Page 1995 – Christianity Today (2024)

Adekeye Adebajo’s The Curse of Berlin is a book whose final product is less than the sum of its parts. The deficiency is not due to any lack of ability or scholarship on the part of the author. As an Africanist, Adebajo is first-rate. A former Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, he is currently the Executive Director of the Center for Conflict Resolution in Cape Town; his knowledge of the continent’s policy and history is both deep and wide. His qualifications to write such an ambitious book cannot be questioned.

Rather, the book’s flaws come from a lack of organization and a myopic fixation on policy issues and political figures. Were each chapter published as a stand-alone essay in a journal, there’d be no problem. But as they are united in a book – and a book with a subtitle as expansive as “Africa after the Cold War” – they must be judged by a more extensive criteria. The final product taken from the synthesis of all the chapters ought to give us a comprehensive picture of contemporary Africa, not a picture whose focus is limited to policies and the people who make them. It is here that Adebajo’s treatment falls short.

The book begins with a chapter discussing the infamous Conference of Berlin, held in 1885 thanks to the work of Belgian King Leopold II and Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Adebajo begins by highlighting the many problems with the conference – its lack of African representation, the entitlement and superiority complex of the Europeans present, and the shocking ignorance about Africa shared by the delegates. He then introduces the book’s core thesis: The events of Berlin cursed Africa to almost a century and a half of poverty, theft, and foreign rule. As arguments go, it’s hard to contest. Yet Adebajo develops his argument in a curiously limited way, turning to a sometimes-haphazard selection of events and policies concerning post-colonial Africa.

Here, to be sure, his credentials as an Africanist are on full display. Adebajo explores a variety of different issues, such as expanding the UN Security Council, French policy in Africa, Nigeria and South Africa’s role as regional hegemons, American policy in Africa, and the diplomatic and economic relationship between South Africa and China. Indeed, it’s quite difficult to nail down any single area as Adebajo’s particular field of expertise. He writes well about economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, and a host of other issues – and he does so while making connections that would escape most scholars, such as his comparison of former Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah and former South African President Thabo Mbeki.

His treatment of the legacy of Nkrumah and his discussion of the UN’s role in Africa are especially useful and enjoyable. In his study of Nkrumah, Adebajo highlights the Ghanaian leader’s many strengths – his contributions to African political theory, his foreign policy vision, and his ability to combine great charisma with innovative thinking. Further, he does all this while not ignoring the other side of Nkrumah that became dominant later in his life, that of the paranoid reactionary. Most treatments of Nkrumah and the other first-generation African emancipators fall into the realm either of hagiography or character assassination. Adebajo’s more rounded presentation is thus a welcome departure.

He closes with a look at two foreign politicians bearing the fingerprints of Africa: American President Barack Obama and Indian revolutionary Mahatma Gandhi. His treatment of each frequently feels less like biography and more like a courtly introduction of a great hero, almost exclusively referring to Obama by his first name and adopting messianic language in his description of Gandhi. Yet, the section is not without its merits. Notably, he offers a more grounded and well-researched picture of Africa’s relationship with Obama than those offered by other writers, such as Dinesh D’Souza.

Unfortunately, the book suffers from a few significant shortcomings. Adebajo’s slippery use of language has already been alluded to above in his discussion of Obama and Gandhi, but that is not the only instance of his questionable use of language. Adebajo seems to have never met a biblical metaphor that he didn’t like or believe should be applied to Africa. One can lose track of the number of African leaders that he christens “prophets” at one point or another. Gandhi is hailed as “the greatest moral and political figure of the twentieth century,” “saintly,” “Jesus-like,” and is routinely referred to as “the Mahatma.” From a scholarly perspective, such language is problematic because it stacks the deck in how different characters are introduced.

