Page 642 – Christianity Today (2024)

For Pi Day this year, chew on this: Does God know all the digits in pi? Or does he know the answer to the myriad of unresolved mathematical problems out there today?

The great fifth-century African bishop Augustine of Hippo surely would have answered with a resounding yes, though other Christian thinkers might disagree. He also would likely have taken interest in recent mathematical discoveries made possible by today’s computers, discoveries that resurrect some of these unresolved problems.

In 2016, Swiss mathematician and evangelical Christian Peter Trüb’s computer spent 105 days calculating pi out to approximately 22.4 trillion digits—the most digits ever calculated. And this past January, Jon Pace, an electrical engineer and deacon at the Germantown Church of Christ in Tennessee, learned that his computer discovered the largest known prime number and the 50th known Mersenne prime, through an effort begun in 1996 that networks thousands of computers nationwide.

Primes are numbers greater than 1 that have no proper factors—the only numbers that can divide evenly into them are 1 and themselves (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11). A Mersenne prime is named in honor of Marin Mersenne (1588–1648), a French mathematician, theologian, philosopher, and music theorist. These primes can be expressed as 2ⁿ – 1. In the expression for Pace’s Mersenne prime, n = 77,232,917. That’s one less than the number 2 multiplied by itself over 77 million times. Just to write it down would take up the space of about 10 novels the size of Anna Karenina. Trüb’s representation of pi is 1,000 times longer than that.

Why would anyone care to engage in projects like these? Trüb said one reason is simply out of intellectual curiosity. As a boy, he was fascinated with the number pi, and he cites his belief in God as the basis for his work as a scientist.

And primes, by virtue of their mysterious nature, trigger curiosity. In 300 B.C., Euclid proved that there is an unending supply of primes, yet there is no known formula for generating them. Paradoxically, there is a formula for approximating how many primes there are up to a certain point. It estimates that there are 72,382 primes less than one million, although there are actually 78,498 such primes.

Trüb’s second reason is that mathematical constructions—seemingly having no practical application when first proposed—wind up eventually having great utility. That there is an unending supply of primes is critical for implementing many computer encryption systems.

Philosophers and theologians have long been interested in numbers. In fact, Augustine expressed interest in perfect numbers, which have a curious connection with Mersenne primes. A perfect number has the property that it equals the sum of its proper divisors. For example, the number 6 is perfect because its proper divisors are 1, 2, and 3, and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. Euclid proved that if you take a Mersenne prime of the form (2ⁿ – 1) and multiply it by 2ⁿ⁻¹, you get a perfect number. For example, with n = 2, Euclid’s procedure produces the Mersenne prime of 3 (i.e., 2² – 1), which when multiplied by 2 (i.e., 2¹), gives 6, a perfect number.

Augustine commented on perfect numbers in The City of God :

These works [of creation] are recorded to have been completed in six days (the same day being six times repeated), because six is a perfect number, not because God required a protracted time, as if He could not at once create all things, which then should mark the course of time by the movements proper to them, but because the perfection of the works was signified by the number six.

At the time Augustine wrote these words, there were very few known (certainly less than seven) perfect numbers. Neither was it known how many perfect numbers there are. It may surprise some that, even today, no human knows whether there is an unending supply of perfect numbers (or Mersenne primes). Nor is it known whether there are any odd perfect numbers. Or what about the infinite decimal expansion of pi? Does God know, and can God “see” all the digits of pi?

Augustine’s affirmative answer to these questions, as well as his previous remark on perfect numbers, are reflective of his philosophy of mathematics, which is most thoroughly laid out in his work On the Free Choice of the Will.

Briefly, Augustine “Christianized” the work of Plato, who thought that mathematical objects (such as numbers) and propositions (such as 7 + 5 = 12) are eternal and necessary. They are real entities, existing independently of human knowledge, and located in a hard-to-define world of changeless forms. Augustine put these entities in the mind of God and even considered them to be part of the divine essence. According to him, as created in the image of God, humans can have access to these objects through mathematical reasoning. But even if humans are never able to discern answers to the question of how many Mersenne primes there are, or whether there are any odd perfect numbers, God certainly knows. After all, numbers are part of the divine essence, so God can fully comprehend all of them and anything about them—even though there are infinitely many—in one completed act.

Many thinkers—Christian or not—have held to some form of mathematical Platonism. The British mathematician and well-known atheist G. H. Hardy commented, in his landmark 1940 book, A Mathematician's Apology, “I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations,’ are simply our notes of our observations.”

Augustine’s ontology remains a popular view among Christians today, despite some technical problems accompanying it. For example, in Mathematics in a Postmodern Age, Texas A&M philosopher Christopher Menzel points out that viewing mathematical objects as eternal seems to conflict with the doctrine that God created all things (Col. 1:16). And their being necessary seems to infringe on God’s freedom to do what he wills. Menzel gets around the first conundrum by viewing creating as including sustaining (so that God “created” these truths by virtue of his eternally sustaining them). He gets around the second by pointing out that Christians have no trouble viewing God as being constrained in other ways that cause him to act in accordance with his nature. Just as it is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18), in the same way, God's (logical) nature drives him out of necessity to “think” truths such as 5 + 7 = 12: He cannot think otherwise.

A discussion here of all the technical issues Menzel deals with would take us too far afield. For now, it is important to note that many Christians adopt an alternative view of mathematical objects, one that emerged from a student of Plato: Aristotle. Rather than viewing numbers as eternally existing entities, Aristotle saw them as abstractions that humans create in order to describe commonly shared experiences. The truths of arithmetic are logical consequences of the axioms humans have developed to help explain reality as they see it.

Of course, there are problems with this position as well, such as accounting for the awkward task of ascribing a common meaning shared by humans when they make these abstractions. Rather than dive into those kinds of issues, it should be noted that with such a view, an interesting position arises.

The 20th-century German mathematician Kurt Gödel showed that all axiom systems capable of describing arithmetic are limited. Specifically, he proved that any such axiomatic system will contain true propositions that cannot be proved. To this date, no human knows if there are infinitely many Mersenne primes, whether there are infinitely many perfect numbers, or whether there are any odd perfect numbers. If these questions are among those “Gödel-type” propositions, then not even God can answer them.

Doesn’t that position limit God’s omniscience? No, not if one views numbers as a human construction whose properties depend on the axioms they have laid out. To illustrate, consider a well-known fact about the game of tic-tac-toe: If both players use an optimal strategy, neither will win. Thus, it is impossible for God—playing in accordance with the rules of tic-tac-toe—to win a game with a human who knows how to play. In the same way, it is impossible for God to use an axiom set (the “rules”) to prove something that cannot be proven from those very axioms.

So, now that your pie plate is licked clean and you’re staring at an empty dish wondering how the bishop of Hippo could say that God knows something about mathematics that is unprovable, another position of his comes into focus. Augustine believed that numbers, being part of the divine essence, are shrouded in mystery. Followers of Augustine and those who hold Aristotle’s alternative view may well agree on this point: It is the mysteries of mathematics that lead us to ponder not only our own limitations, but also the greatness of the mind of God.

Russell Howell is a professor of mathematics at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. He holds degrees in mathematics and computer science. He is co-editor and contributor to Mathematics in a Postmodern Age: A Christian Perspective (Eerdmans, 2001), and Mathematics Through the Eyes of Faith (HarperOne, 2011). He enjoys tennis, playing the piano, ocean kayaking, and hiking with his wife (Kay) and yellow lab (Dickens).

Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Top advocates have spent much of President Donald Trump’s time in office waiting for his administration’s international religious freedom efforts to fall into place.

With today’s firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, they’re left once again wondering exactly how the administration will approach the issue as part of a broader strategy for foreign affairs.

The President announced this morning that Tillerson, who ran the State Department since February 2017, would be replaced by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo.

Most analysts agree that Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO, fell out of favor with the administration and had a hard time rallying support within the department. As Pompeo takes on his new role, he’ll be stepping into one of the most significant leadership positions in the US government.

“He sets the tone for US foreign policy,” Chris Seiple, president emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement, told CT. The secretary’s “attention [to religious freedom]—as with any subject—is what people inside the State Department building and foreign ministries alike watch for.”

The news of the leadership transition came just over a month after Sam Brownback was finally confirmed as ambassador-at-large to head the department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF), after several months of delay.

During Tillerson’s year at the State Department, he was a few months late issuing its annual religious freedom report and had relatively brief analysis to share on the state of religious freedom abroad.

