A Christian Argument for Abortion?

    One of the most bizarre arguments for legalized abortion that we have ever seen recently appeared on a blogpost by Greg Rubottom entitled "Death Throes of a Great Deception – The Fall From Grace of the 'Pro-Life' Movement." This, in turn, was copied with a lengthy introduction by Frank Schaeffer
on Mr. Schaeffer's blog at Patheos under the title "A Christian Answer to the Lies of the Evangelical / Catholic Pro-Life Movement." It is an extraordinary piece of sophistry.
    Mr. Rubottom rehashes the usual pragmatic arguments: forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would cause her harm and doom the child to a miserable existence as an unwanted child. What is peculiar about his argument is that not only does he seek a Christian justification for this, but he actually claims that his argument reflects "the core elements of traditional Christian spirituality" and that the Pro-Life position is "heresy." In support of this dubious contention he gives us one of the most convoluted accounts of Christian doctrine that we have ever witnessed.
    He claims that Jesus taught that "the human body is a 'container' for what God values in human life – the soul – and the creation of a soul is a 'process' and not all conception is necessarily the will of God." Presumably human beings decide, through their own actions, to conceive a child, and then God might decide that it was a bad idea, in which case the pregnancy should be aborted.
    And how does Mr. Rubottom know that this is what God actually thinks? He tells us that "the core teaching of traditional Christianity" is that "God must always be defined as 'good.'" God, then would not wish the pregnancy to continue if it would bring harm to either the mother or the child. In other words, Mr. Rubottom believes that God is guided by the same "common sense" as himself, and that it would be evident, from a kind of cost/benefit analysis, that some pregnancies should be terminated.
    We do not know from what source Mr. Rubottom derives his conception of "traditional Christianity," but it is certainly not from any source with which we are familiar. What God actually said was, "You shall not murder"; and the reason assigned for this is that human beings are created in the image of God. "Whoever sheds man's blood,/ By man his blood shall be shed;/ For in the image of God / He made man" (Gen. 9:6; NKJV). In other words, human life is sacred because man was created in the image of God. Murder is a form of sacrilege.
    This, then, raises the thorny question of just exactly when does life begin. Mr. Rubottom's explanation is purely fanciful – it exists nowhere in the history of "traditional Christianity." It is entirely of his own invention.
    But what is the church's traditional understanding? The fact of the matter is that historically the church has been divided on the question. One line of thought, called "Traducianism," holds that the soul of an infant is derived from those of its parents by way of natural generation. This view was held in ancient times by Tertullian, and more recently by many Lutheran theologians. Obviously in this viewpoint abortion would always be tantamount to the taking of an innocent human life.
    The opposing viewpoint is called "Creationism" (not to be confused with opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution). According to this theory each soul is created individually by God. This viewpoint was held by St. Jerome and later by Calvin and most Reformed theologians. The obvious difficulty with this position in terms of the present discussion is that it is impossible to say when the individual soul is created. What we do know from Scripture is that at some point in the course of the pregnancy the developing child is a conscious human being: John the Baptist, while still in utero, leaped at the approach of Mary (Lu. 1:41).
    What proved decisive in the debate were the advances in modern medical science that showed that the fetus undergoes a continuous process of development from the moment of conception until the moment of birth and beyond. There is no specific point in between at which the fetus suddenly acquires the definitive characteristics of a human being. Genetically the developing child is a unique person at the moment of conception and is just as human then as it is after birth. It was undoubtedly with this realization in mind that most U.S. states in the late 19^th Century outlawed abortion.
    What Mr. Rubottom has done is to palm off a modern version of ethical pragmatism as "traditional Christianity." It is, in fact, no such thing. The historic Christian position has always been that "The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 69). If life begins at conception, we are forbidden from taking it.

For a previous blog on Roe v. Wade see "Should Abortion be Legal?"

Was the “Religious Right” a Mistake?

