Culture
Review

Boyhood

You and I would never have the patience to make this movie, and make it this good.

Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'

Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'

Christianity Today July 18, 2014
Sundance Institute

I don't write these types of reviews too often, but this is one of them, so, heads up: come December Richard Linklater's Boyhood will still definitely be one of my favorite films of 2014, and maybe of the decade.

You need to know this about Boyhood going in: the star, Ellar Coltrane, was cast in the film in 2002 when he was six years old, and he—along with co-stars Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, and Linklater's daughter Lorelei—proceeded to shoot the film periodically over the next twelve years, the characters' ages keeping pace roughly with the actors' real ages.

Just stop for a second and think about that: this film was in production for twelve years.

Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'
Ellar Coltrane in ‘Boyhood’

Though people knew about the project, the cast and crew kept the details pretty quiet. (For instance, here's one of the few, typical statements about the film.) So when the movie—a late addition to the slate at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year—was finally screened for an audience, people's minds understandably exploded. This is epically patient filmmaking. It's not something we ever get to see.

Boyhood isn't a documentary, though you might be excused for mistaking it for one (not least because it's been compared to Michael Apted's Up series). It's the same sort of fictional narrative feature film you and I are used to watching, though there isn't a typical plot. In the film's story, a boy named Mason (Coltrane) grows up. He and his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater) live with their mother (Arquette, whose character's name is simply "Mom"). Mom and Dad (Hawke) got divorced before the movie started.

Both parents date other people and sometimes marry them. They get jobs and lose them. Mason goes to school and fights with his sister. He moves houses and has to make new friends. He gets into fistfights. He rides his bike. He watches Star Wars. He gets older. And eventually, he graduates from high school and goes to college.

That's all very typical stuff—a childhood that will remind a lot of viewers of their own: sometimes idyllic, sometimes tumultuous, sometimes confusing. We mostly see things from Mason's perspective, which means he is sometimes more preoccupied with and aware of whatever is going on in his personal existence than with the bigger, more serious issues that the adults are dealing with. And some of them are pretty serious, like spousal abuse and alcoholism and not knowing where money is going to come from. But the film stays lighthearted; things, after all, eventually seem to turn out okay. Life has a way of going on. We have a way of becoming who we will be.

Patricia Arquette and Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'
Patricia Arquette and Ellar Coltrane in ‘Boyhood’

One of the loveliest things about Boyhood is how much of it makes those long-forgotten strings of childhood vibrate within you. It reminds you of what it was like to be a kid. Friends (and step-siblings) float in and out of Mason's life; remember when you were best friends with the kids on your block, and then you moved and that was it—you never really saw them again? If you'd forgotten what that was like, you'll remember it, along with long afternoons of boredom, frustration with rules that seem dumb, and the elation of being out on your own with your friends at night. Mix that kind of nostalgia with a now-adult perspective, and it takes on a new dimension.

Admittedly, some of the minor actors (especially some of the children and teenagers) aren't great. But the principal performers are wonderful, and the filmmaking transforms it into something special, something different.

Typically, a film will shoot for an intensive period of weeks or months, all at once, so the cast and crew can move on to the next job. Nearly all films are shot out of order—you might shoot your last scene before your first, if the schedule works out that way. And if you to portray the same character at very different ages, you have a few choices: can do it with makeup (often with very creepy results), with CGI (think Benjamin Button, I guess), or with different actors altogether (my favorite being Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis in the 1994 Little Women).

But because of the way Boyhood was shot, the same actors portray the same characters throughout the entire film. So we see them grow up and grow older as we're watching the characters grow up. We watch children go through their awkward stages as they become teenagers and then young adults. Music plays a big part in this film, but when you remember it's just the music that was actually on the radio when they shot the scene, it feels less like planned, mannered set dressing and more like actual life.

Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'
Ellar Coltrane in ‘Boyhood’

Richard Linklater likes to mess with time. His work includes movies as diverse as Slacker, A Scanner Darkly, and School of Rock, but he's perhaps best known lately for the "Before" trilogy—Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight. Those films, we discovered when Midnight was released last year, were all shot nine years apart and portray the relationship of two people (played by Hawke and Julie Delpy) in, yes, nine-year-apart installments. The films remind you what it's like to fall in love, to have conversations that seem to last a lifetime, to weather the difficulties of relationship, and to wonder whether relationships are even worth the trouble. (Read Ken Morefield's excellent take on the trilogy from last year.)

Boyhood, too, is interested in how relationships evolve over time: in this case, parents and siblings, step-siblings and cousins. Our relationships to each other in families don't stay the same over the course of our lives. Siblings start as our playmates, then our rivals, and eventually become our friends. Parents go from being protectors to, sometimes, needing to be protected—or they do some growing up of their own. And of course, we rarely notice ourselves changing. But imagine: what if you could watch yourself growing up on screen?

Boyhood is a long film at 164 minutes. Nothing explodes. There's no villain, no superhero, no mystery to be solved. But it's compelling, enjoyable, heartbreaking, and, ultimately—well, I hate using the word, but it's inspiring. Leaving the theater, I felt like I needed to pay closer attention to my own life—to stop and just be.

Ellar Coltrane in 'Boyhood'
Ellar Coltrane in ‘Boyhood’

So often at the movies, we see stories that teach us that only the remarkable moments are worth telling. Boyhood is an achievement in filmmaking, and it also does an important, countercultural thing: it reminds us that in the banal moments, the mundane relationships, the ugly rooms and the awkward phases—that is where we live out our lives.

Caveat Spectator

Boyhood is rated R for reasons that will be familiar to anyone who had a typical American boyhood (or, potentially, girlhood): language, including sexual references, and teen drug and alcohol use. However, these are both highly realistic for the material, and far less graphic than things you can see in the typical multiplex in a PG-13 movie on any given weekend (or on network or cable TV).

In some scenes, teenage boys swear and make lewd comments about girls and look (briefly) at porn they found stashed in the house. Drug use is largely limited to pot-smoking, and it is tolerated, though not encouraged, as is the underage drinking. Children talk back to parents. Probably more worth mentioning, and perhaps more deserving of the MPAA's rating, is the actions of some of the adults; Mason's mother seems to pick men with problems, and one is an abusive alcoholic. Others are also unkind.

Alissa Wilkinson is Christianity Today's chief film critic and assistant professor of English and humanities at The King's College in New York City. She tweets @alissamarie.

Ideas

We Miserable Sinners

Columnist; Contributor

Making good ‘Christian’ movies is a matter of being a wretch.

Brendan Gleeson in 'Calvary'

Brendan Gleeson in 'Calvary'

Christianity Today July 17, 2014

This month, a few corners of the Internet have gotten interested in whether or not literature and popular culture reflect politically conservative positions, and what should be done about it.