Tom Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute, expects that Pompeo—an Army veteran and former congressman—will engage the issue as it relates to national security.

During his political career, Pompeo has spoken out about many of the biggest areas of concern for America today, including North Korea, Russia, Israel, and Iran, which he deemed “the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.”

“Pompeo will have a clear understanding of the security threats the country confronts and may be more open than his predecessor to the growing evidence that religious freedom is critical for combating religion-related terrorism, maintaining political and social stability, and supporting economic growth,” Farr told CT.

“All of these diplomatic priorities will be enhanced by a robust IRF policy that is part of US national security strategy.”

David Curry, president and CEO of Open Doors USA, which defends persecuted Christians around the world, issued a statement emphasizing the link between attacks on religious freedom and conflict and crisis in a region.

“The Secretary of State is key to improving religious freedom around the world and articulating the impact of religious intolerance on American security and prosperity,” he said to CT. “I strongly urge the incoming Secretary of State to focus on issues of religious intolerance and hatred of religious minorities around the globe, as this is No. 1 on the agenda for extremist groups and dictators.”

The Secretary of State is regarded as America’s chief diplomat: the leader who does the groundwork for the country’s foreign relations and international partnerships. In this administration, that role takes on particular significance, according to Mark Caleb Smith, director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University.

“Donald Trump, in spite of his international business experience, has very little international political experience, so I think the Secretary of State’s position is more crucial under Trump than it would have been under previous presidents,” he said.

Though critics have called out Pompeo’s past statements on Islam, some of Trump’s evangelical advisers celebrated his appointment. Pompeo belongs to an Evangelical Presbyterian Church congregation in his home state of Kansas.

“Please pray for Mike Pompeo as he becomes Sec of State. A believer who is a patriot and leader. Another great choice by @POTUS,” tweeted Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas. “Director Mike Pompeo will become the most principled and successful Secretary of State in the last 25 years. I am extremely happy about this news.”

Seiple, whose father was IRF’s first-ever ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, told CT that it’s too soon to tell how Pompeo will approach the issue or engage IRF in particular.

Just weeks before his ousting, Tillerson had dialed back plans to downsize the department. His proposal to bring the Office of Religion and Global Affairs (RGA), designed to advise staff and diplomats on faith matters, under IRF had elicited mixed reviews from advocates.

Farr would like to see Pompeo move forward with streamlining RGA and IRF.

“Our hope is that Secretary Pompeo will recognize the role religious freedom plays in nearly every foreign policy issue he will confront,” said Farr. “He should listen to and work directly with Ambassador Brownback and his office in crafting his diplomatic strategy and engagement, including IRF diplomacy as part of American national security strategy.”

Farr said that since the office was established through the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998—across four administrations—“no Secretary of State has seen IRF policy as a strategic priority.”

While commentators say that Pompeo’s strong relationship Trump bodes well for the State Department going forward, advocates like Farr and Curry also want to see him work closely and directly with Brownback.

Tillerson, who will remain at the department through the end of the month, got a positive send-off from Senator James Lankford, an evangelical from Oklahoma who has pushed for several religious freedom measures in Congress.

“I appreciate Rex Tillerson's excellent service at the State Department… especially his willingness to shake up the status quo & bureaucracy,” he tweeted.

The Colosseum in Rome was recently lit up the color of blood.

“This is a symbol of the persecution of Christians in the entire world—those who suffer because of faith,” stated Alfredo Mantovano, president of the Italian chapter of Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), the global Catholic organization which sponsored the February 24 light display.

“We light up the Colosseum with red because their shed blood cannot leave us indifferent,” he stated. “We cannot wash our hands of the blood of this injustice as Pontius Pilate did 2,000 years ago.”

The reminder was a timely one for Catholics in the United States, according to a survey released this month. While 9 in 10 believe that persecution of Christians around the world is somewhat or very severe (51% and 40%, respectively), only half said they were very concerned (49%). Almost 1 in 5 said they were not concerned at all (18%).

Instead, the study of 1,000 Catholic adults (conducted online in January by ACN’s US branch and McLaughlin & Associates) found that they worry about other issues more.

More than 9 in 10 American Catholics worry about human trafficking (72% very concerned, 21% somewhat concerned) or about poverty (68% very, 26% somewhat). More than 8 in 10 worry about the refugee crisis (51% very, 36% somewhat) or about climate change (55% very, 28% somewhat).

Then comes Christian persecution (49% very, 33% somewhat). It’s close behind, but has the lowest level of concern out of the five issues surveyed, as well as the highest share of those with no concern: Christian persecution (18%), climate change (16%), refugees (14%), human trafficking (7%), and poverty (6%).

As John Allen, a veteran Catholic journalist and analyst, noted for Crux, the results reveal “a relatively low level of urgency among American Catholics about coming to the aid of persecuted Christians.”

“The survey reveals quite clearly that there is a need to increase the engagement level of the US Catholic Church when it comes to global Christian persecution—both at the grassroots and leadership levels,” stated George Marlin, chair of ACN-USA.

Three out of five American Catholics said that Christians experience less than half of religiously-based attacks around the world.

They’re incorrect: Researchers with Under Caesar’s Sword, a $1 million Templeton Religious Trust study, found that Christians experience between 60 to 80 percent of the world’s religious discrimination. (More of it is experienced by evangelicals/Pentecostals than by Catholics.)

American Catholics were more accurate when ranking the top five worst persecutors of Christians out of 16 nations. Their picks: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.

Two of their picks match one of the most respected rankings, Open Doors’s World Watch List, which ranks the top 5 persecutors of Christians as North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Pakistan. Iraq is No. 8, Iran is No. 10, and Syria is No. 15.

A majority of American Catholics believe diplomatic pressure is very important to save and protect beleaguered Christians (59%), as are economic sanctions (55%). But only half believe offering emergency asylum (50%) or providing financial aid (47%) are very important. And less than half believe military intervention (40%) or arming Christian communities (40%) are very important.

On a personal level, many said it was very important to pray (64%), to raise awareness at the parish level (56%), and to contact members of Congress (49%).

About half said it was very important to donate to agencies that help persecuted Christians (53%); more than half said they have done so in the past year (53%).

“Giving increases among regular Mass-goers,” the report stated. “The majority of those who do not regularly attend Mass do not give to any organization.”

Pope Francis often references the persecuted church, and American Catholics have noticed. Four out of five said he was very (49%) or somewhat (33%) engaged on the issue, higher than they ranked US bishops (27% very, 39% somewhat) or their local parish (24% very, 42% somewhat).

“There is a need to better inform and engage the Catholic audience,” Marlin stated. “There is an obligation to keep the spotlight on the topic and showcase the seriousness and pervasiveness of Christian persecution around the world.”

Other findings of the survey include:

• Just over half of the Catholic respondents were white (55%), followed by Hispanic (37%), African American (4%), Asian or Asian American (3%), and other (1%).
• 38 percent described themselves as “very devout,” 46 percent said they were “somewhat devout,” and 17 percent said they weren’t devout at all. The numbers correspond roughly to Mass attendance: 35 percent attend at least weekly, while 18 percent go monthly, 18 percent go only on Christmas and Easter, and 29 percent rarely or never go.
• Politically and religiously, Catholics are spread across the conservative/liberal spectrum. About a third identify as Republican (28%), independent or other (33%), or Democrat (39%); in the same way, roughly a third identify as religiously conservative (34%), moderate (39%), or liberal (27%).
• For news, American Catholics have the most trust in Fox News (29%), ABC News (22%), CNN (22%), or NBC News (20%). About 1 in 5 doesn’t trust any secular news companies at all (18%). For Catholic news, they have the most trust in their parish bulletin (32%), the Catholic News Agency (22%), the National Catholic Register (17%), or the National Catholic Reporter (16%). Meanwhile, 1 in 3 doesn’t trust any Catholic news source (33%).

This past weekend, millions of moviegoers saw A Wrinkle in Time and joined a group of tessering travelers as they warped through higher dimensions in pursuit of the heroine’s missing father. The film is, of course, based on the classic Newbery Award–winning children’s novel written by Madeleine L’Engle, a committed Christian who drew heavily on her personal study of modern physics as inspiration for the book.

In a 1979 interview with Christianity Today, L’Engle spoke of the mystical nature of contemporary physics and how science “should help us enlarge our vision: never change it, never diminish it, but enlarge it.” This can be said most of all about the science of higher dimensions upon which A Wrinkle in Time is based.

Nearly 100 years ago, the first scientific evidence for higher dimensions emerged. Since that time, the science community has reached a broad consensus that the universe contains at least five dimensions and perhaps many more. For some, conceptualizing multiple dimensions bears resemblance to Christian thinking on a spiritual world. N. T. Wright has gone so far as to say that “Heaven is the extra dimension, the God-dimension, of all our present reality.”

But the higher dimensions described by science are not merely spiritual, they are physical. Therefore they can be explored and even measured through science. In fact, today physicists at the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, are conducting experiments that would allow them to detect and measure properties of these higher dimensions. This begs the uncomfortable question, “Can heaven be detected by a particle accelerator?”

To some, this may feel like yet one more encroachment of science into matters of faith. But I would like to offer an alternate interpretation: Could the physics of higher dimensions allow us to integrate the physical and spiritual worlds into a common framework, where they are no longer seen as separate disconnected realities but rather as a single cohesive creation? To see this vision, though, we will first need a quick primer on the physics of higher dimensions.

In 1919, the physicist Theodor Kaluza wrote a letter to Albert Einstein which contained a mathematical proof demonstrating how Einstein’s equations for gravity, when written in five dimensions, can also explain the behavior of electricity and magnetism. This was a truly shocking discovery that led Einstein himself to admit that it “would never have dawned on me.” The insight was so elegant and profound that it led to an entire branch of theoretical physics called string theory, which remains an area of active research to this day.

What exactly do we mean by five dimensions? Well, there are the three dimensions of space we are accustomed to (depth, width, and height), one dimension of time, and at least one additional dimension of space. It turns out that any time we add an extra dimension of space, our conception of what is possible expands dramatically.

Take, for example, the move from one dimension to two dimensions. In one dimension, all we have is length. The only “creatures” in such a world would be lines, and these lines could never move past one another. They are confined to sliding back and forth, bumping into one another like beads on a wire. When we add a second dimension, however, a whole new world of possibility is opened—up and down! Suddenly lines can move above or below one another, they can spin around and point in new directions, and they can even bend to take on new a form, like a circle.

The move from two dimensions to three dimensions is equally transformative. Consider the 1884 novel Flatland by Edwin Abbott, which follows the life of a square who lives in an entirely two-dimensional world. One day, he is visited by a mysterious creature who calls himself a “sphere.” To the square, the sphere appears only as a circle, but it seems to possess supernatural powers. As it moves above, below, and through the flat two-dimensional world, the sphere appears, disappears, and continuously changes size. It can mysteriously manifest inside a locked room simply by going over the wall, an idea that is entirely inconceivable to the square until he visits the three-dimensional Spaceland and sees the true nature of his mysterious visitor.

By natural extension, adding a single dimension of space to our three-dimensional experience has profound implications. Our entire universe, then, becomes just one layer in an infinite stack. Moving into this higher dimension, even if only a millimeter above or below our fingertips, we can find other planes of reality that are completely unseen and untouched by humanity. Modern physics suggests that belief in such an unseen reality is not only rational but scientific. It takes only a small leap of imagination, then, to wonder whether Jesus had access to such higher dimensions. Could he have tessered through space and time?

Scripture contains many beautiful yet bizarre stories of the spiritual world intersecting the physical world. These are challenging stories—the parting of the Red Sea, the chariots of fire, or the hand writing on the wall. How do we make sense of these stories in modern times? Do we look for naturalistic explanations? Or do we throw up our hands and simply say that they are miraculous events that cannot be explained?

What Christians label as miraculous can be misinterpreted as magical fairy tales by a culture that is steeped in a scientific worldview rooted in the philosophy of materialism. What if, as for L’Engle, physics could stoke a broader vision among would-be believers? Perhaps there is a pathway in the dialogue between faith and science that demonstrates how each illuminates rather than contradicts the other.

Modern physics opens the door to the possibility that the spiritual reality described in Scripture can be understood through the mind-bending logic of higher dimensions. For example, a locked upper room is no barrier for a risen Christ with access to higher dimensions, a fiery furnace cannot consume three friends when they are safely stowed away in a hidden dimension of space, and a hyper-dimensional kingdom of heaven can be simultaneously in our midst and yet not fully accessible.

This is not to diminish the importance of faith—in fact, just the opposite is true. The author of Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” The scientific community is continuously giving us even more assurance that our belief in an unseen reality is justified and rational.

Of all the characters in A Wrinkle in Time, my personal favorite is Aunt Beast. A creature without eyes or vision, Aunt Beast explains that her kind, “do not know what things look like. We know what things are like. It must be a very limiting thing, this seeing.” I tend to agree. Our sight can often blind us to the true nature of things. (Needless to say, Aunt Beast does not appear in the film adaptation, which begs the question of whether Hollywood can really handle the spiritual themes of A Wrinkle in Time.)

But, as L’Engle suggests, the physics of higher dimensions can enlarge our vision, enabling us to see through our physical world—this broken layer of a much larger reality—and to imagine that the physical and spiritual worlds are not separate and disconnected but rather that they are a single cohesive creation that waits in eager anticipation for the restoration of all things.

And as we wait, we take great comfort in knowing that the deposit on this restoration has already been made. Through Christ’s ascension, our human flesh resides in heaven, and in return, Christ has sent his Spirit to live among us. The reunion of physical and spiritual has already begun.

Andrew Vanden Heuvel is a professor of physics and astronomy at several community colleges across the country. He works from his home office near Grand Haven, Michigan.

It’s something we all do: we see the headlines, read the news, and think, That’s tragic. I hope it never happens here.

Unfortunately, church leaders are not immune to this kind of thinking—and it may prevent us from taking the precautions necessary for safe (and legal) ministries. Pastors must educate themselves, their boards, and other staff members on the issues that could land them in court. Each of the following stories concerns a church that recently encountered such issues.

Church Factions Compete over Property

For years, sexual abuse of a minor was the number one reason churches went to court. That changed in 2016, when property disputes took the top spot. Disagreements over church property can often lead to legal trouble, as in the following case. According to legal blog Religion Clause, two factions of Little Ettie Old Regular Baptist Church in Beaver, Ohio “both claimed ownership of the[ir] church’s property.” A trial court and appellate court ruled that the two factions would have to share the church building, as they were “equally entitled to church property.” This sends pastors a clear message: Be aware of the legal matters that could affect your property, and ensure that policies, procedures, and documentation are in place before a disagreement erupts.

Saddleback Church Faces Sexual Abuse Allegations

Though no longer the top reason churches end up in court, sexual abuse remains a major issue in churches large and small. Last year, California-based megachurch Saddleback found itself in headlines when accusations were brought forward against a former youth mentor. The Los Angeles Times reported that the accused volunteer had been involved at the church for six years and had “developed relationships” with two boys.

Saddleback’s ministries are far from careless when it comes to screening—according to the Times, “Its volunteers are fingerprinted, their backgrounds are checked, and … they receive annual training on appropriate conduct.” When faced with this case, church leaders may feel discouraged: If this happened at Saddleback, what hope do we have for preventing something similar? Don’t despair. Although you can’t completely negate these risks, you can take steps to minimize them. Stay vigilant, reexamine current procedures, and explore opportunities for further training (like Church Law & Tax’s Reducing the Risk program) to protect the children in your church.

No Legal Recourse for Syrian Man in Oklahoma Church Lawsuit

For most Christians, baptisms are a cause for celebration—but for an ex-Muslim man from Syria, his baptism was nearly his death sentence. He was baptized at his Oklahoma church in 2012, but he requested that the announcement not be made public. When he returned to Syria, Islamic extremists (including members of his family) captured, tortured, and nearly executed him for his conversion to Christianity, though he managed to escape. According to a report in Christianity Today’s Gleanings, the church “had included [his] baptism in its weekly bulletin announcements, then posted those announcements online.” Upon his return to the US, he sued his church for negligence, outrage, and breach of contract.

In a ruling early last year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ultimately sided with the man’s church—but the 5–3 decision hints at the complicated, inconsistent relationship between church and state. Some argued that the ruling was a victory for religious liberty, others that the case was not a matter of doctrine and the church should not have been protected. Courts don’t always intervene in such cases, so for every item you make public, ask yourself, Is this better kept private?

A Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling

The US Supreme Court handed down a historic ruling last summer in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. Trinity Lutheran Church’s preschool and daycare applied to participate in Missouri’s Scrap Tire Program to replace its playground surface. Its application was rejected, with the state’s Department of Natural Resources arguing that, based on the state constitution, the funds couldn’t go to a church. The church then sued the department’s director, eventually seeking review by the Supreme Court. The 7–2 SCOTUS ruling found the denial of Trinity Lutheran’s application to be unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion.

From a risk management perspective, this case could establish a critical precedent for cases involving churches and religious freedom. Richard Hammar notes in his write-up on the ruling, “This case recognizes … that churches are members of the community, too, and cannot be excluded from government benefit programs solely on the basis of their religious status.”

Violent Incidents at Churches—and a Deadly Common Denominator

In November of 2016, in Jamestown, New York, 36-year-old Shari J. Robbins encountered her estranged husband—against whom she had a restraining order— in a church parking lot. During the confrontation, Robbins’s husband shot and killed her.

Of 2016’s 29 deadly attacks on church property in which the attacker’s motive is known, 11 were the result of domestic abuse spillovers. Church security expert Carl Chinn says, “While church leaders spend a significant amount of time, money, and thought preparing for intruders or outside attacks, they should also remember this grave danger [of domestic abuse] facing their churches.”

Chinn continues, “When leaders see familial relationships in stress—be it an angry spouse, sibling, or child—they should take notice and act accordingly. … Perhaps the best way to see signs of domestic abuse is to have an intentional group of people looking for it.”

Note: At press time, these summaries were accurate and current—but additional appeals and updates may unfold, and due to the nature of the US legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search for content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

Emily Lund is assistant editor of Church Law & Tax. For more like this, visit ChurchLaw&Tax.com.

Prixel Creative / Lightstock

Erica Komisar is a social worker and psychoanalyst who believes young children are faring worse than they were even 30 years ago. In her practice, “I was seeing an increase in children with mental disorders, being diagnosed earlier and medicated at an early age.” After 13 years spent researching neuroscience, attachment theory, and psychoanalysis, Komisar linked this increase to a social devaluing of mothering and an inability for many women to be present to their children in the first three years of life.

Such a diagnosis, Komisar says, has cheered social conservatives—until she gets to her policy solution: at least one year of federally mandated paid maternity leave, with part-time and flexible options for two more years. “All mothers and babies should have the right to be together in the first year.” In other words, babies need mothers, but mothers—especially single and working-class ones—need tangible, societal, and fiscal support in order to nurture their babies during such a crucial time.

Komisar spoke with CT editor at large Katelyn Beaty about these and other themes found in her book, Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters, as well as what Christian communities offer to the conversation.

Why is it the case that a child’s well-being apparently comes down to his or her secure attachment with the mother and not the father or other caregivers?

Mothers and fathers nurture differently for the most part, and the research backed that up. Mothers and fathers can be equal in many ways, in intelligence, in pay, in the kinds of jobs they do, but the truth is that we’re different biologically.

One of the differences is the biological difference in nurturing because nurturing comes from a particular part of the brain. Basically, when women nurture, when they’re pregnant and give birth and breastfeed and nurture, they produce oxytocin in their brains, a love hormone, a neuropeptide, and it makes women more sensitive and empathic. So it makes women look at their babies’ pain and soothe their babies who are in distress by reflecting the pain, and it’s a natural instinct of healthy mothers whose own mothers have done that for them.

When fathers nurture, particularly as primary caregivers, they also produce oxytocin, but it has a different impact on their brains. When fathers produce oxytocin, it makes them more playful and engage in tactile play with their babies. They’ll tickle their babies, wrestle with their babies, distract their babies away from pain. It’s not making them more empathic, it’s making them more encouraging of the babies to get past the pain. When fathers were given intranasal oxytocin in experiments to see if they could be more like mothers, they actually tickled the babies harder and chased the babies around more. It didn’t make them more sensitive, empathic nurturers.

That may be the politically incorrect thing, but it’s just the truth in terms of what the research shows: Mothers and fathers are different in terms of nurture.

How does this finding inform how women make decisions about work? Many women are in the workplace, either full-time or part-time, and simply can’t choose to be at home full-time caring for their children.

One of the problems that we have in our culture and society is that we have no paid maternity leave, and it’s a real, urgent problem. If you are a middle-class or upper-middle-class woman, you have many more choices than a woman who is poor in terms of being able to stay with your child for up to a year and have flexibility. What I advocate is that we give all women [new mothers] a year off of work and that we pay them to stay home with their babies. After that, we give them the option of another two years of the ability to work part-time and flexibly so that they have control over their work; they can still work but prioritize their children. The book is not about working versus not working, but about more is more.

Do you advocate for a federally mandated one-year paid maternity leave?

Oh yes. In Slovenia, they give three years of fully paid maternity leave. What do they have in other countries? They have a year, sometimes 18 months, and it’s not always fully paid, but there’s paid maternity leave for up to 18 months. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to say we could have an insurance policy from the time we start working as parents—and men too, because they need paternity leave—we put $10 away out of each paycheck into a special insurance fund that pays us back when we need to take parental leave, and if we don’t have children, that goes back into our general pension or social security fund. Would that be such a hard thing for the government to do?

It seems like progressives would be really receptive to your policy conclusions but not necessarily to your research around the differences between mothers and fathers. And that conservatives would be receptive to your research about the differences between mothers and fathers but not necessarily the proposed policy conclusions. Is that the case, and is there common ground?

I try not to be political with this issue, and yet it falls into this political crack. Liberals reject these ideas because they believe in gender neutrality and gender equality, and somehow this defies this, and it also defies … the idea that women can do everything all at the same time and have everything.

I have cricket silence from the press on the liberal side because they don’t even want to hear that men and women actually might be different and the women can have everything in life, just not at the same time. To them, it’s an anti-feminist message.

The fiscally conservative right wing would hope that the faith-based communities would support family life [but] they’re talking to a middle-class population, and it’s like denying that more than half of this country lives below the poverty line. It’s a denial that most women do not work in an accounting firm or even in a restaurant; they work at McDonald’s and they earn minimum wage. Conservatives love my family-first message, but you have to pay for that message, you have to put your money where your mouth is, otherwise it’s just talk.

I think both liberals and conservatives focus way too much on the economics of mothering, the whole field of social economics, which is basically focused on why women should work from an economic perspective and not what it does to children or mothers, and how it tears families apart. That’s both a conservative and a liberal problem.

It seems there would also need to be a shift in workplace values, fostering workplaces that value their workers not just for their productivity but also for their family commitments, too.

It’s two-fold. I’m a psychoanalyst, which means I focus on people’s interiors, but I’m also a social worker, which means I focus on the environment, and the environment needs to change. We need a government that recognizes the maternal-child bond and what that does for the mental health of its citizens. Every other civilized country in the world recognizes this except ours, so that’s the first thing.

The second thing: For businesses, the bottom line is their greatest interest. So if you’re going to work in a business, you want to look for a business that puts their money where their mouth is. Look for a company that actually offers not just six weeks of paid maternity leave but three, four, six months. The issue that I have with businesses is that they may provide paid maternity leave, but women are afraid to take the maternity leave, so the culture of the place has to change. At Yahoo! Marissa Mayer offered a great maternity leave policy for her employees, but then she had twins and was back at work after two weeks. If the CEO of your company comes back to work when her body hasn’t even healed, how do you then take six months off?

Lots of my female peers are married and have young children. From my vantage, they are supremely conscious of the fact that everything they do as a mother will affect the child someday. How do you offer your advice without making women feel an incredible burden and guilt for not being perfect in their ability to be present to their children at all times?

First, I want to straighten out that guilt is not a bad feeling. A famous psychoanalyst named Hans Loewald says that guilt is a signal feeling. Guilt is like physical pain; it basically implies that there’s an internal conflict, in this case, that the mother has. As a society, we tell women, “Don’t feel guilty, bury the guilt, dig a big hole, and stick it in there. Your baby will be fine and you’ll be fine.” If you were playing basketball and you broke your ankle, and your coach told you to ignore the pain and play on the ankle, would that be a good thing?

When we have pain or conflict, in this case, it’s our psyche’s way of telling us we have a conflict and need to look at and resolve the conflict, and we might actually make different choices if we look at the conflict, but we certainly don’t want to bury the conflict. Maybe the question we need to ask is, “Why are there so many mothers who feel so conflicted?” Why have we created a society that forces mothers away from their babies so early that they have to feel conflict?

