Randy Alcorn's Blog, page 75

My Favorite One-Star Reviews of My Book Heaven

I asked one of our EPM staff members to look through the one-star reviews on Amazon for my book Heaven and compile them for me. There are about 4,000 ratings and over 2,500 reviews of the book. Of the reviews, fortunately only 66 are one star (there are 1,760 five-star reviews, so I’m grateful!).

People are entitled to not like any book, of course, and I always welcome criticism of my books, and while they’re not fun, I usually manage not to take bad reviews personally. But in some cases, the reasons for giving Heaven the lowest possible rating were entertaining, and other times enlightening. (My writer friends talk about this a lot—and we often laugh about it, though for some it is admittedly frustrating, since reviewers tend to get the last word even when they misunderstand and misrepresent what an author actually said.)

So here is something I’ve never done—respond to reviews of my books. I hope it doesn’t sound defensive, or like I’m fishing for positive feedback. I get plenty of that, so don’t feel sorry for me! Please allow me this indulgence, and also understand that I am speaking on behalf of other authors who frequently see their books misrepresented in reviews. Let me also assure you that I am writing with a smile and a sense of humor, not a frown and a sense of feeling hurt.

Loved the book so they gave it one star, thinking that’s the highest rating (it’s actually the lowest ):

“A MUST READ for everyone."
“Highly recommend this well researched investigation of what the Bible has to say about Heaven. ….Very uplifting, even life-changing.”
“Great book for everyone to read.”
“Loved it. I'm really excited about the new earth.”
“I loved this book! It is the very best book I have ever read on Heaven! It lines up with the scriptures, which I looked up as I read the book. Heaven is presented in such an exciting and real way; I can hardly wait to get there! I rate this book 5 stars, but I can't seem to get it corrected.”

You should hear writers talk about this one: “People don’t want to buy a book with bad ratings, obviously. But some of my reviewers who sincerely love the book give it the lowest possible rating without understanding what they’re doing! Most people don’t read the reviews, they judge by the ratings. So some people will not read my book because those who love it accidently give it a terrible rating! They think, what could be better than #1, so I’ll give this book I love a one-star review!”

Had an issue with the seller, so gave it one star:

“Did not get my order.”
“Not received.”
“I received the book, however, there was no DVD included in the back of the book. Very disappointed and will probably return the book!”

This is something writers talk about privately, often with laughter but sometimes with angst. “Because Amazon, God bless them, sends the wrong book, delays shipping two-weeks, or delivers it to the wrong house or in a rain-damaged package, they give my book a terrible rating. Could someone please explain that a book review or rating is ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE ACTUAL BOOK, not about the bookseller, the delivery process, whether the jacket is torn, or the snowstorm that delays delivery, or the delivery person who leaves it on the wrong doorstep.”

I should add that I often order through Amazon and while there is an occasional delivery problem, for the most part I find them remarkably efficient and dependable. I’m grateful for that, because if they weren’t my books would get a lot more bad reviews!

Thought the book was too religious:

“Had I known better, I would not have bought this book. Full of evangelical ideologies, ignores any other goodness apart from Christianity. Now that I'm thoroughly depressed, I have to pay for Cognitive-Behaviorial therapy to heal from reading such depressing content.”

I must quote here a comment by Stephanie Anderson, my wonderful editor and EPM staff member. She didn’t intend for me to quote her, but I’m going to overrule her if she tries to edit it out: “This review is hands down my favorite. Heaven is depressing and you’re responsible for therapy!????”

“My sister was so thrilled with this book. She encouraged me to read it. I have read many books on religions and I found this book very boring and in fact never finished it. It is a Born Again book and denies that Heaven is for anybody but those who are in the Christian religion. I can't believe this. The book quotes many passages from the bible to make it's [its] point, but I believe that you could make any point from the bible by selecting the quotes that suite [Sic] your need. This book was a waste of my money and I'm glad it wasn't expensive. And believe [me] I really tried to read it through.”

Can you imagine a book about Heaven that is not religious? Seriously, we’re talking about the afterlife! Living forever with God and God’s people in a place that’s better by far than the only place we’ve ever known? Doesn’t this intrinsically imply the supernatural, i.e. the religious? While books are not born again, people are. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3, NLT). Heaven is in fact for anyone and everyone who recognizes Jesus and believes in Him and submits their life to Him, the Jesus who said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

“This is the height of Fundamentalist Christian dribble. Having said all of this, it is pretty entertaining. It includes such hilarious stuff as, (AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP) such probing questions: ‘Will heaven be boring?’, ‘Will there be sex in heaven?’ and my favorite ‘Will there be sports in heaven?’ If this guy ‘makes it to heaven’ leave me out. Such silliness!”
“Not really sure the point of this book other than to ask some very irrelevant questions in regard to what heaven will be like. To me it does not matter what it will be like.”

Unlike some reviewers who are atheists or agnostics and don’t believe there is a God or Heaven, this person doesn’t seem to be questioning whether there is a Heaven. She just thinks it’s irrelevant and that it doesn’t matter. But if there is a Heaven, or even if there possibly is a Heaven, how could it not matter what it’s like? If you were moving to a new home, would it matter to you what it would be like? If you were going to live there forever, wouldn’t it matter all the more?

Commented and gave it one star, but apparently haven’t read the book:

“As a Christian, it sounds like a book where the author just wrote something to make a living.”

This is another thing that writers comment on: that some reviewers take off on the comments of other reviewers, and judge the book by what the others say, not what the author said. Now the other reviewers’ criticisms certainly may be valid, but it would be great if each reviewer expressed their own opinion without leaning on what others say (especially when you haven’t read the book). You see this often when reviewers comment on other reviewers and reinforce their opinions even when they don’t deal with what the author actually said. I suppose it’s cheaper and faster to echo the comments of others than to actually buy and read the book.

Disagree with some aspects of my doctrine, so gave the book one star:

“This is another one of those ‘born again’: books that does not even mention ‘PURGATORY’. I am sorry but you do not know Jesus if you don't believe in ‘the cleansing fires’ Another ‘proof’ book full of holes. Stay away!”

And finally, my personal favorite (and that of EPM’s Anna Wright, who compiled these gems, thanks Anna!). They gave it one star because I quote Lewis and Tolkien, the book mentions aliens, and I’m a fan of some sci-fi:

“1). Refer page 446: ‘When we get excited reading Tolkien's The Lord of the Ring trilogy or Lewis's Chronicle of Narnia…’

First thing I don't understand why author used so many quotes from C.S. Lewis who was the author of ‘Narnia’. As you know ‘Narnia’ is all about white magic, or occult which is clearly condemned by God.

I did a quick google search about C.S. Lewis, he turned out to be a catholic just like his close friend JRR Tolkien. …so that's why.

2). Refer page 448: ‘whether God might inhabit new worlds with new creatures is not provable but certainly possible’

So Author believes in alien and is a sci-fiction fan.

From my understanding, Alien is a propaganda used by Satan and his fallen angels to deceive the world. When Christian is raptured in the second coming of Jesus. The world can't say this is Christian being raptured, instead they say they are being abducted by alien.

