Theology for Women

Last week I wrote about the Newsweek opinion piece on gay marriage, and since that time Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, responded to the article on NPR. The interview with Mohler was conducted in a dialogue format between Mohler and Lisa Miller, the author of the article. I am posting it today because it serves as a great example of how we should respond in the face of this debate.

Click here to listen to the interview.

Notice that Mohler is passionate about his points, but he is controlled by truth, not by emotion. He does not attack Miller or even go so far as to belittle her arguments (which would have been easy). Instead, he relates to her as a fellow human being who was created in the image of God, and a fellow human being who struggles with sin no more than he.

And he does all of this confidently yet without arrogance. Mohler is clearly the scholar of the two, but rather than allow his knowledge to feed his pride and dominate his opponent, he stands back and lets the truth defend itself. It was not Mohler’s prerogative to change her mind, but to faithfully transmit the teachings of Scripture. He therefore spoke as a man who did not have such a heavy burden to bear.

Rarely do I hear Christians speak about this issue with both truth and love, so I hope you will listen to this interview and learn from it. He speaks to them in kindness, grace, and understanding, not for the sake of acceptance, but to guard the integrity of the Gospel. I pray that Mohler’s example represents the future of Baptists in America. It would be a welcome and much needed change. It may also mean that we continue to be hated, but only because we’re standing for an uncomfortable truth–not because we’re being jerks about it.

My pastor and I have an on-going debate about whether or not the media is lopsidedly liberal. I am convinced that he’s overly paranoid, and he’s convinced that I’m hopelessly naive. This debate will probably never end.

However, I had to concede a point to him this week when I came home to my copy of Newsweek. What I found inside was so absurd that I almost laughed.

On the front cover of the magazine was an article entitled “The Religious Case for Marriage.” Below it was a picture of the Bible with a rainbow bookmark sticking out the bottom. Intrigued, I opened up the publication and began to read.

What I found was some of the sloppiest Scriptural interpretation that I have ever read. It was so off-base and and biased that I’m surprised Newsweek would even publish it as responsible journalism.

If you care to read it yourself, click here.

Now as much as I disagree with the author’s underlying agenda, it is her method that bothers me the most. I have never witnessed such a blatant twisting of Scripture to fit one’s own agenda. Her arguments are so academically hollow that a first semester seminary student with only an introductory level of Greek could easily level her claims.

And that’s not to mention her own self-defeating arguments. She argues that Scripture cannot be trusted for a reliable account of marriage, but then appeals to Scriptural teachings about love to support the practice of gay marriage. So which one is it? Is Scripture a reliable authority, or is it not?

Ok, so I’m clearly really frustrated by this article, but that is not my reason for writing now. As much as I’m really annoyed by the fact that this article does not represent responsible journalism (and I’ll admit it, I am optimistic about the media–I do believe some people in the media are still trying to report the truth, and this was NOT an example of it), I have another motive for posting this blog.

I suspect that this article was more an attempt to generate sales through sensationalism than a sincere stab at serious reporting, but this article nevertheless impresses upon Christians an urgency to know why we believe what we believe. It is not enough to hear an argument like the one in Newsweek and emotionally respond, “That’s not what the Bible says!” You need to know how and why that’s not what the Bible says. You must be able to defend your point. This means studying historical, cultural, linguistic and Scriptural contexts so that you can defend Scripture when someone uses it irresponsibly.

I know that sounds hyper-academic and you’re probably thinking that’s an unrealistic expectation to have for the non-seminary and pastor types, but it’s really not as hard as it sounds. It means that you read Scripture with intention.

Don’t simply read the Bible for daily encouragement, read it to know what it actually says. When you come across a culturally charged term like “homosexual” or “submission,” stop and look at the larger passage. Figure out how it fits into the chapter, the book, and the Bible on the whole. If you have a study Bible, read the footnotes. Try to discern why Scripture warns against certain practices and encourages others, rather than just accepting it as fact. Read Scriptural commands with the same amount of scrutiny that you’d expect from your non-Christian friends.

When you arm yourself with knowledge, you prevent yourself from becoming culturally irrelevant. You keep from forfeiting your right to participate in the discussion. And as women, that is a practice we have long over-looked and under-valued, but we cannot afford to do so any longer. After all, this article was written by a woman.