But more important than the specific critiques leveled above, Adebajo never leaves the realm of policy debate. This focus on policy creates two problems: First, several of his proposals are dreadfully naïve. For example, in his chapter on the UN he proposes that Africa be given two permanent seats on the Security Council. On paper, it sounds like an excellent proposal. But who would fill those seats? The most likely candidates are Nigeria and South Africa, but Adebajo himself highlights why they may not be good choices in his chapters on both nations. In the epigraph to his chapter on Nigeria, he quotes Nigerian statesmen Adebayo Adedeji: “No country that is confronted with a long period of political instability, economic stagnation, and regression, and is reputed to be one of the most corrupt societies in the world, has a moral basis to lead others.” And South Africa, still living in the shadow of apartheid, would certainly be a less-than-ideal option. So if these two regional hegemons are not to be the permanent members, to whom will the UN (and Africa) turn? Ghana? Egypt? Kenya? Adebajo is unable to answer the question satisfactorily.

But the second problem with his policy focus is the most significant problem with the book. In The Sacrifice of Africa, Ugandan priest and Duke scholar Emmanuel Katongole offers an incisive and, so far, unanswered critique of books like Adebajo’s. Katongole rightly diagnoses the core problem facing postcolonial Africa: The African social imagination is broken. Africa’s way of understanding itself and its place in the world has been shattered by colonialism and the unrest, poverty, and war that has followed. As Katongole explains, contemporary Africa is an Africa still finding itself, trying to place itself in a story distinct from that of colonialism. Colonialism destroyed Africa’s social identity. Policy change is desperately needed, of course, but enacting the necessary changes will prove impossible until the colonialist story is finally buried.

Adebajo would, of course, agree wholeheartedly that Africa is still haunted by colonialism. Where the two thinkers differ is in how to address the legacy of colonialism or, as Adebajo dubs it, the curse of Berlin. To Katongole, colonialism is primarily understood as a story. Stories feature a setting, a plot, and characters. The characters of modern Africa live their lives within the confines created by the colonialist story, a story best summed up as how the few became wealthy through the institutionalized abuse of the many. In his assessment, Katongole is not alone. British historian Basil Davidson, hailed by many in Africa as the “white African,” made the same argument in The Black Man’s Burden. Nkrumah himself also spoke often of the less tangible aspects of colonialism that went beyond European political and economic domination. Indeed, that insight sat at the center of his pan-Africanism, a legacy that Adebajo seeks to uphold.

Yet in a book about “Africa after the Cold War” Adebajo never moves beyond discussions of politicians and policy. To be sure, political and economic control is assumed in the colonialism story, but the problem is far larger and defies simple policy fixes. This is why Adebajo’s particular policy proposals – the establishment of common markets in Africa, the remodeled Security Council, and so forth – are so problematic. They are excellent proposals, but the story in which those policy changes are being proposed is broken. Consequently, the policy changes are left suspended in midair without a grounding narrative, theoretically detached from the history of colonialism, but devoid of an alternative story in which to function. Would he push aggressively for a United States of Africa, as did Nkrumah? If so, how will Africa get there when the sole contemporary head-of-state favoring that view is Libyan pariah Mouammar Gaddafi? Would he argue for Katongole’s solution of locating Africa within the Christian story? Or would he suggest another solution? We never find out; Adebajo’s fascination with individual trees has caused him to neglect the forest.

The result is a book filled with a remarkable and accessible array of raw information about Africa after political emancipation and, particularly, after the Cold War. For its expansiveness, the book deserves strong consideration for first-year graduate students in the social sciences who haven’t yet decided on a more narrow focus of study. They won’t find a better introductory book for intelligent discussion of policy disputes in postcolonial Africa. But for all its expansiveness in terms of topics discussed and depth of knowledge of those topics, it is also characterized by an ironic limitation of vision, neglecting anything existing outside public policy and public figures. For that reason, The Curse of Berlin should be read only after Katongole’s superior The Sacrifice of Africa.

Jake Meador is a writer and editor living in St. Paul, Minnesota. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with an emphasis in African history. He blogs about African politics, history, religion, and other topics at Notes from a Small Place.

Copyright © 2011 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.

