to make arrests and solve cases. Poor men like Kelvin become easy targets to pin crimes on, even with no legal justification. In 2013, an independent review of Kenya’s policing found that 64 percent of felony cases lacked sufficient evidence to charge detainees in the first place. In other words, nearly two out of every three cases failed meet the standard to charge them with the crime, much less find them guilty. Not surprisingly, when cases do finally come to trial, only 25 percent result in convictions.

Last month, Kelvin was finally released from prison with the help of International Justice Mission and a local congregation aptly named Deliverance Church. Members who had “adopted” Kelvin’s case and spent months praying for him raised enough money to pay his bail. He will now be free to spend the duration of his trial outside of prison and with his family.

An estimated 3.3 million people awaiting trial in jail long for a similar fate. The issue of unjust detention extends far beyond Kenya; according to the United Nations, one out of every three detainees has not been found guilty of a crime. Without question, this is an international epidemic that exploits the poorest and has the potential to ruin their lives.

In pre-trial detention, detainees face torture, mistreatment, and dangerous conditions. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has observed that it is usually “ordinary people” suspected of “ordinary” crime who suffer the most abuse. Appallingly, some police use electroshocks, drownings, beatings, and death threats to extort confessions from prisoners to crimes they didn’t commit.

Meanwhile, detainees become cut off from their families, who can’t even afford the bus fare to visit them. Due to loss of income, their wives and children can no longer afford their homes and school fees. It destroys the whole family.

Scripture positions prisoners at the forefront of God’s concern throughout history. The Psalms are full of their cries, and the prophet Isaiah foresees their freedom:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. (61:1)

The Apostle Paul was detained before his execution in Rome, and his prison letters are foundational to our faith.

When I heard the news from Kenya that Kelvin had been released from prison as a result of the outreach of God’s people, it was like seeing Scripture come alive: “I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” (Matt. 25:36).

While IJM works to defend clients like Kelvin once they get their day in court, we see the church coming in to support them in the meantime. The faithfulness of Christian communities in helping prisoners and their families can be the difference between life and death. Jesus called upon those who love him to love the prisoner, and he still does.

Holly J. Burkhalter is the senior advisor on government policy for the International Justice Mission. She formerly served as a director for Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch, a congressional staffer, and board member for the U.S. Institute for Peace. She is the author of Good God, Lousy World & Me: The Improbable Journey of a Human Rights Activist from Unbelief to Faith (Convergent).

The Suspension of Disbelief

Walter Wangerin and the universal story.

Books & Culture November 19, 2015

When I was 19, I inexplicably spent $11 of my limited student bankroll on a used first-edition hardcover of Walter Wangerin's The Book of the Dun Cow. Looking back, I'm sure that I only justified the purchase because of a stunning woodcut illustration of a spur-wearing rooster on the dust jacket. I had not heard of the book, did not care particularly for first editions of anything, and had never heard of Wangerin, though his name seemed familiarly German.

Everlasting is the Past

Everlasting is the Past

Rabbit Room Press

181 pages

$14.95

It was a Friday night that I bought it. By Saturday at noon, the book had been read.

Dun Cow was a cosmological medieval barnyard epic, as if Animal Farm had made fumbling love to John Bunyan's The Holy War. It was as Seventies as avocado countertops, sure, but it worked, and achieved an immediate timelessness for me. The farmish, mythic world felt familiar to a book-born country kid feeling a little urban and ideological displacement. It was like meeting kin at a family reunion—finding that a stranger has your nose, your cheekbones. This Wangerin spoke the rural, pastoral language of my imagination.

The world of Dun Cow was a curious amalgam. The Bible's God (I thought it was him at least) walked among the clouds like a man in his garden, and simple barnyard animals were all that guarded the cosmos against Wyrm, a Latin-intoning, earth-imprisoned monster, aching to ascend through a widening chasm in the earth to sweep down the stars with his tail. Wyrm (to my clapping delight) was horrifically Lovecraftian in nature and in motive, hungering for blood and chaos, held underground in some divine prison system that neither the reader nor his animal "keepers" were allowed to comprehend. The royal rooster Chauntecleer did not even know his role as warden. The bird's only weapons against a swarm of evil were a set of spurs and a daily liturgy of prayer-like cock-calls. A tiny crowing Order against gibbering, chthonic Chaos. Dun Cow's was a world of danger, a warm world to be sure, but one where the cold of death and undoing was an active, personal presence, resting under everything like a malevolent, rising iceberg.

