Theology

How to Face the Headlines with Hope

The Papua New Guinea mudslide is yet another reminder that our world is not as it should be. But take heart! Christ has overcome the world.

People dig through debris at the site of a landslide in Papua New Guinea.

People dig through debris at the site of a landslide in Papua New Guinea.

Christianity Today May 29, 2024
Emmanuel Eralia / Getty

Family members sit atop boulders, weary from lifting rocks to search for bodies. Men with shovels bend under the weight of sorrow and effort as they work to leave literally no stone unturned. Disaster has struck again: A massive mudslide in Papua New Guinea on Friday morning buried an estimated 2,000 people alive, covering dozens of homes and an elementary school.

By now, it seems safe to assume that anyone not yet rescued from under as much as 26 feet of debris has died. I flip from story to story, looking for more information, but eventually I have to stop. I’m starting to feel claustrophobic myself, imagining a roar of mud and rock waking me from my early morning slumber.

I had an all too similar experience with the video of the bridge collapse in Baltimore earlier this year. As I watched, I remember realizing I was holding my breath. The night lights of Baltimore glittered in the background. It was almost cinematic—I might have mistaken the scene for the beginning of a 1980s rom-com, the city shot right before the credits roll—were it not for the dark silhouette of the ship hitting the bridge, reminding me of the truth: There were trucks and workers on that bridge as it fell. I couldn’t see their faces, but I was watching people die.

And it’s not just Baltimore and Papua New Guinea. Over the past year, as producer of CT’s news podcast, The Bulletin, I’ve been exposed to many tragedies from afar. I’ve read photographic essays about Ukrainians who retrieve dead Russian bodies from the battlefield, scrolling through to get the gist and trying not to linger on the graphic images. I’ve read accounts of school shootings and racially motivated crimes and had to pause for a deep breath. I’ve scanned reports of famous personalities who’ve died and felt the familiar twinge of distant sadness. And I myself am no stranger to death.

Yet for all that, sometimes when I encounter tragedies like these, a thought flits across my mind: It could have been worse. I stop myself short, embarrassed. Have I become indifferent and callous? Or have I simply seen too much?

I’m not alone in wondering. As early as the 1970s, researchers began to raise an alarm about how visual depictions of violence could be detrimental to viewers, especially children. After seeing violent footage of the 9/11 attacks or school shootings, for example, research subjects reported greater distress than those who had only heard or read about the same events.

These results were hardly a surprise. Participating, even vicariously, in the suffering of others can bring great pain, anxiety, and sometimes lasting trauma. If a death in one’s own family could destroy a small, known universe, how can the human mind comprehend loss on a far larger scale?

Separation by pixels only makes so much difference. We don’t need to be flesh-and-blood witnesses for suffering to make an indelible mark, and our digital media environment is designed to make us witnesses of tragedy daily. Doomscrolling past one troubling headline after another can lead to increased feelings of frustration, worry, and despair. Is it any wonder three in four Americans say they’re “overwhelmed by the number of crises facing the world right now”?

The constant stream of local and global suffering we see on our screens can leave us weary, numb, or disillusioned. We may let lapse the kind of presence and care to which God calls us. Desensitized, we learn to gloss over “smaller” tragedies, letting only mass casualties provoke our sorrow, instituting a hierarchy of grief and forgetting the gravity of every marker of sin and death in this broken world.

Both science and Scripture confirm that God never designed us to be Atlas, carrying the whole world’s suffering on our shoulders. Jesus came to bear that weight for us (1 Pet. 2:24). Yet God did create us to “carry each other’s burdens, and in this way … fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). He formed mirror neurons in our brains so that even at the cellular level we could understand one another’s pain. He commanded us to comfort each other from the wellspring of comfort we ourselves have received (2 Cor. 1:4)—a task that, admittedly, can seem almost impossible amid a continual onslaught of bad news.

So how do we fulfill the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves when we’re not sure we can bear their stories of sorrow?

In my work at The Bulletin and beyond, I’ve benefited from advice from author and therapist Aundi Kolber, who encourages us to protect against an uncharitable numbness by caring first for ourselves. “When Jesus says, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” Kolber told me in an interview, “we have to recognize the wisdom of ‘yourself’ is included there.”

Practically speaking, that means scrutinizing my media intake, creating time limits for engagement, and resisting the tendency toward consuming media in isolation. Kolber recommended reading or listening to the news as a “single-minded” activity, not as part of our regular multitasking routines. This lets us attend to our bodies’ responses of anxiety or discomfort while “witnessing from a place of dignity and integrity.”

For others, different boundaries may be more helpful, according to our personalities, our wounds, and the individual capacities with which God has equipped us. On a recent episode of The Bulletin, host and CT editor in chief Russell Moore noted that some Christians may need to step back from media consumption for a season to instead engage deeply with Scripture. For others, said cohost Mike Cosper, a conscious differentiation between public and personal life may be helpful.

Whatever practical changes we make to our media habits, though, it will still be difficult to bear witness to the suffering of the world, to sit with the statistics about the war in Gaza, stories of gun violence, or testimonies of racial injustice. Our tenderness to tragedy will prove more durable if it’s anchored in community lament.

In lament, “we sensitize and strengthen our hearts,” writes singer-songwriter Sandra McCracken. Whether in a Sunday morning worship ritual of the prayers of the people, a Wednesday night prayer service, or a special gathering for a specific tragedy, corporate lament offers us an outlet for the emotions that might otherwise overwhelm us.

Together, we name injustice and tragedy and place it within the greater narrative arc of God’s redemptive faithfulness. We are reminded that God cares about the headlines, that he reigns over all worldly leaders (Dan. 2:21), that not even the “smallest” tragedy escapes his notice (Matt. 10:29). It is here, says author Sheila Wise Rowe, in grieving and growing with others, that we discover “our pain and anger are transformed and mobilized from expressions of despair into signs of hope.”

In all this, one thing is sure: God calls us to respond to suffering. As I scan the headlines each week, preparing a new episode of The Bulletin, I try to scrape off the calluses that build up on my heart.

When my eyes catch on a story that details great hurt, I often pray, Come quickly, Lord Jesus (Rev. 22:20). When I read statistics about disasters, I pause to remember that each number represents a name, a person for whom Christ died. As I scan the unfamiliar faces in newspaper pictures, I call to mind those faces I do know—family and friends in need, folks I support in grief care groups. We’re all bound together in our longing for redemption in the midst of a broken world, and I ask God to “break my heart for the things that break the heart of God.”

Finally, I look for ways to act, whether through a donation to a faraway cause or direct care in my community. I may not be able to offer a cup of cold water to a Ukrainian widow, but I can send funds overseas and care for widows in my church. I may not be able to solve the conflict in the Middle East, but I can seek to be a peacemaker in my workplace and in my neighborhood. Even in the face of the very worst news, I am not powerless—and God is not powerless either.

“In this world you will have trouble,” Jesus told his disciples. “But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Across the millennia, we offer a heartbroken amen. This world is not as it should be, as each day’s headlines make clear anew. But those headlines need not send us into despair or make us cower in protective indifference. Though sin, death, and the devil make the news, Christ has overcome them all.

Clarissa Moll is the producer of Christianity Today’s weekly news podcast, The Bulletin.

Books
Excerpt

‘I Thought I’d Be Further Along by Now’

An excerpt on risk, worship, and spiritual growth from The Expectation Gap: The Tiny, Vast Space between Our Beliefs and Experience of God.

Christianity Today May 29, 2024
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Getty, Unsplash

We often think we should be further along in our life of faith than we actually are. This tendency is connected to how we read the Bible, how we compare ourselves to others, and then how we reinforce these dynamics in our faith communities.

The Expectation Gap: The Tiny, Vast Space between Our Beliefs and Experience of God

I want to point out upfront that it is quite possible that we should be further along. I am not suggesting that we get lazy and stop worrying about spiritual growth. I am proposing that our attempted solutions to this gap are the fundamental problem. The gap may be real, but our solutions are often fruitless.

Many of us spend too much spiritual energy—and, frankly, guilt—trying to be something God did not ask us to be. We then spread that expectation around our faith communities and perpetuate the cycle. If we can notice the attempted solutions, and therefore the stuck cycle we are in, and get off that treadmill, we can open our souls to an encounter with God that can cause growth.

Let’s start by looking at the way we relate to the Bible. We each bring many assumptions to our reading of Scripture. We project our assumptions onto the page and read those assumptions back from the page, thus reinforcing our stuck patterns. Assumptions are always easier to see in others than in ourselves, and when we’re confronted by our own assumptions, it can be arresting or even threatening at first. When we look at the dynamics between Jesus and the Pharisees, much of their hostility was because Jesus was rummaging around in their assumptions, threatening what they thought they knew about Scripture.

We could explore many assumptions related to our reading of Scripture, but I want to focus on those that relate to the spiritual progress we’ve made in our faith. Let’s begin with a well-known story from the New Testament—Jesus’s invitation to Peter to walk on water:

Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

“Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

“Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matt. 14:22–33)

One helpful aspect of systems theory—the science of healthy and unhealthy relationship patterns—is the way it teaches us to notice the whole rather than the individual. On our own, we are prone to look at one person in a story and relate to that one person, but systems theory’s gift is that it helps us gain a more holistic view.

An individualistic approach to this passage might ask, “How can I step out in faith this week? What is Jesus beckoning me to do?” A systems approach says, “Wait just a hot minute—11 of the 12 disciples stayed in the boat. They still benefited from witnessing something astonishing, and they all ended up worshiping Jesus.”

