If a celebrity couple separates, should the couple’s frozen embryos be destroyed or put up for adoption? That is the question surrounding the actress Sofia Vergara. She is best known for her role in the TV program “Modern Family” or for her furniture commercials. She is now in the spotlight over a bioethics issue.

She and her ex Nick Loeb have two frozen embryos that were created when they were still in a relationship. They aren’t in a relationship now, so Nick Loeb brought a lawsuit against Sofia Vergara because he doesn’t want the embryos destroyed. But she doesn’t want the frozen embryos implanted in her.

Some of this might be a publicity stunt since there is no evidence that Sofia Vergara wants to destroy the embryos. Her lawyer says she “never suggested that she wanted to have the embryos destroyed.” And there is a section in the contract that states that “unless otherwise directed by both of us in writing in person or by notarized letter, the Center shall continue to store the Cryopreserved Material for an indefinite period of time.”

This celebrity spat illustrates a larger issue. She does not want the baby. He (and perhaps she) doesn’t want the embryos destroyed. We need King Solomon to help resolve this moral impasse. Of course, I have already mentioned one possibility: embryo adoption. An infertile couple could adopt these frozen embryos and begin the adoption journey nine months earlier with pregnancy and childbirth.

This may be the only pro-life solution to this moral dilemma. We aren’t talking about frozen sperm or eggs (that have 23 chromosomes). We are talking about frozen embryos (that have 46 chromosomes). Everything a human being needs genetically is already present in these frozen embryos.

If you don’t like the moral dilemma and ethical circumstances surrounding these frozen embryos, you are not alone. That is why we need to think through the implications before we create embryos in the laboratory and then freeze them for future use. These frozen embryos are currently in legal and medical limbo.

Atheism is on the rise in America, and it is worth understanding the trends that contribute to this. The Barna Group has spent a considerable amount of time studying the unchurched but has also published a study on the state of atheism in America.

The Barna study lumps together atheism and agnosticism. An atheist would be someone who doesn’t believe that God exists. An agnostic would be someone who is not sure if God exists but might be open to the possibility. Here are five demographic shifts among skeptics.

First, they are younger. Twenty years ago, about 18 percent of skeptics were under 30 years old. Today that proportion has nearly doubled to 34 percent.

Second, they are more educated. Two decades ago, one-third of skeptics were college educated, but today half of these skeptics have a college degree. Third, many of them are women. Their percentage has nearly tripled. This is not due to men’s number decreasing but are due to more women questioning faith.

Fourth, skeptics are more racially diverse. Whites represented 80 percent of skeptics 20 years ago. That percentage has decreased some because people of other ethnic groups are beginning to accept a world without God. Finally, skeptics are more dispersed regionally. The Northeast and West are still hotbeds of atheism and agnosticism, but other regions of the country also have skeptics.

We shouldn’t be surprised by these percentages. Young people grow up in a increasingly secular culture and then head off to college to confront professors and students who often aggressively promote atheism and agnosticism.

Meanwhile, some churches have been willing to compromise on biblical absolutes. Many others shun rational defense of the faith or imply that Christianity is a private faith that does not need to be defended from the arguments of atheists.

This latest survey demonstrates we have work to do to prepare youth and adults for a secular world.

When debate broke out last month in Indiana over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, you might remember the story of Memories Pizza. If not, here is a quick summary. A reporter for ABC57 walked into the pizza place located in Walkerton, Indiana and asked if they would cater a same-sex wedding. Although the question was hypothetical (after all, few people order pizza for a wedding reception), Crystal O’Connor answered truthfully and said they would decline the opportunity.

A firestorm broke out when the story hit the news. More than 900 people took to Yelp to criticize her comments and gave the pizza parlor a negative rating. One person said they should burn Memories Pizza to the ground. After seeing and hearing the vicious comments, Kevin and his daughter Crystal decided to close down the store and go into hiding.

That’s when Christians and other concerned citizens decided to step in and provide income to the family since their means of making an income was closed. The donations through a GoFundMe account began pouring it at a pace no one expected. The original goal of $25,000 was met almost immediately. When the account was closed down earlier this month, there was $842,442 in the account given by 29,161 people in just 18 days.

I wanted to talk about this since I have found that many people never heard what happened to Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. But there is more. When the O’Connors decided it was safe and reopened their pizza parlor, hundreds of Hoosiers drove miles to this small town to buy pizza. On some days, the seating area was filled with people wanting to show their support for Kevin and Crystal O’Connor.

And you might also wonder about all the money. Crystal and her dad wanted to return the favor to others and decided to send a share of the money in the account to another Christian facing hostility: Barronelle Stutzman. She is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington who is also being supported through a GoFundMe account because of the attacks she has received.

I hope you are as encouraged I am about the rest of the story from Indiana.

Earlier this month the House of Representatives voted to repeal the federal tax on estates. Republicans argue that this “death tax” should be repealed because of the negative impact it has on family farms and small businesses. Democrats call a repeal of the estate tax a giveaway to the rich.

In the midst of this debate comes a book that devotes a few pages to this issue. John Tamny has written the book, Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics. For a moment, I want to focus on the subtitle of the book.

The British television program Downton Abbey illustrates the negative impact of the death tax on a family. When the series opens, Downton is in good financial shape but there is also the persistent concern about how to keep Downton Abbey financially secure so that it can remain within the Crawley family. When Matthew Crawley dies, the estate must pay the British death duties. This generates all sorts of plots and subplots about how the Crawleys can pay the taxes without selling off some of the farmland on which the livelihood of so many families depends.

The television program, Downton Abbey, put a human face on what happens when the taxman shows up. Families have to pay the undertaker and the taxman on the same day. People who spent their whole lives paying taxes on their earnings and property are taxed again at their death. Rather, their children are taxed and often must sell off the land and property. Not only would they suffer but the “simple farming families of Downton would suffer the blow aimed at the wealthy Crawleys.”

Of course, the television program Downton Abbey is fictional. But the reality of the estate tax is reality. The heirs of a family farm sit on valuable land, but it doesn’t generate enough money to pay the estate taxes unless the heirs sell some or all of the land. That’s why members of Congress are promoting the idea of no taxation without respiration.

You know a new trend in churches is taking place when CNN and the New York Times start reporting on inclusive churches. In many ways, this is not a new trend but evidence of heresy and apostasy that goes go all the way back to the first century. The so-called “new trend” is one more warning to believers to check out the theological foundations of a church before joining it.

In this day and age, it is possible to be a minister of the gospel and not even believe in God. One of the guests on my radio program directed my attention to a Presbyterian minister in Oregon who says he doesn’t believe in God. He doesn’t require his members of believe in God either. He encourages them to “bring their own god” to church with them. What made me shake my head was his statement in a recent article that he was offended by people who have said to him that he is “not truly a Christian.” We used to believe that a Christian at the very least had to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Apparently that is not the case in this church.

The New York Times reported on a church where the pastor wears “vestments adorned with the symbols of nearly a dozen religions.” On his portable bookshelf he set the Qur’an next to the Hebrew Bible as well as two volumes of the “Humanist Manifesto” and the Sioux wisdom of “Black Elk Speaks.” On his makeshift altar are candles, stones, bells, and flowers.

Another church has decided to reach out to the LGBT community. The pastor and the church ended its policy of banning LGBT members who are unwilling to take a vow of celibacy. The pastor explained that: “Our pastoral practice of demanding life-long celibacy, by which we meant that for the rest of your life you would not engage your sexual orientation in any way, was causing obvious harm and has not led to human flourishing.”

Unfortunately, this is not a new trend. There are merely examples of what Paul warned Timothy about. “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (1 Tim. 4:3).

Earlier this month at the meeting of the International Society of Christian Apologetics there was a robust discussion of inerrancy and hermeneutics. Those are scholarly words for the belief that the Bible is without error and needs to be interpreted according to sound practices of biblical interpretation.

There is a practical aspect of this debate that affects you and the way you read and interpret the Bible. If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you have probably had someone ask: Do you take the Bible literally? Before you answer, I would recommend you ask that person what they mean by literally.

Here is a helpful sentence: “When the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.” Obviously the context helps in understanding how to interpret a passage.

After all, the Bible uses various figures of speech. Jesus told parables. Jesus used metaphors and proclaimed that He is the vine, the door, and the light of the world. There are types and symbols and allegories. If you are reading a section in the Bible that describes historical events, you expect the historical record to be accurate. If you are reading poetic literature like the Psalms, you should not be surprised that God is described as a shepherd, a sun and a shield.

Here is another helpful sentence: “When the literal sense does not make good sense, we should seek some other sense lest it lead to nonsense.” We should reject a literal sense when it contradicts the moral law, physical law, or supernatural law.

When Jesus says in Matthew 5:30 to cut off your hand, that is not to be taken literally because if violates moral law. When Jesus talks about those who swallow a camel in Matthew 23:24, that violates a physical law. When we read in Jonah 3:10 that God repented or changed His mind, we know that violates a supernatural law, because God does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19).

But in most cases, we are to read the Bible in the literal sense because seeking some other sense will result in nonsense. That’s just common sense.