I found it hard to decide whether Chauntecleer was even the hero. He was certainly not the wisest creature in the tale, nor the most loving, nor the strongest. He was brave, but that bravery quailed before the end, and though he was ready to die for his family and friends, I knew as well as he did that such a sacrifice would be meaningless in the face of a maggotted evil older than galaxies. I related to the cocky rooster who began so self-assured, then had his self-confidence plucked like tailfeathers as friends died around him, as his little kingdom was overrun by troubles he was powerless to halt, as the earth grinned open to swallow his world.

In the hands of a writer of less skill and sincerity, I firmly believe the book—with its scraps of Latin, its semi-allegory, and its deep sentiment—would have collapsed under its own weight, like a Jenga tower made of chicken bones, the literary equivalent of a novelty tune. But it didn't. Walt pulled it off. It worked. And what is more, it tasted like a book does when a book tells you the truth.

I didn't feel bad about those $11.

There's been a man's writing career between the release of Dun Cow in 1978 (which, my first edition did not inform me, won the National Book Award) and Everlasting Is The Past in the early summer of this year.

Wangerin, a longtime professor and writer-in-residence at Valparaiso University after years in the pastorate, has produced a body of work that by volume alone is impressive. His work has been prolific (something like thirty novels, plus children's and shorter works), largely well received, and consistently personal (in 2010, Letters from the Land of Cancer intimately detailed his struggle with the disease). He's shown no reticence toward bending his considerable imagination in service of fictional accounts of the lives of Jesus and Paul, nor even to novelizing the entire bible (The Book of God).

With this personal canon behind him, I was unsurprised when the press release accompanying by copy of Everlasting began, "It is not uncommon for Christian writers of a certain stature to pen a memoir, the better to share more of themselves with their devoted readership." Wangerin, quite definitely of a "certain stature," had more to share. The book that accompanied the release was beautiful, artfully designed and produced, looking as if it was covered with watercolor paper.

The contemporary Christian memoir has behind it a richly populated tradition of self-reflection: Augustine's Confessions, Julian of Norwich's Showings, Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul, C. S. Lewis's Surprised by Joy, Madeleine L'Engle's A Circle of Quiet, and countless other narratives that use personal experience and devotion to point to a larger Christian path. The legacy of such works is incalculable, not only from a literary perspective but also from a spiritual one.

Fred Buechner, in the introduction to his own (second) memoir, Now and then, wrote: "if you tell your own story with sufficient candor and concreteness, it will be an interesting story and in some sense a universal story." Buechner further casts his memoir as "a call to prayer." (Such calls are universal.)

The effectiveness of such writings as stories is not based on the extravagance or drama of a life itself, but of the unseen meanings given by God to the events recounted. Augustine's libertinism, Julian's simple, shining vision of a universal "hazelnut," Lewis's childhood world of "Boxen" (populated by proto-Narnian talking animals), L'Engle's house at Crosswicks—all become shared symbols, shared milestones. The more specific the telling—the more personal the memory—the more resonance builds in the soul of the reader. And, elevating such books to the status of devotional literature, the consistent sightings of God, walking through a life like a man walks in his garden. The murmur of his voice. In each life, each story, this whisper, in a hundred permutations, from a thousand throats: There is meaning. There is grace. You are beloved. These testimonies give us hope that such a hand, such a voice, might be closer to our lives than we have felt. They call us to prayer.

Wangerin begins Everlasting at eleven p.m., driving a yellow VW convertible in a snowstorm. (This scene, in woodcut style, forms the cover image of the book. It is unclear if the car's destination is a mountain or a chasm.) A first-year seminary student, he has just lost his faith, or a severely Lutheran boyhood version of it. For him, losing that faith means losing everything: family, calling, more. He considers suicide.

The book is the story of the journey from a child's faith, to a man's faith, to a childlike man's faith. While that student drives down the winter highway, Everlasting flashes, returns to begin at Wangerin's childhood, then moves from his early to middle life—roughly from birth, well into his pastoral tenure at Grace, a colorful and beautiful (and aptly named) inner-city congregation in Evansville, Indiana.

