News

From Judges to Justices: Keeping Executive Power in Check Is an Ancient Problem

How evangelicals are responding to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on presidential immunity.

Christianity Today July 2, 2024
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In the Bible, ancient Israel wrestled with how to restrain corrupt rulers. A modern-day version of that political question went before the US Supreme Court, which ruled Monday on when a president can be prosecuted for criminal behavior.

The case revolved around former president Donald Trump’s attempts to interfere with the 2020 election results. Ultimately, the Court decided that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts related to core constitutional duties while in office and presumptive immunity for official acts that don’t fall under core powers, but cannot be granted immunity for private acts.

Some evangelicals have expressed disappointment in Trump’s actions and support for the resulting criminal charges, saying they are eager to hold their executives to higher ethical standards, especially if they claim Christ. Trump supporters, though, have seen the efforts to prosecute him as unjust and politically motivated.

While Trump and his backers viewed the Court as siding with the former president, reactions were mixed among his opponents. Some were concerned about putting leaders “above the law,” while others saw the lack of immunity for unofficial acts as a significant check on executive power.

Daniel Darling, who is director of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Land Center for Cultural Engagement and has been critical of Trump, said reactions to the decision were perhaps overblown.

“Despite the screaming, the Court has strengthened democracy,” he wrote on X. “Trump has to prove his election-meddling was part of official acts. The government has to prove they weren’t. The court seems to lean in the direction that they weren’t.”

Some evangelical critics of Trump have relied on biblical appeals that Trump’s actions undermined the rule of law, making him unable to govern. Foremost among them is David French, a New York Times columnist, who wrote in response to the decision that “the court might say that presidents aren’t above the law, but in reality, it established an extraordinarily broad zone of absolute immunity for presidents.”

He added that this immunity, combined with the president’s ability to deploy troops, even on American soil under the Insurrection Act, would have “dangerous potential implications.”

The historic ruling in Donald J. Trump v. United States returned the case back to the trial court for more analysis on which of Trump’s actions were official before making a judgment about moving forward with a trial.

While the case on the surface deals with weighty legal matters of contemporary politics, one legal expert said the questions around the rule of law at the heart of the case are the same controversies that biblical figures wrestled with in the Old Testament.

“Much of the Old Testament are stories of kings abusing their power,” Robert Cochran, professor emeritus at Pepperdine’s Caruso School of Law and coeditor of a 2013 InterVarsity Press book, Law and the Bible, told CT.

He pointed to the story of King Ahab, who coveted a vineyard owned by a man named Naboth. Naboth refused to sell. So Queen Jezebel had him killed, and Ahab took the vineyard.

Prior to Israel installing a king, the nation suffered from the opposite problem of general lawlessness. The Book of Judges explored the need for someone to be in charge, due to chaos caused by human sin, and the concern that human-held power is liable to corruption.

Cochran pointed to the last five chapters of Judges, where people unrestrained by the rule of law committed rapes, mass murders, kidnappings, and forced marriages (Judges 17–21).

“At the end of each story appears the refrain ‘In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes,’” Cochran said, citing Judges 21:25 (NLT). “The implication is clear: Israel needs a strong executive to enforce the law.”

But establishing a king did not fix ancient Israel’s problems either.

Donald Trump’s case puts this same tension on display, Cochran said. “Both sides are arguing that the other side will abuse power if not restrained. .… We need a rule that will enable presidents to govern effectively, but one under which they will not abuse their power.”

Special counsel Jack Smith, who secured an indictment from a grand jury on four felony charges against Trump in the case, has made the argument throughout the proceedings that blanket immunity would make presidents unanswerable to the rule of law.

Smith accused Trump of conspiring to subvert the will of millions of American citizens and attempting to violate the peaceful transfer of power through election interference.

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team argued that unless presidents have far-reaching immunity, they are vulnerable to prosecutions by politically motivated bad actors once they leave office.

The decision means the lower court will determine whether Trump’s actions that are at the heart of the trial were official or unofficial and whether Smith can move forward in prosecuting Trump for the latter. It likely means some allegations Smith had made against Trump, which involved communications between Trump and Justice Department officials, won’t be grounds for prosecution.

The Supreme Court majority said the decision was not a power grab for the executive branch: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

The minority saw things differently. “The President is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a strongly worded dissent.

Trump celebrated the outcome on his social media network, Truth Social, writing in all capital letters: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

His supporters also applauded the ruling.

“Today the Supreme Court decided on what a majority of Americans already knew—that the DOJ was weaponized against Trump,” Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican and former Southern Baptist pastor, wrote on social media. “No candidate or party should be attacked by their political opponents.”

Critics remained skeptical. Napp Nazworth, director of the American Values Coalition and former politics editor for The Christian Post said the decision “could’ve been worse.” But he questioned the ruling overall.

“Is a coup attempt an official act? This seems to be an open question for a majority of the court,” he wrote on Threads. A Never Trumper, Nazworth has long held that Trump would have a corrosive impact on the public witness of the church.

The decision today makes it extremely unlikely that Trump will face a trial before voters head to the polls in November.

Legal scholars predicted that, should Trump win the presidency a second time, it’s unlikely the case will proceed further.

“If Trump were to be reelected and this case is still out there, it is highly likely that he would take one of several paths to getting the Justice Department to dismiss the case,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told CT. He also noted a standing Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. In addition, there’s the open question of whether Trump would pardon himself.

“There’s other ways that you could do it,” Somin added. “But I think the bottom line is that he would find some way to put an end to the case.”

Books
Review

The Lovely Country That Smells of Evil

A memoir of apartheid-era South Africa juggles affection, anger, and hope for redemption.

Christianity Today July 2, 2024
Illustration by Abigail Erickson / Source Images: Getty, Unsplash

I was a student at Syracuse University during the years of South Africa’s apartheid regime. A few tents had been set up in protest on the quad outside the impossibly tall windows of my figure-drawing class—I believe the plan was to sleep outside until the school divested from companies doing business in South Africa. I felt guilty for not joining them. By the third day the tents had disappeared. Maybe a few signs were still there. I distinctly remember Stop Apartheid Now! spray-painted on a large white sheet.

It Wasn't Roaring, It Was Weeping: Interpreting the Language of Our Fathers Without Repeating Their Stories

Lisa-Jo Baker’s gorgeous memoir, It Wasn’t Roaring, It Was Weeping: Interpreting the Language of Our Fathers Without Repeating Their Stories, begins with an image of her physician father in his office in Pretoria, South Africa. She describes his dress shirt and tie, the smell of his cologne, the precise crease of his slacks—his lean physician’s hands and the time he pulled a six-inch-long pick-up-stick from her foot. She remembers one time holding the surgical thread as he “stitch[ed] up a jagged cut in his left hand with his right.” He’s a hero from the start, as is her beloved South Africa, the home of her birth.

It’s one thing to write a book about the hated or the loved, much harder to write one that includes the broken details of a father and a country without trespassing on the resonant love one has for them. Baker’s homeland is deeply flawed, and her father is deeply flawed. She introduces to us a beautiful South Africa scarred by apartheid and a father she greatly respects who passed on to her an inclination toward unpredictable anger. Neither of them is a caricature. They are real enough to love yet at times flawed enough to hate. It’s a beautifully complicated book, and it’s laid out skillfully.

Distance and intimacy

Baker uses two things in particular to full advantage, the first being her own powers of language. On occasion, the memoir includes moments that might seem less than consequential. But in the larger form of the book, Baker’s phrasing can carry prophetic weight.

One such passage occurs as she describes riding horses with her father through their vast sheep farm: “On horseback, I am this farmer’s daughter and the light wind with its slight fragrance of manure seems to sing my name back to me.” The prophetic element lies in the coupling of fragrance and manure. Fragrant is a beautiful word, hardly meant to describe something as base as sheep dung. South Africa, in this sense, is a lovely country that smells of centuries of downright evil.

Baker also employs the language of South Africa itself, conveying both the distance of unfamiliarity as well as a certain intimacy. She writes lovingly of her father’s speech oscillating back and forth between languages and dialects, and her prose sometimes incorporates Afrikaans, isiXhosa, and isiZulu (with English meanings included). For me, this had the effect of exclamation points, startling me with what sounded to my English ears like odd double vowels and excessive x’s, v’s, k’s, and y’s.

As the memoir’s subtitle makes clear, it is filled with language both literal and metaphorical. In a particularly sweet paragraph, Baker writes of the pleasure she feels when hearing her father speak:

We are a country of twelve national languages. On his tongue I catch the British English of his ancestors and the guttural Dutch Afrikaans of his childhood on the farm. My father speaks three or four languages, depending on how strictly you define “speaks,” and he can enunciate the elusive clicks of isiXhosa, but isiZulu is what he shrugs on when he is going for quick connection because it’s where he’s most comfortable. He speaks in the language he happens to be thinking in, and it still fascinates me to listen to him switch back and forth without pausing to reorient his tongue.

She goes on to say that his voice sounds like the “deep timbre of a Zulu choir, the harsh bark of the hyena, the ululation of joy, of grief, the cry of a beloved country.”

