I remember back in seminary, there was a small yet militant movement of students who were evangelists of the anti-birth control movement. They were not against it because the believed it was an attempt to control God’s plan, but because they believed that all birth control, save “fertility awareness” and condoms, caused abortions.

This put a great deal of fear into me and my wife as we certainly did not want to be responsible for unknowingly aborting one of our children. For the next six months I researched this. Randy Alcorn was the primary apologist against ”the pill,” Depo-Provera, and most all other types of hormonal methods of birth control as he believed that they often caused abortions of fertilized eggs. 

However, I was surprised that this was the first time I was hearing about this. I wondered how this information could be so secret, even among the most conservative of the Christian family ministries and anti-abortion advocates. This gave me a great deal of skepticism.

Others are against birth control because they believe, like Catholics, that it is nothing more than neglecting the sovereign will of God in favor of your own will. This group believes that if it is God’s will then we should not attempt to stand in the way. Therefore, this group does not advocate any sort of birth control at all.

Concerning whether the pill causes abortions:

Pro: Randy Alcorn

Con: Rich Poupard part 1; part 2; part 3

Anyway, enough of an introduction. Birth control and the Christian—thoughts? Do you use birth control? Why or why not?

I have been asked this quite a few times over the years and the issue was brought up again recently. Can homosexuals be Christians? Or, better, is there such a thing as a “homosexual Christian.” Many would believe that someone who engages in a homosexual life style is necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God unless they repent. Repentance here would mean a change of thinking about and, shortly following, action to change this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation guarantees their change of lifestyle within a short period of time.

While I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a terrible sin (Lev. 18:22, 20:13 Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:10), I do not believe it is one that is outside the realm of a believer’s carnality. Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God. I hope that people do not misunderstand my purpose here. I, in no way endorse homosexual behavior or seek to relativise its abominable standing before the Lord. But I do think that we who are not tempted in such a way often fail to see the seriousness of the struggle that people go through who engage in this sin.

Sexual sin and temptation is part of everyone’s life. We are born with a drive toward fulfillment of this God-given part of our humanity. Some will deny this drive because of God’s calling in their lives (e.g. singleness). Yet sin has corrupted this drive and we are all born infected with sin. Because of upbringing, genetics, cultural influences, and other factors, people will experience this corruption to greater and lesser degrees. I personally have never felt any inclination toward expressing my sexual corruption in a way that was focused on the same sex. Why? Not necessarily because of good choices I have made, but because the genetics, upbringing, and influences were not there. I have just never had that sinful bent within me that compels me to lust after someone of the same sex. Don’t get me wrong. I have a sinful sexual bent, but it is of the more natural kind. This does not justify it or make me more innately righteous than the homosexual, it is just a fact that this is not a sin that I have ever had to deal with. Continue Reading »

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.

…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."

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.