Feedback Form

Social Issues

Green Martyrdom

From the very beginning of the Christian faith, believers’ commitment to Christ was often tested with their own blood. Stephen was the first casualty; James a few years later. During the Neronic persecutions, many believers— Peter and Paul among them—gave up their lives for Christ in the city of Rome. Whether this persecution officially went beyond the walls of Rome is difficult to tell. Under Domitian, toward the end of the first century, the persecution of Christians became more severe. The apostle John was exiled to Patmos during this era. Tradition has it that all but one of the twelve apostles (sans Judas) died a martyr’s death. As the second century rolled on, more and more Christians lost their lives for the sake of Christ. Same with the third century. But the worst persecutions in the ancient world came with emperor Diocletian. From AD 303 to 311, he was gathering up biblical manuscripts for destruction, burning down church meeting-halls, and imprisoning and killing Christians by the bushel. One historian called this “the last war of annihilation waged by paganism against Christianity.”

Of course, the persecutions of Christians did not stop even after the religion became legal under Constantine. And certainly one of the darkest periods of the Christian faith was when Christians killed other Christians—during the Crusades and even today. Modern-day atrocities continue to remind us of the sacrifice that many have made in the name of Christ, even when standing up to their ‘brothers’ in Christ.

But a new kind of martyrdom has begun to emerge. Religious sociologists call it ‘green martyrdom.’ It’s not the martyrdom of one’s life, but of one’s livelihood. Part of the American dream is to be secure, healthy, and wealthy. Christians have assimilated this dream and have all too often viewed convenience as a litmus test of God’s will, wealth as a measure of happiness. But there has always been a backlash to this dream, and it’s hit the pocketbook hard. At times, a Christian needs to make a choice: should I take the cushy job that will feed my family well but has some questionable ethics to it, or should I take a lesser job that preserves my honor and conscience? And if I work for a boss who reveals himself to be unscrupulous, do I do his bidding or stand up to him? In the marketplace, medicine, law, politics, education, and virtually every arena where a paycheck is cut, ethical choices have to be made. And green martyrdom is often the result—though not as often as it should be.

Years ago, I worked at a restaurant as I was taking classes in seminary. I would report on my time cards how much I earned in tips each week. It never occurred to me that I should declare less than what I earned. But the boss had a problem with me. He said that no one else did the same thing, and that the restaurant might have to deduct more money than what they owed me if I kept it up! Besides, it made everyone else look suspicious to the IRS. There were well over 100 wait staff there, yet no one else was reporting accurate income on their time cards.

Often, it’s not just ethical choices that can affect one’s financial security. Many of the best jobs in today’s world require intellectual schizophrenia: one may believe one way, but he or she can’t speak up about it on the job—even when that job is related to the topic. This point was underscored in Ben Stein’s film Expelled. And it was seen in Hollywood’s scornful treatment of Mel Gibson when he produced The Passion of the Christ. Just as Communists were blackballed especially in the Hollywood of the 1950s, so today Christians are being blackballed especially in educational circles (most notably in science and theology). The pressures to abandon a set of beliefs, to sign on the dotted line, are enormous. Enormous in that several zeroes are at stake.

It is not only Christians who are often facing green martyrdom. All too often, in corporate America, it is those who take a stand for the environment, those who take a stand for racial equality, those who take a stand for any unjustly oppressed group who lose the jobs and the salaries and the security. And ironically, Christians are sometimes the ones doing the persecuting. Maybe we need to take stock of where all of our priorities are. As C. S. Lewis’s biographer noted, Lewis was the most thoroughly converted Christian he had ever met. Many believers are certainly following his lead. But many more of us need to think through what it means to be a believer—ethically, socially, intellectually, politically—in a non-believing world.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment


Life is a precious gift of God. Christians see life as something that must be preserved, enjoyed, and celebrated. Yet Christians—evangelical Christians—are often among those who support the death penalty. How can this be? Isn’t there an inconsistency with the Christian witness of life, grace, and mercy and support of the death penalty? Isn’t there an inconsistency when Christians say that they are against abortion but for the death penalty? Possibly.