In light of the marked beauty that Baker captures, it could almost seem justifiable to soften the edges of South Africa, essentially to write Yes, apartheid existed, but and marginalize the cruelty. This would still make for an interesting and engaging book. However, Baker wisely chooses the opposite: Yes, South Africa is lovely, but.

There are plenty of opportunities for the narrative to drift toward the former, contenting itself with the notion that South Africa is a beautiful country that had some unfortunate problems. Yet even as Baker describes the jacaranda trees and the Karoo with its saltbush and Stradbroke, the family farm with its acres of land and Dutch Colonial farmhouse, and her physician father with his buffed-to-a-shine shoes, she never gives in to that reflex.

She includes a horrific scene when, a generation earlier, two staff members on the family farm were cruelly beaten for taking horses from the property. She also recalls a time when her father unleashed his anger toward her over a broken teacup. Whether her stories are uplifting or sorrowful, retelling them from a distance has the effect of giving the events more solemnity.

No opting out

While Baker might have inherited her father’s unpredictable anger, we fast understand that she inherited his fierce hatred for apartheid as well. Injustice is a strong thread throughout the memoir, and Baker vulnerably shares her struggles—through childhood and then into adulthood—to understand the ramifications of apartheid as well as her father’s irrational outbursts.

She appears determined to process at a deeper level the truth of the South Africa she grew up in, ultimately realizing there’s “no way to opt out of the parts of our history that put us on the wrong side of the equation.” Her story is weighty and well worth telling.

In one poignant passage, Baker describes attending summer camp as a grade schooler:

I was eleven and all fifth graders were sent to Veldskool (literally translated “bush school” in Afrikaans)—like summer camp, if summer camp took place during the public school term in the winter and was run by ex-military types who were raising up the next generation to be able to recognize land mines, build a shelter, and stand guard against the swart gevaar, or “Black danger,” they told us was creeping toward the White suburbs.

We were none of us quite ready for a training bra, and yet we spent seven days at a school-sanctioned wilderness camp being taught military discipline and the state religion of apartheid.

In reading It Wasn’t Roaring, It Was Weeping, I engaged South Africa as I never could have in college. In my youth and ignorance, I had assumed the unjust awfulness of it, but like a plane missing an airport, I had no experience within the country and nothing to connect it to my heart. My feelings about what was happening in South Africa prompted me only to half-heartedly commiserate from a window and ally myself with students on a quad in tents with angry, spray-painted sheets.

Baker’s memoir is a soulful book that’s rife with tension and, like most fine books, shot through with mercy received. From page 1, we observe her love for her father as well as her country and anticipate redemption, however it might come about. Repentance and forgiveness are the balm of Jesus, and reunification is its effect. It is a privilege to see the pin dot of both widen into something with the power to usher in a whole new era.

Katherine James is the author of the novel Can You See Anything Now? as well as a memoir, A Prayer for Orion: A Son’s Addiction and a Mother’s Love. She is working on a novel about a mute girl growing up in the Vietnam era.

Theology

Isaac Asimov Believed the World Could Go on for Thousands More Years. Why Can’t Christians?

Why the church so often (erroneously) predicts our own demise.

Noted science fiction author Isaac Asimov with a photo of the Earth from space.

Noted science fiction author Isaac Asimov with a photo of the Earth from space.

Christianity Today July 2, 2024
Douglas Kirkland / Contributor / Getty / Edits by CT

The signs are escalating every day. The world is in turmoil. We are on the cusp—right now—of the end of the age.” So reads the disclaimer for an upcoming eschatological conference featuring some prominent American evangelical leaders.

Across the Atlantic, as a pastor in Belgium, I’ve also regularly heard from people in evangelical circles convinced or worried about current events revealing the fact that Christ is coming not just soon, as he put it, but very soon. I sympathize with them: Apart from global concerns, our continent faces many challenges that make me yearn for God’s kingdom.

Still, I’m often surprised: Why does this high level of immediate eschatological expectation continue when Jesus told us explicitly that we can’t know when the end will come (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7)? Have we Christians baptized pessimism? Perhaps we might consider the works of a 20th-century world-renowned science fiction writer and skeptic who envisioned the continuation of human life for tens of thousands of years—and then read our Bibles again. When it comes to where we’re headed, Scripture calls us to realism.

Around the time many young evangelicals found themselves reading premillennialist literature like Left Behind, I was absorbed in another series: Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy.

Asimov, a Russian native who emigrated to the United States as a toddler, wrote or edited more than 500 books. From 1942 to 1950, he published a collection of short stories and novels dedicated to the fall and rebuilding of a galactic empire in the distant future—approximately A.D. 24000. The Foundation trilogy became so influential that it is often considered to have inspired elements of other fantasy classics such as Dune and Star Wars. (The work has also been adapted into an Apple TV show.)

The series introduces us to Hari Seldon, a brilliant scientist who discovers the devastating news of the empire’s inevitable collapse. Through what he calls psychohistory, he calculates not only that the empire will cease in the next 300 years but also that, if nothing is done, 30,000 years of darkness will follow this demise. Seldon develops a plan to reduce this period of chaos to a mere millennium and accelerate the rebirth of a new empire through the “Foundation.”

Through the years, Asimov expanded the Foundation trilogy and linked it with his Robot and Galactic Empire series to build what some have called a hypothetical “history of the future,” exploring turning points in the more than 20,000 years separating Seldon from us. In doing so, he anticipated many questions we now face today, especially the development of robots and AI and how we will live with them.

In the absence of the belief that God would end history at some point, and with some measure of optimism about humanity, the non-Christian Asimov was free to explore his hypotheses about humanity’s future, including potential crises. His work remains a source of inspiration to those pondering our contemporary challenges.

Christian eschatology, contrary to Asimov’s timeline, has often been rather pessimistic about the continuity of our world. In its humorous census of “near-end” prophecies across history, the Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse counts numerous more-or-less Christian preachers who predicted the “end of the world” in their time, starting as soon as the second century with the heretic Montanus.

Martin Luther continued this tradition. Referring to the dire state of the Holy Roman Empire and the threat of Turkish invasions, he wrote, “The world is coming to an end, and it often occurs to me that the Day of Judgment may well arrive before we have completed our translation of the Holy Scripture. All the temporal things predicted therein are fulfilled.”

Luther was more temperate than some of his contemporaries, such as theologian Thomas Müntzer, whose end-time beliefs led German peasants to rebel and be subsequently slaughtered. Of course, all of them and far more recent examples have been wrong. Despite continual crises, the earth has continued to spin. And despite years of false predictions, all kinds of prophets continue to announce the very near end of the world.

Bible interpretation aside, these types of prophecies and mentalities continue to resonate. (Consider the Doomsday Clock, for instance.) Why?

Belgian philosopher and religious skeptic Maarten Boudry recently published an article exploring what he calls “the seven laws of declinism,” or his understandings of the conditions making us humans anxious about our world.

Among the better-known mechanisms at work behind our feeling that the world is basically falling apart—like the invisible quietness of good news, our instinctive and self-preservative appetite for bad news, and how nowadays social media intentionally feed this appetite—Boudry also highlights what he calls “The Law of Conservation of Outrage.” That is, our level of indignation tends to stay the same even when conditions improve. We simply increase our sensitivity to lesser evils, so that anxious people will always find some ground for their anxiety.

Beyond this, according to Boudry, the solutions we find for a problem let us forget about the problem itself and focus on new problems that arise from our new solutions, even if these new problems are less acute than the former (he calls this “The Law of Self-Effacing Solutions”). And the more liberty we enjoy in a society, the more we’re able to report about new evils that go unheard of in other contexts (“The Law of Disinfecting Sunlight”). So progress itself can lead to pessimism.

In sum, whether we are facing the firsthand effects of war or over-exaggerating the inconveniences of modern society, humans will always find fodder for the idea of decline. Most end-time concerns I’ve heard personally came from people in countries with a relative degree of abundance and security. In fact, wealthier or more powerful people have potentially more to lose than those with little.

For some Christians, converting this angst into the notion that Christ is about to return seems an easy step to take. “Christ is coming very soon” may also be a Christian version of the very common “This world scares me,” or “I don’t like the way things are going.” In a world defined by Boudry’s seven laws, the individual offering biblical confirmation will inevitably gain attention.

Whatever the quality of religious leaders’ exegesis claiming to know that Christ is just about to come because of this or that present event, they concretely validate the distress some feel and give those anxious a measure of control back with the immediate certainties they offer. But as appealing as these things can be, God instead calls us to direct our attention and actions toward others.

It is not for us to make plans for the next 20,000 years, but we lack the imagination of someone like Asimov when we cannot conceive the survival of humanity, or simply of our children, beyond the setting we currently know. Certainly, many desperate situations in our world make us profoundly long for the renewal promised by our God. But time and time again, we can see that upsetting circumstances alone do not mean that God has wrapped everything up or is done working in our world.

In Asimov’s novels, the impending threat is far bigger than everything we could fear even in our globalized world: the fall of an intergalactic empire, wars, and barbarity, accompanied by the death of billions. Still, Asimov doesn’t depict it as “the end of the world.” Some will survive and will have to rebuild civilization. The main issue is whether they’ll be sufficiently prepared to shorten the period of chaos that will follow the fall of the empire.

