Iranian Christian Women Acquitted

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra

Two high-profile Christian women were acquitted by judges in Iran in May after they were arrested in March of 2009 on charges of anti-state activity, spreading Christianity, and apostasy.

Maryam Rostampour, 28, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 31, are both Iranian converts to Christianity. The women, who evangelized and passed out Bibles, were jailed after authorities raided the apartment they shared and found Christian literature. They spent about eight months in prison, and another six months on conditional release while waiting for their trial.

Iran acquitted the women on the charges of spreading Christianity and apostasy. (The anti-state activity charge had been dropped earlier.) But the women were warned that any further actions would be dealt with severely.

The two fled the country, and were reunited with Sam and Lin Yeghnazar, their spiritual parents and founders of Elam Ministries, a ministry to Iranian Christians.

“It was very emotional when we first saw them,” Lin Yeghnazar said. “Now, we want to see them rest and recover.”

The women said they were grateful to everyone who prayed for them. “I believe our arrest, imprisonment and subsequent release were in the timing and plan of God, and it was all for His glory,” Rostampour said. “But the prayers of people encouraged and sustained us throughout this ordeal.”

The ordeal included pressure to recant their faith, repeated interrogations, weeks in solitary confinement, and unhealthy prison conditions, according to Elam Ministries. Both also became seriously ill while imprisoned and did not receive proper treatment.

“We have seen the Lord do miracles over and over again,” Amirizadeh said. “He kept us and gave us favor in prison, and sustained us during a very difficult period of waiting for our final trial.” The women could have been sent back to jail, or even sentenced to death, for apostasy.

The women did not deny Christ while in Iran, and their mentor Sam Yeghnazar told them their example had encouraged countless people around the world, according to Elam.

“We are frail human beings with many weaknesses,” the women said. “The honor and glory go to God who has kept and used us, although we don’t know why He has chosen us. All the glory goes to Him.”

Organizations such as Elam Ministries, Open Doors USA, and International Christian Concern have been active in drawing attention to the women and demanding their release.

“Praise the Lord for the great news of their acquittal and freedom in another country,” said Open Doors USA President/CEO Dr. Carl Moeller. “Literally millions of Christians around the world have been praying for them.”

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra is a freelance writer based in the Chicago area.

A Bikinied Muslim Miss USA

The backlash to Rima Fakih's win suggests mainstream America still wants their national beauties to be Christian.

Mandy McMichael, guest blogger

When I tell people that I study religion and beauty pageants in America, they usually ask, “What do beauty pageants have to do with religion?” “Everything,” I reply. So I was excited to see that another pageant participants' religious beliefs are in the news — if only because it confirms my hypothesis.

This is the second consecutive year the Miss USA pageant prompted a media explosion surrounding the religious beliefs of one of its contestants. The attention given to Carrie Prejean and Rima Fakih prove, perhaps surprisingly, that a number of people still pay attention to beauty pageants in America.

Last year, many speculated that Prejean’s answer to a question about same-sex marriage cost her the crown. Prejean’s answer stemmed from her evangelical beliefs about marriage. Since then, she has talked about her Christianity on talk shows and in an autobiography. Many in the conservative Christian community embraced Prejean as one of their own, believing that she did not win because she stood up for her religious beliefs. Others questioned her youthful indiscretions. Fewer questioned her participation in the pageant that made her famous.

This year, for the first time, a Muslim was crowned Miss USA. Rima Fakih is a 24-year-old Lebanese American who identifies as both Muslim and Christian. In the days following the pageant, the Internet exploded with commentary about the winner. Fakih’s faith yielded much press among her faith community, as Prejean’s did last year. Some Muslims celebrated Fakih as an example of diversity within Islam. Others applauded her win as proof of wider acceptance of Muslims into American society. Still others criticized her participation as out of keeping with Islamic teaching.

The intriguing commonality between Prejean and Fakih is that their respective faith communities felt compelled to comment. Each woman’s faith came to the fore as media praised, questioned, or criticized her religious affiliation. Moreover, each contestant negotiated her relationship to her religion in the midst of pageant participation and controversy. Fakih felt compelled to explain her participation, finally stating that religion should not be a factor for Miss USA winners. (She was also compelled to explain her pole-dancing lessons at a Michigan nightclub last year.) Christianity, on the other hand, finds itself so intertwined with the world of pageantry that it is no longer controversial for most Americans.

The desire for a Christian beauty to represent America runs deep. Fakih’s case reminds me of another time in our country’s history when ethnicity and religion were closely linked for a national beauty-contest winner. Bess Myerson, Miss New York, won Miss America in 1945. As the first (and still the only) Jewish Miss America, she faced criticism because of her religion. Indeed, pageant officials urged her to change her last name to something less Jewish so that she would be more widely accepted. Most Jews were thrilled with Myerson’s win, recognizing it as another step toward cultural acceptance. Indeed, while some diversity of opinion may have existed among American Jews, history has not preserved it. Myerson, however, found herself an unwelcome guest in some parts of post-WWII America where anti-Semitism still flourished.

The need for Christians to hold national pageant titles raises questions for me about why Christians care so much. As a Christian, and despite the fact that I’m deeply intrigued by pageants and watch them regularly as a part of my research, somewhere deep inside I believe that I should not care about the nation’s choice for “ideal beauty.” Indeed, something seems awry when Christian ideals of beauty so perfectly match those of the world. The church ought to form alternative ideals of womanhood that are not dependent on what marketers from Victoria’s Secret or Cosmo tell us. Christians should be the ones teaching girls how to be successful, confident people at home in their bodies. We should help them discover and portray the beauty of Christ to the world rather than expecting the world to teach our young women what it means to be beautiful.

Do I think Christians should stop participating in pageants? No. I’m not suggesting that it is sinful. Indeed, my research shows that women gain much from pageant participation. Rather, I’m cautioning Christians to resist laying claim to pageants. And, like the American Muslim community and the American Jewish community before that, I think Christians would do well to recognize that national beauty pageants are not celebrations of religion but of beauty. Rima Fakih, just as Bess Myerson, represents the current ideal of American beauty, not American Christianity.

Mandy E. McMichael is a Ph.D. candidate in religion at Duke University. Her dissertation is on religion and beauty pageants in the South. She wrote about Carrie Prejean and the history of U.S. beauty pageants last year.

I Once Was 'Lost' But Now Am Found

Despite all its syncretistic symbols, the show's finale depicted one aspect of Christian theology superbly.

Amy Julia Becker

My husband and I consciously choose to watch only one television show at a time, which we watch, well, religiously. For the past few years, our show has been Lost. Its dramatic plot and love stories and perpetual mysteries all piqued my interest, but the show, written by a Catholic and a Jew, also played with philosophical and theological themes that kept me coming back for more. Sunday night’s series finale was no exception.

Judeo-Christian language and imagery show up repeatedly. There’s Jacob, who, to pass the mantel of leadership of the island to Jack Shepherd, dips a cup into water and says, “Drink this.” The scene is laden with references to the Last Supper. There’s Jack’s father, Christian Shepherd, who dies and comes to life again, as one of a handful of resurrected characters. Light is the source of all goodness. Miraculous healings abound.

But, as much as the show draws on Christian symbols, it doesn't offer a Christ figure. There is no personal deity. Although “the island,” through Jacob, summons wayward individuals to itself, those individuals are then on their own, left to call forth their individual light and let it shine as they see fit. Lost could easily be dismissed as yet another syncretistic attempt to speak in vaguely positive spiritual terms, failing to say anything specific about God.

One aspect of Sunday’s show stands out, however, for its theological truth. Over the course of the past season, two story lines have been playing out in tandem. In one, the characters never crashed on the island. Their flight from Australia lands in Los Angeles without a hitch,and they go on with their normal lives, with varying degrees of happiness. In the other, life on the island continues, as the same characters battle against nature, against each other, and against the evil smoke monster. The final episode brings the two stories together.