If the world says Jesus has taken his believers, then Jesus must be the truth then, Jesus is God. People will believe in Jesus thus saved. This is not Satan wants. Satan doesn't want you to believe in God, but fabricated a lie like ‘alien kidnapping’.

…So the whole time, Satan is planting these ideas
- there is not God, but alien (but we know we have God, Angel, Fallen Angel, and us Human, not mentioned of alien in bible)
- Alien abduction
- alien fabricated a prophecy about his returning thousand years earlier, but return to claim earth via his favorite channel Hollywood to churn out tv series like ‘Star Trek’

...So my question is why a reformed Christian Author wants to indulge in sci-fiction which is clearly motivated by Satan with a hidden agenda?”

I also did a search on Gene Roddenberry, it appears that he is freemason related.”

First, the reviewer is wrong in saying C. S. Lewis was a Catholic. He was Anglican, which means he was a Protestant. J. R. R. Tolkien was a Catholic, whose belief in Christ was a significant influence in Lewis becoming a Christian. There were some tensions between Tolkien and Lewis because Tolkien wanted him to become a Catholic.

Second, the Narnia books are emphatically not about the occult.

Third, though there is no biblical evidence that God has created beings on other planets, or that He ever will, there is likewise no clear statement to the contrary. I am not arguing that God will create other beings besides humans, animals, and angels to inhabit the future universe. I am only saying the infinitely creative God can do whatever He wishes, and is free to do so regardless of our opinions.

When people read reviews, they typically assume that the reviewer is accurately representing what the author actually says. (For instance, you might get the impression that I endorsed or even mentioned Gene Roddenberry, which I did not, though I have enjoyed some Star Trek.)

Here’s what I actually say in my condensed (with a long title) book Everything You Always Wanted to know About Heaven:

No Scripture passage proves that God will or will not create new races of intelligent beings, either on Earth or on other planets spread across the new universe. It’s not speculative, however, to say there will be a new celestial universe of stars and planets. Scripture is clear on this point; that’s what “new heavens” means. Whether God might inhabit them with new creatures is not provable but certainly possible.

Some people say, “To imagine that God would populate worlds with new beings is just science fiction.” We may have it backward. Science fiction is the result of mankind’s God-given sense of adventure, wonder, creativity, and imagination. It emerges from being made in God’s image. It’s not our sinfulness that arouses that excitement. It’s our God-given hunger for adventure, for new realms and new beings, for new beauties and new knowledge.

God has given us a longing for new worlds. Considering that his higher glory and praise come not from inanimate objects such as stars and planets but from intelligent beings such as people and angels, it’s no great stretch to suppose he might create other intelligent beings. It’s up to him, not us. But won’t it be fun to find out?

Running Your Business to the Glory of God

In her article How ‘Christian’ Should My Small Business Be?, Laura Baxter offers five principles for business owners wondering how to honor Christ with their companies. As she emphasizes, Christians in business should set fair prices and honest scales (Deuteronomy 25:13-16; Proverbs 16:8; Proverbs 20:10). Believers will tell the truth—the whole truth—when they sell a car, house, product, or service. They know that God is watching and will hold them accountable for how they conduct their business (2 Corinthians 5:20).

I would add one more point to her article: Seek to honor Christ with the resources He has entrusted to your business. (When a reader asked about whether as a business owner they should tithe on their gross or net income, here was my answer.)

John Piper writes in Desiring God, “God does not prosper a man’s business so he can move from a Ford to a Cadillac. God prospers a business so that 17,000 unreached peoples can be reached with the gospel. He prospers the business so that 12 percent of the world’s population can move a step back from the precipice of starvation.” 

I had a phone conversation with a man who had recently read The Treasure Principle. He owns a profitable business and now believes for the first time that he knows why God has blessed him financially. It’s not so he can drive nicer cars and live in a nicer house. It’s to give it to build God’s kingdom. As I told him about a dozen different missions groups, pro-life projects, prison ministries, and ways to help persecuted Christians, he was moved by all the wonderful investment options. He finished our conversation determined to liquidate more assets to dramatically expand his eternal investment portfolio. I wish you could have heard the excitement in his voice. This man isn’t a reluctant, guilt-ridden giver. He’s a man who has been released from material bondage. He’s thrilled to have finally gotten onboard with what matters!

In sharing this, I don’t want to dismiss that it’s been a challenging last year for many small businesses. My heart goes out to business owners who have struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Honoring God with the resources He’s entrusted to us doesn’t always mean things will go smoothly, that we’ll have a prosperous business, or that God must always give back to us exactly what we give up, or ten or a hundred times more, in some kind of karma-like transaction. Sometimes He gives us joy or patience or endurance as we make real sacrifices for Him—and such intangible gifts are precious.

Consider these stories about Christian business owners, from my book Giving Is the Good Life. Their examples can inspire us and give us footsteps to follow:

Out of a deep love for Jesus, Pete and Debbie Ochs decided to acquire a business constructing industrial products in prisons. They employ inmates, some of whom have committed violent crimes. They invest in these prisoners’ lives by offering life lessons on topics like parenting, finances, and relationships. Pete says, “In one of our life lessons, we presented this whole concept of generosity and challenged [the prisoners] that we would match dollar for dollar any dollar that they gave to one of a number of charities and we gave them a list. It was amazing the amount of money that these prisoners gave to charity. . . . Most of the charities . . . existed to help the victims of the crimes that they committed.”4

Pete’s ministry to prisoners reflects the heartbeat of Scripture. Ephesians 4:28 says, “Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may—”

That they may what? Have only enough to live on so they no longer have to steal? No. “That they may have something to share with those in need” (NIV, emphasis added). Giving isn’t just for those with squeaky-clean records; it’s for all of us.

Pete and Debbie’s overflowing good life has not only brought these men the gospel but has also introduced them to the overflow of joyful giving so they, too, can experience abundant life.

Henry Kaestner’s company, Bandwidth, received a lucrative contract they really needed to stay afloat. When they discovered that business’s affiliation with the adult entertainment industry, Bandwidth could have looked the other way. But they knew that would put them at odds with God’s principles. Heeding the warnings in his Word, they canceled the deal. Soon their financial position looked bad.

Sometimes making ethical business decisions reduces profits. Refusing to compromise morally can even result in a failed business.

In Henry Kaestner’s case, Bandwidth turned around dramatically after that decision, becoming the fourth-fastest-growing privately held company in the country. For a while, Henry and his wife, Kimberley, gave away 20 percent of their income, thinking double tithing was impressive. But Henry said, “[God] wants our hearts. Now we can give much more radically. We intend to give away half, and the lion’s share of the rest is invested in Christian-led private companies in Asia.”

Henry added, “There’s an incredible joy when you participate in the work of God. It’s remarkably fulfilling, because it fills up the hole that would otherwise contain idols that take the place of God.”

Dave and Jessica Lindsey were invited to help build a house for a Mexican family, which dramatically changed their perspective on generosity and what it means to love the poor. Later, they and their three children served for three months in Japan with a mission group. They shared their one-bedroom apartment with three single staff men, who slept in the living room. They had one bathroom and a tiny kitchenette. That challenging experience heightened their sense of world need and made them want to do more to make a difference.