Scripture encourages neither an anxiety-inducing pessimism that would make us suspicious toward everything nor a naive optimism that expects humanity to progress by itself into a peaceful and harmonious state. As the recent TV adaptation displays, whatever the exotic interstellar setting, spaceships, inventive technologies, or fancy clothing that might await us, humanity will stay constant in its mix of beauty and corruption. In this world, the wheat and the weeds grow side by side (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 22:11).

When Jesus told us to “keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come” (Matt. 24:42), he didn’t mean watching for upcoming signs, whether in the sky or in Middle East geopolitics. He meant watching ourselves, as he makes clear in the following parable about the faithful and the wicked servant, where the former isn’t hovering at the door, waiting for his master’s return. Instead, he is taking care of those who have been entrusted to him (vv.45-46).

Instead of constantly looking for indications of whether our Master is coming right now, we’re called to let him become visible to our contemporaries in the Christlike way we walk, however long human history may endure.

Among the many characters of the original Foundation trilogy, those most capable of facing challenging circumstances are the people who trust in the viability of Seldon’s unknown plan for the Foundation despite insecurity, wars, riots, or bad leaders. I won’t reveal here what becomes of Seldon’s plan. In the end, Asimov’s eschatology in Foundation is not Christian. But we know with certainty that the author of our plan is far more worthy of our trust.

This assurance allows us, in a complex and ever-changing world, to offer our contemporaries the presence of Christians who are anchored in eternity and ready to face the harsh realities and heavy questions of our day with the grace of their coming Lord, until he really does come.

Léo Lehmann is CT’s French language coordinator as well as publications director for the Network of Evangelical Missiology for French-speaking Europe (REMEEF). He lives in Belgium, in the Namur area.

Limited Time: Get 60 Days Free

Thoughtful journalism for complex times.

Christianity Today July 1, 2024

Thoughtful journalism for complex times.

News

Another Kanakuk Abuse Survivor Sues Camp for Fraud

Twenty years after a trusted counselor used faith to groom him for abuse, a Colorado man says he is trying to reclaim part of his life and take a stand for fellow victims.

Christianity Today July 1, 2024
Courtesy of Andrew Summersett

Andrew Summersett felt his world shatter twice.

The first time was in 2009, when the Christian camp counselor he idolized was convicted of child abuse. It was then that Summersett saw though years of manipulation, trauma, and teenage confusion and realized he also was a victim.

The second time came in 2021, when he read reports that leaders at Kanakuk Kamps had known about Pete Newman’s predatory behavior against boys like him, and they covered it up.

After years under the weight of shame and secrecy, Summersett, 37, came forward last week in a lawsuit filed against Kanakuk, a number of its current and former leaders, and its insurer, alleging they fraudulently concealed Newman’s abuse from him.

He said the legal action was his way to regain control over part of his life “because I didn’t control what happened to me as a kid.”

Summersett says Newman—who is currently serving a double life sentence for child enticement and sodomy—abused him at his family’s home in Texas during a camp recruitment trip and again at Kanakuk’s K-Kamp in Branson, Missouri. He was 14 and 15 years old.

The same year that the former camper says his abuse began, Newman was warned by Kanakuk leadership “to stop sleeping alone with children, among other ‘healthy boundaries,’” the suit claims, citing a years-long pattern of Newman being promoted despite concerns about his nudity and other boundary-crossing behavior with children.

When Newman was arrested, Summersett turned to two camp directors, the daughter and then–son-in-law of Kanakuk CEO Joe White, to ask if they had known about Newman’s behavior and to share what happened to him.

The filing states that they told Summersett they “didn’t know” and to “back off” and alleges that their false representations and omissions factored into Summersett’s decision not to pursue a legal claim at the time.

Kanakuk did not respond to CT’s request for comment but has previously declined to discuss pending litigation. The camp portrays Newman as a “rogue employee” and “master of deception,” saying leaders had no knowledge of his abuse prior to his 2009 confession and arrest.

Last year, Kanakuk also sued its insurer—admitting that it had withheld information about Newman’s previous abuse from victims and their families due to advice from their adjuster. Court documents include a 2010 letter from ACE American Insurance Company recommending that Kanakuk not let families know about Newman’s misconduct and the camp’s response, since “such disclosures threaten to expose Kanakuk to greater liability and may interfere with ACE’s contractual right to defend claims and to have Kanakuk’s cooperation in that defense.”

Summersett is the second of Newman’s victims to sue the Missouri-based Christian camp for fraud, following Logan Yandell in 2022. Yandell’s family said the camp similarly claimed that it had no knowledge of the former counselor’s misconduct when they entered a settlement over his abuse in 2010. His case is awaiting trial.

Yandell called it “both empowering and heartbreaking” to see another survivor come forward with a lawsuit, a sign of the scope and continued impact of Newman’s abuse through Kanakuk.

“Legal actions like Andrew’s and mine aim to expose the truth and hold those responsible accountable,” he said in a statement to CT. “This fight is not just for our individual justice but for systemic change that prioritizes the protection of children over the shielding of institutions.”

Their cases also raise the profile of the risk of grooming and abuse toward male victims. Men may not be subject to the same formal boundaries or informal expectations for their interactions with boys as they would with the opposite sex.

“It is an area that we have to be so much more cognizant of and so much more vigilant in and around, because there are evil people. There are predators, there are people like Pete and people like Kanakuk who harbored Pete,” Summersett said in an interview with CT. “I think it’s our absolute charge and duty to protect our kids because they don’t deserve this, and we can prevent it.”

Summersett grew up in Arkansas and Texas, where he loved to play outside “with no shoes on, running around the neighborhood.” He looked forward to camp at Kanakuk every summer, starting at age 7. His favorite part was the people. He loved reuniting with fellow campers and with staff members like Newman who seemed “larger than life” with their big personalities and spiritual insights.

“I grew up in a Christian household—faith was always part of our family, and obviously, this significantly rocked the entire foundation of everything I believed,” said Summersett, now married and raising a family of his own in Colorado. “Faith and God and the Bible were what Pete used to groom me.”

A popular and charismatic counselor, Newman initiated conversations with boys about biblical purity. He had “hot tub Bible studies” where they’d discuss sexuality and masturbation.

“It’s totally grooming behavior,” said Andi Thacker, a counseling ministries professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and a licensed professional counselor who treats victims of child sexual abuse.

Thacker described how abusers like Newman “stairstep” their way to abuse by justifying inappropriate behavior as playful or “just what guys do.” Underage victims in evangelical settings, then, don’t know what to make of their young bodies’ responses and feel the additional guilt of sexual behavior with someone of the same sex.

Many victims of child sexual abuse wait decades to report their abuse, if at all, and men can be particularly reticent. They may blame themselves or may be afraid of how people would respond, said Thacker.

Summersett said he hadn’t told his family until last year. But he’s been encouraged by the outpouring of support since his lawsuit made news last week. Putting his name and face out there as a victim, he said, is worth it if it makes fellow survivors feel less alone.

“One of the most impactful things has been connecting with other survivors who have eerily similar stories,” said Summersett, who began to network through the site Facts About Kanakuk, which shares resources for survivors. “There’s been a ton of healing and sharing and kind of this brotherhood forming.”

Dozens of men have come forward in civil complaints and John Doe suits against Newman. Reports estimate that his victims could be in the hundreds.

Yandell sees a similar sense of hopefulness and bravery from fellow survivors: “Each voice that speaks out strengthens our collective fight for justice and healing. It is through our shared experiences and united efforts that we can demand accountability and ensure that such abuses are never repeated.”

Kanakuk is a prominent and long-running camp program, hosting 450,000 campers over nearly a century of ministry. A 2021 Dispatch investigation by Nancy French examined how the camp culture at Kanakuk “enabled horrific abuse.” She noted that “nobody resigned as a result of the failure to stop a decade of abuse. There was no disciplinary action against any of Newman’s supervisors, and Joe White is still the head of the camp today.”

Across many cases involving victims of child sexual abuse, Summersett’s attorney Guy D’Andrea has seen the lasting damage done by institutional cover-up on top of the trauma of the abuse itself.

“If you want your faith to grow and prosper, you can’t have the most vulnerable … feel their faith has been shattered by the leadership of an organization or entity,” said D’Andrea, with the firm Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan. “We’re not holding the organization to an impossible standard. We’re asking them to do the right thing, which is what our faith asks us to do.”

Books

New & Noteworthy Books

Chosen by Matt Reynolds, CT senior books editor.

Illustration by Tara Anand

Making Good Return: Biblical Wisdom on Honoring Aging Parents

Kathleen B. Nielson (P&R Publishing)

At least in wealthier nations, we are living in an era of longer lifespans and lower birthrates. On a macro level, this translates into a larger population of older people needing care but fewer available caregivers. Closer to home, it means tough dilemmas for the adult children of aging parents, especially when they’re raising non-adult children of their own. In her book Making Good Return, author and speaker Kathleen B. Nielson wrings valuable insights from the pages of Scripture. As she writes, the biblical story of redemption “is not just the context of a Christian’s thinking about care for the aging; it is at the very heart of the matter.”