In this story, most of Jesus’ disciples—92 percent, to be precise—did not step out in faith at all. In fact, they sat in the boat and watched as their impetuous and bold friend stepped out. Is the only right interpretation of this story that Peter was the good disciple and all the others were bad? Maybe rather than trying to be like Peter this week, we should try to be like one of the other 11. This week, less Peter, more Thaddaeus. Perhaps we could start a campaign: #TeamThaddaeus.

We tend to assume we must always be like the main character of any Bible story. But the reality is we will grow in Christ sooner once we accept that we are very much like ourselves, and none of us can—or should—always be like the main character of any given Bible story.

If you are prone toward action like Peter was, then go for it. You may well be a personality type that is energized byrisk. You may also be prone to act first and think later.

But what if you are the kind of person who, when invited to do something new or risky, first creates a spreadsheet to assess all options, along with a cost-benefit analysis? By the time you’re done listing all the risk liabilities, a soaking-wet Peter and a laughing Jesus are back in the boat with you. Is that bad? Can you love spreadsheets and risk mitigation plans and still walk by faith? Or must we all be like Peter all the time? What is it about us humans that draws us toward carrying the pressure and guilt of thinking we really should be someone else?

This leads to a second vital point. If we look carefully at this text, it ends with all 12 of the disciples worshiping Jesus in astonishment. Maybe the text is more about being astonished at Jesus than it is about us taking a faith risk. Maybe the central point of this story is Jesus’ power, not Peter’s faith steps. Those of us in cultures that place a high value on performance and improvement are prone to see every story in the Bible as “something I need to work on,” but much of Scripture is actually designed to help us worship our astonishing God. In other words, maybe Peter isn’t the main character of this story; maybe it’s Jesus.

What if most of the stories in the Bible are designed to primarily evoke a worship encounter with God rather than a self-improvement task list? We would do well, particularly those of us in production-based cultures, to be suspicious of our relentless need to improve and grow. If we’re reading the text with our minds always thinking we have something to work on, we may be missing the heart of God. Maybe God is less concerned with our improvement and more concerned with our worship.

The text clearly shows we can stay in the boat, watch our friend almost drown, and still end up worshiping Jesus. Now there is a sermon waiting to be preached! “Friends, this week, I don’t recommend stepping out in faith. I recommend staying in the boat and watching your friend take steps. You’ll end up worshiping Jesus either way!”

Steve is the author of Managing Leadership Anxiety: Yours and Theirs and The Expectation Gap. He is the founder of www.capablelife.me and has served in a variety of pastoral roles for 26 years, the majority of those years as a lead pastor.

Taken from The Expectation Gap: The Tiny, Vast Space Between Our Beliefs and Experience of God by Steve Cuss. Copyright © 2024 by Steve Cuss. Used by permission of Zondervan. www.harpercollinschristian.com

Books

Boy Meets Girl, Fans Meet Jesus?

As Christian romances make their way to theaters, their writers are seizing opportunities for evangelism.

Christianity Today May 29, 2024
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch Tlapek / Source Images: Getty / WikiMedia Commons

This spring, Someone Like You, based on the Christian romance novel by author Karen Kingsbury and produced by the newly formed Karen Kingsbury Productions, was released in theaters across the US and Canada. The movie—a tale of grief, romance, and a secret frozen embryo sister—grossed about $5.9 million.

Kingsbury’s accomplishments as an author and movie producer are impressive and, in many ways, singular. Over 25 million copies of her books are in print. Someone Like You was a New York Times bestseller.

But Kingsbury isn’t alone in her success. Female writers—romance writers in particular—dominate the Christian fiction market, claiming eight spots on the top-ten author list in 2023.

Since the mid-20th century, opportunities for these women who write—first in Christian bookstores, then on television, and now in movie theaters—have been expanding in response to growing audience demand. Along the way, these evangelical women have gained a kind of religious authority, crossing over from sentimental fiction to biblical interpretation and theology. Hidden behind paperback covers and movie posters picturing prairie scenes and happy couples, these texts deliver serious evangelistic messages for Christian women to consume and share with others.

The roots of Christian romance can be traced to authors like Grace Livingston Hill and Eugenia Price. But the genre as we understand it today really began with Christy (1967), Catherine Marshall’s story of a young woman in the Great Smoky Mountains. As secular romance novels became more sexualized in the 1970s and ’80s, women began to look for faithful alternatives. With Janette Oke’s Love Comes Softly (1979)—Marty moves out West, marries a single father, finds community, and grows in faith—the genre was established. According to Reading Evangelicals, Love Comes Softly sold “an average of fifty-five thousand copies a year for twenty years.”

In the decades since, authors like Oke, Beverly Lewis, Francine Rivers, and Kingsbury have been writing love stories imbued with Christian themes. Though romance is at the heart of these novels, their plots also take on real-world suffering, including suicide (Love Comes Softly), abandonment (The Shunning by Lewis), abuse and assault (Redeeming Love by Rivers), and grief (Someone Like You). The spiritual support they offer is particularly relevant to readers who’ve experienced similar hardships. Characters pray and get saved, worship and read the Bible. Endings are happy—and redemptive.

From the outset of the genre, Christian romance has had missional intentions. Many novels today include back-of-the-book discussion guides with Bible passages and devotional prompts. Oke has stated, “I see my writing as an opportunity to share my faith. … If my books touch lives, answer individuals’ questions, or lift readers to a higher plane, then I will feel that they have accomplished what God has asked me to do.” Kingsbury has defended Christian stories not just as escapes but as an “unbelievable force” in our faith journeys.

But Christian romance hasn’t only had success in print—a good thing for the industry, given declines in Christian book sales. For decades now, these texts have been adapted for television. Christy was a CBS miniseries from 1994 to 1995. Titles like the Love Comes Softly series (beginning in 2003), Hidden Places (2006), The Shunning (2011), and The Bridge (2015) became made-for-TV movies on the Hallmark Channel, appealing to audiences looking for heartwarming programming. More recently, Hallmark has produced television spinoffs of When Calls the Heart (2014–2024) and When Hope Calls (2019–2021), offering expanding storylines created within Oke’s oeuvre.

Now, Kingsbury has taken the book-to-television strategy one step further. After releasing four made-for-TV movies with Hallmark, she opened her own production company in 2022. Karen Kingsbury Productions released The Baxters on Amazon Prime in March, the month before Someone Like You hit theaters.

Christian romance novels aren’t exclusively sold in Christian bookstores; the Hallmark Channel, though certainly family- and faith-friendly, isn’t an exclusively Christian network. But for Christian romance writers, the move to streaming services and movie theaters does represent the biggest opportunity yet for more mainstream attention—and for expanded ministry.

Rivers’s 2022 Redeeming Love, a retelling of the Book of Hosea, models the kind of attention Christian romances might achieve as they move to theaters. The movie adaptation earned only an 11 percent positive rating from critics. But it also achieved a 95 percent positive rating from viewers and opened fourth in the box office its opening weekend. (Someone Like You found critics and viewers in closer alignment—a 46 percent positive rating from the professionals and a 96 percent positive rating from audiences.)

For both Rivers and Kingsbury, these creative projects are meant to do more than impress critics or make money. They have evangelistic goals—not just providing clean entertainment for women who are already Christians but drawing in secular audiences. Indeed, both authors have highlighted the opportunity for fans to take their non-Christian friends to the movies. Kingsbury has even offered crowdfunded tickets through her “Share the Hope” campaign.

Here again, discussion questions and reading guides make evangelistic intentions explicit. Rivers put out two study guides just prior to the release of her film—A Path to Redeeming Love: A 40-Day Devotional and Redeeming Love: The Companion Study. The story of Redeeming Love, she says, is “meant to bring people to Christ, and … to offer a tool for us to share our faith with people who don’t know Jesus at all.”

For her part, Kingsbury offers both a six-part discussion series and a seven-part Bible study on the Someone Like You website. Connecting passages of Scripture with plot points in the film, the Bible study discusses difficult personal themes like the loss of Kingsbury’s brother and the health challenges of her son (he portrays Matt Bryan, one of the film’s male leads). Through the study, Kingsbury addresses an audience of readers who intimately know her work, offering a space for longtime fans to experience spiritual growth.

But her discussion questions are doing something different. Here, Kingsbury speaks to a non-Christian viewership, addressing their concerns about grief and betrayal, forgiveness and peacemaking. “What questions have you had about God?” she asks. “What is your source of truth?”

Someone Like You has left theaters but will remain available for group events through the Faith Content Network. This platform provides access to the movie and its digital resources until streaming becomes available later this fall. With five additional novels listed as “coming soon” on Kingsbury’s website and the announcement of a second film, it seems her mission across multiple mediums is only just beginning.

As Christian romance writers bring their stories to film and streaming platforms, so too are their opportunities for evangelism expanding. With trust in pastors declining and church attendance plummeting, authors like Kingsbury might occupy a unique and unprecedented position—trusted by longtime readers and drawing in new viewers, casting the Christian story as relevant and compelling, hoping that “boy meets girl” becomes “fans meet Jesus.”

Emma Fenske is a third-year PhD student in the History department at Baylor University. Her research centers on recovering the cultural, political, and theological identities of evangelical women through mass media and pop culture.

Culture

Mad Max Does Genesis

Furiosa begins with a retelling of the biblical Fall. After its apocalypse comes something new.

Christianity Today May 24, 2024
Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

One of the first lines of dialogue in Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a question: “As the world falls around us, how must we brave its cruelties?”