What can faith communities uniquely offer to this conversation?

I’m Jewish, and in Judaism, we say isheree ahava, which in Hebrew means the sacred obligation to love your children. At a very early age, we have to teach our children the sacrifice part. In our day, we go into our 20s and 30s with a fantasy, an illusion about what it means to be a youthful person and have a perfect life, and we go into it thinking we can have everything all at the same time and sacrifice nothing. As a faith-based community, the Christian Bible talks about sacrifice, how having children does require sacrifice in those early years. You’re going to sacrifice financially [or] your ego and your career ambitions for a little while. Maybe you live near your family and you don’t want to do that; maybe you sacrifice in that way. Even the idea of educating your children that it’s much better not to be alone when we have children. Women are very isolated, which brings on a lot of these postpartum symptoms. We’re not meant to raise children alone; we’re meant to raise children in close-knit families and communities.

Katelyn Beaty is an editor at large for Christianity Today magazine and the author of A Woman’s Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the World (Howard / Simon & Schuster) which has recently been released in paperback with an accompanying small group curriculum (Abingdon).

Virginia State Parks / Flickr

An Ontario judge ruled this week that a foster agency violated a Protestant couple’s religious freedom rights when it opted to remove two children from their home and ban them from fostering over their refusal to teach about the Easter Bunny.

Frances and Derek Baars didn’t grow up learning about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, and didn’t want to lie about the fictional figures to the 3- and 4-year-old sisters in their care. Their convictions, based on Christian beliefs, raised concerns among the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) of Hamilton—which took the children away from the Baars with just a day’s notice, citing the couple’s refusal to respect the girls’ cultural traditions.

As committed members of a small Presbyterian denomination, the Baars assumed there would be instances where their values wouldn’t line up with CAS, a government-approved, secular organization that they knew placed kids with same-sex parents and supported gender transition for youth. But they never anticipated what happened back in 2016.

“If someone had told us then that the Easter Bunny and Santa would team up against us, we would have asked what they were smoking,” Derek Baars said this week in an interview with CT.

Like some in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, the Baars do not observe Easter and Christmas, keeping only the Sabbath as a holy day. When they became foster parents in December 2015, they altered their celebrations to purchase Christmas gifts for the girls and take them to a family gathering as well as a Sunday school program at another church.

Beyond their own theological views of Christian holidays, “We have a strict ‘no lying’ policy, because God is the God of truth who is Truth, and telling kids that the Easter Bunny and Santa are real is lying,” Frances Baars told CT. They had shared their positions against the Easter Bunny, Santa, and other traditions like Halloween during their training and home study.

Even though the children’s birth mother gave no instructions specifically regarding the Easter Bunny or Santa, CAS staff still brought up Santa with the foster children and urged the Baars to explicitly incorporate the Easter Bunny, specifically “the tradition of the Easter [B]unny bringing chocolate Easter eggs,” according to the court document.

Later, one placement worker, Tracey Lindsay, expressed concern that the Baars would condemn potential gay or lesbian adoptive parents for their girls, though the couple assured her otherwise.

“It seems likely that Lindsay’s discussion regarding prospective same-sex couples to the Baars was fueled by a potential stereotypical belief in the inability of Christians to support same-sex marriage,” wrote Justice Andrew Goodman of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario.

In a 62-page decision issued Tuesday, Goodman concluded that CAS violated the Baars’s religious protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He ordered that the organization update their file to reflect their standing, so that the Baars’s history won’t keep them from future opportunities to adopt or serve as foster parents. (They have since begun the adoption process in another province.)

“Their constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression have been infringed and must be remedied in a manner that is appropriate and just in the circ*mstances,” Goodman wrote. “The Society didn’t reasonably accommodate the Baars or even attempt to.”

The Reformed Presbyterian couple sought no compensation in the lawsuit, but wanted to ensure fair treatment for fellow Christian couples in Canada seeking to open their homes to children.

“When they told us, ‘You must lie to these children or they would be removed,’ we knew that we were not responsible for the result of doing what’s right, and God would take care of us,” Derek Baars told CT. “He has upheld us.”

“The favorable result has been tremendously encouraging for our brothers and sisters in the Lord,” who had joined them to pray that God would “turn the judge’s heart” as he does with the king’s heart in Proverbs 21:1, Baars said. He noted that the Alliance Defending Freedom, a US-based group advocating religious liberty, sent funds to support the Canadian law firm that represented the couple.

The potential clash between faith protections and LGBT rights has come up in the United States as well; but often the other way around, with religious agencies confronting fear or pressure over their requirements for adoptive or foster parents.

South Carolina’s top foster care agency, Miracle Hill, is currently facing legal backlash involving the Palmetto State’s department of social services for requiring that foster parents share its Christian faith. Last year, Texas and South Dakota passed protections allowing state-funded child welfare agencies to continue to use faith-based restrictions for family placements.

Many adoptive and foster parents are Christian, and it’s less likely for them to face discrimination like the Baars in Canada. “While less overt discrimination cases may occur on occasion in US foster care, it’s not the norm,” according to Kelly Rosati, a former Focus on the Family leader and mom to four kids adopted from foster care.

“I worry that the discrimination fear is used as an excuse not to engage and help these kids who desperately need permanent and loving families,” Rosati told CT, noting that more than 100,000 kids in US foster care are awaiting adoption.

A similar case to the Baars’s took place in 2011 in the United Kingdom, where a judge sided against a potential set of foster parents who said during the application stage that they would not endorse hom*osexuality to children in their home due to their Pentecostal Christian beliefs. The court ruled that “laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.”

Perhaps you are one of the blessed few who are entirely content with their appearance. Perhaps you never stand in front of the mirror, as I did this morning, wondering as you take in the image before you, “Why didn’t God improve on that?”

While we’re at it, why didn’t God make you smarter? Stronger? More creative? More insightful? More wonderful in every way?

If, like some irritating friends of mine, you happen to be reasonably good-looking, talented, prosperous, healthy, and happy, asking such questions could seem downright greedy. But lots of us are obviously lacking in one or more of these zones.

Or so it would seem.

But in the kingdom of God, things are not always as they appear.

Jesus is pausing with his disciples in the region of Caesarea Philippi. He asks them how he is currently viewed by the populace, and the response seems very promising: “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matt. 16:14).

One would think a rabbi couldn’t do any better, but Jesus then asks the disciples their opinion.

Peter, one of those keen pupils who instantly sticks up his hand whether he knows the answer or not, replies at once: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

For once, Peter is right, and Jesus blesses him. But “then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

This is a bit disappointing. Peter finally gets an answer right, and he can’t tell anyone? In fact, he gets The Answer right and he can’t tell anyone? Why in the world not?

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (v. 21).

Jesus connects his messiahship, his appointment as the very Instrument of God, with suffering and death … and at the hands of the very people who ought to be his strongest supporters, the religious leaders of the people of God.

This shockingly contradictory idea provokes another outburst from Peter, which Jesus stifles and sets in order. But soon after that, things get even stranger.

Dazzling Savior

Jesus takes Peter and his other two closest associates, James and John, up a “high mountain” (Matt. 17:1–11). I’ve lived in British Columbia for 20 years and wouldn’t use that term for a slight elevation in the Levant. But I would be missing the point. “High mountains” in the Bible are where certain famous Israelites have met God, notably Moses on Sinai and Elijah on Carmel.

Sure enough, Moses and Elijah appear on this high mountain, too. But instead of meeting Yahweh, they meet with Jesus. And such a Jesus! “His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light” (v. 2).

Peter, once again quick on the draw, wants this amazing meeting to continue so he offers to build shelters for them. But then a bright cloud (yes, just like at Sinai) envelops them and a Voice says, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

The disciples do the natural thing: They fall to the ground, terrified. But Jesus tells them to get up and stop being afraid. They do, and they see only Jesus remaining.

They see that, as important as it is for Jews to pay attention to Moses and Elijah, to the Law and the Prophets, it is supremely important for them to listen to the very Son of God.

And then that Son of God, just now revealed to them in his dazzling heavenly splendor, says this: “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Not again! Peter must have been ready to explode. Why would Jesus silence them about the greatest sight anyone had seen for hundreds of years?

Jesus reminds them that his forerunner, John the Baptist, has already been killed. The implication is clear: If the powers that be are willing to execute someone as popular as John to ward off any challenge to their position, how much worse would they do to someone reported to be the glowing Son of the living God?