In order for the two stories to merge, the people in LA need to remember their lives on the island. But simply seeing one another isn’t enough. The memory of their time together on the island comes through physical touch, and it comes only through love. When Jin and Sun see their baby in an ultrasound exam, when Kate helps Claire give birth to Aaron, when Charlie brings Claire a blanket, when Juliet hands Sawyer a candy bar — profound or mundane, the physical touch from the hand of the beloved prompts memory and reunion.

In every case, the memory of love becomes a present reality. The pain of the past is overcome. The dead are alive. The wounded are healed. Those separated are reunited. As Tolkien might say, “Everything bad has come untrue.”

It is here that the creators of Lost got it right, in recognizing the power of love and the power of physical touch to enable memory, healing, and joy. In the Bible, Jesus explains that we need “eyes to see” the deeper, spiritual reality, the kingdom of God at work around us. Lost's characters did not have eyes to see one another, and they did not have eyes to see themselves, until they encountered love. For Christians, it is Jesus who gives us eyes to see: eyes to see the world as it is and to know ourselves loved within it. Jesus did not demonstrate God’s healing power from a far-off place. Rather, he healed and cared for people by touching them. He put his hands on the eyes of the blind man. He touched the lepers. And his touch was the touch of one who loves. His loving touch enables us to see.

Each of Lost's characters was alone when the series began. Even the married couple, Jin and Sun, felt alienated from one another. Over the course of the series, these rugged individuals soon realized that they needed one another, that they needed community in order to survive. Moreover, they needed one another in order to understand themselves, and in order to become whole.

Christian theology is relational at its core. The Father loves the Son loves the Spirit, and from that Trinitarian love emerges creation. That love for human beings extends so far that God came as one of us. In his book Love Walked Among Us, Paul Miller points out a pattern that emerges in the Gospels. Jesus sees a person in need, feels compassion towards that person, and moves toward that person to offer help (cf. Luke 7:11-17). The same pattern holds true of God in the Old Testament (Ex. 3:7).

Lost certainly is not suggesting that the Trinitarian God is the answer to the world’s problems. The final scene — with a stained-glass window incorporating a pantheon of religious symbols, including everything from a cross to a yin-yang circle — is as vague and vacuous as modern spirituality gets. This is a show that, for the most part, gets its theology wrong. But it is also a show that, for the most part, gets its relationships right. As a result, the series depicts theological truth even as it shies away from proclaiming it.

CT's Entertainment Blog has covered Lost several times, including regular installments from Chris Seay, author of The Gospel According to Lost. Seay said he was disappointed with the series finale. Online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey spoke with Entertainment Weekly's Lost aficionado, Jeff 'Doc' Jensen, last week. Her.meneutics blogger Laura Leonard has written about Lost's female characters.

No Right to Rest for Weary Anglicans

Why churches like St. James in Newport Beach still need support from worshipers who have left the battle.

Christine A. Scheller

Such is the fatigue over the Anglican-Episcopal splintering that two weekends ago, when the Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles consecrated the denomination’s second partnered gay bishop, the event didn’t make a blip on many evangelical news websites. Also largely unnoticed was the previous week’s press release from St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach, California, stating that it would appeal the latest California Court of Appeal ruling in its property dispute with the Episcopal Church. Christianity Today reported on St. James’s court case as recently as January, but for embattled congregations, months can feel like years.

St. James broke ties with the Episcopal Church and briefly joined the Anglican Diocese of Luwero, Uganda, in 2004 before becoming a member of the Anglican Church of North America last year. The court case is set to determine who gets its building and other assets.

Those of us with any investment in these matters cannot succumb to our weariness if we deign to call ourselves people of conscience and conviction. Until there is resolution, we owe faithful allegiance and support to the persons and congregations that are still wrestling with these difficult issues. Both prayer and words of encouragement cost little, while St. James has set up a webpage for donations to aid in its legal defense. Expressing public support, as I’m doing here, may not change anything, but it lets warring congregations know they are not forgotten and that others stand with them.

I was reminded of my own responsibility in early May, when I visited St. James and spoke to the church’s attorney, Eric Sohlgren. “Is eviction imminent?” I asked, having read of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in March. “No, I don’t think it would be imminent,” he replied, as he explained the church’s decision to file another appeal. “It depends on how things unfold obviously, and what path the court decides to take. If they turn us down, then St. James still has an option to go back to the U.S. Supreme Court, because at that point the case would be final in California.”

Sohlgren says that in five years of legal wrangling, St. James has never had a chance to actually argue its case in court, and he suspects that the highest court in the land declined to adjudicate the case the first time around because it was “still percolating in the courts of California.”

Church property laws vary by state, according to Sohlgren. In North Carolina, for example, a church can change its denominational affiliation without threat of losing its property, while in Texas, even if a church has bought and paid for its property, the denomination gets it in a dispute. In California, he says, “the courts are saying it’s more muddied.”

As former members of St. James, my husband and I joined an Episcopal church with deep reluctance when we moved back East in the fall of 2008. Our new congregation describes itself as “traditional,” but is nonetheless part of the branch of American Anglicanism that is suing our former church. If asked where my allegiance lies in terms of the legal conflict, I would say without hesitation that it lies with St. James. In fact, my vestryman husband and I make sure we do not directly or indirectly contribute funds to the Episcopal Church’s actions against St. James.

At St. James I found refreshment and renewal when I was burnt out on a thin liturgy of praise music and preaching. At St. James, my husband and I were confirmed as Anglicans by Evans Kisekka, bishop of the Diocese of Luwero. And Terry Kelshaw, retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande, conducted the funeral service for our son. It was there, too, that a loving community of saints buoyed us up in the aftermath of that tragic event. And, equally significant, our Episcopal home is where we are now spiritually nourished and are nourishing others.

My husband and I have made an uncomfortable compromise so that we can worship according to our convictions amid limited options, but we do so understanding that if the issues that have divided the wider communion boil over in our congregation, we will leave before investing our energy and resources in a fight that's already been decided by the Episcopal Church.

We’ve been told that if a dispute with the denomination erupts in our state, the law dictates that church property goes to the denomination. Legal precedent here dates at least as far back as the 1930s, and I am doubtful that my fellow congregants are any more willing than I am to pay the price St. James and others are paying.

For example, Sohlgren says the Episcopal Church sued St. Luke's of the Mountains in La Crescenta, California, along with its clergy and volunteer vestry members, to confiscate the church’s property based on two theories: “(1) the Episcopal Church had a trust interest in the St. Luke's property owned by the corporation, and (2) the vestry's vote to change the corporation's religious affiliation from Episcopal to Anglican was invalid.”

The courts ultimately sided with the denomination on both theories. Sohlgren charges, “Since the Episcopal Church won the only thing they were seeking to obtain — the property — they could have released the volunteers from the suit and obtained a court judgment only against the corporation. . . . But, not exercising any restraint, the Episcopal Church also obtained judgments against each of the individual volunteers. . . . As a result, these individuals will have to live with the public record of a court judgment against them for the rest of their lives for having served as volunteers on a church board.”

Would you risk your church home and/or your public record over a theological dispute? What are you doing, or what would you do under similar circumstances? How are denominational divisions over theology and sexuality impacting you and your church? And what, if anything, is the battle doing to your faith?

Christian Female Musicians, Missing in Action

What accounts for the surprising dearth of women in today's CCM scene?

Laura Leonard

Do you know Becky? If you are a Christian woman in your 30s or 40s and married with kids, you are Becky. Becky, I was fascinated to learn, is what Christian radio stations have named their ideal listener, and most everything you hear on K-LOVE, WORD FM, or your local Christian radio station is chosen to appeal to her.

Becky doesn’t seem to like other women very much, at least not when they sing. "[Women] feel threatened by and possibly jealous of a female artist," says one Christian radio executive. "My guess is that they can't even put it into words. My joke is: If the artist's name is Becky, then 'Becky' does not want to hear her on the air!"