Across its 148-minute running time, Furiosa offers various responses to that inquiry, presenting a post-apocalyptic set of scenarios bound in blood, gasoline, and bullets. Ultimately, the film settles on hope—however foolish it may seem—as the only way forward. The desolation of what’s old, it insists, can make a way for ‘all things new” (Rev. 21:5).

George Miller returns to direct this spinoff and prequel to his thunderous 2015 epic, Mad Max: Fury Road. That film took place over the course of three days and two nights; Furiosa occurs over almost two decades, told in five pulse-pounding chapters. Miller takes his time exploring the transformation of an innocent young girl into the liberation warrior we find in Fury Road.

We first meet an adolescent Furiosa (Alyla Browne) with her mother (Charlee Fraser) in their home, the Green Place of Many Mothers. The rest of the world is a barren wasteland, ravaged by the compounding effects of climate change and nonstop warfare. The Green Place, by contrast, is a literal Garden of Eden, rife with foliage, wildlife, and fresh water. In a playful riff on the Genesis story, Furiosa opens the film by picking a ripe peach from a tree.

All too soon, paradise is lost. Marauders kidnap Furiosa, seeking to bring knowledge of the Green Place to their leader, Dementus (Chris Hemsworth), a cruel and histrionic warlord who dreams of plundering the abundance for himself. Unable to save her daughter, Furiosa’s mother gives her a peach pit to remember home by and urges her to find her way back. From the moment Furiosa is forced into Dementus’s muscled coterie, she schemes and fights to return to the garden.

This extended allusion to Genesis sets the stage for Furiosa’s surprising spiritual heft. In this incendiary, “post-Fall” world, to live is hell and to kill is gain; evil is real, and redemption is desperately sought. Apocalypse is now—but that might not be all bad.

The word apocalypse, especially in movies, often connotes wanton destruction, horror, and violence with no end in sight. But the word’s origins are more nuanced. The Greek word apocalypsis is frequently translated as “a revelation.” In biblical times, apocalyptic literature served “as an intensified form of prophecy.” Critic Alissa Wilkinson and scholar Robert Joustra expand on this idea in How to Survive the Apocalypse: Zombies, Cylons, Faith, and Politics at the End of the World. The apocalypse, they write, “renews as it destroys; with its destruction it brings an epiphany about the universe, the gods, or God.”

Apocalypses create realizations that can only come with razing. The disruption they cause is not change in and of itself; but it does provide the foundations for change to be built upon. Apocalyptic revelation—even revelation of injustice, misery, and sin—is always an invitation to build something new.

Held captive and forced to serve different warlords, Furiosa realizes that the tyrants she’s ruled by have no desire to do anything new with the apocalypse they’ve been given. The vile men waging war for the planet’s resources, including Dementus and Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme), merely recapitulate the same cruelty and barbarism that led to the world’s destruction in the first place, hoarding scarce goods for themselves rather than imagining a more communitarian alternative. When Furiosa is captured by Dementus after one of her many escape attempts, he sneers at her: “Where were [you] going, so full of hope? There is no hope!”

At the film’s climax, Dementus and Joe wage a scorched-earth war, launching the full brunt of their forces at each other. Instead of shooting a typical action scene, Miller frames this battle as a montage; it’s not clear who’s winning, or even whose army belongs to whom. The carnage caused by two small-minded rulers is both brutal and meaningless.

As Furiosa ages (actress Anya Taylor-Joy steps in to play the older character), her weariness and despair deepen. And yet she also realizes that true tragedy would be resigning herself to fatalism. Resolving to move forward without “the old ways” of revenge and malice, she puts aside corrupt cravings for power and commits to different motivations. The world won’t be saved by repeating what’s been done before. And apocalypse alone isn’t sufficient; she’ll have to take action.

When Jesus began his earthly ministry, his gospel was so radical as to be considered destructive by the powers that were. His message of an upside-down kingdom (Matt. 20:16), his radical solidarity with those who were overlooked and oppressed by the empire (Mark 2:15), went against the dominant worldviews of his day. Even his closest disciples rebuked him; even they did not understand his teachings (Mark 8:30–33). It was easier for them to imagine Jesus’ deliverance working within the framework they already knew; they couldn’t envision how transformative and total Jesus’ vision for the world would be.

Whether Jesus was healing on days of his choosing (Luke 6:6–11) or dining with society’s outcasts (5:27–3), his seeming disregard for the law was not transgression for transgression’s sake. He came to be a greater fulfillment of those laws; his radical amplification of their commands—including extending the definition of who one’s “neighbor” is—was an invitation to a new way of living.

This invitation is the same to the believer today. The work of bringing God’s kingdom does not end simply when we get rid of evil, but rather when we build better things in its place. And (without spoiling too much) it’s exactly this kind of building that the last scene of Furiosa evokes.

In Furiosa’s final standoff with Dementus, he sardonically commends her for learning the lessons of brutality and resilience he’s taught. “I’ve been waiting for someone like me,” he says as Furiosa faces him. “We’re just two evil bastards in the wasteland. … We are the already dead.”

This comparison gives Furiosa pause; she realizes that she’s seeing what she could become. While her arc won’t be complete until Fury Road—she creates a utopia where the captives are free (Is. 61:1), the hungry are fed (Matt. 25:35), and the stranger is welcomed (Deut. 10:18)—by Furiosa’s end, we see the beginnings of her revelation.

Oftentimes, after a climactic action sequence (in particular, a standoff between Furiosa and some raiders that takes place on a truck under siege) Tom Holkenborg’s rattling score decrescendos to a whisper. We’re left with the ambient sounds of the desert, the scorching sun upon the sands, and scraps of blue sky peeking through the smog and smoke.

In these moments of quiet beholding, the words God spoke to the prophet Isaiah come to mind: “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland” (43:19). Possibility may persist in our own wastelands, if only we’d have eyes to see and ears to hear. Not all is dead here. We plant our peach pit, and wait for it to grow.

Zachary Lee serves as the Managing Editor at The Center for Public Justice. He writes about media, faith, technology, and the environment.

Pastors Will Try to Spare South Africa’s Tense Elections from Violence

Oscar Siwali is mobilizing conflict mediators as the country goes to the polls. He only wishes his organization could train more.

Election posters from various political parties displayed on poles in Pretoria, South Africa.

Election posters from various political parties displayed on poles in Pretoria, South Africa.

Christianity Today May 24, 2024
Themba Hadebe / AP / Edits by CT

Oscar Siwali remembers watching Nelson Mandela’s triumphant walk as he left prison after 27 years. In 1990, as the young pastor of a Baptist church, Siwali saw himself as an evangelical focused on winning souls and tending to his flock’s spiritual needs, not needing to prioritize political concerns. Nonetheless, he shared the pride of his people’s successful anti-apartheid activism that demanded “Free South Africa Now,” an outcry that inspired worldwide solidarity.

But just three years later, a far-right white nationalist assassinated Chris Hani, a leader of the South African Communist Party —an attack that threatened to derail South Africa’s transition from the oppressive white-minority rule to a democratic government that represented the entire country.

When Hani’s murder threatened to unleash a civil war that South Africans had labored so many decades to avoid, Siwali, like fellow Christian leader Archbishop Desmond Tutu, realized his faith compelled him to action. He began to preach peace in his sermons and to talk to those who had taken to the streets.

“I saw a different way of the work that I was called into, where I wasn’t just in service from the pulpit,” Siwali said. “That was truly my first revelation in seeing the importance of the clergy being out there, engaging with people … and [figuratively] taking that pulpit and placing it in the center of a community.”

In 2013, Siwali founded SADRA, a faith-based organization that trains people of all ages and backgrounds to be conflict mediators in their communities. It also has special programs for local church leaders, whom SADRA believes can be most effective in areas prone to violence and political tension because of the widespread respect they engender. SADRA is the only faith-based organization contracted with the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to train election mediators and observers, and its current mission is ensuring that South Africa’s May 29 elections do not culminate in violence.

While the African National Congress (ANC) has held power since Mandela became president in 1994, with Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa seeking reelection, simmering discontent and power ambitions have birthed new political parties. Currently, as many as 300 parties are vying for the presidency, each vowing to fulfill the sweeping promises of liberation and equality espoused by the anti-apartheid movement.

Meanwhile, a new generation of younger leaders has emerged, impatient with and frustrated by the elders who have led a nation of high unemployment, high domestic violence, and low wealth redistribution. Further complicating the election is the inclusion of independent candidates for the first time. (Citizens do not vote directly for president; rather, the winning party selects the nation’s next leader.)

Church leaders are on high alert that their nation could violently implode, particularly if people do not believe the elections were fair and corruption-free. Last month, for instance, pastors met with political leaders to pray and to strategize how to avoid bloodshed in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’s second-most populous state, which is predicted to have a highly contested vote.

“Almost all of the people I know working in mediation and peacekeeping are gearing up for the national elections,” Siwali said. “Respected people in communities need to be able to watch over and be the eyes of society to make sure the counting is done properly and also be a neutral voice if tensions take place.”

CT talked with Siwali about his goal of training 5,000 church-leader mediators to work the elections, why so many feel frustrated about the state of their country, and how those outside the country can help.

How do South Africans generally feel about the state of their country?

For some time, the focus in South Africa was on working toward democracy and resolving the clear conflict between black and white people. The conflicts have now become about the lack of quality government service delivery and people not seeing the democratic dispensation that they had been waiting for, the freedom that people had been singing about.

