The Value Of Life
Amie and I are supporters of all life - from the womb to the tomb. In a deeply polarized society, the words “pro-life” often launch a broad range of emotions and reactions. They often trigger political opinions, and many want to avoid the topic altogether. We do our best to approach this conversation with a “Biblical Worldview,” which means that we believe the Bible upholds, esteems, and celebrates the sanctity and sacredness of life.
We are convinced that God, the Creator of the universe, has imprinted upon every human being His divine image. The child in a mother’s womb, those who are born and live with physical challenges, the prisoner with a life sentence, the refugee fleeing a tyrannical dictator, the widow or single parent raising children on their own, the poor living on the streets, or the elderly facing a myriad of health complications ... all are created in God’s image and whose lives are deeply sacred. ALL human life is sacred because ALL human life bears our Creator’s image, and ALL life belongs to Him. Because we follow Jesus, we believe, in the words of my friend and fellow pastor, Alan Hannah, that “Following Jesus requires advocating for life in a culture of death.”
As you will read in the various resources below, every life has meaning because every life is created in the image of God. There are no exceptions. The image of God or the “imago Deo” makes us human in the first place. This is the beginning of the biblical or sacred worldview. God created and imprinted His image upon each person, giving dignity and value to every human life despite its stage of development.
These core beliefs compel us to seek to be comprehensively pro-life for the unborn, elderly, disabled, persecuted, immigrant, orphan, widowed, addicted, prisoner, the poor, and anyone oppressed or exploited by others. We see a difference between being “pro-infant” and “pro-life.” We don’t represent Jesus well when we advocate for a pro-life position but are silent in caring for kids in foster care, silent in providing support for widows, silent in and negligent in taking care of the elderly, silent about the protecting the abused, silent about sex-trafficking, silent about racism and standing for the marginalized, or silent about caring for refugees. We are convinced that Christ-followers should be concerned about all of these gospel-driven issues.
In our biblical understanding of the value of life ... when the life of any “image-bearer” is threatened, it is an insult to our Creator. Assaulting or enslaving another human being is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the reminder that we are created by and accountable to the one true God. We are a voice for the unborn because we understand life begins at conception. Once life is disregarded before birth, we have truly become a society that embodies a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” mentality. We know that these value of life issues are a spiritual battle, not a cultural one. Our struggle isn’t a political one; it’s a spiritual struggle between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom that Jesus came to establish.
The high value we place on all life comes from the cross of Jesus. It was there that our Lord fully put on display, one and for all, the value that He places on human life. We are all so valuable that God would become a human and pay the ultimate price so that we would have eternal life. For those who might be carrying some regret, remorse, shame, or guilt regarding these matters, we want you to know that the best news about Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection is that He offers grace and forgiveness if you have been affected by past actions against life. We’d consider it an honor to pray with you and get you connected to resources to help you in the process of seeking forgiveness, reconciliation, and recovery. Please feel free to reach out to Amie or me. We care and want to point you to resources that can help your journey.
May these sobering words ring in our hearts as we process the value of life ...
"Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to die; save them as they stagger to their death. Don’t excuse yourself by saying, 'Look, we didn’t know.' For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve." Proverbs 24:11-12 (NLT)
We are convinced that God, the Creator of the universe, has imprinted upon every human being His divine image. The child in a mother’s womb, those who are born and live with physical challenges, the prisoner with a life sentence, the refugee fleeing a tyrannical dictator, the widow or single parent raising children on their own, the poor living on the streets, or the elderly facing a myriad of health complications ... all are created in God’s image and whose lives are deeply sacred. ALL human life is sacred because ALL human life bears our Creator’s image, and ALL life belongs to Him. Because we follow Jesus, we believe, in the words of my friend and fellow pastor, Alan Hannah, that “Following Jesus requires advocating for life in a culture of death.”
As you will read in the various resources below, every life has meaning because every life is created in the image of God. There are no exceptions. The image of God or the “imago Deo” makes us human in the first place. This is the beginning of the biblical or sacred worldview. God created and imprinted His image upon each person, giving dignity and value to every human life despite its stage of development.