According to Mark Geil’s article for Christianity Today on the gender balance in contemporary Christian music (CCM), exactly zero women made Billboard's lists of the past decade’s top 10 Christian songs and top 10 Christian artists. (Billboard compiles their lists based on record sales.) Only two women made the top 50, at numbers 40 (Francesca Battistelli) and 50 (Stacie Orrico). The surprising statistics highlight how difficult it can be for women in today’s Christian music industry.

That women in CCM are outnumbered 2:1, possibly even 3:1, certainly doesn't help. But this has not always been a problem. In the late 1990s and early ’00s, the time I was most in tune with CCM, I listened to a good number of female artists, many of whom I still enjoy: Sara Groves, Jennifer Knapp, Rebecca St. James, Jaci Velasquez, Kendall Payne, Sixpence None the Richer, Plumb, Point of Grace, Avalon, Amy Grant. It’s not an issue of talent; these women are not only great singers and songwriters but also genuine rockers, folk artists, and worshipers.

So why does Becky no longer want to hear women sing? Is she really just jealous, as the anonymous radio exec suggests? Geil’s article notes as a contributing factor the shift toward worship music as the dominant CCM genre. Jenny Simmons, lead singer of the otherwise all-male worship band Addison Road, says,

I can't tell you how many times I've had people come up to me after a performance and say, "I was very, very uncomfortable having a female onstage when we worshiped. I've never seen that before." There is a fear of sensuality and sexuality within the church. We don't know how to handle it. I don't think there is any way to extricate what is raw and passionate about creating music and being on stage. At least for me, there's a huge vulnerability being up there.

The most successful women of secular pop music have built their personas around their sexuality. As Lady Gaga, Beyonce, and even Miley Cyrus make up the current pop template, we have been trained to see female performers as primarily sexual creatures, and that framework influences the way we think about all of our music choices. We can enjoy these singers’ catchy hooks, but we hold them at a distance, because we can’t identify too closely without endorsing or adopting their image of femininity. It was easier to embrace female artists in the earnest years of the singer-songwriter or the raw era of alternative rock, when the aforementioned female musicians made their mark on CCM.

Or so the thinking goes. Personally, I don't feel threatened by the sexuality of Christian female singers, at least not consciously (which may be the point). I’m hungry for more female performers creating quality Christian music. The music industry’s cyclical nature offers hope that better days are ahead for Christian female musicians, for a generation of young women who grew up on the powerful female performers of the ’90s, just waiting for a chance to take the stage. And I hope we are ready to let them.

Who are some female artists you listen to now? Do you think a fear of feminine sexuality on display during worship is sidelining women in the Christian music industry?

Adultery: My Genes Made Me Do It

Research like the kind in For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage runs the risk of reducing people to brain chemistry and DNA.

Amy Julia Becker

In her new and buzzworthy book, For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage, The New York Times's Tara Parker-Pope examines what brain chemistry and genes have to do with happy marriages. She begins a recent Well column with a question: “Why do some men and women cheat on their partners while others resist the temptation?” While she doesn’t come right out with an answer, she implies that the inclination toward adultery lies in our genes. Some researchers have dubbed the gene that predicts whether or not we will cheat the “fidelity gene” (though, as Parker-Pope notes, the label is a misnomer, since the study sets out to measure marital stability, not faithfulness). Her research shows that men with a variant of this gene are less likely to be in committed relationships and more likely to be in unhappy marriages.

Genetics. It’s a modern answer to an age-old question. In the past, other explanations have been proposed for immoral human behavior. First come spiritual explanations, perhaps best summed up by the phrase “the Devil made me do it.” Psychological explanations connect our behavior as adults to events that happened in our past. In recent years, biology has joined the list of reasons why humans behave badly.

Of course, none of these explanations are problematic in and of themselves. And none of them should surprise Christians. All aspects of our human nature are fallen, inclined to turn away from God’s good intentions for us. The problem comes when we reduce human behavior to any one of these explanations.

The Bible attests that we are physical, social, spiritual, emotional, and psychological beings at once. The complexity of our humanity has challenged Christians throughout church history. In the first few centuries of Christianity, some believers wanted to deny the significance of the body, claiming that our spiritual dimension was more significant and that Christ would liberate us from our bodies. Over and against this reasoning (eventually denounced as heresy) came the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and, in the fullness of time, of all of creation. The spirit matters, affirmed the early church, but only as it is integrated with the physical.

Well, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Science is today's reigning explanatory paradigm, the ultimate lens we use to understand reality and ourselves. As a result, the biological explanation for behavior can quickly become divorced from the spiritual. Instead of ignoring the physical, we reduce the human person to genes and chemical reactions. Since we can’t “prove” the existence of the Holy Spirit or the human soul using scientific means, the spiritual gets sidelined to the realm of conjecture or opinion, while the physical becomes factual, real, true.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging a genetic component in our moral choices. Some people are more likely to become alcoholics, others to express anger with violence, others to cheat on their spouses. The danger comes when we don't acknowledge the wholeness of the human person, the complexity of our wills, and the fundamental spiritual reality that we are created in God's image. Parker-Pope nods to this complexity when she writes, “While there may be genetic differences that influence commitment, other studies suggest that the brain can be trained to resist temptation.”

A Christian understanding of both temptation and fidelity goes further. It is God’s grace and the Spirit at work within us that enable us to resist temptation. Sure, those temptations come in different forms. But whatever the biological basis for temptation, the means of overcoming it involves more than changing behavior. It involves training the brain, yes, but training the brain in a spiritual way. As Paul writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things” (Phil 4:8) and, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

Finally, understanding the human as comprising body, mind, and spirit offers a different rationale for why we resist temptation. Parker-Pope never makes an argument for fidelity or for why it matters if people resist temptation. I suppose she would say that faithful relationships lead to social stability, happy children, perhaps even self-fulfillment. Toward the end of her article, she writes, “it may not be feelings of love or loyalty that keep couples together. Instead, scientists speculate that your level of commitment may depend on how much a partner enhances your life and broadens your horizons — a concept that Arthur Aron, a psychologist and relationship researcher at Stony Brook University, calls ‘self-expansion.’ ” For Parker-Pope, fidelity is still, ultimately, about the self.

Christians understand marriage as a union before God. Yes, he intended it to provide social stability and personal well-being. But it is also intended to mirror the love that Christ has for his body, the church. Faithfulness in human relationships is meant to give flesh to the faithfulness of God. Here again, on a grander scale, the physical is linked to the spiritual and the emotional. Research that unearths the biology behind immoral choices helps us understand one aspect of our humanity, but such research is only helpful if it is integrated with a holistic understanding of the human as a creature, a soul whose life has been given by God.

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

Scripture suggests that modesty means more than keeping the right parts covered.

Katelyn Beaty

About this time four years ago, Calvin College students, ready to enjoy the long-absent Michigan sun, spent hours each day on the campus lawn, “studying” for finals and playing Ultimate Frisbee until dusk. Calvin, affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church (and — I must say — a contender for the “Christian Harvard” label long held by Wheaton College), has no written policies on student clothing, though staff and students have debated that decision. But as tank tops and skirts began appearing on campus every spring, RAs and staff would somberly remind female students to mind our hem- and necklines, lest we let a brother stumble. “Women don’t realize how visually wired men are,” the reasoning went. “We shouldn’t wear things that lead their minds to impure places.”

Sexual immorality, of course, is a serious matter, Scripture attests, and research abounds on real chemical differences between men’s and women’s brains. Further, a thriving Christian community requires its members to think beyond their own preferences, about how personal decisions impact others. But, as I watched hoards of my male peers bounding across the lawn wearing nothing but flimsy track shorts — think Juno’s Paulie Bleeker — I wondered if they had received any wisdom or direction about their dress. Is modesty a virtue only for women?