At SADRA, we often hold community dialogues, and you’ll hear people saying, “I had seen on television in some countries that when freedom comes after war, the poor now live in big homes. The blacks take over the homes of the whites. But in our country, white people still live in the same homes that they lived in, and the blacks still live in the tin shacks that we live in. So, did freedom actually come?”

Some people even say, “Who said we wanted democracy when what we actually wanted was freedom?” They trusted the political leaders, but the leaders were not communicating that they weren’t getting the “freedom” they wanted because we have not been to war. It’s usually in countries that have been to war where you will have people who were poor taking over companies and homes from the rich. That’s not what has happened in South Africa because we’ve taken a peaceful journey in attempting forgiveness of each other and in working toward building a nation.

What is at stake in this election?

We’ve never had a national election with so many controversies like this. Former president Jacob Zuma has broken off from the ANC and started the uMkhonto weSizwe Party. The ANC lost their effort in court to bar him from using this name, which is from a tagline long associated with the party.

Zuma has already done two terms as South Africa’s president and cannot legally become president a third time. He could potentially get a third term if his new political party wins, because he would be with a different party. Also, Zuma is facing a trial for corruption and was arrested previously, and they are trying to determine if that arrest would disqualify him from being president.

The potential for conflict is high no matter the results. Some candidates have threatened to drive the country into chaos if they don’t win. There have also been a lot of political assassinations that have taken place over the years. In this context, we are training church leaders to work as conflict mediators and election workers for peace, with the understanding that anything imaginable can happen.

How do Christians tend to vote?

South African Christians are not a homogenous group. For instance, you have Christians in the ANC, the South African Communist Party, and the Pan Africanist Congress.

We have European churches and American-planted churches, but indigenous churches are the largest. They are Pentecostal and charismatic, with sometimes a mixture of African traditions and Christianity. Because of their size—Zion Christian Church has 12 million members and Shembe Church has between 5 to 6 million—they tend to attract politicians seeking blessings and political support.

How many mediators have you trained?

In the past year, we’ve trained more than 1,300 church leaders, and in the last seven years, we’ve trained more than 3,000. Our dream is to train about 2,000 additional mediators, looking at specific provinces where the level of violence has been higher, such as KwaZulu Natal and the Eastern Cape. The former president and the ANC are from KwaZulu Natal so the state KwaZulu is divided, because you now essentially have two ANC parties there.

SADRA’s trained mediators have been hard at work in the election preparation process in all provinces. Mediators are helping to facilitate conversations between the IEC and community leaders. Specifically, in three communities, there would have been no election registration had SADRA mediators not intervened. In each community, mediators took a volatile situation with protesting residents and turned it around into a picturesque tapestry of people’s expression of their democratic right to register to vote.

What does mediation look like?

When officials from the IEC come into a community to prepare it for the election, local people can be hostile toward them, often frustrated because of a sense that the government isn’t providing services. SADRA trains mediators to work with the IEC to deescalate tensions.

For example, IEC workers often visit a community and encourage people to register to vote. But because people are frustrated that the government hasn’t provided them with services, they will block the commission from entering.

In these instances, the local mediators we have trained will meet with people on all opposing sides and work in the community to allow the IEC to enter peacefully. Allowing the electoral workers in could also be done with soldiers and police, but this method usually does not end well. It is not good to use the barrel of a gun to engage the democratic process.

Who supports SADRA’s work?

Individuals, agencies, and overseas embassies contribute funds to the conflict resolution work that we do across southern African nations. African governments tend to watch closely who gives money to civil society organizations because of the issue of the West intervening in African politics. As much as we ask for help, individual local donors are also wary of giving money, as they don’t want to be accused of interfering in politics.

How has doing peace work impacted your faith?

I initially worked at the Quaker Peace Centre, and it was during that time that I met some of the members of the Mennonite church. That sort of introduced me to a broader understanding of the theological aspects of peace-building because I was working in peace-building organizations, but not necessarily from a theological point of view.

For me, this work is about being reminded of the bigger task of the church in society. There are very big issues in society that the government must address, but cannot do so alone. The church also has this responsibility.

How can people outside of the country support peace efforts in South Africa?

We need people to come to South Africa and observe the elections. We also need international grantors who are able to make grants available to local organizations to form local observation teams. Even with everyone who is on the ground, including groups like the Carter Center, we are still short when it comes to election observation.

In the last election, we only had 12 percent (around 8,000) of the required 66,000 election observers at voting locations. I’m hoping we could have 50 percent of those slots filled this year. These are the people who observe the count and keep the overall peace of the election environment. It’s a lack of money and government commitment, as to why our nation does not have the number of people in place that we need.

Pray for peace before, during, and after the elections. We need a lot of prayer for the KwaZulu-Natal Province where a lot of violence has happened already, and more is expected as we get closer to election day.

What we desire as peace-builders is that there will be a free, fair election and outcome that can be accepted by the people of South Africa no matter who wins.

Theology

What I Would Change After 30 Years of Marriage

I should have invited Ruth to our wedding—to acknowledge how much our ordinary moments point to the story of Christ.

Christianity Today May 24, 2024
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch Tlapek / Source Images: Getty / WikiMedia Commons

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

On Monday of next week, my wife, Maria, and I celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary. As I think about those two kids standing at the altar, I would want to say “I do” all over again to everything. One of the very few exceptions would be one decision that had to do with the wedding, not with the marriage. After 30 years, I’ve changed my mind about the biblical text I wouldn’t let us read.

Somebody suggested that we read at the ceremony a passage from the Old Testament book of Ruth, one that we heard read or sung at almost every wedding at the time. In the King James Version (which was what people almost always used), the text reads, “Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (1:16). It’s about the young widow Ruth from Moab, pledging to her dead husband’s mother, Naomi, that she would go with her to Naomi’s homeland of Israel.

I believed then, and still do, that all Scripture is inspired and “profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV throughout), but I didn’t think that particular Scripture was appropriate for a wedding.

“It’s not about marriage,” I said. “It’s about someone taking a trip with her mother-in-law.” I wanted something about the mystery of Christ in Ephesians 5 or about love from Song of Songs or about Jesus at the wedding at Cana. I could even have lived, I said, with 1 Corinthians 13. Of all of the things about the wedding ceremony, I only insisted on two—that we use the traditional vows and that we read some other text than that one. You could say that I was ruthless in my Ruthlessness.

If I can give some unwanted advice to my 22-year-old self, the groom, I would say to him, “You are right about the bride, and right to ask her to marry you. This will be the best earthly decision you will make in the course of your life, but you are wrong about Ruth. That text has everything to do with your next 30 years.”

Thirty years ago, I knew how to preach about the cosmic mystery of Christ and his church, a mystery reflected in marriage. I knew that I loved this woman, and I didn’t want to be with anybody else. And I knew enough to know that the old vows were better, that we needed the words our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents had vowed. How could we describe our commitment better than “for better or for worse … till death us do part”?

I know some people who have had hard marriages. Some marriages I admire greatly have been, I know, a fierce struggle to keep together. Ours is not one of those. We’ve faced far more “better” than “worse,” and even when the worse has arrived, it was always better because of her. That’s mostly because I’m the quirky one and she’s the stable, unshakable one.

In the biblical account, Naomi, grieving the death of her sons, insists that both of her daughters-in-law stay behind in Moab, where they can start their lives over again. Ruth, though, was committing, before God, to walk into a future completely unknown to her. And so were we.

If you had asked those two kids back at the altar in Biloxi, Mississippi—one of us 22 years old, the other 20—what our life story would be, we couldn’t have predicted how much we would laugh together. I’m not sure we could have predicted how—30 years later—we would still want to be around each other all the time.

We wouldn’t have known what it would be like to hold each other after getting the phone call about a father’s death, or what it would be like to feel the other trembling in tears after a miscarriage. We wouldn’t have known what it would be like to trek out together to a Russian orphanage to adopt two little boys, nor what it would be like to see in a hospital room our other three boys who came to us the more typical way.

I wouldn’t have known that the only ultimatum I would ever hear from my wife was about whether we’d ever attend another Southern Baptist business meeting. I couldn’t have foreseen how much the words Donald Trump would shape the circumstances of our lives, or that that year would outlast the seven years of tribulation our Sunday School prophecy charts had promised.

What I really would not have predicted, though, is how—just like the story of Ruth—so much of our story would be made up not in those “big” moments but in the very small, ordinary ones: the fleeting encounter in the gleaning field, the midnight meeting in the threshing place, the birth of a baby.

Naomi said at the beginning that she should rename herself “bitter” (1:20), but the text shows us the turnaround of her now rejoicing with Ruth’s newborn on her lap. The women of the neighborhood said of this old widow, who once thought her story was over, “A son has been born to Naomi” (4:17). Many things that seemed to be coincidences—just the right thing happening at the right time—led up to that.

Last night, Maria and I walked with our youngest son down to the creek by our house, where our son climbed some trees as we walked the dog. The cicadas were buzzing and the fireflies were flashing all around. I stopped and wanted to freeze that moment in time. It was almost as if a future version of myself was time traveling back to whisper, This is the best. This is the sort of thing you will remember on your deathbed. Those are the moments that shape a life, that surprise us with joy.

I didn’t want Ruth at the wedding because I thought I knew how words worked. I was, after all, a preacher and a former political speechwriter, and an aspiring theologian. I wanted our wedding to be focused on the big story of Christ and his gospel—and an out-of-context Bible verse about some women who’d lost their husbands just wouldn’t do. My problem was that I couldn’t see that that little narrative is about the big story of Christ and his gospel. The conversation led to the trip, and the trip led to love, and the love led to a birth for a family from Bethlehem. The story ends with the mention of that baby, Obed, but not as a mere “happily ever after” resolution of the storyline.

