Tag: Culture

The Bible and Race: A Book Review

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

In honor of Black History Month, I want to post a book review I wrote a couple of years ago on T.B. Maston’s classic volume, The Bible and Race. Maston was a long-time ethics professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This book was originally published in 1959, in the heat of racial tensions in the South. Within the predominately white Southern Baptist Convention, Maston’s words were years before his time.

In celebration of its Centennial, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has reprinted T.B Maston’s The Bible and Race as part of its Library of Centennial Classics. Maston held degrees from Carson-Newman College, Southwestern Seminary, Texas Christian University, and Yale University, and he taught Christian ethics at Southwestern until his retirement in 1963. The Bible and Race was written in the aftermath of the landmark Supreme Court school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education of 1954. As the birth pangs of the coming Civil Rights movement were certainly felt by the predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention, Maston authored this volume to provide a biblical perspective on the “various aspects of the race problem” (vii).

In contrast to many current books on ethical issues, Maston presents a straightforward, biblical approach to the problem of racism by discussing eight biblical passages and their implications for the race issue. In each of these, he takes a biblical truth gleaned from a particular passage, introduces related passages where appropriate, and considers the impact each of these have on the issue of race.

Maston first attempts to reveal the biblical truths about man, and in so doing, dispel some myths that had been propagated regarding minorities. He lays a foundation in the first chapter with a discussion of the image of God from Genesis 1:27. Maston writes, “It is man, representative of all men, who is created in the image of God. The image is not restricted to red or yellow, black or white” (3). By laying the foundation that all men are created in the image of God, he is able to use subsequent chapters to dispel myths about minorities, including that God has limited where they can live (Acts 17:26) and that they are cursed by God (Gen 9:25). Finally, Maston asserts that many of the problems involving race have their foundation in a “we-you” mentality that is evidenced in the interactions between the Jews and Samaritans in Scripture (e.g., John 8:48).

Next, Maston reveals biblical truths about God to address racism. First, he declares from Acts 10:34 that God is not a respecter of persons and “does not look on or judge men by the color of their skin or by their general external conditions; he looks on the heart” (33). Maston’s greatest concern with this principle is that his readers would understand that salvation is open to all men, no matter what race, because God desires that all men should come to him. If Christians believe that God views men differently based upon race, Maston fears that the mission enterprise to other nations will be hindered.

Maston presents another truth about God as he writes about God and government from Romans 13:1–7. Since God has ordained government, men should obey it; however, no government has the God-given authority to prevent a Christian from proclaiming the gospel. The one significant shortcoming of this volume comes in the midst of this chapter, and is likely only painfully obvious in light of five more decades of tension in this area. Maston offers little practical application to the role of government and the response of the people to government as it specifically relates to racial issues. However, one must keep in mind that the work was written prior to the protests, demonstrations, and activities of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

Finally, Maston presents a biblical response to the race issue by discussing the key passages of Matthew 22:34–40 and Matthew 28:19–20. In the two chapters where he discusses these passages, Maston urges his readers to treat people of all races with love and to proclaim the gospel and make disciples of all nations. Maston believed that the race problem in America would have a direct impact on the spread of the gospel around the world. He asserts, “If Christians do not attempt honestly to apply the Christian spirit and Christian principles to race relations, how can they expect others to respect their Christian claims or to hear and accept the message they proclaim? The race problem is, in a very real sense, ‘American Christianity’s test case’” (95).

T.B. Maston’s hope was most certainly that in the fifty years after the publication of this volume, the strained racial situation in the United States would have been solved. While great strides have been taken to resolve many issues, racism is still a problem today. For this reason, Maston’s book is a crucial work in the field of Christian ethics. Although some of his terminology and applications are certainly dated, the ideas and concerns expressed in the text are just as relevant today as they ever were. For Southern Baptists, we should heed the words of one of our early pioneers in race relations as he writes, “We can safely imply from this statement by Paul [Col 3:10–11] that to the degree we have progressed in the likeness of our Creator, to that degree we shall be free from class and racial consciousness and discriminations” (10).

*This review was originally published by the Center for Theological Research. You can find it and other resources at http://baptisttheology.org.

Super Bowl Trafficking of a Different Kind

~ Evan Lenow

Super Bowl week is in full swing here in North Texas. ESPN is broadcasting live from Sundance Square in downtown Fort Worth. Kids of all ages are enjoying the NFL Experience at the Dallas Convention Center. Cowboys Stadium has been sold out for what many believe will be the most highly attended Super Bowl in history. The traffic around North Texas is going to be terrible for the next week. But there is another kind of trafficking that is taking place as well.

This past Thursday evening, I had the opportunity to moderate a panel discussion at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the issue of sex trafficking. Each year sex traffickers enslave 100,000 to 300,000 young girls and boys in forced prostitution. Within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, 250 boys and girls are bought and sold each month. Now that Super Bowl week is here in North Texas, that number is expected to increase exponentially. It is estimated that 12,000 minors will be transported to the metroplex and forced into prostitution during the days and weeks surrounding the big game.

For many people, the idea of sex trafficking seems foreign—in more ways than one. It is not common dinner conversation at the local restaurant to consider the implications of this horrendous crime. In addition, many Americans consider it to be a foreign problem happening in third world countries on the other side of the globe. Unfortunately, this sex trafficking is occurring right in front of us, and we may not even recognize it.

During the panel discussion last week, our eyes were opened to the devastating practice of domestic sex trafficking in the United States. The point of the discussion was to raise awareness among our students and hopefully to generate some constructive responses for how our churches can respond to this issue.

A local resource in the DFW area dealing with this issue is Traffick911, a non-profit organization seeking to raise awareness and provide a means of escape for those caught in this industry. They have been working on a campaign called, “I’m Not Buying It,” and have enlisted the help of local and national celebrities, including Dallas Cowboys NT Jay Ratliff, former New England Patriot Kevin Wyman, and Christian recording artist Natalie Grant. You can check out their public service announcements and other resources on their website at www.traffick911.com.

You can find other resources on this issue at www.losethechains.com, and you can read an article about the panel discussion here. Take a few minutes to look at these resources and see how you can make a difference to stop this practice.

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.

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.