The Lindseys decided they shouldn’t keep these experiences to themselves. So their $450 million company, Defender Direct, now sends hundreds of employees and their families to Mexico every year to build homes, paying all expenses.

The giving only grew from there. Defender employees are also given days off to volunteer, and they are invited to participate in what the Lindseys call the Super Service Challenge. After employees volunteer with a ministry, they’re asked, “What would this nonprofit do if they were given $5,000 or $10,000?” The chosen teams win that amount of money for the charity they serve. Dave says, “We went from being a giving company to a company of givers. It is really fun to work at a company full of givers.” He adds, “There is a greater purpose for our business than simply making money.” That purpose is not only to give away profits but also to create a climate in which people see giving consistently modeled. Generous giving becomes the conscious norm rather than the occasional exception.

When he was young, Matt McPherson sought the Lord’s direction for his life. Matt built archery bows and asked God for the wisdom to build the best bows in the world. He developed the single cam bow and now owns one of the world’s largest archery bow companies.

Matt started other business ventures, including McPherson Guitars, which he began with his father. Their goal is to make money to impact the world. They now fully support more than seven hundred missionaries worldwide.

Matt’s story is another one that makes me thank God for furthering His Kingdom by not calling some people to spend their lives as pastors or missionaries—people such as Stanley Tam, Art DeMoss, David Green, and a number of others whose stories I tell in Giving Is the Good Life. There are millions of faithful business and professional people, including musicians, artists, and athletes, spread across the world. If Matt has fully funded seven hundred missionaries, how many tens of thousands of other missionaries have been able to go do their work because believers in secular vocations have faithfully used their gifts and passions to build businesses that generously send and support them? And while supporting missionaries, they themselves serve Christ in the unique mission fields of their businesses and neighborhoods.

Photo by Christin Hume on Unsplash

God’s Word Is Precious to the Persecuted

In addition to the challenges that come with COVID-19, our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world continue to suffer persecution, sometimes very severe, for following Jesus. Each year Open Doors USA releases their World Watch List Report, which lists the 50 places around the world where it costs the most to be a Christian. They say,

Around the world, more than 340 million Christians live in places where they experience high levels of persecution, just for following Jesus. That’s 1 in 8 believers, worldwide.

In this excerpt from my novel Safely Home, business executive Ben Fielding, who is staying with his friend and former college roommate Li Quan in China, makes a surprising discovery. May this story remind us how precious God’s Word is to believers in places where it is costly and difficult to have a Bible:

Ben spent Friday evening at a dinner meeting with a Pushan business executive. He pulled into Quan’s place much later than usual and put his hand on the doorknob. It was locked.

“Who is there?” came the voice from the inside.

“Ben.”

“Alone?”

“No—I’m with the Chinese joint chiefs of staff.”

Quan opened the door.

“What’s going on?” Ben asked.

“We have visitors.”

Ben walked in and saw what looked like two families of three. A man, woman, and teenage boy were on Quan’s bed. Another man, woman, and teenage girl were on Ben’s bed. Ming sat at the desk and Shen on the floor at her feet. All had two open books in front of them, and ballpoint pens in their hands.

“What are you doing?”

“Making copies of Shengjing. Those printed Bibles will soon be picked up by the donkey and passed on to others. But while they are here we can use them, can’t we? Shen and I are copying from my mother’s Bible.”

With a proud smile Shen held up his grandmother’s Bible to Ben. Then he picked up his own handwritten copy, handing it to Ben for inspection.

“Shen is a good scribe,” Ben said.

“Father checks my work,” he said, beaming.

“As we copy,” Quan said, “the words of Yesu are written on our hearts.”

Is this legal? Ben wondered. He remembered all the reassurances of religious freedom he’d been given over the years. But seeing these people huddled like this, it was obvious they were convinced it was illegal. But he didn’t want to hear the words. If something hit the fan, he wanted to maintain deniability with Martin and the Getz board.

Ben was about to go for a walk, anything to get him away from this, when he looked closely at Quan’s mother’s Bible. “It’s beautiful. The characters are so small but clear.”

“Mother copied it carefully. She would borrow a Bible whenever she could. She’d work for hours by candlelight, praying the words aloud as she copied. I wish I would have listened more closely. Often she would rest her head on Shengjing. Sometimes she would giggle with delight. It was a labor of love. Months, even a year, went by when she had no Bible to copy. It took her eight years to finish her whole Bible. Six months before she died, Mother finished copying Shengjing’s final book. A leather worker in church bound it for her.”

“And you kept it all these years?”

“No. She had loaned it to another woman who was copying it at the time. After I returned from Harvard, they heard I had become a Christian. The church gave it to me.”

Ben flipped through the pages. “It’s been out in the rain.”

“No. Always it was carefully covered. Mother bundled it up before going outside. We do the same.”

“But the words are smeared in many places,” Ben said.

“It was not rain that smeared the words.”

See this article for ways to pray for the persecuted. You can also sponsor Bibles for persecuted believers through Open Doors USA.

Photo by chris liu on Unsplash

Why Cool Christianity Doesn’t Work

From Randy: This is an excellent blog from Brett McCracken on the problems with the church seeking to win the culture by conforming to it.

This was a favorite line for me, relevant to today: “Attempts to square Christianity with the politics of whatever audience you want to impress (and this happens across the spectrum) eventually leads to a faith shaped by politics rather than a politics shaped by faith.”

Thanks, Brett, for this great and insightful article.

Cool Christianity Is (Still) a Bad Idea

By Brett McCracken

At the beginning of the 21st century, “relevance” became the prevailing buzzword in Western evangelical Christianity. Sensing new urgency to make the gospel more appealing to the next generation—which polls showed were leaving faith in greater numbers—pastors, church leaders, and Christian influencers tried to rebrand faith. This was the era of Relevant magazine’s launch, Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz, and Rob Bell’s ascent as a sort of evangelical Steve Jobs. It was the moment when plaid, skinny jeans, beards, and tattoos became the pastor’s unofficial uniform. It was a public-relations effort to pitch a less legalistic, friendlier-to-culture, “emergent” faith that was far from the dusty religion of your grandparents.

I chronicled this awkward era in painstaking detail in Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide, which released 10 years ago this month. In many ways the book is a quaint relic by now—a time capsule of a certain segment of evangelicalism at the turn of the millennium. But the book’s dated nature proves the point I was trying to make—that “cool Christianity” is, if not an oxymoron, at least an exercise in futility. A relevance-focused Christianity sows the seeds of its own obsolescence. Rather than rescuing or reviving Christianity, hipster faith shrinks it to the level of consumer commodity, as fickle and fleeting as the latest runway fashion. To locate Christianity’s relevance in its ability to find favor among the “cool kids”—just the latest in a long history of evangelical obsession with image—is seriously misguided.

Here are a few reasons why. 

Chasing ‘Relevance’ Is Exhausting and Unsustainable

As I write in the final chapter, it’s problematic to assume that true relevance means constantly keeping up with the trends and “meeting the culture where it’s at”:

This mindset assumes no one will listen to us if we aren’t loud and edgy; no one will take us seriously if we aren’t conversant with culture; and no one will find Jesus interesting unless he is made to fit the particularities of the zeitgeist. But this sort of “relevance” is defined chiefly and inextricably by the one thing Christianity resolutely defeats: impermanence. Things that are permanent are not faddish or fickle or trendy. They are solid. . . . True relevance lasts.