This question arose in a personal way this Easter, which is a days-long celebration at the church I attend. A single friend asked if he could sleep on my roommate’s couch one night to avoid driving 45 minutes home late Saturday and coming back early Sunday. I obliged, seeing the setup through a logistical lens. We talked a bit Saturday night before heading to our respective rooms, my conscience undisturbed. On Sunday morning, I tiptoed past the sleeping friend to the kitchen. He, likely not thinking twice, soon entered the kitchen shirtless, wearing boxer shorts — and he went on to engage me like he might have while wearing khakis and a sport coat. Blushing and baffled by his nonchalance, I had to consciously “bounce my eyes.”

The Greek translation of modesty (kosmios) means roughly “orderly” or “proper,” and the word appears only once in Scripture, in Paul’s first letter to Timothy: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes . . .” (2:9). 1 Peter 3:3-4 includes a similar message, that women should adorn themselves with a gentle spirit instead of fancy jewelry and clothing. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul also addresses head coverings, an important topic given first-century Mideast cultural attitudes about women’s hair (the essence of female beauty, and thus primarily meant for husbands’ viewing; some Christian women cover their heads today). But these verses suggest that modesty is not just about quelling sexual temptation. Modesty is also about viewing ourselves humbly and dressing accordingly, refraining from using clothing (or the lack thereof) to draw attention to ourselves and boost self-esteem.

As an NPR broadcast last week noted, modesty is considered a virtue for both women and men in many religious traditions, including in some Anabaptist, Pentecostal, and Catholic streams of Christianity. The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn explained the Jewish embrace of modesty: “[T]he idea is to humble yourself before God, and the men wear yarmulkes. The women will cover their heads. It's a lot about covering your hair, and the idea being that . . . you’re showing humility, that God is the only one that we praise, and therefore we need to show in a way that we are human.” A listener e-mailed explaining his Quaker community’s reason for dressing simply: “Tradition and Scripture play a role in our community’s decision to return to plain dress, but . . . it is mostly a nod to the necessity of humility before God and to present ourselves before others as servants of God.” This reasoning is surely one both Christian men and women can support, though not all will express it by wearing yarmulkes or bonnets.

Thinking back to the scenario with my friend, I’m a bit perturbed. I cannot blame his lack of dress on the church writ large. For all I know, he was half-asleep. But I can connect his seeming naivete about his appearance to the (here comes the loaded phrase) double standard in how many Christian communities talk about modesty. While parents, youth pastors, and college staff spend much energy monitoring young women’s clothing choices, young men are given few resources to think about how they present themselves, and how they might let a sister stumble. And I have yet to hear any Christian teaching on modesty as more than “covered up in all the right places.” Before young women face undue pressure to monitor their male peers’ sexual purity, Christian communities ought to provide a biblical context for why we pursue modesty in the first place — and make sure both men and women get the message.

Is modesty presented as a female-only virtue in your circles? Should it be? Should modesty be taught differently based on gender?

The Secret (Moral) Life of Babies

Does the fact that infants seem to have an innate morality suggest divine intervention?

Elrena Evans

When my baby was about nine months old, he started giving out hugs with his own unique twist: He’d wrap his chubby arms around whomever he was hugging, and then gently pat their back. It made sense; his bedtime routine usually consists of Daddy holding him in his arms and gently patting his back until he falls asleep. The logic behind the behavior didn’t diminish my gut-level reaction, however, at the sight of my son snuggled up in Daddy’s arms, his small hand barely reaching around the curve of Daddy’s broad shoulders, patting away.

Now 14 months old, my son says “Pat-pat” as he hugs and pats, and what we’ve dubbed “baby hugs with pat-pats” are a big part of family life. Along with the cuteness factor, my curiosity has been piqued: is my son just mimicking the behavior he’s observed? Or does he possess some rudimentary understanding of the meaning of a hug, a pat on the back? In the middle of a difficult day recently, I sat down on the couch and put my head in my hands, trying not to cry in front of my children. Seconds later my 14-month-old was in my lap, his arms around my neck, patting my back. “Pat-pat,” he breathed as he hugged me.

I’ve written elsewhere about watching my children develop empathy and a sense of morality, so it was with great interest that I read Yale psychologist Paul Bloom’s lengthy article in The New York Times on the moral capacities of babies. In graduate school, one of my professors was renowned for telling his students that the more studies we do on babies, the more we discover they are much smarter than we think — and Bloom would apparently agree. His article details a set of increasingly complicated experiments that he and his wife, also a Yale psychology professor, designed to measure babies’ morality.

In the first experiment, six- and ten-month-old babies were shown three puppets acting out a basic morality play: one puppet is trying to climb a hill while a second puppet helps the first and a third puppet pushes the first back down. At the end of the play, babies are offered the “helping” and “hindering” puppets to play with, and the experimenters tracked which puppet the babies reached for. (The basic assumption, of course, is that what an infant reaches for is what the infant desires; Bloom actually delves at some depth into the presuppositions behind the experiments, and the controls taken, in the NYT article.)

The result? Babies overwhelmingly preferred the “helping” puppet. Further experiments introduced a neutral character, and those results showed that babies prefer a helping character to a neutral one, and a neutral character to a hindering character. “To have a genuinely moral system,” Bloom writes, “some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.” In other words, actions carry a moral weight: it matters that one puppet is helping another, and vice-versa.

(I must admit, my favorite part of the article is the description of how some of the experiments are derailed by uncooperative babies: “. . . some of the babies are either sleeping or too fussy to continue; there will then be a short break for the baby to wake up or calm down, but on average this kind of study ends up losing about a quarter of the subjects.” I found it reassuring to discover that even the Yale Infant Cognition Center is affected by the vagaries of babies, who — moral or not — aren’t always known for their cooperation.)

Back to that matter at hand, Bloom writes, “what’s exciting here is that these preferences are based on how one individual treated another, on whether one individual was helping another individual achieve its goals or hindering it. This is preference of a very special sort; babies were responding to behaviors that adults would describe as nice or mean.” Behaviors, in other words, indicate a moral code.

It’s perhaps impossible to discuss innate morality without addressing where that morality comes from, and the article doesn’t avoid asking that question. Quoting Dinesh D’Souza in What’s So Great About Christianity?, Bloom addresses the argument that evolutionary biology can only account for so much in terms of altruism: namely, that altruistic acts toward genetic family can be explained using the Darwinian model of evolution, but acts of “higher altruism,” (for example, kindness to strangers) cannot.

Evolutionary psychology has an answer to that argument, Bloom goes on to say: Just because a biological trait has evolved for a purpose doesn’t mean it always functions for that purpose. Besides, kindness to strangers could be nothing more than an evolutionary development designed to make individuals appear more attractive to potential mates.

D’Souza’s “general argument,” however, “still needs to be taken seriously,” writes Bloom. “The morality of contemporary humans really does outstrip what evolution could possibly have endowed us with,” he writes. “Moral actions are often of a sort that have no plausible relation to our reproductive success and don’t appear to be accidental byproducts of evolved adaptations.”

So where does this leave us? If a type of “higher altruism” was discovered in infants, Bloom submits that “the case for divine creation would get just a bit stronger.” But it’s not. Babies’ morality is highly skewed toward an “in-kind preference,” research has shown, meaning that babies prefer people who look like them, sound like them, eat the same foods that they do. And because the infant morality code lacks “generality and universality,” Bloom says, “there is no need to posit divine intervention.”

Yet the fact of an infant moral code remains. Babies may need to be taught a “higher altruism,” but I don’t think that negates the evidence pointing to a Designer. Babies need to be taught a lot of things — how to sit up, how to crawl, that food goes in the mouth, not the nose or ear. It’s logical that a more developed morality would be on the list.