I sat in the chair with a sleeping baby on my lap. I held her close, and I prayed. I prayed about the things I wanted to be doing—responding to e-mail, taking a shower, writing an essay. And I admitted my fears to God: Those things feel so much more important than this. Yet I saw the lie I was succumbing to, and I looked once more at my daughter’s round face, and I prayed that I would have faith in the importance of holding my child.

It takes faith to be a parent. It takes faith for me to care for our three children day after day. It takes faith to believe that this 30-minute episode of crying, or this midnight, bleary-eyed feeding, or this time-out for hitting your sister, or this poopy diaper—that these will bear fruit. That they matter, and even eternally.

In the midst of dirty clothes and unmade beds and the daily scramble to get food on the table, I remembered a little book I read a few years ago. As I nursed our daughter, I re-read Kathleen Norris’s The Quotidian Mysteries: Laundry, Liturgy, and Women’s Work. The book itself is relatively old—published in 1998 after Norris gave the Madaleva Lectures at St. Mary’s College in Indiana—but the contents are timeless.

Its epigraph offers a definition: “Quotidian: occurring every day; belonging to every day; commonplace, ordinary.” My life right now feels very ordinary and very repetitive. I am tethered to a child who needs to eat every three hours, who relies on me as her sole source of nourishment. And it is easy to believe that the quotidian stuff of life is the meaningless stuff, the stuff that gets done only to be taken up again, the stuff that gets in the way of “real” work or play.

Norris considers the everyday stuff of life essential to who we are as human beings and as children of God. She draws a connection between the daily, repetitive tasks of cleaning and our daily relationship with God. “Each day brings with it not only the necessity of eating but the renewal of our love of and in God,” she writes. “This may sound like a simple thing, but it is not easy to maintain faith, hope or love in the everyday.” Norris notes that liturgy, the habitual practice of prayer and Bible reading, sometimes feels as rote and unwelcome as another load of laundry. And yet just as doing the laundry keeps our household in order, daily conversation with God, no matter how routine it might feel, brings order to our spiritual house.

Moreover, Norris contends, living within the rhythms of daily life is not only necessary for keeping order, it’s also necessary for our flourishing. She writes, “It is precisely these thankless, boring, repetitive tasks that are hardest for the workaholic or utilitarian mind to appreciate, and God knows that being rendered temporarily mindless as we toil is what allows us to approach the temple of holy leisure.”

Quotidian tasks—be they of housekeeping or a more devotional nature—open up space in our lives for creativity, for the gentle whispers of the Spirit to reach our ears. They enable us to let go of anxiety, to enter into God’s rest.

Norris also prescribes the quotidian as vessels of God’s healing. Beginning with the purely physical, she explains, “Shampooing the hair, washing the body, brushing the teeth … as simple as they seem, are acts of self-respect. They enhance one’s ability to take pleasure in oneself and in the world.” Simple acts of self-care counter depression, which Norris terms acedia, a word that denotes a lack of care. Again, the same can be said on a spiritual level, that engaging in daily habits of communion with God and God’s people enhances one’s ability to know and take pleasure in who God is.

This book offers me hope that the ordinariness of my life—both my life as a mother and housekeeper as well as a Christian—matters, that I am growing as a human being in and through washing dishes and sweeping the floor and reading through Genesis and saying the Lord’s Prayer one more time. But Norris insists that the quotidian mysteries—the mysterious ways that daily life can lead to transformation—extend beyond the self. She discusses the quotidian nature of marriage, and she asserts that God’s sanctifying work often (almost always) happens in the context of the very mundane daily work of relating to one another: “Paradoxically, human love is sanctified not in the height of attraction and enthusiasm but in the everyday struggles of living with another person. It is not in romance but in routine that the possibilities for transformation are made manifest.”

Jesus instructed us to pray for our daily bread. He reminded his disciples not to worry about tomorrow, for “each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34). God provided only enough manna to the Israelites for the day at hand. The Quotidian Mysteries helps me remember that our God is a God of the everyday, a God who comes into ordinary life, into my ordinary household, into my ordinary soul. And who—through the commonplace activities of cleaning and caring for children and distracted prayer—does the extraordinary work of healing my soul.