My argument centered around the inherent transience of “cool” that makes “cool Christianity” unsustainable by definition. Today’s hip, cover-boy pastor is tomorrow’s has-been. This year’s fast-growing, bustling-with-20-somethings cool church is next year’s “I used to go there” old news. Near instant obsolescence is baked into the system of hipster Christianity (or hipster anything). It’s telling that the majority of the “hip Christian figureheads” I profiled in the book are now far off the radar of evangelical influence. Donald Miller is a marketing consultant. Mark Driscoll’s Seattle megachurch dissolved. Rob Bell is a new-age guru endorsed by Oprah and Elizabeth Gilbert. And so forth. That many of the names and trends highlighted in Hipster Christianity a mere decade ago are now nearly forgotten (and would be replaced with a whole new set of personalities and trends today) proves the book’s point.

I know a few people who have stayed in hip churches for most of the last decade, but many more have moved on to another (usually liturgical and refreshingly boring) church. Others have left Christianity entirely. Turns out a church that seemed super cool to your 23-year-old self may not be appealing to your 33-year-old, professional-with-kids self. Turns out a church preaching sermons about “God in the movies!” more than the doctrine of the atonement doesn’t serve you well in the long run. Turns out a pastor you can drink with, smoke with, and watch Breaking Bad with is not as important as a pastor whose uncool holiness might—just might—push you to grow in Christlikeness yourself. 

David Wells has it right, in The Courage to Be Protestant, when he says: 

[The] marketing church has calculated that unless it makes deep, serious cultural adaptations, it will go out of business, especially with the younger generations. What it has not considered carefully enough is that it may well be putting itself out of business with God. And the further irony is that the younger generations who are less impressed by whiz-bang technology, who often see through what is slick and glitzy, and who have been on the receiving end of enough marketing to nauseate them, are as likely to walk away from these oh-so-relevant churches as to walk into them.

For pastors and churches, chasing “cool” is a fool’s errand. It’s investing energy in places that will only fail you—both because it’s utterly exhausting (who can keep up with the pace of trends?) and because it sucks energy from the more important, albeit less sexy, tasks of teaching sound doctrine and making true disciples.

We’re Often Changed by the Culture We’re Trying to Reach

Overemphasis on cultural acceptability—in whatever culture you’re in—inevitably leads to theological compromise. This is where evangelicalism’s pragmatism-driven image obsession has been its undoing. Seeker-friendliness almost always means softening difficult doctrines or ignoring them altogether. Preaching for applause, clicks, and street cred with a particular tribe almost always leads to theological distortion. “It’s time to bring Christianity into the 21st century” is usually code for “let’s stop harping about sex, cussing, holiness, inerrancy, and all that unpopular fundamentalist stuff.” Attempts to square Christianity with the politics of whatever audience you want to impress (and this happens across the spectrum) eventually leads to a faith shaped by politics rather than a politics shaped by faith.

In the decade since Hipster Christianity, I’ve noticed a pattern. A theologically conservative 20-something seminary grad is amped about planting a church in some post-Christian place with killer coffee (Portland, Brooklyn, San Francisco). He moves there and starts a church with good intentions to transform the highly secular culture for Jesus. But over time, the highly secular culture transforms him instead. Ostensibly missional immersion in the libertine morality, woke politics, and craft-beer scene of the city’s gentrifying neighborhood forms him in its image. Instead of changing the culture, he’s changed by it. An initially earnest attempt at “relevant Christianity” gave way to cynicism, a compromised witness, and maybe even abandoning the faith. Mark Sayers talks about this dynamic insightfully in his 2016 book, Disappearing Church. It’s a big reason why hipster Christianity has failed to energize the sputtering evangelical movement.

To be sure, engaging the culture is vital: understanding it, diagnosing it, appreciating aspects of it. But don’t be naive about its risks (I speak from much experience here). The formative power of our increasingly post-Christian, digitally mediated world is not to be underestimated.

We Are Inheritors, Not Inventors, of Christianity

Ultimately, the evangelical church’s relevance obsession—of which “hipster Christianity” is just one manifestation—stems from one of its biggest vulnerabilities: ahistorical presentism. Your average evangelical has woefully little grasp of Christian history and church tradition (because how are long-dead dudes like Augustine relevant to the totally unique needs of millennials?!). But ignorance of the past makes evangelicals susceptible to all manner of theological and ecclesiological confusion. Instead of continuity with the church’s past, building on the foundations of Christian history and joyfully stewarding received doctrine and praxis, many are more interested in constant reinvention. The assumption is that every new generation must “do church” in a fresh way.

Certainly contextualization is important, and adapting to the times is necessary to some extent. Certainly not everything handed down from previous generations is worth preserving. But secular observers are right to be suspicious when they notice the large number of churches pitching themselves as new, different, and out-of-the-box (“We meet in an abandoned J. C. Penney!” “Our worship band sounds like Pink Floyd-meets-Sigur Rós!” “We’re charismatic Calvinists with an in-house coffee roaster!”). It can’t help but feel like churches are just consumer products seeking to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace—entrepreneurial schemes and gimmicks to sell some spiritual experience.

That’s what “trendy church!” invariably communicates: just another thing being sold to you. This is a problem for many reasons, as I wrote in Hipster Christianity:

If I primarily choose Christianity because it is slickly marketed, like I might choose an iPhone, the risk is high that I won’t stay loyal to that “brand” forever. I never was attracted to the “thing” itself, after all—just the attractive marketing, which can easily be one-upped in the future by competitors. Attempting to sell the gospel as cool, then, is a dangerous proposition, because it bases the attractiveness of the gospel on an external definition of marketability and cool that will appeal to people but has very little to do with the actual content of the message. Converts to this gospel will likely be like the seeds on rocky soil in Matthew 13—rootless. 

Selling ‘Cool Christianity’ Doesn’t Work

It can be tempting for pastors and church leaders these days to get desperate, resorting to outrageous novelties and gimmicks to break through the noise and get people in pews. But remember that if the faith we draw people to doesn’t accurately reflect the faith given to us by Jesus—if our attractional church downplays the cost of discipleship (Luke 14:25–33), for example—it will not be a sustainable or transformative faith. 

All the cool churches, well-coiffed pastors, and sleek “new ways to be Christian” pitched in the last two decades haven’t reversed the downward trend of Christian affiliation in America. The “Christianity 2.0” strategy of reimagined, “relevant” faith didn’t work. Maybe a back-to-basics embrace of Christianity 1.0 is what we actually need.

Better than the awkward desperation of “cool Christianity” is the quiet confidence of faithful Christianity. More compelling than any celebrity pastor or bespoke packaging is a church’s steady, committed, hand-to-the-plow presence that creates lasting change for the better in lives and communities. If there’s anything I’ve come to see in the decade since I wrote Hipster Christianity, it’s this: a faith received is more trustworthy and transformative than a faith reconceived.

