At the moment, I’m quite busy working on my New Year’s talk, but I wanted to share with you a sermon I found by the Presbyterian minister the Reverend Terry Hamilton-Poor. I came across this gem while doing comprehensive research on the issue of abortion. In 1991, Stanley Hauerwas (Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School & Professor of Law at Duke University) gave a talk on abortion titled “Abortion, Theologically Understood” at the annual conference of The United Methodist Church. To start his talk, he read this sermon by Pastor Hamilton-Poor. It’s short, and not comprehensive, but it gives what I believe to be an excellent example of how Christians and the church can (and should) respond to the issue using the gospel. It also includes some powerful and real responses to abortion toward the end. (Richard B. Hays, who is the Professor of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School, gives another even better workup of the issue from a gospel paradigm, but I’ll incorporate the content of what he argues in a future post. If you want to read it ahead of time straight from the source, you can find it in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. I don’t agree with all of his or Hauerwas’ arguments as I think the biological and personhood issues need to be addressed, but in terms of understanding the issue theologically and from a gospel mindset, both are par excellence.)
–
As a Christian and a woman, I find abortion a most difficult subject to address. Even so, I believe that it is essential that the church face the issue of abortion in a distinctly Christian manner. Because of that, I am hereby addressing not society in general, but those of us who call ourselves Christians. I also want to be clear that I am not addressing abortion as a legal issue. I believe the issue, for the church, must be framed not around the banners of “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” but around God’s call to care for the least among us whom Jesus calls his sisters and brothers.
So, in this sermon, I will make three points. The first point is that the Gospel favors women and children. The second point is that the customary framing of the abortion issue by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is unbiblical because it assumes that the woman is ultimately responsible for both herself and for any child she might carry. The third point is that a Christian response must reframe the issue to focus on responsibility rather than rights.
Point number one: the Gospel favors women and children. The Gospel is feminist. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus treats women as thinking people who are worthy of respect. This was not, of course, the usual attitude of that time. In addition, it is to the women among Jesus’ followers, not to the men, that he entrusts the initial proclamation of his resurrection. It isn’t only Jesus himself who sees the Gospel making all people equal, for Saint Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
And yet, women have been oppressed through recorded history and continue to be oppressed today. So when Jesus says, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40), I have to believe that Jesus includes women among “the least of these.” Anything that helps women, therefore, helps Jesus. When Jesus says, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me,” he is also talking about children, because children are literally “the least of these.” Children lack the three things the world values most– power, wealth, and influence. If we concern ourselves with people who are powerless, then children should obviously be at the top of our list. The irony of the abortion debate, as it now stands in our church and society, is that it frames these two groups, women and children, as enemies of one another.
This brings me to my second point: the issue as it is generally framed by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is unbiblical because it assumes that the woman is ultimately responsible both for herself and for any child she might carry. Why is it that women have abortions? Women I know, and those I know about, have had abortions for two basic reasons: the fear that they cannot handle the financial and physical demands of the child, and the fear that having the child will destroy relationships that are important to them.
An example of the first fear, the inability to handle the child financially or physically, is the divorced mother of two children, the younger of whom has Down’s syndrome. This woman recently discovered that she was pregnant. She believed abortion was wrong. However, the father of the child would not commit himself to help raise this child, and she was afraid she could not handle raising another child on her own.
An example of the second fear, the fear of destroying relationships, is the woman who became pregnant and was told by her husband that he would leave her if she did not have an abortion. She did not want to lose her husband, so she had the abortion. Later, her husband left her anyway.
In both of these cases, and in others I have known, the woman has had an abortion not because she was exercising her free choice but because she felt she had no choice. In each case the responsibility for caring for the child, had she had the child, would have rested squarely and solely on the woman.
Which brings me to my third point the Christian response to abortion must reframe the issue to focus on responsibility rather than rights. The pro-choice/pro-life debate presently pits the right of the mother to choose against the right of the fetus to live. The Christian response, on the other hand, centers on the responsibility of the whole Christian community to care for “the least of these.”