Blogger Lynn Roush Talks to WORD-fm on Marital Health

Katelyn Beaty

Her.meneutics' recent review of Paul Tripp's new book on marriage, What Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage, caught the attention this week of WORD-fm, a radio station based in Pittsburgh. John Hall and Kathy Emmons contacted reviewer Lynn Roush, a counselor in Missouri who first wrote for us about Jon and Kate Gosselin, to talk about the book and Roush's own experience with marriage. They cover the s word (submission), conflict, and how marriage spurs couples on to Christlikeness.

Click here to listen to their conversation, which aired earlier in the week.

Problems with Do-It-Yourself DNA Tests

Consumers don't just need information about their genes; they also need medical and theological wisdom.

Ellen Painter Dollar

After the FDA intervened this week, Walgreens has decided to postpone selling do-it-yourself DNA testing kits in 6,000 of its stores nationwide. The drugstore chain had arranged to sell kits made by Pathway Genomics that promised to reveal your risk of health issues ranging from obesity to breast cancer, as well as your children’s risk of serious genetic disorders.

Walgreens reversed its decision after the FDA raised concerns that the kits would encourage consumers to make rash decisions based on genetic information not fully understood even by experts, and without consulting their doctors. The FDA also raised questions about the legality of selling the tests; Alberto Gutierrez told the Associated Press, "selling a test over the counter without an FDA clearance, particularly for the type of claims they have, is not legal." The Federal Trade Commission likewise warned that direct-to-consumer genetic tests “provide medical results that are meaningful only in the context of a full medical evaluation.”

Context — medical, ethical, and, for Christians, theological — is sorely needed as companies market personal DNA tests as vital tools for informed health decisions. While the FDA’s action keeps the tests off store shelves for now, inexpensive DNA tests are already available online and through fertility clinics. The Pathway Genomics test, available online, allows consumers to send a saliva sample for DNA analysis. The analysis costs up to several hundred dollars, depending on how much information the customer wants. Late last year, a company called Counsyl started advertising $350 tests that allow prospective parents to determine if their children risk inheriting any of 100 single-gene disorders.

Americans have become experts at gathering medical information on the Internet rather than relying on doctors as all-knowing gatekeepers. As someone with a lifelong physical disability and the parent of a child with the same disability, I’ve had lots of interactions with doctors. Because our disorder is rare and I have online access to information and to other affected families, I often know more about treatments, new developments, and daily coping strategies than our doctors do. Our most valuable doctor-patient relationships are partnerships; I offer my information and perspective, the doctors offer theirs, and together we make treatment decisions.

Access to health information can contribute to successful doctor-patient relationships and, ultimately, to better health. But direct-to-consumer DNA tests have several troubling aspects, beyond their reliance on genetic science that is complex, evolving, and far from precise.

Media reports often provide a simplistic view of how the tests will save money and enhance health. A Newsweek article on the Counsyl test, titled “A Cure for Health Costs?” argued, “It's . . . a money saver at $350 — nothing compared with the lifetime cost of caring for a sick kid.” A Washington Post article about Pathway's test naively states, “The pregnancy planning test could prompt couples to decide not to get married or have children” as a result of learning their children have even a small risk of inheriting a genetic disorder.

But with reproductive technology increasingly sophisticated and accessible, would-be parents who learn that their children risk having genetic disorders are unlikely to simply call off the wedding, remain childless, or adopt children — at least not without first exploring other options. They are likely to go to a fertility clinic for help conceiving children guaranteed to be free of known genetic problems.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD, which is in vitro fertilization with the added step of genetic screening) may cost less than a lifetime of care for a seriously ill child, but it is still expensive ($12,000 to $15,000 per cycle) and is often performed multiple times before it succeeds, if it succeeds at all. As more knowledge of genetic risk leads to more prospective parents using technology like PGD, our overall medical costs will rise. A host of potential costs — and a host of ethical questions — lie between genetic tests costing a few hundred dollars and lifelong care for disabled children costing millions.

As believers in the Word made flesh, Christians understand that our bodies matter. We also know that human identity goes far beyond our genes’ messages or our bodies’ capabilities. Good medical care recognizes the complex interactions of physical, spiritual, and emotional factors that contribute to health. Handing consumers a genetic test and promising that it will help them make health-enhancing decisions, without offering any further context or resources, is akin to handing teenagers a book on the mechanics of sex and reproduction, and telling them that they are now free to make informed choices about how to exercise their emerging sexuality. Human flourishing requires more than a good grasp of the facts.

Despite the FDA’s action this week, personal DNA tests are likely to become more available in the coming years. We need to be skeptical of glowing predictions about how direct-to-consumer genetic tests will save us money and make us healthier. We need to insist on adequate consideration of the medical, ethical, emotional, and theological questions raised by genetic and reproductive technology. Information is a wonderful tool, but it is not the only tool we need to craft a meaningful life.

Ellen Painter Dollar is a writer who focuses on Christian reproductive ethics and disability theology. She is writing a book for Westminster John Knox Press (forthcoming in 2011) about the ethics and theology of assisted reproduction and genetic screening. She blogs at ChoicesThatMatter.blogspot.com and Five Dollars and Some Common Sense. She has written for CT about disability and genetic testing.

The Anti-Racist, Anti-Fear Gene

People with Williams Syndrome, a rare genetic condition, show us what it means to live trusting others as God calls us to.

Amy Julia Becker

Over the past month, NPR has addressed various aspects of Williams syndrome, a rare chromosomal condition in which a series of genes on one chromosome has been deleted. Williams syndrome (also Williams–Beuren syndrome, or WBS) is characterized by learning disabilities and cognitive delays, small physical stature and features, a love for music, and a high degree of sociability and trust of other people, including strangers. One NPR report, "Is There an Anti-Racism Gene?" highlighted the fact that people with Williams Syndrome do not share most people's tendency to discriminate against others of different racial backgrounds. A second report, "A Life without Fear," focused on a family in California with a daughter with Williams, Isabelle. It mentioned that Isabelle is “pathologically trusting” and that it is “biologically impossible for her to distrust” other people. A third explored the social alienation experienced, sadly and ironically, by many persons with Williams in spite of their innately deep love for other people.

It’s a puzzling condition. Positive and even desirable traits of love, trust, and acceptance bump up against the biological fact that we need social fear in order to survive. To cite one example of the problems that arise with this loving, trusting nature, Isabelle cannot go to the bathroom alone at school because of the many stories of children with Williams who have been sexually abused. Isabelle herself has climbed into the backseat of a stranger’s car, ready to join the unknown family for a trip to Dairy Queen. Her mother says it is her job to teach Isabelle not to trust people.

According to NPR and most other media, biology describes and defines behavior. People with Williams trust because their genes tell them to. Or, put another way, they fail to fear because their genes don’t kick in when they should. Clearly, biological reasons account for these differences. Yet hearing the stories made me wonder whether there was also a spiritual component to this genetic difference.

My mind wandered to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. . . . It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” And also to 1 John 4:18: “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”

These verses are often heard at weddings, but perhaps the cakes and flowers and white dresses distract us from the radical nature of these commands. Paul and John talk about love in absolute terms. They create an ideal that seems impossible, for two reasons. First, most of us can’t imagine actually living without fear, in perfect trust and hope. Second, there is grave evil in the world. Paul also exhorts us, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 to, “test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” Those with Williams do not have the biological ability to avoid evil, at least in the form of people who intend to do them harm.

As Isabelle’s mom, Jessica, says, “Though Isabelle trusts the world completely, the world is not worthy of her trust.” Right now, Isabelle is considered the one with the disability. The rest of us, those of us who have learned to withhold love, to fear, to distrust strangers, to expect evil — we are considered normal. Yet hearing about individuals with this biological condition makes me wonder whether God is using Williams syndrome to show the rest of us something about what love looks like. Perhaps one day, as his kingdom comes into fullness among us, we will turn to children and adults like Isabelle, that they might teach us how to love.

Toying with Adultery?

'Runaway mom' Tiffany Tehan's story reminds us that no one is immune from the temptation of infidelity.