The Storied Life: Christian Writing as Art and Worship

Jared C. Wilson (Zondervan Academic)

It’s possible, says pastor and author Jared C. Wilson, to write without being an honest-to-goodness writer—the kind who can’t help using words to make sense of the world, with or without the perks of money or acclaim. In The Storied Life, Wilson appeals to those who fit that description (or think they might), extolling the high calling of embodying God’s image with pens and keyboards. “Creative writing,” he writes, “is in fact a reflection of the creative meaning of the universe, a direct derivation from the Creator himself. He has made everything with words and has given even of himself as the Word. This isn’t some piddling around kind of stuff.”

End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations

Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff (Tyndale Elevate)

It’s a common complaint in the “cancel culture” era that we’re too eager to mock, harass, ostracize, and even formally punish our cultural and ideological foes. But the authors of End the Stalemate see signs of growing hunger for a warmer, more generous approach to disagreement. Tim Muehlhoff (a communication expert) and Sean McDowell (an apologist) are professors at Biola University, both of whom practice regular public dialogue with believers and nonbelievers alike. Throughout their book, they offer “[exposure] not only to communication insights that explore how we can better approach differences, but also to how these insights are powerfully undergirded by biblical truth.”

What Went Wrong?: Russia’s Lost Opportunity and the Path to Ukraine

Philip Yancey and John A. Bernbaum (Cascade Books)

Nowadays, it would strain credulity to imagine Russian government elites consulting with a group of American evangelicals, except as a cynical maneuver to bolster Russia’s image as a rebuke to Western decadence. Yet something like this actually happened in the early 1990s, as Soviet communism imploded. Traveling with the evangelical delegation were author Philip Yancey and John A. Bernbaum, the founder of Russia’s first Christian liberal arts university. In What Went Wrong? they give firsthand accounts of their experience (several chapters come from an earlier volume, Yancey’s Praying with the KGB) while reflecting on Russia’s turn toward authoritarianism and aggression.

Readers Divided over ‘Division of Labor’

Responses to articles about complementarianism and egalitarianism in our April issue.

Photography by Abigail Erickson for Christianity Today

Complementarians and egalitarians are not as divided as some think,” wrote Gordon P. Hugenberger for our April collection of cover articles. For some, his exegesis of key passages about women’s roles in churches and marriages in 1 Timothy and elsewhere was much appreciated. “This article was THE article I have been waiting for someone to write for what feels like ages,” wrote one Instagram user. And a pastor with “egalitarian sympathies” serving in a complementarian denomination appreciated Hugenberger’s tone.

But the division identified was evident in other messages. Responding to a reflection by Danielle Treweek—a complementarian wondering about the term’s increasing “cancellation, co-option, and cannibalization”—email writers and social media commenters called her complementarianism “distressingly naive” and a form of “patriarchal ideology.” Kelly Pelton in Kerrville, Texas, wrote, “Devaluing of women within the church tragically misrepresents the God who is impartial and who elevates the weak and marginalized.”

In response to Gaby Viesca’s article on churches moving to egalitarian leadership structures, Facebook commenters said she was “rejecting the biblical standard” of male leadership. “The author says, ‘That a woman preaches at all is something to celebrate, no question about that,’” wrote one commenter. “Yes, there are questions about that.”

Complementarians and egalitarians may agree, as Hugenberger put it, on the “inherent worth and giftedness of women.” But disagreements over whether women are permitted to preach and teach are still provoking strong feelings.

Kate Lucky senior editor of engagement and culture

Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Paul Would Approve.

How one labels each side of a debate frequently determines the outcome. Of course, men and women complement each other in numerous ways. But what is concealed by the label complementary—when used as a biblical concept and not inherent in the word—is the substantive assertion that, in certain biblical respects, females are inferior and subservient to males. Let’s stop the misdirection and talk honestly about what we’re talking about—biblical equality versus biblical subservience. I respect both positions.

Roland Wrinkle Newhall, CA

I’m a complementarian in that I believe God’s ideal for marriage is for the man to be in attentive submission to Christ and in loving authority (and responsibility) over his family. At the same time, I have 52 years experience reading and exegeting the Greek New Testament, so I appreciated the refreshing accuracy of Hugenberger’s exegesis, which is justified by linguistics and context. I would translate [1 Timothy 2:12] as “I do not permit a married woman to instruct or dominate [her] husband, but to be quiet-spoken.” This is still a complementarian statement, but it’s limited to marriage.

Richard Brown Durham, NC

Those Whom God Evolves

I was dismayed to see the “Small Stat” stating, “Most people believe that evolution provides an adequate account of human origins.” Whether or not most people do, certainly Christians should not. Jesus said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matt. 19:4, ESV). This is from Genesis 1:27, stating that God created man “in his own image,” which Jesus apparently took quite literally. If he did, so should we.

Thomas F. Harkins Jr. Fort Worth, TX

Heaven Isn’t Our Eternal Escape from Work

My happiest job was volunteer electronics tech on the Mercy Ship Anastasis. But nothing comes near my plans of praising the Almighty for all eternity.

Richard Brewster Cutchogue, NY

What Kind of Man Is This?

Does Isaiah 53:2 not speak prophetically into [Jesus’] appearance? “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” A crucifix is one thing; a handsome, at times eroticized white male quite another.

Wout Brouwer Fort Langley, British Columbia

Fractured Are the Peacemakers

Learning the history of Israel/Palestine and listening to stories of the Palestinian Christian community is viewed by some as a betrayal of our Jewish brothers and sisters; you make clear it is not. I am so glad that the leading evangelical publication in the US is willing to give voice to those in the Holy Land who do not see the conflict in geopolitical or apocalyptic categories. Instead, these Palestinian residents are shown to be victims of a tragic loss of homes, land, and life that must grieve all of us who love Jesus.

Todd L. Lake Nashville, TN

Churches Shouldn’t Outsource Apologetics to Slick Conferences

I agree that apologetics should be done in the local church. However, it needs to start earlier than high school or college. I recently finished a series of lessons to the second-through-fifth-grade children in my church. Topics came from questions the children asked, including “How do we know God exists?” “Why does God let bad things happen?” and “How do we know the Bible is true?”

Wesley Portinga Rosemead, CA

Behind the Scenes

The word theology may conjure visions of old white men in leather armchairs examining dusty tomes. But the field of theology (the study of God) today looks more like men and women of all ages gathering at conferences like the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting (ETS), presenting their latest research, answering questions, countering objections, and leaving with new ideas to further their work.

I attended ETS, reporting on trends I saw in “Why Your Favorite Theologians Are All Talking about Theological Anthropology.” And I saw that theology looks like thinking about God and learning from other God-thinkers, both living and dead. Aren’t all believers called to this? As former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said, “Any Christian beginning to reflect on herself or himself within the body of Christ is … doing theology: making Christian sense of their lives.”

That’s a great summary of CT’s purpose—to help people make “Christian sense of their lives” in community—which is why it’s vital for us to be at ETS and everywhere this work is happening.

Stefani McDade theology editor

Theology

Confessions of a Loner

As a newlywed and a new mother, I built exactly the life I wanted. The only thing missing was everyone else.

Illustration by Giovanni Da Re

I don’t remember when I realized I didn’t have a community.

Perhaps it was one Sunday after our church service when, holding my nine-month-old son, I stepped from the nursing
room into the sanctuary and felt, with horrible déjà vu, exactly the way I had felt as a 14-year-old immigrant entering an American school for the first time. I saw a sea of faces I didn’t recognize—people divided into their own friend groups, smiling, chatting, nodding. Everybody seemed to belong somewhere, and I was like a newcomer to a church I had been attending for five years.

Or perhaps it was the Saturday when my mother was getting scanned for pancreatic cancer in South Korea and my husband, David, was out of town. I was solo parenting at home, trying not to cry in front of my son, Tov. I longed for a friend to appear at my door and sit with me, pray out loud, or play with Tov while I washed tears off my face.

I didn’t think much about community until I really needed one and it wasn’t there.

Christians are familiar with Genesis 2:18: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” This verse is most often applied to marriage, but it is an inescapable reality that the Creator, who himself dwells in community as three persons in one, created all humankind to be with and for other people. It is not good to be alone because we were not made to be alone. We burst from our mothers’ wombs screaming for touch.

But as we grow older and more self-sufficient, distracted by life’s burdens, we learn to live independently, like accommodating a broken ankle. And so onward we limp, relationally crippled, until we face a steep hill and realize we need help.

The modern forces of loneliness, writes Derek Thompson in The Atlantic, have created a social ecosphere in which we are “both pushed and pulled toward a level of aloneness for which we are dysevolved and emotionally unprepared.” Americans are spending fewer hours socializing face-to-face than ever before.

The rise in solitude seems to correlate with worsening health outcomes: Teen hopelessness, depression, and suicidal thoughts have been increasing almost every year in the past decade. Life expectancy in America, after rising for decades, has fallen to its lowest level since 1996, in part due to drug 
overdoses and suicides.