According to the Presbyterian Church’s Book of Order, when a person is baptized, the congregation answers this question: “Do you, the members of this congregation, in the name of the whole Church of Christ, undertake the responsibility for the continued Christian nurture of this person, promising to be an example of the new life in Christ and to pray for him or her in this new life?” We make this promise because we know that no adult belongs to himself or herself, and that no child belongs to his or her parents, but that every person is a child of God. Because of that, every young one is our child, the church’s child to care for. This is not an option. It is a responsibility.
Let me tell you two stories about what it is like when the church takes this responsibility seriously. The first is a story that Will Willimon, the Dean of Duke University Chapel, tells about a black church. In this church, when a teen-ager has a baby that she cannot care for, the church baptizes the baby and gives him/her to an older couple in the church that has the time and wisdom to raise the child. That way, says the pastor, the couple can raise the teen-age mother along with the baby. “That,” the pastor says, “is how we do it.”
The second story involves something that happened to Deborah Campbell. A member of her church, a divorced woman, became pregnant, and the father dropped out of the picture. The woman decided to keep the child. But as the pregnancy progressed and began to show, she became upset because she felt she could not go to church anymore. After all, here she was, a Sunday School teacher, unmarried and pregnant. So she called Deborah. Deborah told her to come to church and sit in the pew with the Campbell family, and, no matter how the church reacted, the family would support her. Well, the church rallied around when the woman’s doctor told her at her six-month checkup that she owed him the remaining balance of fifteen hundred dollars by the next month; otherwise, he would not deliver the baby. The church held a baby shower and raised the money. When the time came for her to deliver, Deborah was her labor coach. When the woman’s mother refused to come and help after the baby was born, the church brought food and helped clean her house while she recovered from the birth. Now the woman’s little girl is the child of the parish.
This is what the church looks like when it takes seriously its call to care for “the least of these.” These two churches differ in certain ways: one is Methodist, the other Roman Catholic; one has a carefully planned strategy for supporting women and babies, the other simply reacted spontaneously to a particular woman and her baby. But in each case the church acted with creativity and compassion to live out the Gospel.
In our scripture lesson today, Jesus gives a preview of the Last Judgment. “Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to men (Matthew 25:34-40).’”
We cannot simply throw the issue of abortion in the faces of women and say, “You decide and you bear the consequences of your decision.” As the church, our response to the abortion issue must be to shoulder the responsibility to care for women and children. We cannot do otherwise and still be the church. If we close our doors in the faces of women and children, then we close our doors in the face of Christ.
this is beautiful and i couldnt agree more.
Thanks, 20″ rimz. ;p
Thank you for this post and presenting a perspective that displays grace and accountability. Unfortunately, in my experience, the church more often take the role of condemnation or ignorance rather than engaging in the shared role of parenting children, especially for marginalized women. The question I often toss around in my head (and would love to hear your thoughts on) is how can we demonstrate these responsibilities lovingly, consistently and practically, so that it becomes a reflexive part of the church?
Hi Carolyn! Thanks for the comment.
I was just about to reply at length, but my son just woke up from his nap. I’ll get back to you soon. I’ve been wanting to reply for a while, but wanted to find enough time to devote to this response as I think the matter requires some solid attention. Excellent question, though.
Ok. Finally found some time. I think I’ll only be able to give you a rather anemic treatment at the moment; however, I am planning to do a comprehensive post on the issue within the next few months. I’ll be sure to address your question at length in that post, especially because the issue you raise is something that all churches need to face. I’m currently working through a lot of material, and I hope the answer I eventually give you will be a faithful exposition of how Christians transformed by the gospel should approach the issue.
I think the key word you use is reflexive. Typically, the only times I’ve seen anything in a community reach reflex or instinct is when the group has practiced something enough that it becomes so. There are exceptions, of course, though they are typically negative. For example, groups can act instinctively when they behave according to their already ingrained fallen natures (e.g. diffusion of responsibility which leads to inaction). Also, sometimes in major tragedies, people will behave in radically generous ways. But I believe consistent reflex takes much training and discipline. (Malcolm Gladwell talks about this in his book Outliers.) The black church acted graciously toward the teenage girl and her baby because the congregants had experience, trained, and lived the grace they had shown.