However, I cannot close without a reminder about presenting your case in love. Not only will it help people to receive your perspective, but it will set you apart–this article came just short of name-calling. She compared religious conservatives to slave owners. We should not sink to that level.

But even more importantly, we must present our perspectives in love because logic often misses the point. More often than not, these arguments are not founded on purely philosophical or logical grounds. They are instead an issue of the heart, something that individuals care deeply about. And therein lies our primary target–people’s hearts. If we are master apologists but terrible at loving people, we will accomplish little. It is the heart, not the mind, that needs changing.

That said, be sure to arm yourself with knowledge, but also arm yourself with love. Combined, we will be able to stand for truth, but we will do it in a language that the world can actually understand.

Christian reality t.v. is here.

(I know you’re breathing a huge sigh of relief. Finally!)

I discovered this last night when Dateline did a story about it. And I don’t really know why I was surprised. Christian music and media has consistently lagged behind mainstream culture by about 10 to 20 years, so I should have been expecting this. It was about time.

This new trend has come about in response to the trash that we find on most reality shows today. The folks at the Gospel Music Channel decided to provide a better, more edifying alternative, and they now air two shows aimed at that end. One is called “The Uprising” and it’s about a handful of Christian skateboarders who use their influence for the Gospel. The second show is entitled “Revolve: Rockin the Road,” and it follows a touring event for teen girls that features speakers and Christian artists .

(Fun fact: one of the main characters of the second show is Jenna Lucado, daughter of Max Lucado)

To give you a taste of what this new genre is like, here’s a preview for the season finale of Revolve:

Now contrary to what you might expect, I’m not gonna be a hater. Yes, it frustrates me that Christian culture is always behind the mainstream by such a tremendous extent, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon these mediums. They can still be valuable tools for evangelism. In particular, the skateboarders have a platform that not all Christians can access. I want to affirm that.

However, the Dateline feature indirectly highlighted an important point about this trend–it’s just another example of Christians mimicking cultural innovations, and at a horribly delayed timing. We take popular cultural phenomena, and we Christianize them. Which ironically seems to make them worse.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with Christianizing music, art, or even television. However this does remind us of one unsettling reality: Christians are consistently downstream of culture.

We should be uncomfortable with this fact, because downstream is not our place. We shouldn’t be following the culture’s lead–the culture should be following ours.

As one professor at Fuller Seminary explained, “We should not be imitating the culture, but leading it. If we’re connected with the Creator God of the Universe, then we should be the MOST innovative and the MOST creative individuals in our culture.” We should be harnessing God’s infinite creativity in a way that causes people to stop, take notice, and be inspired.

But this doesn’t happen, does it? In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

Rather than earn respect, Christians have earned mockery, not because we’re taking a stand for the Gospel, but because we offer a sub-par Christian version of everything the culture dreamed up long before. Our engagement of the culture might be great for Christians, but not at all compelling for non-Christians.

But why is that? Two mains reasons:

1. Christians don’t see their jobs and their talents as a calling. A lot of Christians believe that if you’re not a minister, then you don’t have the same kind of divine call on your life. This is a lie. If you’re an investment banker, an interior designer, a publicist, or a secretary, you all have the same call on your life–work for the glory of God.

And this doesn’t simply mean that you should be an ethical person who works hard and sets a good example. It also means that you need to dream up new ways to glorify God with your talents. Take your job to the next level and call on God for the kind of imaginative ideas that would set you apart in your field, for His glory.

2. Christians don’t think. This statement is not universal, but in all belief systems there is a temptation to simply do what you’re told. That is the nature of religion. You listen to what your minister, rabbi, or imam tells you so that you can be a good little religious person.

But such blind obedience does not stimulate creativity. It stifles it. We should not expect to contribute great thinking and ideas to our world if we never ask questions or challenge ourselves in the most important area of our lives. That kind of “bigger picture” mentality begins with your faith, but it should carry over into your work as a result. Don’t just do what your boss tells you–do more, and dream more. This too glorifies God.

Let’s be the trend-setters. Let’s resolve to position ourselves upstream instead of down. Our credibility in this culture is at stake. But don’t hear me as saying that we should judge ourselves according to the world’s wisdom instead of God’s. I’m saying just the opposite. Our problem is that we’re doing the exact same thing as the culture, only worse.

The solution is not to keep up with the culture, but to create categories of innovation that the culture has not even dreamed up yet.

