Author: Evan Lenow

Christ-follower, husband, father, ethics professor

The Blight of Abortion in America

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

Today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that opened the door for legalized abortion in the United States. It is one of the few Supreme Court decisions that most Americans know by name. While many of the more famous decisions represent crucial moments in American history for the rights of the oppressed (Brown v. Board of Education, etc.), Roe v. Wade stands as a blight on American history for the resulting carnage of the abortion industry since January 22, 1973.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. Eighteen percent of women who have abortions are teenagers, and more than half are in their twenties. Between 1973 and 2008 (the most recent year for reported statistics), 50 million legal abortions have taken place. In 2008 alone, there were 1.21 million abortions.[1]

The Guttmacher Institute also reports some of the reasons for abortion, stating:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[2]

The number of abortions in the United States is staggering—50 million in 38 years. These are 50 million lives that were ended. These were 50 million individual persons whose opportunity to develop, live, and thrive was taken from them all in the name of a right to privacy. Since when did my right to privacy allow me to take someone else’s life? These are precious little lives that have been exterminated, and our society has chosen to make it legal.

On this anniversary of a terrible day in American history, consider the following verses. Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I (A)formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” In Psalm 139:15-16, David writes, “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.”

I hope and pray for the day that abortion will no longer be legal and people will see the value of these little lives in the womb.

Health, Wealth & Happiness

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

It is always a good day when you get the mail, and there is a new book waiting for you. Today I received a new book from a good friend of mine, Dave Jones. The book is entitled Health, Wealth & Happiness: Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? In the coming weeks I hope to offer a review of the book published by Kregel. Dave is associate professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Seminary, and he co-authored the book with Russell Woodbridge, also of SEBTS.

The following is a description from Kregel’s website:

The desire for a thriving, healthy, and productive life is as strong as ever, especially in tough economic times. As people become more disillusioned at the state of the economy, they also become more susceptible to the lure of the prosperity gospel and its teachings of health, wealth, and happiness for the faithful. But what happens when the promise of prosperity overshadows the promise of the real gospel–the gospel of Christ?

Believing that the prosperity gospel is constructed upon faulty theology, authors David Jones and Russell Woodbridge take a closer look at five crucial areas of error relating to the teaching of wealth. In a fair but firm tone, the authors discuss the history and theology of the prosperity gospel movement to reveal its fraudulent core biblical teachings that have been historically and popularly misinterpreted, even by today’s most well-known pastors, including T. D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, and Kenneth Copeland. After an introduction and assessment of the movement, readers are invited to take a look at Scripture to understand what the Bible really says about wealth, poverty, suffering, and giving.

I enjoy reading everything Dave writes, so this is sure to be a good resource. Another good resource from Dave is God, Marriage and Family 2nd ed, co-authored with Andreas J. Kostenberger, available from Crossway.

I’ll post a review of this new book as soon as I get a chance to read it.

Who’s the Mother?: The Tangled Web of New Reproductive Technologies

~ Evan Lenow

“‘I’m the only mother,’ I’d correct people brightly, again and again. ‘Actually, there is no biological mother,’ I’d sometimes add, in a tone that I hoped suggested Isn’t this interesting rather than You are an insensitive fool. ‘You see, both the donor and the carrier contributed biologically to each child, so the term cannot encompass this situation.’”

That is the response Melanie Thernstrom provided when people asked who the mother of her “twiblings” was. Thernstrom told the story of her IVF and surrogacy experience in a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine.[1]

Like many women today, Thernstrom suffered from infertility that prevented her from being able to conceive children naturally. After five unsuccessful rounds of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, she and her husband began looking for other alternatives to have children. What they settled on was IVF with donor eggs and the resulting embryos to be carried by surrogates. To make their situation even more complicated, they wanted to have twins, so they had an embryo implanted in two different surrogates at the same time. Roughly nine months later, two babies were born—twins delivered by two different women five days apart. Since that idea of twins is so difficult to grasp, Thernstrom calls her children “twiblings.”