In National Review on July 9, Jonah Goldberg suggested that American popular culture, contrary to popular assumption, is essentially conservative. Two days earlier, on the cover of National Review, the conservative book editor Adam Bellow suggested that what culture (and, specifically, literature) needs is more conservative creators and more conservative funders. Alyssa Rosenberg responded in the Washington Post, suggesting (as "friendly opposition") that conservatives run the risk of creating terrible art if their first step forward is ideology, not craft; Micah Mattix more or less agreed in his take in The American Conservative.

Personally, I don't have much of a dog in the politics-and-culture fight. But I got interested because this all sounded pretty familiar. As lore has it, Hollywood needs to be infiltrated by people of faith who can make sure that "our values" are being reflected on screen.

Well, I've just come from a screening of Calvary, the most "Christian" film I've seen in as long as I can remember. I don't think it will be winning any awards from the Christian world (although I guarantee it will show up on my end-of-year list here at Christianity Today, and a few others, too). It has bad words, and it takes place in a universe very like ours—that is, in one where people are suffering the ugly aftereffects (and sometime during-effects) of their very serious sins against one another.

I put the word "Christian" in quotes there, though. I think we can all agree that a film cannot be "Christian" in the way you and I can be, because a film cannot be converted, cannot believe, cannot be baptized (literally, anyhow), cannot be part of the body of Christ. That's the first sense of the term: a noun.

The noun kind of Christian is a label applied by people on the outside to a community of folks who were different from the rest. Specifically, a group in Antioch. The whole story shows up in Acts 11, which is the same chapter where God gives Peter the vision of the unclean animals descending from heaven, and tells him to take and eat. God has made the unclean clean. And the church spreads to the Gentiles.

Actually, I'm not a Bible scholar, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't until the good news spread to the Gentiles—those who were unclean—that anyone starting calling those people Christians.

I can't tell you a ton about Calvary yet, but what makes it air-quote "Christian" in something close to the first sense is that it sees the grace of God as something that extended only to the unclean—the sick, I suppose, who need the physician, as Jesus said. You see this, and you say: that is a human, but a human touched by something bigger than them.

The second sense of "Christian" is pesky. We use the word as an adjective to describe things we can buy and consume—mostly movies and music and books, but also art and T-shirts. It's a marketing category, like "family" or "romance" or "action."

I used to have a huge problem with this, but I've come around on that. Marketing categories are useful and necessary. It's regrettable that the word for the marketing category is the same as the word for the people who buy it (unlike, say, "horror"), I suppose, but that's how it is.

And as much as I don't love the idea that there's a separate, specific industry for "Christian" stuff, I understand it, too. People need to make money, and they found a market segment, and it will pay for what they offer. Or, people want to categorize the movie they made by the kind of consumer who will be glad they spent their time and/or money on it, and it keeps people who won't like it from wasting their resources.

There's no inherent reason someone couldn't make a good "Christian" movie. There's also nothing keeping a conservative or liberal film from being good, or really, any genre film. Tons of bad horror films are made for money, but there are some good ones, too. There are dozens of terrible romantic comedies, but there are some where craft and genre work together to make something that's good. Plenty of "family" films are hackneyed, but some are quite enjoyable. I really hope that there will be some good Christian movies in the future, too.

When that's not the case, though, it's for the same reasons that Micah Mattix and Alyssa Rosenberg point out: movies and TV are not just vehicles for messages.

When art is made in order to carry a message, it becomes a servant to ideology—to a system of abstracted ideas and ideals. Ideologies are not in themselves bad, but they often hit rough patches when they come out of the clouds and down to earth. (For instance, the pacifist who is suddenly less of a pacifist when the lives of his wife and children are threatened by an intruder.)

Movies and TV shows built to transfer particular abstract ideas wind up fitting the story to the ideas, instead of letting the story and characters breathe and live like real people, who are messy and inconsistent and confusing. Like you. Like me.

You believe in your ideology because you think it's the best one, the correct one. You have to. If you don't believe your ideals are the right ones, then I don't know why you believe in them.

Humans actually are pretty good at figuring out if someone is telling them a story in order to talk us into believing they're right. We hate it. But we also like seeing the results of our ideologies played out on screen in ways that are favorable to us.

But you know what else is true? Conservatives don't really like movies that too obviously try to communicate liberal ideas. And liberals don't like movies that are trying to hard to make them conservative. The market segment is all wrong there.

The ones that do work are suggested by Jonah Goldberg and Alyssa Rosenberg (a conservative and a liberal, respectively) above—stories where the story and the character are the point, where empathy is exercised. Without empathy (which is, at its core, good writing) and some careful craft, these movies sell tickets at the box office to the choir, but they don't "work" as ways of proclaiming an ideology. Because it comes off as preachy. Because it feels like being bludgeoned. Because it feels tone-deaf to why you—the not-conservative or the not-liberal—choose not to be those things.

"Christian" (adj.) films have the same exact problem: if you don't agree with them already, which is to say if you're not part of the market segment (which doesn't exactly line up with the noun, by the way), then they're just going to make you mad.

What sets something like Calvary apart (or a number of other films I've seen lately—off the top of my head, Short Term 12, or the film As It Is In Heaven, which I also saw this week) is that they do that empathy thing really well. There are actual bad guys in these movies. There are some good guys, too—but not uncomplicated ones.

And, importantly, there is a feeling of what, in one of their songs, Over the Rhine calls the "slip and grip of grace."

To craft characters and stories like that requires you to understand what is good and what is bad, but I think way more importantly, they require the writer to have a finely-tuned sense of empathy. Not just to feel bad for characters having a hard time, but to feel like that's you up there on the screen, to make your viewer feel that way too, and then to feel the necessity of grace.

Maybe you're not a recovering alcoholic; maybe you've never been unfaithful to spouse or friends or whatever; maybe you've never murdered anyone or cheated on a test; maybe you have lived a pretty clean life. But if you are a Christian, the noun kind, then you know you're a mess, one that has to not just lean but grasp, wildly, for something greater than you or you'll come apart at the seams. And if you're an artist, you don't start from ideas—you start there.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: the best Christians, the best artists (and critics and parents and pastors)—the ones who make things that actually change lives—are ones who know they are miserable sinners.

News

Muslim Sues Kenya’s Catholic Bishops for Discrimination

Bishops sued as they lobby for peace amidst coastal violence.

Christianity Today July 17, 2014
Screenshot of Al Yusra

Kenya has its own religious discrimination case: A Muslim restaurateur sued the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops, claiming religious discrimination after the bishops allegedly cut short the restaurant's lease.

The owner of Al-Yusra Restaurant in Nairobi claims that Catholic bishops ended his six-year lease on property they owned, even though he had paid more than Sh2 million ($22,800 USD) and signed a lease, according to Standard Digital. The building was locked and restaurant employees denied access to the building, according to the restaurant.