If we ever hope to offer anything more than a Christianized regurgitation of cultural trends and ideas, then we need to rise up in our individual realms of influence and start taking the lead. That begins with you.

Forty years ago Pope Paul VI released a statement on contraception that, looking back, was stunningly prophetic.

The essay, entitled Humanae Vitae (”Of Human Life”), was written at a time in American history when contraceptive pills were becoming very popular. Women across the country were celebrating their newfound freedom as the history of American sexuality turned a new page.

The Catholic Church, however, was singing a different tune. Unlike the many women who rejoiced over the changing cultural tides, the Pope raised a voice of concern–a concern that we can now see was completely warranted.

Although the Catholic Church’s position on contraception has been debated among Christians (Catholics put a heavy priority on the procreative purpose of sex,whereas many other Christians do not), there is one point on which the Pope was completely right.

If only we’d listened.

What follows is an excerpt from Humanae Vitae in which Pope Paul VI projects the cultural implications of contraception. His predictions could not have been more accurate, and I have posted this today because of the profound impact it has had for women since:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Did you get that?

FORTY YEARS AGO, Pope Paul VI predicted the exact situation that we find ourselves in today. He warned that the practice of hormonal contraception would divorce the responsibility of sex from the act of sex. He also feared that, as a result of this divorce, men would no longer need to guard the sanctity of sex, thereby leading them to treat women and sex in a recklessly casual way.

And his fears came true.

Sex without consequences. That is what the contraceptive revolution bought our country. And what do you think happens when we cheapen the price of a costly good? We no longer value it quite so highly.

Pope Paul VI was exactly right.

So while the contraceptive pill seemed like a gateway to women’s freedom and a means for valuing the female life even more, it instead devalued women, giving men the freedom to use them for sexual gratification without weighing the implications of their actions.

Now I write all of this not as a diatribe against the practice of contraception, but to caution us about considering the ideological impacts of the decisions we make. Just because science develops a solution to making our lives easier or providing us with a convenient short-cut does not mean we should embrace it.

Whenever we seek to relieve ourselves of divinely placed forms of accountability and responsibility, we forget that God created those measures for our own protection. Sex is about more than just procreation, but the fact that sexual intercourse leads to the birth of a new human life should cause us to approach the act of sex soberly and reverently.

While the contraceptive pill can’t take all the blame for the objectification of women and the number of absent fathers in our nation, it certainly played its own part. In a consumer-driven culture that wants what it wants right now, we have taken a thousand tiny steps in the wrong direction, and those tiny steps add up to a society that has wandered horribly off the path of truth.

No, the contraceptive pill is not, in itself, an evil, but blank-check contraceptive practices do not coincide well with a Scriptural view on marriage, family and sex. It is time we start examining why. I hope you will ask yourself that question.

Today my heart is overcome with joy for my African-American brothers and sisters. Whether or not you agree with the policies of President-elect Barack Obama, one thing is for sure–yesterday’s election was a monumental moment in our nation’s history. It brought us one step closer to healing the wounds our nation has inflicted upon African-Americans throughout our history. And for that, I am deeply grateful. 

Having said that, there is a language about Presidential elections that I find a bit worrying: this language of “hope.” We’ve heard it a lot in reference to both McCain and Obama, but I was particularly struck by it last night when I heard Oprah make the following statement during an interview,

“With Obama’s election, we can finally have hope in this country.”

(Interestingly, she then proceeded to cite some Scripture. It would seem that her theology and her politics are getting a bit conflated.)

Now as theologically problematic as I found her comments to be, I have to admit that I sympathize with Oprah’s position. There have been many moments in America’s history when we (Christians included) have stolen away hope from our nation’s minorities. And given that history, Obama’s election signals the beginning of a new era for African-Americans, an era that seems far less hopeless and impossible than it did before.

However, we must also be cautious about such language. Why? Because there is a temptation to speak about our political leaders using words that mirror Scriptural language about Christ.

If a person does not know Christ, then such language of promise, expectation and everlasting hope is to be expected, but it is not the kind of language or ideology that disciples of Christ should be espousing.

It is for that reason that we must continually ask ourselves the following crucial question, a question which quickly diagnoses the state of our hearts:

“Who is your king?”