I want to give a brief primer on the Christian options with regards to the issue of capital punishment. Hopefully this will serves to help people on both sides understand the issue more accurately.

There are essentially two positions that Christians have taken with regards to capital punishment:

  • Rehabilitationalism
  • Retributionalism 

Retributionalism: Believes that capital punishment is prescribed by God for all people in order to maintain societal order and retribution.

Rehabilitationalism: Believes that capital punishment is repealed by the New Testament’s command to love one another and let God have final retribution.

Arguments for Capital Punishment (Retributionalism):

1. It is God’s way of punishment instituted at the time of Noah. This seems to suggest a general governmental principle that transcends the situation (i.e. there is no Law or theocracy).

Gen 9:6
Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

2. It is continued in the Mosaic Law with further offenses that call for death.

Capital Offenses

  • Murder (Ex. 21:11; Num. 35:30)
  • Cursing or striking parent (Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9)
  • Kidnapping (Ex. 21:16)
  • Witchcraft (Ex. 22:18)
  • Bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:16)
  • Idolatry (Ex. 22:20; Lev. 20:2)
  • Negligent Homicide (Ex. 21:29)
  • Work on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2; Num. 15:32-35)
  • Homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13)
  • Adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24)
  • Incest (Lev. 20:11-12, 14)
  • Prostitution (Lev.21:9)
  • Blasphemy (Lev. 24:16)
  • False Prophecy (Deut. 13:1-5)
  • Rape (Deut. 22:25)

3. The New Testament does not repeal the penalty with respect to the government.

4. The New Testament does inform Christians that the government is part of God’s common grace, given to men in order to keep order in society.

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

The right and responsibility of the government to “bear the sword” definitely implies its strictest use, capital punishment.

5. Paul implicitly accepts and agrees with the government’s authority to use the death penalty in his own life.

Acts 25:11a
If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.

Arguments Against Capital Punishment (Rehabilitationalism)

1. The sixth commandment states that you shall not kill (Ex. 20:13). The death penalty is killing people.

2. While the Mosaic System did demand capital punishment, it was a theocracy that is no longer in effect.

Romans 6:14-15
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” (emphasis added)

3. Christ showed by his words and example that the death penalty was no longer in effect.

Matthew 5:38-39
You have heard that it was said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

John 8:3-7
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, ‘He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. "

4. Paul tells Christians to leave vengeance and retribution to God.

Romans 12:19
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "vengeance is mine; I will repay," says the Lord."

5. Statistics show that death penalty is not much of a deterrent to crime.

My position

I believe that the arguments for the continued use of capital punishment are much stronger. Therefore, I support and encourage the use of capital punishment for heinous crimes. 

In response to the arguments against capital punishment, I would offer these observations.

1. There are major inconsistencies that make the first objection invalid in my opinion. The sixth commandment speaks against murder, not killing. Although there can be a fine line between murder and taking a life for societal order and retribution, their is a definite line. If the death penalty was always a violation of the fifth commandment, why would God have allowed such in the same Law? Notice that the penalty for breaking the sixth commandment is death (21:12). How could the fifth commandment prohibit that which is mandated for a violation of the sixth?

2. It is true that Christians are not under the Mosaic system, but the principles of the system are still good (e.g. Ten Commandments). Therefore, the governance of the system is taken away from God’s people, not the necessarily principles that the system is founded on.

3. Christ’s words and example speak to individual retribution, not governmental. Taken to the extreme, there would be no punishment for any crime.

4. Paul’s statement in Romans 12:9 once again seems to speak to individual retribution. God uses government, not individuals, to execute His vengeance (Romans 13:4).

5. The statistics concerning the efficacy of capital punishment to deter crime are not consistent. Some statistics do suggest that where the fear of death is truly present, it does act as a deterrent. But even if it does not deter crime, this is not necessarily an argument against it. Its function is also seen as retribution, acting as God’s minister and instrument of wrath.