Bishops told the restaurateur that they could not let a Somali Muslim-owned business operate on their property, the Daily Nation reports.

"This is a brazen violation of the Constitution by the Catholic bishops who should be at the forefront of preaching religious tolerance," said restaurant director Baakai Maalim in a petition.

Bishops, on the other hand, say they never agreed to let a restaurant use the premises.

Al-Yusra was leasing part of a building owned and maintained by the Catholic Church in Kenya that also houses the Kenya Catholic Bishops Secretariat.

Al-Yusra Restaurant Limited is suing the Kenya Conference of Bishops and Knight Frank Kenya Limited, a property manager for the bishops, for ending its contract. The bishops have allegedly declined to reimburse the restaurant for the rent and renovations its owners completed in the space.

A Kenyan court will hear the case August 5.

After alleged al-Shabaab operations left nearly 100 dead over the early summer, Christians in the coastal regions now fear that politicians have links to al-Shabaab, according to World Watch Monitor.

The Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of the Kenya Conference of Bishops appealed to Kenyans to maintain peace in the country after the Mpeketoni in a press release, saying that, "Our country can only be secure if we appreciate our diversity, adhere to the rule of law, and respect each other."

Stateside, CT noted a study showing that employers are less likely to respond to job applications that include evidence of faith affiliation, particularly Islam.

CT regularly reports on business matters and religious discrimination in the workplace, and has also reported on Kenya and al-Shabaab.

Pastors

The Importance of Being Guested

Both mission and the cross demand Christians who can graciously receive.

Leadership Journal July 17, 2014

Enjoy this . . . unsanitary . . . reflection on being a gracious guest for the sake of love and the gospel. -Paul

A barista at my favorite coffee shop asked me to come over to a party. I didn't know what kind of party it would be. Flying solo, I went to the party with potato salad in hand.

It was not the kind of party I would throw. That is for sure. By the time I got there, (almost like the time Jesus went to the wedding), people had been drinking for some time. There was dancing. Lots of it. And lots of fun. And lots, I mean lots, of alcohol. Not the kind of party this pastor is used to going to.

But the quinoa was to die for. Having finished one round, I returned to the food in the kitchen to get some more. There, standing right next to me was a classic Portland woman. Tattoos. Pant leg rolled up from the bike ride. Unshaved armpits. She saw me standing over the quinoa.

She says to me—toasted from an evening of drinking—"Good quinoa, right?"

I yell over the music, "Yeah, I'm here for seconds."

She looks at me. Then down at the quinoa. Then back up at me. And with her left hand she scoops a large handful of quinoa into her dirty hand, looks up at me, and puts it into my mouth. As she does, she says, "That's good quinoa."

I'm not one for unsanitary eating experiences. I'm not one for drunkenness. But, as a pastor too often cloistered into the safe confines of the church—which is so used to hosting the world—I was pushed out of my bounds. I was forced into being a guest.

The church of "condescension"

I didn't lead the quinoa lady to a personal relationship to Jesus. But I experienced Jesus.

Mission will never be sanitary. The minute it is, I almost wonder if we should be calling it mission.

Mission will never be sanitary. The minute it is, I almost wonder if we should be calling it mission. Don't just be a good host. Be a good guest too.

Last spring, Theophilus (the church I pastor) had a special opportunity to host Dr. Amos Yong—one of the leading theological voices in the Pentecostal world—at one of our worship gatherings.

For his homily, Yong showed us a side of Luke's Acts narrative that few of us had ever seen; at least, a side I'd never seen. He described it as God's "condescension" in our world.

During his three-year ministry, Jesus is depicted through the gospels as the God who "condescends" to the level of people—to our level in our world and into our neighborhoods. Through a series of Gospel snippets, Yong showed us how Jesus, again and again, condescended to the level of the neighbor, the outcast, and the religious. God "condescends"; or, you might say, God comes down.

As a reflection of Jesus's condescension, the early church chose the same method. As our movement spread through the ancient world, the early church "condescended" itself by continuing to participate in community life—attending weddings, debating in public halls, visiting grocery stores, and spending time with their neighbors. And often by being guests.

The gospel spread in the ancient world because the church was willing to be a guest in the world.

One of the more memorable instance of this is in the final seasons of Paul's life. In Acts 28, his ship is wrecked on Crete and is subsequently "guested" on an island of barbarians who show him "unusual kindness" (the Greek text uses the word philanthropoi, or "philanthropy").

Yong made a strong case—the gospel spread in the ancient world because the church was willing to be a guest in the world. And through guests, the gospel can make its way into the hearts of the hosts.

Being guested

But from my perspective, American Christianity has, for too long, prided itself as the world's host; thinking that the church's only fitting role is in welcoming the world into our doors. The world, in this model, must learn to "condescend" itself to the church. But those days are long gone. We can no longer understand ourselves primarily as the host.

Rather, we must embrace being guested.

American Christianity has, for too long, prided itself as the world's host; thinking that the church's only fitting role is in welcoming the world into our doors.

Two things account for our discomfort with the posture of a guest. First, we assume that it is the Christian thing to do to love our world and not be loved back. In fact, we interpret being hated as a sign that we are doing the work of Jesus. But the story of Paul shipwrecked on Crete reminds us that—there at least—he was more loved and welcomed by barbarians than he was by some churches where (based on more than one account from his life and letters) he was hated, maligned, and often outright rejected. Paul was willing to be guested.

Mutual love, in the narrative of the Bible, is a necessary aspect of living in the world. But from my experience, many Christians just don't know what to do when they experience the "unusual kindness" of their non-Christian neighbors, co-workers, and politicians. This, I think, is due to the fact that we've interpreted being hated by the world as a sign of God's approval of our lives. We have forgotten that sometimes the rivers of God's unusual kindness flow from the least expected mountain springs.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, many Christians simply don't have the time to be guests. We don't have the space to say yes. We don't have the boldness to accept the invitation—if we are even asked in the first place.

New Testament scholars tell us that the first miracle in the Gospels is Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding. I think that's wrong. Our tendency is to emphasize the miracle of a God who can turn water into wine (a miracle, indeed!). But we fail to recognize the miracle that precedes that. The first miracle isn't that Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding.

The first miracle is that Jesus is the kind of God people want to come to their wedding.

Invited, incarnate

Jesus was invited. And, as the incarnation of God, even Jesus had time to say yes. Most of us—myself included—simply don't. What takes up our time? Church. Work. Family. Admirable things, don't misread me. But we have too often failed to include saying "Yes" to invitations as the holy work of a holy people in the world. A guest can only be made where someone has time to be a guest.