Like the Israelites in 1 Samuel 8, we are constantly faced with choosing between an earthly king or a heavenly One. That is why the language we use for Christ is so frequently co-opted to describe worldly leaders. There is a very real temptation there. What’s more, there are many, many kings to choose from…some not as obvious as you may think.

The way we talk about our politicians and our pastors can reveal the identity of our true king. Yet the king of your heart will not always necessarily be a person. When we are enslaved to popularity, success, body image–these can just as easily set up monarchies in our hearts.

The way you live, what drives you, what you center your life around–all these things reveal the identity of your true king. And that is why you must constantly ask yourself “Who is my king?” When someone looks at your life and listens to your words, which king would they suppose you follow?

We must ask ourselves that question every day, not simply this week. The Presidential election may highlight this spiritual issue more clearly, but the reality is that we submit ourselves to earthly rulers every single day.

Live the kind of daily life that would lend an obvious answer if someone were to ask: “Who is your king?” Not only are your freedom and joy at stake, but the reputation of the True King as well.

I really debated over whether or not to write this blog.

In general, I don’t like to weigh in on political issues. It’s such a distraction from the things that really matter–namely, the Gospel. Government, politicians, and even policies that reflect Christian values–all these things can quickly become idols that supplant Christ.

Even so, I decided to throw in my two cents because there is an important tension within the Christian life that warrants some acknowledgment. While Scripture does push the Church to take on the burdens of the world instead of depending on the government to do our work for us, Scripture ALSO sets a precedent in which Christians are permitted to use worldly means to accomplish social and spiritual change.

For example, in the book of Acts we see Paul use the Roman political system for his own personal gain. Throughout his life, Paul spoke before government officials and appealed to the Roman justice system to protect himself when threatened with imprisonment.

Given this precedent, we learn that there are times when it is permissible to use the government to further the Gospel and the good of humankind. God created government as a means for maintaining justice in this world, so it is important that we hold the government accountable for its God-given role.

That said, we do not betray our calling or the Church’s mission when we vote. By voting, we aren’t simply handing our dirty work over to the government (though we sometimes want to), but instead offering an important perspective to a system that could use direction.

But having said that, PROCEED WITH CAUTION. It is easy to get caught up in the division that defines the political arena. And Republicans are not the only ones who create this division with faith–Christian Democrats and Republicans alike have a tendency to be excessively judgmental, painting pictures in vast generalizations and vilifying the opposing side.

This is unacceptable behavior of brothers and sisters in Christ. Do not allow yourself to succumb to this temptation.

As Christians, there is one thing, and one thing alone, that we can be sure of, and that is the Gospel. You could be wrong about McCain, and you could be wrong about Obama, but you are not wrong about Christ. And having said that, there is only one man in this world who deserves the unflinching devotion and trust that we so willingly give to mere men.

So while you listen to the candidates preach about change, remember that there’s only One who can affect real change in this world. We can vote for laws and regulations every single year, but our country will not change its direction until Americans experience a change of the heart. Get behind the man who can do that.

So yes, vote. Definitely vote. But you won’t find the man who fits the above job description on the ticket this Tuesday.

With the recent nomination of Sarah Palin for Republican VP, the feminist movement has taken a very unexpected turn. 

On the one hand, she’s taking a giant step forward for women. She speaks of breaking the glass ceiling and she’s aspiring to hold a political position that no women has ever before attained.  

And in an even more shocking turn of events, we are now hearing Conservatives use language that has traditionally been attributed to feminists. They argue that anyone who questions Palin’s candidacy in light of her family responsibilities is a blatant sexist. Conservatives also point out that no one ever asks Barack Obama that question, so they firmly defend Palin’s equal right to political opportunity.  

Yet traditional feminists are befuddled, if not frustrated by Palin. Why? Because she is a new breed of feminist, opposing many of the views that feminism has typically held. She is not pro-choice, and she does not support same-sex marriage. She is a Conservative, and she promotes an ideology that feminists have historically assumed to be inherently anti-woman.  

Such a development is fascinating, as well as enlightening. It reveals that the feminist movement has not represented women nearly as holistically as they have claimed. Rather, it has represented a particular brand of women, a brand that excludes a large portion of women in America today. 

But how did this come to be? In their quest to further the cause of women, how have feminists divided women? The answer is quite simple–they have done so by committing the same crime that they sought to amend. In response to a brand of womanhood that was seen as narrow and oppressive to women, they sought to redefine womanhood, but they redefined it in just as narrow a category as their predecessors.  