Before evaluating Thernstrom’s situation from an ethical standpoint, I first want to acknowledge that infertility is a devastating condition for many couples. It is not my point to cast stones at those who cannot conceive for that situation is the result of the fall; rather, I want to evaluate one particular aspect of Thernstrom’s specific scenario that should raise eyebrows.

The medical technology available for reproduction is almost the stuff of a science-fiction novel—babies created in a lab from donated material, carried in the womb of another woman and reared by yet others. While these technologies seem to be recent innovations, the most common procedures have been around for a while. Intrauterine insemination (IUI, also known as artificial insemination) was first used on humans in 1785 by British physician John Hunter. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) produced its first birth in July 1978. Surrogacy, in various forms, has been in practice at least since the days of Abram and Sarai, but its modern form has grown in popularity with the development of IVF.

Thernstrom and her husband participated in IVF with the use of donor eggs. Donors don’t have to be a part of the picture for IVF, but they are often used for either sperm or eggs when the couple seeking the IVF has weak or unusable reproductive materials. The use of donor eggs is most common in women over 40 years old because their own eggs tend to be weaker and less likely to implant if fertilized.

The issue I want to raise regarding this situation is one that Thernstrom mentioned in the article. It is the question of moral concern regarding the introduction of outside parties into a marriage for the sake of having children.

Thernstrom relates the story like this:

“I once felt a prick of an unpleasant emotion. It was the week the Fairy Goddonor came to Portland for the egg retrieval. Over tapas one night, I watched her and Michael laughing and suddenly felt unhappy. I poured myself more wine, but instead of dispelling the feelings, it made me feel more alone. ‘You were quiet at dinner,’ Michael said as we got into the car. He turned to look at me. ‘Are you not feeling well?’ ‘Is it weird that you’re having babies with her instead of me?’ ‘I’m not having babies with her. I’m having babies with Melissa and Fie [the surrogates].’ The conversation dissolved into laughter. That was the thing about our conception: there were too many players to be jealous of any one.”

So does Thernstrom’s “prick of an unpleasant emotion” actually point to something more egregious? Could there be a bigger problem underneath the surface?

Here’s the deal. From a biblical standpoint, procreation is only properly carried out within the confines of marriage (Gen 1:28; 4:1; Heb 13:4). In Genesis 16, we see the closest example of the scenario portrayed in the article. In this passage, we see how Sarai gave her maid Hagar to Abram so they could have a child. This would be the ancient form of donor eggs and surrogacy—just without the IVF. I don’t think anyone would doubt that the relationship between Abram and Hagar was adulterous even though Sarai was the one who initiated it.

So that begs the question of whether or not egg or sperm donation for IVF is adultery. Thernstrom admits that she had a moment of “unpleasant emotion.” Could that have been her conscience saying this isn’t right?

Every semester, I pose this same question to my students: Is IVF or IUI with donor(s) adultery? Each class struggles through the answer to that question. The general consensus is that it is difficult to define the situation as adultery in the literal sense of the word because there is no physical relationship between the donor and the spouse. However, my classes generally feel uncomfortable with the idea.

I agree with my classes on the level that adultery cannot be proven in the literal sense because IVF and IUI with donors do not meet a technical definition of adultery. However, has technology provided another means by which an adulterous relationship can be undertaken? Before social networking sites, few people talked about emotional adultery, but now an intimate relationship expressed over social sites and conversations that never produces a physical relationship is generally accepted as emotional adultery. Could it be that the technological advances in reproductive medicine have created another category of reproductive adultery? While the definition is hard to pin down, I believe that the elements are present for such a category. For this reason, I believe it to be the wise choice to avoid the introduction of donor sperm or eggs into the reproductive process.