Marlena Graves, guest blogger

Tiffany Tehan, a pastor’s daughter and graduate of an Ohio evangelical college, went missing Saturday, April 17. Local authorities deemed the 31-year-old mother’s absence suspicious: her green Ford Explorer was found in a park near her home with a flat tire and the keys in the ignition. Husband David, who was home with their 13-month-old daughter, reported Tiffany missing when she didn’t return from a day of shopping.

Family, friends, and parishioners at the nondenominational Patterson Park Church, where the Tehans attend, began canvassing the community with missing persons fliers and search teams. They tirelessly combed the area for days. A highly publicized nationwide search ensued. On April 22, authorities found Tiffany with 42-year-old Tre Hutcherson, also married, at a hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. Tiffany and Tre said they ran away to start a new life.

Media outlets and blogs lit up when Tiffany’s whereabouts surfaced. They dubbed her “the runaway mom,” questioning how a mom could abandon her child and take such extreme measures to cover up an affair. Some asked why her story in particular made headlines, as men who run away from their families are rarely greeted with such public attention and outcry. Others were just appalled that Tiffany’s husband wanted her back.

It’s easy enough to indict Tiffany for her poor choices. But her story reminded me of how easily any one of us can tumble into a physical or emotional affair. After all, Jesus said that our lustful looks are spiritually equivalent to committing adultery (Matt. 5:28). And it’s not just men or those in difficult marriages who are tempted. Christian women in particular may be less inclined to admit temptations and sins because they predict stigma and humiliation. With Tiffany’s situation in mind, I reviewed the disciplines I practice to help me embrace fidelity to my husband of 10 years, Shawn:

(1) Be honest with God, myself, and others. Shawn is my best friend, and we have an extraordinary marriage. Yet should I, on rare occasions, find myself thinking about or attracted to another man, I admit it to myself and to God. I then immediately call my friend Sue to confess. She is wise, gracious, and will keep me accountable. If thoughts were to gain a foothold in my life, I would tell Shawn. Shawn and I have discussed all of these steps.

In addition, if another man hits on me, I immediately tell Shawn and we discuss possible responses. He does the same with me. I’ve had that conversation with him several times in our ten-year marriage (mostly having to do with men in the workplace).

(2) Rehearse the consequences of sin. When tempted to mentally dwell on another man, I commence an internal dialogue. I remind myself that if I indulge in the thought of another and do not take my thoughts captive, then I’ve started down the road to infidelity. Once down that road, I am liable to lose my mind — my judgments would become impaired and I’d rationalize behavior that I’d never dream of justifying otherwise. I also contemplate the effects that unfaithfulness would have on my husband, toddler daughter, and web of influence. Who knows what waves of destruction my sin might unleash in others' lives?

(3) Cherish my husband daily. I intentionally thank God for Shawn every day, and I contemplate Shawn’s many wonderful attributes. This discipline is especially necessary if I'm in a foul mood or if we’ve had a spat. At those times, it is easy for me to focus on what irks me about him. If I start brooding on the negative, I seek to overcome evil with good by dwelling on the good, the true, and the beautiful in my marriage, family, and husband. I also work harder to do little things that express love, thoughtfulness, and consideration.

(4) Abide in Christ. Part of abiding in Christ is communal, so I stay connected to the church through weekly worship, regular acts of service, and meaningful, incarnational interaction with other believers. Personally, I strive to be an obedient, prayerful Christ-follower who is immersed in God’s Word. I am keenly aware that I am most susceptible to downfall when I wander away from the Shepherd and Christian community, struggling alone and in secret. I know that faithless thoughts and temptations usually shrivel when brought into kingdom light.

(5) Watch out for external influences. I am a predominantly visual person, so I guard what comes through my eye gate. I avoid fashion magazines and certain websites and television shows. Otherwise, I’m prone to obsess about clothes and visual appeal. Such media foster discontent within me. Also, I do not cultivate relationships with old flames either in person or on the Internet. Nor do I spend much time alone with men, although on certain occasions I’ve had to ride alone in a car with other men for work-related reasons. Conversely, I thoroughly enjoy my husband, so I try to spend as much time with him as possible; we do a lot of ministry together.

Tehan found herself in a sea of infidelity, undoubtedly pulled further and further away from her family by a riptide of seemingly insignificant yet unfaithful choices. Tiffany told Inside Edition that she didn’t think she would be missed. How wrong she was. And how wrong we’d be to believe we are incapable of such infidelity.

Marlena Graves (M.Div., Northeastern Seminary) is a resident director at Cedarville University. She blogs at His Path Through the Wilderness, and has written for Her.meneutics about friendship between men and women, the sin of self-promotion, and same-sex attraction.

It's Mother's Day, Not Motherhood Day

When churches confuse the two, women can end up serving false (and unbiblical) expectations.

Caryn Rivadeneira, guest blogger

My first Mother’s Day — as a mother, at least — was a bust.

It started out well enough: My husband surprised me with a pair of espadrilles I had admired in the (get this) Neiman Marcus catalog. But somewhere after the shoes, disappointment became the theme of the day. It ended with me in a rumpled mess in my 2-month-old son’s nursery, crying. I scowled at my husband: “Today is the day to honor me, and you’re not honoring me.”

Aah, a shining moment.

Yet in a way, it was. Because as those ridiculous words oozed out of my mouth, my brain and heart took note. And I realized a problem, not only with my attitude but also with Mother’s Day. And I’ve had a problem with it since.

Mother’s Day is a day to honor moms. Clearly a good thing. Honoring parents is not only biblical, it’s one of the 10 laws God gave to the Israelites and, through them, us. But what’s always interested me about the command is that it says to honor your mother, not Motherhood.

While I can look back at my first Mother's Day and blame the tantrum on my exhaustion as a new mama, I realize that part of my tantrum was that I had bought (hook, line, and espadrille) into the expectations surrounding motherhood — and hence, what a good Mother’s Day looks like. When neither panned out, I melted.

I bought into these expectations not just because they are touted in the broader culture but also because they are taught from the pulpit. When we celebrate Mother’s Day at church, what we rarely honor is our own mothers — persons with specific gifts and talents and passions — but a stereotyped institution. We celebrate and honor the Good American Middle-Class Mother, or, as we like to call her, the Good Christian Mother.

We usually plan our honoring in church accordingly. We give flowers and pass out chocolate. We show video montages of wild soccer-gear-clad kids, leaping border collies, and frazzled moms. Over it all, a 5-year-old lisps out a sappy-sweet thank you for all her mommy does. We preach on Ruth (without mentioning that she wasn't exactly the Good Christian Mother) or from Proverbs 31 (but leave out how little time this mom seemed to be on active mommy duty, at least as we know it). And we probably encourage taking Mom out for brunch so she “doesn’t have to cook.”

Through it all, we have often failed to actually honor moms. All we have done is uphold cultural stereotypes, the kind that dishonor moms (and God, I think, but that’s another post) more than anything else.

Maybe I’m being harsh — and I know plenty of moms who enjoy any one of these things (I love border collies!). But given the way many churches honor moms on Mothers Day, I would assume I’m not the only woman who has ended up a rumpled mess at the end of it.

We also know (and to be fair, many churches recognize) that Mother's Day is brutal for women who long for children. We know that it’s hard for a child of any age whose mother has died. And we can understand that it’s difficult for those whose own mothers are not exactly easy-to-honor women.

It’s probably too late to change sermon topics or to call off the “mom-tage” video tribute. (And who really wants to cancel the chocolate?) But it’s not too late for everything. If churches really want to honor moms on Mother’s Day, they can encourage moms to be individuals, to be helping them shed their facades, to step out of cultural assumptions and to live and take on duties and demands in accordance with who God made them to be.