World Vision workers in Japan are doing what they can to help out in the wake of the tragedy while staying clear of the radiation zones, says a spokesperson for the Christian humanitarian organization.

World Vision has had a Japan office since the late 1980s, but it had never been intended for something like this.

“We had a presence, we had staff in Japan when this disaster hit,” says Amy Parodi, a media relations representative for World Vision. “Because Japan is a developed country, very high-functioning, quite wealthy, the office there is actually a lot more similar to our US office. It’s more focused on fundraising to fund programs that we do in developing countries.”

Fortunately, Parodi says, one of their top relief workers, Kenjiro Ban, lives in Tokyo.

“He’s done relief responses in Sudan, in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Haiti,” Parodi says. “This is what he does. He’s leading the effort now in his own country, which I’m sure is somewhat of a shock for him.”

World Vision’s assessment team has been surveying the earthquake areas this week. Relief workers are working with the government and taking care to keep clear of the danger zones for radiation.

“Right now World Vision has staff that sere serving the people who have been evacuated,” Parodi says. “Our expertise is not in nuclear response…we’re trying to figure out how many people to bring in, what level of risk to take, and trying to make sure we make really informed decisions so that we keep our staff safe as well.”

In this and other matters, World Vision is taking a lot of cues from the Japanese government.

“They know what they’re doing, they’re very organized, and really nobody in the world is as prepared to respond to an earthquake and a tsunami as Japan,” Parodi says, “Which really goes to illustrate how devastating this disaster was, because it couldn’t have hit a more prepared country.”

Because of this, some have been saying that people wanting to donate shouldn’t specify their funds for Japan so that aid organizations are able to make use of any monetary surplus. Parodi suspects that World Vision’s budget for Japan will not be as large as that for, say, Haiti; on that other hand, she says, that’s no reason not to give.

“I think we’re going to find that the need isn’t as high,” Parodi says, “It doesn’t mean the need isn’t there.”

The key to maximizing your contribution, she says, is to make sure the receiving entity has as much flexibility to utilize it as possible.

“That’s certainly up to people’s own giving preferences, but really for groups like World Vision, Red Cross, any of the other organizations that have work in many countries and do a lot of different kinds of work, The more choice you can give the organization to decide what’s best, the easier it makes the work.”

World Vision is accepting donations through WorldVision.org. You can also text “4japan” to 20222 to donate $10 through a cell phone bill.

“It’s such an opportunity for us to show Christ’s love through our work,” Parodi says. “People know, when they see our name, when they see the orange logo, they know that World Vision is Christian. When they see that we’re serving, they know that that’s coming in the name of Christ.”

Danny Pye, a Christian missionary to Haiti, was freed March 15 after being jailed without charge for 5 months.

“Around 6 pm he walked out of the jail,” said Annmaria Runion, Pye’s mother-in-law. Danny’s wife, Leann, is due with their second child March 27. She has been staying with her mother in Florida since January.

Runion said Pye is “in the air right now,” en route to Florida. His family, including his wife and 4-year-old daughter Riann, are eager to see him, Runion said.

He’s scheduled to land in Fort Lauderdale between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Thursday evening, said Martha Detalma, a family friend.

“Our prayers, tears, and words have been heard and responded with a YES!!” Leann Pye posted on her blog Wednesday. “Danny is free and is out of Jacmel spending some time with the kids. We will be unavailable until next week. Thank you all for your support and prayers. God is good!”

After his release, Pye briefly spoke to the Associated Press, and said he plans to return to Haiti “soon” to continue his work at a Jacmel orphanage. “It’s been an experience I’ll never forget,” he told the AP. “It’s a little surreal. … I sometimes wonder if it was all a dream.”