Candor is here, though of an often cold, Lutheran variety that seems little warmed by letting the light in. Concreteness too, and wonderfully written—images teem of skittering leaves, of doll-like corpses, of chickens scrabbling in the Wangerin backyard. His prose is miniaturized, fitted like clock parts, each sentence turning the next. Just when you think you are witnessing an over-written sentence, he expertly surprises you. The book is paradoxically both spare and extravagant, and it will not be to everyone's taste. It's high craft, but he avoids pretense, and it works, as Dun Cow did. It's distilled, dense. Delicate. I love it.

Still, Everlasting is not without its flaws. At moments it feels writer-based, intangibly lacking a clear understanding of who is reading. One often feels witness to Walt writing to Walt. Sectioned into three movements ("The Seventh Seal," "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones," and "Supernal Anthems Echoing,") the narrative's pacing occasionally glosses over large timespans.

Stories abound, good stories, of doubt and faith, losing and finding oneself, the practical, personal, economic, racial, and family tensions of a pastor and father whose diverse family moves into a tough black neighborhood in the inner city during the height of White Flight.

We get great stories, and a potent arc of a man finding (literally and symbolically) a home in Grace, but we don't get time for Wangerin's words to steep. Additionally, we get much of Walt the child, student, and pastor, but nearly nothing of Wangerin the writer and the artist—the very person many readers hope to find here. Yes, the one is the other, but besides a few fleeting references to early poetry and the Dun Cow's release, nearly all connections to his best-known works are themselves underground. Further, it's hard to argue that the book's not just too short. For all the sense and intention these omissions may have, by the time I was deeply relating with him, the book was over. It did not end too late to become universal, but it ended too soon to live up to its own power. As a story, it has more potential energy than kinetic, though the kinetic is powerful. (The fact that I wanted more is testament to the quality of the book.)

Little is said about Walter's relationship with his longsuffering wife Thanne, though she does gracefully intersect the narrative at memorable moments, usually of hardship, like the beautiful and red-throated Pertelote of the Dun Cow's world. (A 2008 interview with the pair revealed that Walter's commitment to his work came close to destroying their marriage, a story of grace that I dearly wish was developed here.) Walter's children (biological and adopted) are spoken of a bit more, but usually in relationship to third things: an attempted shooting in view of the Wangerin house's front porch, a complicated Christmas caroling session, visiting the doll-like corpse of a former church member. Parishioners and even houses seem to receive more meticulous care than many of the personal elements of home life that must have been shaping factors for the man. Again, I am here, engaged, eager. Give me more, Walt.

Additionally, there is no clear sense that the book truly finishes, only that it ends, fittingly, at a point farther down the road of faith (implied by that Volkswagen on the cover) that it maps. It ends in grace found in Grace, doubt swallowed by a faith that has gained strength from walking, from wrestling.

At first brush, I considered these elements flaws in a nicely crafted book. Reflecting further, I think that they're intentional, omissions or commissions in service of a particular kind of good personal storytelling, just not as thorough one as many readers will desire. Walt's telling is Walt here, or at least a version of Walt, as much as its subject is. On reflection, the occasionally lopsided narrative is forgivable in light of the deep love, human and divine, evident in moments of family connection. Further, the poignant and powerful stories of ministry at Grace highlight the power of that simple, complex place in the life of its young, white pastor. Grace itself becomes a family to Walt and his brood, a kind of coop that, like Chauntecleer, leads its leader even as he crows out the hours with prayer. The abrupt stop of the narrative, roughly corresponding with the end of Walt's pastoral tenure at Grace 22 years ago highlights this further—this is a selective work, not the memoir of a life, but the memoir of themes from a life. It is something better than thorough, a catalogue of hinge-points in a life, each of which forms the backdrop to an implicit whisper: There is meaning. There is grace. You are beloved.

And it is beautiful.

There is an immediacy to it; it clung to me. And in some ways, the lack of resolution becomes a strength. Since finishing the book, I have caught myself pondering my life through Wangerin's, remembering his stories, his vivid, raw images. Somehow, his story hopped the fence into mine like a bold rooster, despite differences of time and place, despite difference of struggle. I felt a little more meaning, a little more grace. A little more beloved. It was a gift to me from Walt, for the second time in my life.

Candid and concrete, I guess.

