CHAPTER 7: HOW CAN WE BEST WELCOME CHILDREN INTO THE COMMUNITY OF BELEIVERS?

Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” And he laid his hands on them and went on his way. Matt. 19:13-15

The hot button issue of abortion dramatically polarizes the Community of Believers and generates great antagonism because of an inappropriately framed question: “Is abortion the legitimate expression of women controlling their own bodies and reproductive freedom or is abortion equivalent to murder?” Our media frequently reduce the subject to “Freedom of choice versus right to life”. Many people on the opposing sides view abortion with a single focus that determines how and to what extent they engage in political activities. Thus, a politician’s stand on abortion can constitute the sole rational for electoral support or opposition.

Well-meaning Judeo-Christians honestly reach different and firm opinions about abortion because Holy Scripture, science, tradition, and human experience provide support for each view derived from the preceding question. The battle lines have formed and hardened. At this stage, significant numbers of people in either camp cannot be intellectually swayed to cross over to the “enemy” side. Accordingly, this chapter will not present a summary of the theological and intellectual basis for “freedom of choice versus right to life”. Instead, let us consider how the following question might produce useful answers that will decrease the degree of polarization, if not totally eliminate, the dissension surrounding how we should deal with abortion: “How can we best welcome children into the Community of Believers?”

The early Judeo-Christian Community in Rome illustrates one effective approach to welcoming children. Pagan Romans dumped unwanted newborn infants, primarily females, into in the city sewers. Today, archeologists frequently uncover the skeletons of these abandoned babies, who had little economic value because they were unproductive for many years. Female babies represented an especially severe economic burden because they could not work as productively as males and the families would be expected to furnish a wedding dowry. Members of the Community of Believers often went out at night to “rescue” the abandoned infants, who then were given to Judeo-Christian families to raise as their own. The size of the Community increased through incorporation of these new family members. Importantly, young male members of the Community had less trouble finding wives than did young pagan males due to the diminished supply of young pagan women. As the historical record shows, the Roman Community of Believers thrived and grew, even during times of severe persecution.

The early Christian experience in Rome testifies to a great truth: We do not enter the Community of Believers as a direct consequence of our genetic heritage. Having Judeo-Christian parents and grandparents does not automatically qualify a person for incorporation into the Community. As in my case, these familial circumstances may set the stage for a subsequent profession of faith grown from individual commitment to the risen Lord; however, genetics do not comprise a guaranteed admission ticket to the Community. I understand why many men and women desperately want biological children, an expression of the evolutionary drive to procreate. Despite this legitimate desire, the Community of Believers should do a better job of teaching potential parents that adoption of children following the Roman Christian model sometimes offers a more viable approach than expenditure of great effort and monies required for procedures such as in vitro fertilization. Does God really care about the genetic origin of children brought into the Community? If not, why should we?

How might present day Judeo-Christians follow the example of the early Roman Judeo-Christians? First, we should concentrate our efforts on the Community of Believers rather than attempting to implement a vision of morality through national legislation. The situation resembles the story of the man walking along a beach after a fierce ocean storm. Whenever the man came upon a starfish helpless on its back, he would gently place the starfish upright in the water. Another person on the beach sarcastically asked, “What do you think you’re doing? You can’t possibly make a difference to the hundreds of overturned starfish along this section of beach.” The man replied, “What I’m doing matters a lot to the starfish I can save.” Better to save a few within the Community rather than to abandon all.

We need to keep a pertinent fact in mind: Our legal system, as illustrated by the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, does not compel any woman to undergo an abortion. Rather, within some restrictions that vary from state to state, Roe v. Wade is permissive but not mandatory for women considering abortion. Roe v. Wade, therefore, constitutes a non-issue for pregnant women within the Community of Believers who believe abortion is a sin. Even if Roe v. Wade were legally overturned, abortions would continue, as they did before this Supreme Court ruling. Yes, fewer abortions might occur but there would be a subsequent effort to reinstate legal abortions when the political climate inevitably changes. I believe the Community of Believers should put its efforts where significant results can be achieved in the near term. We should lead by example, that is, through our witness and service.

