The Bible Does Not Support Abortion: Guest Column

Apr 3, 2026John StonestreetAbortionAbortion, Church Ambassador Network, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

In February, James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate from Texas, claimed that the biblical story of the Annunciation from the Gospel of Luke supports his proabortion position. On the Joe Rogan podcast, Talarico asserted that because the angel sought Mary’s consent, a woman has a right to choose her own procreative destiny.

The most obvious flaw with this assertion is that the angel did not ask Mary’s permission. In fact, the angel of the Lord said, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Mary submits to accept God’s will, but the only person with questions in that conversation was Mary. The angel declared what was going to happen. Mary was humbled and accepted it as the calling on her life.

The deeper flaw in this and most other proabortion arguments is the assumption that whatever is in the womb is not a human life worth protecting. The inherent value of life in the womb—as evident throughout Scripture from Psalms to Jeremiah to Isaiah to Job to Joshua–is something Christians have insisted upon since the earliest days of the Church. To deny that theological reality, as Talarico did, is also to commit a Christological heresy. In the same chapter in Luke, Elizabeth declared that her baby, who was John the Baptist, leapt in her womb when he heard the voice of “the mother of her Lord.” In other words, both John in the womb and Elizabeth out of the womb sensed that the Lord was present though still in His mother’s womb.

Other passages of Scripture that are wrongly used to argue for abortion include Exodus 21. In the middle of several laws covering violent crimes, the text reads, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined.” If there is harm, the passage continues, then there is a harsh penalty.

Pro-abortionists argue in this passage that only harm to the woman matters and the child is not as valuable. However, the more reasonable interpretation is if,because of a fight, a woman goes into premature labor and the baby lives, then “there is no harm.” Thus, there’s a financial penalty. If the baby dies or is injured—“if there is harm”—the attacker should face punishment up to death.

Another example is Numbers 5. In a list of rules, Moses provided a test for a husband’s claim of his wife’s unfaithfulness. The accused woman was to take an oath of innocence and drink a mix of water and dirt from the tabernacle floor. If innocent, nothing would happen. If guilty, then, among other things, she would become infertile.

It is a strange passage, and theologians differ on how best to understand it. Some suggest it is a psycho-somatic test to root out a woman’s guilty conscience. Others think it a sneaky way for a defenseless woman to escape her husband’s jealousy. Pro-abortionists assert that it is an example of an abortion ordered by God’s law. For that to be the case, however, the punishment would involve the death of a baby. However, the curse reference here is not the ending of a current pregnancy but the prevention of future ones.

These etymological gymnastics attempts aside, the Bible is consistent. Human life is sacred. In the womb, babies are valued, purposed, and yes, human. Throughout the biblical text, including war and sacrifice as in Leviticus, 2 Kings, or Jeremiah, the worst crimes and horrors someone can commit are to murder children. In no way does God’s Word dismiss, much less justify, the slaughter of the innocent.

Contrary to Talarico’s claim, the message of Annunciation Day is not that life and death is left to our choice. Rather, it is in God’s hands. Even in the womb of His mother, Jesus Christ was the Messiah, fully God and fully human. Even in the womb of our mothers, we are fully human, in God’s image.

Guest Column: Why Gen Z “Nones” Are Reconsidering Religion

Mar 25, 2026John StonestreetChristianity, ChurchChristianity, Church Ambassador Network

Gen Z is the least religious cohort in American history. 43% of this generation born roughly between 1996 and 2012 identify as religious “nones.” While there have been many reports since Charlie Kirk’s assassination indicating increased interest in religion and increased church attendance, according to statistician Ryan Burge, there is not yet statistical evidence of religious revival among young people.

There is, however, ample evidence that these Zoomers are looking for meaning and willing to reconsider religion. Specifically, though these trends may not be large enough to be captured in statistics, there seems to be a growing interest in more rigorous forms of faith.

In a recent article in Tablet magazine, Ani Wilcenski, a Zoomer herself, examined this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Gen Z is less religious than previous generations, Wilcenski, researched those bucking that trend, including converts to Islam, Jews who are becoming more observant, Latin Mass Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and others who are joining stricter, more traditional religious groups.

According to Wilcenski, Gen Z has been raised with the “illusion of infinite horizons,” and grew up “without sturdy institutions or fulfilling rites of passage.” As a result, for this generation, “[e]verything—career, identity, relationships—unfolds as a series of self-directed experiments,” something that has been labeled “liquid modernity.” Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman coined that phrase to describe the experience of life as unstable and non-permanent, without fixed distinctions, and no foundation for cultivating identity.

The experience of “liquid modernity” is why, according to Wilcenski, the ideological capture of Gen Z has been so comprehensive. For example, nearly one-quarter of the generation identify as LGBTQ, up nearly 20 points from previous generations. Ideology gives the illusion of a solid cause and offers a purpose for life where otherwise there is none.

Of course, that is the role religion traditionally played in Western culture. As Wilcenski noted, the draw of religion is that it provides a firm source of virtue and belonging, focus, and a sense of permanence. That’s what the Zoomers who are exploring more demanding forms of faith are most likely seeking.

As Wilcenski put it,

These faiths don’t adapt to the age—they expect the age to conform to them. Their rituals inconvenience, their authorities override preference, their truths don’t negotiate. And in a society allergic to absolutes, that refusal to dilute themselves holds a powerful magnetism.