Haitian authorities agreed to release Pye without citing a reason or commenting, according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which said it had been working on Pye’s behalf for the past week. “The fact that he was detained and held for months in jail with no charges of any kind is very troubling and points to the fact that the judicial system in Haiti is badly in need of reform,” said the ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow.

Lady Gaga sums it up best in her newest hit, “Born This Way“: Whether you are alcoholic, gay, fat, liberal, promiscuous, or athletic, you can blame—or credit—your genes.

And now, in the case of the sports gene, you can even test your children to see whether or not they have the genetic aptitude for certain athletics. (Consider it long-term planning for the college scholarship search.) For the past few years, some parents have been availing themselves of a mail order do-it-yourself genetic test that indicates the presence of a gene variant linked to some athletic feats. For less than $200, the test can supposedly indicate whether or not your child has the genetic makings of a sprinter, jumper, kicker, lifter, or batter. The test centers on the gene ACTN3, known as the “speed gene,” which influences production of a protein involved in certain muscle activity. Knowing a child’s genetic predisposition for certain athletic qualities (or lack thereof) is seen by some parents as a way to channel their children to the activities in which they are genetically predetermined to have the most success.

Scientists, physicians, and other experts are rightly concerned about the tests, arguing that it’s better to allow children to develop their skills and pursue their passions regardless of genetic makeup. A commentary published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association cautions physicians, “In the ‘winning is everything’ sports culture, societal pressure to use these tests in children may increasingly present a challenge.”

Besides, researchers say, the genetics behind athletic ability are much more complex than the appearance of one particular variant. Apparently, most people have this gene variant, linked to “explosive force,” but obviously most people don’t become high-performing athletes. On the other hand, one researcher pointed to an Olympic long jumper who lacks the protein, thus demonstrating that athletic success arises from much more than what’s in the genes.

In some respects, there’s nothing new here. The nature vs. nurture debate is as old as scientific research itself. And as far back as Gregor Mendel’s experiments in the 19th century, we’ve had a basic understanding of some inherited characteristics, whether in peas or humans, well before the discovery of the genetic code in the 1960s.

Yet with each new discovery of a something-or-other gene, our modern tendency is to seek refuge in the cave of fatalism. (Perhaps there’s a gene for that.) Indeed, biological determinism is becoming the Holy Grail for understanding our present conditions, explaining our pasts, foreseeing our futures, and explaining complex, real-life problems using mere biological phenomena. Just yesterday, a team of Louisiana researchers announced a study that links good exercise to DNA snippets called single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. The study, part of “exercise genetic research,” attempts to explain why aerobic workout routines benefit certain people while leaving others unaffected.”

The discovery of genes linked to moral behaviors presents a challenge to Christians attempting to accommodate new scientific knowledge to biblical teaching. Take, for example, the longest-standing and most controversial of these debates on the role of genetic determination: hom*osexuality. The idea that hom*osexuality is not a choice has become the prevailing meme for just about everyone except religious conservatives. And the debate has now transcended a dichotomy of gays vs. God. Even Lady Gaga’s song declares a dissolution of the longstanding conflict between God and hom*osexual behavior: “It doesn’t matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M … ’cause God makes no mistakes.” Evidence suggesting the possibility of a genetic link to hom*osexuality is taking what’s been considered a moral issue out of the moral realm.

But with the addition of a non-moral issue such as athletic propensity into the mix, a new challenge, as well as an opportunity, arises. If genes can ultimately be linked to a whole range of human behaviors—from the amoral (physical strength and speed, obesity) to the moral (hom*osexuality, promiscuity) to behaviors in between (risk-taking, alcoholism)—then we come full circle and find ourselves face-to-face with a moral choice again. We must either throw in the free-will towel altogether, or go back to the drawing table and figure out what it means to be moral agents, genetic dispositions notwithstanding. And we must identify which human behaviors still manifest the moral dimension of the human condition.

For, despite some thinking to the contrary, these genetic discoveries do not negate biblical teaching. Instead, they illuminate the truths of Scripture in a new and powerful way. If indeed I have the genes not only for left-handedness and blue eyes but for risk-taking, too, and if I lack the “sports gene” (oh, what embarrassment that gene test might have spared me in junior high!), then this only confirms the truth of the psalmist’s prayer: “You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-14).

