Theology for Women

In the past I’ve talked a lot about the ways in which the media has objectified women and given us an unrealistic standard for which we should strive. We see this subliminal messaging in the form of emaciated models and self-destructive actresses, so while it is prevalent, it’s also easy to pinpoint.

However, not all of the media’s subliminal messages are that easy to spot. In addition to promoting the sexual anorexic look, the media sends harmful messages in a range of forms, some that you may not expect or even notice.

Rather than drive this point home with a long blog that you’re probably too stuffed with turkey to read, I will today defer to a video series entitled “Target Women.” Ladyblog summarized these videos as follows:

Via the December/January issue of Bust (actual article not online):

Do the women populating commercials nowadays—those personality-free mombots who talk about Hamburger Helper as if it were a cure for cancer—seem a little off to you? Sarah Haskins feels your pain.

But instead of motrin-momming it up, Haskins writes and stars in Daily-Show-style segments called ‘Target: Women” (on Current TV’s Infomania) that amusingly mock women’s advertising.

Haskins hones in on the messages that women are receiving, and her style of satire highlights the ways in which such advertising affects us.

What follows is “Target: Women–Yogurt Edition.” I know that sounds lame, but I seriously fell off my chair laughing, and it shows just how subtle advertising can be in its attempt to seduce female consumers:

For more great videos, check out Haskin’s video about birth control commercials, which examines the industry’s tendency to talk more about regulating your period than preventing the birth of children. I’ve never noticed that before, but I would bet there are some very intentional reasons behind it.Also check out her video on chick flicks. It highlights the degree to which romantic comedies deceive women with unrealistic expectations for dating and romance.

For more videos, you can check Haskins out on youtube. She is not a Christian so I apologize for the occasional crass comment, but her work is valuable. We must never blindly consume that which the media is feeding us. Be critical. Ask questions.

That’s what it means to be a faithful woman of God, even if you do like yogurt.

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.

In these final 24 hours before the 2008 Presidential Election, I thought I’d post the following video of John Piper giving his perspective. He goes straight to the heart of the issues and he does it concisely. It is a perspective that should anchor us when we feel consumed by the emotion and the fear of this time.

To view this video, click here.

(There is also a longer version on youtube if you would like to view the whole of it)

Tomorrow is election day, so I will end with a quote by Walter H. Judd, a member of the U.S. Congress from 1943-1963 :

“People often say that, in democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote–a very different thing.”

Don’t waste your vote.

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.

Right now I am sitting on a plane that is somewhere between Minneapolis and Raleigh-Durham. This weekend I was in Albuquerque, NM for a family reunion, and even though the idea of a family reunion might sound kinda lame, just picture a large band of Hoddes wandering around random tourist attractions like the Rattlesnake Museum and a landmark commemorating the “Skirmish of Albuquerque.”

(You’d really think they could’ve come up with a manlier title than “skirmish.” It sounds like they just stood around and slapped one another with gloves in between exchanging verbal insults.)

Yes, the Hodde clan is a colorful bunch. Between my uncle sneaking up behind people and making farting noises, and the stories about UFO abductions (no one in my family has experienced this personally, but apparently it happens a lot in Albuquerque?), there was never a dull moment.

On the flight from Albuquerque to Minneapolis I also had an interesting experience, but of a different kind. I happened to sit right next to a Catholic priest named Father Stephen, and we spent the entire flight discussing theology, ministry, and the Gospel.

Father Stephen has a parish in New Mexico, but he is also heavily involved in the pro-life movement and we had a fascinating conversation about it. In particular, he had some tremendous insights into the role of men in the current abortion crisis. As Father Stephen explained, the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden is still very much alive in the practice of abortion today.

What follows is the logic behind this very astute conclusion:

Adam’s sin in the Garden was a failure to lead. Rather than protect Eve and dispute the serpent, he sat by and let her make a decision that negatively affected both of them. Ironically, when it came time to place blame, Adam pointed directly at Eve. As far as he was concerned it was ALL HER FAULT. End of story.

But it wasn’t all her fault, was it? God had given Adam moral responsibility for Eve by giving Adam His commands before Eve’s creation. Of the two, Adam should have seen right through the serpent’s lie, and he should have taken responsibility for caring for Eve. But he didn’t. Instead, he let Eve take full responsibility.

And therein lies Adam’s sin.

Yet this story is not unlike many of the scenarios playing out today, particularly in regard to abortion. Men are failing to step up and take a stand when women need them to.