[1] Melanie Thernstrom, “Meet the Twiblings,” New York Times Magazine. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02babymaking-t.html?ref=magazine.

Is the Virigin Birth Important?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

Last week the Huffington Post included an article on their website by Rita Nakashima Brock on “The Importance of Mary’s Virginity.” The timing was certainly critical as we are fully absorbed in the Christmas season. The message of the article is biting as Dr. Brock attempts to discredit the traditional teaching of the virgin birth as found in Matthew 1. However, she does not hope to do so in order to purge the virgin birth from Christianity. In fact, she states to the contrary:

“Actually, it is quite possible as a Christian to believe Jesus had a biological father and believe the story of the virgin conception says something important. It all depends on what you think ‘virgin’ means.”

For Dr. Brock, Mary’s virginity has nothing to do with biology; instead, she writes:

“I think the most significant meaning of Mary’s virginity is Christian resistance to the oppression of the Roman Empire.”

So the question remains, is the virgin birth (in the traditional sense) really all that important? Let me suggest a few passing misinterpretations and obvious oversights from Dr. Brock’s article, then I’ll hit the heart of the matter.

First, Dr. Brock approaches the issue of the virgin birth with an all-encompassing feminist theology. She describes the ancient pater familias where the father ruled over the family (and by extension, in her words, the emperor served as the “ruling father of the empire”), and claims that Mary was not the typical virgin under that type of system. By being different from that system through the apparent lack of a father’s influence, Brock believes:

“We might describe the story of Mary as a powerful rejection of patriarchal family systems and imperial powers that oppress everyone subject to them.”

Her theology is akin to liberationist theology in the concept that Mary is liberating the woman from oppressive patriarchal rule. In doing so, she is essentially deifying Mary as the Messiah/Anointed One/Christ/Deliverer for oppressed individuals. Wrong? Certainly. Heresy? No doubt?

Second, she totally misses the boat on Joseph. Brock states:

“Mary’s husband Joseph obviously serves her, not the other way around.”

However, according to Matthew’s account, Joseph was about to divorce Mary. In essence, he would have exercised his “patriarchal” duty by kicking her to the curb of ancient society—an unwed mother. Yes, Joseph serves her, but not in the way that Dr. Brock perceives. Joseph is not a subject serving a master—he is a righteous man lovingly protecting his betrothed wife from shame and embarrassment.

Third, she totally makes up the argument about Mary’s father not being involved. Brock notes:

“Mary was definitely not a virgin of this type — her father plays no part in her story. She is independent of a father’s rule, and by implication, of the father-in-chief, the emperor.”

Scripture tells nothing of Mary’s father. Silence in Scripture is not a license to make up stories and turn Mary into a 21st century independent feminist Messiah.

Here are a few things Brock got right. Roman emperors did demand to be worshiped as gods. It is debatable when exactly that started. It is reported that Julius Caesar allowed himself to be worshiped and Augustus permitted it only outside Rome. Caligula demanded it. How did this play out in first century Judea? Who knows?!

She also gets right how the Catholic Church elevated Mary to the status of “Mother of God.” This is an unfortunate elevation in the history of the church because Mary herself is worshiped as a god in many Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The iconography of the Middle Ages deifying Mary is certainly heretical.

So what is the point of the virgin birth? It is more than just a story that resonates with feminist-liberation theology. The virgin birth is an essential element of Christian theology. It goes back to the doctrine of original sin.[1] If you hold to a natural headship view of original sin, then the sin nature is passed down to each subsequent generation by procreation (and directly related to the father’s role in said procreation). The only way to bypass a sinful nature in man is to bypass the natural procreative process and have conception take place by means of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if Jesus was merely another child born to Mary, albeit is seemingly conceived with the help of a visitor to a temple prostitute, then Jesus was not free of a sin nature.[2] If Jesus was not free from sin—for all people born with a sin nature sin (Rom 5:12)—then we do not have a perfect Savior who can atone for our sins. He is just a good guy who had some interesting things to say and died way too young.