And what of Paul’s lament? “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate, I do. … As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me” (Rom. 7:15-17). Whether sin literally resides in the genes or not, Paul truthfully confesses that sin is living in him, as it is in all of us.

And in the middle of this passage from Romans are these words: “And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.” God’s law is good, not only when we abide by it, but even when—especially when—we don’t.

Are we predisposed to sin, genetically or otherwise? Absolutely. But God has determined a way to freedom, and that way originates not in the genes but in the Genesis.

Karen Swallow Prior is associate professor of English and Chair of the English and modern languages department at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. She writes regularly for the CT women’s blog.

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Earlier Christianity Today articles on genetics include:

Chasing Methuselah | Exercise, technology, and diet help us live longer than ever. Should those who look to eternal life care? (December 20, 2010)

Adultery: My Genes Made Me Do It | Research like the kind in For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage runs the risk of reducing people to brain chemistry and DNA (May 19, 2010)

Problems with Do-It-Yourself DNA Tests | Consumers don’t just need information about their genes; they also need medical and theological wisdom. (May 14, 2010)

I Want to Be Accepted As I Am, But I’ll Take a Cure Too | Why we should consider correcting disabilities. (February 15, 2010)

Ignorance as Blessing | Foreknowledge: for God and not for us. By Collin Hansen (December 2008)

Re-engineering Temptation | Fuzzy science sparks debate over treatments to reverse hom*osexuality. (April 9, 2007)

When Backward Is Forward | Christmas may be the best argument against genetic enhancement. By Andy Crouch (December 2004)

The Christian DNA of Modern Genetics | Though open to frightening ethical abuse, genetics has been a Christian vocation since Gregor Mendel did his famous pea-plant experiments in the mid-nineteenth century (December 2002)

The Genome Doctor | Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, answers questions about the morality of his work (October 2001)

The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene (October 4, 1999)

First Lady Michelle Obama continues to campaign for her “Let’s Move” initiative, which aims to help parents and caregivers decrease childhood obesity in the United States. Over the last three decades, the level of obesity double among preschool children and tripled for school aged children, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly one in five school-aged children are obese.

Some conservatives, including former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, have criticized Obama’s effort as a big-government solution. However, other Republican leaders, including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, defended the First Lady’s efforts saying that the public should work to decrease childhood obesity rates.

A February 22-March 1 poll suggested that evangelicals were suspicious of government efforts on childhood obesity. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press asked 1,504 adults, “Should government have a significant role in reducing childhood obesity?” Among evangelicals, 56 percent said that government should not have a significant role. Among non-evangelicals, 35 percent said this.

Evangelicals composed the only religious tradition that had a majority saying government should not play a significant role on this issue. Mainline Protestants were split over the question but leaned toward a stronger government role. A vast majority of Catholics, Black Protestants, and those with no religion said government should have a significant role to play.

Whether this means that a majority of evangelicals would side with Palin over Huckabee on the issue depends on what is meant by a “significant role” for government. Both Huckabee and Obama said that parents are responsible for children, but that government can provide information to help them.

Huckabee interviewed Michelle Obama on his February 21 Fox News show. He asked Obama about criticisms by some that her proposals were going to lead to a nanny-state.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of experts about this issue, and the one thing that they haven’t said is that government telling people what to do is the answer. This is not government intervention,” said Obama. “This is not an initiative that is about telling people what to do. It’s giving people the tools to make the decisions that make sense for them.”

>After the interview, Huckabee said he angered some conservatives by having the First Lady on his show. Speaking to talk show host Sean Hannity, Huckabee said that he disagrees with the administration on many issues but not the efforts to curb childhood obesity.

“No doubt [President Obama is] way left of you and me. No doubt about that. But, on this issue, I think the first lady is right,” said Huckabee. “And she is not taking a leftist position on it. And the conservatives are going to immediately say, ‘Oh, we’re against this.’ They need to listen and be part of the solution.”