I think part of the reason you have experienced much judgement and condemnation from churches is because those communities both misunderstand Jesus’s message and they have failed to drill the gospel into their communal life and actions. Abortion, in fact, is indefensible from a biblical perspective. I have scoured the Christian pro-choice arguments, and I have found them not only lacking, but utterly convoluted. The hermeneutical gymnastics Christian pro-choice adherents have to engage in to reach their conclusions are painful to read. But this is where many Christian pro-life advocates get it wrong. They believe that because the Bible is so clearly pro-life, they are to defend that moral stance vigorously. Consequently, they often stand in judgement of others who do not share their worldview. Jesus, however, does nothing like this. What so many pro-life folks fail to remember is that Jesus raised the bar of morality so high, that even they themselves could not stand if they were to be judged. In Romans 1, Paul explains that the world is in a bad place, but then he shocks the readers by saying that anyone who stands in prideful judgement of the very world he just described is just as lost. The gospel solution to this is that even though everyone is lost (including those in “morally superior” positions, like pro-life folks), they receive compassion and grace from Jesus. This grace and compassion is then what we must show to those who struggle with various things like abortion.
Jesus never advocates prostitution and adultery. In fact, he condemns it on the Sermon on the Mount. Nevertheless, when he meets those folks struggling with those particular sins, he doesn’t condemn them. Instead, he shows them radical compassion, and he shows them that he came to pay for their sins so they could live freely for God. Basically, he takes the cost. And by this act of love, he compels them no longer to live in sin. Churches who condemn those who’ve had abortions have forgotten this radical message. They believe they are the moral vanguards of society, when they are supposed to be dispensers of truth and radical grace.
Once a church gets this, they should change their approach to those who’ve had abortions and those who advocate the practice, and take concrete measures to ingrain this new attitude into the community and its practices. (I’ll flesh this out in the future post.) Only then will it become relfexive.
I also believe that sometimes people feel that they are being condemned and attacked when they are not. (I’m not talking about you, but I’m just making a general observation.) It’s ironic that when the church speaks out against something we agree is wrong (like human trafficking and sexual slavery), we nod our heads and applaud. But when the church speaks out against something we disagree with, suddenly we feel condemned. I know some folks who hear me preach on abortion and premarital sex, and they feel they’ve been condemned or that the church condemns them when I did nothing of the sort in the sermon. In fact, I word those sermons very carefully because I want to make sure the gospel is heard. Most folks say the gospel was very clear, but there is a minority that feels condemned. At that point, it’s simply that they are in disagreement with me and that they perceive they are being condemned because of that disagreement. So whenever people tell me they feel condemned, I always try to speak with them to see what’s at the root of their experience – their conscience or actual condemnation.
I personally believe that the gospel teaches us to fight for the marginalized and voiceless, as the feminist pastor teaches. We are to fight and to speak on their behalf. But it is also my belief that the unborn are by far the most voiceless and marginalized population. The Christian position is not to pit one marginalized population against another marginalized group; rather, we are to hold these groups in our hearts, and do the hard work of trying to find a solution that shows grace to all. Unfortunately, in a fallen world, morally and biologically speaking, circumstances surrounding a pregnancy can result in impossible and heart-wrenching choices. Even so, the Christian call is to find a way to love radically in the midst of it all. (Again, I will write much more on this later.)
I find both pro-life and pro-choice folks fail miserably at the above. Many pro-life adherents fight very hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they don’t lift a finger for those left in the wake of their campaigns (though, there are very notable exceptions). On the other hand, many pro-choice Christian folk fight with passion for women rights, but they don’t bat an eyelash at a life cut short in utero (which, biblically, is considered a life). Christians have adopted the simplistic formulations of the Christian right or the culture at large, when Jesus calls us to follow the much harder way of following him. The question I always ask Christians when addressing this issue is, Can we do the hard work of fighting for all marginalized parties as Jesus would? Can we stand the moral ground while showing radical love? It will be hard work for both sides, and we need to address the solution systematically and structurally for it to be effective, but it’s something that’s gotta be done for the church to realize its vision in Christ.