The book ends with the words, “Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David” (4:22). The setting is cast for what would happen from Bethlehem in the books to follow, 1 and 2 Samuel, of the shepherd-musician who would be promised that one of his sons would sit on his throne: “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:13).

Ruth didn’t know that her promise to one old woman would end up leading to Israel’s king—nor that Israel’s king would lead to the deliverance of that family line from existential threat, all the way through to another story, that of a worker and a virgin, a story that would end up, again, with a baby in Bethlehem, one in whom the entire cosmos holds together, one whose kingdom will never end.

Your little story, and mine, aren’t quite so messianic in their stakes. But, then again, maybe they are, in some way. The Bible says that everything working around us ends up for good, and then defines what that good is—that we would be “conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). All of that comes about in each of our lives through lots of little decisions that ripple out in ways we can’t see. Every once in a while, though, we can look back and see some words—like I do—that were the right words to the right person—words that we can only explain by grace.

Jesus is Lord. All of the story of Scripture—all of the story of the universe, visible and invisible—is his story. He holds the keys of life and death. And sometimes he stops by a wedding (John 2:1–2). Sometimes, in a wedding or, better yet, in a marriage, one can get a glimpse of his glory (2:11).

Thirty years ago, we said to each other that we would love, comfort, honor, and keep each other, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, as long as we both shall live. I would say those words again. But I might add some other words too—“Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you” (Ruth 1:17).

At either my funeral or Maria’s, people can read any number of Bible passages; I love them all. But, if you’re there, know there’s one of them that I am happy for you to read or to sing or just to remember, because I will mean it then as I do now: “Whither thou goest, I will go.”

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

News

Iranian Christians Contemplate God’s Justice after President’s Death in Crash

Believers in the diaspora reference Daniel and the “writing on the wall” as many mull if helicopter accident portends more changes to come.

A woman passes by a poster of Iran's late president Ebrahim Raisi who died in a helicopter crash.

A woman passes by a poster of Iran's late president Ebrahim Raisi who died in a helicopter crash.

Christianity Today May 23, 2024
Majid Saeedi / Stringer / Getty / Edits by CT

Iranian Christians in the diaspora shed few tears over the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, killed in a helicopter crash along with the foreign minister and six others in the northwest mountains of Iran.

The leadership vacuum will be filled within 50 days by a new election. But it comes at a tumultuous time for the Islamic Republic, which last month launched an unprecedented missile attack against Israel. Coming in the context of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Iran’s other proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen have harassed the Jewish state and its Western allies.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared five days of mourning, assuring there would be no change in the nation’s direction.

Raisi’s term in office was beset by internal protests over religious repression, alongside discontent with an inflationary economy. But while he oversaw restoration of diplomatic ties with rival Saudi Arabia, relations with the West severely deteriorated due to strengthening ties with Russia and China, as Iran enriched its uranium supply in suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

“Countless thousands of Christians are specifically praying for God’s will in Iran,” said Lana Silk, CEO of Transform Iran, which oversees a network of churches in the nation. “I believe his hand is on all these key events.”

She advised the Western church to pray for new God-fearing leadership.

Of the now deceased leader, Christians expressed a diverse emotional response.

“From all of my contacts, the reaction among educated and socially engaged Iranians is joy,” said Shirin Taber, executive director of Empower Women Media, dedicated to the promotion of international religious freedom. “With the potential for change, there is always hope.”

An Iranian-American Christian, she said these deaths demonstrate that not only is the regime not invincible, it is on the decline. Reports indicated that the presidential helicopter unwisely departed in deep fog and also suffered mechanical failure.

Taber also leads the Abraham Women’s Alliance to strengthen the Abraham Accords, a US government–led effort to normalize relations between Muslim nations and Israel. In this time of transition in Iran, she encouraged Western nations to continue to “lean in” to the push for democracy.

Raisi, age 63, was elected in 2021 with the lowest turnout recorded since Iran’s revolution in 1979. Analysts blamed widespread disillusion, as clerical leadership severely limited the pool of candidates to those with demonstrated loyalty to Ayatollah Khamenei. Raisi was also considered to be the primary candidate to succeed the 85-year-old supreme leader.

Sources noted the widespread speculations over the crash. Some rumors immediately suspected Israel, while others wondered about internal power struggles. Iran has not suggested foul play.

But while state media broadcast scenes of mourning at the funeral and in the streets of Iran, diaspora images showed dancing in the streets. Some Christian voices were more muted.

“My initial reaction is that justice was done,” said Amir Bazmjou, CEO of Torch Ministries and an Oxford-based PhD candidate in political science and Christian theology. “God heard the voices of families who lost their loved ones unjustly because of Raisi.”

Referring to the president by his infamous title “Butcher of Tehran” due to his role in the “death committee” that executed thousands of prisoners, Bazmjou cited the Ezekiel 18:23 reference that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Raisi, born into a clerical family, joined in the initial protests against the Shah of Iran at age 15, and by age 25 became deputy prosecutor of Tehran. In 1988, he was one of four judges on the secret tribunal that retried already imprisoned enemies of the regime.

In 2009, Raisi backed crackdowns on protestors and their mass incarcerations following the disputed presidential election. And as president, in 2022, he oversaw the security response against demonstrations sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, a woman detained over her allegedly loose hijab. Over 500 people were killed, with 22,000 detained.

The US sanctioned Raisi in 2019 for his role in domestic repression.

Bazmjou encouraged Western empathy over the death of Iran’s president, but to stand with the oppressed public while avoiding siding with the regime. Such was the US response, expressing condolences while reaffirming support for the people and their “struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

But as the pool of approved politicians tightens, Bazmjou believed that the helicopter deaths contribute to the further shrinking of core loyalists that can assume future leadership positions. Like Taber, he believes these gaps may foretell significant change in the near future.

This would accord with a picture provided in Scripture, he said.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN, read the writing on the wall in Daniel 5—God’s message to King Belshazzar of Babylon. God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

“I pray for the political leaders in Iran to turn from their dark ways and encounter the God of love, justice, and holiness,” said Bazmjou. “Otherwise, God’s justice will come for the voiceless, Christians included.”

A recent survey suggested there are nearly one million believers inside Iran.

For any who celebrate, he cited Proverbs 21:15 as appropriate for both Christians and Iranian leaders—When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.

Mansour Borji agreed, citing Psalm 55:15—Let death take my enemies by surprise. Christians may not fully comprehend the relationship between God’s mercy and his judgment, said the director of the Iranian religious freedom advocacy organization Article18, but he allows the frustrated to express their anger at those who harm their fellow citizens.

As Raisi violated the rights of minorities, Borji is somewhat frustrated still.

“It would have been better for him to face trial and be held accountable for his crimes,” he said. “But the world is a safer place without him.”

Silk, however, warned that potential internal Iranian power struggles would not bode well for citizens, as authorities will rule with an even tighter fist. Persecution against Christians will continue and perhaps intensify.

But as Bazmjou found biblical parallel with the king of Babylon, Silk referenced a prophecy about ancient Elam, located in modern-day Iran. Restoration is promised, she said, but not before judgment. In Jeremiah 49:38, God states, I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy her king and officials.

“We cannot presume to know God’s mind,” Silk said. “But things are accelerating, and I wonder if the major shift we have been anticipating is closer than we think.”

Theology

In Succor and Silence

On praying past the end of silver linings to a God who often does not answer as I hope.

Christianity Today May 23, 2024
Illustration by Elizabeth Kaye / Source Images: Getty, Unsplash

Around the bonfire at church camp on the Oregon coast, we sang “River of Life” to get warmed up, and then, to mellow the mood for the gospel presentation, “Seek Ye First.” A haunting descant rose over the melody, swelling my 12-year-old heart with grateful longing. I walked forward to accept Jesus into my heart, and a counselor prayed for me, shadows from the flames flickering across our faces.

Back home again, I needed to learn how to pray. I thought it was weird for the Lord to expect me, gangly and grappling with my fleshly nature, to carry on what felt like a nonreciprocal relationship with an invisible, inscrutable, and ineffable God—but I was willing to give it a shot.

Only I couldn’t tell if I was doing it right. “God is not a vending machine,” our youth minister told us. “You have to pray according to his will.” So I began by asking for help in various areas of self-improvement: I should be nice to my brother. I should have a cheerful attitude when vacuuming with the heavy canister Electrolux and not slam my bedroom door when I got mad. I needed to avoid Judy Blume books that celebrated masturbation and stop sneaking the M&Ms my mom hid in the freezer. God, please help me to be better.

My self-examination concluded, I tendered other requests, like to make the premier soccer team and for a boy to return a crush. When those things didn’t happen, I swallowed a slight doubt. Perhaps James 4:3 was at play here: “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” Maybe I had bad motives.

Much else went unasked because I didn’t know how to say it. I couldn’t compass any words to address the palpable rancor running through my family. And the salvation of various relatives—I just didn’t see how the Lord would manage it. On overnight visits with extended family, I’d lie in the guest bed and silently cry over their eternal fate as sounds filtered in from the shows the grown-ups watched in the evening. My pillow would get soggy as tears slipped into my ears, and I’d have to roll over.

