Synopsis

The pressure to accept homosexual behavior is growing daily. A major argument for this acceptance is the belief that homosexuality is “inborn.” Two major areas of research often put forth to support this position deal with genetics and brain structure. The search for a gene associated with homosexuality has not shown any reproducible findings. Studies of twins did not prove to support the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality. The contribution of genetics to this behavior appears to be minimal. Neuroscientist Simon LeVay argued in 1991 that there was a specific component of the hypothalamus that differed in size between homosexual and heterosexual men, although his research has never been replicated. More recent studies of different components of the brain show differences that might have some statistical significance, but also demonstrate a great deal of overlap between heterosexual and homosexual males. Reparative therapy (or “sexual reorientation therapy”) has been shown to be somewhat effective in changing the homosexual orientation, but is strongly opposed by most of the mental health community and by gay activists. Validation of a scientific theory requires that other researchers find the same data when performing experiments. The lack of reproducibility in biological studies on homosexuality has been a major hindrance to our understanding of this disorder. Recent research in brain plasticity suggests that brain changes could be the result of experiences and environmental input. These data also have implications for new approaches to reorientation therapy. Biological processes may influence behavior, but do not determine it. Christians need to be better informed about the scientific issues, but always should couch their responses in a spirit of love.

California Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal. Politicians caught in homosexual activity. Celebrities headlined for possible “gayness.” Congress debates the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in military. Prominent pastors involved in homosexual liaisons. Major splits developing in many mainline churches over homosexuality.

Christians are experiencing pressure from all sides to accept homosexual practices as just another means of expressing sexuality. Scientific data are used to imply that homosexual behavior is something that is “hard-wired” into people: “God made us this way.” Navigating through the complicated network of truths, semi-truths, and outright propaganda that are found in the debate requires reliable information.

WHO IS “GAY”?

In 1948, scientist and human sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey had developed a seven-point classification for sexual behavior.¹ One end of the spectrum (zero or one) comprised those who are exclusively heterosexual and show no interest in any same-sex activity. The other end of the spectrum (six) is composed of those individuals who are exclusively interested in same-sex behavior, with no interest in heterosexual activities. The middle categories (scales two through five) have varying degrees of interest in both heterosexual and homosexual activities. Although flawed in some respects, the scale shows that there is no clear dividing line between “heterosexual” or “homosexual.”

It is necessary to distinguish between homosexual practice and homosexual orientation. A heterosexual individual may experiment with homosexual practices (which is especially true in adolescents), but have a definite heterosexual orientation. Prison populations see a great deal of same-sex activity that in no way indicates the sexual preferences of the individuals involved.

Language for describing people who engage in same-sex behavior is evolving. The shorthand abbreviation LGBT—which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered—currently describes the cluster of identifications that such people indicate (this article will not address bisexual or transgendered individuals). Language also now differentiates between lesbian (female) and “gay” (male) sexual practices and orientations. This is an important distinction to make because the vast majority of the research studies on causes of sexual orientation deal with male behavior.

What Is this “Gay Gene”?

A little background information is necessary before looking at research on the “gay gene.” What is a gene and why is it important? The National Library of Medicine’s Genetics Home Reference (provided by the National Institutes of Health) gives the following definition: “A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases. The Human Genome Project has estimated that humans have between 20,000 and 25,000 genes.”² A gene, then, directs the manufacture of another molecule. That molecule usually, but not always, is a protein. This will have some sort of effect on certain biochemical processes in the body.

If there is a “gay gene,” that segment of DNA must be responsible for the production of some biochemical that somehow influences same-sex behavior. Complex behavioral conditions, however, do not lend themselves well to this type of analysis. Schizophrenia, for example, is a disorder that has been studied intensively for decades. At present we do not know the causes of the disease. Genetic studies have not been clear-cut—there is obviously a genetic component, but this factor is not the only contributor to schizophrenia.³

GENETIC STUDIES AND “GAY GENES”

Another quick genetics lesson might be in order before exam­in­ing genetic contributions to homosexuality. The tradi­tional view concerning twins is that there are identical twins and fraternal twins. Identical twins result from the fertilization of a single egg by one individual sperm. This egg later splits in two. Fraternal twins are the product of fertilization of two different eggs by two different sperm cells. Identical twins have one-hundred percent of their genes in common, while fraternal twins have fifty percent common genes.⁴

A number of twin studies have been carried out to explore the genetic contribution to homosexuality, if there is one. Most of the early studies were very flawed because they were working with small numbers of twins, had questionable recruiting strate­gies, and were not often rigorous in their assessment of same- sex orientation.

Two recent studies were designed to overcome the criticisms of earlier research. One involved the use of a fourteen-thousand-person set found in a national Australian database.⁵ The second used the database from the 2005–2006 population survey of all adult twins in Sweden.⁶ Both studies showed that genetics contributed only thirty-five to thirty-seven percent to male sexual orientation. Neither of them provided evidence for a strong genetic basic for homosexual be­havior, but pointed strongly to individual environmental fact­ors as the major influence. To date, these studies represent the most thorough research in the field.

THE SEARCH FOR THE “GAY GENE”

In the highly politicized climate of 1973, which was created by two years of disruptive behavior by gay activists,⁷ the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was not a psychiatric disorder. There was still interest, however, in learning what caused people to become homosexual. Two major research studies in the 1990s brought renewed attention to the question. One focused on the possible existence of a “gay gene.” The other dealt with supposed differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both studies were carried out by gay activists and both studies have been strongly challenged, but they opened the door for the argument, “We’re born that way,” that is often used now in the gay community.

Geneticist Dean H. Hamer and his coworkers⁸ studied families in which there was at least one gay member. They also looked at a genetic analysis of gay brothers in another component of the study. Chromo­some analysis showed a correlation between homo­sexual be­havior (as reported to the team) and the existence of a unique site on the chromosomes of some of the research sub­jects. In addition, more than eighteen percent of the brother pairs did not show an inheritance of all the markers. Hamer’s conclusion was that “it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”⁹

The tentative nature of these data can be seen in the “Discussion” part of the paper. Hamer states, “Our experiments suggest that a locus (or loci) related to sexual orientation lies within approximately 4 million base pairs of DNA on the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome…it is large enough to contain several hundred genes.”¹⁰ So there really isn’t one “gay gene”; maybe there are hundreds of different ones.

Questions about Hamer’s research came quickly. An editorial comment in a 1999 issue of Science¹¹ briefly detailed the disagreement that existed at that time between Hamer’s study and those of other researchers. Two different studies did not find the linkage that Hamer had reported.¹² Hamer argued that the other scientists had not selected their subjects in the same way and missed the maternal link that Hamer found.

Hamer continued the attempt to find a specific bio­chemical link to homosexuality at the molecular level. In 2004 he published a study looking at a specific enzyme involved in the conversion of androgens (steroid hormones that help develop masculine characteristics) to estrogens (steroid hormones involved in developing feminine characteristics).¹³ His group reasoned that there may be some differences in the prenatal exposure of the developing brain to androgens and estrogens that might explain some of the genetic data regarding male sexual orientation. No differences were found in the population studied, however, ruling out this potential biochemical explanation.

A 2005 study by Hamer and his group¹⁴ attempted to identify several candidate genes more closely than did his 1993 paper. This study, interestingly, did not confirm the linkage he had reported in 1993. Several possible genes were identified, but there was no conclusive information about the relationship of any of these genes to male sexual behavior.

A recent comprehensive article summarizes the research and the confusion.¹⁵ After surveying the literature on the gay gene and related issues, Kunzig concludes, “Right now there is no one all-inclusive solution to the Darwinian mystery of why homosexuality survives, and no grand unified theory of how it arises in a given individual.” As a footnote to the controversy, Dean Hamer has redirected his research efforts in other directions entirely.

OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

While Hamer was creating a stir on the East Coast of the United States with his “gay gene” hypothesis, another scientist was developing a different line of research on the West Coast. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, studied the hypothalamus—a small tissue in the brain that regulates a large variety of hormonal processes, many of which are not associated with sex—and its connection, if any, to homosexuality.

LeVay’s study¹⁶ used brain tissues from autopsies in hospitals in California and New York. In most cases, he had somewhat incomplete histories of the individuals involved. Nineteen of the forty-one subjects studied were homosexual men, all of whom had died of AIDS, while sixteen were presumably heterosexual men, six of whom had died of AIDS. Six of the total subjects were women whom researchers assumed were heterosexual; one had died of AIDS. After fixing and sectioning the tissues, LeVay measured the volumes of four cell groups that were thought to be important. The only group considered to be of significance was the INAH-3 (INAH stands for “interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus”).