How do we do this? First, we need to get over the thought that honoring moms needs to happen just one Sunday a year. Why not carve out times to hear stories from mothers in your congregation or community who are living out a calling that looks very different from the stereotypes? Listen to and learn from what these women have to share. Or, how about taking time to hear stories of mother-child reconciliation? Let’s start looking for examples of a mother’s unrelenting love, something that’s closer to the heart of God than most other things on earth.

When it comes to honoring our moms or any mom, churches should just remember that while we share many things in common, each mom walks her own road — with her own purpose and mission. The best thing a church can do is walk along that road with her, encouraging her at every step.

Caryn Rivadeneira is the author of Mama’s Got a Fake I.D.: How to Reveal the Real You Behind All That Mom. She lives in the western suburbs of Chicago with her husband, three kids, and newly adopted pit bull. Visit her at CarynRivadeneira.com.

Her.meneutics blogger LaVonne Neff wrote about her late mother last Mother's Day.

Abortion Measures Move State-à-State

The shape of the abortion debate has shifted to state-level politics.

Alicia Cohn

In a changing political climate, Christians are finding their attention and energy divided among a number of issues. Recognizing these tensions, the Manhattan Declaration called for Christians to refocus on core issues, one of which was abortion. Simultaneously, Newsweek reported on a study conducted this year by the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws that suggests that the number of young Americans who believe abortion is a “very important” issue is waning, especially among those who feel strongly on the pro-choice side.

As both pro-choice and pro-life sides confront apathetic constituencies, the debate has seen a groundswell of activity on state level this year. For example, the state governments of Tennessee and Arizona, reacting to the health care bill, have adopted restrictions on abortion coverage in any state-run health insurance exchange.

Attempts to set specific limits on abortion have been successful in Nebraska. Last month, Gov. Dave Heineman passed a law banning most abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy. The law is based on testimony provided to the Nebraska legislature that a child in the womb can feel pain by 18 to 20 weeks old. At the same time, the state passed a law requiring women to undergo a health screening prior to any abortion.

State politicians have approached the issue of “informed consent” from various angles. USA Today reports that 22 states are considering bills to increase counseling or waiting periods and 18 states bills to expand the use of ultrasound. Missouri is in the process of adding a 24 hour waiting period and a “consultation” to current abortion laws.

Oklahoma law, after overriding a governor veto, now requires that women listen to a description of an ultrasound before choosing an abortion. The Maryland Senate, however, defeated a bill containing similar provisions, and another bill mandating ultrasounds in Florida currently awaits Governor Charlie Crist’s decision whether to sign or veto.

In Kansas, a state where abortion has been hotly contested on both sides, the pro-life lobby and state politicians have fought with renewed vigor to close the gap left by George Tiller in abortion business within the state. A recent bill introduced in the state House was designed to increase monitoring of abortion care by mandating a “written report” to the secretary of health citing reasons for every lawfully terminated pregnancy, and allowed for a civil action suit in cases of violation. The bill passed both the Senate and the House but was vetoed by Gov. Mark Parkinson, with a motion to override the veto passing the House but not the Senate.

The result of fighting at the state level is what Politico has described as “some of the most aggressive abortion legislation passed in recent years” and prompted Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee to call 2010 “very successful” so far. Perhaps the best way to confront activism apathy right now is to focus on the state level.

Perplexed by the Pill

How birth control pills — which turn 50 this year — led me to believe I was in control of my life and my body.

Amy Julia Becker

The Pill turned 50 this year, and Time magazine commemorated the anniversary last week with Nancy Gibbs’s cover story, “Love, Sex, Freedom and the Paradox of the Pill." Gibbs thoroughly and thoughtfully provides a scientific and sociological history of birth control, while addressing some of the ethical questions raised by the little tablet, swallowed by more than 100 million women worldwide every day. Gibbs sets up a strong contrast in how people respond to the Pill: “Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery, and the breakdown of the family.”

As a Christian who has taken the Pill intermittently for over a decade, I find myself on both sides of the divide, caught between an ethic of hospitality and of stewardship, between individual responsibility and collective consciousness, between traditional family values and feminist theory. Reading Gibbs's article didn’t answer all my questions, but it forced me to admit that the questions needed asking.

A year or so into our marriage, my husband, Peter, and I went away for a weekend. In the middle of an expensive dinner — both of us content with the “just us”-ness of our lives — I said to him, “Do you ever think about never having kids?”

"All the time," he replied.

We were young. We hadn't had sex before marriage. I wouldn’t have called it entitlement then, but in retrospect I admit that I felt entitled to “my” life with “my” husband. Kids were an afterthought, something that might come, someday, if we felt like it, and if a convenient time arose.

We both eventually changed our minds. We realized that kids are never convenient. More, I wanted to see Peter become a father. I wanted to give something of myself to a child. We wanted to have a family. But although we changed our minds, we didn’t change our perspective on having children. When I went off the Pill, we still thought we were in control.

The birth of our daughter, Penny, when I was 28 years old was our first indication that the words control and children should rarely be used in the same sentence. Penny was diagnosed with Down syndrome two hours after she was born. I’ve written elsewhere about that experience, but what strikes me now is how much my thoughts about using birth control were informed by the idea that my body is in my control. God comes into the picture on my terms. Now, as I worry about the dehumanizing consequences of in vitro fertilization and prenatal diagnosis and the abortion of unwanted babies, I wonder whether birth control is just one step in a staircase of choices that leaves us with the illusion that humans are products to be consumed or discarded rather than gifts given, created, by God.

Christian opinion varies widely on the issue of birth control in general and the Pill in particular. The Catholic Church continues to teach that any form of birth control other than Natural Family Planning is contrary to God's will. Protestants, according to Gibbs, endorsed birth control starting in the middle of the 20th century. Yet while a majority of Catholics in the U.S. use birth control in spite of church teaching, a growing number of evangelicals are questioning the godliness of asserting human control over family size.

Different theological lenses lead to divergent conclusions about whether or not Christian women should take the Pill. First, there is the argument from a stewardship principle. God entrusted us with filling the earth and subduing it (Gen. 1:28). Just as we are are stewarding our health in going to doctors’ appointments and getting vaccinations, so too we have responsibility — before God, and with the guidance of the Spirit — to make choices about the health of our bodies. As women, our bodies can be used to make babies, but they can also be used for any number of other goods. Increased use of birth control has led to greater economic stability, improved health, and greater access to education and careers for many women. And now that we are well on our way to “filling the earth,” choosing to limit family size can be a way to demonstrate care and stewardship of God’s creation more generally.

But another way to come at the question is from the perspective of hospitality. As former editor Agnieszka Tennant wrote for Christianity Today in 2005, taking the Pill may be a way not only to prevent conception but also to potentially eradicate life from the womb. It certainly makes the womb an inhospitable environment for human life. Yet God calls us to an ethic of hospitality — to welcome the stranger, the foreigner, the unwanted one, whomever that might be. To what degree does birth control do the opposite?

And then there’s the biblical witness: that children are a blessing, even a sign of God’s favor. That God is the one in control of wombs opening and closing, that God is the one who knits us together before we are born.

In retrospect, I don’t think it was wrong to take the Pill. But I do think it was wrong to take it for the reasons I did — because of selfishness, and because I wanted control.

We have two children now, and I sometimes shake my head at the younger me who thought life was richer without them. Sure, I long for uninterrupted nights of sleep and days to call my own. Yet I know God’s presence through Penny and William, through the daily obedience of caring for them, through the daily grace of our love for one another. I have learned more about love, I have known more of love, because of our children. Because of these uncontrollable, inconvenient children of ours, I have known more of our God.

//

Christianity Today magazine has more articles on birth control and the Pill:

A Hard Pill to Swallow | How the tiny tablet upset my soul. By Agnieszka Tennant (November 2005)

Has Natural Birth Control Been Proved Impossible? | Don't believe the media reports, cautions the author of Birth Control for Christians. By Jenell Williams Paris (July 2003)

Make Love and Babies | The contraceptive mentality says children are something to be avoided. We're not buying it. By Sam and Bethany Torode (Nov. 9, 2001)

'Be Fruitful and Multiply' | Is this a command, or a blessing? By Raymond C. Van Leeuwen (Nov. 9, 2001)

Marriage: A Dying to the Self

Paul Tripp's What Did You Expect? refreshingly goes beyond gender roles to arrive at the crux of marital problems: serving the kingdom of self.