I went on to attend a Christian college, where a line attributed (likely inaccurately) to Martin Luther held the weight of a decree: “I have so much to do that I shall spend the first three hours in prayer.” Accordingly, I tried morning quiet time. I’d get up, groggy and dull, and read the Gospels in small font or leaf through disturbing passages on the whoredom of Jerusalem. I wanted to hear from God, but I didn’t know how to respond to these Scriptures, even if I believed they were God-breathed and useful for teaching (2 Tim. 3:16).

I determined I was too restless to read and murmur to God in the morning and needed to occupy my hands so my mind could focus. Assured by Richard Foster that prayer is merely “bringing ordinary concerns to a loving and compassionate Father,” I made the Lord my divine pen pal, filling one notebook after another with my prayers.

After college, I worked in Mexico and worshiped with a congregation of about 15 people in a cement chapel with rough wooden pews. The pastor put psalms to music because there were no songbooks. He fingerpicked his guitar as we sang Psalm 121:

I lift up my eyes to the mountains—where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord,the Maker of heaven and earth.

Alzaré mis ojos a los montes; ¿De dónde vendrá mi socorro? Mi socorro viene de Jehová, Que hizo los cielos y la tierra.

Socorro was a new word for me, a lovely word. It meant rescue, and it had a purring, soothing sound, as relieving as rescue itself. It was too bad, I thought, that the English cognate was hard and unattractive: succor.

Hurricane Mitch hit Central America that year. In Mexico, my colleagues and I watched footage of floods and landslides, and I thought of my neighbors living in houses with thin metal roofs and dirt floors. One three-year-old, Adán, seemed to lead an especially wispy existence. He wandered around the dusty lanes, often walking into our home at mealtime, unannounced and stark naked. He would climb up to stand on a chair at the table and demand, “Y mi plato?

The Lord was a rescuer, I trusted; he cherished the little children. I prayed, aloud and in writing for two days: Please, Lord, stop the hurricane. Make it die out.

And it did. The hurricane never came to us. Mitch lost power as it moved inland and veered away to the Gulf of Mexico. It was the first time I had really prayed for safety, and my prayers were answered. We were succored—yet this outcome made me uneasy. More than 11,000 Hondurans and Nicaraguans died. Why would God spare us but not them?

A few years later, back in the States, my husband and I prayed over our children throughout the adoption process, seeking wisdom and guidance. Everything fell into place in a way that seemed divinely appointed, and three children under four were in our home within ten days of our first meeting.

Prayer immediately became harder to fit in as nurturing these little ones filled all my time. I couldn’t justify getting up early to muddle through prayer, and the tedious indoor tasks of early parenting only increased my restlessness. I began to practice kinesthetic prayer, praying through my daily workouts, memorizing Scripture and asking for God’s intervention for my family as I ran on the treadmill. I configured my mile-long swim for prayer, giving thanks and offering intercessions in neat laps. After my sets, I’d lift myself out of the water and walk across the rough pool deck, water streaming down my arms and legs, my soul limpid, almost newly baptized.

As the kids grew, we couldn’t quite shake the feeling that they were not all right, even after two, five, or ten years in our family. As they reached adolescence, we upped our therapeutic parenting, sought educational supports, set predictable routines, got weekly counseling, recruited grandparents, consulted doctors, and arranged pro-social extracurriculars. My husband and I both worked part-time so one of us would always be at home with the kids.

And I doubled down on prayer. I received a One Year Bible for Christmas and read it three years in a row. I was charmed by prophecies I hadn’t known before, describing a compassionate and just God who advocated for strangers, widows, and orphans. Scriptures became my prayers.

With Nahum 1:7, I called on the Lord to be a refuge in times of trouble. From Psalm 10, I entreated him to consider our grief and take it in hand. Luke 8 morphed into a desperate appeal that Jesus would heal my children like he healed the wild man among the graves, leaving him “dressed and in his right mind” (v. 35). I was hungry for God’s goodness and prayed continually for him to do great things for us, that we might be filled with joy.

Everything got worse.

I got so many calls with bad news. A child got kicked off a sports team for furtively flipping off teammates. A child talked suicide on the first day of school. A child was nearly expelled. My husband called me, saying that a child was long overdue from school and still not home. Later, the police showed up. The psychologist called about red flags on an assessment. A principal called me to say that they’d found my student with shards of glass and self-inflicted cuts. I was called out of a work meeting by a school counselor who was concerned about my child’s saying that “therapist” was just the words the rapist combined.

I began practicing a new kind of kinesthetic prayer that I called the “Drunk Hannah,” after the mother of Samuel, whose prayers of deep anguish were mistaken for drunken ravings (1 Sam. 1:12–14). Each morning, I walked for an hour through quiet streets, praying and crying. The brine spilled onto my cheeks and lips, and I’d come home to find my neck chalky with accumulated tears.

Our children’s early experiences, I knew, were shaping their current reality. Early trauma can shape children’s hardwiring, even physically changing their brains in a way that lowers their stress tolerance, increases their anxiety and aggression, and, heartbreakingly, short-circuits their ability to feel secure and happy with loving parents.

Our efforts to help seemed to miss the mark over and over, and my prayers, too, seemed to lead nowhere. Prayer is not a meritocracy, I told myself. His thoughts are not my thoughts; neither are my ways his ways (Is. 55:8–9). But I had studied statistics, and the biblical record strongly implied that prayer was correlated with favorable outcomes. For me, prayer seemed to make bad things happen.

Maybe the problem, I considered, was that we weren’t storming heaven’s gate in adequate numbers. I recruited a group of friends to be prayer warriors. To start, I asked them to pray for insurance to cover several outstanding medical bills. A week later, the bills were still unpaid, and one of our children was hospitalized. I renewed my request for the insurance and added a prayer for a child’s smooth transition to short-term residential treatment. A week after that, insurance hadn’t paid, and two other children were hospitalized. For months, each time I wrote my prayer team, we’d be hit by a fresh wave of unusual problems. My prayer updates, once brave calls to arms, became exercises in waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I took to pacing the sidewalk, queasy from worry and grief. “What is happening?” I whispered to the Lord. “Is this really what you are leaving us to contend with?” I felt not so much succored as suckered.

After a couple years of regular Drunk Hannah praying, we took our son backpacking with several family friends. We hoped a trip together would draw us closer following several crises, but my husband and I were also anxious to shield our companions from our son’s unpredictable outbursts. As the sun set on our first night, we lingered in easy conversation over an alfresco dinner, then peaceably retired to our tents. “Thank you, Jesus,” I breathed as I drifted to sleep.

I awoke to screams. In the pitch dark I could hear our friend Andy crying, “Oh my God! Where are you?” I crawled out into the open and felt something brush against me: the boughs of a large tree that had just fallen across a tent of sleeping children.

Andy carefully slit an opening in the tent fabric near where we heard his son crying. His legs flailed out, and we pulled the boy free. I picked him up and handed him to Julia, his mother, who sat with him in her lap, trembling but quiet. I held them to me for a few seconds, stroking Julia’s hair.

The tree had trapped their daughter by her lower legs, and she couldn’t move. Andy cupped her face in his hands, saying, over and over, “You’re okay. We’re going to get you out.” She nodded up at him and swallowed back sobs.

But the tree was impossibly large. It was five in the morning. We were seven miles out in the back country. Our group discussed what to do.

“I can get help,” I said. “I can run.” I pulled on my boots and started grabbing my keys, my phone, water, food.

“Someone needs to go with you,” Andy said. “Who else can run?”

The men needed to stay and deal with the tree, but I scanned the group and saw my son. “My son can be my buddy,” I said. “He can run.”

The two of us ran through the dark woods. We slowed to a walk on the rough parts, so we didn’t turn an ankle, then ran on, pacing the seven miles to our car as the light steadily grew. We lurched onto the porch of the ranger station near the parking spots and knocked on the door. No answer.

We drove out on the dirt road, taking one turn too fast and skidding near the lake. My son grabbed the door handle and looked at me. “I need to slow down,” I said. “If we crash, she might die.” Near a tiny grocery store, we had enough signal to call 911—and to text my pastor: “Pray that we can get the girl out; tell everyone to pray.”

“I will do that,” he responded right away. “Praying.”

It took a few hours to set up communication relays and to assemble a rescue team. As we accompanied them back up the trail, the National Park Service radioed that they were sending a helicopter.

My son asked if he could run ahead, and I said he could. He burst into the waiting group, shouting, “They’re coming! We need to find a place for a helicopter to land!” While we’d been gone, our companions had used sticks to dig under the tree, freeing the girl’s legs and lifting her, like the men seeking Jesus for their paralyzed friend (Mark 2:3–11), on a mat to a safer place.

There was nowhere to land a helicopter. The pilot hovered overhead while two rangers attached the girl’s shroud-like stretcher to the cable and clipped in beside her. The cable retracted, lifting them clear of the treetops, and then the helicopter ascended and flew off, its human cargo dangling in mid-air, a tiny bundle on a thin string.

We learned later that hundreds of people had been praying, a chain reaction set in motion and multiplied through my hasty text to my pastor. Her rescue seemed proof of God’s power and resolve. It was a miracle—the tree could have easily killed her. She had three bones set, needing no incisions, and went home in two casts.

“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news” (Is. 52:7). We were clapped on the back and congratulated. Julia and Andy told me that my son’s return was the advent of hope for them that day. I watched closely as he unwrapped their thank-you gift, aching for him to catch some of the healing that was on offer. But their earnest gratitude seemed to bounce off, leaving him apparently untouched.

“There’s no greater honor,” one friend told me after the accident, “than being someone’s answer to prayer.” I didn’t argue. I was glad to help, but I also wanted to wave some flags to let the Lord know that there were still people who needed some serious succor over here.