How can you be a guest? How can you condescend to your neighborhood? Where can you put yourself so that God might send someone to shove a dirty handful of quinoa into your face?

If we escape our role as a people placed in the world, we betray the cross. We betray Golgotha. We betray the resurrection.

If we escape our role as a people placed in the world, we betray the cross. We betray Golgotha. We betray the resurrection. Because at the cross, as God's people, we are guests of the crucified. It is there that we encounter a God who enters so deeply, so profoundly, and so passionately into a world of sin as a condescending God that we find ourselves as anything but hosts of the crucified. We are invited into his life; never the other way around.

The compelling words of Ernst Käsemann still stand strong. In his article "Guests of the Crucified," Käsemann writes prophetically about the role of a church who knows its place:

Of religious movements there are enough to spare. Many are more profound, stronger, and more fascinating than Christianity, so again and again Christian communities squint to the right and the left, make comprimises, borrow this and that, and betray Golgotha.

We are more fascinating than real Christianity. Because real Christianity enters the world, sits down, and eats.

A.J. Swoboda is a pastor, writer, and professor in Portland, Oregon. He is @mrajswoboda on Twitter.

Books

How to Avoid the Church’s ‘Hero Culture’

Chuck DeGroat reveals his strategy for spiritual health while ministering to difficult people.

Photo courtesy of Eerdmans

Shepherding a church or ministry inevitably means dealing with difficult personalities. How can leaders handle hard relationships without buckling under the pressure? Chuck DeGroat, professor of pastoral care and counseling at Western Theological Seminary, as well as a pastor and therapist, tackles the question in his latest book, Toughest People to Love: How to Understand, Lead, and Love the Difficult People in Your Life—Including Yourself (Eerdmans). Daniel Darling, a pastor and author, spoke with DeGroat about embracing vulnerability and avoiding the pitfalls of the church-based "hero culture."

Toughest People to Love: How to Understand, Lead, and Love the Difficult People in Your Life -- Including Yourself

You write candidly about having nurtured suicidal thoughts, even while serving in ministry. Should church leaders publicly share their struggles this way?

I've done research on seminary graduates who had been in ministry five or more years. They were excited to study the Bible, read deep books, and preach. But they weren't prepared for the barrage of criticism, gossip, triangulation, stress, exhaustion, and more.

Throughout my own time in ministry, there have been dark times. I've felt worthless, like it just wasn't worth it, like my wife and I were a thousand miles apart. I've had times when I felt like everyone was against me, when my inner critic was so loud I couldn't think. As leaders, we need greater permission to tell stories that include the darker edges. Every good story involves suffering, death, and resurrection—that's the pattern Jesus set! Why pretend we're superhuman when Christ was fully human?

I distinguish between openness and vulnerability. Vulnerability is saved for a few close friends and one's spouse. Openness is for larger audiences. Good leadership avoids both hypertherapeutic oversharing and fearful undersharing.

Why is personal spiritual health so important for leaders?

I was fortunate, in my own life, to have a bold counseling professor tell me what he saw—immaturity, arrogance, insecurity. We live in a culture of affirmation, and I believe in affirming young men and women entering ministry or leadership positions. But not without some honest feedback—about their relational patterns, hidden insecurities, and messianic dreams.

Spiritual health is not about climbing some moral ladder, but about what Jesus calls "purity of heart." This means that our inner life matches our outer. Remember, this was the problem of the religious leaders in Jesus' day. They were hypocrites, play-actors, doing life on stage but hollow within.

It takes time and suffering for growth to happen. This is why the poor, broken, and unclean seem to be privileged in the New Testament—they've already hit bottom. Our humiliations breed depth, grace, forgiveness, strength, courage, curiosity, and hope—all the attributes that make healthy leaders. Otherwise we'll quickly experience what happens to anyone living a lie: We'll get caught, fall, or alienate everyone we love.

Why is a proper view of the image of God vital for good leadership?

It's about knowing our story in light of God's plan—our original design, how things went terribly wrong, and how restoration happens. To know ourselves as God's image bearers is to know that God has designed us for relationship and mission. When life goes wrong and leadership becomes skewed, we've lost sight of that original design. Our relationships are strained. Our sense of purpose diminishes.

The best leaders are relationally and missionally healthy. As they turn to Christ, they're being re-tuned to live out that original design.

How can we address the "hero culture" in many churches and ministry environments?

We all want a leader we can admire. In a chaotic world, we tend to look for authoritative and omnipotent heroes who display little vulnerability or fragility. However, when we invest our leaders with authority and omnipotence that only Christ deserves, we're probably naive and very likely ripe for abuse.

Healthy leaders don't demand respect or allegiance. They invite it. They don't need you to agree with everything. They empower you, and they've succeeded if you've grown—even grown beyond them.

Forgiveness is central to leadership: It's not some cheap and quick pardon, but a surrender of one's need to hold another in judgment. Of course, we've become leaders because we're adept at analyzing, judging, and critiquing, but living exclusively from this posture is poison for the soul. We need to be able to forgive wounds and disappointments even before they are inflicted. This way, the organizational culture becomes freer. People don't walk around waiting to make a mistake or disappoint.

News

Want to Love Your Job? Church Can Help, Study Says

The catch: The church you attend has to emphasize faith-work integration—and you have to show up.

Christianity Today July 16, 2014
Nguyen Hung Vu/Flickr

If they can be tempted away from their workplaces to worship, churches can make parishioners happier with their jobs, new research shows.

Regular attenders who frequent a church that teaches God is present at your workplace, work is a mission from God, or that faith can guide work decisions and practices is a good sign for your career, according to a recent study from Baylor University.

Those who often attend churches with that philosophy are more likely to be committed to their work, be satisfied with their work and look for ways to expand or grow the business.

The effect isn't huge, but it is statistically significant, said Baylor researcher Jerry Park. Park and his fellow researchers point out in the study that the small effect size might be meaningful in another way: As an indication that current survey questions and methods do a poor job of measuring the importance and influence of religion in respondents' lives.

(CT previously reported on the anomalous non-Christians who say they interpret the Bible literally, and The Atlantic pointed out the difficulty of asking survey respondents to decide if religion could answer all the world's problems or is old fashioned and out of date.)

"Being at a church identified as emphasizing faith-work integration was not sufficient to predict job satisfaction," Park said. "Similarly, just going to church, regardless of what is being taught, has little effect on job satisfaction. However, when one frequently attends a church that emphasizes faith-work integration, job satisfaction increases."

As Park points out, one challenge might be in getting to church in the first place: 24 percent of religiously affiliated Americans mention practical difficulties, including work conflicts, as a barrier to church attendance, according to a Pew Research Center study.