This article originally appeared on The Gospel Coalition , and is used with permission of the author.

Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

Walking Through Fire: Vaneetha Rendall Risner’s Powerful New Memoir

I’ve never met Vaneetha Rendall Risner in person, but for years I’ve known and loved her through her writings. In her new memoir Walking Through Fire, you will see her heart, her honesty, her pain, her eternal perspective, and her love for Jesus. As I read, my heart ached for Veneetha’s losses, identified with her hopes, laughed with her about her dates, rejoiced in our King’s redemption, and longed for that blood-bought home where our dreams will forever come true. 

I have read and endorsed many books over the years but don’t ever recall reading one start to finish the day it arrived. It held me all the way. Beautifully done. (Learn more and read the first chapter here.)

Vaneetha has gone through a great deal, and I mean Job-like suffering, and is not only an excellent writer but a wonderful person. She interviewed me recently for almost an hour and a half, and we had a delightful and deep time. Part of our conversation was featured in an event called “An Evening with Vaneetha & Friends,” which included interviews with Joni Eareckson Tada, Paul David Tripp, and Katherine Wolf. Each of them had powerful insights to share about suffering and faith:

How Does a Man Become a Godly Husband?

Recently a man in a struggling marriage asked me how to become a godly husband. My first thought was, “You’ve just taken the first step—knowing you need to be a godly husband and asking for help.”

Before I share part of my answer to his question, let me share some relevant thoughts. Too many men hear the biblical command to lead their wives and try to move from being a lousy husband to “taking over” their marriage. In many marriages the husband has an established history of ungodliness, sometimes through sexual immorality via adultery or pornography or the “milder”—but potentially still toxic—forms of it often found in movies and television shows and video games.

An ungodly husband has violated his wife’s trust, and he cannot effectively lead without rebuilding that trust. “Taking charge” when he has forfeited his wife’s trust isn’t the answer. In such cases the only sort of leadership called for, and it certainly is called for, is servant leadership. This is effective because of the “servant” part of it. When you love someone enough to set aside your old habits and preferences, only then can you serve them.

Scripture makes clear our first responsibility, which is not to merely “take charge” but to love and serve: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to  make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (Ephesians 5:25-26).

Once a man learns to love and serve his wife, he will eventually build a track record of godliness. Then he doesn’t have to stand back passively and wish his wife were more godly. Rather, he can assume responsibility to step forward and lead his wife by lovingly sharing God’s Word with her as part of respecting her as a fellow heir of God’s grace (1 Peter 3:7).

No one bemoans that a houseplant has shriveled leaves; instead we take it upon ourselves to water the plant and expose it to the right light to help it thrive.

An unholy husband cannot lead his wife into holiness, which is exactly what God calls upon us to do in Ephesians 5:27-28. We are to follow the example of Jesus and do as He does, “to present her [his bride] to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.”

When I became a husband, I didn’t stand at an altar and vow to my teachers or church leaders or employer, “Till death do us part.” Husbands, you didn’t make your vows to your boss or your buddies, but to your wife. The best thing you can do for your wife is to become more like Jesus.

That’s why I so welcomed the request about how to become a godly husband. Here’s part of what I sent to my friend who asked me, with some recommended resources:

1. Biblical guidelines: What does it mean to be a godly husband?

2. Six Tips for Being a Godly Husband

3. The Five Priorities of a Godly Husband

4. Seven Marks of a Godly Husband

5. Bible Truths about a husband’s role and calling (more Scripture, more depth)

6. From Gil Stieglitz, a short helpful outline of being a godly husband; includes mention of an online video course you could do, which would be good for you and would honor your wife’s wishes

7. A book I recommend you get and read is Becoming a Godly Husband; it looks good and is written by the same person above, Gil Stieglitz

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Jesus Turns Our Crosses into Crowns: An Update from Joni Eareckson Tada after Fighting COVID

My wife Nanci and I love Joni Eareckson Tada. With her warm-hearted exaltation of God’s sovereign love, she has profoundly impacted our own lives and ministry, along with countless others. We were deeply touched by this recent update from Joni, who not long ago was in serious jeopardy with COVID due to her quadriplegia and its effects on her lungs:

Joni quotes G.D. Watson: “…when the suffering soul reaches a calm, sweet carelessness, when it can inwardly smile at its own suffering, and does not even ask God to deliver it from the suffering, then it has wrought its blessed ministry; then patience has its perfect work; then the crucifixion begins to weave itself into a crown.”

She is a living example of this. A great crown/eternal reward awaits her for sure.

Several years ago Joni wrote this, which I shared in my book If God Is Good:

“O God,” I often pray in the morning, “God, I cannot do this. I cannot do this thing called quadriplegia. I have no resources for this. I have no strength for this—but you do. You’ve got resources. You’ve got strength. I can’t do quadriplegia, but I can do all things through you as you strengthen me [Phil. 4:13]. I have no smile for this woman who’s going to walk into my bedroom in a moment. She could be having coffee with another friend, but she’s chosen to come here to help me get up. O God, please may I borrow your smile?”

Joni then speaks of the humble and afflicted:

They are people who are humiliated by their weaknesses. Catheterized people whose leg bags spring leaks on somebody else’s brand-new carpet. Immobilized people who must be fed, cleansed, dressed, and taken care of like infants. Once-active people crippled by chronic aches and pains. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble, so then submit yourselves to God.

It is when your soul has been blasted bare, when you feel raw and undone, that you can be better bonded to the Savior. And then you not only meet suffering on God’s terms, but you meet joy on God’s terms. And then God—as he does every morning at 7:30 when I cry out to him out of my affliction—happily shares his gladness, his joy flooding over heaven’s walls filling my heart in a waterfall of delight, which then in turn always streams out to others in a flood of encouragement, and then erupts back to God in an ecstatic fountain of praise. He gets your heart pumping for heaven. He injects his peace, power, and perspective into your spiritual being. He imparts a new way of looking at your hardships. He puts a song in your heart.

“You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry” (Psalm 10:17).

“He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD” (Psalm 40:3).

“Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all” (2 Thessalonians 3:16).

For more related to the subject of suffering, see Randy’s book If God Is Good, as well as the devotional 90 Days of God’s Goodness and book The Goodness of God. Also, the booklet If God Is Good, Why Do We Hurt? deals with the question and shares the gospel so that both unbelievers and believers can benefit.

Photo by Biegun Wschodni on Unsplash

Is Sin Inevitable in the Christian Life?

One common Christian misunderstanding today is that grace and salvation in Jesus means God has lowered His standards, as compared to the Old Testament law. That’s simply not true. God has raised His standards for the Christian life—but He has empowered us to live that Christian life through our relationship with Him and His indwelling Holy Spirit. His grace teaches us to say “no” to ungodliness (Titus 2:12).

First John 1:8-10 makes it clear that as believers we still commit sin: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.”

John goes right on to say—ignore the chapter division which was not part of the inspired text—“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2)

Scripture says we will sin and that we shouldn’t deny but should confess our sin, and celebrate the daily cleansing work of Jesus our Advocate. It also says the Bible is given to us not to make us sinless yet, but to help us sin less, to be sanctified now, anticipating the day we will be glorified and forever sinless.