These core beliefs compel us to seek to be comprehensively pro-life for the unborn, elderly, disabled, persecuted, immigrant, orphan, widowed, addicted, prisoner, the poor, and anyone oppressed or exploited by others. We see a difference between being “pro-infant” and “pro-life.” We don’t represent Jesus well when we advocate for a pro-life position but are silent in caring for kids in foster care, silent in providing support for widows, silent in and negligent in taking care of the elderly, silent about the protecting the abused, silent about sex-trafficking, silent about racism and standing for the marginalized, or silent about caring for refugees. We are convinced that Christ-followers should be concerned about all of these gospel-driven issues.
In our biblical understanding of the value of life ... when the life of any “image-bearer” is threatened, it is an insult to our Creator. Assaulting or enslaving another human being is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the reminder that we are created by and accountable to the one true God. We are a voice for the unborn because we understand life begins at conception. Once life is disregarded before birth, we have truly become a society that embodies a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” mentality. We know that these value of life issues are a spiritual battle, not a cultural one. Our struggle isn’t a political one; it’s a spiritual struggle between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom that Jesus came to establish.
The high value we place on all life comes from the cross of Jesus. It was there that our Lord fully put on display, one and for all, the value that He places on human life. We are all so valuable that God would become a human and pay the ultimate price so that we would have eternal life. For those who might be carrying some regret, remorse, shame, or guilt regarding these matters, we want you to know that the best news about Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection is that He offers grace and forgiveness if you have been affected by past actions against life. We’d consider it an honor to pray with you and get you connected to resources to help you in the process of seeking forgiveness, reconciliation, and recovery. Please feel free to reach out to Amie or me. We care and want to point you to resources that can help your journey.
May these sobering words ring in our hearts as we process the value of life ...
"Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to die; save them as they stagger to their death. Don’t excuse yourself by saying, 'Look, we didn’t know.' For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve." Proverbs 24:11-12 (NLT)
As an Assemblies of God minister of the Gospel and a pastor of a local church I prayerfully uphold the convictions and sentiments put forth in these documents that are "position papers" of our cooperative fellowship. In addition to these resources I have collected various blog posts, letters, and writings from some pastors, authors, and church leaders I have learned from over the years.
SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: SUICIDE, PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE, AND EUTHANASIA
SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: SUICIDE, PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE, AND EUTHANASIA
Thoughts on Abortion
BY SCOTT SAULS | JUNE 24, 2021
I have never enjoyed publicizing my thoughts about the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. It’s a heated issue. To take one side or another is to invite what often ends up being contentious, fruitless debate.
I don’t enjoy stirring up a hornet’s nest. But my calling as a minister is to teach the word of God, whether in season or out of season, whether convenient or inconvenient, whether culturally acceptable or culturally offensive. More than I want to be popular, I need to be faithful.
My thoughts on abortion have been helped by several healthcare professionals, most of whom are “pro-life” and some of whom are “pro-choice,” including an open discussion and debate with a handful of abortion providers. If I am going to speak publicly on this issue, it is only fair that I should first hear directly from all the perspectives and filter out all potential caricatures.
I have done my homework. And, after studying the Scriptures and listening to scores of different perspectives, here are a few thoughts I would like to share.
What is the Core Issue?
I believe that the core issue in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is whose care matters most. Is it care for the mother or care for the child in her womb? I believe that the answer is yes.
In his letter to the early church, the Apostle James writes that we must show no partiality and reiterates what Jesus said was the greatest commandment in relation to our fellow human beings—to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (James 2:1, 8).
Here, James was addressing a problem he saw in the first century church. Partiality was being shown toward affluent, successful, famous people because everyone was trying to climb the social ladder. While these received VIP treatment in the church, the poor, marginalized, and weak were overlooked and pushed to the periphery. This, according to James, was wrong. In the church, every person is supposed to receive VIP treatment because every person, wealthy or poor, obscure or famous, strong or disabled, mother or infant, is a carrier of the divine imprint.
