A Moderate View Of Infanticide

If you are reading this post, you are likely opposed to abortion. That is a good thing. In fact, almost every Christian in the world today would consider themselves pro-life and generally opposed to abortion. The scary part is in the word “generally.” The unity of mind that Christianity has eventually embodied towards the subject of abortion, has been a powerful voice in it’s opposition. Unfortunately, a Christian’s work is never done. Despite the consistent message of equating abortion with evil, there is some exceptions drawn within the camp of Christ.

Recently, Phil Vischer, the creator of Veggie Tales, explained his position on abortion on Twitter recently. Many have accused Vischer of having very liberal, left-leaning opinions, so the responses to his tweets reads like a debate. There are a few comments in particular that I wanted to address.

Clearly, Phil and his opponents seem to be on completely separate pages. In particular, William Wolfe approaches abortion as a form of murder, where Vischer sees abortion as too nuanced a situation for that label. Even if you already have a strong opinion on the subject, I would encourage you to keep reading. Phil claims to have the same opinion held by a respectable institution only 50 years ago. Perhaps we should investigate.

The NAE & SBC

First, a little background. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is an association that was created with politics in mind. From the NAE website: “The National Association of Evangelicals was founded in 1942 as a fresh voice for biblical, Christ-centered faith that was meant to be a ‘middle way’ between the fundamentalist American Council of Christian Churches and the progressive Federal Council of Churches.” ¹ During the civil rights movement, the NAE condemned racial segregation. Today, the NAE seeks to “mobilize evangelicals for the common good” with discussions of justice. A recent report by the NAE’s organizational arm World Relief emphasized the biblical mandate for climate activism.²

The focus of this post, however, is the NAE’s statement on abortion. In January of 1971, the NAE adopted a resolution that laid out their beliefs on the subject. It starts off by acknowledging the problem arises out of a: “general climate of moral relativism, a growing sexual permissiveness, and a threatening population explosion.“(Emphasis added) The resolution then affirms that abortions out of convenience would be morally wrong. The resolution is then closed with the following statement.

“At the same time we recognize the necessity for therapeutic abortions to safeguard the health or the life of the mother, as in the case of tubular pregnancies. Other pregnancies, such as those resulting from rape or incest may require deliberate termination, but the decision should be made only after there has been medical, psychological and religious counseling of the most sensitive kind.”
NAE, “Abortion 1971” – January 1, 1971³

Given the hindsight available today, it should be fairly obvious that the exceptions provided in the resolution are a large source of today’s issues. Is a child conceived in rape or incest not due any legal protection? The resolution is short and concise, so we are not afforded an explanation for these exceptions. After all, If there are legitimate reasons for the practice of abortion, a Christian would not seek to totally ban the procedure.

In his tweets, Phil Vischer also mentioned the SBC‘s resolution. Passed in June of 1971, this resolution also looks to have been a source of today’s confusion. The last paragraph of the resolutions reads:

“Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother”
SBC, “Resolution on Abortion” – June 1,1971⁴

The SBC and the NAE saw abortions in similar ways. Both organizations thought that using abortions as a form of elective birth control was morally evil. However, both organizations also argued that it was helpful to have the practice available for certain exceptions such as rape, or for the health of the mother. It appears further that the SBC called for members to be activists in support of legislation to that end. On one hand, It seems as if Christians could all safely say they did not support abortion in general. But on the other hand, there were just as many Christians calling for some abortion to stay.

Views On The Law

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court reversed one of the worst judicial actions in United States history, allowing states to once again regulate abortion. This court case reversed Roe vs. Wade, a case that had allowed nation-wide infanticide since 1973. What most people forget, is that Prior to Roe vs. Wade, the issue was already very political. The Planned Parenthood website lays out the history on a timeline: “Between 1967 and 1973, four states — Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington — repealed their abortion bans entirely, while 13 others enacted reforms that expanded exceptions.”⁵

In case you missed the connection, look at the dates of the SBC and the NAE statement. Two years before Roe vs. Wade, Christian organizations were already seeking legislation to accommodate the abortion procedure.

In the politically divided atmosphere of the time, Christian organizations saw abortion exceptions as a convenient centrist opinion. A call for a total abortion ban might sound too right-wing, while pro-choice arguments sounded too liberal. For some organizations, speaking against abortion in any capacity would have cemented their political affiliations to the right. For the liberal-leaning Nation Council of Churches, taking ANY stance on abortion was not an option, so they remained silent on the subject.⁶ For Christians in the 70’s, supporting some abortion seemed like a viable “third way.”

One and half billion deaths later, “moderate views” looks more like a blood-bath.

But the 1970’s also had voices of reason. In particular, the catholic church had already poised itself for resistance. In short, there was simply no way for a member of a catholic church to be pro-choice. The church had declared all abortions to be a sinful act with canons in place for excommunicating those that participate in the sin.⁷ This dogmatic approach to the sin of abortion also laid the foundation for pronouncing pro-choice arguments as heretical. In short, denying the humanity inherent in a person’s conception also denied the humanity of Christ himself. The Catholic church did not make room for abortion. Peter J Riga summarizes: “They certainly can disagree with the Catholic Church on abortion, but not as Catholics.“⁸

Another notable work in 1971 was the statement by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). The crux of the report centered on Exodus 21:22-25, illustrating how the biblical law should be applied today. The report had ample biblical support, and left room for only one exception: if an abortion procedure would save the very life of the mother.

