By Greg Cochran, ICC Fellow
Comedian and ventriloquist Edgar Bergen once quipped, “Hard work never killed anybody, but why take the chance?” Most of us probably resonate with the quote, preferring a workplace ethos that balances labor with congenial leisure. But the quote leads to a worthwhile question: Why do hard work?
For Christ followers, the answer to that question is shaped both biblically and practically. Biblically, the answer conforms to the original human mandate in Genesis 1-2. Humanity was created for good works. And the answer expands further into the redemptive hope displayed in 1 Corinthians 15. If hard work is both according to God’s will (Genesis) and in harmony with Christ’s redemptive purposes (1 Corinthians 15), then, as Paul says in that chapter, “our labor in the Lord is never in vain.”
These two realities — creation and redemption — guide Christians through their daily work. God is a worker, always working for the good of others and expecting his creatures to work for the good of the earth and the good of humans who dwell upon it. When humans work in this way, God gives assurances that their works will be rewarded with meaning, purpose, and future fruitfulness secured by Christ’s enduring power.
This brief theological treatise on work fits the occasion as International Christian Concern (ICC) has released a full report on Nigeria calling for the U.S. Department of State to designate Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern (CPC). For years, ICC has been pointing out the need for Nigeria’s inclusion on the CPC list (see here for example). This new report, titled “A Case for Nigeria’s Country of Particular Concern Status,” goes beyond the easily accessible data points. This report collates data from multiple sources with eyewitness accounts, personal testimonies, and official government documentation. In short, this report represents a heaping load of hard work. Work that was hard to gather, hard to hear, and hard to report. So, the question above is fitting: Why bother with such hard work?
Why dig through spreadsheets, highlight contrasting statistics, review multiple reports of the same incidents, read contradictory statements, interview witnesses, risk personal safety, and leave the security of America to find out firsthand what is happening in this African country? Why bother with such hard work to produce a report that few people might read?
Though it may lead to discomforting thoughts, asking this question is helpful, sobering, and clarifying. Most Americans will not take the time to review the report — its subject matter is seemingly too morose to merit their fleeting attention. The content doesn’t transfer to a 140-character zing on Twitter (or, um, X). And the photos won’t get feels on Instagram reels. Those shopping for thrills in the vanity fair of social media will fail to imagine the influence of a report on religious violence and intolerance in the Sahel region of West Africa. But that sad fact is no deterrent to doing the hard work.
For McKenna Wendt (the report’s principal author) and others who compiled the report, the audience is not the sole impetus for diving into such a dangerous ocean of difficult tasks. The motive is more simple: truth, justice, goodness, righteousness, and love for suffering people.
While most Americans may not read the report, some of us already have, and others certainly will. In America and around the world, millions still care about true freedom — the freedom of the soul to think, worship, and live for truth. The motive makes the difficulty of the work worth the effort. Put biblically, this “labor in the Lord is never in vain.”
But what about practical — is the work worth it, practically speaking? Skeptics may rebuff the notion. Practically speaking, the ICC report on Nigeria sounds the alarm on Western silence concerning violence in West Africa. The report specifically addresses the U.S. State Department, pleading for Nigeria’s inclusion on the CPC list. However, the CPC list itself has been a source of tension both internationally and domestically. Some question its efficacy.
The director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Arielle Del Turco, recently compiled a report assessing the efficacy of the CPC designation: Does it work?(1) As the report notes, the system isn’t perfect. From a practical perspective, placing countries on the CPC list often creates relational tensions, sometimes undermining negotiations with other countries. Thus, since President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, presidents have delegated the responsibility of publishing the list to the State Department.
According to Del Turco’s report, the State Department often blunts the force of the CPC designation, making it difficult to assess whether it has a positive effect on improving human rights and religious freedom. Del Turco points out three ways the State Department diminishes the effect of a CPC designation.
First, the State Department, by default, hesitates to add countries to the list. The absence of Nigeria from the list exemplifies such reluctance. The ICC report makes clear that Nigeria violates each aspect of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) and, thus, ought to be on the list:
“Section 6402(11) of IRFA elaborates on particularly severe violations that would warrant a CPC designation, including:
- Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment
- Prolonged detention without charges
- Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons
- Other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons
Despite hundreds of reports documenting the Nigerian government’s direct engagement or toleration of each of the violations above, the U.S. State Department failed to place Nigeria on its most recent list of CPC designations.”
Nigeria has been among the worst nations tolerating religious violence for more than a decade. Nigeria has maintained a persecution index score of “Very High” or “Extreme” for the past 10 years. Last year, Open Doors International estimated that 90% of religious-motivated murders occurred in Nigeria. Yet, Nigeria is not on the CPC list.
Second, not only is the State Department hesitant to put offenders on the list, but it’s also reluctant to add any penalties to the few that get placed on the CPC list. Instead of authorizing economic sanctions or other deterrents, the State Department tends to “double hat” nations on the CPC list. This means the department will find existing sanctions against these nations and double count the sanctions. Instead of adding more, the State Department tends to say that current sanctions suffice — effectively creating no additional negative consequences for the violent injustices.
How prevalent is the “double hatting” of sanctions? In 2019, 10 nations were placed on the CPC List. Of those 10, six were double-hatted. According to one policy analyst, the result of this procedure is that “no country designated as a CPC presently receives unique sanctions for committing religious freedom violations.”
Third, under the original passage of IRFA and the creation of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), presidents were given the authority to offer waivers. Waivers are put in place when national security interests — often confidential — override the need for sanctions and deterrents. According to Del Turco’s report, available data show that “most countries that have been designated a CPC since 1999 have received waivers.”
To summarize, the State Department hesitates to add countries to the list. Thus, the list tends to be one of repeat offenders — perhaps giving the impression that these nations are either worse than all other nations or that these are the only nations of concern. Neither point is true.
Further, most nations do not face additional consequences under the auspices of IRFA and the CPC list designation. The country either gets a waiver or has the sanctions double-hatted because of other sanctions already in place. So, back to the question: Is it worth the hard work of compiling this report in the hope that the State Department will add Nigeria to the CPC list?
Yes, practically speaking, the work is still worth the effort. Waivers and double hatting can be frustrating maneuvers. Yet these maneuvers are not defeaters. Instead, they point to the need for refinement. Perhaps the State Department is asking for additional tools rather than a one-size-fits-all censure. Congress already acted to improve the CPC listing procedure when they passed the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. This act sought to tighten the use of waivers and add a separate category called “Entities of Particular Concern” as a way of distinguishing State actors from non-government entities like terrorist groups. The point is not that the system is perfect but that a system exists to call injustice what it is — using truth to expose oppression. Those standing for justice commit to using and improving the tools available to them.
Is this work easy? Of course not. It’s hard. But it’s good. And it’s right. And those who care about others can take the long view of righteousness. This CPC system is only 25 years old in a nation whose history is ten times longer than that. Time is the arena for those of good faith to stay anchored in the eternal truths of justice and righteousness. Ultimately, this anchor will hold, and the hard work is worth a chance! Hard work will pay off and never be done in vain.
Please join ICC in exposing injustice and calling for righteousness in Nigeria, throughout the continent of Africa, and to the ends of the earth.
- Del Turco’s report is exemplary of other reporting on IRFA, USCIRF, and the State Department’s utilization of the CPC list (for other examples, see here and here.
To read more stories, visit the ICC Newsroom. For interviews, please email [email protected].