James Bond and Jesus

Jesus had to look and sound like an ordinary man—a man so literally nondescript that we have no record of his appearance. He had to do so in order to do what needed to be done: serve as the Son of Man, the representative and model of humanity, quietly making known the good news of the kingdom of God and training his disciples to take over his work once he inevitably came to the attention of those powers and received the predictable treatment from their ruthless hands.

Why didn’t God make even Jesus more beautiful? If he was capable of shining like the sun, why didn’t he do so all the time? For one fundamental reason: Jesus had a calling, a vocation, a mission to fulfill. As God’s Messiah, he was anointed to perform a certain task. And that task required him to look ordinary, not spectacular. So he did.

Perhaps, however, you have a little trouble relating to Jesus. He is the Son of the living God, after all. Fair enough. Let’s consider a somewhat different illustration. How about James Bond?

The Bond movies have starred such actors as Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig—and, indeed, George Lazenby. Now, among the less plausible features of this entirely implausible series are the striking good looks of these men. But James Bond is supposed to be a secret agent. When Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan enters a room, everyone notices. How long does he stay anonymous? About two seconds.

I, on the other hand, routinely enter, dawdle in, and exit rooms without anyone paying the slightest attention. It follows, by inexorable logic, that I could be an excellent secret agent. “The name is Stackhouse: John Stackhouse.” I could steal the formula, the fortune, and the femme fatale and no one would notice.

To Do Only What You Can Do

Beautiful people have a burden, and they are a burden. Have you ever tried to work beside someone who is fiercely handsome or unusually lovely? You can’t get anything done, can you? In fact, when faced with such a situation, the only sensible thing to do is to marry the person. (Which is what my wife did. But I digress.)

We truly ought to give thanks to God that we are not more gorgeous than we are—or more intelligent, or more creative, or more rich, or more influential, or more wise, or more whatever—because if we were much more gifted, we could not function the same way in our particular roles. People might write off our testimony to the Lord’s blessing in our lives with the ready retort, “Well, that’s easy for you to say.” Or they might never feel they could identify with us, living as we do in a bubble of blessing, and so they could never confide in us. Or they might try to push their way into the kingdom of God for the wrong reasons, to enjoy the trappings rather than the substance of the gospel of renewal, and that would be bad, too.

God wants the whole world back. So God places his people in every walk of life, in every social stratum, in every ethnic group, and in every locale precisely to maximize God’s influence and draw the world most effectively to God’s heart. Thus God strategically deploys individuals and equips them to fit their respective missions.

I am situated where I am, and I am the person I am, precisely to do what only a Christian such as I am can do: namely, to live this particular Christian life and be a witness in my particular way in my particular social matrix. I alone have this set of relatives, friends, co-workers, enemies, neighbors, and so on, and I alone am this sort of person. Therefore I alone can exert the particular benign influence on each of these people that I alone can exert.

This all can sound nonsensically repetitive, of course, but it isn’t. Such a statement is vital to the realization that God has not made mistakes in making each of us who we are and placing us where God has in order to get done what God wants to get done. One day, thank God, we will be more beautiful and talented than we are today. But for now we are “undercover,” playing the roles we have been given in order to achieve key mission objectives that simply could not be achieved were we to drop our disguises and appear in the glory that God has prepared for us (2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; 1 John 3:2).

The sober implication of all this is that we should accept ourselves and our situation because we trust that God has wisely and kindly assigned us to be a certain sort of person doing a certain sort of work. Yes, there are times in which God calls people out of their situations into greater freedom—or into heavier forms of service. Sometimes God’s call is surprising and disruptive. Normally, however, we can be assured that unless we have simply run away from God, he has positioned us throughout our lives to do what we alone can do. And however hard it has been—and God’s calling is sometimes excruciating—it’s for only 70 or 80 years, at the most, and then we get to go home and truly be ourselves (2 Cor. 4:16–18).

We’re Not Playacting

I daresay, furthermore, that this picture of being called by God to participate in a series of assignments during a lifetime mission is an important improvement upon the common metaphor of our being issued roles in a play. The image of drama has a venerable heritage in Christian thought, to be sure, and it has its uses. (After all, when the likes of Søren Kierkegaard, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, and Kevin Vanhoozer capitalize on the image, one is wise to give it its due.)

But drama isn’t real—and our lives certainly are. We are not playacting. We are, the Bible says, in a war. A long war, sometimes hot, sometimes cold, but always a grim contest with life-and-death results. The challenges are real, the threats are real, the deprivations and sufferings are real—and so are the outcomes real. You, like me, may find it much more encouraging to keep remembering, in each season and circ*mstance of life, that you are being called not to act in a play but to accomplish a particular set of tasks as a particular sort of person in your particular situation so as to advance God’s purposes in the real world as only you can.

Why didn’t God make you more splendid than you are? For the same reason that Jesus kept his glory under wraps: to be most effective in performing his assigned mission, to getting done what he in particular was to get done.

God equips us to succeed in the calling he gives us. This truth doesn’t mean that we can’t use resources God provides us to strengthen and beautify and otherwise improve ourselves and our circ*mstances. But we do so only if those efforts will help us achieve our mission better—not to avoid it for something we prefer.

These are hard truths. But one can lean on hard truths for firm support. And the best of these truths is that God’s assignment is only temporary and then there is home, home forever, in which we can finally relax and be totally our glorious selves.

I can hardly wait!

But for now, I’ve got to get back to work.

John Stackhouse teaches at Crandall University in Moncton, Canada. This article is adapted from his new book, Why You’re Here: Ethics for the Real World (Oxford).

Few events in the Philippines have been more anticipated than Pope Francis’s 2015 visit to the home of the world’s third-largest Catholic population. Six million people attended a parade on the final day of the pope’s trip, a meeting he decided to make following one of the strongest cyclones ever recorded. During mass with survivors of Typhoon Haiyan, Pope Francis declared, “I have come to tell you that Jesus is Lord. And he never lets us down.” Stirred by his homily, many were overcome with tears.

Pain is not an anomaly for Filipinos. Suffering punctuates centuries of Philippine colonial and contemporary history. But this affliction has not affected the religiosity of Filipino Catholics. Indeed, so inspired by his experience in the country, Pope Francis tweeted that “the Philippines is witness to the youth and vitality of the Church.” The Filipino translation of the tweet went viral and was retweeted more than 70,000 times.

Given that the state is secular, it is a mistake to say that the Philippines is a Catholic country. But with 80 percent of the population professing the faith, the impression remains the same anyway—especially given the fact that the country sits in a region dominated by Buddhism and Islam. From politics to education to fiestas, Catholicism pervades much of Philippine society. According to a recent survey, 77 percent of Filipino Catholic adults consider religion to be “very important” in their lives.

Despite missionary presence in China and Japan, Christianity has historically struggled to put down spiritual roots in Asia. So what makes it stick in the Philippines? Some credit belongs to the religious zeal of the Spanish regime. But by and large, the faith thrives today because Filipinos appropriated Catholicism to make it their own religion.

A colonial enterprise

When the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines in 1521, more than 100 ethnolinguistic groups already occupied the archipelago of more than 7,000 islands. While they did not exist as one country, the islands were nevertheless connected to each other via trade routes and slave-raiding that included other territories in the region. Trade, in fact, existed before the 10th century.

The islands also teemed with religious diversity. The Ifugao in northern Luzon, the Tagalog in southern Luzon, the Visayan in the central islands, and the various indigenous communities in Mindanao each had their own cosmology, code of ethics, and mode of worship. Muslim communities were also scattered around the islands, including Manila.

Locals first came into contact with Catholicism when Ferdinand Magellan and his crew showed up as part of the colonial race in the 16th century that competed for resources and the Christianization of unexplored territories. After meeting with Magellan, Rajah Humabon, the ruler of the island of Cebu, and his subjects embraced Christianity, though this may have been to avoid conflict with the conquistadors. But local resistance in nearby Mactan Island, headed by its ruler, Lapu-Lapu, led to the death of Magellan and his comrades.

Despite Magellan’s death, the Spanish sent other expeditions back to the Philippines. As the century wore on, expeditions became increasingly crucial for Spain. The crown believed that the Philippines would become a new and important source of revenue for the empire. It was Ruy Lopez de Villalobos’s trip in 1543 that named the islands Filipinas, in honor of Spanish King Philip II.