Can a believer sin? Yes. Should a believer sin? No. God has given us in Christ the resources so that we can turn from sin and live a life that is righteous and holy before Him! We are new creations in Christ. First Corinthians 10:13 says we face no temptation or trial that does not offer an escape for the fully yielded Christian.

We should recognize and live in accordance with our redeemed identity in Christ. Yes, we are cleansed. Yes, we are new in Him. Yes, we are covered by the righteousness of Christ. We are His saints, His holy ones. But there are three tenses of salvation: we have been saved, we are being sanctified, and we will be glorified. Glorification still awaits us, when we enter the presence of God. When glorification happens, there will be complete sinlessness. But until that time, we are still sinners. Sanctification is very real, but it is not the same as glorification. Sanctification means having great progress and victory in our battles with sin. But as I explain in a video, it does not mean sinless perfectionism. That is reserved for glorification, which awaits us in Christ’s presence, but is not the state we are in now.  

There is a danger, however, in repeatedly affirming that we still sin. Some people rationalize sin and end up saying, “It’s inevitable that I’m going to sin, so why bother trying not to?” They forget that God has given us the power of Christ so that we do not have to sin. We are empowered to live righteous lives. Sin is not inevitable. “His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3).

We should never be content with our sin or excuse ourselves from it. Rather, we should be quick to recognize our sin, so that we can confess it to our merciful Savior and keep it from entangling us.  There is no more certain way to be entangled by sin than to keep telling yourself what you’re doing really isn’t sin at all.

The caution is worth repeating: if you are a believer, don’t fall into the mistake of thinking sin is inevitable, or that you are not fully responsible for your sins. Don’t say to yourself, “I’m just a sinner—it’s no big deal. We all sin all the time anyway. That’s normal, so I may as well sin this time too.” Don’t dare to commit sin reassuring yourself it doesn’t matter since Christ will forgive your sins anyway. Sin against God always matters. No sin is small that crucified Jesus.

As Christians, we should be living a righteous life, one characterized by walking in the light, not in darkness. Remind yourself you have died with Christ, you are raised with Christ, and you are a new person in Him. Remember His love for you and that He is more than able to help you with whatever struggle you are facing today. Then live a righteous life, calling upon His infinite power, grace, and help.

For more on grace and the Christian life, see Randy’s book Beautiful and Scandalous: How God's Grace Changes Everything.

Photo by Hian Oliveira on Unsplash

Recognizing and Wisely Handling Our Emotions, and Submitting to God’s Truth

Every person is an emotional being, yet some Christians have been taught that strong emotions are categorically sinful and therefore unacceptable. In and of themselves emotions are neither good nor bad, they simply are. Questions of right and wrong relate to how we handle our emotions.

Feelings aren’t part of the Curse; they’re part of how God made human beings from the beginning. Our present emotions are bent by sin, but they will forever be straightened again when God removes the Curse. (Some Christians have also been taught that God has no emotions; more thoughts on that here.)

Denying that your emotions exist compounds stress. Feeling guilty about your emotions magnifies stress. God created us as rational and emotional beings. We feel because He made us to feel. So give yourself permission to feel as He made you to feel.

Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings

“I can’t help how I feel.” Not directly, perhaps—you can’t make worry and anger and fear disappear just by wishing they would. But you can focus on the right thoughts and block out the wrong ones. You can do the right things and refrain from doing the wrong ones. And if you do, your feelings will eventually change, or at least come into control.

If you disclaim responsibility for your feelings and let them dominate your thoughts and actions, you will be out of control. And no one feels stress like the person who has surrendered control.

Jerry Bridges wisely counseled, “We must not allow our emotions to hold sway over our minds. Rather, we must seek to let the truth of God rule our minds. Our emotions must become subservient to the truth.”

Express Your Feelings

Have you ever noticed the safety valve on top of your hot water heater? It’s there to release excess pressure. If it wasn’t there, the heater could explode.

Expression is our safety valve. The inability to express emotions leaves us bottled up, ready to explode and, in the process, ready to damage not only ourselves but those around us.

Everyone needs a few close friends to talk to openly. When sharing emotions, it’s appropriate to share fears, hurts, and even anger, as long as you are careful not to blame or incriminate others. Journaling your thoughts and feelings can also be helpful.

Studies confirm that crying can be a helpful release of pent-up emotions. There is often truth in the old saying, “I’ll feel better after a good cry.” Some women—and most men—have an unfortunate stigma about tears. But remember, God—not Satan—created those tear ducts. Crying is a natural stress reliever. Use it.

Do What Is Right, and Embrace God’s Truth, in Spite of Your Feelings

We don’t have to feel a certain way to do what is right, and to love God and others.

Maybe you struggle with resentment toward a friend. Send her an encouraging note. Your feelings will eventually follow the path blazed by your will. Have a hard time with a particular person? I did, with someone I felt had wronged me. But when I prayed for them regularly, eventually my attitude toward them changed. I came to truly seek their happiness and desire their success.

John Piper writes in Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born Again?:

My feelings are not God. God is God. My feelings do not define truth. God’s word defines truth. My feelings are echoes and responses to what my mind perceives. And sometimes—many times—my feelings are out of sync with the truth. When that happens—and it happens every day in some measure—I try not to bend the truth to justify my imperfect feelings, but rather, I plead with God: Purify my perceptions of your truth and transform my feelings so that they are in sync with the truth.

We should let our feelings—real as they are—point to our need for the truth of God’s words to guide our thinking. The paths to our hearts travel through our minds. Truth matters. Believe Christ and meditate on Scripture, not on how you feel, and eventually God will change how you feel.

Some recommended resources for further reading: You Can Change: God’s Transforming Power for Our Sinful Behavior and Negative Emotions by Tim Chester, and Untangling Emotions by Alasdair Groves and Winston Smith.

Photo by Chad Madden on Unsplash

COVID Vaccines and Fetal Cells: What’s Ethical and What Isn’t?

In this blog, our goal is to provide biblically relevant information and resources to examine related to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Because of the long history of fetal tissue research that I believe is entirely unethical, I approach this subject with great seriousness. Earlier in the fall some prolife groups warned that the then upcoming COVID vaccines, at least some of them, would use tissue derived from at least one aborted child. However, some of these reports also claimed that the first vaccines to be approved, which would likely be used by the most people, would be among those utilizing aborted fetal tissue. Believing outdated and/or false information, some are embracing or spreading confusion.

I and others at EPM have spent many hours reading many articles and studies and listening to podcasts and videos on this issue. Some aren’t based on solid information, while others involve qualified scientists and credible sources quoting them. Some of these scientists, believers and unbelievers alike who are on the forefront of vaccine production, say that two vaccines, now available and being taken by a limited number of people, are not derived from aborted children. (As I’ll note later, there is one source that has doubts about one of those vaccines, but not the other.)

More on that below but let me make clear that even if—as I’m convinced—some COVID vaccines are ethically acceptable to prolifers, that does not mean everyone should take them. People should make their decisions based upon their own consciences and beliefs about these vaccines. Paul says in a vitally important passage that applies to far more to one’s chosen day of worship, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Romans 14:5, NIV).