Feminism reacted against a  school of thought that placed women solely in the home raising the children. Women were not allowed to vote or hold positions of leadership, so they were also discouraged from pursuing higher education. The feminist movement felt that women had more to offer the world, and that the female voice needed to be heard.

As a result, feminists sought equal status and opportunity with men.  Yet in this process, some feminists have over-reacted, belittling motherhood and bashing men. Not all feminists have done this, but the movement has digressed enough that it has developed specific, narrow standards by which true feminism is measured. If you do not conform to these standards, then you are, by definition, opposed to the movement itself.  

The problem with this development is that it does not account for the diversity of women that we find in the world. Yes, some women are ambitious and aspire to be doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, etc. But some women desire to be stay-at-home moms and that is all they’ve ever wanted to be. Is it somehow less noble that these women want to spend their time pouring into the children who will one day be the leaders of our country? By no means, but it is not a role that has been touted as furthering the cause of women.  

In seeking to correct the culture’s understanding of womanhood, feminism has committed the error it sought to correct. Both ends of the spectrum, extreme conservatives and extreme liberals, define womanhood far too narrowly, and thereby exclude other women as somehow being less feminine. 

And that is a dangerous game to play. When you make that move, you no longer encourage women to pursue their inherently female strengths, and a woman’s femininity is no longer defined by God. Women are instead pressured to conform to a mold, which will ironically limit them instead of giving them greater freedom.  

That is why this new development in feminism is so exciting. The feminist movement is taking on a new texture as more and more voices contribute to its direction. And as Christian women, we shouldn’t miss out. Rather than bite the hand that fed us by condemning the feminist movement which gave us the rights that we have today, we should rise up and add our voices to the conversation. Women constitute a powerful force in our society, so we need to take responsibility for helping to direct it.  

We must, however, avoid the pitfalls inherent in the feminist movement. Namely, we must be wary of becoming too woman-centric either. Ultimately, that is where feminism has gone awry, as well any movement that does not have Christ at the center. Feminism has the tendency to focus solely on women (as the name implies), thus leading feminists to occasionally trample other causes that interfere with their own. 

That is exactly what has transpired in the pro-life debate–the life of a child becomes an obstacle in the life of a woman, so the child is eliminated.

But we must be Christ-centered feminists. What does such a feminism look like? It is a feminism that values women as being equal to men, just as Genesis describes. It fights for the image of God in woman, defending their role in the Body of Christ, acknowledging that women add a crucial dynamic to the Kingdom of God.  

HOWEVER, Christ-centered feminism is a feminism that never subjugates the Gospel to the cause of women. Yes, God can be glorified through women and we should do everything in our power to protect that glory, but sometimes God is glorified in our sacrifice and humility as well.  When our cause threatens to override the good and pleasing will of God, then we must cease and desist. But you know, that’s what’s best for women anyway. When we think that the two agendas are at odds, we deceive ourselves. What is good for the Gospel is always good for women. It may not appear to be so at the time, but if God is faithful, and He is, we can trust this to be true. Be a strong woman, but be a strong Christ-centered woman.

This is a scary time. That is for sure.

But how we respond to the current state of our nation says a lot about our faith. How do you react in the face of fear?

This is a question I’ve been asking myself a lot lately, but not just because of the Presidential race, and not just because of the economy.

This afternoon I listened to yet another student tell me about her family’s exile from a church due to a power struggle. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard some version of this story–either a pastor strong-arms a congregation and ruins his opponents’ reputations in the process, or a congregation does the same to a pastor. And it always boils down to one thing–a power struggle. While some of the participants may have good intentions, their actions reveal that it’s more an issue of control. They are afraid to lose control of the Church, so they commit un-Christlike acts to keep it.

But this dynamic, this power struggle that we find in churches, is no different than the struggle we witness in the current political mud-slinging. They have the exact same root–a fear of losing control. We struggle for power because we want to be the ones calling the shots. Only when we have control will we feel safe, so we fight tooth and nail for it.

And lest you think that power struggles only transpire on bureaucratic scales, think again. They play out in every part of our lives. For instance, if you’re married or dating, how do you handle things when your significant other makes a decision you don’t agree with? What do you do when they work on a project that you secretly think you could do better? How do you respond? Do you always have to lend your two cents?