Of church attenders—not just those who identify with a religion—more than a quarter say their work schedules make it difficult for them to regularly participate in congregational events, according to a 2008 Faith Communities Today survey. Church distractions associated with this "secularization of Sunday" also come from children's sports programs and school-related activities, that survey found. A 2013 study published in the Review of Religious Research confirmed the attraction of sports.

Despite our busy schedules, reports of U.S. church attendance have held fairly steady over the last decade. Pew found that 37 percent of Americans in 2013 say they attend worship services at least weekly (vs. 39 percent in 2003), and 29 percent of Americans today say they seldom or never attend worship services (vs. 25 percent in 2003).

CT profiles workers who integrate faith in their jobs, including Harrison Higgins, a woodworker whose theology informs his furniture making. CT tells his story here.

CT also often covers workplace issues, including how a job at Costco gave one man his dignity, how mentioning your faith on your resume makes you less likely to land the interview, and how addiction to work, among other things, is the spiritual disease of our time.

[Image courtesy of Nguyen Hung Vu-Flickr]

News

Southern Baptists End Investigation of Theology Professors at Kentucky University

(UPDATED) University cuts ties with state convention even though convention investigation concluded theologically conservative professors were welcome at Campbellsville University.

Christianity Today July 16, 2014

Update (July 16, 2014): Campbellsville University announced today that the university would phase out funding from the Kentucky Baptist Convention (KBC) and pursue a "partners in ministry" relationship with the denomination that allows them to "maintain CU's academic freedom," according to a letter signed by Michael Carter, the university's president, and Joseph Owens, chair of the CU board of trustees.

The school, which operates on a $57 million budget, currently receives $977,000 annually from the convention and would transition away from the funding over four years, according to The State.

KBC president Chip Hutcheson said in a press release that the university had adopted bylaws inconsistent with the KBC's covenant agreement.

"The statement released by Campbellsville brings to mind the husband who wants to divorce his wife but still offers to live with her," Hutcheson said. "The university has taken steps to remove itself from a covenant relationship yet still wants to claim it is 'committed' to the family."

—–

Update (June 4): Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), is still "very disturbed" despite the resolution between the school and the Kentucky Baptist Convention, reports World Magazine's Thomas Kidd. He writes:

Russell Moore, however, says that the college's response to Williams' situation spouts "vague pieties about wholesome Christian education," while they force out "even the most token representation of conservative evangelical scholarship." He is concerned that Campbellsville may want a "liberal faculty but conservative students and dollars."

Campbellsville president Michael Carter offers his take on the controversy on the school's website.

––-

Original post (May 2013): Southern Baptist leaders in Kentucky have reaffirmed their partnership with Campbellsville University after investigating rumors that the school dismissed a professor for, as critics alleged, "being too conservative" in his theology.

In April, Campbellsville informed Jarvis Williams, an associate professor of New Testament and Greek, that his contract would not be renewed beyond the school year. Supporters of Jarvis protested that contracts of other faculty who allegedly reject biblical inerrancy were being extended. The decision prompted blogger Patrick Schreiner (now instructor of New Testament at Western Seminary) to suggest that school officials "jettisoned their convictions."

Several days later, the executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention (KBC), Paul Chitwood, said the group would investigate the claims that Campbellsville "retains other professors in the school of theology who reject biblical authority and professors in other disciplines who affirm evolution."

School officials and KBC leaders met on April 29. Baptist Press reported yesterday that representatives released a joint statement saying "they had received assurance that those who believe the literal truthfulness of every word of the Bible are welcomed as students and as faculty members."

Disputes over theology at Christian schools are not uncommon. Cedarville University also recently dismissed one theologian, Michael Pahl, after administrators deemed that he was unable to concur with every tenet of the school's doctrinal statement. The dispute over the Baptist school's doctrine then prompted the resignations of several administrators. Similar debates also arose at Milligan College, Calvin College, Northwestern College, and Shorter University in recent years.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this post misspelled Jarvis Williams' name. This post has been updated to reflect Patrick Schreiner's 2014 appointment to Western Seminary.

Church Life

Why Pastors Should Preach About Body Image

Our obsession with appearance has theological ramifications for both women and men.

Her.meneutics July 16, 2014
mikemelrose_ /Flickr

Have you ever heard a sermon about body image?

Aside from the occasional side comment, I've never heard body image given substantial treatment from the pulpit or serious attention from leaders in the church, which is surprising since body image is not a marginal issue in our culture.

Statistics vary, but research shows that somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of women are dissatisfied with their bodies. Although the percentage of women with severe eating disorders is between 0.5 percent and 3.7 percent, roughly 3 out of 4 engage in some form of disordered eating.

And in 2013, women had more than 10.3 million surgical and non-surgical cosmetic procedures, signifying a 471 percent increase since 1997. The top procedures were breast augmentation, liposuction, tummy tuck, breast lift, and eyelid surgery.

Although body image is a predominately female struggle, it does not affect women alone. Approximately 43 percent of men report body dissatisfaction. Among adolescent boys, nearly 18 percent are highly concerned about their weight and physique. Men also had more than 1 million cosmetic procedures last year, contributing to a grand total of $12 billion spent on such surgical and non-surgical procedures in 2013.

These statistics are alarming for two reasons. The first is health-related. Many women—and even some men—are starving themselves and mutilating their bodies to conform to a particular standard of beauty. The second cause for alarm is spiritual. When Christians are preoccupied with their bodies, it inhibits their worship.

To understand why body image is a matter of worship, consider an analogy from Tim Keller's The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness. In it he compares spiritual sickness to a broken limb. When your leg is healthy, you don't give it much thought. You walk, run, and jump on your leg without a care in the world. It is only when you break your leg that you give it much attention. In fact, your entire body must compensate for the wound.

Keller goes on to explain that when some part of yourself is injured or unwell, it consumes your attention. In the case of self-image, a broken view of the body results in a preoccupation with the body. Rather than live a life oriented toward God, many women (and men) are oriented toward their appearances. And until that view of the body is healed, they will forever struggle to focus on anything else.

Countless women prepare for worship on Sunday morning, not by quieting their hearts and minds before the Lord, but by putting on makeup, curling their hair, and squeezing into a pair of Spanx. These women then walk into church, distracted and insecure, comparing themselves to the women around them, and wondering if they measure up. Focusing on God is a battle.

Of course, worship is not just a Sunday morning affair, and neither is the battle over body image. Every time a woman turns on the television, strolls past a magazine aisle, watches the numbers rise on the scale, or spots that first gray hair, the battle wages on.

I cannot speak to the experience of men, but studies show that men fight this battle too. Images of six-pack abs, athletic builds, trendy clothes, and perfectly styled hair are all over the media…and if we're being honest, in many an evangelical pulpit.

For these two reasons—physical and spiritual—Christians need pastors to talk openly and thoughtfully about body image. The problem is, very few are doing this.