As an example, Wilcenski quoted a 23-year-old woman who explained her decision to join a Carmelite monastery in Plough magazine: “I figured if I was going to do something crazy for our Lord I might as well go all in.” Like Wilcenski, the Plough article noted that young women who join strict religious orders are committing to something stable and permanent.

According to Wilcenski, when the Gen Zers turning to religion offer reasons why, they

sound more like escapes from modern chaos than declarations of faith…. [T]heir newfound religiosity is less about belief than about orienting life around something ultimate—something greater than the self.

That, of course, also leaves them vulnerable to religious falsehoods. Remember, Wilcenski not only researched conversions to Christianity but also to conservative forms of Judaism and Islam. The desire to escape “liquid modernity” says nothing about the genuineness of any faith that follows. The same motivation can explain the growing number of young men who are embracing political extremism, from Antifa to white nationalism.

It has long been the case that laxer forms of religion have declined while more demanding forms have grown or at least declined more slowly. The divide within this segment of Gen Z seems to be even more pronounced. This group will not be interested in churches that accommodate themselves to American culture. The seeker-sensitive model will not work. It probably never has.

The Church must be countercultural, unapologetic about even the weird things we believe, and unafraid to ask for serious commitment from people. It needs to explore the depths of the Gospel; it must explain life and its meaning, including hard truths about the human condition, rather than offer only shallow therapeutic or pragmatic applications. A church that does this will not only be able to counter destructive ideologies vying for all generations but will also be able to offer meaning and stability to a generation that is looking for both.

Guest Column: Jesus Would Have Baked the Cake

Mar 18, 2026John StonestreetLGBTLGBT, Same-Sex Marriage

. . . and other nonsense Jesus would not have done.

On a Saturday morning in 2012, sitting on my porch reading an actual newspaper, I first learned of a Denver baker named Jack Phillips. A gay couple, having been “married in a different state,” asked Jack, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to custom design a cake for their same-sex “wedding” celebration. Jack offered them service and any cake in his store that was already made. What he could not do, he said, was use his creative talent to communicate a message that violated his conscience and said what he knew to be untrue.

To say that a lot has happened since is, to put it mildly, an understatement. He was harassed by the state of Colorado, specifically the Civil Rights Commission. He was slandered online and subjected to death threats against him and his family. He was sued, not only by the state but also by a man—who claimed to be a woman—who repeatedly asked him to bake perverted and disgusting cakes. In the end, his case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, has been pivotal in advancing the rights of conscience, suppressing state hostility to religion, and attracting many to Christ.

But I also remember the chorus of voices, many of them Christian leaders, saying at the time, “Just bake the cake.” Or even, “Jesus would’ve baked the cake.” Jack was accused of hate, intolerance, and bigotry. But he stood courageously, even in the face of great criticism from brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thank God he did. Recently, at an event hosted by Colorado Christian University and featuring the brilliant Ayaan Hirsi Ali—one of those who was inspired by Jack’s story—I asked Jack, and Kristen Waggoner, Jack’s attorney and CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom what he thinks now as he looks back on the past decade and a half.

Here’s Jack:

God tells us to live by a truth. He says we need to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. Jesus is the Truth, and we just have to know Him. And we get to know Him better and more clearly through His Word, through good teaching, and by spending time with Him. The more time you spend with Him, the better you know Him, and you don’t want to disappoint somebody you know well.

It would have been a huge disappointment to Jesus if I’d have [baked the cake] when He’s given us the power to live by what He says. And people want good news. There are tons of people who I’ve talked to who have been encouraged by this story. I think if I had made the cake . . . I don’t know because we’ve had so many things that have just happened that have been so good. Tonight is one of them.

Kristin Waggoner added more context:

In Jack’s situation, Jack modeled tolerance, and the other side did not. And so, it’s not about refusing to serve, because Jack serves everyone. Everybody. But when the government can compel you to speak messages and affirm lies that violate your conscience, then there is no limit to the government’s power. . .. So that’s really what that was about—it was “the message” that Jack was being asked to communicate.

I can tell you, having talked to hundreds of people over the last 10 years, that they have said that courage begets courage. And they’ve modeled that because they heard of Jack’s story, and it caused them to consider Christ and come to salvation. But it also caused them to be courageous in their moment.

One example that comes to mind is Sher Lori from Downtown Hope Center. She runs a homeless shelter in Alaska, and a man who identifies as a woman wanted to come into that shelter sleeping three feet away from the women in the shelter. As she’s coming down the stairs, she knows that the man is at the door wanting to come in. He had a reputation that would suggest that would not be a good thing. Even aside from the fact that he’s a man, he had violent tendencies and things like that. And what goes through her mind is, remember the baker. So, she gives that man cab money to go to the hospital to get his wounds cared for because he was in a fight earlier. But she does not let him in. She keeps that safe space for those women. So that’s what I think of; all the people who were inspired by Jack as well.

Praise God. The entire conversation, preceded by a stunning and brilliant speech by Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, is now available on YouTube. And, of course, the stories of Jack Phillips and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali are told in Truth Rising: The Study and the Truth Rising documentary. Learn more at colsoncenter.org/truth.