Spain’s close relationship with the Philippines was cemented after explorer Miguel Lopez de Legazpi discovered a route between the islands and Mexico, making trade between the two colonies—and the kingdom—possible. Legazpi set up a permanent Spanish outpost in Manila in 1571 and, after evicting its rulers and inhabitants, decided that the island would become the capital of the new colony. Legazpi built Manila in the style of a typical European town, with a plaza, cathedral, and public offices from which the entire archipelago was governed. Only Spaniards, however, could reside within the walled city. The natives—known like other indigenous communities in the New World as indios—had to resettle elsewhere.

As historian Samuel Tan notes, the goals of the Spanish regime in the Philippines could be summarized as: God, glory, and gold. Apart from expanding its trade, the evangelization of indios was a clear mission of the empire. Led by Father Urdaneta, Spanish Augustinian friars moved from Mexico to the Philippines upon the request of Philip II and became the first official Catholic missionaries in the country. The Dominicans, Recollects, Franciscans, and Jesuits followed suit over the centuries.

The Catholic fathers’ pattern of evangelization was standard. Under a policy known as reduccíon, the Spanish relocated natives from the mountains to the lowlands. Churches around the country were built through polos y servicios, a law which forced men between the ages of 16 to 60 years old to render labor for the local governor or the parish priest. The priests also became the de facto administrators of the Spanish regime in the towns in which they were assigned. This made them very powerful, even against local secular authorities. Given the small number of missionaries and administrators, the policy made governance and religious education efficient.

Although reduccíon was coercive, Catholic evangelization was not necessarily so. For example, mass baptisms were not practiced just because a datu (local leader) converted. Although some missionaries destroyed images (larawan), the majority relied on nonviolent persuasion to convince local converts to abandon their indigenous worship and practices.

The Jesuit historian John Schumacher claims “no whole people, at least prior to the 19th century, has ever in the history of the Church been so thoroughly evangelized as were the Filipinos.” The Christianization of the country was more than a change of heart of the people; the conversion included systematic lifestyle change. Friars made it a strict requirement for any native wanting to be baptized to have learned the tenets of Doctrina Cristiana, a document spelling out Catholic prayers, morality, and practices. Church leaders also taught catechisms—translated into vernacular languages—to young people. Friars ensured too that Christian teaching took over indigenous beliefs about restitution, sexual morality, and nature worship. Polygamy and slavery, for example, had to be renounced before baptism.

Catholicism’s influence affected everyday life and annual traditions. Church bells rang as a reminder for communities and families to recite the Angelus and other prayers. Mass attendance was also recorded every Sunday. In many cases, the Catholic pantheon of saints replaced local deities believed to be behind the agricultural cycle, though the holidays and festivals persisted—just under the banner of the patron saints. Consequently, by the 17th century, Catholicism had become the pervasive religion among lowland Filipinos, especially in Luzon and the Visayas.

Yet the Philippines’ Christianization was not a smooth process. Not all natives embraced the religion wholesale. In 1621, local leaders Bankaw and Tamblot led anti-Catholic uprisings on the islands of Leyte and Bohol. Over the centuries, Spanish forces also tried to penetrate some parts of Mindanao but resistance among Muslim communities relegated them to coastal areas. Muslim resistance involved what the Spaniards called juramentados, swordsmen who were ready to die for their cause. Many other indigenous communities in Mindanao—collectively called lumad (native)—retained their existing beliefs and practices.

Muslim communities in Mindanao never recognized the authority of the Spanish regime over their territories. In the local translation of the peace treaty signed in 1878 between Spain and the Sultanate of Sulu, the latter was only named a protectorate. But this provision did not keep Spain from including Sulu when the Philippines was handed over to the United States after its defeat in the Spanish-American War in 1899. This historical moment serves as a backdrop to secessionist movements, Moro insurgency, and the peace process in Mindanao.

Filipinizing Catholicism

Various documents of the Catholic church in the Philippines, including its local catechism, assume the Catholic faith is part and parcel of being Filipino. This idea obviously overlooks the presence of other religious minorities in the country, such as Islam, and the growing prominence of other Christian groups, like evangelicals and Iglesia ni Cristo (an indigenous church). But the assumption makes sociological sense for two reasons.

On one hand, Catholicism has become a cultural attribute, given the extent to which it affects everyday Filipino life. Over the centuries, Filipinos internalized Catholicism because church rituals related to their practical concerns. Indigenous religious practices were largely about livelihood, prosperity, healing, and safety. This understanding was very different from Christian theology that brought ethics and worship together. In this light, Catholic sacraments, beliefs, and objects interested indigenous Filipinos to the extent that they contributed to health and livelihood. Holy water, Latin prayers, and the intermediary role of saints fed into local beliefs.

This syncretisation became a significant factor in why Christianization did not completely eradicate indigenous practices. Even today, amulets with Latin prayers and other Catholic symbols are readily available outside Quiapo Church in Manila. The same church is home to the Black Nazarene, whose annual feast gathers millions of devotees every year in a procession around the old city of Manila. Towels that touch the image are believed to transmit miraculous powers of healing.

On the other hand, Catholicism has also become a religion that Filipinos use to empower themselves. This is a salient theme in much of Philippine historical writing. In his influential work, Pasyon and Revolution, historian Reynaldo Ileto makes the case that the natives drew from the Pasyon (or Passion) to understand their suffering at the hands of Spaniards. An epic narrative sung during Lent, the Pasyon recounts the suffering of Christ. During the Spanish period, clergy used this for religious socialization but natives received it in a different light. The suffering of Christ mirrored their own and empowered them in their struggle against the colonial regime.

One of the pitfalls of Spanish missionaries was a failure to train local clergy. Until the 20th century, movements calling for Filipino priests were often treated by the government with suspicion, as in the case of Cofradia de San Jose. The brotherhood of Filipino priests was set up by Hermano Pule, a local whose application to join an order was rejected in 1839. But the Spaniards eventually quashed the brotherhood, alleging it as heretical and rebellious.

During the American occupation in the first half of the 20th century, foreign clergy occupied the hierarchy of the Catholic church. While the church appointed Filipinos as parish priests, important positions like the archbishop of Manila were still held by non-Filipinos. After World War II, the Philippines became independent from the US, a political transition that increased the urgency of arguments to Filipinize religious orders. The reasoning was clear: Locals needed to take an active role in missionizing the country and the wider Asian region.

In 1957, six priests from different religious orders sent a memorial to the pope lamenting the inadequate number of trained Filipino clergy: “How can Catholic Philippines ever fulfill her providential mission in the Far East if the doors of the old religious orders and congregations do not really and sincerely open to admit and form native Filipino candidates?" The process was gradual, but by the 1970s, religious orders, schools, and the clergy in general became thoroughly Filipinized. It coincided with the martial law of President Ferdinand Marcos.

Indeed, in the latter half of the 20th century, the Catholic church played an important role as a public religion under Marcos's authoritarian regime. The president declared martial law in 1972 under the pretenses of countering an insurgency and the rise of Communists—justifications later found to be fabricated. Nevertheless, the Catholic hierarchy initially accepted the declaration, echoing the state mantra that “discipline was necessary for social progress.” But the situation grew only more severe: the police and military implemented a curfew and the government suspended the writ of habeas corpus, actions leading to various human rights abuses under the Marcos regime.

By the 1980s, parishes which had been organizing their respective communities to document and protest the excesses of military rule soon found themselves human rights abuse victims. Basic ecclesial communities in the countryside were harassed by the military and their religious leaders imprisoned. Some were even murdered. As the persecution carried on, the Catholic church was the only institution that could credibly contest the power of the state on behalf of the Filipino people. Religious leaders and lay people worked for the release of political detainees, operated alternative media, and preached against the military rule. In 1986, Cardinal Sin, the archbishop of Manila, made a radio broadcast calling on people to take to the streets to protest recent and allegedly fraudulent election results. The ensuing protest marked the beginning of the People Power Revolution that ultimately ended Ferdinand Marcos's long dictatorship.

A century of change?

What does the future hold for the Catholic church in the Philippines? While many religious scholars and pundits are convinced that Catholicism remains vibrant in the country, there are caveats to their optimism. Weekly church attendance among Catholic adults has fallen significantly from 64 percent in 1991 to 41 percent in 2017. This large drop in church attendance looks even grimmer when compared against other Christian groups. For instance, 7 in 10 Protestants and evangelicals attend church weekly. For Iglesia ni Cristo, weekly attendance among adults is 90 percent. While conversion to evangelicalism and Iglesia Ni Cristo has not been statistically remarkable, their media visibility is only growing and their political endorsem*nts increasingly sought.