I can only speculate about why church leaders are largely silent about body image. Perhaps it's seen as a "women's issue," whereas the majority of pastors are men. Perhaps the topic is just too sensitive. Perhaps it speaks to a theology more concerned with the spirit than the body. Or perhaps it is an idol so entwined in Christian culture that we hardly even notice it.

I don't know the reason for the silence. But I do know Scripture speaks into that silence. If the church is to be a prophetic witness to a culture that degrades the image of God in the human form, we need to teach Christians how to think about their bodies.

Since most pastors are men, and body image primarily impacts women, this can be tricky territory. Body image is a delicate issue fraught with shame, so it's important to avoid framing the message as a rebuke. Instead, I would advise male pastors to consult with women before addressing the topic from the pulpit. Then, rather than issue a reprimand, consider offering them the biblical and theological tools they need to think Christianly about their bodies.

Here are some of the many biblical categories that help us navigate these waters:

· Body image and the doctrine of creation. A robust doctrine of creation helps us to think about our bodies as intentionally designed by God.

· Body image and love of neighbor. When we contribute to a culture of comparison, we pressure others to do the same. By resisting the cult of image, we show love to others, and help them to love themselves.

· Body image and parenting. We will not teach our children to love and embrace their God-given selves if we fail to model it for them. How we treat our bodies, change our bodies, and talk about our bodies will impact how our children view their own bodies.

· Body image and stewardship. Our finances reflect our priorities. In a country that spent $12 billion dollars on body altering cosmetic procedures (which doesn't include make-up, hair styling, tanning, etc), we need to think seriously about how much money we spend on our appearance.

· The post-baby body and the post-resurrection Christ. I have written more about this topic here, but it has always struck me that after the resurrection, Jesus still bore his scars. That truth has given me a new lens for viewing my own post-baby marks. Rather than be ashamed of them, I can celebrate the sacrifice and the new life they signify.

· Body image, marriage, and pornography. One way that men can help their wives is by guarding the images they consume. Pornography in particular and culture more generally gives men an impossible standard of beauty. When your wife is your standard of beauty, and you delight in the body she has, it is an invaluable gift you can give her.

In addition, consider these biblical passages as well:

· Psalm 139 is a powerful reminder of God's intentionality in our creations. He made us for a purpose.

· Song of Solomon—Although this book is often interpreted as an explicit celebration of sex and the female body, it is anything but explicit. The language is obscure and frequently non-specific. For all the detail about the woman's body, we don't know much about her appearance. The poet manages to celebrate the beauty of a woman without comparing her to any particular standard of beauty.

Body image is not a fringe issue. It is without a doubt ravaging members of the church in both visible and invisible ways. That's why I hope pastors will end the silence. I hope pastors will speak compassionately and theologically into the hearts of men and women who have this struggle. For the sake of their lives and for the sake of their faith, let's start the conversation.

Church Life

6 Crowdfunding Myths for Christians to Consider

Online fundraising can be a great ministry resource… if done right.

Her.meneutics July 16, 2014
itupictures / Flickr

The world has seen crowdfunding campaigns for everything from high-tech fitness gadgets to, more recently, a very expensive potato salad. In fact, in 2013, crowdfunding—a term for the process of gathering contributions, typically online, for a specific project—was estimated to be a $5.1 billion industry, expected to exponentially increase in coming years. It is also an increasingly common practice in churches and nonprofits, as anyone who has sponsored a marathon runner or a 5K walker can attest.

As manager of crowdfunding and social media at Wheat Ridge Ministries, I've seen Christians join the crowdfunding movement, eagerly hoping to raise money for mission trips, school projects, youth programs, and more. When inspired leaders try the crowdfunding model, they often assume that fellow Christians, familiar with giving and generosity, will gladly join in to donate money to their worthy cause.

However, to be successful, Christian crowdfunders need to be just as savvy and strategic as the rest. As God inspires these leaders to take action in their community, it's vital they resist assuming their vision will get in front of the right audiences. I've seen plenty of crowdfunding successes, but also many misconceptions among the faith community about how the process works.

Myth 1: Crowdfunding is simple: If you build it, they will come.

Crowdfunding sites are a tool that the church can use strategically when raising funds and awareness; they are not a quick fix to our funding problems. Just as God worked through methodical, intentional plans throughout the Bible, leaders should approach crowdfunding with a thoughtful plan. In fact, Jesus' sending of the 72 in Luke 10 resembles a good crowdfunding plan: gather a group of committed people, cast a clear vision, build relationships, and, of course, celebrate and regroup afterwards.

Throwing a video with dramatic music on a crowdfunding site and simply hoping for the best isn't going to raise funds. Instead, invest time in discovering your ministry's needs, and then cast your crowdfunding vision in a strategic way that will engage supporters and connect with the community, in addition to raising funds.

Myth 2: Crowdfunding is just about money.

Yes, crowdfunding is most certainly a fundraising tool. But more than that, it is also a strategic planner, a vision-caster, a communicator, a marketer, and a team-building exercise. Even when projects do not reach their dollar-amount goal, organizers still end up with a full spreadsheet of all their donors, new and old, along with their contact information.

Ministries that use crowdfunding to align their vision with the vision of their supporters find that even failed campaigns are extremely valuable in providing organizational direction. For example, well-planned crowdfunding will build buy-in among your supporters. Watching the crowdfunding campaign should feel like cheering for a team during a big game – fans are committed, they talk strategy, watch, cheer, and invite their friends to watch too. Whether their team won or lost, fans become even more bonded and connected to the team afterwards. I believe that even a crowdfunding project that fails on the financial front can actually be a success.

Myth 3: Crowdfunding only works if you have social media expertise.

The idea of pooling resources to fund a mission is engrained in the fabric of Christianity.

God can equip you for crowdfunding, with or without a Twitter account. We advise our project leaders to communicate with their networks the through the same channels they already use and are familiar with.

No need to become a social media maven to spread the word, especially if that's not where your network is listening. Although social media is helpful and you'll want to incorporate any communication method available, crowdfunding starts with reaching your audience where it already is. If your donors use email, start with email. If they use carrier pigeons, start with carrier pigeons.

Myth 4: Crowdfunding is a short-term solution.

Some say crowdfunding is not the trip or even the minivan, it's the gas station. Once the destination is identified, crowdfunding can help fuel the journey, from first step to final goal. Organizations move toward their destination through start-up funding, followed by investment in long-term resources such as board members and new donors, both of which are underlying benefits of crowdfunding.

Myth 5: Crowdfunding is a fad that will die out.