“From a Christian point of view, the main problem is somewhat as follows: Granted that the sixth commandment requires us to make diligent efforts to preserve a life, may those diligent efforts include the taking of another life? Surely we would not wish to argue that stealing or committing adultery or false worship are legitimate when done to preserve life in some sense. The situation we are discussing is not strictly analogous to the case of the father who, when his two children fall out of a boat, must abandon one in order to save the other. The father does not kill the child he abandons, but simply leaves him in the hands of God, and such is not the case where an abortion is performed to save a mother’s life.”
OPC, “Report of the Committee to Study the Matter of Abortion” – 1971⁹

Like the Catholic position, the OPC had setup an airtight solution to the abortion problem. Abortion is only an option if the procedure is done in a way that it is not an act of murder. This setup only happens in a scenario where you can only save one: the mother or the baby. With this applicable understanding of the sixth commandment, the OPC made it impossible to be pro-abortion.

The Political Side

Looking at the big picture, most people credit resistance to abortion as a Catholic agenda. It seemed as if the lone voice denouncing the rise of Planned Parenthood was the Catholic church. I would suggest that the reasoning for this seems fairly obvious in retrospect. The protestant churches in the United States had generally been able to accommodate differing political views UNTIL the topic of abortion arose. After all, the NAE had been created as the middle ground between fundamentalists and liberals, and the NAE’s statement illustrated exactly what a middle ground would do. Nothing.

For those in the OPC, doing nothing about murder was simply not an option. The report later went on to suggest that this serious sin could not be a politically neutral issue. From the previously quoted report: “Granted that abortion in nearly all cases must be regarded as murder, does it follow that the Christian should endeavor to protect the unborn child through legislation? We answer in the affirmative.”

Like the Catholic church, the OPC’s statement left no room for opposition. In essence, you are called to personally abstain from abortions, AND you ought to promote regulation of abortion through legislation! The argument was solid. If you believe that the 6th commandment covers the abortion procedure, you must also instruct the civil government to punish the evil-doer. Unfortunately for Phil Vischer, views like this are incompatible with middle-ground-third-way-Christianity.

The minority report of the OPC illustrated why so many people want to have exceptions for abortion. From the minority report: “The report accompanies this by an encouragement of the enforcement of religious principles by state legislation. Setting the feet of the church upon this path may perhaps be expected of people who have not known what it is to live under a denial of religious freedom. But it is a very dangerous course, nevertheless, and the study of history provides plenty of supporting evidence.” The church in general had enjoyed years of nuanced political issues that could accommodate differing perspectives. It was not inherently sinful to be either left-wing or right-wing. This freedom changed with the rise of abortion, where views that took the “middle ground” were inevitably liberal and unbiblical.

Conclusion

I am grateful for the progress that has been made by Christians in denouncing abortion. In general, the public knows Christians cannot support the practice, although the extent of that is still muddled. If Christianity had a better handle of it’s relation to politics, perhaps the abortion crisis would have looked differently today. If nothing else, perhaps we ought to remember the Catholic churches intolerant approach to the issue. Even today, the idea that a “third way” exists for certain political issues is laughable. The reformed churches of today must remember the limits surrounding freedom of conscience, and remind the civil government of it’s duty.

Given the today’s situation, I would also like to see more churches with statements as clear as the OPC’s. For example, the PCA released a statement on abortion in 1978. It expanded on the OPC’s call to legislative action, but it did not go into detail in it’s analysis of allowable exceptions for abortion.¹⁰ The PCA was founded 2 years after the NAE’s statement on abortion, but has had the association since it’s inception. Why would the PCA commend the OPC’s document on abortion when it directly conflicted with the resolutions of the NAE? The subject of abortion was not even cited in the PCA’s reason for leaving the NAE.¹¹ After decades of general ambiguity on the subject, I hope that the issue becomes clearer when more denominations speak with conviction. For years, the church has approached political theology with nuance in order to avoid ruling on adiaphora. The subject of abortion is where the rubber hits the road.

“Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty because what their liberal theology really is is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms.
…
It is significant at this point to note that many of the denominations controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and strongly, in favor of abortion.”
Francis Schaeffer, “A Christian manifesto” – 1981

Abortion is the ultimate divide between liberal theology and a truly orthodox doctrine. The history of abortion makes clear that a “middle ground” perspective is not possible. If you do not support a complete ban on abortion, you value liberalism more than the sanctity of human life. Children are to be considered a reward from God himself (Psalm 127:3). To intentionally destroy the heritage of the Lord is to debase the image of God.

A Moderate View Of Infanticide

The NAE & SBC

Views On The Law

The Political Side

Conclusion

Sources:

Author Information:

Abortion

The Church

Leave a Reply Cancel reply