God could rescue spectacularly if he wanted to—we had seen it with our very eyes. And yet I felt suckered again. We would soon be seeking residential treatment for my son because we couldn’t safely care for him at home. There would be no helicopter for us.

I didn’t understand why God’s healing of my little ones remained so far off. Why was it my job to work and watch fruitlessly? I tried to come up with explanations. Maybe it was a way to develop my emotional awareness or to grow my compassion. Maybe it was a “severe mercy,” a painful but beneficial dissolution of some hidden idolatry like self-sufficiency or salvation by works. Maybe our grapple with shame would be an example for others to triumph over their own shame. Maybe this was the deluge before the rainbow: All my children’s early pain would be resolved somehow, and the only way out was through.

Eventually I got tired of scrounging after silver linings. The plain fact was that the Lord had a flintiness about him. I wondered if I should be shouting at him, like Sonny in The Apostle, “I love you, Lord, but I am mad at you! I AM MAD AT YOU!”

But I didn’t have the energy. One angry scream, and my throat hurt.

And I wasn’t mad, exactly. God was beautiful, and I loved him. I just didn’t understand why he seemed so harsh, why he had apparently given me an impossible task and then pulled the rug out from under me. I thought I knew a little of what Moses felt when God forbade him from entering the Promised Land after all his years of service (Deut. 3:21–28).

“I can’t pray anymore,” I finally told my friend Annie. “The opposite of what I pray for keeps happening. I can’t muster the imagination. I can’t formulate the words.”

“There’s this idea that if you can’t pray, you’re far from God,” she replied. “But I think that when you can’t pray, you’re right there in the heart of God.”

The Lord was near. I knew that. I felt it in the inexplicably palpable belovedness of my soul—there was no way I could feel so alive and cherished except by God. But his nearness was explainable in another way, the way that poet Christian Wiman says is “God entering and understanding human suffering.”

When we endure suffering, Richard Foster writes, it prepares us to “enter into the anguish of others” in a way that brings healing. It becomes a ministry. Likewise, Henri Nouwen says in The Wounded Healer that our sufferings are a place where God unfurls his new creation. It’s the regenerative, redemptive way we catch glimpses of his kingdom reality.

After the accident, Julia had said to me, “I won’t be able to go camping again if you’re not there too.” These words touched me strangely. I had looked at the sorry, unsuccored estate of our family and felt that our lives were dim and disfigured, good for nothing. Instead, she saw me as a ministering presence, someone with healing to spare. “There are many things,” Oscar Romero said, “that can only be seen through eyes that have cried.”

I began to realize that wounded-healer moments beset me continually; they were darts and arrows of love shot into my life. It was like the Lord had lavish tricks up his sleeve and wasn’t above showing off.

My friends knew that I was heartbroken and regularly missing work for emergencies and appointments, but they kept calling to talk through their griefs and insecurities. “You might not have time,” one friend in ministry would say, “but I could really use some Wendy Wisdom.” Mothers told me their problems and dashed away salt drops as I listened. Young women sent me late-night messages or wistfully sidled up to me after church to talk. Strangers crossed my path, blooming under my attention.

At the end of that summer, I canceled a visit to my best friend because I couldn’t find anyone who could safely supervise my children. I felt stuck at home, disappointed and full of dread. I happened to call a neighbor, curious about her house hunt. She told me that her family of seven was moving the next day; the truck would arrive in the morning.

“Who is helping you move?” I asked.

“No one,” she said, “I’ve been too busy to ask people.”

“Can I and my three teenagers come and help?” I offered. We boxed their belongings, packed the truck, and directed the younger kids for the next two days. I had prayed for a certain kind of rescue, but, rescueless, glimpsed instead the suffering heart of Jesus and a sacred chance to minister to others. Perhaps I could say, like C. S. Lewis’s Queen Orual in Till We Have Faces, “I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the answer.”

A few weeks later, I reached for my Bible and ran my fingers over the puckered pages. To whom else could I go? The Lord has the words of eternal life, and I’m a complete sucker for him.

Wendy Kiyomi is an adoptive parent, scientist, and writer in Tacoma, Washington, whose work on faith, adoption, and friendship has appeared in Plough Quarterly, Image Journal, and The Englewood Review of Books. She is a 2023 winner of the Zenger Prize.

Books
Review

What Believers Can and Can’t Affirm in Those Who Affirm Same-Sex Marriage

Rebecca McLaughlin takes care to filter their legitimate claims from their flawed assumptions.

Christianity Today May 23, 2024
Illustration by Mallory Rentsch Tlapek / Source Images: Getty

Maybe you believe that the Bible opposes same-sex sexual relationships. Where in the Bible would you begin to explain your view? Maybe you doubt that the Bible opposes same-sex sexual relationships. Where in the Bible would you begin to build an argument for affirmation? Or maybe you are unsure whether the Bible affirms or opposes same-sex sexual relationships. Where in the Bible would you begin to inquire about the matter?

Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships? Examining 10 Claims about Scripture and Sexuality (Biblical response to lgbtq+, homosexuality)

Whichever position you might find yourself in, Rebecca McLaughlin’s new book will point you to precisely the place in the Bible where you should begin—with the gospel and Jesus. More about that in a bit.

The book, Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Sexual Relationships? Examining 10 Claims about Scripture and Sexuality, brings together two recent trends of books by evangelical writers.

One trend is believers who experience same-sex sexual attraction, or self-identify as “gay,” writing first-person accounts about their journeys of faith and sexuality. This trend includes: Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting (2010); Christopher Yuan’s Out of a Far Country (2011); Rosaria Butterfield’s The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (2012); Gregory Coles’s Single, Gay, Christian (2017); Jackie Hill Perry’s Gay Girl, Good God (2018); David Bennett’s A War of Loves (2018); and Rachel Gilson’s Born Again This Way (2020).

These writers, each in their own style, recount their calling to be followers of Jesus and consider how to live and love faithfully and fruitfully according to the gospel. Together, they set forth a spiritual vision of holiness and righteousness that is relevant for every believer and the whole church.

Another trend is scholars and pastors writing popular-level books in an apologetic mode about marriage and sexuality. This trend includes: Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet’s Same-Sex Marriage (2014), Kevin DeYoung’s What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (2015), Beth Felker Jones’s Faithful (2015), Todd Wilson’s Mere Sexuality (2017), and Preston Sprinkle’s Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? (2023).

These writers, each with their own approach, answer many of the main arguments marshaled in support of an affirming position on same-sex sexual relationships. Together, they elaborate and defend a theological vision of marriage and sexuality that is true to Scripture and good for the whole church.

Addressing arguments

McLaughlin writes at the confluence of these two trends. Alongside the stories of several friends, she relates vignettes from her personal story of faith and sexuality as a believer who experiences same-sex attraction. Along the way, she weaves these stories with critical examination of claims commonly made in support of same-sex relationships.

In this manner, McLaughlin’s approach is comparable to that taken by Ed Shaw in his excellent book, Same-Sex Attraction and the Church (2015). By the same token, McLaughlin’s book is set against yet another recent trend of books by evangelical writers: those who appeal to their experiences of same-sex attraction to motivate an affirmative case for same-sex relationships. This trend includes Matthew Vines’s God and the Gay Christian (2014) and Karen Keen’s Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (2018), whose claims and arguments McLaughlin addresses repeatedly within her own book.

McLaughlin has composed her short book in ten chapters, each running about ten pages and addressing one claim commonly made in support of same-sex sexual relationships. Each chapter follows the same format: McLaughlin introduces the chapter with a story that illustrates how and why the claim in question matters to the ordinary lives of real people; she then carefully lays out the affirming argument, considers reasons one might think it a good argument, and explains why she thinks the argument falls short; and finally, she concludes the chapter by tying the theological argument back to the personal story. I’ll elaborate on the opening and closing chapters, which bracket the book and anchor her overall argument.

The first claim addressed is that Christians should just focus on the gospel of God’s love. The assumption behind the claim is that while the gospel is primary for the church, Christians should regard marriage and sexuality as a secondary issue on which they can “agree to disagree.”

McLaughlin affirms the claim but disputes the assumption. As she writes, “rather than being a distraction from the gospel, God’s design for Christian marriage is a pointer to the gospel.” She recounts the Bible’s grand story of God’s love, from God’s design of human marriage in creation (Gen. 1–2) to God’s reunion with humankind in new creation (Rev. 21–22). God’s original design of marriage—man and woman joined into “one flesh”—is both a prototype for human marriage and a picture of God’s covenant: The prophets and apostles depict God as the bridegroom of Israel and Jesus as the bridegroom of the church.

Marriage, ultimately, points to God’s love in Jesus, and male-female difference is essential to marriage as a model of Christ and the church. Accordingly, McLaughlin argues, we must take seriously the biblical prohibitions of sexual relationships outside male-female marriage. As a result, we cannot set aside the question of same-sex relationships as a secondary issue.

The last claim the book addresses is that a God of love cannot be opposed to loving relationships. The assumption behind the claim is that because God is love and “love is love,” God would affirm all varieties of loving relationships—and thus, so should the church.

Again, McLaughlin affirms the claim but disputes the assumption: “The counterpoint to any form of sexual immorality is love. Conversely, any relationship founded on sexual immorality falls short of love.” She cites Jesus, Paul, and John, all of whom clearly and consistently say yes to love in marriage and mandate love of fellow believers, neighbors, and even enemies. Yet with equal clarity and consistency, they say no to sexual immorality in all its variety, including adultery, promiscuity, and same-sex intercourse.