Last year, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy said that half of American adults reported experiencing considerable loneliness even before the pandemic, an “epidemic of loneliness and isolation” that could be as deadly as smoking daily.

We know the solution to the isolation crisis: We need each other. We also know we need the social infrastructure to establish and maintain regular rhythms of face-to-face human contact. That infrastructure has been diminishing. Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon Jr. wrote about feeling a “church-sized hole” after he left the church and joined the nones. “Our society needs places that integrate people across class and racial lines,” he wrote.

Funny. I belong to a church. And I too feel like I have a church-sized hole.

Last July, I posted on X and Threads, looking for examples of “beautiful, lasting, deep Christian friendship.”

I should have written “community” instead of “friendship.” Several people responded, describing friendships they had maintained for years. But those friendships were mostly long-distance, kept alive through FaceTime and voice messages.

I have friends. I’ve been a bridesmaid and maid of honor in many weddings. But those are friendships from my teen years and 20s. We are scattered now, across states, oceans, and life stages. They are my friends, but they are not my community. Exchanging funny Instagram reels or texting throughout the week provides me with sporadic sparks of connection.

But authors such as psychologist Susan Pinker have documented how digital interactions cannot replace physical presence—the beautiful ministry of a hug, of a hand held, of smelling the same warm coffee, of simply sitting quietly side by side. It’s the continuum of community—people doing life together, solitude interrupting ongoing interactions rather than brief interactions interrupting solitude—that sets it apart from friendship.

But we are all so darn busy. It takes weeks to schedule a hangout. And if you’ve got kids, plans often get canceled last minute, like that third time my friend rescheduled our date because her toddler fell sick again. That was almost a year ago, and we still haven’t made it happen. We have a good excuse: Though we both live in Los Angeles, we are separated by an hour of traffic. But I have no good explanation for why it takes months to schedule a dinner with neighbors who live on my block. Can we possibly be 
that busy?

It wasn’t always like this. When I was a child in South Korea, my family was part of a small, tight-knit Presbyterian church. We lived in an alley where neighbors freely walked in and out of each other’s houses, sharing home-pickled kimchi.

When we moved to Singapore after my father became a missionary, we lived in a Bible college dorm, sharing a kitchen and living room with missionaries from Myanmar and Thailand.

When we immigrated to the United States, we immediately plugged in to the Chinese church my father planted, spending at least 15 hours a week with our church family. During college, I was part of a small church in LA’s 
Koreatown, spending weekends hanging out at sleepovers and all-day barbeques.

But I was young then, in a different culture and place. I didn’t seek community; it was just there. Now I’m in my late 30s, married, a mother, living in one of the most transient cities in the world. What does community look like in this season?

One reply to my social media net-casting did hook my interest. Brian Daskam from Denton, Texas, sent me an email saying his community “often resembles those TV shows we grew up with: Saved by the Bell, Dawson’s Creek, Friends. Every event we attend is suspiciously occupied by the same cast of characters, the same handful of friends.”

For decades, dating back to their post-college, early married years, the Daskams and their friends took turns hosting dinner book clubs every Sunday evening, during which they discussed Rousseau, Locke, Nietzsche. They continued meeting after babies entered the picture. The room was gurgly and crowded with bouncers and changing pads. They rocked each other’s newborns and discussed things that mattered, whether it was the teleological suspension of the ethical or sleep training.

That’s the community Brian and his wife, Keri, cultivated over 20 years. That’s the village in which they raised their children, who are now best friends with their best friends’ children.

Today, Brian is 45; Keri is 44. With three kids ages 16, 14, and 8, they’re further ahead of me in life. But they seemed to model exactly what I wanted in a community.

When I visited the Daskams in September 2023, the first thing I noticed about Denton was that people drove leisurely, not frantically and ragey like in LA. Denton is a flat city of about 148,000 people, just north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. It has a college-town vibe. Comparing it to Los Angeles County, with its 10 million people and 88 cities, I started doubting: What could I learn from the Daskams that I could apply back home?

On a Friday evening, I met Brian at the Denton Natatorium, where his oldest, Cate, was competing in a water polo match. His whole family was there, along with several of his friends whose daughters are also on the team.

I squeezed onto a bench between Keri and her best friend, Jeannie Naylor. They met as roommates at the University of North Texas in Denton and have been inseparable ever since.

“I apologize in advance, but I’m going to be really loud,” Jeannie said. She whooped and clapped. To my right, Keri cheered too but was more restrained. “Keri’s too nice,” Jeannie teased. They were so different: Jeannie exuberant and gregarious, Keri reserved and introverted. They can’t imagine life without one another.

A few years ago, the two families were briefly separated by about 2,000 miles. In 2018, the Daskams moved to Olympia, Washington, after Brian took a new job as a communications manager. Brian and Keri were sad about leaving their community but confident about building a new one.

“We had already learned how to create community,” Brian recalled thinking. “We would replicate the model in Washington State. We would be missionaries of community!”

Living in the Pacific Northwest was a dream come true for Brian, who in high school had decorated his locker with posters of mountains and lakes. They bought a log cabin on two acres of wilderness endowed with wild berries, deer, eagles, and the occasional mountain lion. On the weekends, they hiked evergreen forests, harvested oysters at the beach, and kayaked among seals in Puget Sound.

Only one thing was missing: community.

The Daskams tried hosting a dinner book club. They cooked a feast and waited. No one came. “It felt like we were being stood up before a dance,” Keri recalled. They kept inviting people over. Some declined. Others canceled last-minute or showed up once and then disappeared. Some weeks, the Daskams’ only social interaction was smiling at people at church.

It turned out that building a community was challenging as late-30s transplants in a different state. “We were naive,” Keri said. “We were trying with all our minds, and it was not coming together. I’m still not sure why we didn’t just get that magic chemistry that we experience here 
[in Denton].”

And then COVID-19 hit. Finally, Keri asked Brian, “Can we move back? Can you take me out of here?”

It took significant sacrifices to move back. Brian quit his job and sent out a dozen resumes a day for positions that would allow him to work in Denton. They sold their beautiful cabin and hunted for a new house.

In June 2022, four years after leaving, they packed everything back into boxes and drove home. When they returned, it was like their friends had been guarding seats for them. Like they had never left.

And so there we were in the natatorium, just another evening of hanging out. After the match, I chatted with Jeannie while Keri passed out homemade M&M cookies. The sun had set, but outside it was still humid after a blistering, 96-degree autumn afternoon. I could see why Brian had fled to the mountains.

“I don’t know why I live here,” Jeannie complained. But she couldn’t leave because, like the Daskams, she was stuck in community. “What we need,” she exclaimed, “is we need everyone to move together.”

But I wondered if this group would be able to sustain the depth and frequency of interaction in another city. Denton isn’t just a backdrop; it’s part of their community. It matters that they lived their formative years here, transitioning together from college students to newlyweds to first-time parents. It matters that they still live within a nine-minute drive of each other and that their children attend the same schools. It matters that they frequently bump into the same faces at coffee shops and grocery stores and that they groan and suffer the same seventh-circle-of-hell summers together.

I have lived in 12 different homes in three different countries, and I still fantasize about moving. Not once did I factor in community. I assumed I would find my people wherever I went—not that I would go to where my people were.

On Saturday evening, I arrived at the house of Kevin and Emily Roden, longtime friends of the Daskams. Brian had encouraged people in his circles to read Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream and invited Baylor University professor Matthew Lee Anderson to lead a discussion on the play and on how people transfigure their longings and desires.

There were sparkling waters, jugs of old-fashioned, mozzarella balls, and pretzels. I waved hello to the Daskams’ pastor, a widower with a kind face, and shook hands with several guests who were regulars at their Sunday dinners. Then we all sat down—more than 30 of us in total—to debate and laugh about what it means to be and live as human beings.

“It’s weird, what you’re doing,” the professor told the group in amusement. “Spending Saturday night thinking about these things.”

But I sensed this evening wasn’t merely a one-off event; it was the outgrowth of an institution that the Daskams had refined over two decades. Their Sunday evening dinners—kicking off the week by breaking bread with community—were a powerful liturgy. It forged identities not as individuals or nuclear families but as parts of a collective of believers who think deeply and discuss intentionally. Their conversations shaped their thoughts, values, and interests.

Later, I talked to the host, Emily Roden, a petite woman with chin-length auburn curls. The Rodens and the Daskams had met in college, once living in the same Victorian-style townhouse complex. Now their oldest daughter, Rosie, is best friends with Cate. Before the Daskams moved to Washington, they spent their last two nights in Denton at the Rodens’ home. It felt like a big slumber party.

“And they just left,” Emily recalled. “Except this time, they weren’t going two minutes away but several states away.” She shook her head. “Oh, I could almost cry just thinking about it again.” She remembers feeling lost. “A huge reason why we’re even in Denton is gone,” she told her husband then.

The Daskams’ absence left a hole in their community. It changed the dynamic. Who could replace Brian’s intellectual curiosity and nerdiness or Keri’s sweet wisdom and baking? “These kinds of friendships come only once in a lifetime,” Emily told me.

And for some people, never.