Lynn Roush, guest blogger

During our engagement, my husband and I dutifully pursued premarital counseling. A well-meaning seminary professor and his wife graciously walked us through some of the highlights and lowlights of their marriage and how they had addressed issues. We covered faithfulness, forgiveness, and the roles of a husband and wife. But what I remember most about the evening was feeling that I already had marriage figured out. We were both seminary students who loved God, knew Scripture, and had great communication skills. That, coupled with our mutual love, meant that we were could do marriage “right” and avoid the sinkholes that had doomed other relationships.

Twelve years later, I am still, by God’s grace, happily married, but I continue to be confronted with the extent of my foolishness in those early days. I have faced unfulfilled expectations, disappointments, and unmet needs, just like every other married person has. Minimally, I could have better anticipated the hard seasons of marriage if I had understood the biblical concepts fleshed out in Paul David Tripp’s new book, What Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage (Crossway).

Tripp's biblical wisdom burrows beneath the layers of roles, communication mishaps, and felt needs that are the typical driving forces of Christian marriage how-to manuals, and arrives at the fundamental root of all marital problems: who or what we worship. To date, this is the first Christian book on marriage I have read that does not use the words submission or headship. Nor does it refer to the most classic passage on marriage, Ephesians 5. There are no listening techniques or explanations of gender differences. The kingdom model that Tripp describes transcends gender, roles, and the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” ideas that pervade most approaches to marital troubles.

Tripp instead starts with the most basic question each of us will answer in our lives: “Whose kingdom?” “We are kingdom-oriented people," Tripp writes. "We always live in the service of one of two kingdoms . . . When we live for the kingdom of self, our decisions, thoughts, plans, actions, and words are directed by personal desire [and] we seek to surround ourselves with people who will serve our kingdom purposes." Conflict occurs when the kingdom of self collides with our spouse’s kingdom, and when they do not acquiesce to our wants, needs, and feelings. Two people pursuing their own kingdoms throughout a marriage will eventually end in bloody battle. But what if both people decide to submit to God’s kingdom, where Christ reigns supreme and where joy, meaning, and life are found? A heart reorientation of this magnitude is where real change begins, and the conflict of a marriage becomes an “opportunity to exit the small space of the kingdom of self and to begin to enjoy the beauty and benefits of the kingdom of God.”

This paradigm shift breathes hope into any marriage, especially those filled with disappointment, anger, and despair. Tripp explains what we all need to grasp, that “[God] has designed marriage to expose the neediness of your heart and in so doing, to bring you to the end of yourself." In other words, it is an act of God’s rescuing grace that we are brought to places in our marriage where we cannot depend on intelligence, communication skills, or tactics of manipulation. Relational change occurs only when our worship is properly aligned with the God who jealously pursues our hearts and who calls us to total dependence.

The question that must be answered next is, How do I now repair a marriage that has been torn apart by two warring kingdoms? The rest of Tripp’s book thoughtfully and biblically describes how two people can rebuild their marriage by developing a culture of ongoing reconciliation based on six commitments (listed at the end of this review). These commitments assume that both people are hopeless sinners who are constantly tempted to operate out of self-righteousness, self-love, and self-protection. We are then given practical (though not easy) steps to uproot patterns of relating and replace them with new ones, the most important of which is examining how trust has been broken and what needs to be done to rebuild trust, which is vital to the success of any marriage.

Perhaps the most challenging truth that Tripp encourages us to embrace is that our greatest marital problem is ourselves. The Bible continually warns us of our own self-deception and requires us to accept that we do not see ourselves the way God sees us. We will always rise to our own defense and succumb to blaming someone else and believing the best about ourselves. Not surprisingly, God specifically uses the marital relationship to reveal the sin of self-righteousness. A marriage that is doomed to fail can be transformed when even just one person begins to see themselves in this light and confesses with genuine humility the ways they have damaged the relationship. Grace is available in full measure when we recognize this and let God examine our hearts so thoroughly that we are willing to accept whatever it is he reveals to us.

What Did You Expect? is a discourse on the transforming power of grace, offered to anyone who has come to the end of themselves. Whether you are just now realizing your need for help, your marriage is full of conflict and riddled by anger and bitterness, or you are living in silent cohabitation, Tripp’s work will open your eyes to the redeeming work that God desires to accomplish in your life. Most of us didn’t expect marriage to be as hard as it is, but God’s sovereign plan includes such difficulties for the purpose of aligning our hearts to his big-sky kingdom and rescuing us from our own.

//

Paul Tripp's six marriage commitments:
Commitment 1: We will give ourselves to a regular lifestyle of confession and forgiveness.
Commitment 2: We will make growth and change our daily agenda.
Commitment 3: We will work together to build a sturdy bond of trust.
Commitment 4: We will commit to building a relationship of love.
Commitment 5: We will deal with our differences with appreciation and grace.
Commitment 6: We will work to protect our marriage.

//

Lynn Roush is a counselor at The Crossing, an Evangelical Presbyterian church in Columbia, Missouri. She received her master's degree in counseling psychology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. She has written about New Year's resolutions and Jon and Kate Plus 8 for Her.meneutics.

Top 10 Posts of the Past 30 Days

Not surprisingly, sex addiction, yoga, and Lady Gaga got our readers talking over the past few weeks.

Katelyn Beaty

(10) iHave an iPad, But at What Cost? by Amy Julia Becker // Comments: 5
Perhaps technological advances are challenging spiritual disciplines, such as prayer, contemplation, and waiting to hear from the Lord.

(9) Cosmetic Surgery to the Glory of God? by Shelly Beach, guest blogger // Comments: 15
Christians can't dismiss such surgery until they seriously consider our God-given desire for beauty.

(8) Minnesota Man Arrested for Pimping Wife, by Elissa Cooper // Comments: 6
Clinton Danner's arrest raises questions about Craigslist's culpability in sex trafficking — and about the church's response to criminal offenders.

(7) The Brave Women of the Catholic Church, by Ellen Painter Dollar // Comments: 12
The Catholic Church abuse stories are exasperating, but a few lay writers give me hope.

(6) Learning from the Cornell Suicides, by Sarah Cunningham, guest blogger // Comments: 3
The Ivy League school's six suicides in six months serve to remind us of the people in our networks who are struggling privately.

(5) A Higher Calling Than Barbie, by Alicia Cohn // Comments: 8
Why do women want to be represented by a plastic doll?

(4) Female Sex Addict: Not an Oxymoron, interview by Katelyn Beaty // Comments: 4
Marnie Ferree's No Stones: Women Redeemed from Sexual Addiction challenges easy assumptions about who gets addicted and why.

(3) Yoga: An Exercise in Discernment, by Amy Julia Becker // Comments: 21
How I submit the meditative practice to Christ.

(2) Caught between the Easter Bunny and the Empty Grave, by Amy Julia Becker // Comments: 18
Reducing Easter to a purely spiritual celebration is almost as problematic as reducing it to a consumer smorgasbord.

(1) Lady Gaga: Champion of Abstinence?, by Laura Leonard // Comments: 8
The wave of celebrities touting a "celibate" lifestyle actually undermines the movement.

Iranian Christian Women Acquitted

A Bikinied Muslim Miss USA

I Once Was 'Lost' But Now Am Found

No Right to Rest for Weary Anglicans

Christian Female Musicians, Missing in Action

Adultery: My Genes Made Me Do It

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue?

The Secret (Moral) Life of Babies

Blogger Lynn Roush Talks to WORD-fm on Marital Health

Problems with Do-It-Yourself DNA Tests