I recently came across an article entitled, “A Pastor’s Case for the Morality of Abortion.” Given the subject matter of our sermon last Sunday, I thought I would put its argument in front of you as an exercise in discernment.
I would highly encourage you to read the article first and think through the argument. Then consider: (1) What Bible passages are referred/alluded to and are these passages understood accurately in the context of the rest of Scripture? (2) What passages or theological truths are ignored? After that, consider my thoughts below. If you are inclined to take a stab at it yourself, stop reading here before going any further in this article.
______________________________
Some may not be able to access the article as the website limits the number of articles that a given visitor can read. For those unable to read the article, It is written in the form of an interview between the author and a pastor, who is a woman in the United Methodist Church. (As a mainline denomination [mainline as opposed to evangelical], the UMC veered into theological liberalism many years ago and has experienced a study decline in recent decades.)
Her argument is essentially one of personal autonomy. It is a sanctified version of “my body, my choice.” She says, “When that bodily autonomy is taken away, to me, that is against Christian scripture, and is against the Gospel I believe in.”
So, from what Christian Scripture does she derive such a conviction? One section of the interview provides several biblical allusions:
“When people talk about “Our body is a temple of God, and holy,” I see that as I have the right to choices over my body, and the freedom to make the decisions that are right for me.
“In Genesis, it says that God breathed God’s spirit into our lives—Christians would say “the Holy Spirit.” Because of that, we’re not puppets controlled by God. Because of the image of God in us, we have freedom. That’s what’s really clear to me, is freedom.
“There’s this little passage in the Gospel of John that continues to stay with me. Jesus says, ‘I have come that they might have life and have it abundantly.’ The Greek word that’s used there for ‘life abundance’ is this word zoe, which means not just that you’re living and breathing, but that God’s plan for our lives is to actually have a meaningful life with loving contentment and satisfaction.
“Because of that—because I value life, and I believe Jesus values life—I value the choices that give us the type of life that we need.”
So what are the passages to which she alludes? We’ll take them one at a time, seeing if she is understanding them well in their context.
First, she alludes to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, which in context may be the worst verses in the canon to ground a belief in personal, bodily autonomy: Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Paul writes these verses as a rebuke to those doing whatever they want with their bodies, specifically visiting temple prostitutes. Paul’s point is exactly the opposite of that taken by this pastor. You can’t do whatever you want with your body. Your body isn’t yours. It was purchased by Christ and is now the residence of the Holy Spirit. You are therefore obligated to do with it only what glorifies God. Bodily autonomy is not a reality of a the regenerate Christian life.
(It’s possible that she has in mind 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, however, that context refers to the "body" in the sense of the corporate church, not the individual human body. Therefore, it is an irrelevant reference.)
Second, she alludes to a conglomeration of verses in the creation account, specifically Genesis 1:26a (“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”) and Genesis 2:7 (“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature”). Is she correct to understand that God’s breathing life into us and creating us in His image indicates our freedom or autonomy?
The narrative of Genesis 1-3 seems to rule that out. First, both quotations (1:26 and 2:7) are followed with commands from God, implying that God directs man’s path. Certainly, there is freedom, but man's life is to be lived within parameters set by God. Second, the great conflict of the early chapters of Genesis are predicated on the idea that man does not have total personal autonomy. God gave man broad dietary latitude in Genesis 2:16-17, with one very firm restriction—so firm that a single infraction would lead to death. That is, man is bound to live as God directs or he will not live at all.
How might we characterize the temptation by the serpent and the sin of the man and woman in Genesis 3? There might be no better label than the pursuit of autonomy, the ability to do whatever one wants, unfettered by God’s law. As the narrative shows, clearly we do not have this kind of autonomy. In God’s world, we must live according to His design and direction.
Third, she alludes to John 10:10: The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. The irony of using this verse to justify stealing, killing, and destroying life in the womb should not be lost on anyone. But what of the rest of the context? Is it true that “life” —zoe—refers to “meaningful life with loving contentment and satisfaction”? Absolutely! As long as the Scriptures define that life for us! The preceding verses indicate that Jesus has in mind most immediately spiritual life in Him. And how has Jesus characterized the life of discipleship elsewhere? As making choices for myself that give me the life I need? Not exactly. Rather, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). This is the opposite of personal autonomy. This pastor has taken “abundant life” and redefined it according to the standards of modern Western culture, not the Scriptures.
Are there any Scriptures or theological truths missing from the presented argument? Yes. While she does mention creation in God’s image, she does not connect it biblically to the value of human life, as we saw Sunday in Genesis 9:1-7. Further, she makes no mention of the child in the womb being created in God’s image and therefore worthy of protection as assumed and taught in many places, including Exodus 21:22-25, Judges 13:7, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Jeremiah 1:5, and Luke 1:15.
As we seek to be faithful and think biblically in a secular culture, let us continue to do the hard work of training our powers of discernment by constant practice (Heb 5:14), while also bending over backwards to speak winsomely and lovingly (Col 4:6).
Comments