Every human bears God’s image.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly said, “There are no gradations in the image of God…God made us to live together as brothers (and sisters) and to respect the dignity and worth of every (hu)man.” He also said, quite rightly, that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
This is where the pro-life vs. pro-choice discussion breaks down. Neither side is known for honoring the dignity of every human in the equation. Furthermore, neither side is seen by the other as being truly and consistently pro-choice or pro-life. Although there are exceptions, in many instances the use of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can sound more euphemistic than honest.
Is “Pro-Choice” Honest Terminology?
For example, pro-life folks allege that pro-choice is dishonest terminology because only one person in the equation has a choice. The expectant mother has 100% decision making power and the child inside her has no power, no voice, and no ability to defend or advocate for her/himself. What’s more, any notion that every female should get to choose what she does with her own body breaks down, because half of pre-born children are female who are given no choice over what happens to their bodies.
Especially when abortion is used as a means of birth control (versus a much rarer, truly life-threatening situation such as ectopic pregnancy), “a woman’s right to choose” is also, in truth, a woman’s right to kill. This unspoken reality is hauntingly exposed by a pro-choice platform called “Opposing Personhood” (yes, I am quoting correctly here) aimed at “opposing all personhood bills and ballot initiatives” that affirm the personhood of pre-born children.
Is “Pro-Life” Honest Terminology?
On the other hand, pro-choice folks allege that pro-life is dishonest terminology. According to critics, the so-called pro-life position seems focused on only one kind of life. After an infant is born, pro-life people don’t seem to have much else to say. Pro-life messaging rarely acknowledges that more than 60% of women seeking elective abortion live alone and below the poverty line. In rarer cases, some have been raped or assaulted by a sick, older and stronger man in her family. Some are afraid because they lack adequate healthcare, they lack support from spouses, partners, or loved ones, or they are facing an at-risk pregnancy that threatens the viability of mother, child, or both. If pro-life people seem ambivalent about showing up for and helping solve these and other, complicated forms of crisis-pregnancy-related distress, their advocacy for unborn life loses credibility in the eyes of many.
Now, it is an indisputable fact that pro-life people, especially Christian ones, care more for their poor, distraught, and/or at-risk neighbors than the rest of the world combined. As secular journalist Nicholas Kristof has written in The New York Times, evangelical and Catholic believers are leading the world in mercy and justice efforts on virtually every front. This includes providing meaningful support to women facing a crisis pregnancy, as well as counseling for those who are facing shame, regret, and trauma after choosing to abort (one such organization, whose free counseling services are accessible in person and online, also led by a good friend of ours, is Avail).
But even where good work is being done, there can still be a perception that pro-life folks are passive about the very real distress that certain pregnant women face. Here is where they (we) must consider Jesus’ urging to “let our light shine before men that all may see (and thereby also gain access to and become beneficiaries of) our good works and glorify our father in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).
In Praise of “True Religion,” Which is Always Both / And
And so it goes. Both groups are right in advocating for fellow humans in a weak and distressed position. And both sides are challenged—whether in truth or perception—for advocating on behalf of mother or child versus advocating on behalf of mother and child. Wherever this is the case, there is a deficit of what James called “true religion,” which attends meaningfully to the needs of widows and orphans—to vulnerable women and children—in their affliction and distress (James 1:27).
If deep concern isn’t shown for both mother and child, James seems to be saying, then our religion is lopsided. Until we become both/and on this issue, our religion falls short of being true.
The “Quality of Life” vs. the “Value of Life”
Pro life folks are compelled by the words of James who wrote, “He who said ‘do not commit adultery’ also said ‘do not murder’” (James 2:11). If only people would abstain from unmarried sex and stop murdering, the thinking goes, then the abortion problem would be solved.