There are some significant problems with LeVay’s research. First, no one else has been able to replicate or repeat his study. In fact, no one else has ever seen the original slides that LeVay used to make his measurements. Second, most of his homosexual subjects had died of AIDS, but he did not show how the AIDS infection might have affected the specific brain structure. Third, the area studied had been very poorly defined anatomically; exactly what researchers were to measure was thus dependent on subjective decisions; especially since the area LeVay studied was about the size of a grain of sand. Fourth, the data showed that there was significant overlap between the size of INAH-3 in the brains of heterosexual and of homosexual men. Later studies on brain structure proved to be contradictory and inconclusive.

A 2008 study measured brain tissues and blood flow using MRI and positron emission tomography.¹⁷ This study examined possible differences in the way heterosexual and homo­sexual brains processed certain cognitive tasks; the para­meters studied were not related directly to sexual behavior. Again, although the researchers reported that homosexual men had brain struct­ures that were more closely related to hetero­sexual women, the degree of overlap between homo­sexual and hetero­sexual men was quite great. What may be significant sta­tistically does not appear to be so in actuality. These types of tests will not allow a clear differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual males.

A small series of recent studies has suggested that second sons have a higher likelihood of being homosexual.¹⁸ With the first son, the mother begins to develop a type of immunity to the male as blood from the two mixes during delivery. This immune response generates antibodies in the mother that react with male proteins during pregnancy with the second son. The studies hypothesize that these antibodies might somehow alter development of the brain in such a way that he is more likely to be born gay. At present, no specific antibodies have been identified to support this hypothesis.

A 2008 Los Angeles Times article¹⁹ looks at a variety of bio­logical and physical measurements that have been used to compare gay and straight males. The writer concludes that there is currently no indicator that allows a reliable prediction of sexual orientation.

CAN HOMOSEXUALS REALLY CHANGE?

In 1973, Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, led a successful effort to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders. This came about in part because of Spitzer’s seminal and controversial position paper on homosexuality submitted to the American Psychiatric Association that year.²⁰ While attending the 1999 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, he had contact with several ex-gays who were picketing the meeting.²¹ They claimed that they had changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer followed up and found that there was no good research literature available either to support or refute these claims, so he conducted his own research.

After studying a group of two-hundred individuals who had exper­ienced some sort of reorientation to a more heterosexual life­style, Spitzer submitted a paper reporting his results to the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.²² Journal editor Kenneth Zucker decided to publish the article along with several peer commentaries, as well as a final response by Spitzer, and to introduce the group of papers with his own editorial commentary.

The article created a great deal of controversy because Spitzer reported, “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.”²³ Many of the responses to his research were critical, coming from professionals who did not see anything wrong with homosexuality and who disliked the religious bias of many of the survey participants. Other comments were more open to the possibility that psychiatry perhaps had erred in the earlier decisions about homosexuality and the possibility of change. Spitzer received a number of personal attacks from colleagues and from gay activists.

Zucker’s editorial pointed out the significant deficiencies in the research literature regarding both “reparative therapy” (as it was called at that time) and “affirmative” therapies designed to help homosexuals adjust to their lifestyle.²⁴ He noted that both types of research lack a sound theoretical foundation and that the database is “primitive.” He thus concluded, “It is difficult to understand how professional societies can issue any clear statement that is not contaminated by rhetorical fervor.”

Research in this field has had little material added since Spitzer’s first major paper on the topic. A survey of the National Library of Medicine database shows only four references under the term “homosexual reparative therapy” more recent than 2003 other than a few articles on the ethics of the practice. Since it is less offensive to homosexuals who do not believe there is anything to “repair,” the term “sexual reorientation therapy” is coming to be more commonly used. Of the ten articles in the database that are found under “sexual reorientation therapy,”and published since 2003, only two deal with therapy outcomes (one of which is an example of successful therapy)²⁵ while seven articles in a series in the journal Christian Bioethics explore ethical issues in treatment. In a Christianity Today interview, Spitzer suggested two possible explanations for this. He stated, “The reasons are, number one, reparative therapists are not scientists—they don’t do studies. The second reason is, if somebody proposed that the National Institute of Mental Health do such a study, I think almost certainly any gays in the study section would say this is a total waste of time. They would say: We already know it’s hokum, so why do it?”²⁶

One organization that is dedicated to helping homo­sexuals who wish to change is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). This group is comprised of psychiatrists, psychologists, behavioral scientists, and professional counselors, as well as those with backgrounds in religion, law, and education. NARTH’s mission statement, as posted on its Web site, says, “NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.”²⁷ The association provides a variety of online research and educational resources for anyone who is interested in this issue.

What Would Constitute Real Proof?

The ongoing debate about whether homosexuality is inborn or somehow chosen can be confusing. Contradictory studies are published. There seems to be no clear-cut way to distinguish a homosexual person from a heterosexual one. If there is a biochemical marker that would be responsible for homosexual behavior, what would be its characteristics? How would it be recognized as a real indicator? For research on the origins of homosexuality to be more reliable, it needs to implement each of the following.

The populations being studied need to be defined clearly. There currently is no clear-cut distinction between “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The most commonly used scale for categorization has seven gradations. Most early studies did not do a scale ranking. In contrast, the 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study on brain structure included a Kinsey scale and used only “maximally heterosexual” and “maximally homosexual” subjects (those scoring at one end of the scale or the other; there were no subjects with intermediate ratings). This type of care in subject selection will be necessary in order for any meaningful data to appear.

The marker must be reproducible. Different teams using different techniques should all get the same results. Using different techniques eliminates the possibility of having a measurement error in any specific method. To date, none of the research looking for any marker has been reproducible, except for studies that show a slight genetic influence, and that finding can be explained away.

The marker needs to distinguish the populations clearly. No marker to date is seen clearly in the homosexual population or in a significant number of the nonhomosexual population. Brain structure studies show considerable overlap between the two groups.

The research should allow no chance for observer bias. A neutral observer should be able to look at the data and draw conclusions based solely on the scientific evidence and not on any personal agendas. The two major areas of research, unfortunately, have been clouded by a certain amount of personal bias. Both Hamer and LeVay are open about their own homosexuality. Hamer, to his credit, knows his personal bias and recognizes the limitations of his research. In a November 1995 interview in Time magazine,²⁸ he states, “From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors.” LeVay, on the other hand, resigned his research position, returned all his grant money, and helped form a gay activist organization within a year after his paper on brain structure was published. His writing to date focuses on broader issues of interest to the homosexual community and he is no longer doing lab research.

Brain Plasticity and Homosexual Behavior

For decades it was thought that the childhood brain could form and change, but that things became hardwired in adulthood. The only later changes would be from injury, degeneration, or changes in numbers of synapses. Recent research, however, is showing a very different picture of the adult brain. It is now being seen as fluid and changeable, responsive to new experiences.

A 2007 Time magazine article²⁹ describes a number of studies showing changes in brain structure as a result of mental stimuli. Not only was the neural activity altered in piano students who “thought” the practice of a piece of music and obsessive-com­pul­sive patients who were trained to respond mentally to their compulsive behavior, but the actual physical structure of the brain was changed. The literature on brain structure in depression shows similar data. One typical study30 showed a decrease in the size of a specific portion of the brain in patients with unipolar depression. Researchers conducted a more detailed exploration of the phenomenon in 2007.31 The take-home lesson is that the adult brain is more flexible in structure than once thought and can under­go change as a result of psychological change in the person’s life.

These lines of research have some obvious implications for the issue of homosexuality. With genetics on the sideline, research seriously must consider the question of later influences on the brain. Early childhood influences or physical or emotional experiences that could produce some alteration of brain structure —especially in susceptible individuals—are all possibilities that need to be explored. Much research obviously would be ruled out immediately on legal and ethical grounds, but some promising areas of study exist. These findings also could be useful in designing and implementing more effective ways to carry out sexual reorientation therapy.

THE FALLACY OF GENETIC DETERMINISM

As knowledge of genetics increased, there was a steady growth in the attitude, “My genes made me do it.” Research literature has reported on genes that it considered responsible for alcoholism, drug addiction, risk-taking, sexual promiscuity, infidelity, violence, and other forms of inappropriate behavior. One study even suggested that people’s political leanings are partially determined by their genes.32 There is thus a widespread belief that genes determine actions and people behave certain ways because their biochemical makeup compels that behavior.

Proof for such a belief, however, is lacking. Biological pro­cesses that fully explain behavior do not exist. There are no obvious biochemical or genetic factors that would compel a person to engage in homosexual behavior.

Even if there are genes that influence specific behaviors, do we simply excuse the behavior because of this? Of course not. We don’t just ignore the behavior of alcoholics, but try to help them. We would not excuse violent people, but get them the help they need. We all have normal sex drives, but we do not just allow them free rein. All these behaviors have adverse consequences, as does homosexual behavior.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

There is a definite divide today in how the Christian church deals with homosexual behavior. Most mainstream Protestant denominations have adopted interpretations of Scripture that celebrate homosexuality. Conservative Christians feel that the meaning of the Bible has not changed and that sexual behavior has limits. Churches are seeing increased pressure for the performance of same-sex marriage ceremonies. Preachers who speak out against homosexual practices are being accused of hate crimes in various parts of the world.