To be sure, church attendance is not a definitive predictor when it comes to the future of religion. But these numbers are indicative of where the Catholic church stands in relation to religious instruction and come at a time when other studies have shown that parishioners are increasingly unhappy when their priests discuss politics. In the last decade, clergy argued against making artificial contraceptives freely accessible to the public. Despite vocal resistance from the clergy, nearly three-fourths of Filipinos favored the legislation, and the law was enacted in 2012. (The situation has likely grown more complex, given the recent tension between President Rodrigo Duterte and the Catholic hierarchy over the administration’s drug policy.)

In this sense, Roman Catholicism cannot rely on its past glory to carry itself forward. Religion involves piety, but that is just one part of it. When missionaries brought Catholicism to Filipinos, they radically altered their political, moral, and religious lives. Increasingly, however, Filipino Catholics are making a distinction between these different areas of life. The challenge, therefore, for the Catholic church—including its schools, parishes, and other institutions—is how to sustain religious influence.

The Filipino Catholic Church is at a crossroads. One solution may be taking the feedback of local theologians, like Rito Baring and Rebecca Cacho, who call for religious education through which “people are able to think critically and decide more wisely for themselves on issues affecting their lives.” Filipino Catholics are looking for a religious renewal that speaks to their daily realities. Will the church step up?

Jayeel Cornelio is a sociologist of religion at the Ateneo de Manila University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is the author of Being Catholic in the Contemporary Philippines: Young People Reinterpreting Religion. He is also the guest editor of the special issue of Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints dedicated to Filipino Catholicism. You can find him on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.

When Samira Izadi Page arrived in Dallas nearly two decades ago, she experienced a generous Texas welcome from a local Baptist church that provided her Iranian family a fully furnished apartment.

That first impression changed her life—setting her on the path to finally convert to Christianity, seek ordination in the Episcopal Church, and dedicate her career and ministry to refugees.

“My life has always been about being a bridge between two cultures,” said Page, founder of Gateway of Grace, a nondenominational nonprofit that has connected more than 90 Dallas congregations with refugee families in the area. “It’s not about me; it’s about God’s work. I see myself as just a bridge, a steward of what God is already doing.”

Plenty has changed in North Texas since 1999, when Page and her ex-husband arrived with their two sons, having made their way to the United States via Turkey and Mexico. Back then, Page had glimpses of the God of the Bible—a childhood dream of Mary that she could never forget, plus the Christian values gleaned from classic literature she read growing up in Iran—but hadn’t yet come to understand the gospel preached in churches in her new home.

In her first years in Dallas, the area was already booming with ethnic diversity; the region’s immigrant population had grown by two and half times (146%) between 1990 and 2000, according to US Census data. During the 21st century, the foreign-born and refugee population has continued to climb and, at times, become a source of political tension.

“When they learn about refugees, their big, Texas-sized hearts show up to help.”

The year before President Donald Trump took office, Dallas-Fort Worth resettled more refugees than any other US metropolitan area, according to US State Department data reported by The Dallas Morning News. Well over a third of the area’s refugees were from countries targeted by Trump’s ban, mostly Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

Polls showed that white evangelicals were twice as likely as Americans on average to support the new restrictions, while holding more negative views of their Muslim neighbors than members of other faith groups.

Despite the national view among evangelicals, and even the voices of prominent locals like Robert Jeffress, pastor at Dallas’s First Baptist Church, Page continued to see the same spirit of generosity among the city’s believers as those who first welcomed her.

“We didn’t have these issues that were so polarizing, but the people haven’t changed,” she said. “When they learn about refugees, their big, Texas-sized hearts show up to help.”

The key is making the connection between the gospel and their outreach. Gateway of Grace doesn’t offer a template or a one-size-fits-all program for congregations. Instead, armed with an MDiv from Southern Methodist University as well as her own doctoral research on how to ease Christians’ anxieties about refugees, Page teaches from Scripture on how God compels believers to love, serve, and care for displaced people.

After all, it was Matthew 25 that spoke most deeply to her when she ultimately came to faith in Christ, compelled by a God who urges generosity and sees our everyday needs. When she read the Bible’s words, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40), the former Shia Muslim encountered a Savior who “cares about the day-to-day struggles of the people and promises to bring healing, restoration, and dignity.”

Page couples Bible lessons with her own insights from growing up in Islamic culture and the Middle East. Sometimes she needs to remind people outright: Not all Muslims are terrorists or ISIS sympathizers, and refugees aren’t illegal immigrants; they’re here through sanctioned and vetted resettlement programs.

Ultimately, the city’s Christians—even in politically conservative, white congregations—connect with refugee families over common experiences big and small. Page has watched baby showers and Easter egg hunts and Thanksgiving dinners level cultural divides between Texas natives and Muslim refugees. But she’s also seen deeper connection forged, such as women from both faiths who open up about their experiences with domestic violence.

With God’s Spirit at work through the gospel, this kind of outreach, Page said, “can happen at churches anywhere, and it’s happening now in the center of the Bible Belt.”

World Relief, the National Association of Evangelicals’ humanitarian arm and a federal refugee resettlement agency, has observed similar openness among politically conservative Christians as Page has in Dallas.

According to Matthew Soerens, director of church mobilization, a bigger factor than living in a red state or blue state is whether or not a person knows refugees in their community. “If you’ve met a refugee—and that term evokes someone you know personally … —you’re unlikely to believe the rhetoric that refugees are a public safety threat,” he said.

Even with the slowed numbers of new refugees coming into the US, Dallas has enough to keep Gateway of Grace and Page’s hundreds of volunteers busy. In fact, the frustration over Trump’s policy actually drew attention to her ministry and has helped her connect with more churches and more refugees.

When I met Page for lunch at a busy café in Northwest Dallas in February, the 45-year-old bustled in wearing big, dark ringlet curls and a black capelet, coming straight from visiting a Muslim refugee in the emergency room. She tapped her phone with pointed, shimmering nails as it buzzed with updates about a new apartment complex they discovered that was filled with new arrivals in need of their services.

“What I love about Samira is that she leads with love and grace, meeting people just where they are to care for them,” said Brent McDougal, senior pastor of Cliff Temple Baptist Church, one of Gateway of Grace’s partner churches. “But as she develops relationships, it opens up conversations … where Jesus can be talked about.”

Gateway of Grace zeroes in on meeting practical needs rather than proselytizing but always makes it clear that Christian beliefs inspire their free services. Inevitably, the faith questions come up.

After one baby shower where a young refugee mom was presented with piles of brand-new gear, some of the once-hesitant Muslim attendees were impressed enough to say, “Give us your book,” wanting to know more about what their new Christian friends believed.

The constant curiosity led Page to launch a weekly Bible study and worship service. The Wednesday night gathering now draws around 70 attendees, both Christians from persecuted backgrounds and Muslims seeking to learn about Christ, and offers prayers in Arabic, Farsi, and English.

Buzzfeed credited her with helping Dallas become one of America’s most refugee-friendly cities, and she’s also been honored with local recognition and opportunities to teach and preach through the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas.

Gender has played a significant role in her Christian journey. Page sees a vast contrast between the notion of male rule she came to understand in a Muslim context and the biblical framing of wifely submission, since Christians teach that women and men are equal in dignity and equal heirs to the kingdom of God.

The more Page studied theology, starting with her master’s in 2010, the clearer she felt a call to ordained ministry, which ruled out traditions such as Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist. (Her husband is Baptist; the two met when he interviewed her on a local Christian radio station, KCBI.) In the Episcopal tradition and with Gateway of Grace, “God has given me a lot of favor with Christian leaders across denominations,” she said. “It has all been for his work.”

Her spiritual life looks so much different from her childhood, when she felt forced to study, pray, and fast to please God, only to be spun into cycles of guilt over her missteps. These days, Page trusts the Lord’s direction for her life and ministry, humbling seeing herself as a part of his bigger, ongoing work.

“No people on earth have moved from one place to another apart from God’s plans,” she said. “When we see the flux of refugees in our cities, we should be asking, ‘What is God up to? Do I want to be a part of God’s mission or not?’”

Her advice for Christians is straightforward: “If you are really concerned about the number of Muslims coming to America, love them. Share the gospel with them. Only Jesus can transform the hearts of Muslims.”