The Lead

When the Supreme Court ruled that women had, because of the constitutional right to privacy, to be guaranteed access to safe and legal abortion providers, it wasn't a huge issue for the conservative American Evangelical churches. Their leaders had taken the position for years that the fetus was an "undeveloped human" and didn't therefore have rights.

That's not the same for the Roman Catholic Church, where as early as the 1 Century in the Didache there is an explicit prohibition against abortion. But American Evangelicals weren't there in the 1970's. And wouldn't become unanimous in their opposition and political activism against abortion rights until latter part of the next decade.

Jonathan Dudley, in recent book that chronicles this shift even begins by quoting a conservative seminary professor, writing in a Billy Graham sponsored publication, who argues from the Torah that killing a fetus is different than killing a human.

Dudley goes on in his book entitled Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics to detail how strongly this change in sentiment to uncompromising opposition to abortion rights shifted the landscape of the American Evangelical politics.

"By the mid-1980s, the evangelical right was so successful with this strategy that the popular evangelical community would no longer tolerate any alternative position. Hence, the outrage over a book titled Brave New People published by InterVarsity Press in 1984. In addition to discussing a number of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization, the author, an evangelical professor living in New Zealand, also devoted a chapter to abortion. His position was similar to that of most evangelicals 15 years prior. Although he did not believe the fetus was a full-fledged person from conception, he did believe that because it was a potential person, it should be treated with respect. Abortion was only permissible to protect the health and well-being of the mother, to preclude a severely deformed child, and in a few other hard cases, such as rape and incest.
Although this would have been an unremarkable book in 1970, the popular evangelical community was outraged. Evangelical magazines and popular leaders across the country decried the book and its author, and evangelicals picketed outside the publisher’s office and urged booksellers to boycott the publisher. One writer called it a “monstrous book.” … The popular response to the book — despite its endorsements from Carl F.H. Henry, the first editor of Christianity Today, and Lew Smedes, an evangelical professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary — was so overwhelmingly hostile that the book became the first ever withdrawn by InterVarsity Press over the course of nearly half a century in business.

The book was republished a year later by Eerdmans Press. In a preface, the author noted, “The heresy of which I appear to be guilty is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation. This, it seems, is being made a basic affirmation of evangelicalism, from which there can be no deviation. … No longer is it sufficient to hold classic evangelical affirmations on the nature of biblical revelation, the person and work of Christ, or justification by faith alone. In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”"

Fred Clark writes about this and more. Clark points out that most of us have forgotten that this shift took place. Did you know about it? (I sure didn't.)

Comments (11)

Yes, I was aware of it, and it is a good reminder to "progressivists" who think that trends always go one way. It is interesting to note that even in the RCC the history on this issue is more complex than is often presented.

Posted by tobias haller | February 19, 2012 4:21 PM

The Torah is certainly clear that a fetus is not the equivalent of a human being but rather has a moral status similar to an animal, at least so far a penalties for accidental death are concerned. And while the early Christian sources are against abortion (including the NT), for most of Christian history what happened in the first trimester (before "quickening" as it was called) didn't come under that category. Like evanglicalism, Orthodox Judaism didn't have this latter absolutist stand until it became politically convenient for the Orthodox to align themselves with the Right on various social issues. Even now, in private, many Orthodox are not so severe on the subject.

Posted by Robert Morris | February 19, 2012 6:36 PM

early Christian sources are against abortion (including the NT)

The NT, Robert? Where?

I wonder if the Didache didn't pick up its absolutist (post-quickening) position on abortion from the prohibitions in the (pagan) Hippocratic Oath? (Just speculating)

The Hebrew Bible was more concerned about lawful paternity, than the fetus (hence the fatal "Paternity Test" of Numbers 5:11-21). A legit heir (esp. male) might have "sanctity of life", a b@stard via adultery, not so much! O_o

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | February 19, 2012 7:43 PM

Abortion is murder. While many pro-deathers sit comfortably in their homes and offices to debate the logical and philosophical dilemmas of "women's rights" (in which the baby's rights are steamrolled), more infants are killed in the U.S. than during Hitler's "Final Solution." Wake up and defend God's creation instead of destroying it. Doesn't the word "abortion" mean "destruction" or "termination?" How is this godly?

James Pirrung

Posted by James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk | February 21, 2012 8:20 AM

Mr Fisher,

I am not implying that I have the proper understanding of Numbers 5 as opposed to yours, but I think differently about it. I believe that the poison ritual is merely a way of God protecting an innocent woman from a jealous and self-righteous husband. I doubt it was ever used that often, as the Bible never mentions it again. Kind of like stoning children; the parents' objection would be a safeguard against its abuse or frequency.

Posted by James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk | February 22, 2012 9:01 AM

James did your read the article - Christians have not always believed what you believe.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

Posted by Ann Fontaine | February 22, 2012 5:41 PM

Ms Fontaine,

I don't understand the straw man arguments that liberals toss out there. Fact-checking is always a good practice before putting something out there. How on earth is the conservative view on abortion "younger than the Happy Meal?" Let me lead you to the Didache (i.e., the "Teaching of the Apostles"), which is a first-century Christian document. In Didache 2:2, it strictly prohibits abortion outright. Unless of course, you think McDonald's sold Happy Meals in the first-century Mediterranean.

http://www.thedidache.com/

Posted by James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk | February 23, 2012 9:41 AM

Evidently some evangelicals are so eager to make sure that OT forbids abortion that they have started rewriting it. Exodus 21:22 has always been viewed as referring to a miscarriage - even the Douai-Rheims version translate it that way. But recently versions like the NIV and the NKJV have translated it as being about a premature birth - in spite of the fact that this verse has always been viewed in Judaism as being about miscarriage, and as supporting the idea that a fetus does not have standing as a human being.

As far as the OT is concerned, there's no hint that fetuses and embryos are fully human and must be accorded the same rights. AFAIK there's nothing in the NT, either, although a reading of the story of the Visitation might argue against abortion by extension, since the unborn John the Baptist is depicted as "leaping for joy" in his mother's womb.

That said, James is correct about Christian tradition being against abortion, but it doesn't follow that we inherited that from our Jewish roots.

By the way, the Didache may, or may not, be, from the 1st century. What it certainly is not, however, is part of the Bible.

Posted by Bill Dilworth | February 23, 2012 10:56 AM

James, am I right in thinking that you believe that life begins at conception, and that as soon as the sperm penetrates the ovum you've got a human being?

Posted by Bill Dilworth | February 23, 2012 11:12 AM

Mr Dilworth,

I believe that conception clearly indicates that God fully plans to create a child in his own image. Therefore, humankind takes it upon itself to act as God when it decides definitions for "being" and whether someone is allowed to live or not.

Posted by James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk | February 23, 2012 3:03 PM

How does that square with the fact that up to 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant and are lost, James?

Posted by Bill Dilworth | February 23, 2012 7:48 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations