Support the Café
Search our site

The changing evangelical view of abortion

The changing evangelical view of abortion

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.)

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

11 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Dilworth

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

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

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.

James Pirrung

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Bill Dilworth

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?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Bill Dilworth

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.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

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/

James Pirrung

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café