Dr. Brock got it wrong—dead wrong. The literal virgin birth is absolutely essential to Christianity. Without it, we are most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:19).

[1] For a discussion on the various views of original sin, see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 648-56.

[2] Patterson describes it this way, “By the same token, the virgin conception of Jesus, the second Adam, is necessitated since if Jesus were born with a sinful nature, then He, too, would have been susceptible to sin. As the second Adam, with no sinful nature, He was able to confront temptation, triumph over the overtures of Satan, and remain a spotless, sinless sacrifice for Adam’s race.” Paige Patterson, “Total Depravity,” in Whosoever Will (edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 37-38.

Sharing in Ministry: Staying Connected to Your Home Church

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

Many seminary students have heard (and probably repeated) the jokes and comments based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:57 when he says, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” The jokes and comments usually follow along the lines of no one will respect you in your home church if you ever return to preach or minister because they will always remember you as that bratty little kid who tormented the nursery workers. They will never be able to look past that time you dumped soap in the baptistery or short-sheeted the youth minister’s bed at youth camp. Now if you did some of those things as a child, it might not be a bad idea to go ahead and own up to them and apologize. It might clear the air a little.

The reality, however, is that seminary students and ministers alike can reap great benefits from staying connected to their home churches or the church that influenced them greatly during their time of preparation for future ministry. It is an overlooked relationship that ought to be restored.

This past Sunday, I had the joy, privilege, and honor of preaching at my home church, Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova (Memphis), TN. As I told the congregation, it was a moment that I never dreamed would come. During the first 18 years of my life, I sat in the congregation listening to Adrian Rogers expound the Word of God faithfully week after week. The list of guest preachers to fill the pulpit for Dr. Rogers during those years was short and consisted of a who’s who list of Southern Baptist pulpiteers. The likes of Paige Patterson, John Phillips, Ken Whitten, and a few others were the only ones I ever heard pinch hit for Dr. Rogers. As unfitting as it may seem, my name now joins the list of those who have preached from that famed pulpit.

In recent years, the current pastor of Bellevue, Dr. Steve Gaines, has invested in a friendship with me that I did not deserve. I am sure that I am not the only former Bellevue member now in ministry somewhere else whom he has befriended. For that friendship, I am thankful. But more importantly, the connection back to the church where I first heard the gospel message is one that is more valuable than gold.

I am thankful for the investment of Bellevue Baptist Church in my life. They came alongside my parents and nurtured me spiritually. Although I believe it is the parents’ responsibility to lead their children spiritually, the church is an indispensable resource for equipping both parent and child.

In my limited experience as a seminary professor, I see that most students remain connected to their home churches for a brief time and then mostly lose touch. I don’t know if it is the fault of the student or the church, but I encourage both the student and the church to work at keeping the lines of communication open. As the years go by and that student graduates, I believe it is essential for the church to understand how their ministry has expanded beyond the boundaries of their visible ministry in the community. As I told the church Sunday, Bellevue has a ministry in Fort Worth at Southwestern Seminary because so much of what I teach is based on the theology and ministry I learned growing up there.

Certainly, the average minister will probably never have the opportunity to serve in his home church as a pastor. However, I believe staying connected to the church of one’s youth and reporting to them the extent of their ministry through you is a very biblical concept. At the conclusion of both his first and second missionary journeys, Paul returned to Antioch presumably to report to the church what had been accomplished (Acts 14:26-28; 18:22-23). This was the church where Paul spent his formative years after conversion and that recognized God had set him aside for ministry. Paul made a point to return to Antioch and inform the church how their ministry had expanded through Asia Minor and Europe.

For those of us serving in ministry beyond the immediate contexts of those churches that sent us out, we need to stay connected. Let the church know how they have increased their ministry through the ones they have sent out into the fields. This is healthy for the minister and healthy for the churches.