In the end, I see no inconsistency in being an advocate of the death penalty for certain crimes and being against abortion. The aborted child is innocent, having committed no crime, while the one sentenced to capital punishment is guilty of a great offense.

Where do you stand?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Thing Itself - Consequences of the Abortion Debate

Greg Cromartie
Host of Theology Unplugged
Ideas have consequences. The ideas passionately debated in Michael’s blog: Emergers On Abortion: Where Do You Stand? are no exception. We can discuss this issue until eternity without changing the consequences of the thing itself. That’s what I want to discuss here…"The Thing Itself."
Those who support abortion rights and those who would turn a blind eye to it including, sadly, many who name the name of Christ don’t deal with the reality of abortion. They’ll discuss women’s rights, Middle Assyrian Laws, poverty, Old Testament penalties for causing a miscarriage, population control and on. All worthy topics in and of themselves. But they don’t want to address what abortion is and what it does . . . the dismemberment and killing of an innocent human being. Indeed, how can one defend this?
Warning: very graphic images—adult supervision advised.

If one won’t or doesn’t consider these images how can he rightfully defend or even allow abortion The Thing Itself?
The abortion industry (And it is an industry, making millions of dollars killing for cash) knows that when America looks at The Thing Itself, America and even pro-choice activists will reject it. This is evidenced in the following statement made by Charlotte Taft, Dallas abortion provider, at a training workshop for the National Abortion Federation:
…the same woman who Janie Bush was talking about, who was a Pro-choice activist in the Dallas Community, when she came into our clinic—we were inviting her to learn more about abortion—this is a quote from this woman, she said "if I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a potential human life I could not be pro-choice." I said "it would be best for you not to see a sonogram."
This statement was followed by laughter from the workshop participants.1 When America sees abortion it will reject abortion, not until.
Some will say this is uncomfortable, gruesome and sensational. I would agree. But, if these images are uncomfortable, gruesome and sensational for us, how much more uncomfortable, gruesome and sensational was it for the little ones in those images?
Yes, in a Constitutional Republic we must debate on theological, philosophical and legal bases to arrive at Just Laws. But to do so without The Thing Itself in view is to abandon a crucial component of the argument. Losing that, as we debate, we risk the injustice we currently have in America’s abortion tragedy.
And there is not only negative consequence for the child, after 35 years of legal abortion in America, evidence is mounting that abortion hurts women too. Look at the stories found on the Silent No More Awareness Campaign web site. These women had the idea drummed into them that abortion would solve their problem. To their horror the consequence was, months and sometimes years later, that they began to experience depression, despair, guilt and suicidal thoughts caused by the killing of their child. There is also mounting evidence that abortion is a cause of breast cancer.
The abortion idea has real consequences for real persons, child & mother.
So, in light of these consequences, what do we do about the abortion tragedy? The answer can only be that we fight it, on every front, with every means at our disposal.
We care for the mothers in unplanned pregnancies, we support the fathers, we disseminate pertinent information, we counsel outside abortion facilities, we volunteer at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, we pray for and befriend abortionists, we show and talk about The Thing Itself and we vote for the political candidates that will work to abolish this greatest injustice in our land. And that has consequences for all of us because a government that won’t protect a defenseless, unborn human being won’t protect you either.
To turn a blind eye to this injustice, even when supporting other good and just causes, invites the greatest of negative consequences to our country.
Here are some resources if you want to get involved in a more hands-on way:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org For those who are experiencing the consequences of your own abortion—you are not alone. Healing and grace is available here.
http://www.heartbeatinternational.org A non-political, Christian association of life-affirming education and pregnancy service providers with clinics around the world.
http://www.guysforlife.org A ministry whose mission is to support and mentor fathers in the midst of an unplanned pregnancy.
http://www.priestsforlife.org A Catholic site with comprehensive resources for all believers.
http://learninc.org The largest African-American Evangelical Pro-Life Ministry in the US. They have great articles here: http://learninc.org/page/articles.php And, here is an especially insightful L.EA.R.N. article on abortion and civil rights in the African-American Community (many compelling stats too): http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/blacks_and_abortion.asp
Some of the phrases used in this post are courtesy of Father Frank Pavone. I produce his Evangelical radio program Life on the Line, and am indebted to him for helping shape many of the arguments cited here.
1From the audio CD "Fire & Ice" produced by Life Dynamics at http://www.lifedynamics.com.  