I felt a pang. If David and I were to move, would anyone say that our departure left a gash in their world?

I also felt weirdly embarrassed. When I told people why I was visiting Denton, they shot me looks of sympathy. “Oh, I’m so sorry,” they said.

I hadn’t felt embarrassed until that point. Didn’t everyone struggle with finding community? Not them, it seemed. They joked about wanting to escape Denton, but with a contented resignation. Ah well, what can we do? This is home.

“So what you’re telling me,” I later asked Brian, “is I need to return to college, find my besties there, buy houses in the same neighborhood, have babies at the same time, and spend 20 years together in order to have the community you have.”

Brian laughed. Much of what he has is the grace of God, he admitted. “We recognize it’s unfair, that some of these things, not everyone has the ability to do,” he said.

Perhaps not. The Daskams had tried in Washington, and they had come back. But what I saw in Denton were the fruits of 20 years of structured gatherings pumped with many unstructured hangouts. The group met frequently, consistently, intentionally, randomly, spontaneously. Its social muscles were limber and strong after repeated strengthening and stretching.

I flew back to LA with a hole growing in my heart. It wasn’t a terrible feeling; it was that I’d seen with my own eyes what I longed to have for me and my family. I also felt comforted by the Daskams’ struggles in Washington. I wasn’t alone; building community is hard.

But how did it get this hard?

David and I got married on April 10, 2020, at the dawn of COVID-19 social distancing mandates. A month earlier, the world had shut down. Schools and churches closed. Gyms and movie theaters shuttered. Even playgrounds and beaches were taped off.

We were married in David’s backyard in front of God, our pastor, and a camera through which our friends and family witnessed our vows. Our “reception” was on Zoom, and David and I dined on Uber Eats sushi. On the screen of our iMac, my mother-in-law looked miserable; my father-in-law cried, but not from joy.

I didn’t mind too much. We saved thousands of dollars. Nobody could tell my makeup was hideous or that I wore sneakers under my dress. Besides, wasn’t a wedding about the love and commitment between husband and wife? So what if, when the Zoom window closed, we were suddenly alone in our house for the rest of the day, the rest of the week, and months after? A marriage is 
between two, no?

And that’s how our new life began. Our church did not meet in person for more than a year. I got used to livestreaming the sermon while frothing milk for my coffee. We stopped attending biweekly neighborhood “dinners” on Zoom because those virtual hangouts felt pointless 
and awkward.

David complained about feeling isolated; I felt liberated—free from anyone’s petty drama or birthday parties or baby showers. My plans revolved around my interests and convenience.

Slowly, gradually, the outside world returned. Our church met physically for services again. We met with friends at restaurants. But by then, I had gotten comfortable living a self-contained, self-gazing life. Navigating 58 minutes of freeways to meet a friend suddenly felt draining and unnecessary. Was it really worth all that effort when we could just text or call?

Then on Saturday morning, September 18, 2021, my husband received a call from his dad. I was still in bed, but I could hear my father-in-law’s loud, ragged sobs through the phone.

While my in-laws were on their usual daily walk, a neighbor in a Chevrolet Avalanche had sped through a busy intersection and hit my mother-in-law.

By the time David and I were in the air, flying to Bismarck, North Dakota, the doctors had pronounced her dead. My father-in-law greeted us at David’s childhood home with sunken eyes and swollen cheeks, looking frail and broken in his dark, four-bedroom house.

We stayed three weeks in Bismarck. Relatives converged from across the country. Friends and neighbors rang the doorbell and dropped off cookie platters, knoephla soup, and tater tot casseroles. Our cellphones vibrated all day with text messages from friends and coworkers: “Praying for you.” “Whatever you need.” “There are no words.”

When we returned home, my husband was not the same man. He had needs he couldn’t identify. I didn’t know how to 
be the wife he needed, and his friends didn’t know how to be the friends he needed.

Our church asked if we wanted a meal train. We said no. We lived a ways from most of the congregation, and besides, I hate casseroles.

I realize now that turning down the offer was a grave mistake. People wanted a reason to come knock on our door, to invite themselves over, and I had closed the gate on them. So over time, people forgot. They had their own problems. Some texted to ask how David was doing, but they didn’t know how to respond when he told them he was still grieving.

Five months after the tragedy, I found out I was pregnant—six months pregnant.

When I gave birth to our son, we named him Tov to remind ourselves that God is tov—“good” in Hebrew. God created the world and called it tov. He also said: Lo-tov heyoth ha’adam levaddo. “It is not good for a man to be alone.”

It was through Tov that I realized I was alone. When he was born, I again declined a meal-train offer from our church; I just wanted to be left alone. Postpartum and motherhood blew my world apart. I lost my freedom of body, time, and attention. I was grossed out by how I leaked everywhere, deflated yet swollen. I had, seemingly overnight, become responsible for a helpless human being. I didn’t want to see anyone or be seen.

Nine months passed until one Sunday at church when I exited the nursing room and, lifting my head from the fog of motherhood, saw only unfamiliar faces.

In those nine months, our congregation of about 100 had changed (LA being a transient city). I hadn’t noticed. But my oblivion wasn’t solely due to motherhood. It was formed by months of seeking only what felt convenient and comfortable.

There were other obstacles to community, too. Having a baby meant less flexibility. We couldn’t attend neighborhood dinners or prayer nights, which conflicted with bedtime. We invested in one family, hoping our sons would grow up to become best friends, and then the family moved to Fresno. I was part of a discipleship group, but because of conflicting schedules, we met maybe once every six weeks. “We should meet up sometime” became such a common lie that we said it as glibly as a passing greeting.

Yes, we were busy. But to be “too busy” for community is simply to prioritize things other than community. What would our life look like now had we made different choices, like accepting those meal trains?

After visiting Denton, I made several changes.

First, I called some close friends and penciled in monthly dates to hang out. If we didn’t have some sort of structured schedule, I knew we’d only meet a couple of times a year.

Second, David and I made a list of our family values. At the top: Sunday is sacred. It will no longer be an hour of church, then errands, then chilling in front of the TV. Sunday will be reserved for our church family, even if it means ruling out certain extracurricular activities for Tov.

Third, we decided to find a church closer to us. We couldn’t see ourselves forming consistent community at a faraway church with rhythms of fellowship our family couldn’t partake in. When we’re out of sight, we’re out of mind.

At our new, nearby church, we found a small group that met on Sunday afternoons. The first time we visited, older children played outside while Tov stayed with us. He bounced around like a bunny on an energy drink, sprinkling crumbs everywhere. We felt terrible, but nobody seemed to mind. When Tov started fussing, a college student got on her knees and enthralled him with magic tricks.

That first meeting felt awkward. It’s always awkward breaking into a group that has already formed its own culture and dynamics. Everyone was friendly, but we didn’t immediately jibe with anyone. We were just…so different.

The next small group gathering, we met at someone else’s house. The first thing I saw was a big campaign sign in the front yard endorsing a candidate I would never support. I groaned. I knew that a person’s political position shouldn’t matter within the body of Christ, but that sign left an impression.

What did I expect? That we’d just stumble upon “our people” and start running to Costco together and pouring out our hearts around a firepit? The first community Jesus built was his 12 disciples—men of clashing political stripes, personalities, and social backgrounds whose bickering is well documented in the Gospels (Luke 9:46). What made me think my community should share my interests, humor, and politics?

I was still struggling with these thoughts when I picked up a book called When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community by Joseph H. Hellerman. I had read multiple books on friendship and community, but this was the first one I’d found that focused on the church.

“As church-going Americans, we have been socialized to believe that our individual fulfillment and our personal relationship with God are more important than any connection we might have with our fellow human beings, whether in the home or in the church,” Hellerman wrote. “We have, in a most subtle and insidious way, been conformed to this world.”

Modern Christians often put family needs above community ones, even seeing that as biblical. But Hellerman argues that’s not what Scripture and the early church teach.

“The New Testament picture of the church as a family flies in the face of our individualistic cultural orientation,” he writes. God’s vision of the church as our first family “offers a powerful antidote” to the social ills of today.

I was still reading the book’s introduction when I realized that Joseph Hellerman was the same “Pastor Joe” who preaches at the church David and I had been attending for several weeks.

I emailed Hellerman. It turns out he lives five minutes away from me. We met up at his favorite local coffee shop. He had grown up in the neighborhood and raised two daughters in his childhood two-bedroom home. As we baked outside in the California sun, locals stopped to say hi.

Hellerman, at 71, still gives off major beach vibes. He’s been in ministry for more than four decades, using his church as a sort of “laboratory,” as he calls it, to test his convictions on community. He preaches regularly against Western individualism, trying to model community in his own life. “It hasn’t been easy,” he told me.

Hellerman is proud of his church. But of roughly 400 members, he estimates that maybe 100 truly experience the church as family. “We’ve worked, worked, worked at it, and that’s the best we can do.”

The pandemic was the most divisive time in his ministry experience. He was aghast and disappointed to see church members squabble and attack each other on social media about vaccines and masks. Some left over their differences.