Some could believe a vaccine may be a wise choice for at risk adults, but not children. That’s for their parents to decide, not the rest of us. There are also adults with certain conditions or personal reservations who may legitimately choose not to take the vaccine. Again, my focus in this blog is on the ethics of the vaccines, not to suggest everyone should take them.

Pastors and ministries like ours naturally condemn the use of fetal tissue research. But we are not medically qualified to advise people in the more subjective questions about the safety of vaccines. I appreciate the position of Jeff Schultz, pastor of preaching and community at Faith Church in Indianapolis:

Our church has been praying for vaccine research and development, but taking a vaccine is not something we would direct people on.

Our congregation has a number of doctors, nurses, medical researchers, and people in pharmaceutical development. We believe that God works through miraculous intervention, but more commonly through our work, gifts, and wisdom applied in service to others. We’ve encouraged people to wear masks and practice social distancing. We have members who won’t return to in-person worship until a vaccine is available. But I don’t think we would say anything formally about taking a vaccine (except to give thanks for their existence).

At an individual level, I will encourage people to consult with their physician on making that decision. I see masks and social distancing as extremely low-risk interventions that help us love our neighbors. A COVID-19 vaccine is another important way to stop the spread of a deadly disease, but I don’t believe that as a pastor I have the medical qualifications to direct people on medical treatments that may have side effects or long-term health impact. I want to help people see the good of a vaccine while asking us all to respect others’ decisions.

Godly people may come to different conclusions related to the vaccines. As I share in my blog (and the accompanying message) When Christians Disagree about Beliefs and Actions, true love and unity are never achieved at the expense of primary biblical truths. But they are achieved at the expense of personal pride and preferences on second and third level issues. We need to recognize legitimate Christian freedom.

Though there are believers and Christian leaders who believe treatment of the COVID pandemic justifies the use of aborted fetal cells, I do not. Years ago when I first heard of promising research that could help insulin-dependent diabetics, then discovered they were utilizing tissue from aborted babies, it was a no-brainer. I could not in good conscience benefit from the violent deaths of children. Similarly, Nanci told me that as vulnerable as she is, having had 30% of her lungs removed due to the cancer that spread there from her colon, she certainly would not take any vaccine that contained fetal cells from the unborn. That’s a complete deal breaker for us. In my mind, that’s not what’s morally debatable. We’ll deal with that in a soon upcoming blog.  

We want to point readers to some of the resources we’ve read and watched, and let them decide before God what’s right for them. I will focus on what to me is the central issue—what vaccines do and do not utilize cells from aborted babies.

Some Helpful Videos

Here’s a three-minute television news report which asks, “Are Fetal Cell Lines Used in the COVID-19 Vaccine?” The expert who answers is Dr. Meredith Wadman, the author of The Vaccine Race and a reporter with Science Magazine. It’s definitely worth watching, but the bottom line is, some vaccinations being developed do use fetal cell lines, and others do not. Those that do not include Pfizer and Moderna, the two that were the first to be approved and are now being administered.  

This six-minute video interviews two knowledgeable Catholic physicians related to the vaccines, and states their view of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It also encourages our concern related to fetal tissue research.

Infectious disease specialist Dr. Daniel Hinthorn and pediatric disease specialist Dr. Scott James were featured on a thirty-minute interview with Focus on the Family. They helpfully address a number of issues related to vaccinations. It’s all worth listening to, but I will focus on the issue of fetal tissue.

Around the 16:40 mark, Dr. Hinthorn states,

I think people should be aware of the fact that the messenger RNA vaccines, neither one of them, are made in cells from aborted fetuses. They are not even made in cells. They are made in vats, these are chemicals that are brought together…they are not created from fetal cell lines.

He clarifies, “However, often these kinds of cells are checked in fetal cell lines, that’s just to see if they work, but that’s not making them that way.”

Dr. Hinthorn goes on to say, “So if you ever get the either the Pfizer vaccine or the Moderna vaccine, neither one of these is made in fetal cell line so we don’t have to worry about that.” He goes on to clarify that there are other vaccines, a half dozen or so, that are indeed being made from fetal cell lines, and many prolife people would naturally want to avoid them.

Dr. James follows by affirming the same, that neither the Pfizer nor Moderna vaccinations contain fetal cells. He also says there is a high degree of transparency about the origins of all the different vaccines, so there really shouldn’t be any confusion.

Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and winner of the National Medal of Science, and is best known for his groundbreaking role in the Human Genome Project. Though I have disagreements with Collins in certain theological areas, he is a believer who converted from atheism to Christianity in his twenties after seeing the faith of his Christian patients in the face of suffering, and after reading C.S. Lewis. Certainly his scientific credentials are impeccable. In this video Dr. Collins is interviewed by Russell Moore about the COVID vaccines. As do others, he states that the two initial vaccines, from Pfizer and Moderna, are not derived from fetal cells.

(The Collins interview is also worth listening to, but many won’t appreciate his view of the extreme effectiveness of masks and advice that churches only meet online. However, I suggest that with this and other issues we practice selective criticism with those we disagree with. Above all, let’s not throw out what they have to say in their areas of expertise.)

Some Helpful Articles

The Catholic prolife Charlotte Lozier Institute has great info on the vaccines, which was updated January 4. Note that on the table on that page comparing the vaccines, under the production column some say human cells; some use cells from monkeys, hamsters, or insects;  and others say either PER.C6 cells or HEK293 cells, both of which originated from an aborted child. Notice that both Pfizer and Moderna specifically say “No cells” used.

Their excellent article “What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccines,” features an easy-to-read color-coded chart:  

Note the color-coded markings for these four different categories: “DOES USE abortion-derived cell line” “Does not use abortion-derived cell line,” “Some tests DO NOT use abortion-derived cells, SOME DO,” and “Currently undetermined.”  

I appreciate the tone of this article from Michigan Right to Life. They say:

For decades, prolife people have opposed developing new cell lines or using the tissue of aborted babies. Many people will try to justify abortion and the further trafficking of fetal tissue with the “promise” of saved lives. However, whether it is with stem cells or vaccines, there is always an ethical alternative or the ability to create one. There is no need to take the life of one person to save the life of another.

However, the fact remains that some vaccines exist that use fetal cell lines and have no current ethical alternatives. Is it ethical to use those vaccines? Prolife people disagree. The cell lines were derived decades ago, and though their source is unethical, we can’t unkill those children. On the other hand, taking advantage of unethical methods promotes further abuses, in this case with the development of new cell lines. There’s a meaningful difference between a vaccine requiring use of fetal cells and one that only uses them for testing, but how meaningful is that difference? The risks are another ethical consideration, balancing the risk of the disease vs. the vaccine, and ways you fit into that balance.

…If informed consent is supposed to be a cornerstone of the practice of medicine, then it is past time for the entire healthcare industry to only use tissue donated with the informed consent of every person involved.

As they point out, it is impossible to unkill aborted babies. And then the question becomes if it was from cloning of tissue from a baby aborted 50 years ago, where does that leave us? What is being used is not fetal tissue harvested from aborted babies but something derived from a tragically aborted child five decades ago. A huge question is does it or does it not serve as a basis of argumentation for further uses of aborted babies, and end up justifying abortions in people’s minds, since they are appearing to do good in the form of a vaccine?