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Emergers on Abortion: Where Do You Stand?

Francis Beckwith was asked a question concerning the emerging church and abortion. It occurred here at about 73 minutes into the broadcast (listen to it). Essentially the question surrounded the emerging church’s concern for social issues such as women’s rights, poverty, aids victims, and environmental concerns as compared to their perceived concern for the issue of abortion. Beckwith expressed concern about what he believes to be the emerging/Emergent church’s “downplaying” or minimizing of the issue of abortion. 

I found this question important and one that need some conversation. While I been involved with all things emerging for some time, I have found this lack of engagement disturbing and inconsistent, to say the least. I could be wrong and this is why I encourage emergers to speak to this issue here or in their own blogs helping others see where they stand and why.

One person told me that the Religious Right has not been able to make much of dent in the abortion issue over the last thirty years. She saw it this way:

Now, if there’s a way I see abortion ending it’s through:
1. The decline of hopelessness and poverty and
2. The increase in respect for adoption and
3. An increase in respect for motherhood as a valid choice. 

Personally, I am not sure if the abortion issue is as simple as saying Republicans or the religious right have not been able to do anything about it. It is primarily a social issue and a moral one that necessarily presents itself before the legal system.

Let me ask a few question here: 

If we have a respect for intrinsic human dignity—the imago dei in all people—which motivates us to provide a voice for the poor, for those discriminated against, and for Aids victims, how much more do we have the obligation to speak for the unborn? There are over three thousand children who are aborted each day in the United States alone (over 40 million worldwide). That is more than who died in the world trade center bombing.

Isn’t it hypocritical and imbalanced for us to speak with 10 decimals about the environment, the poor, and aids victims, and speak with only a hesitant whisper, if at all, toward the dying unborn who are being scraped from their mother’s womb?

Are you so disenchanted with a Republican agenda that you neglect these little ones for fear of being identified with the religious right? 

If so, wouldn’t this neglect through disenchantment evidence an irresponsible and, indeed, sinful reaction that is totally inconsistent with the missio dei?

Even if we have, as of yet, not been able to do anything about abortion (which I do not concede—read Beckwith’s book), does this mean that we silence our passions and lay down our political arms in a democratic society where the people are the government?

Here are some more difficult questions:

Do you think slavery should have been abolished (or could have been) through a gentle appeal to the mass public to do what is right at the same time as keeping it legal?

Should America have given up on the abolition of slavery because for hundreds of years political activists were not able to do anything about it?

Do you think that it was right, in hindsight to have gone to war over the issue of slavery?

If so, would you support such a war ”a civil war” over abortion. If not, why not? What is the difference?

Do you, as an emerger, believe that life begins at conception? Or are some emergers—social emergers—uncertain about when life begins? Is this why you don’t speak about it?

If you don’t speak to this issue, do you really expect people to listen to you about others? Why? Sometimes silence can speak louder than words. In other words, there is a message in silence.

Please understand that these are just questions. They are directed primarily to those who are “emerging socially” and speaking loudly about social issues. I know that they make a lot of assumptions and I am ready to be corrected. My primary assumption is that while many emergers speak loudly about social issues, they don’t speak loudly about abortion. Connected to this is the assumption that abortion is equal to or greater than the other social issues that are fueled by a principled assumption of human dignity.

Whether you are an emerger, Emergent, or one who sympathizes with the concerns (like me), please join this conversation.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!