Or how about at work? Do you micro-manage the people under you? Are you afraid to let anyone do a job without giving your own important input?

Or if you have kids, are you a helicopter mom who feels the urge to protect your child from EVERYTHING? I recently heard that some day care centers won’t allow their workers to color with the kids. Why? Because the adult might draw a rainbow that’s better than the child’s rainbow, which will result in the child having low self-esteem. Seriously?? That, right there, is a fear or losing control if I’ve ever seen it!

Every day we face various fears–our future, the future of our families, the future of our jobs, the future of our economy and the future of our nation. We are afraid of the unexpected, and we fear losing control.

But at the heart of these fears we find something much darker and far more sinister–we find a deeply rooted idolatry. Our fears reveal our true saviors–what we are really trusting in for security and peace. 

Most of the time, that idol is us.

We trust in our own ability to make things happen, to get things done, and to keep us safe. Which is why we are terrified at the thought of losing control, and why we will do almost anything to keep it. All of the greatest atrocities in human history have been done in the name of maintaining power. 

That’s why President Franklin Roosevelt was so wise in warning us that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” When our security is threatened and when our power is contested, we LASH OUT! Churches divide, spouses battle, bosses berate their employees, friends step on other friends to maintain their status in the in-crowd, and Christians fight with other Christians over secular politics. Even just this week, a man in Caifornia committed suicide and then killed his whole family because of the recent economic crisis.

That is the power of fear. It can destroy you, and everyone around you.

So in the face of these fears, we need to stop and take a deep breath before it escalates to a fever pitch. At times like these fear is dangerous, if not fatal, but fear is not found in national crises alone. In addition to keeping fear at bay in the face of extreme societal swings, we must rein in our fears daily. Every single day of our lives, our fears impact the decisions we make and the way that we treat people.

If we let it, fear will be our guiding compass.

If you don’t fight fear daily, then you will most certainly succumb to fear when the economy falters or your Presidential favorite doesn’t win. It can get much uglier if you don’t guard your fear now, so fight your fears!

God is not the author of fear, so resolve to do NOTHING based on fear. Christ died on a cross so that we have to be afraid no more. Don’t crawl back into the cage from which you’ve been set free! Don’t feed into the political and economic frenzies, and don’t allow fear to dictate your daily decisions and relationships with people.

So the question is, what are you afraid of, and how does it impact your life? Remember that people are watching you, and what you fear reveals a lot about your true savior, regardless of how much you tell people otherwise. When we feed into fear, we negate the Gospel we profess. And when it comes to fear and Christ, the two simply aren’t compatible.

Let me begin by saying that I recognize the irony and potential for hypocrisy in what I am about to write. Nevertheless, I think this needs to be said, so hopefully I won’t disprove my own point. Here goes…

Yesterday I was listening to one of Mark Driscoll’s sermons, and in the course of preaching he made a hyperbolic statement for the sake of demonstrating a point. He immediately followed up the statement by adding, “That was a joke! I didn’t really mean that, so all you bloggers can go ahead and shut your laptops now.”

What struck me about his disclaimer is that it’s not the first one I’ve heard lately. Frequently my own pastor will try to stave off the mean e-mails and angry blogs that might ensue a controversial point by anticipating their possible misinterpretations. I’ve heard other pastors and podcasters do the same.

Clearly, they’ve all learned to beware the wrath of the blogosphere.

It is here that I must question whether such a trend is godly. When our pastors are constantly worried that their words might be lifted from their context, twisted, and publicly berated by other Christians (not even non-Christians!) then I think we’ve come to a place that is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of the Gospel.

This point hit me as I read over Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4. Paul was facing a similar climate of criticism from the Corinthian church. Even though they had Paul to thank for their very existence, they didn’t hesitate to bite the hand that fed them. As a result, Paul had to defend his credibility before his own church, in much the same way that pastors are forced to defend themselves today.

But what exactly is going on here? Why are Christians back-biting one another, and why have blogs facilitated this all the more?

The reason for this trend is twofold, the first being our own prideful hearts. Paul makes this point when he establishes a distinction between types of judgment. Some judgment is warranted, but some stems only from our own selfish motives. In chapter 5, for example, a man was sleeping with his father’s wife, so Paul called the Christians to exercise judgment. In this case, such judgment was permissible due to the man’s blatant disobedience of Scripture.