Accordingly, McLaughlin argues, the church should affirm love between brothers and sisters within the Christian family, including believers giving and receiving love in same-sex friendships—but affirm sexual love only within male-female marriage.

In the chapters between, McLaughlin addresses several familiar claims concerning the Bible and same-sex relationships. These include claims about biblical narratives involving same-sex intercourse (Gen. 19), biblical prohibitions of same-sex intercourse (Lev. 18, 20; Rom. 1), biblical terms referring to same-sex intercourse (1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1), and the biblical trajectories concerning slavery and sexuality.

Too many Christians arguing from either side treat such claims, and the related Bible texts, as the place to start the debate and clinch the argument. McLaughlin’s approach puts such claims in their proper place: While necessary to address, they shouldn’t be given the first or last word. Such claims are seen in right perspective when framed within the biblical story of salvation and the biblical picture of marriage woven throughout that story.

A good place to begin

The book’s major strength is that McLaughlin concludes every chapter by bringing the question, and the reader, back to Jesus. She reminds us again and again how the Bible affirms, centrally, that God’s love for us in Jesus is enough for our salvation and abundant life, now and for eternity. Whether we are married or single, our heart’s deepest desire will be fully and finally satisfied in our relationship to Jesus.

The book is not without shortcomings, however. Its major weakness, in my view, is that McLaughlin mentions but does not emphasize procreation in presenting the biblical picture of marriage. This seems an obvious deficiency: Genesis explicitly testifies to God’s procreative purpose in marriage (1:28); Jesus implicitly affirms this purpose as well as the male-female form of marriage (Matt. 22:23–33; Luke 20:27–40)­­­; and the prophets employ procreative imagery in the marital image of God’s covenant (see Ezek. 16).

Granted, emphasizing procreation inevitably prompts sensitive pastoral questions (What about infertility? Contraception? Reproductive technologies?) that cannot be adequately addressed in a short book. Yet we should not avoid discussing the procreative purpose of marriage when debating the question of same-sex relationships for this reason: The increasing acceptance of intentionally nonprocreative marriage among Christians has contributed significantly to shifting opinion within the church toward affirming same-sex relationships.

Still, McLaughlin’s book is commendable, not only for her capable defense of biblical teaching but also for her winsome presentation of that defense. She acknowledges the truths she finds in affirming arguments while avoiding fallacious arguments to make her own case. She refuses to either overstate arguments that favor her own view or to qualify conclusions that she knows will be unpopular with some readers.

Throughout the book, she critiques opposing viewpoints with an irenic tone, showing care and charity for authors with whom she disagrees and for readers who might disagree with her. She respects her readers as reasoners, appealing to experience to preface her examination of each claim but not to drive her arguments or determine her conclusions.

McLaughlin writes in an accessible style that makes this book suitable for a broad range of readers. It would work well for small groups or Sunday school classes, or in high school, college, and seminary classrooms as a supplement to primary course texts.

Regardless of your starting position on questions of sexuality, McLaughlin’s book is a good place to begin examining it in light of Scripture. Every believer and seeker will find something to learn.

Darrin W. Snyder Belousek is the author of Marriage, Scripture, and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.

In ‘3 Body Problem,’ Our Days Are Numbered

The Netflix adaptation of an acclaimed Chinese sci-fi series is anxious about time. Christians don’t have to be.

Jess Hong (left) as Jin Cheng and Alex Sharp (right) as Will Downing in 3 Body Problem.

Jess Hong (left) as Jin Cheng and Alex Sharp (right) as Will Downing in 3 Body Problem.

Christianity Today May 23, 2024
Courtesy of Netflix © 2024

Time is running out in Netflix’s 3 Body Problem.

An alien race, the San-Ti, announces that they will arrive on Earth in 400 years. Before they get here, they intend to “kill” science, preventing humanity from developing the technology to wipe them out.

This otherworldly threat precipitates most of the action in the eight-episode TV series, adapted from Chinese author Liu Cixin’s popular book trilogy, Remembrance of Earth’s Past . The show focuses on a group of Oxford scientists who try valiantly to thwart the San-Ti’s devious plan. That includes theoretical physicist Jin Cheng (Jess Hong), who comes up with an outlandish scheme to intercept the San-Ti fleet using the principles of nuclear thermal propulsion.

The characters in 3 Body Problem are desperate to save themselves from impending doom through intellectual innovation and technological prowess. Their frantic race to save humanity brings a common question to the fore: What are we doing with the time we have left?

Our relationship with time is fraught. Time imposes demands and restrictions. Every day, there are deadlines to meet, deals to acquire, and dinners to cook. There isn’t “enough” time to pursue hobbies or dreams.

Compounding these pressures is our culture’s obsession with turning back the clock. Creams and serums tout the erasure of wrinkles and age spots in three to six months. Researchers study ways to extend our life span; some are even striving to reduce one’s biological age.

As we seek to slow time down, we bemoan the speed at which it passes. Vacations feel far too short. Children grow up too fast. Our loved ones pass away sooner than we expect. We turn to “slow living” in the hopes of curbing our impulse toward productivity and self-optimization. But this initiative, with its emphasis on aesthetic morning routines and meandering strolls, may be overly idealistic, privileging those who can afford to cut back on work responsibilities and adopt a more leisurely lifestyle.

In 3 Body Problem, time’s scarcity makes characters intrepid and ambitious; they get their priorities straight. “How will you be remembered?” Ye Wenjie (Rosalind Chao), the Chinese astrophysicist who invites the San-Ti to invade earth because she thinks humanity can’t save itself, asks Jin. “As someone who fought back,” Jin replies. Meanwhile, scientist Auggie Salazar (Eiza González) decides to release her nanofiber technology to the world because “it can make life better for the people who need it most. … It should belong to everybody.”

But living with the threat of impending doom isn’t sustainable. Seeing time as a scarce resource makes us desperate; minutes and hours slip through our fingers. Even the best moments of love and connection are fleeting.

This anxiety-inducing perception of time as finite isn’t the only problem. How we understand the status of human beings can also cause us to think about time wrongly. At first, the San-Ti are curious about our kind. But eventually, they become contemptuous, blasting their judgment onto digital devices and billboards around the world: “You are bugs.”

If bugs are all we are, then there’s no hope for the time we have left. However brave, clever, or loving, we’re ultimately left defeated, bereft of any sort of agency. “They are coming,” Ye declares. No matter what, the aliens will arrive to destroy the world.

In 3 Body Problem, time means everything and nothing to a people that aren’t worth saving. In this eschatology of annihilation, there’s no possibility for change, for goodness to win over evil. Everyone’s simply muddling through, making do with what they have, and waiting for death.

For a people with hope, however, time is not limited but abundant, overflowing into all of eternity. Time is not inconsequential but sacred, moving toward the coming of Jesus. Time is not meaningless but meaningful.

An eschatology of redemption, which defines life for the Christian, invites us to carefully consider the passage of time. We can be transformed into Christlikeness even as we are like a mist that appears for a little while and vanishes (James 4:14). Our days are numbered but significant.

While some of the characters in 3 Body Problem respond to their limited time with ambition or experiments, others choose relationship. Will Downing (Alex Sharp), a physics teacher, has recently learned that he has only months to live, even aside from the aliens. (He has stage IV pancreatic cancer.) As part of physicist Jin’s project, he agrees to send his cryogenically frozen brain into outer space, hoping that the aliens will rebuild him. Will doesn’t make this sacrifice to save humankind. He makes it because he secretly loves Jin.

I’m not condoning Will’s decision to end his life (on earth, at least; in this sci-fi universe, he lives on in space as a “floating brain”). But his choice to give himself up for Jin demonstrates that love is the highest use of our limited days.

Love doesn’t make time stop or slow it down. But love does enlarge our experience of the inexorable passing of days. It turns our attention from the temporal to the eternal. It makes the smallest moments matter—and it keeps the grand sweep of time in view.

Love is what brings Christ, our Savior, to the cross. His love traverses past, present, and future, binding believers across history together as the people of God (1 Pet. 2:9–10), called to live in ways that are pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in knowledge of him (Col. 1:10).

As people shaped by Christ’s self-sacrificial love, we can’t give in to panicked, fatalistic despair about the days, weeks, or years we have left on this planet, whether we fear an alien apocalypse, a climate disaster, or simply growing old. We don’t need to save ourselves, like the characters in 3 Body Problem.

Instead, we can let love take its time, knowing that it won’t run out for those of us who keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2). We demonstrate this love through small, ordinary actions that say, I am here. I am with you. You are not alone. And, perhaps, this too: You are not a bug.

What does this look like in practice? Canadian author Karen Stiller recounts observing an elderly parishioner walking to receive Communion without being rushed, members of the congregation waiting patiently behind her. “There was the church beautiful in its slower, patient gait for love’s sake alone,” she observed.

“The church can offer this rare gift to its own beloved and beleaguered people, but also to whomever we meet and have the privilege of walking beside and behind for Jesus’ sake.”

The brevity of our lives is neither a problem to solve nor an unavoidable fate we face with resignation. As we confront the wasting away of our bodies, the memories that flicker just out of reach, we can choose to love as Will did—fiercely and unwaveringly. We can choose to slow down, not as a “lifestyle choice” or in denial of death but intentionally, hopefully. We can trust that our time is in our Redeemer’s hands, declaring along the way that, eventually, everything will be made new (Rev. 21:5).

Isabel Ong is the Associate Editor, Asia for Christianity Today.

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