Huckabee is not new to the issue of obesity—personally or politically. As governor of Arkansas, he made national news for losing over 100 pounds and implementing policies designed to improve childhood nutrition. During his time in office Arkansas was the only state to reduce its level of childhood obesity, Huckabee says.

The First Lady has reached out to religious groups to help fight childhood obesity. In November, her office and the Department of Health and Human Services Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships announced “Let’s Move Faith and Communities” that encourages groups to work on improving childhood obesity. The center provides atoolkit for groups on ways to improve nutrition and exercise among children.

Speaking to religious and community leaders, Michelle Obamasaid, “You all play a vital role in so many aspects of people’s lives: offering counseling on family matters, providing comfort and guidance in times of crisis, being there for folks during some of the most important moments of their lives. All of you know how to empower people. That’s why you all have an important role to play on an issue you know is near and dear to my heart. You all know how serious a problem this is.” In February, she marked the one-year anniversary of the campaign at Andy Stanley’s megachurch.

Editors Note: The Pew Research Center for People and the Press (Pew) provided Christianity Today with a religious breakdown of questions from the poll. However, Christianity Today is responsible for all analysis and interpretation of the results. Pew identifies evangelicals as white, non-Hispanic Protestants who described themselves as “born-again or evangelical.” Around one-fifth of Americans are evangelicals by this definition. The margin of error for this subsample is around seven percentage points. The results are descriptive; religious differences could be due to partisanship, ideology, income, or other factors.

Discussion Starter: Hospitality

As debates over mosque construction plans continue to make headlines, churches are asking how to reach out as new religions come to town. Heartsong Church in Tennessee and Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Virginia have hosted Muslim worship communities in their church buildings, prompting the question of how much hospitality is too much.

"The community is our parish; letting faith provoke us into creating a more just, peaceful community is another form of worship. I believe concerns about sacred-profane worship space are always in submission to Jesus' command to welcome the stranger and love our enemies."

Jason Micheli,

pastor, Aldersgate United Methodist Church

"The church is a people, not a building. No place in the teaching of Jesus or the New Testament refers to the church as a place. The church is the faithful who spend life with Jesus together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There is no space that is more sacred than any other on earth in itself."

Steve Stone,

pastor, Heartsong Church

"Evangelicals are notoriously vague about what constitutes our sacred spaces. Whatever a congregation actually decides to do, the very question can be an important teaching moment. What does it mean to set apart a specific space for the worship of the true God?"

Richard Mouw,

president, Fuller Theological Seminary

"While we desire to reach out at a personal level with love, it's not wise to ignore the spiritual realm. Before you do, stop, think, pray, and seek the Lord's discernment, because there are spiritual forces in these divergent theologies aligned against the very truth we preach."

Mark DeYmaz,

directional leader, Mosaic Church

"Other faiths have used our church's coffeehouse for casual meetings, as that is public missional space. But we don't rent our space for formal meetings of other faiths in our sanctuary."

Dan Kimball,

pastor, Vintage Faith Church

"Christians need to be stalwart advocates for religious freedom while not succumbing to the temptation of religious pluralism. People should be free to worship according to their convictions, but it's necessary to recognize that Christianity is not the same as other world religions."

Ed Stetzer,

president, LifeWay Research

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Scholar Jason Hood wrote as piece on this topic called "Muslims in Evangelical Churches" for CT's website in January with a response from pastor Steve Stone.