In the midst of all this, committed Christians need to be informed and prepared. Believers need to be aware of the scientific work that is increasingly failing to show the “inborn” nature of the homosexual. They need to be aware of the liberal bias of the media and raise a voice against it in our newspapers, radio, and television stations. Christians need to be knowledgeable about the tremendous hidden health issues associated with homosexuality. These approaches require information and ideas that can come from such publications as the Christian Research Journal.

More importantly, we as Christians need to be prepared in our hearts to fight the battle in front of us: in the classroom, in the political arena, and in the churches that will not stand for traditional biblical values. The battle, however, must be fought not in anger or hatred but in love. Christians must counteract the accusation of being “homophobic” in a society that is increasingly “Christianophobic.”

Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D., retired in 2006 after twenty-two years on the chemistry faculty at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington. His research interests involve the relationships between brain neurochemistry and human behavior.

notes

1 “Kinsey’s Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale,” Research Program, The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html.

2 “What Is a Gene?” Handbook, Cells and DNA, Genetics Home Reference, a Service of the U. S. National Library of Medicine, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/gene.

3 “The NIMH Genetic Study of Schizophrenia,” National Institute of Mental Health, http://gauss.nimh.nih.gov/sibstudy.

4 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/228983/human-genetics/50742/Identical-twins.

5 J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 3 (2000): 524–36.

6 Niklas. Langström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström and Paul Lichtenstein “Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2008) (an e-publication prior to being in print).

7 Charles W. Socarides, “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality,” The Journal of Psychohistory 19, 3 (1992), http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/ homopolo.htm.

8 Dean H. Hamer , Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M. L. Pattatucci, et al., “A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 321–27.

9 Ibid., 325.

10 Ibid., 326.

11 Ingrid Wickelgren, “Discovery of Gay Gene Questioned,” Science 284 (1999): 571.

12 See George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science 284 (1999): 665–67.

13 Michael G. DuPree, Brian S. Mustanski, Sven Bocklandt, Caroline Nievergelt, and Dean H. Hamer, “A Candidate Gene Study of CYP19 (Aromatase) and Male Sexual Orientation,” Behavior Genetics 34, 3 (2004): 243–50.

14 Brian S. Mustanski, Michael G. DuPree, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Sven Bocklandt, et al., “A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation,” Human Genetics 116 (2005): 272–78.

15 Robert Kunzig, “Finding the Switch,” Psychology Today, May/June (2008): 89–93.

16 Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (1991): 1034–37.

17 Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, “PET and MRI Show Differences in Cerebral Asymmetry and Functional Connectivity between Homo- and Heterosexual Subjects,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008): 9403–8.

18 David A. Puts, Cynthia L. Jordan, and S. Marc Breedlove, “O Brother, Where Art Thou? The Fraternal Birth-Order Effect on Male Sexual Orientation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (2006): 10531–2.

19 Regina Nuzzo, “What Does Gay Look Like?” Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2008.

20 APA document reference number 730008, accepted for inclusion in the DSM-II in 1973, http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf.

21 Douglas LeBlanc, “Therapeutically Incorrect—Atheist Psychiatrist Argues That Gays Can Change,” Christianity Today, April 2005, 94.

22 Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32 (2003): 403–17.

23 Ibid., 403 (abstract).

24 Kenneth Zucker, “The Politics and Science of Reparative Therapy,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32 (2003): 399.

25 A. Dean Byrd, Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts, “Clients’ Perceptions of How Reorientation Therapy and Self-Help Can Promote Changes in Sexual Orientation,” Psychological Reports 102, 1 (2008): 3–28.

26 LeBlanc, 94.

27 “NARTH Mission Statement,” About NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com/menus/mission.html.

28 Hamer, quoted in Anastasia Toufexis, “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene,’” Time, November 13, 1995, 95.

29 Sharon Begley, “How the Brain Rewires Itself,” Time, January 29, 2007, 72.

30 Frank P. McMaster and Vivek. Kusumakar, “Hippocampal Volume in Early-Onset Depression,” BMC Medicine 2, 2 (2004): 1–6.

31 Boldizar Czeh and Paul. J. Lucassen, “What Causes the Hippocampal Volume Decrease in Depression? Are Neurogenesis, Glial Changes, and Apoptosis Implicated?” European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 257, 5 (2007): 250–60.

32 “Are Politics in Your DNA?” The Scientist Daily e-mail newsletter, January 9, 2007. No author given in original article. Available through The Scientist, Magazine of the Life Sciences, http://www.the-scientist.com/register/.

SYNOPSIS

The definition of family has become one of Christianity’s most controversial doctrines. In a time of international revision of marriage and family roles, widespread acceptance of cohabitation and high divorce rates, believers express uncertainty about what does or does not constitute a family, hesitancy about the importance of the family concept, or unwillingness to recognize and honor that concept in their own lives. A general confusion seems to have grown, in both church and culture, regarding the meaning and importance of family. Adding to the confusion is the controversy stirred when an objective definition of family and marriage is commended. Since we cannot hold a specific view without directly or indirectly negating other views, we’re left considering whether to keep our views to ourselves or express them in hopes of productive dialogue. But to engage in such dialogue regarding family runs the risk of being viewed as judgmental, exclusionary, or even bigoted. Three primary questions are thereby raised. First, does Scripture offer a concise definition of the family? Second, is that definition critical as a doctrinal/moral issue within the church? And finally, are we called to promote and defend that definition outside the church? While the answer to all three seems clearly to be “yes,” we’re left with the challenge of implementing greater clarity within the church, and more reasoned boldness when addressing the culture.

IT IS A STRANGE THING THAT IF THE OLD EVANGELISTIC DOCTRINES SHOULD APPEAR FOR ONE MOMENT TO BE BEATEN IN DEBATE, THEY ALWAYS CONQUER IN RESULTS. CHARLES SPURGEON

In the 1993 movie Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams, disguised as a grandmotherly housekeeper, offers comfort to a child who fears her parents’ divorce means the end of her family: “There are all sorts of different families, Katie. Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. Some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. Some live in separate homes and neighborhoods in different areas of the country. They may not see each other for days, weeks, months, or even years at a time. But if there’s love, dear, those are the ties that bind. And you’ll have a family in your heart forever.”¹ It’s a common sentiment, growing in popularity and benign in tone-that love makes a family, so the people you love can become your family unit, one that’s determined primarily by emotion, less by blood, and barely (if at all) by objectively defined gender or function. Here the German poet Johann Schiller’s two hundred-year-old oft-quoted phrase, “It is not flesh and blood but the heart which makes us fathers and sons,”² finds new breath in contemporary parallel efforts such as Gigi Kaeser’s photographic campaign for gay/lesbian parenting titled Love Makes a Family³ and author/songwriter Carol Lynn Pearson’s lyrics, “But that’s not the thing that makes us want to sing/A family is more than that./And this is what I’m thinking of/A family’s really a family when it’s got love.”⁴ While this view rightfully salutes the bonding felt when love is shared between partners or members of a group, it’s also problematic for believers who hold the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of the family, a concept determined by objective elements like blood, gender, and/or clearly prescribed roles. After all, if it’s love that makes a family, then what are we to do with the traditional definition of marriage as being monogamous and male-female in form? For that matter, why bother with the institution at all? If love, rather than matrimony, lays the family foundation, then what’s a license got to do with it? Ditto for the allegedly unique roles fathers and mothers play in childrearing, because if love equals family, then children are just as effectively raised by nonrelatives, distant relatives, or relative strangers, so long as they’re loved. So if love’s the final arbiter, should our current understanding of family be preserved, or amended to flex with the times, or discarded altogether?

WHEN VAGUE IS IN VOGUE

Tensions rise whenever the merits of an objective (and exclusive) definition are weighed against a more inclusive, subjective one. To say, “There’s only one way,” can seem divisive, whereas the more egalitarian, “Whatever seems right to you is OK” approach gets the “nice” award. In polite conversation, it’s natural to favor subjectivity, avoiding, when possible, the social discomforts that come when an uncompromising position is taken. But the more crucial the topic, the clearer the mandate for defending objective exclusive truth. Here the arguments over the definition of family are much like modern debates over an exclusive versus inclusive concept of God. “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual,” many affirm today, claiming there are multiple paths to God, and many ways to conceptualize Him/Her/It. On this point the Christian can hardly agree, remembering that Jesus Himself said, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ESV), so believers now face the challenge of promoting an objective, specific definition of God and salvation in a time when subjectivity regarding both is in vogue. A similar challenge is posed when revisions of the family are called for. When “Love makes a family” is argued, we can hardly agree, remembering the precision with which the family is defined in Scripture, leaving us with the challenge of promoting an objective, specific definition of marriage and family when subjectivity regarding both is in vogue. Social tensions notwithstanding, this is a topic on which we can ill afford being coy. The ramifications for childrearing and cultural stability are many, the stakes enormous. A mutually agreed upon concept of family determines our nation’s approach to same-sex marriage, polygamy, couples living together apart from wedlock, transsexualism, adoption, custody of children, and divorce. In short, the “family” quarrel-the cultural debate over how it’s defined and preserved-is no small matter, requiring a clear and rational Christian response. Three primary questions are hereby raised: Does Scripture offer a concise definition of the family? Is that definition critical as a doctrinal/moral issue within the church? Are we called to promote and defend that definition outside the church?