For some, this raises the question of whether terminating a pregnancy is murder. Can it be considered merciful in certain situations to terminate? Is there something to be said for sparing mother and/or child from public embarrassment, economic burden, disability, and other pains that can sometimes come with carrying a pregnancy to term?
Two major Old Testament figures wrestled over this very question. Both wondered if life is worth living if one’s quality of life is burdensome.
Job was a terror victim who lost all of his assets, his business, his wife’s respect, and ten children. Jeremiah was a prophet living in exile, a bereaved widower, and hated by virtually everyone that God had called him to love and serve.
Both men made the same statement: “Cursed be the day that I was born.”
Jeremiah took the thought further when he said, “Cursed be the day when my mother bore me…Cursed be the man who brought the news to my Father, because he did not kill me in the womb…why was I born to see toil and sorrow and spend my days in shame?” (Jeremiah 20:14-18).
Pro-choice advocates might say, “See? Even one of God’s prophets said that he should have been aborted!” That is to say, they might understand Jeremiah’s words as a quality of life argument. If inordinate suffering is probable, says the quality of life argument, then it is more merciful and just to terminate life rather than it is to sustain it.
But if Jeremiah or Job truly believed this, each would have followed through with the thought and taken his own life, yes? If the merciful and just thing to do with a life wrought by endless suffering and sorrow is to end the life and thereby end the suffering, why did neither of these men take matters into his own hands? I think it is because in cursing the day they were born, both of these men of God were venting their raw emotions—emotions that were real but that they also knew were not true.
Deep down, in spite of expressing a desire to not go on living, both Job and Jeremiah understood that the chief deciding factor is not the quality of life but rather the value of life. Because every human bears the image of God, s/he is of inestimable value.
Jeremiah did not take his life in his own hands, no doubt because God had declared to him years before, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you…” (Jeremiah 1:5).
Similar thoughts are expressed elsewhere in Scripture. “You formed my inmost parts,” the Psalmist prays, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13, 16).
“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb,” it is said about John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).
The Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a born infant or toddler (yeled) is the same Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a fetus.
When Does Personhood Begin?
The testimony of Scripture is unequivocal that from the moment that sperm and egg unite, you have a new living soul and carrier of the divine imprint. An embryo is never spoken of as a potential life, but is only and always spoken of as a life. Personhood begins at, and continues on from, the moment of conception.
Even the abortion provider I referenced above recognizes this. In the course of conversation, he said that every abortion he has performed over the years has made him feel sick to his stomach. When his grandson with Down Syndrome was born, he resolved that he would never abort a child with Down Syndrome again.
He went on to say that he believes human life begins at conception, and that terminating a pregnancy ends human life. These were his words, not mine. While many (myself included) are deeply opposed to the doctor’s willingness to perform abortions on demand in spite of his beliefs about life in the womb, at least he is honest enough to admit that as long as he provides abortions, he will be choosing to live in moral inconsistency.
Some Moral Dilemmas to Consider
Some other relevant things I learned recently:
> Approximately 2 million couples in America alone are on adoption waiting lists.
> The abortion industry is very profitable. People and organizations make a lot of money terminating pregnancies, thus incentivizing providers not to make abortion rare.
> 66% of abortions are performed on the 30% minority of Blacks and Hispanics. Notably, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in part for the purpose of exterminating Black babies. Historically and today, there are significant racial implications concerning abortion.
> A disturblingly disproportionate percentage of children with Down Syndrome are aborted, even though people with Down are known to be among the happiest people groups in the world.
> 98% of abortions are purely elective due to an unwanted pregnancy in which the mother’s health or life is not at risk.
> 90% of women considering an abortion who see a sonogram choose to keep the child.
> At conception, the full set of DNA is present—23 genes from the mother, and 23 from the father. Scientifically, an embryo is human from the start.
As we can see, there are various and troubling moral dilemmas for those on the side of “choice.” The question is sometimes raised, how is it even possible, in the name of justice, to advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion when the weakest human being in the equation is left without a choice and without a defense? Justice and mercy, to be truly just and merciful, demand that the most vulnerable, powerless, defenseless, and voiceless ones receive the strongest defense, advocacy, and protection.