Unlike bellbottoms and shoulder pads, crowdfunding isn't simply a fad; it's actually a new term for a familiar practice. From the early church in Acts to last month's youth group car wash, the idea of pooling resources to fund a mission is engrained in the fabric of Christianity. What's different about crowdfunding is that it allows groups to engage people around the world, without geographical barriers. Crowdfunding will continue to develop and change with time, but the idea of giving generously to support a mission is here to stay.

Myth 6: Only those who need money should care about crowdfunding.

God calls us to be good stewards of our resources – whether acting as an individual or as an organization. In that regard, crowdfunding is a fantastic opportunity for those with financial resources looking to support innovative leaders.

Donors to Wheat Ridge Ministries, where I work, helped fund the newly launched Christian crowdfunding site, WeRaise.us. On this site, individual donors to be aware of both financial and network investment opportunities, while grant-making organizations like Wheat Ridge Ministries can keep an eye on innovative projects that may be worthy recipients of health and human care grants. Keeping an eye on crowdfunding sites is a great way to identify projects that align with your values and can use your resources to bless leaders and those they serve.

Like many aspects of ministry, crowdfunding is an exciting, inspiring, humbling experience that requires effort and a step of faith. It is an incredible way for God to raise up ministries and equip leaders as they respond to needs near and far.

Abigail Miller is the manager of crowdfunding and social media at Wheat Ridge Ministries. Abigail is energized by seeing the creative ways God inspires people to address needs around them – especially those using WeRaise. When she's not biking around town, you can connect with her on Twitter at @AbigailWRM.

Religious Freedom vs. LGBT Rights? It’s More Complicated

The legal context for what’s happening at Gordon College, and how Christians can respond despite intense cultural backlash.

Christianity Today July 16, 2014
Mark Wilson / Getty Images

A private Christian school holds what it considers a biblical view of marriage. It welcomes all students, but insists that they adhere to certain beliefs and abstain from conduct that violates those beliefs. Few doubt the sincerity of those beliefs. The school's leaders are seen as strange and offensive to the world, but then again, they know that they will find themselves as aliens and strangers in the world. This description fits a number of Christian schools confronted today with rapidly changing sexual norms. But the description also would have fit Bob Jones University, a school that barred interracial dating until 2000. And in 1983, that ban cost Bob Jones its tax exemption, in a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even for a relatively small school of a few thousand students, that meant losing millions of dollars. And the government's removal of tax-exempt status had a purpose: one Supreme Court justice described it as "elementary economics: when something becomes more expensive, less of it will be purchased." The comparison between Bob Jones in 1983 and Christian schools today will strike some as unwarranted. Indeed, there are historical reasons to reject it. The discriminatory practices in Bob Jones were linked to the slavery of African Americans and the Jim Crow South. The 1983 Court decision came within a generation of Brown v. Board of Education, and its legal principles extended to private secondary schools (including "segregationist academies") that resisted racial integration. There are also significant theological differences between Bob Jones's race-based arguments and arguments that underlie today's sexual conduct restrictions. Those differences are rooted in contested questions about identity, as well as longstanding Christian boundaries for sexual behavior. Gay and lesbian Christians committed to celibacy show that sexual identity and sexual conduct are not always one in the same. But these points are increasingly obscured outside of the church. We see this in the castigation of any opposition to same-sex liberties as bigoted. That kind of language has moved rapidly into mainstream culture. And it is difficult to envision how it would be undone or dialed back. How should Christians respond to these circumstances? First, we must understand the history from which they emerge. Second, we must understand the legal, social, and political dimensions of the current landscape. Third, and finally, we must recognize that arguments that seem intuitive from within Christian communities will increasingly not make sense to the growing numbers of Americans who are outside the Christian tradition.

How We Got Here

Many of the questions today simply were not in play that long ago. For one, governmental regulations have a far wider reach than they did even 100 years ago. We work, play, worship, and live in spaces regulated by government. Just look around the next time you step foot in your local church. Some of the building was probably subsidized through state and federal tax exemptions. Any recent construction likely encountered local zoning ordinances. The certificate of occupancy, fire code compliance, and any food service permits all reflect government regulation. Today, the government, its money, and its laws are everywhere.

We can pin many of these changes on the New Deal, but just as influential were the civil rights era and the battle to end segregation. Civil rights laws extended to what had previously been seen as private spaces and transactions. The laws focused on commercially operated public accommodations, such as transportation, lodging, and restaurants. But they also extended to private schools, neighborhoods, and swimming pools. The reach of these laws was unprecedented—and rightly so. The pervasive impediments to equal citizenship for African Americans have not been seen in any other recent episode in U.S. history. Our country has harmed many people (including my grandparents, who were stripped of their possessions and imprisoned for four years during World War II solely because they were Japanese Americans). But the systemic and structural injustices perpetrated against African Americans—and the extraordinary remedies those injustices warranted—remain in a class of their own.

In less than three decades, the Supreme Court has moved from upholding the criminalizing of gay conduct to affirming gay marriage. The tone of the debates has also shifted.

The legal context surrounding LGBTQ rights has also changed swiftly. In less than three decades, the Supreme Court has moved from upholding the criminalizing of gay conduct to affirming gay marriage. The tone of the debates has also shifted. In 1996, an overwhelming majority of Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Clinton. Last year, a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that the Act reflected "a bare congressional desire to harm" and that its supporters were motivated by prejudice and spite. These developments are unfolding at breakneck speeds, and will likely affect the laws governing private spaces and transactions.

We also have seen shifts in the law pertaining to the free exercise of religion. The modern religious liberty story begins in 1990, in a case involving Native Americans who lost their jobs for using peyote (a hallucinogenic) for religious reasons. The law prohibiting peyote was generally applicable, meaning it applied to everyone and did not single out religious believers. You couldn't use peyote for either social or religious purposes. The Court decided that the First Amendment provided no special protection against such laws.

That reasoning has broad implications, because many if not most laws are generally applicable. For example, under current law, a religious believer will almost certainly lose a free exercise challenge to an antidiscrimination law that covers sexual orientation.

The public was outraged over the Court's decision in the peyote case. Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The legislation had strong support from across the political spectrum. It passed the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 97-3. Five years later, Congress tried to pass another version, but it died in committee.

The primary reason that the revised legislation failed is that between 1993 and 1998, people began to worry that strong protections for religious liberty could harm gays and lesbians. The bipartisan coalition that had supported the RFRA legislation fractured. Instead of reaffirming comprehensive protections for religious liberty, Congress enacted a more obscure law, largely confined to zoning and prisons.

This isn't the whole story. Two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized important protections for "churches" and "ministers" (though the definitions of both remain unspecified). In addition, part of the original RFRA remains intact—that's how Hobby Lobby recently prevailed in challenging contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act. But as I noted for CT, Hobby Lobby's narrow legal victory hinged on a statute, not a constitutional principle. In the weeks after Hobby Lobby, we have already seen calls to repeal RFRA and to remove religious exemptions from proposed antidiscrimination legislation at the federal level. And while many states have constitutional and statutory protections for religious liberty, efforts to strengthen those protections at the state level have encountered growing political resistance.

What Lies Ahead

What does the current legal and cultural landscape suggest? Here are three predictions.

Prediction #1: Only religious groups (by no means all of them) will impose restrictions based on sexual conduct. That is in stark contrast to the many groups that make gender-based distinctions: fraternities and sororities, women's colleges, single-sex private high schools, sports teams, fitness clubs, and strip clubs, to name a few. It is perhaps unsurprising in light of these observations that views on gender and sexual conduct have flip-flopped. Thirty years ago, many people were concerned about gender equality, but few had LGBTQ equality on their radar. Today, if you ask your average 20-year-old whether it is worse for a fraternity to exclude women or for a Christian group to ask gay and lesbian members to refrain from sexual conduct, the responses would be overwhelmingly in one direction. That trend will likely continue.

If you ask your average 20-year-old whether it is worse for a fraternity to exclude women or for a Christian group to ask gay and lesbian members to refrain from sexual conduct, the response would be overwhelmingly in one direction.

Prediction #2: Only religious groups will accept a distinction between "sexual conduct" and "sexual orientation," and those groups will almost certainly lose the legal effort to maintain that distinction. Most Christian membership limitations today are based on conduct rather than orientation: they allow a gay or lesbian person to join a group, but prohibit that person from engaging in conduct that falls outside the church's teachings on sexuality. These policies—like the one at Gordon College currently under fire—are not limited to gays or lesbians; all unmarried men and women are to refrain from sexual conduct. The distinction between status and conduct from which they derive is rooted in Christian tradition, and it is not limited to sexuality: one can be a sinner and abstain from a particular sin.

But many people reject the distinction between status and conduct. And in a 2010 decision, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Supreme Court also rejected it, viewing distinctions based on homosexual conduct as equivalent to discrimination against gays and lesbians. I have argued in a recent book (Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly) that the Court's reasoning is troubling in the context of a private group's membership requirements. But it is the current state of the law.

Prediction #3: Fewer and fewer people will value religious freedom. Although some Christians will respond to looming challenges with appeals to religious liberty, their appeals will likely face indifference or even hostility from those who don't value it. The growing indifference is perhaps unsurprising because many past challenges to religious liberty are no longer active threats. We don't enforce blasphemy laws. We don't force people to make compelled statements of belief. We don't impose taxes to finance training ministers. These changes mean that in practice, many Americans no longer depend upon the free exercise right for their religious liberty. They are free to practice their religion without government constraints.

Additionally, a growing number of atheists and "nonreligious" Americans have little use for free exercise protections. Even though most Americans will continue to value religious liberty in a general sense, fewer will recognize the immediate and practical need for it to be protected by law.

This final prediction is deeply unsettling, because strong protections for religious liberty are core to our country's law and history. But those protections have been vulnerable since the Court's decision in the peyote case. And they will remain vulnerable unless the Court revisits its free exercise doctrine.

After Religious Exceptionalism

If I am correct about these three predictions, then arguments rooted in religious exceptionalism will see diminishing returns. There is, however, a different argument that appeals to a different set of values. It's the argument of pluralism: the idea that, in a society that lacks a shared vision of a deeply held common good, we can and must live with deep difference among groups and their beliefs, values, and identities. The pluralist argument is not clothed in the language of religious liberty, but it extends to religious groups and institutions. And Christians who take it seriously can model it not only for their own interests but also on behalf of their friends and neighbors.

Pluralism rests on three interrelated aspirations: tolerance, humility, and patience. Tolerance means a willingness to accept genuine difference, including profound moral disagreement. In the pluralist context, tolerance does not embrace difference as good or right; its more limited aspiration is permitting differences to coexist.

The second aspiration, humility, recognizes that our own beliefs and intuitions rest upon tradition-bound values that can't be fully proven or justified by external forms of rationality. Notions of "equality" and "morality" emerge from within particular traditions whose basic premises are not endorsed by all. Humility holds open that there is right and wrong and good and evil, and that in the fullness of time the true meaning of equality and morality will emerge. But humility also opens the door to hearing others' beliefs about right and wrong, good and evil. Instead of making claims about what we can know or prove, we might point out that faith commitments underlie all beliefs (religious or otherwise) and stand ready to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Pet. 3:15).

The third aspiration, patience, recognizes that contested moral questions are best resolved through persuasion rather than coercion, and that persuasion takes time. Most of us—whatever our beliefs—think we are right in a profound way. Most of us structure our lives around our deepest moral commitments. And we instinctively want our normative views to prevail on the rest of society. But patience reminds us that the best means to a better end is through persuasion and dialogue, not coercion and bullying.

In this age, the argument of pluralism is far likelier to resonate in the public square than arguments for religious exceptionalism.

Pluralism does not entail relativism. Living well in a pluralist world does not mean a never-ending openness to any possible claim. Every one of us holds deeply entrenched beliefs that others find unpersuasive, inconsistent, or downright loopy. More pointed, every one of us holds beliefs that others find morally reprehensible. Pluralism does not impose the fiction of assuming that all ideas are equally valid or morally benign. It does mean respecting people, aiming for fair discussion, and allowing for the right to differ about serious matters.

Pluralism and Witness

The argument for pluralism and the aspirations of tolerance, humility, and patience are fully consistent with a faithful Christian witness. And in this age, they are also far likelier to resonate than arguments for religious exceptionalism. The claim of religious exceptionalism is that only believers should benefit from special protections, and often at the cost of those who don't share their faith commitments. The claim of pluralism is that all members of society should benefit from its protections.

Christians have a long way to go in affirming the value of pluralism for all members of society. We might begin by recognizing its role for our gay and lesbian neighbors. When Uganda enacts a law that punishes homosexuality with death, U.S. Christians can speak out against such a law. Domestically, we need to think carefully about the kinds of legislation being pushed at the state level. Some proposed laws are undoubtedly important to protect religious institutions' right to live in accordance with their own beliefs and traditions; others are deeply problematic. Christians in states without any antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians might consider supporting those laws containing exemptions for religious groups, rather than simply advocating for religious freedom on its own.

Unkind words have emerged from almost every corner of the public discourse. Christians should not be bullied or silenced by careless language. But neither should they engage in it. Advocacy for Christian witness must itself demonstrate Christian witness. In this way, our present circumstances provide new opportunities to embody tolerance, humility, and patience. And, of course, we have at our disposal not only these aspirations but also the virtues that shape our lives: faith, hope, and love.

John Inazu is associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, an expert on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and the author of Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (Yale University Press, 2012). He recently wrote for CT about Hobby Lobby.

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