THE FAMILY IS A CONCEPT

In response to the first question, we’ll begin by noting that a high view of Scripture yields a high view of family. Two parts of this are noteworthy: how the family is defined, and the honors heaped on it in both the Old and New Testaments. The definition of family springs from the first negative thing God said about man: he was inherently incomplete, indicating he was built to partner, commune, and reproduce (Gen. 1:18-23). His relationship with God and his surroundings were intact, but by God’s own design, Adam was wired for more. His union with Eve became the more, so an initial point we can make when defining family is that it was conceived in response to human need. A second observation concerns marriage, from which family life springs, and its original three-element design: heterosexual, monogamous, and built for permanence, as detailed in Genesis and reaffirmed by Christ (Gen. 2:24; Mark 10:6-9). On the heterosexual element of this design (which is currently the most controversial of the three), C. S. Lewis observes:

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism-He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact, just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined.⁵

Created design dictates that two halves do not necessarily make a whole, and that the whole as a permanent and exclusive male-female complement constitutes marital union. By this standard a number of actions fall short. Homosexuality violates the gender contrast design; fornication (sexual relations before or apart from marriage) indulges erotic privilege without covenant responsibilities; polygamy and adultery violate the monogamous intent; and divorce aborts the permanent union that marriage was meant to provide. Scant biblical allowance is made for deviation, and where it exists, it’s notable for its brevity. Polygamy was practiced by a number of Old Testament patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, for example), but serious consequences often followed, and while it was tolerated in Old Testament times, God’s displeasure with it is clarified both by Christ and Paul (Mark 10:8; 1 Tim. 3:2). Likewise, Jesus asserted that divorce, though granted under Mosaic law, is a tragic option only to be considered if a spouse has committed adultery (Matt. 5:31-32). The biological component regarding children isn’t rigid, in that the biblical definition of a family recognizes adoption or step-parenting (Moses in Exod. 1:15-22; Samuel in 1 Samuel 1, 2:1-11; and Esther in Esther 2:15). Single parenting is neither affirmed nor condemned, since circumstances beyond a mother or father’s control may necessitate it. And while it offers less than the two-parent ideal, it exists within the scope of the family concept. To be sure, marriage and children are options, not mandates. Nothing in Scripture indicates all people should marry or, for that matter, that all married people should reproduce. Any number of reasons-such as physical disabilities, life situation, or personal preferences-may validate a person’s singleness, or a couple’s childlessness. But when examining the biblical notion of family, we conclude that marriage is required to be monogamous and heterosexual and intended to be permanent, with limited allowance made for its termination. Children are ideally raised by both biological parents, but can also be reared by one parent, stepparents, or adoptive parents as well. These are the mechanics of family life prescribed in Genesis, the Law, the Gospels, and the Epistles. So important are these mechanics that their violation elicits at the least a sharp rebuke from Scripture; at most, severe consequence. Hebrew laws regulating duties between family members are explicitly detailed (Deut. chaps. 21-23, for one of many examples); neglect of parents is condemned by Christ (Mark 7:11) and cited by Paul as a denial of the faith (1 Tim. 5:16); honor toward parents is demanded in both Testaments (Exod. 20:12; Matt. 15:4); and the ability to properly lead within the home is seen as a prerequisite for leadership in the church (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The importance Scripture assigns to family relations would be hard to exaggerate. But the general honor afforded them is crucial as well, because it helps explain the subject’s importance. The family is both ordained and defined by God, sealing its importance in and of itself. But it holds symbolic importance as well, as it expresses His nature, and symbolizes His relationship to His people. This further elevates the family, from a critical and functional unit to a divine illustration. Numerous prophetic and instructive passages, for example, reference marriage as symbolic of God’s union with His own. Both Israel and the church enjoy this honor in being referred to as His betrothed, or His bride (Isa. 50:1; Eph. 5:23-33; Rev. 21:9). And while marital union may be the family relationship most often typifying divine principles, other family ties are utilized as well to represent God’s nature and commitment to us. The father-child relation is employed when God the Father is cited as gentle provider (Matt. 7:11); all-knowing caretaker (Matt. 5:32); disciplinarian (Heb. 12:7-8); and doting, compassionate parent (Ps. 103:13); while a mother’s nurturing qualities connote God’s watchful gentleness (Isa. 49:15). To understand the family is to better understand God; indeed, Jesus seemed to presume this when He utilized earthly fatherhood to boost His listeners’ understanding of their Heavenly Father (Matt. 7:7-11). There exists, then, a clear and objective definition of the family, which the Bible views as inherently important and divinely symbolic. No serious student of Scripture could deny that family matters.

THE FAMILY IS A CRITICAL CONCEPT

“Excommunication” is a painful last resort, defined by The Encyclopedia Britannica as a ‘form of ecclesiastical censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of believers, the rites or sacraments of a church, and the rights of church membership.”⁶ Noting its necessary severity, Jonathan Edwards remarked that excommunication is not designed by man for the destruction of the person, but for his correction, and so is of the nature of a castigatory punishment, at least so far as it is inflicted by men; yet it is in itself a great and dreadful calamity, and the most severe punishment that Christ hath appointed in the visible church. Although in it the church is to seek only the good of the person and his recovery from sin there appearing, upon proper trial, no reason to hope for his recovery by gentler means yet it is at God’s sovereign disposal, whether it shall issue in his humiliation and repentance, or in his dreadful and eternal destruction; as it always doth issue in the one or the other.⁷ So when answering our second question-Is family definition critical as a doctrinal/moral issue within the church?-we should recall that the first excommunication mentioned in the New Testament happened in response to a believer’s violation of family covenant, and his church’s cavalier response. Paul was alarmed when told of a Corinthian Christian’s openly incestuous relationship with his stepmother, and outraged over the church’s casual attitude. So in 1 Corinthians 5 he rebukes his readers for allowing a form of fornication “not so much as named among the Gentiles” (v. 1); for their smug self-satisfaction over their tolerance (v. 2); and for their seeming ignorance of a basic reason for Christian purity: our bodies don’t belong to us but are rather temples of the Holy Spirit (vv. 19-20). When ordering them to excommunicate the unrepentant fornicator, Paul makes two general appeals: Don’t you know? And if you know, why don’t you do? We could use another letter from Paul today! According to a 2003 poll conducted by George Barna, forty-nine percent of respondents who identified themselves as “born again” considered living together apart from marriage to be acceptable, thirty-three percent condoned abortion, thirty-five percent felt OK about sex before marriage, and twenty-eight percent saw no problem with pornography. In response, Barna noted, “Even most people associated with the Christian faith do not seem to have embraced biblical moral standards. Things are likely to get worse before they get better-and they are not likely to get better unless strong and appealing moral leadership emerges to challenge and redirect people’s thoughts and behavior. At the moment, such leadership is absent.”⁸ In the absence of such leadership, confusion over right versus wrong, plus a casual attitude towards wrong itself, thrives. What’s needed is clarity. After all, if the question of Francis Schaeffer’s book title How Then Shall We Live? gets no clear response from the pulpit, it should surprise no one when everyone does what’s right “in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6 ESV). Paul no doubt considered this when he told Corinth’s believers to distance themselves from any Christian who engaged in fornication (1 Cor. 5:11) and when he told the Ephesians to live in such a way that sexual immorality would never be named among them (Eph. 5:2). Add to this his comparison of the marriage union to that of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:32), his prescriptions for marital and parent-child roles (Eph. 5:22-6:4), and his insistence that a man’s fidelity to family responsibilities is in direct relation to his profession of faith (1 Tim. 5:8) and qualifications for leadership (1 Tim. 3:5), and it becomes ever clearer that the definition and value of the family is a critical concept over which three simple points need to be raised, loudly and regularly, from the pulpit: “This is what constitutes a family.” “These are the roles and responsibilities involved.” “This is why family matters.”