As James writes, “There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy” (James 2:13).
This is no small thing. There is much at stake.
The So-Called “1-2%” Must Not be Dismissed or Devalued
Whereas pro-life folks believe that pro-choice folks support violence against children in the womb, pro-choice folks believe that pro-life folks can be indifferent, even cold, toward mothers in distress. Even though, as highlighted above, 98% of abortions occur when the mother’s life or health is not at risk, the remaining 2% is significant, representing roughly 10,000 mothers and children in crisis. Where there is greater complexity due to a crisis situation, pro-life folks must do more than merely advocate for (or now, celebrate and move on from) anti-abortion legislation.
Anyone can cast a vote. Anyone can share their pro-life views on Facebook or Twitter. But do pro-life people think they have done justly and loved mercy by merely working to get the law on their side?
Pro-life folks, too, must grapple with the imperative to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Loving your neighbor calls for showing mercy, which requires showing up meaningfully and supportively for women and children in distress. Otherwise, we are fooling ourselves. We may be pro-infant in theory, but this does not mean we are pro-life in the truest and most comprehensive sense of the term.
To show mercy is to help bear the burdens that afflicted people carry. Mercy puts itself in the shoes of those who are ashamed, alone, and scared. What if it was us or our loved ones facing an unexpected or crisis pregnancy?
What if we were the unmarried woman living in poverty?
What if we were the college student who was a victim of date rape?
What if we were the woman with a husband or a boyfriend demanding, “Take care of it, or else…?”
What if we were the teenage girl whose parents have made it clear that they will not support the birth or adoption route, but will only support termination, “otherwise she is on her own?”
What if we were the mother who has been told that the child has zero chance of surviving outside the womb, or of surviving the pregnancy itself?
These are real situations.
A friend of mine who is a pro-life gynecologist, who has never and will never perform an abortion, relayed an in-real-life patient situation to me that was devastating. A young pregnant girl came in to his office distressed because a few thugs decided that they would force her into a private room and then, one after the other, take advantage of her ten year old body.
You read correctly. The girl was ten.
If you are pro-life, for a moment put yourself in the shoes of this girl or in the shoes of her parents. Is it enough to merely achieve pro-life legislation to protect the unborn child? Or must something be added to the legislation to ensure mercy and justice for all? What about the child who is carrying that baby in her underdeveloped uterus? Indeed, something that is comprehensive and “womb to tomb” is called for.
Referencing James again, it would not be enough to simply look at this ten-year old girl and her parents and say, “You shall not murder. Now that we have that settled, go in peace, be warmed and filled—Take care of yourselves while I go about my own life”—without offering to come alongside them to help bear their varied, complex, and gut-wrenching burdens (James 2:16)?
This is what the scribes and Pharisees were known for doing. They demanded that people keep God’s law…don’t commit adultery, don’t murder, and so on…but they would not lift a finger to help people carry the burden (Luke 11:46).
Said another way, faith without works is dead.
“There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy.”
The Kingdom of God: Becoming Comprehensively Pro-Life
I believe that the only way forward is to adopt a Kingdom vision that includes but also goes far beyond the civic vision on this issue. If we continue to treat this as nothing more than a political issue, we will miss an important Kingdom opportunity.
What might such a Kingdom opportunity look like?
The Pax Romana can teach us something about this. Pax Romana or “Roman Peace” was a euphemistic (dishonest) term coined by the people in power during the first and second century Roman oppression. Social Darwinism was the rule of the day, in which the terms of justice were decided by the powerful, who made certain that the terms of “justice” privileged them. Those in a weaker position had no choice but to live according to those terms.
One historian described the Pax Romana as a coerced compliance in which all opponents had been beaten down and had lost the ability to resist, and in which the weak and afflicted had no legal protection.