Orthodoxy wasn’t the problem, Hellerman said: “I’ve seen too much good theology and bad relationships go hand in hand over the years.” We know cognitively what we need to do, what we long for, he explained. But we don’t know how to put that into practice, or we are unwilling to do so. Too many forces work against us:

“When I look at my own life, my own stubbornness when it comes to community, my wife and I don’t get the community thing like we should. We are drawn to it yet scared to death by it. It’s our house. Our money. Our life.”

Somehow, it didn’t discourage me that Hellerman, who had written a whole book about this topic with such conviction and authority, struggled to live it out. Instead, I felt encouraged—100 out of his 400 church members were managing to live out community. Here was a pastor who empathized with those who fell short, because he swims against the same currents.

The week we talked, Hellerman was working on a sermon about the role of the Holy Spirit in community. He can preach all he wants, he said, but ultimately, “If this is the truth, then as it’s being shared, the Holy Spirit in the people is going to affirm it.”

I suppose that’s what’s been going on inside me: The Spirit has been affirming what I’ve known and desired all along. “David and I don’t want to move churches anymore,” I told Hellerman. “We want to plant roots here. 
I want my son to grow up in a church where he has surrogate aunts and uncles. I want him to not just be raised by me and David, but by the church community. I want him to love the church as family.”

It was the first time I had expressed this out loud, but it’s a prayer that’s been gradually maturing in my heart. It started with a longing for community that first focused on my and my family’s needs.

Over time, the Holy Spirit has been illuminating and correcting me, revealing my selfishness and stubbornness, deepening and expanding my prayers toward something that’s closer to God’s heart, something that hopefully reflects the all-night prayers 
I imagine Jesus prayed in Luke 6:12 before he chose the disciples who would build his church.

And if this is what God wants for us, our path is simple: Follow and receive. Follow, even if it means our plans get canceled, our routines get messed up, and we sacrifice time and resources. Receive, because community is a gift from God, even if the people surrounding me don’t conform to my preferences. Even if they hurt or annoy or inconvenience me.

It sounds so simple. Yet it is so, so hard. At times I think, Why, this is nothing. Other times, I feel defeated: Can we really do this?

A few days before Christmas last year, I found out we were having another baby. Our life is only going to get more chaotic, more busy. And depending on what we choose, we might become even more isolated.

But we have to do this. Round two, here we go. And this time, I’ll accept the casseroles, thank you.

Sophia Lee is global staff writer at CT.

A photo of Kyle Zunker
Testimony

My Dreams Had Come True. But the Panic Attacks Remained.

How I discovered God’s peace and found relief from debilitating anxiety.

Photography by JoMando Cruz for Christianity Today

Trying to get comfortable, I shifted my head on the hard table. “How is this volume?” asked a voice through my earbuds. I made a thumbs-up signal for the technician on the other side of the glass wall.

I exhaled and clutched the remote with the emergency exit button as the table retracted into the narrow MRI tube. I hoped that multiple doses of anxiety medicine would help me fight off a panic attack for the next half hour.

Seven years prior, in 2008, I had graduated from high school and left home for college. At the time, I considered myself a Christian. I was baptized at 14 and attended church on and off through high school, but my faith was nominal and insufficient to weather the storm I was about to create.

In college, I started living by an increasingly self-centered ethic. Whatever was going on—parties, classes, work—I wanted to do it best. I wanted to be the most successful, interesting, and important person in the world. The more self-oriented my life became, the more highly I thought of myself and the more I subscribed to intellectual arguments against the existence of God.

By my early 20s, I was a staunch atheist. I thought I knew God did not exist and thought I saw all the fallacies in Christianity. I ridiculed Christians outwardly on several occasions and inwardly on countless others.

As I pursued personal glorification, my health began to decline. I suffered my first panic attack at 19 years old. It was unlike anything I had ever endured. My heart raced, my face burned, my blood ran ice cold, and the inside of my body tried to rip through my skin.

It is difficult to describe how desperate, overwhelmed, and irrational I felt during panic attacks. I remember one that came inside a minivan breezing down the highway. In that moment, I thought I would have been safer throwing myself from the moving vehicle.

As my panic attacks became more frequent and less predictable, an ever-present anxiety took hold of my life, and my physical health deteriorated further. My throat felt swollen to the point where I worried about breathing. My hands, feet, and face alternated between tingling, burning, and going numb. Muscles began twitching involuntarily. My legs buzzed so badly when I was trying to sleep that I would walk on my apartment complex’s treadmill in the middle of the night. My testosterone plummeted, my lymph nodes swelled to alarming proportions, and I broke out in shingles.

By my final semester of law school in 2015, I was terrified, desperate for relief and answers, bouncing from doctor to doctor and self-medicating to make it through life. When I finally got my MRI, the imaging came back clean—yet another inconclusive test that left the doctors guessing.

That May, I graduated and began studying for the bar exam. I took the summer off from work and adopted a rigid schedule of studying, exercise, and sleep. The regimented lifestyle kept me preoccupied, and I found some relief—but only temporarily. During the three-month wait for my exam results, anxiety retook control.

I fixed my hope on two things: passing the bar exam and proposing to my girlfriend, Hannah. A few months later, within an eight-day stretch, both went as planned. I was thrilled but also deeply concerned. My anxiety had not improved, and a new fear crept in: The two dreams that dominated my life had come to fruition, and if those hadn’t brought peace, then what could? I began despairing that I was incapable of fulfillment.

Then something strange happened.

Before our wedding, Hannah and I lived downtown at the epicenter of urban revitalization in San Antonio. Countless times, as we browsed nearby restaurants, coffee shops, and a farmers’ market, we passed a small building labeled “Pearl Street Church.” Every Sunday, smiling people lined up outside, covering the sidewalk and spilling over the bike lanes into the street.

One day, I suggested to Hannah that we should attend the church. I had no intention of believing in anything. I anticipated emotion-evoking music and a social-club vibe. I also suspected Hannah wanted to attend church, and if I went with her, it would boost my respectability as a future husband.

We attended our first 6 p.m. service sometime in late 2015 or early 2016. When we entered the building, I steered us to the least crowded section in the back, but I could not hide. Numerous people came up and greeted us in the minutes before the service, and the lead pastor welcomed us with an enthusiastic smile. When he walked onstage to deliver the message, I was skeptical, guarded, and ready to shred him in my mind. But he shocked me.

His sermon explored Genesis 22, in which God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. This was one of the Bible stories I would cite as an atheist to debunk the faith and ridicule Christians. “Why would a supposedly loving God demand that someone kill his child as part of a test?” I would ask.

But that evening, as the pastor spoke, my eyes were opened. God’s instruction to Abraham was not a pointless or sadistic test; it prophetically foreshadowed the work of Jesus. It was God’s way of showing the inestimably high price he would pay for our salvation. And in the end, God did not require Abraham to pay that price but chose instead to pay it himself.

Leaving the church that evening, I knew my intellectual arguments against God and the Bible were not as ironclad as I had imagined. I was still an atheist—or at least highly skeptical. But the gospel the pastor preached was not the straw-man religion I had grown accustomed to attacking. It was something else, something I did not understand, something that left an ineffable impression of truth upon me. I needed to learn more.

Over the next few months, I read through the New Testament and several apologetics books, and Hannah and I attended the same church service each Sunday. All the while, anxiety continued to plague me, and I felt myself approaching a breaking point.

It came in April 2016, about four months after we had started attending church. It was 2 a.m., and I was having another sleepless night. I got out of bed and spread my yoga mat on our living room floor. I tried to stretch the buzzing and twitching out of my legs, but there was no improvement. After several minutes, I gave up and fell face down on my mat.

I was physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted. I was tired of trying and failing to carry the overwhelming burden of my own expectations. I was tired of the parade of physical ailments and the cold flood of anxiety. I was tired of fear and, most of all, tired of being tired. In that moment, face down on my yoga mat in the middle of the night, I was prostrate in every sense of the word.

Then, for the first time in years, I prayed. I prayed the only words I could think of: “Thy will be done.” I prayed those words over and over until I found the energy to pray in more detail. I even prayed that if God willed for me to die, then his will be done.

Everything changed that night. Philippians 4:6–7, which I encountered months later, captures the shift:

Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything. Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done. Then you will experience God’s peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus. (NLT)

The peace of God changed my life. It gave me power over anxiety and fear, and my body began to heal as joy and hope replaced depression and despair. Three years later, my father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer at 55. Had this happened when I was an atheist, it would have destroyed me. But I was armored with God’s peace, and God provided the courage I needed to support my father and encourage him with the Good News.

Kyle Zunker is the author of Amazing Courage: Letters to My Father on Conquering Fear through Faith and a blog dedicated to helping people understand faith.

Books
Review

Which Comes First: Good Citizens or Good Governments?

Two new books consider whether one depends on the other.

Illustration by Ben Hickey

Constitutional scholar C. L. Skach begins How to Be a Citizen: Learning to Be Civil Without the State with an engrossing account of her own foray into crafting the law of a land. The land in question was American-occupied Iraq, to which Skach traveled in 2008, full of enthusiasm and feeling she’d reached the peak of her profession. She recalls, “As one of my students at Oxford put it, ‘You are writing constitutions, Professor Skach; it doesn’t get any better than this.’”