Paul, on the other hand, was fulfilling his God-given call to preach the Gospel. Even so, he received criticism and judgment from his brothers and sisters, and it is within this context that Paul forbids judgment. Why? Because they were trying to judge his heart. Judging a person’s actions are one thing, but it is difficult to know another person’s heart, so we must be VERY wary of making such a move.

So often we will criticize Christians, preachers, or churches who are out doing the Lord’s work, but not the exact way we think they should be doing it. As a result, we get up on our high horse and make assumptions about the state of their heart, nit-picking every single mistake and highlighting those mistakes for all to see. We forget Paul’s words, “Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Phil. 4:18) We refuse to rejoice in the preaching of the Gospel, and instead undermine those who do.

Only very rarely is such criticism actually warranted, so speaking from my own sin and my own temptation to engage in this type of unholy judgment, I feel confident in asserting that it comes from prideful arrogance. We are doing little more than reverting back to the childish strategy of tearing others down so as to build ourselves up.

But the second reason blogs have become such a popular tool for harsh criticism is the anonymity of the form. We post a blog and then send it hurdling into cyberspace, never really witnessing its effects. We don’t really know who is reading it or how seriously they are believing our words. Because of this, we underestimate the power of our writing. In reality, we are engaging in the public slander of a fellow laborer in Christ.

And in case you don’t blog, don’t think you’re off the hook. Gossiping about someone you don’t know or slandering a pastor you’ll never meet does not justify your comments or somehow make them less sinful. Slander is slander no matter how you spin it. When it comes to matters of the heart we must “judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.” (1 Cor. 4:5)

So in defense of the many preachers, pastors, writers and teachers who are out there leading, praying, and suffering for the sake of the Gospel, guard your tongue. Not only do they deserve more respect than we bloggers often give them, but God’s precious Bride, the Church, demands it.

Last night I saw the new Tina Fey movie “Baby Mama” about a 37 year-old, single career woman who wants to have a baby. Unfortunately her doctor claims that her uterus is poorly shaped and therefore unlikely to conceive, so she hires a surrogate. The movie itself is a comedy, but the plot line is pretty fascinating as it tackles the ethical dilemmas involved in this increasingly popular practice.

Personally, this is an issue I have struggled to categorize–is it right or wrong? On the one hand, there seems to be something inherently wrong with “renting” another person’s womb and using it to grow a baby. On the other hand, women grow babies in their wombs all the time–why does it matter if the baby is genetically linked to the surrogate or not?

Given the moral ambiguities of this issue, as well as the rising number of cases (The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) has tracked a 30% increase over the past three years. That number is likely an undercount, since many clinics do not report births to SART; industry experts estimate that there are as many as 1,000 surrogate births a year.) it is important that Christians think through it. What does our faith have to say about this? I would like to take a moment to examine some of those questions now…

Before delving into the murkier moral waters of this debate, there is one clear abuse that has sparked a great deal of controversy, and that is the socioeconomic background of the surrogates. Both the New York Times and the Boston Globe have reported on the practice of “outsourcing” wombs to poor Indian women. Sadly, there is a trend in the surrogacy movement in which wealthy families are using the bodies of poor, needy women to bear their children. This practice is worrying because it echoes a time in our nation’s history when the poor and marginalized were treated as property to be used, their bodies serving the wealthy as nothing more than a machine or an animal.

So while these women may, in fact, benefit from the deal financially, we should be extremely wary of any mindset that enables us to use the bodies of the poor in such a way. That is not a direction in which our society should head. But what about the cases in which the surrogates are socioeconomically “equal” to the families they help? What should Christians consider in these instances?

Even in a relationship of relative equality, the surrogate-parent relationship is frequently messy. Even if the surrogate is a close friend of the parents, it is tough to avoid treating the surrogate as some sort of incubator for your baby. In “Baby Mama,” the protagonist monitors her surrogate’s eating habits and lifestyle, forcing her to only consume those foods that will improve her health and the health of the baby. And this aspect of the film is not far from the truth–a mother interviewed in Newsweek requested that her surrogate not pump gas during the pregnancy. She also sent the surrogate green cleaning products that were safer for the child, all this to ensure that the incubator’s quality was maximized.