Second, we need to be realistic about sex. No matter how favorably we may look back at presumptively simpler past times, people have engaged in pre-marital sex throughout human history, strong religious prohibitions and legal sanctions not withstanding. The fervor of many social conservatives cannot obscure the data clearly showing that advocating total abstinence prior to marriage while simultaneously failing to provide adequate sex education, including relevant access to contraception services, does not decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancies among our young people. Such an approach, often coupled with the abandonment of unmarried pregnant young women to “suffer the consequences of their immorality” reflects badly on the Community.

I do not believe premarital sex between willing partners, both of whom have reached an age of reason, falls into the category of sinful behavior. Often this behavior complicates the participants’ lives, even when pregnancy does not occur. On the hand, what might be the greater complication, pregnancy with untoward or even devastating effects for a young mother and her unwanted child or effective sex education with access to contraception?

The often-heard lament that our media and culture in general promote premarital sex among increasingly younger children falls on deaf ears in my case. Judeo-Christians have always existed in cultures inimical to the Gospel. St. Paul , followed most eloquently by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, emphatically points out that Judeo-Christians by definition are resident aliens in pagan lands. So what’s new and how has the Judeo-Christian mission changed? Nothing and not at all. Rather than complain about the negative effects of our modern culture, Judeo-Christians should use the weapons of the culture against the culture. In recent years, some TV programs have done a good job of presenting Judeo-Christianity in a positive light. Why can’t we Judeo-Christians produce our own movies, TV programs, and popular music to show young people how to live in accordance with the Gospel? One highly effective approach might involve recruiting Judeo-Christian actors, popular musicians, and other performers to promote teenage abstinence and self-control.

The Community of Believers can testify to, and warn against, the negative effects of premarital sex for young persons and the desirability of waiting for loving adult sexual relationships. Similarly, the Community can help married couples understand the consequences of unprotected sex in the face of immaturity and economic conditions that pose risks to raising children. The Community can furnish sex education and contraception services within a Judeo-Christian framework, keeping in mind the necessity of walking a thin line between advocating abstinence without at the same time seeming to promote premarital sex through sex education and contraceptive services. Nevertheless, I have never been convinced that sex education and contraceptive services inevitably lead to promiscuity as much as do hormones and the desire for instant gratification.

Third, we cannot preach abstinence and right to life within the Community of Believers without providing financial and communal support for children that might have been aborted and, as well, to the parents. In some instances, families within the Community must be willing to take in young unmarried pregnant women in order to raise them and their babies as incorporated family members. Many variations on this theme can be envisioned. For instance, a young unmarried professional woman within the Community might face the difficult choice of abortion and maintaining her career versus continuing the pregnancy to term at the risk of her career. The Community could organize members to help the woman before and after the birth when childcare becomes a paramount issue for working single mothers.

Fourth, we can expand our orphanages. The United Methodist Church has for many years nurtured and raised previously unwanted and abandoned children in its orphanages and group homes. Such components of the Community of Believers belie the Dickensian image of horrible Victorian era institutions. I have spoken over the years with several persons who resided in United Methodist orphanages and group homes, sometimes from infancy to young adulthood. All these persons reported positive experiences in these facilities with excellent preparation for subsequently productive adult lives.

Yes, many legal obstacles can be raised to the above approach, including the problem of birth mothers at some point wanting to regain their parental rights after legal adoptions of their initially unwanted infants. We could work to bring such mothers into the Community of Believers. Additionally, talented lawyers are members of Community of Believers and their services can be utilized. Very little in our lives can be taken as certain except for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I would rather save the children even at the risk in some instances of their being returned to their birth mothers at a later date.

Fundamentally, what must the Community of Believers do to implement a program similar to the one outlined above? We should exercise our desire and will to expand our service and ministry, especially to the most vulnerable future and present members of our Community. We should quit talking and get to work to provide the implementation and operational funding, probably with little help from governmental organizations other than for us to take advantage of the tax deductions for charitable donations. Like the early Roman Judeo-Christians, we should put our treasure to work for the Gospel and expansion of the Community. The Gospel imperative remains true: Our hearts will be found with our treasure.

After all, history does show that children raised as Judeo-Christians usually remain in the Community of Believers as adults, a fact thoroughly in keeping with our primary objective: · · · at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father.