Living Black and White in a Grayscale World

So often our approach (well, my approach, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone) is to find the easy answer to the question. What is the killer verse? What are the correct steps? What is the program? It is my suspicion, however, that much of life does not operate on this principle. It is my conviction, in fact, that most of life is much more complicated than that.

We who are "pro-life" have no problem with the question of abortion. Or do we? We know that murder is wrong. We know that the fetus is an early stage of human life. Thus, killing the fetus is murder and we've settled the question. If it's "women's choice", that will take you down one path. If it's "pro-life", that will take you down another. Now, taking a "pro-life" stance, how do you handle the harsher objections? "What about cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life?" Well, the first part is easy. In case of rape, the question is, "Do we make this about one victim or two?" A woman who is raped is a victim, to be sure. But killing the baby that results makes two victims. In the case of incest, why does someone's moral failure make murder acceptable? Killing a baby who is the result of incest kills a baby. I would suggest, however, that a "pro-life" will have to pause at the final question. If we are pro-life and a baby threatens to kill its mother, is there grounds for saving the mother? Remove it for a moment from mother and baby. If a burglar comes into the house of a pro-life advocate and threatens the life of the wife, does the husband have the right or responsibility to end the life of the burglar to save the life of his wife? If so, how does this differ from the threat to a mother from a baby? I'd say if it's a question of life or death, you're facing a more difficult question. Now, I need to point out that medically less than 1 in 1000 pregnancies are considered threats to the mother. Of those, even less are considered potentially fatal, but now you're comparing "pro-life" to "pro-life" and asking "Whose life?" Of course, the question seems easily answered when you consider the two -- mother and child -- as two lives. Who would suggest, for instance, that an infant be put to death because he or she is causing stress to the mother and risking her life? If a baby was born from a conception of a rape, could we condone murdering the baby after discovering the rape? A baby born with deformations or health problems is not subject to execution, is it? No, a "pro-life" perspective answers these questions, but it isn't as simple as you might think.

The Bible is quite clear that "a man lying with a man as with a woman" is sin. End of discussion. Next? Or is it? Today "homosexual" means so many different things to so many different people. I, for instance, don't know the difference between the various components of the LGBT (with as many additions to that acronym as there may be). I see "someone engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same gender" as a biblical category of sin. But there are differences, they tell me. That's because "homosexual" to many (most?) means a "sexual orientation" rather than an activity. They even object when I call it a "preference". And it is not a "choice". "Born that way" and all, you see. So what does the Bible have to say about people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender? This might surprise you. It says nothing. Oh, it does say that "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14), but James goes on to say, "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:15). Thus, a desire that is aborted is not a sin, right? (See? Maybe abortion isn't always wrong.) Indeed, we are all tempted to sin. I would argue that the temptation to sin is not sin. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus was "one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). Thus there is a distinction between temptation and sin. As such, while "a man lying with a man as with a woman" or, if you prefer, "women [who] exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men [who] likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27) would fall in the category of sinning, but those with "sexual orientation", if I give the concept credence, without sexual activity would not. The question has nuances, you see?

One that I've written about a couple of times but has very recently been in the news is the concept of contraception. Today it is almost exclusively Roman Catholics who consider the use of contraception sin. Protestants consider it a silly question. But, wait! Is it? Here's what we know. Abstinence is mandated for those outside marriage (eliminating contraception as a question), and forbidden (except on a very short-term basis) within marriage. (Thus, for married people, contraception via abstinence is disallowed.) We know that abortion is not allowed (life of the baby and all that). So while we haven't answered the question, we have narrowed it. The standard form of birth control, the Pill, is an abortifacient. One of its effects is to change the endometrium, the lining of the womb, to make it likely to prevent the implantation of an embryo. The implantation of the embryo typically happens 7-8 days after the fertilization of the egg. This failure produces a "spontaneous abortion". Technically, "contraception" is the preventing of the fertilization of an egg. Thus, the function of the Pill on the uterus is an abortifacient, not a contraception. That is, a conception has already occurred. Other contraceptive methods operate on the same concept, preventing implantation of an embryo, a human being. Since conception is the start of human life and since human life has started in these cases, these methods violate the biblical injunction against murder. Perhaps now you can begin to see that there are indeed hard and fast rules in the general question of contraception, and it isn't just a "Catholic question". Of course, then it gets stickier. God, for instance, commanded Man (Adam) to "be fruitful and multiply." Do we say, "Well, that was then, but we don't have to obey that anymore"? Why? Do we not need to "subdue the earth" either? Did God include a "but stop when population gets up there" clause? The Bible clearly considers children a blessing. Do we? Or are we practicing contraception (even the genuine "prevent conception" type) to prevent children, a kind of slap in the face to God who says they're a blessing? Do we question God's sovereignty and providence? "Yeah, sure, You'll let us get pregnant and have kids, but will You provide for them? Not likely!" In areas like this we may not be operating on faith, and "That which is not of faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). Sticky questions.

I think that, while we can often find hard and fast rules for many things, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." (1 Sam 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12). Just my opinion, of course. I think that the motives we have are often the problem rather than the actions we take (or don't take). We live in a grayscale world, but if you examine the concept of grayscale on a printer, you'll see that it is made up not of shades of gray, but actually black and white dots. There are indeed hard and fast rules. There are also areas not as clear -- "gray areas". But for each of us there are matters of motivation and faith that define those unclear areas in black and white ways. We are actually to be living black and white in a grayscale world. As such, it is incumbent upon all of us to "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves" (2 Cor 13:5). Okay, not just my opinion.