So regardless of the socioeconomic standing of the surrogate, the reality is that you are using another person’s body to get the life that you want. This stark reality may be softened if you have a relationship with the surrogate, or if the surrogate remains a part of the family’s life following the child’s birth, but in a very real sense parents are “renting” another woman’s womb.

That leads me to the final question–what is the difference between parents who use a surrogate’s womb to have a child, versus parents who use their own womb to have a child? Well if you’re speaking from a purely functional basis, reducing the woman’s body to her ability to conceive, then there’s no problem at all. If you can get pregnant while another woman cannot, then why not share the wealth?

But in my opinion, there is more to it than that. While the rampant cases of unwed mothers and the growing number of abortions in America have subsequently devalued the sacred miracle that is the creation of life, human life is about far more than the biological fertilization of an egg. There is more to this process than splitting cells in the uterus’ biologically hospitable environment.

On the contrary, the creation of life and subsequent nurturing of that life is to be a reflection of the Father’s relationship with us. After all, Scripture refers to us as God’s children, which means there is an aspect to parenting that reflects the essence of our relationship with God. With that in mind, the topic of surrogacy quickly becomes a question of theology.

What, then, are we to draw from such an analogy? How does the traditional pregnancy process reflect our relationship with God? Well in the same way that we get life from the loving intimacy and sacrifice of the Trinity, especially as evidenced at the cross, children are born of the loving intimacy and sacrifice that a man and wife have in marriage. And not only does a married couple love one another this way, but they love their children with that degree of sacrifice as well.

Parents essentially lay themselves down for their children, surrendering their schedules, their free time, their sleep, their finances, and even their bodies–all for the sake of their child. In fact, the physical surrendering of one’s own body that we see in pregnancy, surrendering for the sake of another, echoes the surrender and sacrifice of Christ’s own body on the cross. In this way, pregnancy can reflect a love so profound that it echoes the intimacy and sacrifice of Christ’s love for us.

Surrogacy, on the other hand, has a slightly different approach. The mother is not laying down her own body to care for and nurture the child–she is using someone else’s body. And the woman who DOES care for the child so intimately during pregnancy will then leave the child once he or she is born.

That said, surrogacy reflects the God-child analogy less fully because the parent relies on another person to sacrifice her body for their child. It would be like God saying, “I love you so much that I’m going to ask some other person to sacrifice for you.” It is this concept of using someone else for your own ends, as opposed to giving of yourself for the sake of another, that conflicts with the relationship between God and His children.

Granted, the scenario isn’t quite so black and white given that many women CAN’T have children, which means they aren’t given the option to care for a child in this way. It would be one thing if a woman used a surrogate because she is unable to have a child herself, and quite another if a woman used a surrogate solely because she didn’t want to lose her figure.

What’s more, we must be careful that my above logic isn’t taken so far as to undermine the legitimacy of adoption. Just because a woman does not bear a child does not mean she cannot have a relationship with her child that reflects the love of God. Plus, Scripture itself uses the language of adoption, so in adopting children that do not belong to us, we are mimicking God’s adoption of humanity.

What I am saying is that we must be very, VERY wary of the mindset into which surrogacy can tempt us. It not only tempts us to view other women’s bodies as objects to be used for bearing children, but it distorts the pregnancy process in a way that views children more as a biological process that simply needs an incubator, as opposed to a miracle of life that echoes our very identity in God.

All in all, I find it hard to take one definitive stance on surrogacy. I tried to think of Scripture that might apply, but I was only able to come up with overarching themes that could speak truth into the discussion, so if you know of any verses please post them. But while I am hesitant to take a hard-line stance, I will admit that I have serious concerns. While feining a value for human life by going to extremes to produce it, surrogacy can actually devalue human life, as well as undermining the centrality of marriage in beginning a family. As the movie errantly taught, “You don’t have to be married to have a baby.” That teaching might be true from a technical standpoint–I could go out and get pregnant tomorrow with some random guy off the street–but is it God’s best? No.

So before we embrace the scientific advances of surrogacy, let’s look down the road to where this trend is taking us. We may find ourselves in a place we did not intend to go. But in addition to all of that, let me remind you of how many children are orphaned in this world. The numbers are astronomical, so perhaps we should reconsider spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to reproduce ourselves through surrogacy, when there are already so many living, breathing children that need families of their own.

What do you think of this isse??