THE FAMILY IS A CRITICAL CONCEPT DESERVING CULTURAL PROMOTION

Our third question-Are we called to promote and defend the biblical definition of “family” outside the church?-is perhaps the trickiest. On the one hand, C. S. Lewis warned against imposing Christian marital standards on a secular society: “The Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.”⁹ Paul himself, likewise, said that he was in no position to judge unbelievers who were guilty of sexual sin (1 Cor. 5:12), yet a promotion of a beneficial concept seems a far cry from placing judgment on people who reject that concept. Here Chuck Colson’s explanation of common grace seems applicable: “As agents of God’s common grace, we are called to help sustain and renew his creation, to uphold the created institutions of family and society, to pursue science and scholarship, to create works of art and beauty, and to heal and help those suffering from the results of the Fall.”¹⁰ If it can be shown that biblically commended family roles work best for believers and nonbelievers alike, then the biblical definition of the family is worth cultural promotion. A number of secular studies attest to the wisdom of the biblical definition of family, and to the benefits that children in particular reap when that definition is adhered to.

MARRIED COUPLES COUNT

After studying 174 primary school children, 58 of whom were being raised by heterosexual “cohabiting” (unmarried) couples, 58 by same sex couples, and 58 by married heterosexual couples, Sotorios Sarantakos, an Australian sociologist, offered this conclusion: “In this study, married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child’s social and educational development.”¹¹ Measuring the children’s functioning in several areas-language, math, sports, sociability, learning attitude, parent-school relation, gender role, school-related support and parental aspirations for the child’s achievement-children of the married couples did the best.¹²

FATHERS COUNT

When analyzing more than one hundred studies examining the impact of biological fathers on the children, Ronald Rohner and Robert Veneziano concluded, “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well being and health.”¹³ Swedish researchers came to a similar conclusion when publishing their findings under the title, “Children Who Have an Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological and Behavioral Problems” in the February 2008 issue of Acta Paediatrica. After surveying reports on 22,300 sets of data from 16 studies comparing children raised with and without fathers, they remarked, “Children who lived with both a mother and father figure also had less behavioural problems than those who just lived with their mother. The review looked at 24 papers published between 1987 and 2007, covering 22,300 individual sets of data from 16 studies. 18 of the 24 papers also covered the social economic status of the families studied.”¹⁴ These findings aren’t unique. Studies cited by The National Center for Fathering¹⁵ and the NYU Child Study Center¹⁶ conclude that fathers contribute uniquely to their children’s development in ways that cannot be replicated or substituted.

MOTHERS COUNT

Just as research confirms the unique role of fathers in child raising, it predictably has similar points to make regarding motherhood. For example, the Early Child Care Research Network found that nonmaternal care of babies and preschool children, as opposed to early bonding with their biological mothers, has been linked to behavioral problems at older ages.¹⁷ In addition to the emotional and behavioral losses incurred in a mother’s absence, her parenting style is complementary to, but distinct from, a father’s, which led the NYU Child Study Center to remark, “In summary, proponents of the essential-father point of view see the parenting contributions of mothers and fathers as linked to their sex, with mothers generally emphasizing connection, relatedness, safety and care, and fathers emphasizing autonomy, action, risk-taking and following rules.”¹⁸ All of which led David Popenoe to conclude, regarding the importance of both parents, “We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies’-The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary-culturally and biologically-for the optimal development of a human being.”¹⁹

BIOLOGY COUNTS

When examining the ties between biological parents and their offspring, the results are also clear and unsurprising: where childrearing is concerned, biology counts. A Child Trends Research brief noted, for example: “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage…. Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.”²⁰ Similarly, a brief for the Center for Law and Social Policy claimed that “children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low conflict relationships.”²¹ Judy Jones, director of the nonprofit organization Help Stop Parental Alienation Syndrome, concurred: “Children that are deprived of frequent contact with both their mother and their father have a greater risk of drug abuse, dropping out of school, teenage pregnancy, and many other behavioral and emotional problems.” The inescapable conclusion one draws from these studies was articulated nicely by David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and a self-defined “liberal Democrat,” who nevertheless criticizes the rush to revamp our definition of marriage and family when he notes:

Marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood-biological, social, and legal-into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and father, accountable to the child and to each other.²²

If the traditional family unit provides the best framework for emotional and mental development, then the stable children raised within that framework will become the stable adults most likely to provide a similar framework for the next generation. The ripple effect cannot help but produce cultural stability, testifying to a design explained in Genesis and confirmed in 2010 and beyond. None of this negates the good that’s reaped by adults and children in less traditional settings. Here we agree in part with Mrs. Doubtfire, in that any combination of people who truly care for each other will benefit all involved. So the family quarrel isn’t an either/or proposition. The question isn’t whether nontraditional groupings provide any benefit-they do; they will. But which grouping provides maximum benefit? What’s functional may not be destructive, but neither is it the ideal. And when discussing a culture’s productivity and future, nothing less than the ideal should be striven for. The family was conceived by the Creator in response to His creation’s needs and as an earthly, tangible representation of His nature. Its members, when combined, provide a mosaic in which the observer notes elements male and female, gentle and authoritative, innocent, knowing, and inexpressibly creative. God is both honored and represented when family ties are in place. But to be in place they first have to be defined and understood, so clearer, more comprehensive teaching on the subject within our churches is called for. Likewise, fidelity to what we’re taught in Scripture about chastity, monogamy, and family responsibilities is tragically lacking, and until sufficient attention is paid to the disconnect between what we preach and what we live, we can hardly expect the culture to take us seriously when we promote standards we’re not applying to ourselves. But the definition of the family, when understood and lived out, can then be promoted with integrity to a world grappling with questions of intimacy, emotional need, and the complexities of human sexuality. The answers we provide will no doubt raise hackles-just consider what happens whenever a public figure confesses to a traditional understanding of marriage and family! But they’ll raise awareness as well, and can become a vehicle through which people hungry for love and security can find answers. Episcopal Bishop William Frey alluded to this when he recalled the early church’s impact on Greco-Roman society, an impact made in part by its understanding and promotion of family values: “One of the most attractive features of the early Christian communities…was their radical sexual ethic and their deep commitment to family values. These things…drew many people to them who were disillusioned by the promiscuous excesses of what proved to be a declining culture. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for our Church to find such countercultural courage today?”²³ Wonderful, yes. And, more importantly, entirely possible.

Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of three books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).

NOTES

1 “Mrs. Doubtfire Script Transcription,” http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/mrsdoubtfire-script-transcript.html.

2 As quoted in “Deconstruction and Reconstruction: The Family Experience,” Florida State University Museum of Fine Arts, http://www.mofa.fsu.edu/pages/learning/resources/familyexperience.pdf.

3 Cited in University of Massachusetts Press, http://www.umass.edu/umpress/author/k.html.

4 Carol Lynn Pearson and Newell Dayley, “What Makes a Family?” Ensign (March 1978), 48 (http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8189d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1).

5 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002), 61.

6 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197846/excommunication.

7 Jonathan Edwards, “The Nature and End of Excommunication,” http://www.jonathanedwards.org/Excommunication.html.

8 “Morality Continues to Decay,” The Barna Group (November 3, 2003), http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/129.

9 Lewis, 112.

10 Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1999), xii.

11 Sortirios Sarantakos, “Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development,” Children Australia 21, 3 (1996): 23; cited in Getting I Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, ed. Peter Spriggs and Timothy Dailey (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council, 2004), 109-10.

12 Ibid.

13 Ronald Rohner and Robert Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5, 4 (2001): 382-405; cited in Glenn T. Stanton and Kjersten Oligney, “Refuting Points No One is Making,” http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/marriage/AAP_Analysis.pdf.

14 “Children Who Have an Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems,” ScienceDaily, February 15, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm.

15 Blair and Craig Brooke-Weiss, “Father Love: Keeping Families Connected,” http://www.fatherlove.com/articles/riskfactors.html.

16 http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Ref_Many_Meanings_Family/.

17 Jay Belsky et al., “Are There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Care?” Child Development 78, 2 (2007): 681-701.

18 http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Ref_Many_Meanings_Family/.

19 Cited in Stanton and Oligney.

20 Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002), cited in Stanton and Oligney, 12.

21 Mary Park, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy brief (May 2003), cited in Stanton and Oligney, 12.

22 Judy Jones, “Children Missing Contact with Both Biological Parents at Risk,” 24/7 Press Release (June 22, 2005), http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=6509.

23 “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children,” op-ed, Los Angeles Times, September 19, 2008.

24 Richard Ostling, “What Does God Really Think about Sex?” Time, June 24, 1991, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973264,00.html.

In recent months, however, the Church has faced a series of attacks that have challenged both its carefully burnished image and its standard methods of self-defense.

Some of the criticism has centered on Tom Cruise, the world’s most famous Scientologist. But other challenges—including public protests that have attracted thousands of people around the globe, criticisms from former members and a relative of the Church’s current leader, and mysterious chemicals that were mailed to Church offices—represent the latest chapters in the long-running battle between the Church and its assorted and increasingly vocal critics.

And just as the recording and publishing industries have been forced to address the implications of our digital age, the Church has struggled to come up with an effective strategy for battling people who use the Internet to organize mass protests, distribute internal Church documents, hack Church Web sites, and create online communities for ex-members and other vocal critics.