Earlier articles on Islam include:

The Son and the Crescent | Bible translations that avoid the phrase "Son of God" are bearing dramatic fruit among Muslims. But that translation has some missionaries and scholars dismayed. (February 4, 2011)

From Informant to Informer | The "son of Hamas" senses God in his life before coming to Christ. (June 8, 2010)

Bloggers Target Seminary President | Liberty's Ergun Caner accused of false statements in his testimony about converting from Islam. (May 3, 2010)

Previous topics for discussion included whether Christians are stingy, Christians should resist the TSA, Christians should ban Christmas carols with questionable theology, when life begins, whether Christians should denounce believers who vilify others, Christians must pray in public forums using Jesus' name, whether they have a responsibility to have children, whether churches should increase their 2011 operating budgets, a Protestant-less Supreme Court, Mother's Day worship, incorporating churches, whether evangelicals are doing a good job at racial integration, whether Christians should leave the American Medical Association, the most significant change in Christianity over the past decade, whether the Supreme Court should rule that memorial crosses are secular, multisite campuses vs. church plants, and whether Christians should fast during Ramadan with Muslims.

Check it out.

As we continue to pray for, worry about, and send aid to Japan in the midst of their crisis, I can’t help but be reminded of Godzilla, the classic 1954 monster film that in some ways is comparable to current events. Like the tsunami, Godzilla was a devastating creature who rose from the sea, trampled everything in sight, and wreaked havoc on the land and its people. There was a nuke angle as well: The giant creature was born from nuclear materials, a mega-mutation from atomic radiation, with radioactive breath, no less. The parallels between that film and Japan’s current crisis are eerie, as evidenced in the original Japanese trailer

But here’s where the parallels end: Godzilla wasn’t merely a “force of nature”; he was an imaginary product of American nuclear devastation. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still fresh in Japanese minds, and writer/director Ishiro Honda came up with a film that is more cultural commentary than it is monster movie. A recent New York Times editorial, titled “Japan’s Long Nuclear Disaster Film,” notes that in 1954, Japanese audiences reportedly watched the film “in somber silence, broken by periodic weeping.”

The anti-nuke message of the film means little today, of course, when Japan, which powers one-third of its electricity with nuclear power, is struggling to prevent a meltdown crisis. If only the fictional Godzilla were real today – over the course of the films, he actually changed “sides” and became a defender of Japan. Perhaps he could think of a way to protect them from the meltdown. But in his absence, Japan’s nuclear officials and engineers – with offers of help from around the world – are scrambling to contain the mounting threat.

Meanwhile, Hollywood is considering the plight of one of its greatest sources of revenue. According to a story in yesterday’s LA Times, Japan is the No. 1 foreign market for Hollywood films, generating $2.5 billion in box office receipts last year, $700 million ahead of No. 2 foreign market France. The story reports that “Hollywood studios are undoubtedly counting on Japan to play an important role in the success of their big budget summer tentpoles such as Kung Fu Panda 2, Green Lantern, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” The story says that Hollywood execs are now reconsidering their release plans, depending on how quickly the nation recovers.

The recovery may take some time, and along the way, Japanese people may or may not be interested in going to the movies. Something as trivial as a movie seems like the last thing you’d want to do if you’ve lost loved ones, your home, and more. On the other hand, trends show that people sometimes flock to the movies to escape the harsh realities of life, so it’s hard to say how our friends in Japan might react in the weeks and months – and maybe years – ahead.

In the meantime, at least one American film distributor is moving forward with plans to show a movie in Japan: Campus Crusade for Christ, which for decades has shown the evangelistic film Jesus to billions of viewers around the world. Japanese Campus Crusade teams are already on the ground, as staff and volunteers deliver aid, food, and more to the displaced and the devastated. The ministry’s Japanese teams are asking for 50,000 DVDs of the Jesus film (in Japanese, of course) to share with their countrymen.

When I first heard about this, I thought it was a bit tacky – because while there are people all over the world who certainly need Jesus, what the Japanese need right now is food, shelter, warmth, medical aid, and comfort. But there are so many with no place to go, nothing to do, but just sit and wait for help to come. And as noted before, hurting people often like to escape to the movies; why not show a film that offers the greatest hope of all? Between that and knowing that the Japanese teams are asking for the film – and the decision isn’t just being made at CCC’s Orlando headquarters – I’m good with it. (If you’re interested on donating to help get those DVDs to Japan, click here.)