Biomedical technologies capable of sharply reducing or ending human aging, “radical life extension” (RLE), call for a Christian response. The authors featured in this article offer some preliminary thoughts. Common themes include: What kind of life counts as a “good life;” the limits, if any, of human freedom; the consequences of extended life on the human species and on the Earth; the meaning and value of finite and vulnerable embodied life; the experience of time; anthropological self-understanding; and human dignity. Notably, all four authors share serious concerns about RLE’s potential effects.

As biotechnologies emerge that halt or slow aging, what significance will these have for pregnancy? I argue in favor of life extension technologies based on their benefit for cis-gendered women who wish to become pregnant. After age 27, fertility decreases, and risks associated with pregnancies increase. At the same time, women’s twenties and thirties are often key years in their working life. If aging is stopped or slowed, women can delay pregnancy past those years. Though Martin Luther may seem an unlikely resource for theological reflection on this issue, his biblical commentaries on pregnancy lend support for these technologies. Luther emphasized how the pregnant Mary, though of lowly status, was essential to the embodiment of God and a testament to the blessings God may visit upon anyone. Luther also emphasized how Eve and other pregnant women help advance God’s promise to sustain God’s creation of humankind. I acknowledge that lengthening the window of fertility could exacerbate overpopulation on the Earth but show that solutions typically advanced, such as John K. Davis’ “Forced Choice” proposal, almost always rely on controlling women’s bodily autonomy and must be rejected. I also show that fears of a Malthusian crisis are likely not only overblown but incorrect given predicted declines in fertility rates.

The dramatic rise in income inequality in the United States over the past several decades is likely having a significant impact on mainline Protestant congregations. The financially-comfortable tend to look to their religious traditions for a sense of meaning, while the financially-precarious tend to look for help in meeting the daily challenges of insufficient earnings. Wide differences in income can separate congregants into two groups: one with the means to participate in advocacy work and another in need of the reforms produced by this work. The non-traditional and unreliable hourly schedules of low-wage workers make church participation difficult, undermining integration into congregational life and class-bridging. Income gaps in congregations call for a thoughtful, proactive response and a sturdy theology of theologies spacious enough to embrace the distinct, but not necessarily antithetical, theologies of the financially-comfortable and of the financially-precarious.

Why should Gordon Kaufman's mid-career theological method be of renewed interest to contemporary theists? Two distinguishing characteristics of the West today are its increasing religious pluralism and the growing numbers of theists who rely on hybrid approaches to construct concepts of God. Kaufman's method is well suited to this current state of affairs because it is open to diverse religious and theological perspectives and to perspectives from science and secular humanism. It also militates against the weaknesses inherent to hybrid approaches-ad hoc constructs of God unable to motivate their holders to overcome human self-centeredness and so to contribute to the well-being and fulfillment of others. It achieves this by providing checks to reduce the risk of producing human-writlarge God-constructs. Lastly, Kaufman's method provides criteria to help theists identify humane and humanizing experiences, relationships, concepts, images, and texts (i.e., the basic material from which God-constructs are fashioned) from the plethora of options available, whether religious, cultural, or secular.