As in Hitler’s Germany, certain classes of humans were seen as a drain on society and therefore disposable. Widows, the infirm, people with special needs, the poor, and unwanted children (especially girls)…all were vulnerable and none had the assurance that their human rights would be honored.
Archaeologists discovered a letter written by a traveling Roman businessman to his pregnant wife. Unable to make it back home in time for the child’s birth, he wrote to her that if the child is a boy, she should keep it. If it is a girl, she should throw it out.
In came the people of Jesus. Compelled by a Kingdom vision, “No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold…and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32-35).
In ancient Rome, people of the Way said to the Roman Caesar something similar to what Mother Teresa once said at a National Prayer Breakfast to a sitting U.S. President:
“Please stop aborting your babies and give them to me.”
This is also what the early Christians said to the Roman Caesar. “We will take care of your sick. We will feed your hungry. We will shelter your widows. We will adopt and raise your children with special needs and disabilities. We will take care of your pregnant mothers.”
By the third century A.D., the moral and social fabric of Rome was transformed. The Roman world was “infected by love,” as one historian has said. Even the Emperor Julian, famously known and feared for his murderous disdain for Christians, conceded in a letter that the growth of the “Christian sect” had gotten out of control because Christians took better care of Rome’s afflicted than Rome did.
What could this look like for us? I think I will leave you with an excerpt from a doctor, also a Christian, because I cannot find a way to improve on his words:
The centerpiece of our life and faith is the One who so loved us that He died for us…Where does that leave us? First, don’t murder. This is true for both sides of this issue. While exerting one’s autonomy and taking of innocent life in abortion is clearly wrong and disallowed by Scripture, so is being vitriolic and hating others on the other side of an issue. Second, do unto others as you would want for them to do unto you—assuming your positions were reversed. Imagine that you are the one making a decision on the other side. As we fight about life in utero, let’s not forget the person standing in front of us.
Build relationship and community. There is enough hurt to go around…I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that God is the Giver of life. As a Christian, I want to support a politic that does give preference to Biblical views on this matter, because I believe that they make for flourishing of humans. I also must believe that government, Biblically speaking, must make room for dissent.
Wouldn’t it be great if communities existed where ANY mother, married or unmarried, would feel welcomed and loved and known that her needs and the needs of her child would be attended to? If the Church does what the Church is called to do, then there will be no poor or disregarded or demeaned in our midst.
In short, I would rather build community and dialogue and live in a society where abortion, due to the love ready to be given to any child and any mother, is not merely illegal…
…but unthinkable.
Scott also wrote a post on JULY 14, 2022 entitle Roe v. Wade Has Been Overturned…What Now? that offers much of the same content as the above article but it further adds to his current thinking.
I have never enjoyed publicizing my thoughts about the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. It’s a heated issue. To take one side or another is to invite what often ends up being contentious, fruitless debate.
I don’t enjoy stirring up a hornet’s nest. But my calling as a minister is to teach the word of God, whether in season or out of season, whether convenient or inconvenient, whether culturally acceptable or culturally offensive. More than I want to be popular, I need to be faithful.
My thoughts on abortion have been helped by several healthcare professionals, most of whom are “pro-life” and some of whom are “pro-choice,” including an open discussion and debate with a handful of abortion providers. If I am going to speak publicly on this issue, it is only fair that I should first hear directly from all the perspectives and filter out all potential caricatures.
I have done my homework. And, after studying the Scriptures and listening to scores of different perspectives, here are a few thoughts I would like to share.
What is the Core Issue?
I believe that the core issue in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is whose care matters most. Is it care for the mother or care for the child in her womb? I believe that the answer is yes.
In his letter to the early church, the Apostle James writes that we must show no partiality and reiterates what Jesus said was the greatest commandment in relation to our fellow human beings—to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (James 2:1, 8).
Here, James was addressing a problem he saw in the first century church. Partiality was being shown toward affluent, successful, famous people because everyone was trying to climb the social ladder. While these received VIP treatment in the church, the poor, marginalized, and weak were overlooked and pushed to the periphery. This, according to James, was wrong. In the church, every person is supposed to receive VIP treatment because every person, wealthy or poor, obscure or famous, strong or disabled, mother or infant, is a carrier of the divine imprint.