    One of the more controversial bloggers at Patheos, Frank Schaeffer ("Why I Still Talk to Jesus – In Spite of Everything" -- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/) recently had a blog post entitled "How Evangelicals Doomed the Republican Party, God, and (Maybe) America." He accuses Evangelicals of having a distorted view of reality, and of allowing themselves to be used as the pawns of billionaires and neoconservative warmongers. He cites as examples the denial of global warming and the unqualified support for Israel, which, he says, prevent us from finding sane and sensible solutions to these problems. "Touch it where you may the evangelical / Republican / billionaire alliance is doomed, it's doomed because the non-retributive Jesus is the true Lord, not a hate filled ideology of imperial overreach that is embraced by crazed and militarized right wing neoconservatives."
    One might wish that Mr. Schaeffer himself would imbibe a little more of the spirit of the "non-retributive Jesus," but there is an element of truth to what he says. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not Evangelicals are self-deluded, the fact remains that they are in an uneasy alliance with Roman Catholics, Mormons, Libertarians, and establishment big business Republicans. Each faction can blame one of the others for the loss in the recent election. Did the Republicans lose because some of their candidates took "extreme" positions on abortion, thereby alienating women voters? Or was it because Mr. Romney was a multimillionaire who is out of touch with ordinary Americans? Both seem to have been factors.
    Looking ahead to the future, what is especially foreboding for social conservatives is that several states legalized same-sex marriage by popular vote, and the Democrats did especially well among women, minorities and the young, suggesting that changing demographics are working in their favor. Other pundits beside Mr. Schaeffer are saying that the Republican Party needs to change. But change into what?
    This is, in fact, a genuine dilemma. As Frank Schaeffer's late father, the famous theologian Francis A. Schaeffer, labored to point out, western civilization as a whole has experienced a seismic shift away from its Judeo-Christian moorings toward a more secular and materialistic orientation, and this raises the specter of an increasingly amoral and disordered society. One simply cannot stand idly by while he watches civilization collapse. Yet as the elder Dr. Schaeffer also pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of orthodox Christianity are radically at variance with the naturalistic assumptions of modern secular thought. The younger Mr. Schaeffer concludes from this that Evangelicals (and presumably his conservative evangelical father) are simply deluded. But should Evangelicals allow the outside world to redefine their faith?
    As a Christian believer I would have to say "absolutely not." "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). It would be sheer folly to throw one's soul away for the sake of political expediency.
    What should we do then? Our first concern should be to remain faithful to Christ and maintain the purity of our testimony. This means that we must be especially wary of engaging in partisan politics. The mudslinging and vilification, the vested interests and power politics hardly adorn the gospel.
    Secondly, we must recognize that America is not likely to change for the better unless we change individual hearts and minds, and this can be accomplished best through evangelism. But we must be careful here to preach the whole message. Part of the reason for America's moral decline is that most modern preachers are reluctant to talk about sin. But the gospel is incomprehensible unless we lay out first what God requires from human beings in the way of moral conduct. And the truth be known, the church's own members need to repent and start living the life themselves. Actions, it has often been said, speak louder than words. Let the atheists and agnostics argue and debate all they want; they cannot argue against the example of a virtuous life.
    This does not mean, however, that we must remain silent in the face of encroaching evil. We can protest. We can write letters and hold demonstrations. We can demonstrate compassion by extending the helping hand. But let us never sully the name of Christ with partisan bickering. It only confuses the issues and undermines our credibility.
    The way to reform society has been laid out for us: it is the power of the Word of God. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

Christianity and Politics

    In an editorial in today's USA Today, columnist Jonathan Merritt describes a shift in attitude among younger evangelical Christians regarding political activism ("New form of civic engagement" – May 7, 2012). Mr. Merritt says that the old form of civic engagement focused on two or three central issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, and became deeply involved in partisan politics as a result, with a large majority of social conservatives in the U.S. voting Republican. The younger generation, according to Mr. Merritt, is less partisan and more interested in a broader range of issues. Mr. Merritt concludes the article by saying "So I say bring on the new brand of political engagement. Because crucifying the culture war model could be the only hope of resurrecting American Christianity in a new century."
    A lot of Mr. Merritt's observations certainly ring true. The culture wars of the past several decades have tarnished the image of Evangelicalism without remedying the social ills it tried to protest. Yet several cautions are in order.
    First of all, it must be said that the church has a right and a duty to speak forthrightly about social issues. Separation of church and state does not mean separation of the government from justice or the law from morality. As morally responsible human beings we cannot stand by idly while society rushed headlong over the precipice. The stability of the family, chronic poverty and access to healthcare are all pressing issues that demand attention.
    As Christians, however, we must be wary of partisan politics. Both major political parties in the U.S. are largely secular in nature and encompass broad ranges of political interests. While the record of the Democratic Party on family issues is appalling, there are elements of the Republican Party's agenda that are hard to square with biblical norms as well. Typical Republican positions on the military and the economy, for instance, raise serious issues involving the 6^th and 8^th Commandments respectively. In order protect the integrity of our witness to society we must be careful to distinguish Christian values from those of the secular world.
    Which leads us to the all-important question of how are we to engage society? The biblical answer, we think, is clear enough: we engage society primarily through evangelism. The real problem with the world today is not a handful of political issues. Rather it is the latent evil that lurks in the darkest recesses of the human heart. And the solution to this evil is not to be found in the political process, but rather in the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the preaching of the gospel. Win the hearts of the people to Christ first, and social reform will come later.
    The apostle Paul described his approach this way: "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God, for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (II Cor. 10:4,5; NKJV).