Universal.

Even today, Dun Cow dances for me with a lyrical innocence that convinces me it is a treasure. It explores, vividly, the boundaries of order and chaos, the feelings of creatures tasked with missions that are far beyond their nature to accomplish, the impossible paradoxes of faith and doubt and self-doubt, of free will, of providence, of surprises.

In Dun Cow it is the weak things of the world that can confound the strong. This is the principle that promises that the foolish things of God can upend the world's wisdom, that the meek shall inherit the earth, that the last shall be first in that Great Gettin' Up Mornin', that lions will one day rest with lambs, that a little child can handle vipers.

Everlasting, I think, is an extended meditation on this unfathomable truth. The suicidal doubter becomes the man of faith and sacrament. The poet becomes the preacher. The white man moves into the inner city, and discovers that much weakness is only hidden might—and all the while, choirs sing and roosters crow out the hours.

Both are stories of holding back the underground monster: Wyrm in the fiction, unbelief or unbelieving belief in the memoir. God, in both, is present. But in the way that a man who walks in his garden is present to the flowers.

I theorize that Dun Cow and Everlasting are two tellings of the same story—a story where God is very real, but at first glance appearing to his beloved creatures as an observer, inexplicably content to let his devoted workers bloody their feathers in a struggle for answers that may or may not ever come in a way knowable to them. The whisper of meaning, grace, and belovedness is there, but it is often quiet, in the same way it is quiet in a life. The plots of the two books come to climax and resolve, but not through grand or divine display—God's closeness is seen more through its effects than through direct theophany. Even the Dun Cow, the direct messenger of God, is an observer more than an active participant in the drama and suffering of the earth she serves. Grace is the conduit of its namesake attribute to its often-struggling pastor, but Wangerin seems to communicate it with a kind of learned passivity, a gentle and appealing humility born of honesty. This is the way it is, seems to be the sentiment. This is the way God is. It is his way. I am learning to trust it. There is encouragement to it, at least for those (like me) who have felt and questioned the distance of God to the cracks in his good earth. It reassures that closeness and intention are not always felt the way we choose. The hope here is honest. But it is not easy. God is his own, giving himself away, defending, providing, encouraging, redeeming, but never as Chauntecleer wishes and rarely as Walt expects.

"Marooned," as the pitiful, wonderful Canis Mundi Dog perpetually mourns in Dun Cow. "Maroooooooooned!" And he is the one who ends up saving the world!

I wonder whose voice is speaking through the dog.

"I want my land made new again," says Chauntecleer, feeling loss even after victory over the subterranean enemy. "I want the past scrubbed out of my soul. I want to never think of it again." The red-throated Pertelote speaks to him, of "that scrubbing of the past which you want so much, because it is confession. It is the new birth of the present, which you want so much because it prepares for deliverance. The one is separated from the other by forgiveness."

"Where now is my past?" Walt asks in the last words of Everlasting. "Where is the me that once was me but is me no longer?" Standing in the sanctuary of the church he led for 16 years, his mind swirls with images: the weddings and funerals he officiated, the Eucharistic moment, the traditional songs of a swelling choir.

Who is Walt? Where is he?
In the music. In the air.
He is all the countless ghosts of his past.
And I am preaching…
… Look: I am the child who enters the room where his father trimmed the Christmas tree.
I am the student considering suicide.
I am the man translating Jerome's Latin Bible and landing on the verse in Galatians which calls him into the ministry.
I am the newlywed, walking with my wife out of the church and into a high wind which blows her veil like a ship's sail over her head.
I am the father, raising chickens.
And I am preaching.
My past is so heavily present that I can scarcely bear it. But I am my past.

Forgiveness, of self, of God. Forgiveness, closing the chasm-like scar in the earth's face, large enough to gobble Volkswagens—about as big as the doubt a soul can carry. What opened it? Only a little thing—an egg, a question. But it grew to threaten the universe of one man, and perhaps, of all of us, though we did not know it.

It became a story about forgiveness. About faith. The past? Not scrubbed out, but newly born. Here, and personal. Maybe everlasting.

Maybe universal.

Paul J. Pastor is the author of The Face of the Deep: Exploring the Mysterious Life of the Holy Spirit (David C. Cook, 2.1.16).

Copyright © 2015 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.

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