Front-Page News

Even though celebrity journalist Andrew Morton’s Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography was neither a critical nor popular success, the book’s highly anticipated January 15 release provided the mainstream media and the blogosophere with an occasion to focus on Scientology and the man who, for most people, is a better-known Church icon than its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. The results were less than flattering for both the actor and the Church.

Morton, who previously wrote books about Princess Diana and Madonna, labeled Cruise a “movie messiah” who exploits both “the unfettered power of modern celebrity” and “our embrace of religious extremism.”

As for Cruise’s willingness to be the “poster boy” for Scientology, Morton says Cruise has used his own “charm and persuasiveness” to promote the organization’s “relentless expansion” while obscuring its “totalitarian zeal” with his own sex appeal and fame.

Morton gives readers a combination of facts (Cruse was introduced to Scientology by first wife Mimi Rogers), rants by ex-members (who expose the Church’s inner workings), and his own psychological interpretations (Cruise’s deep emotional needs made him vulnerable to the lure of a powerful organization to which he could dedicate himself).

Both the Church and a spokesperson for Cruise have criticized the book and claimed that its author did not seek them out for comment. “Accuracy and truth were not on Morton’s agenda,” said a Church statement.

And questions about the book’s accuracy were among the factors leading Macmillan, which planned to publish the book in Britain, to announce in April that it would be too risky to do so, given the UK’s more stringent libel laws. A Macmillan spokesman told London’s Telegraph: “By the time our lawyers had been through it, there was nothing left but red ink. We have explored every possible option, but have concluded that once the potentially defamatory sections are taken out, there is not enough left to make a good read.”

Star Struck

Cruise’s million-dollar smile has been featured in dozens of films, but his star doesn’t shine as brightly as it once did. His last major film was Lions for Lambs, a movie about the war in Afghanistan, which fared poorly at the domestic box office.

Even his media appearances have become more problematic. In 2005 he angered many fans when he turned an appearance on the Today show with Matt Lauer into a Scientology-driven anti-psychiatric attack against Brooke Shields, who had taken antidepressant medications after the birth of her child. And his June 2005 couch-jumping exuberence over Katie Holmes on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show convinced some fans he had lost his mind—a perception he tried to repair during a May 2 interview with Oprah at his Colorado estate.

During that May appearance, Cruise apologized for his earlier behavior and sought to present a calmer, friendlier face, both for himself and Scientology, which he said was “not the only way” to find God. Or as New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley wrote, “the encounter was less like a movie star interview than like a news conference with a political candidate seeking to undo a gaffe.”

Cruise remains a major player behind the scenes. In 2006 he and longtime production partner Paula Wagner were put in charge of United Artists, the venerated Hollywood studio founded nearly a century ago by Charlie Chaplin and others. But Cruise’s connections to Scientology have complicated things for UA’s first Cruise/Wagner release, the World War II drama, Valkyrie.

In June 2007, German officials cited Cruise’s link to the “cult” of Scientology as one reason for originally prohibiting United Artists from filming scenes of Cruise at German military installations. The government later allowed the scenes to be filmed, but the film has encountered other problems, and its release date has been pushed back twice.

According to the New York Times, the controversy over Valkyrie shows that Cruise “appears to be both an asset and a liability.”

“Anonymous” on the Attack

While most people have heard of Tom Cruise and Andrew Morton, no one’s exactly sure who is behind the group called Anonymous, which has used the Internet to organize attacks on the Church of Scientology. And that’s just the way leaders of Anonymous want it.

In the last year, people claiming to be affiliated with Anonymous have claimed credit for a variety of anti-Scientology activities:

• When the Church pressured YouTube (the popular site that enables anyone with a camera) to remove copyrighted materials from the site, including a video of a 2004 speech by Cruise, Anonymous posted its own video that portrayed the Church as a Big Brother seeking to trample freedom of speech and thought.
• Anonymous also organized a series of attacks on Church computers that shut down its main Web site (www.scientology.org) for a day in January, forcing the Church to switch to an Internet service provider with tougher security.
• And in February representatives of Anonymous allegedly mailed packets of white powder to twenty-three Church offices in California, causing evacuations, road closings, and an FBI investigation.

The reaction to the Anonymous attacks has been mixed. Some critics have cheered the antics of Anonymous, rejoicing in the fact that the Church has been less successful at halting its activities than it has been in the past when it sought to muzzle critics who used the mainstream media as their platform.

On the other hand, the take-no-prisoners approach of the attacks has worried some long-time critics of the Church who fear that they may bring about reprisals that stifle opponents of Scientology. As critic Mark Bunker of the www.xenutv.com Web site told the Los Angeles Times, “I hope it doesn’t hurt the larger critic community who have been speaking out for years about Scientology’s abuse.”

The World Wide Web of Intrigue

Anonymous has also used the Web as a platform to announce its campaign to destroy the Church and to call for worldwide protests, one of which drew thousands of people to anti-Scientology events at major cities throughout the world February 10.

Hundreds of masked protesters and gawkers showed up at rallies held in front of some of the Church’s Los Angeles facilities, where they carried signs and handed out brochures criticizing the Church’s crusading zeal and costly courses. the Los Angeles Times reported that other rallies were held in Boston, New York, Toronto, the U.K., and Australia.

But Anonymous isn’t the only group using the power, reach, and anonymity of the Web to go after Scientology. Other critics have upload­ed hundreds of anti-Church videos on YouTube.

Some of the videos are simple productions. One entitled “Scientology Crazy Follow­ers” (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pPol_ m8wm8Y) is shot with a hand-held camera and features an individual who is prevent­ed from attending a protest rally because the Church had the street in front of its building closed to public access. The video has been seen more than one million times.

TV and film actor Jason Beghe, who reached Scientology’s OT 5 level and appeared in promotional videos for the Church, has also released a series of anti-Scientology videos on You Tube claiming that the organization is a dangerous rip-off. You can find his profanity-heavy three-minute “preview” video at: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZvmvlZM1gw.

Other YouTube videos are creating bigger problems for the Church. One eye-opening video entitled “Scientology advocates violence against psychiatry” (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hfu7Sr50N7U) features a pirated copy of a speech by Church leader David Miscavige about the Church’s 2006 campaign “for the global elimination of psychiatry.”

The speech, which Church officials acknowledge is at least partly authentic, was clearly intended for an audience of the faithful. But now, thanks to the power of the Web, viewers can see for themselves how Miscavige sounds when he preaches to the choir. And, as many people have indicated in their responses on YouTube, their look into the inner workings of the Church have not increased their affection for Scientology.

The video has been taken down by YouTube at the request of Church officials. (YouTube honors such requests when organizations or TV networks claim that copyrighted material has been released without consent.) But in some cases, after anti-Scientology videos have disappeared from YouTube they have reappeared thanks to critics who then upload them again.

The video attacks have led the Church to create an online “Scientology Video Channel,” which offers numerous Church-sanctioned videos. When Web surfers go to www.scientology.org, they are sent to the video site and must click on a home page link to go to the main Scientology site.

Rebellious Kids

There have always been former Scientologists who speak out about the Church, but in recent months three big-league insiders have joined the chorus of critics.

Jenna Miscavige Hill (the niece ofScientology leader David Miscavige), Kendra Wiseman (the daughter of Bruce Wiseman, president of the Church’s anti-psychiatricgroup, Citizens Commission on Human Rights), and Astra Woodcraft, whose parents joined Scientology’s elite Sea Organization when she was seven (and who was featured in a 2005 Glamour magazine article entitled “Why I Fled Scientology”) launched ExScientologyKids.com, a site for people who grew up in Scientology.

The site’s home page describes their goal: “We offer non-judgmental support for those who are still in Scientology, discussion and debate for those who’ve already left, and a plethora of easy-to-understand references for the curious.” And the site offers a variety of materials, including discussions of the Church’s disconnection policy, which requires members to disaffiliate from family, friends, or loved ones who leave the organization.

In April, Nightline, ABC TV’s late-night news show, did a segment called “Growing Up Scientologist” featuring Hill and Woodcraft, who described their difficult journey away from the Church.

Both women talked about the long hours they were required to work on Church tasks and the verbal attacks they received when they complained about being separated from family members. Woodcraft also discussed her pregnancy, and the response from Church leaders who suggested she get an abortion. (The Church denies it promotes abortion as a policy, and says it leaves the choice up to individual members.)

The Church declined to comment for the story until the last moment, sending ABC a statement on the day the program aired saying it would not respond to the women’s charges or impugn their character. The show remains among the most popular Nightline segments that viewers can watch on the ABCNews.com site.

Still Fighting

Ever since the Church’s founding in 1955, Scientology has been a target for scrutiny and criticism because of its colorful founder, controversial history, unique doctrine, aggressive posture, and focus on celebrities.

Such criticism has taken on new dimensions in the Internet era, when people can view once-private Church videos or buy used e-meters, the devices that are used in Scientology “auditing” sessions and often appear on the Ebay Internet auction site.

