Unfortunately, the question represents the broader discontentment of a long history of mistreatment of Blacks.   There is a sensitivity to the topic that is often met with emotional disdain at the prospect of historical injustices and contemporary misgivings.  This is something that only the impacted feel, most don’t understand and only a few handle with objective care.  For those who have evaded the genetic and/or cultural entrapment that sifts issues of race through a highly evaluative colandar, there might be a sense of irritation that an endless recalling of the issue to the forefront brings.   For those whom race has been a most central concern due to their ethnic heritage, the continual demand for justice, respect and value can cloud even the most innocent of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.  The extreme version of this demand can, and often does result in a myopic insistence that justice prevails even in situations where there have been no miscarriages of it.

Yes, the issue of race and how it has been historically treated remains a highly volatile topic for some, and particularly as it relates to Christianity.  The reality is that for centuries, there has been an anglo, eurocentric dominance on the representation of Christianity that is not only reflected in the symbolic artifacts and artifices, but resulted in demoralizing perceptions and practices where Blacks are concerned.  The ensuing institutional and political infractions that created a system of inequality and wholesale denigration were supported and promoted by Biblical interpretations and a biased brand of Christianity.  That is an inescapable reality that would have a lasting impact, even after lines of demarcation were legally erased.   The anglo-orientation of Christianity would cause some to reject it as a by-product of that orientation, failing to see the beauty of Christ that transcends it.

For the Christian with the mandate to see through a Christo-centric lens, this indeed becomes a tricky balance.  The idea that race should not matter to one committed to Christ has worked wonderful in theory but not so great practically.   While this country has witnessed great strides in race relations, there seems to remain a subtle hum of separatism based on cultural preferences, misunderstandings and in extreme cases, outright prejudices.  Some things are hard to forget and even harder to let go of.  This is most demonstrated in the composition of the local Christian assembly.  How many Christian churches across America have isolated on the basis of race illustrative in separatist nomenclature of black churches, white churches, hispanic churches, etc.?  I recall a former pastor frequently citing the phrase ‘Sunday mornings are the most segregated hour in America’.  I dare say it is the lingering impact of historic inequality and cultural biases.

Yet Christ effectively dealt with ethnic prejudices long before euro-centric dominance and he established the foundation by which equality must be considered.  Jesus Christ stepped into time and space when prejudicial sentiments ran high.  Jews were considered superior as God’s chosen people.  Gentiles, as a class of people, were considered inferior and unworthy of any divinely favored activity.  In fact, they were classified as dogs, which in that time was a derogatory term likening them to unclean animals.

Since Jesus revealed God to humanity, his actions towards the Gentiles demonstrated not only an unprecedented level of care and consideration for them, but what he came to implement would transcend ethnic prejudices and transform discriminatory practices.  His death on the cross created a new entity, called the Church, whereby those former lines of demarcation were erased and all who were apart of the this entity would have equal access, equal promises and equal consideration. Ephesians 2:13-16 aptly captures this

But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees.  He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed. (Ephesians 2:13-16 NET)

From a first century perspective, no longer would one group (Jews) have the privileged upper hand that denied the other group (Gentiles) equal access and consideration.   Now, the privilege would be granted exclusively through Christ and the new entity that he established, access through faith in him.  The hostility presented here refers to the Mosaic covenant that created the ability for one group to discriminate against the other group but now has been rendered ineffective through Christ’s death on the cross.

From a contemporary perspective, this ought to impale any notion that one group of people is in anyway superior to another and deserving of a superior status.  It is unfortunate that for so many centuries this was not the case, that the beauty of cross was marred by biased applications of unbiased Biblical truths.  It is egregious that such interpretations resulted in the denigration of a whole class of people that would have such a forceful and continuing impact.

Nonetheless, misapplications cannot and should not be confused with the intentional actions of a loving God who deemed all creation equally worthy of reconciliation appropriated through the gift of his Son and faith in him.  Nor should it be of consequence that culturally biased representations of him would skew his affiliation with one race or the other.  He died so individuals from all  races, creeds, tongues, nations would have equal opportunity to the gift of eternal life.  This transcends race, it transcends historical mis-actions, it transcends cultural biases.

So the quest for the colorless Christ considers his work and person over what has been done with it by lost and misguided people.  Colorless is actually a misnomer for it suggests an erasure of ethnic heritage.  Rather colorless considers all races and ethnicities as equally valuable.  For the Christ-follower, this means moving beyond the past transgressions and embracing the model of integration that Christ came to establish.  It recognizes the historic mishandling of evidence and resulting prejudices are nothing more than a product of the same sin that Christ came to expunge in order to create an unprecedented unity that defies ethnic and cultural prejudices.  It means stepping outside of the biases and considering the brother as a brother rather than a member of a different race.  Paul’s prescription in Philippians 3:13-14 to forget those things which are behind is equally applicable to the sensitivities of historic mistreatment.

As long as sin exists in a broken and fallen world, there will always be racism in one form or the other or milder versions of ignorance and cultural superiority.   But let those who look to Christ demonstrate his transcendence of these issues, abolition of biased attitudes and composition of equal consideration and sensitivity to those impacted.Similar Posts:

• When Theology Becomes a Stumbling Block
• A great place to start your cultural prolegomena
• If God So Loved the World, Then Why Do We Hate It?
• Things I Used to Believe, but Now I’m Not So Sure
• Doing missions in your own backyard (Cultural Prolegomena)

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?Similar Posts:

• Scot McKnight on why he is not Catholic or Orthodox
• Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1
• What if God Read Your Posts? A Reminder About Christian Conduct on the Internet
• Urgent Message from Michael Patton
• Financial Needs

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.

I thank God that this is the case because I know that whatever sinful bent I have it will get the better of me sometime. It is just the way it goes living with corruption. I also know that I will not be alleviated of my bents until the restoration of my body at the resurrection. I just have to do whatever I can to master it until then. And as the U2 song goes, “some days are better than others.” I can identify with sinners because I am one. I can identify with those who have a bent, because I have one (many actually). Therefore, when I see someone giving in to the bent of homosexuality, I am saddened. My heart goes out to them because their problem is essentially the same as mine. We have a corrupted nature that causes us to give in to our bents.

Now, back to the question of the hour. Can homosexuals be Christians? This is really a theological question that evidences a lack of understanding about sin and redemption. It reveals a major misconception about the nature of sin, placing homosexuality in its own category because of its depraved nature. While I do believe that homosexuality is a worse sin than many others (that is right, not all sins are equal like some would have us believe), I don’t believe that those who have that bent should be seen differently than others.

We could ask the question this way: Can people who have sinful bents be Christians? Of course. Who else can be? Christ was the only one that did not have a sinful bent. Okay then, how about this: Can people who have really bad sinful bents be Christians? Again, the only biblical answer is yes. People who have really bad sinful bents can be Christians. Really, the question that is being asked is this: Can sinners be Christians? Again, I say, is there any other kind?

Some would respond and say that while they are willing to concede that homosexuals can be Christians, they must be in the process of overcoming this sinful behavior. In other words, they must have consistent and perpetual victory over this bent. Hold on there. While I agree that homosexuals can and many times do have victory over this bent to the point where they redeem themselves completely from this lifestyle, I don’t necessarily think that this is always going to happen. I would say that in my life there are some bents that I feel I have had victory over, and some that remain as a nagging persistent web. This web is one of deception and destruction that can easily trip us up. Listen to the writer of the book of Hebrews:

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:1-2).

The writer of Hebrews says that it is “easy” to get entangled in this web. The passage warns of the ten euperistaton hamartian–literally, “the easy ensnaring sin.” I believe that the primary referent for “the easily ensnaring sin” is the sin of unbelief (the subject of the book), but this sin of unbelief expresses itself in the sin of the hour. In other words, the sin of unbelief leads forth to our practicing of our particular bent. Most importantly, it is “easy” to fall into this.

Again, while I agree that homosexuals can and should be overcoming this sin, it could be the case that they have become entangled in it. This entanglement may be the very acts of homosexuality or it might be the plight of struggling with it until redemption. It is no different for those of us who are not bent toward a homosexual lifestyle. Some of our most serious bents may plague us, literally, until Kingdom come.

Many refer to Paul admonishing the Corinthians to look back to their victory over sin, implying that they did not practice such things any longer or were completely delivered from them. One of these sins is homosexuality.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

While this seems straight forward upon a cursory reading, I don’t believe that it supports the case that homosexuals can’t be Christians for two primary reasons. First, the people to whom Paul was writing were sinners and were in the process of being rebuked by Paul. Notice here just three chapters back:

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?” (1 Cor. 3:1-3).

They were fleshly. The sins described in 6:9-10 are fleshly sins. This means that the Corinthians were not necessarily doing well. Yet Paul says they were washed and sanctified. Now either Paul has a slight case of amnesia or we have to understand 6:9-11 differently which brings me to the second reason I believe that this passage cannot be used in support of the person who says homosexuals cannot be Christians. Paul identifies Christians with Christ, not with their sinful disposition. In Pauline thought, people who are clothed in Christ’s righteousness are no longer named according to their sinful bent, even if that bent may continue to entangle them. The Corinthians were entangled in their bents to be sure, but Paul sees them through the righteousness of Christ. This is why Paul could say “such were some of you.” This does not make their sinfulness any less severe, but it does say that Christ’s redemption, in Pauline theology, has redeemed the sinner, while still in a sinning state. Those without the covering of Christ’s righteousness are still identified with their sin in the eyes of God. Therefore, understanding this context, it is true, fornicators, thieves, covetous, homosexuals and all unrighteous people (those not covered by Christ’s righteousness) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But thankfully, we have been covered by His righteousness and set apart, even though we are still sinners.

One more thing. I often hear this concession: While I believe that homosexuals can be saved, they cannot believe that homosexuality is approved by God or attempt to justify their sin. While I understand and agree with this to some degree, I still hold back and say that this is not always the case. We all have ways of justifying our bents, whatever they may be. Sometimes we minimize their seriousness, while other times we outright deny them. It is also often the case that we just do not ever deal with them. Peter lived twelve years after the resurrection of Christ justifying his belief that Jews were better than Gentiles. He lived twelve years after becoming a Christian believing that he, by virtue of being a Jew, was so much better than Gentiles that he would not even set foot in their house. Speaking to the Gentile Cornelius and his family, he said, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28). What if Peter had died in year eleven? He would have died living his entire Christian life as a prideful racist. Racism is spoken of more in the New Testament as a mark of ungodliness than homosexuality. Therefore, while I believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit should be there and it should change our hearts, we have this uncanny bent to justify our sinfulness to ourselves and to others or to just ignore it.

Having said all this, we all need to recognize the utter sinfulness of sexual perversion. Homosexuality is a sin, and a terribly destructive one at that. But we need to be careful and gracious with those who struggle with this sin, understanding that the struggle against sin is in the plight of us all. The solution is for us to be non-compromising to the political correct agenda of our culture to turn all sin into a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, but at the same time to be gracious, knowing that the only hope that anyone has is to be covered in Christ’s righteousness, not our own.

Can a homosexual be Christian. Yes. All sinners can be Christians. Indeed, all Christians are sinners. Let us all view this important issue in light of a deep understanding of the plight of sinfulness and may God help us to overcome the resulting bents.

“Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).Similar Posts:

• Can a Divorced Christian be Remarried?
• Divorce, Remarriage, and the Committed Christian
• A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment
• Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?
• Is Divorce Ever Biblical?

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.

Similar Posts:

• Constructing a Credo: Will Dominoes Do the Trick?
• The Christian Message in 9 Words
• Where Do You Stand on God’s Sovereignty?
• First Things Blogcast#1: Seeker Sensitive Movement
• Ignorant Evangelicals

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?

Similar Posts:

• Are We Condemned for the Sin of Another (Part 4: The Resolution)
• “Will One Sin Really Send You to Hell for All Eternity?” or “Why is Hell Eternal?”
• Why is Hell Eternal?
• Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
• Does Sola Fide Means You Can Do Whatever You Please?

…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."

Similar Posts:

• Emergers on Abortion: Where Do You Stand?
• Can a Christian Support Abortion? The Theology of Abortion
• A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment
• Birth Control and the Christian
• Men and Women: What they like and don’t like—and why it matters

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.

Similar Posts:

• Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up – Part 4 – Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers
• The Thing Itself – Consequences of the Abortion Debate
• Can a Christian Support Abortion? The Theology of Abortion
• Random Thoughts of Emergence
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God?