Readers old enough to remember the many failures of the US government’s efforts to export democracy to the Middle East won’t be surprised to learn that her story soon takes a chaotic turn. With the work far from finished, Skach’s camp in Baghdad is hit by a rocket meant for the nearby US Embassy, and just hours later she’s riding a tank back to the airport, leaving Iraq with democracy stuck in customs.

“I realized that nothing or no one could help these people but themselves,” Skach writes. “No law, no rule” imposed by outsiders could force the culture into a shape foreign to its norms. So unsettling was the experience that, by its end, the professor of law had lost her “faith in formal rules—in the law” itself.

But the problem at the center of How to Be a Citizen is not simply a matter of law, and it has that in common with another recent book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, by political scientist Yuval Levin.

Both authors write in response to a diagnosis with which almost no observer of modern American politics could quibble: Things are not working as they should. We can’t seem to get along as a people, and this discord is not merely a normal cycle of history framed by our memory of midcentury consensus. Something is fundamentally broken at the institutional and cultural levels of our politics. The government and citizenry alike have gotten off-kilter—perhaps dangerously so. Something must be done.

Skach’s proposal for that something begins with the people, not the government. Having concluded that rule changes alone aren’t the answer—that you cannot have “a democracy without democrats”—she sketches a six-part solution for forming an engaged, empathetic, democratic citizenry that will no longer rely “on the law to do the work of living together.”

On the scale of chapter titles, there’s much wisdom here. “Hang out in a piazza, repeatedly,” she advises. “Grow your own tomatoes, and share them.” “Own your rights, but responsibly.”

But the details of Skach’s vision of “spontaneous, horizontal, non-hierarchical self-sufficiency” are rather less reassuring and often suffer from a lack of specificity around the role of the state. (This confusion shows itself in her subtitle, too, for we can certainly be civil without the state, but we can’t be citizens without it.)

Skach is careful to note that she’s not advocating violence or lawbreaking, or even for doing away with the legal order—at least not yet. She wants readers to take direct, usually local action, to self-organize, and to “begin building up the kind of inclusive self-care communities we want and need.” Usually this takes a progressive tone, but sometimes it swings libertarian, as when she argues that this will “leave less work for the elected leaders to do.”

At her best, Skach is calling for thick civil society, personal responsibility, voluntary charity, and good norms. Yet too often, she seems to imagine that a sprawling, diverse country can, with enough hard work and goodwill, function like a small village with no real crime and no deeply held religious or ethical differences, only “preferences” that may be set aside to help a friend.

And at her worst, Skach proposes outfitting our public spaces “with daily news reports for those who will not access them through cell phones.” These would broadcast on “environmentally discreet, solar-powered plasma screens displaying information from a variety of sources, with optional soundscapes for the visually impaired.”

Who decides what capital-T Truths the big TVs will scream at us? She doesn’t say. But the obvious candidate is the state, and it’s remarkable to see the technology of George Orwell’s 1984 reintroduced in a book about empowering the citizenry.

American Covenant takes a near-opposite tack. Though never neglectful of the importance of civil society, public virtue, and strong norms, Levin’s contention is that our Constitution

is not the problem we face. It is more like the solution. It was designed with an exceptionally sophisticated grasp of the nature of political division and diversity, and it aims to create—and not just to occupy—common ground in our society.

It does this because constitutional function extends beyond establishing the basic shape of our government to forming us as citizens, as “people well suited to living together.”

That formation doesn’t require ideological unity, Levin is careful to say. It has room for the deeply held differences Skach tries to brush away as petty self-interest. The Constitution “goes about creating common ground” by “compelling Americans with different views and priorities to deal with one another,” Levin writes. It forces us to negotiate, to compromise, to understand and accommodate as we wish to be understood and accommodated. It obliges us to “act together without thinking alike.”

Or at least it’s supposed to. But for a century we’ve been kicking against the constitutional goads, impatient with the very deliberation and domestic diplomacy the design is intended to produce. Core institutions are now bent grossly out of shape, and American politics are bent to match.

In a time as divided as ours, then, Levin argues that Americans must not lose faith in our Constitution but rather revive it:

Rather than throw out the system or deform it to better suit today’s grotesque civic vices, we should look to the logic of the Constitution for guidance toward constructive institutional reforms and healthier political habits.

My expectation, going into both books, was that I’d find Skach’s solutions humbler and thus more feasible. I can’t make Congress stop shirking responsibility, but I can plant a garden and share the tomatoes. If the Titanic really is sinking, perhaps arranging the deck chairs is truly all you can do (or even a service you should do).

But I finished American Covenant far more in Levin’s camp than Skach’s, persuaded that his approach is sounder on several counts, of which I’ll mention three.

The first is that Skach—an American living in the UK—writes about constitutions generally, but Levin is concerned with the Constitution. That is, his argument is specific to the American situation, to our culture and shared history. And that matters for precisely the reason Skach encountered in the Mideast: The Constitution is not an outside imposition in the US. It doesn’t resemble “human-to-human stem cell transplants”—which the body may treat as a threat with disastrous results—unlike the democracy she tried to help export to Iraq.

We have a lot of political dysfunction, but it is not the same kind of dysfunction Skach observed in Baghdad, and proffering our own Constitution as a remedy is not like flying in foreigners to build a new nation. Recent history in Iraq and beyond suggests Skach was right to lose faith in that kind of project. Happily, restoring the internal logic of our Constitution is not that kind of project.

Next is the question of how to address the erosion of the rule of law, a reality that both books have squarely in view. Skach dismisses “solutions [that] come out of the same toolbox we have drawn from for centuries,” like “more rules to fix our broken democracies.”

Instead of improving our laws, she says, we should be most concerned with improving our small communities, exercising “our own judgement and collective action” and showing that we do not need authority and top-down rules to behave ourselves and care for each other.

In one sense, of course, this is true: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up,” Galatians 6:9 says. Yet rule of law is also a real good, a valuable inheritance not to be lightly cast aside as an outdated tool. And if something’s gone wrong with our rules, then surely—unless we really are on the Titanic—fixing those rules must be some part of our response?

Skach’s interest in individual action highlights a third point in Levin’s favor, which is his more accurate notion of human nature. American Covenant repeatedly draws on anthropology, sketching a picture of humans as creatures of virtue and vice, “each fallen and imperfect yet made in a divine image and possessed of equal dignity.”

The design of the Constitution, Levin writes, citing framers like James Madison, assumes both sides of humankind. This is why it imposes real constraints while insisting citizens can rise to a demand of “selflessness, accommodation, restraint, deliberation, and service.”

Skach’s story is simpler, and worse for it. She argues that it’s fallacious to believe “nature needs authority for good order to exist,” contending instead that people, like bubbles in beer foam, will “spontaneously” “find their way” into “harmonious equilibrium” if they are simply “left to their own devices.”

It is not clear, given this view of humanity, why we’d need the Orwell screens. Nor is it really clear how Skach envisions handling real and durable disagreement about important matters, let alone crime. She admits intra-citizen negotiations “will sometimes fail, because some individuals will refuse to give up what they consider their due share”—as if the only reason people ever reach an impasse is somebody being a bit selfish.

One of her most striking scenarios of good citizenship, shared once as hypothetical and again in relaying a real conversation, is that “gays can buy a cake for their wedding, even from a Christian baker, who is able to see the humanity of the couple in front of him rather than sexual preferences that conflict with his.” The idea that there might be something more substantive than “preferences” at play doesn’t seem to enter Skach’s mind.

That is not to say How to Be a Citizen has no worthwhile instruction for citizens. Skach’s promotion of charity and life in the piazza—a public, physical “space where we can go regularly, where we feel known and accepted”—is exactly right. The church can and should be at the forefront of building the kind of communal life she envisions. In many smaller communities, it may be the only institution left with any capacity to do so.

And Levin, for his part, is not wholly consistent on whether the work of repairing our political dysfunction begins with our institutions or our culture. Earlier in the book, he says to start with the culture: “Our institutions aren’t going to change before our expectations do, only after,” so “we, as citizens, must move first by coming to better understand our Constitution and to better live it out.”

But at the end, he says to start with the institutions, because they “are much more readily changeable” than culture, “and so it makes sense to begin to approach deep cultural problems by considering what institutional reforms might be of use and work from there.”

I suspect the second answer is the wiser one, though that’s not to say I think it’s likely to succeed. For all Levin’s realism, American Covenant often feels like a fantasy. Its presentation of how our constitutional system is supposed to work emphasizes how badly we’ve broken it and how huge an endeavor restoration would be.

Yet on one point Levin did tempt me to hope: “It is easy to wave away such talk in modern America and insist that we no longer think this way, but our political life suggests that we certainly do.” We claim the best constitutional principles for ourselves and accuse our opponents of ignoring or betraying them. Even our debates about the hypocrisy of the Constitution’s framers evince an ingrained loyalty to their ideals. Maybe we have not entirely forgotten how to be citizens in this particular republic.

Bonnie Kristian is CT’s editorial director of ideas and books.

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