In his own experience, Father Stephen has witnessed countless women go to their boyfriends or husbands and ask, “Do you think I should have this baby?” The man then responds, “It’s up to you,” which she interprets to mean, “I don’t really want this baby.”

So the woman aborts the child, thinking she’s done what the man secretly wanted. Meanwhile, the man washes his hands of it. And if it ever becomes obvious that abortion was the wrong decision, he can easily point to her and blame, “I left it up to her. It was all her decision.”

Sound familiar?

It is the story of Adam and Eve playing out over and over again, thousands of years later. Just like Eve, women today need men to step up and support them.

You see, there are two crucial parts of the decision making process that a woman must consider in light of an unexpected pregnancy: whether your significant other wants the child, and whether you’ll be able to take care of the child. Both of these questions are easily resolved when men take responsibility for the choices they have made.

That said, women need men to help them while they’re pregnant, take care of the baby once it’s born, or even help them with the adoption process if that is the path she needs to take. And most of all, before the baby is even born, the man needs to voice his desire to keep the child and love the child. Such words of affirmation can make all the difference in saving the life of a baby.

Now at this point you may object: “What if the man is absent or refuses to support the pregnancy? How can we possibly address the countless scenarios in which men fail to step up?” Well it is here that we remember Paul’s teachings about Christ—he is the second Adam, the one to reverse the curse, which means that Adam’s failure was not the final word.

Similarly, the absence of men in the family today does not mean the family is doomed. Even when “Adam” fails today, Christ steps in to make things right. Christ fills that gap and heals the world that Adam and Eve left broken.

And how does Christ do that? Through the Church. As the Body of Christ, we are the hands and feet of Jesus, so we are a part of the curse reversal. We are the ones to step in when fallen men repeat the sin of Adam. We are the agents of healing, renewal, and protection for this world. That is our job, so while we must certainly challenge men to stand up and fill the role that God created for them, we cannot waste time placing blame. That is what Adam did.

So as much as we want the government to fix our problems for us, we have a far more reliable Savior for that job. Christ, through his Church, can effect the healing we long to see in our broken country, and we are a part of that plan.

That said, we must stop waiting around for someone else to do the hard work for us. When we lazily complain about the state of abortion in our country and do nothing but point fingers at our liberals policy makers, we do little more than perpetuate the sin of Adam. Instead, let’s stop waiting around, and let’s do something.
What are you doing?

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.

So apparently a lot of you really like Head-Cold Sharon. I don’t know what that says about my regular personality, but I’ll try and bring her back real soon–maybe I’ll take a swig of Nyquil or something.

But now that I’m all healed up, I’m headed down to Charlotte to speak at another conference this weekend. It’s the North Carolina Baptist Campus Ministry Fall Convention, and I’m teaching on a similar topic to last weekend’s conference. The title for my session is “Unconventional Womanhood: Being a Christian Woman in a Secular World.”

As I’ve been reflecting on this topic, I’ve been struck by the varying ways in which culture has shaped our understanding of godly womanhood. Most Christians would agree that culture has negatively influenced our concept of femininity in some way or another, but exactly how those influences have manifested themselves is up for debate.

You see, your answer to this question will largely depend on what perspective you’re coming from. Most of us would agree that trends such as the growing immodesty among Christian women are a negative impact from our society. But there is a point at which Christians are utterly divided. Here’s what I mean–

(And keep in mind that these are stereotypes. Not all people will fit these exact molds)

The conservative perspective tends to argue that the culture’s influence is most pronounced in Christian women who are hyper-feminists. From this angle, Christians are seen as having abandoned Scriptural teachings in favor of societal trends, ignoring God’s intention for distinct gender roles in favor of female agendas.

The liberal perspective frequently contends that oppressive cultural influences arise when women are primarily limited to the home. From this angle, Christians are portrayed as chauvinists who twist Scripture to debase women.

What is ironic about these two perspectives is that they have completely opposite understandings of the culture. One view sees the culture as being relativistic–anything goes, including all gender distinctions. The other view understands the culture as being too absolutist on the point of gender roles. From this perspective, women have been subjugated by their cultures for far too long, and Scripture should be read as speaking prophetically into that oppression.

So which one is it? Is our culture relativistic, or absolutist?

The answer is both. There are people in our culture who are extreme relativists, and that mindset has influenced numerous denominations. But there are also segments of our culture who are extreme absolutists, and they have influenced countless denominations as well.