Today is Earth Day. When the first Earth Day was held in 1970, nearly 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums. Back then there were significant environmental concerns about our air and water. I participated by inviting a leader that I knew at the Sierra Club to come to my high school and speak. Many people believe this celebration launched the modern environmental movement.

Looking back I have noticed two significant changes that are worth noting. First, the environmental movement has embraced the philosophy of pantheism. Many of the leaders have gone from protecting the environment to worshipping the creation. I began to notice this in the 1970s. Now it is visible to anyone to see in many of the celebrations that will be taking place today.

Some leaders even call for the worship of Gaia and Mother Earth. According to this view, human beings have damaged or even destroyed the fragile balance of nature. And they believe we need to embrace this New Age perspective to bring balance back to the earth.

A second change I have noticed is in the complexity of the issues. Back in the 1970s, it was pretty clear what the problems were and what we needed to do. Air pollution and water pollution needed political and technological solutions. The problems were easy to spot, and the solutions were pretty obvious.

Now many of the issues are much more complex. Take global warming, for example. In previous commentaries, I have talked about some of the fundamental questions about what we can and should do to deal with climate change. The answer is not as clear as previous environmental questions.

A number of years ago, a panel (that included three Nobel Laureates in economics) evaluated strategies to deal with major problems facing humanity. When they listed these alternatives in descending order of effectiveness, things like treating communicable disease and hunger were at the top of the list while dealing with climate change were at the bottom of the list.

If we are to be wise stewards of this planet, we are going to need to make wise decisions about complex issues.

Biblical illiteracy is a problem that is getting worse in America. Mark Yarborough and I were talking about this recently on my radio program as we discussed his new book, How to Read the Bible Like a Seminary Professor. We were talking about the article by Ed Stetzer, “Dumb and Dumber: How Biblical Literacy Is Killing Our Nation.”

Ed Stetzer reminds us about the Bible’s impact on this country. “It has shaped our laws, social systems, and even language.” Unfortunately, people use biblical phrases and don’t even know they are from the Bible. They may talk about “the good Samaritan” or say that “you reap what you sow” and never see the biblical connection.

There are many reasons for this lack of biblical literacy. One answer is found in that second word “literacy.” A Pew Research study found that 23 percent of Americans did not read a single book last year. That is a three-fold increase from 1978. If Americans aren’t reading a book, then it stands to reason they aren’t reading THE book – the Bible.

Another problem may be the lack of emphasis of Bible reading in church. A LifeWay study found that only 45 percent of people who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week. Is it possible that we have created a Christian subculture that suggests that the only time you need to read your Bible is during a church service?

It’s not as if we don’t have access to Bibles. Most of us have more than one Bible in our possession. In fact, most of us carry Bibles with us on our smart phones, tablets, and computers. Many of us even have dozens of commentaries and Bible helps on our computers. We are fully equipped to read God’s Word and to study it effectively.

One missing factor, I think, is accountability. If you are involved in a small group or Bible study, there is simply no way you could go an entire week without reading your Bible. You would need to be reading the Bible in order to engage in a discussion in a Bible study. A leader of a small group could ask each member what they were learning in God’s Word that week.

Biblical illiteracy is a problem. But those of us in the church don’t need to be dumb and dumber when it comes to reading God’s Word.

We have a problem in the medical field. More than 100,000 people who need an organ transplant cannot get one. Some deal with declining health. Many of them die waiting for a transplant.

A company in California has a solution. Take the organs from aborted babies and grow them in animals until they can be transplanted into humans. If the thought of this is repugnant, you are not alone. Leslie Hanks of the Colorado Right to Life says: “This kind of Frankenscience could lead to more abortions because of the obvious profit motive.”

Those of us who are older might remember the movie “Coma” where people were put in a coma so their various organs could be harvested. Those of you who are younger might remember the movie “The Island” where people who had been cloned were kept alive in a fictional island. Their real purpose was to provide organ “spare parts” for the person who was cloned. Those movies might be science fiction. What is being proposed and developed is science fact.

Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League points out that the company doing the current experimentation refers to these as “discarded human organs.” He concludes that their comments “give the lie to the abortion industry’s claim that unborn children are not living human beings. Their humanity is precisely what makes these transplants possible.”

You can read more about this “Frankenscience” in an article with that title written by Bob Unruh in WND.com. He was on my radio program recently to talk about the reaction to what the Genetic Literacy Project called xenotransplantation. It is worth noting that even bioethicists who could not be considered pro-life have raised moral objections to what is being proposed.

The shortage of human organs for donation is a real problem that should be solved by encouraging others to be willing to donate their organs and by purusing adult stem cell research. We shouldn’t be aborting babies and we shouldn’t be harvesting organs from aborted babies and placing them in animals.