How we think about abortion
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A few days ago I posted on the trouble with the phrase 'Christian America.' In that post I argued that the goods offered to us in following Christ and the goods offered to us as citizens of a liberal democracy are often (if not always) at odds. And because the secular values of the nation are so pervasive in society, that can mean that we find it difficult to see many important aspects of our lives through as Christians rather than as Americans.Perhaps no social reality demonstrates this dilemma better than abortion.
Pro-choice arguments around abortion are almost never made from a Christian point of view. The language of 'rights' that is employed is largely derived from John Locke, not the Bible or Christian tradition. And the arguments that do pose as Christian - such as the idea that "no unwanted child should have to be born" is an article of compassion - are deeply misguided.
And yet, many Christians in this culture have no problem whatsoever with the standard pro-choice position. Sure, they typically salve their own consciences by saying that, while they wouldn't personally have an abortion, they do not believe others should be compelled to see things the way they do. But that view itself is a non-Christian one that is rooted in a secular notion of individual liberty. (And besides, we don't have a problem compelling one another to do all sorts of others things that don't command universal agreement, do we? Beware the tendency toward opportunistic libertarianism.) Moreover, it causes our churches to have confused and inconsistent official views on abortion. Though the UMC's position has improved greatly in the past few years, it is still something of a mess.
So with all of that in mind, it is truly refreshing to see the church's episcopal leadership speak clearly and persuasively on abortion. The following excerpt is from an essay by Bishop Timothy Whitaker that appeared in the current issue of Lifewatch. You can also access the entire essay online. Bishop Whitaker does a wonderful job drawing the distinction between viewing abortion as a Christian and as an American:
"Abortion is a vexing issue for Christians in America because it strains the capacity of our culture and political system to find a way to protect the life of the unborn in a social environment shaped by the value of individual freedom. We Americans cherish this cultural value of being free to make our own decisions without interference from government. Yet the freedom we exercise in the case of an abortion is more than the liberty to live where we desire or to hold whatever religious or political opinions we choose, since the exercise of this freedom results in the extermination of another human being...
"The Christian community distinguished itself in its very beginning by opposing infanticide and abortion, both of which were commonplace in the Roman Empire. The Christian worship of God as the creator of all life and Jesus' teaching, which generates values of the worth of every human being, and our responsibility to take care of those who cannot care for themselves made the Church's position inevitable. For Christians in the American context, finding our way to this historic Christian perspective has not been easy.
"I suspect Christians who are citizens of the United States will always have somewhat different political judgments - as citizens - about what is possible and acceptable regarding the legal solution to the moral problem of abortion. Yet, as Christians, we should continue to move toward a distinctly Christian perspective and practice in the context of a culture that may have different values and a government whose basis of individual rights may limit its capacity to encompass fully a moral position."
Bishop Whitaker in this essay does exactly what a bishop should do: exercise the teaching office of the episcopacy, provide solid moral guidance to the church, and act as a shepherd to Christ's flock. I hope the church has the ears to hear his message!
[Note: Lifewatch is the publication of the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality. You can find its website here.]
Labels: Abortion
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 10:03 AM
9 Comments:
Great post. I particularly appreciate the way Bishop Whitaker makes the case for why we as Christians must seek to end abortions without condemning as sinful voting for candidates who don't agree with that position. As you said, Andrew, he provided moral guidance to the church on a politically hot issue, but without coming across as a politician.
Challenging post. I only hope the Bishop takes the same vigorous and active stance against divorce.
David -
Indeed. But as he points out (I think rightly) in his essay:
"[W]e often hear the truism that it is foolish to become obsessed with a single issue, such as abortion. Of course, it is a mistake to single out one moral concern to the practical exclusion of others in our daily discourse, ethical reflection, and political attention. Nevertheless, the fact that a few would be so foolish is no excuse for the rest of us avoiding being engaged in an issue. The narrowness of others who are obsessed with abortion is no excuse for the rest of us to narrow the scope of our own moral attention by excluding abortion from our view."
I preached a sermon that dealt with the reality of divorce in my own church within the past year, and I took care to emphasize Jesus' teaching against it. It was one of the more difficult sermons I have ever preached. But I also stressed in that sermon what I believe to be true about both abortion and divorce - namely, that through God's grace individuals and communities can be transformed so that such practices will never again be known among Christians. May the Holy Spirit guide us.
- Andrew
If abortion was a sin, Jesus would have said so.
If abortion was a sin, Jesus would have said so. He didn't.
Thank you for this post. Peace to you.
Response to Mark's comment: really? Jesus didn't specifically say that molesting children was a sin, either, but I think we can all assume that it is. Abortion would fall under the "Thou shalt no kill" part of the Ten Commandments; or, if you want a New Testament reference, the "love your neighbor as yourself" part of the two greatest commandments.
A few weeks ago I heard a sermon where the pastor explained the difference between American rights and Christian responsibility--suggesting that as Christians, rights belong to God. Is this similar to what Hauerwas argues?
During part of his message, the pastor made this connection to abortion, suggesting that whether we have a legal right to abortion or not, as Christians we don't. Additionally we have a responsibility to care for the little ones.
I have been thinking about the issue of abortion a great deal lately. For the most part I have come to identify myself as pro-life while also being uncomfortable, as of now, with criminalizing abortion. The ultimate question for me is: what criteria do we use for deciding when to legislate our Christian morality?
Meanwhile I'm advocating for common ground on abortion--which I write a little bit about on my blog: www.krogermix.com
Karl -
Thanks for the post. I was catching up on your blog earlier today, actually. It is good to see that you are 'back in the saddle,' so to speak.
On the issue of 'rights' - There is simply no such notion within Christian theology. The root issue has to do with God's sovereignty. If we have rights to certain things, then we have claims that are absolute. And that doesn't work in a theological context where God is the author of creation and all that we receive is gift.
Rights, as we understand them, really go back to natural law theory and the notion that, in a state of nature, human beings have the right to do what is necessary for survival. Thomas Hobbes didn't conjure up the idea out of thin air, but he - and later Locke - have a whole lot to do with why we talk about rights the way that we do.
You probably won't find Hauerwas using rights language at all. He also won't be too interested in criminalizing abortion, since that is in many ways a Constantinian move that seeks to get the government to do what the church is not willing to do. What people around Duke like him and Samuel Wells do is increasingly going by the moniker, "ecclesial ethics," because it locates the proper sphere of moral formation and moral action as the church itself. Thus, for them our first task is to persuade God's own people that abortion is a rejection of God's good gift of life, and that it should be countered by our embodying of communities of hospitality that do what is necessary for mothers, fathers, and babies to live amidst God's blessings and abundance.
Grace & peace,
Andrew
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home