And given this reality, it is imperative that we listen to BOTH perspectives. In Scripture we find a surprising tension between an emphasis on distinct gender roles, and female empowerment (which, at the time, was quite revolutionary). That said, we need to adopt a worldview that embraces both ends of the spectrum. Otherwise, we run the risk of excluding parts of Scripture.

Practically speaking, what does this look like? Liberals can embrace the very real language of gender distinction that we find in Scripture, a language that not only lends richness to our understanding of male and female relationships, but also adds depth to our understanding of the Trinity. Similarly, conservatives can embrace the female empowerment that very much exists in Scripture, pushing women to be leaders, to arm themselves with knowledge, to do so in ways that is not necessarily limited to the home and family.

As differing members of the Body of Christ, it is vital that we listen to a wide array of voices. None of us is immune to the influence of culture, so we need the perspectives of those outside our circle to give us clarity. That doesn’t mean you have to agree on EVERYTHING, but if you can’t find a single thing to learn from one another then you probably don’t have a correct understanding of the Church.

Godly womanhood is a complex thing, but the more we seek to understand it and listen to the perspectives of others, the more we will approach a holistic picture of it. The ultimate end, of course, being the glory of God and service to His Kingdom. Women accomplish little if they are not encouraged to cultivate their gifts and join men on the spiritual battlefield. But they will also fail to be effective if they deny their uniquely feminine strengths. So we must seek to find a balance of the two, not for the sake of women, but for the sake of Christ.

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??

About a year after I graduated from college, someone asked me whether or not I had endured religious persecution at my school. After all, it was a secular university with a reputation for being liberal, so the assumption was that it must be hostile toward Christians.

Well I responded to the inquirer with an emphatic “yes.” I then proceeded to tell them the story of one Easter morning when all the Christians on campus decided to wake up extra early and write “He is Risen” on the campus sidewalks in chalk. It seemed like a fairly benign gesture, but when the rest of the campus awoke that morning, there was a public outcry. Students wrote to the school newspaper complaining that the Christians were imposing their religion on them, and as a result, all the Christians were forced to wash off the sidewalks.

The reason that this story really irked me at the time is that other students would use chalk to write on our sidewalks all the time. What’s more, the writing was often extremely political, and extremely liberal. I had to walk past countless statements with which I not only disagreed, but also found offensive. Why was it ok for the other students to write those kinds of things, but Christians couldn’t write a non-confrontational phrase like “He is Risen?”

So that is the tale I told in reflecting on the “persecution” I endured as a college student. That was the “cross we had to bear.” I’m sure I also enhanced the story with some woe-is-me dramatic flair.

Well since that time, I have come to realize that that incident was not, in fact, persecution. Were my toes stepped on? Yes. Was that a frustrating double standard? Yes. But persecution? Really? I’m not so sure. The fact that I would classify such an experience as persecution probably reveals that I don’t really know what true persecution is.

My own ignorance on the topic became clear last week when I learned what some Christians endure in the prisons here in our country. After speaking with a number of the inmates, I am now convinced that our prisons contain one of the last true frontiers of religious persecution in America. Compared to them, my “persecution” is revealed to be a mere inconvenience.

Because devout faith is perceived to be a kind of weakness or attempt at sucking up to the authorities, Christian prisoners are actively targeted and harassed by the other inmates. Their Bibles are often torn up, and they suffer physical and verbal abuse because of their faith, so attending a weekly worship meeting is no small commitment.

When they come to worship, they are there against many, many odds. And they take their worship very seriously. For instance, the prison I visited also had a choir, and the members would not allow an inmate to join the choir if his witness was not consistent. If he was even caught doing something as small as using foul language, they would recommend to the pastor that he be removed. These men knew what it was to follow Christ, and they wanted everyone around them to know it as well, so they worked hard to guard their witness.

What a remarkable paradigm shift! Our country’s criminals, our country’s convicts, the individuals who we have locked up and turned our backs on–they are the ones who are standing for Christ with what is perhaps the most courage and ferocity in America. To me, that is both surprising and convicting. But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised. After all, that is often the pattern we see in Scripture–God has a knack for working through those whom the rest of the world has shunned. He picks the most unlikely candidates to fight His good fight. And fighting, these inmates are.

This post concludes my reflections on the week I spent in West Virginia, and I hope it has challenged you as much as it has challenged me. But if nothing else, my greatest desire is that you would pray for our brothers and sisters in prison. They are in a very dark place, but because of that darkness their lights can shine all the brighter. Pray that they would be strong and persevere, as they have a ministry opportunity unlike any other. They truly need our prayers, so when you pray for the persecuted in China and the Middle East, do no forget the persecuted in America.