The National Review is historically Catholic and pro-life. Here is their evaluation of the existing and in-process COVID vaccinations in relation to the use of aborted fetal tissue in their development. Here’s one pertinent quote from it:

There are no HEK 293 kidney cells [originating in a 1973 abortion] in either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Dr. Lee told National Review that HEK 293s were involved only in the “post-production” process of the “final vaccine product”: that is, they are not part of the vaccine but rather were test subjects used to help determine how effective it was. This is not the case for all the vaccine candidates. Some of the higher-profile products under development — by Janssen Research and Johnson & Johnson, as well as AstraZeneca and Oxford University, for example — are using fetal cells in the production process. In these vaccines, there is a “direct line” between the vaccine and abortion; that line does not exist in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

The Christian Medical and Dental Association offers their similar assessment here. They say:

It is important to note that fetal cell lines can be used in three different stages of vaccine development: design, confirmation and ongoing production. Many ethicists, including those at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, believe that using a fetal cell line for ongoing vaccine production is more ethically problematic than using a fetal cell line for design or confirmation. The design and confirmation steps use a limited number of fetal cells while the production stage is continuous.

What the scientists say in these interviews and what the Lozier Institute and a number of other I’ve read says appears to be disputed by Dr. Stacy Trasancos’s article Measuring Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine: Now’s the Time to Press Hard for Ethical Options:  

The claim that Moderna’s vaccine is “ethically uncontroversial” because it has no connection to unethically derived materials does not seem to be supported as both the development of the spike protein sequence, the mRNA expression in testing, and the lipid nanoparticle delivery system are described as using the HEK293 cell line derived from an aborted fetus.

Dr. Trasancos is part of the Roman Catholic prolife group Children of God for Life. They have put together a chart comparing the different vaccines, noting which ones used fetal cells for production and testing. In keeping with Dr. Trasanco’s statement above they list the Moderna vaccine under “Was Originally Produced with or Contains Aborted Fetal Cells.” This is confusing to me, in that it contradicts numerous credible sources which explicitly state that Moderna, like Pfizer, is not made from fetal cells, nor any cells at all. (I did consult the sources she cited, but the dense medical language didn’t clear up my confusion—but perhaps it will for medical professionals who may read this.)

If you wish to get a vaccine, and this source is enough to make you doubt the Moderna one, you might want to choose to get the Pfizer vaccine instead. (If you type into a search engine your city, or the nearest, along with key words such as COVID vaccine Pfizer, you will likely find out what’s available, where and when.)

I asked two prolife advocates, a married couple, to view the documents and videos recommended and this was their response:

My husband and I read through and discussed these documents. At first we were very reticent to come even close to a vaccination that was remotely associated with abortion. But after thinking it through from the sources of information we read, we do feel like we could in good conscience support the vaccine for those who wish to take it. We may be vaccinated ourselves, though haven’t made that final decision yet. The reason we believe we can is because of the following:

No new aborted fetal tissue is needed or used to continue to reproduce the vaccine, so this doesn’t add to the abortion industry’s incentives.
Neither Pfizer nor Moderna use any aborted fetal tissue in the manufacturing or sustaining of the vaccine. [Again, though many sources state no fetal cells are used to produce Moderna, at least one researcher cited above believes otherwise.]
The culture used only for testing of the vaccine (not producing it) has none of the original material obtained from the fetus (just like yeast, it grows and develops on its own and over time is a completely different culture from the original).

Whatever our conclusions, we should give people the freedom to follow their conscience and respect that there may be many other matters of conscience in play, so we are not to judge others.

Vaccines with No Connection to Fetal Cells

There are some COVID vaccines in development that not only don’t come from fetal cells but also have not been tested by them. See these excellent resources:

Some groups are working to avoid fetal cells not only in vaccine development but in testing.
The use of umbilical cords and stem cells sounds promising. Hopefully many people who have babies would be willing to donate the umbilical cords if it could be used to save lives!
Live Action reports, “Maryland-based drugmaker Novavax is ‘using an ethically-derived invertebrate cell line Sf9’ in testing its vaccine, which is currently in Phase 3 clinical trials. Companies like Novavax and Sanofi are clearly demonstrating that safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines can be developed without reliance on abortion-derived cell lines. Novavax is among a handful of vaccines that may be available in the United States as soon as spring 2021.”

[If it does come this soon, and is also safe and effective, some will want to consider waiting.]


“The John Paul II Medical Research Institute (JP2MRI) seeks to find cures and therapies exclusively using a variety of adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. The Institute does not engage in embryonic stem cell research of any kind. JP2MRI develops preclinical research technologies that will broadly advance drug discovery and regenerative medicine for many diseases. In addition, the Institute will engage in educational outreach to increase the number of scientists and future medical practitioners who will work with adult stem cells, always with an emphasis on medical bioethics that is consistent with the dignity of human life.”

Dr. Trasancos writes, “The good news is that there are ethical COVID-19 vaccines in production, lots of them. We must support those and keep our eyes on the long-term goal. We have a chance in this moment in history to demand ethical vaccines as the norm not the alternative if we stay vigilant.”

A Difference Between Production and Testing?

Is there a significant difference between using a vaccine produced with aborted fetal cells, and using an ethically produced vaccine (with no fetal cells) that at one point was tested by aborted fetal cells? I think there is. I certainly wish that kind of testing would never be done. But as this article points out, it’s true that “In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions, have given rise to all the human cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development.”  

From a statement by the Catholic church: “The cell lines under consideration [regarding their use in vaccines] were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendant cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body.”

Neither of those two abortions that has resulted in the ongoing production of millions of fetal cells was motivated by wanting to use cells produced from them to test the effectiveness of vaccines. Presumably the same vaccines would still have been produced and administered without the use of fetal cells in the testing. Had the Pfizer vaccine, for instance, never been tested by fetal cells, it would have been exactly what it is, devoid of fetal cells with an existence totally independent of abortion.

The tests were not part of the production. That doesn’t make the testing right, of course. Neither does the fact that the lines of testing came from two aborted babies five decades ago, and are self-sustaining or “immortal,” so no more aborted babies have been involved.

Other Resources to Consider

If you are a researcher and want to know what’s out there before you make your decision about the COVID vaccines, here are some final links to help you thoughtfully and prayerfully evaluate the ethical issues:

A Washington Post interview: “What NIH chief Francis Collins wants religious leaders to know about the coronavirus vaccines”
Why should Christians be concerned about vaccine ethics? See this statement from the Personhood Alliance
“Anti-abortion faith leaders support use of COVID-19 Vaccines”
There are things I don’t agree with—in particular the bottom line conclusions—in this article by a prolifer who believes it can be morally acceptable to use fetal cells in a vaccination. However, her arguments are at times insightful and she says many things that make sense. They may help some of us who disagree with her understand a different perspective. With the caveat that I don’t fully agree with her conclusion, I do think she makes some points worth considering.
COVID-19 Vaccines & Fetal Cell Lines
Debunking the myths about the COVID-19 vaccine

Photo by Hakan Nural on Unsplash