Over the last two decades, the Internet has proven itself to be a powerful force in the world of religion, for groups both small and large. On the Web, even obscure groups like Heaven’s Gate have been able to proclaim their messages to the world. The Heaven’s Gate site even survived the group itself, whose nearly forty members engaged in a March 1997 mass suicide at a house in California.

The Web also empowers critics of religion, and most religious organizations have scrambled to develop strategies to address attacks and other negative buzz generated by “anti-” sites.

What makes the Internet-based attacks on Scientology so problematic are the ease with which critics can reach a vast audience, combined with the difficulty the Church has in silencing them.

But Scientology is not rolling over and playing dead. It is fighting back with its own videos, and it is trying to use copyright law to contain Internet links of Church-owned videos. Ironically, such responses run the risk of actually increasing Web traffic for controversial materials the Church seeks to suppress but that survive and thrive at a variety of sites.

The Church also prevented members of Anonymous from successfully staging a March 15 protest in front of the Church’s Los Angeles headquarters by scheduling a competing rally with the city.

But Church critics are more organized than in the past, and the war they are waging online is proving to be a difficult battle for Scientology leaders.

—Steve Rabey

In his new book The Bible Code, former Washington Post reporter Michael Drosnin has popularized a technology called Equidistant Letter Sequencing” or ELS, that decodes” prophecies allegedly hidden in the Bible. It has been on The New York Times bestseller list for 13 weeks and currently is ranked eighth (as of September 14).

Supporters claim ELS is a breakthrough means of predicting the future. But is it real? And what does it mean for Christians and for our understanding of the Bible?

On May 30 a full page ad in The New York Times stated that Drosnin sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on September 1, 1995 warning him of assassination, based on his “decoding” of the message “assassin will assassinate” in Deuteronomy 4:12. On November 4, 1995, Rabin was killed by an Israeli student.

ELS advocates claim to be able to “break” the code allegedly existing in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. Drosnin did not invent the technique, but relied upon the research of mathematician Eliyahu Rips of Hebrew University and physicist Doron Witztum of the Jerusalem College of Technology. Rips, Witztum, and Yoav Rosenberg published their research in Statistical Science, a prestigious and peer-reviewed academic journal in 1994 (with the editors making it clear they were not endorsing the authors’ work).

Michael Shermer, publisher of The Skeptic magazine, explains ELS in his review of The Bible Code in the Los Angeles Times. An ELS “technician” might program a computer to pick out every fifth or tenth letter in the book of Genesis (any number may be chosen for the “skip code,” and any book of the Bible selected). The computer then sifts through the chosen text to decipher hidden messages.

An English-language ELS example was given in The Bible Code press release: “Rips explained that each code is a case of adding every fourth or twelfth letter to form a word.” The message of the letters in bold is “READ THE CODE.”

Shermer and others note however that Hebrew contains no vowels, making the interpretive options much greater and therefore much more confusing. For example, Prime Minister Rabin’s name could have been translated “Robin,” or as many as six other ways.

Also, while Hebrew reads from right to left, Bible “decoders” have allowed themselves to move from left to tight, top to bottom, and diagonally in any direction. Since diagonal lines depend on where the margin of the page ends, there is no consistent methodology for interpretation.

The Bible Code- “Complete Nonsense” Or Proven By Events?

Nonetheless, Rabin’s assassination has led to vast speculation and excitement. As many as 30 Internet sites are devoted to ELS. Hollywood actors such as Kirk Douglas and Jason Alexander have hosted seminars. But despite one sensational prediction, not all critics are convinced. Harvard mathematics professor and Rabbi Shlomo Sternberg told Time that Drosnin’s book is “complete nonsense.” Computer Science professor Dr. Brendon McKay of Australian National University has pointed out that the Rabin prediction decoded in Deuteronomy 4:42 could read “assassin who will be assassinated.”

Even Rips and Witztum, the original “discoverers” of ELS, are critical of Drosnins methodology.

Many evangelicals also are unconvinced. May Lou Nielsen, manager of For Heaven’s Sake bookstore in Longmont, Colorado stated, “I had one customer who wanted to order 100 copies of The Bible Code. I told him there are serious flaws with ELS. I hate to sacrifice the sales but I also, want to have integrity in what I sell.” Even Drosnin seems unclear on what the “Bible code” really means. Drosnin told TV host Oprah Winfrey in June, “I am entirely secular. I don’t believe in God.”

But when Oprah pressed him, he acknowledged there seems to be an intelligence that gave us the code. “There is a code, therefore there is an Encoder,” he said.

In fact, ELS is simply a high-tech version of a Ouija board or tarot cards, and the biblical injunction against divination applies (Deut. 18:9-11,2 Chron. 33:6, Isa. 2:6). Paul exhorted Timothy to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul intended Timothy to be an evangelist and disciple, not a Bible decoder!

Skeptic Michael Shermer concluded his review this way: “The Bible Code is not only an insult to science and to those who are deeply religious, it is also an insult to God.”

In light of the fact that both science and Scripture corroborate the view that abortion is the painful killing of an innocent human being, it is incumbent upon Christians to do everything in their power to halt the spread of this enormous evil. There are indeed many fronts on which our battle must be waged. Ultimately, however, lasting change only comes when the hearts of people are transformed. For when the heart is transformed, a person’s behavior is revolutionized as well. Because of the transcendent importance of this issue, I’ve developed the acronym A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N as a memorable tool to help believers annihilate abortion arguments.

Remember, however, the goal is not to win an argument but rather to use well-reasoned answers to the arguments of abortion advocates as springboards or opportunities to share a message of life and light.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- A = AD HOMINEM

Attacking people rather than arguing principles, ad hominem arguments are a trick designed to distract attention from the real issue — namely, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Comedienne Whoopi Goldberg used this tactic when she suggested that abortion rights advocates would take pro-lifers more seriously if they were willing to adopt babies slated for abortion.¹³

What this ad hominem argument is really saying is, “If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!” That, of course, makes as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.

The “adoption argument” completely evades the basic morality or immorality of abortion. Instead, it is an attempt to attack character in order to avoid the case against abortion.

Another common ad hominem attack involves the media portrayal of pro-lifers as wild-eyed fanatics. For instance, the death of abortionist Dr. David Gunn has been widely-used to stereotype those who believe in the sanctity of life as “social terrorists.” Senator Edward M. Kennedy has gone so far as to say, “Attacks on clinics are not isolated incidents and health care providers are living in fear for their lives…No doctors should be forced to go to work in a bullet-proof vest.¹⁴ Senator Barbara Boxer exudes, “American women have seen their doctors’ offices transformed from safety zones into war zones.¹⁵

A final ad hominem attack worth mentioning is the fallacy that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they denounce abortion while supporting capital punishment. In fact, many pro-lifers do not support capital punishment. But for the many others that do, this argument still falls on many counts. The most obvious rebuttal is that abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being while capital punishment involves the killing of someone who has been found guilty of a capital crime.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- B = BIBLICAL PRETEXTS

Using biblical texts out of context as a pretext for abortion, pro-abortionists seek to retain some semblance of religiosity while at the same time espousing the radical planks of the pro-abortion movement. The most common argument in this area is that Scripture nowhere specifically condemns abortion or identifies it as the killing of an innocent human being. Such an argument, however, obscures the fact that the Bible depicts preborn children as living beings who are fully human (see, e.g., Ps. 139:13-16). Furthermore, Scripture clearly denounces the killing of an innocent human being as murder. Thus, abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exod. 20:13).

Ironically, one of the most commonly used biblical pretexts for abortion is found only one chapter after God’s explicit command, “Thou shall not murder”: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined…But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exod. 21:22-25; NASB). The argument goes something like this: If a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to have a spontaneous abortion, the penalty is merely a fine. However, if the woman dies, the penalty is death. Thus, no life was taken, according to Exodus 21, unless the woman died.

Thus interpreted, this passage is not being used but abused to support abortion. Let’s take a closer look at what the Hebrew text (as correctly translated by the NIV) really says: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [the implication here is that no death is involved], the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life [in other words, if the woman or child should die, the appropriate punishment is death].”

Another biblical pretext, typically referred to as the “argument from breath,” involves Genesis 2:7: “The Lord God formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.”

The “argument from breath” is frequently presented in the following manner: God did not consider Adam to be a “living soul” until He had breathed the “breath of life” into him. Thus a child does not become a human being until he or she begins to breathe.

Dispensing with this argument is a simple matter. Adam was inanimate before God breathed the breath of life into him. Conversely, as science demonstrates, the conceptus or preborn child is alive from the very moment of conception. It is important to note that the breath of life exists in the preborn child from the moment of conception. In reality, it is the form, not the fact, of oxygen transfer (breath) that changes at birth.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- O = OPIUM

As opium dulls the senses chemically, so the term-twisting tactics of pro-abortionists deaden the perception of the human carnage caused by abortion. In 1844, Karl Marx wrote, “Religion … is the opium of the people.¹⁶ While history has demonstrated that true religion doesn’t deaden but rather brings life, it may well be said that the terminology of pro-abortionists is specifically designed to mentally dull the senses of an unquestioning public. For example, pro-abortion is called pro-choice; babies are demoted to the status of POCs or products of conception; killing unwanted children is repositioned as exercising freedom of choice; and committed pro-lifers are tagged as political extremists or even social terrorists.

The list of camouflaged terms employed by pro-abortionists is seemingly endless. Unless we learn to unmask the language of the pro-abortion lobby, millions will continue to become morally numb on the opium of clever code words.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- R = RAPE AND INCEST

An emotional appeal designed to avoid the serious consideration of the pro-life platform, rape and incest are the hard-case “what-ifs” pro-abortionists raise in almost every public forum: “How can you deny a hurting young girl safe medical care and freedom from the terror of rape or incest by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy resulting from the cruel and criminal invasion of her body?” The emotion of this argument often deflects serious examination of its merits and is commonly used as a pretext for abortion on demand.

It is important to note that the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely small (one study put it at 0.6 percent).¹⁷ As philosopher Francis Beckwith astutely points out, “To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare instances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital.”¹⁸ If we had legislation restricting abortion for all reasons other than rape or incest, we would save the vast majority of the 1.8 million preborn babies who die annually in America through abortion.

Furthermore, one does not obviate the real pain of rape or incest by compounding it with the murder of an innocent preborn child; two wrongs obviously do not make a right. The very thing that makes rape evil also makes abortion evil. In both cases, an innocent human being is brutally dehumanized. The real question that must be answered is whether or not preborn children are indeed fully human. As has been already documented, the answer is a resounding Yes.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- T = TOLERATION

Serving as the “great commandment” of the pro-abortion movement, the argument from toleration is perhaps the most common argument pro-abortionists level against their opponents. For example: “We’re not making you have an abortion, so why can’t you be tolerant of those who choose to?” Translated: “Don’t impose your antiquated morals on me!” At first blush this argument may seem reasonable, but on closer examination its inherent weakness becomes readily apparent. Imagine applying this line of reasoning to the issue of rape by saying, “Don’t like rape? Don’t rape anyone. Just don’t impose your morality on me!”

This false standard of tolerance is frequently supported by an appeal to religious pluralism. In this context, pro-abortionists argue that government should not take one theory of life and impose it on others. The obvious problem with this line of argumentation is that not only is the pro-abortion position forced on Christians, but they are required to fund it as well. Incredibly, pro-abortionists fail to perceive their violation of this ridiculous standard: they’re intolerant of those who think tolerance is less important than preserving innocent human lives!

Yet every society has the obligation to universally impose morals on its citizens. Toleration works in the world of expressing opinions, not in a crowded movie theater when someone chooses to yell “Fire!” We may be tolerant of one’s religious views, but not if they include enslaving grandmothers or cannibalizing teenagers.

Separation between church and state does not extend to divorcing all moral values from the state. If this were the case, we would need to eliminate all legislation that has anything in common with a religious point of view — including the very idea of social law itself.

Remember, tolerance when it comes to personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance when it comes to truth is a travesty.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- I = INEQUALITY

Inequality between the sexes is one of the most bizarre arguments put forth by the pro-abortion movement. “Women who are forced to be pregnant,” it is said, “can’t compete in employment with men and so cannot be truly equal unless they have an escape from unwanted pregnancy.” Translated, this is like saying, “Women can’t be equal to men without reconstructive surgery”! How much more sexist can an argument become?

Imagine, however, applying this standard to children outside the womb. Following this “logic” would mean that women should be permitted to abandon their children whenever they pose a threat to the mother’s opportunities for advancement.

Another form of the “inequality argument” is graphically portrayed through the image of a rusty coat hanger. Prior to Roe v. Wade, pro-abortionists claimed that because of financial inequality, women who could not afford to fly to another country to get an abortion were condemned to performing abortions on themselves with rusty coat hangers. To add credibility to this assertion, statistics ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 deaths per year due to illegal abortions continue to be widely circulated.¹⁹

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former leader of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), had this to say about these preposterous statistics: “I confess I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too . . . But in the ‘morality’ of the revolution, it was a useful figure” (emphasis added).²⁰

According to the U. S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, the true figure of the women who died from illegal abortions in 1972 — the year prior to Roe v. Wade — is 39. It is also questionable whether any one of these 39 women died as a result of using a coat hanger. As unpleasant as it may be, consider for a moment the dexterity needed to dislodge a conceptus from a uterine wall using a crude tool like a coat hanger. The truth of the matter is that the pro-abortion argument from inequality is not only illogical, but deliberately deceptive as well.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- O = OPERATION RESCUE

The no. 1 straw-man argument of the pro-abortion lobby, Operation Rescue has been unfairly condemned for using the same lines of argumentation and social protest popularized by the civil rights movement — a movement pro-abortion advocates usually extol. Furthermore, Operation Rescue has been grossly misrepresented, presumably to dismiss all pro-life activities as “extremist.” The truth, however, is that just as abolitionists harbored escaped slaves in defiance of the laws before the Civil War, compassionate Europeans hid Jews from the legally sanctioned extermination of the Nazis, and civil rights marchers violated segregation laws, so Operation Rescue members believe their nonviolent, peaceful interventions to protect preborn children are obeying God rather than man (see Acts 4:19). Nonetheless, it needs to be recognized that many of the mainstream pro-life groups do not approve of using civil disobedience and do not identify with Operation Rescue. Thus pro-abortionists cannot fairly cite Operation Rescue as a reason for rejecting the entire pro-life movement.

While it might be argued that the tactics of Operation Rescue are not the most effective means of stemming the tide of abortion, it is patently false to caricature members of Operation Rescue as social terrorists or worse. Any unbiased evaluation of the principles and procedures employed by the leadership of this organization must conclude that they have consistently advocated nonviolent civil disobedience. It is therefore inexcusable when pro-abortionists attempt to tie Operation Rescue and pro-lifers generally to the few tragic instances in which pro-life extremists have resorted to violence and murder.

On a personal note, I am grateful to God for the documented evidence of lives that have been saved through the self-sacrifice of dedicated men, women, and children involved in this movement.

Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice- N = NONPERSONHOOD

The emerging embryo may not have a fully developed personality, but it does have complete personhood. Nonpersonhood is perhaps the trickiest of the contemporary pro-abortion arguments. Pro-abortionists once argued that the preborn baby was not fully human. Now, however, advances in science have forced most people to concede that the “product of conception” is truly human. As a result, a new version of this argument goes something like this: “The preborn child may be a human life, but it does not possess personhood.”

Dr. Francis Beckwith exploded the latest version of this myth when he wrote, “From a strictly scientific point of view, there is no doubt that the development of an individual human life begins at conception. Consequently, it is vital that the reader understand that she did not come from a zygote, she once was a zygote; she did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo; she did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus; she did not come from an adolescent, she once was an adolescent.”²¹

The abortion epidemic ravaging America today is the tragic consequence of a decadent society that no longer values the individual human worth of each member; that worships the idol of “Selfism”; and that replaces the objective Word of God with subjective preferences and social morés.

One-third of the children conceived in America this year will be savagely slaughtered before they are born. Yet this horrifying holocaust can be halted if those who value human life, worship the true God, and obey His Word will become informed, committed, and involved.

NOTES

¹Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” reprinted in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1982), 5:293.²Quoted in Policy Review, Spring 1985, 15. This, along with the following four quotes, can be found in Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 174.³Debate with Francis J. Beckwith on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, December 1989. ⁴Quoted in Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Blessed Are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991), 182.⁵Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (New York: Brentano’s, 1920), 63.⁶AMA Prism, May 1993, 2.⁷See James C. Dobson, Focus on the Family newsletter, July 1993.⁸Ibid.⁹Ibid., 2.¹⁰The Human Life Bill , S. 158, Report Together with Additional and Minority Views to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, made by its Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981), 11; quoted in Beckwith, 43.¹¹The Human Life Bill, Hearings on S. 158 before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981), as quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 149; cited in Beckwith, 42.¹²The Human Life Bill, S. 158, Report, 9; quoted in Beckwith, 42.¹³See Beckwith, 88.¹⁴Quoted in Michael Ross, “Senate Bans Use of Force against Abortion Clinics,” Los Angeles Times, 17 November 1993, A1.¹⁵Ibid., A1, A22.¹⁶From Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843-44).¹⁷Charles R. Hayman, M.D., and Charlene Lanza, “Sexual Assault in Women and Girls,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 109 (1971): 480-86; cited in Beckwith, 241 n. 69.¹⁸Beckwith, 69.¹⁹Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 193; quoted in Beckwith, 55.²⁰Ibid.²¹Beckwith, 43.