Every human bears God’s image.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly said, “There are no gradations in the image of God…God made us to live together as brothers (and sisters) and to respect the dignity and worth of every (hu)man.” He also said, quite rightly, that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
This is where the pro-life vs. pro-choice discussion breaks down. Neither side is known for honoring the dignity of every human in the equation. Furthermore, neither side is seen by the other as being truly and consistently pro-choice or pro-life. Although there are exceptions, in many instances the use of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can sound more euphemistic than honest.
Is “Pro-Choice” Honest Terminology?
For example, pro-life folks allege that pro-choice is dishonest terminology because only one person in the equation has a choice. The expectant mother has 100% decision making power and the child inside her has no power, no voice, and no ability to defend or advocate for her/himself. What’s more, any notion that every female should get to choose what she does with her own body breaks down, because half of pre-born children are female who are given no choice over what happens to their bodies.
Especially when abortion is used as a means of birth control (versus a much rarer, truly life-threatening situation such as ectopic pregnancy), “a woman’s right to choose” is also, in truth, a woman’s right to kill. This unspoken reality is hauntingly exposed by a pro-choice platform called “Opposing Personhood” (yes, I am quoting correctly here) aimed at “opposing all personhood bills and ballot initiatives” that affirm the personhood of pre-born children.
Is “Pro-Life” Honest Terminology?
On the other hand, pro-choice folks allege that pro-life is dishonest terminology. According to critics, the so-called pro-life position seems focused on only one kind of life. After an infant is born, pro-life people don’t seem to have much else to say. Pro-life messaging rarely acknowledges that more than 60% of women seeking elective abortion live alone and below the poverty line. In rarer cases, some have been raped or assaulted by a sick, older and stronger man in her family. Some are afraid because they lack adequate healthcare, they lack support from spouses, partners, or loved ones, or they are facing an at-risk pregnancy that threatens the viability of mother, child, or both. If pro-life people seem ambivalent about showing up for and helping solve these and other, complicated forms of crisis-pregnancy-related distress, their advocacy for unborn life loses credibility in the eyes of many.
Now, it is an indisputable fact that pro-life people, especially Christian ones, care more for their poor, distraught, and/or at-risk neighbors than the rest of the world combined. As secular journalist Nicholas Kristof has written in The New York Times, evangelical and Catholic believers are leading the world in mercy and justice efforts on virtually every front. This includes providing meaningful support to women facing a crisis pregnancy, as well as counseling for those who are facing shame, regret, and trauma after choosing to abort (one such organization, whose free counseling services are accessible in person and online, also led by a good friend of ours, is Avail).
But even where good work is being done, there can still be a perception that pro-life folks are passive about the very real distress that certain pregnant women face. Here is where they (we) must consider Jesus’ urging to “let our light shine before men that all may see (and thereby also gain access to and become beneficiaries of) our good works and glorify our father in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).
In Praise of “True Religion,” Which is Always Both / And
And so it goes. Both groups are right in advocating for fellow humans in a weak and distressed position. And both sides are challenged—whether in truth or perception—for advocating on behalf of mother or child versus advocating on behalf of mother and child. Wherever this is the case, there is a deficit of what James called “true religion,” which attends meaningfully to the needs of widows and orphans—to vulnerable women and children—in their affliction and distress (James 1:27).
If deep concern isn’t shown for both mother and child, James seems to be saying, then our religion is lopsided. Until we become both/and on this issue, our religion falls short of being true.
The “Quality of Life” vs. the “Value of Life”
Pro life folks are compelled by the words of James who wrote, “He who said ‘do not commit adultery’ also said ‘do not murder’” (James 2:11). If only people would abstain from unmarried sex and stop murdering, the thinking goes, then the abortion problem would be solved.
For some, this raises the question of whether terminating a pregnancy is murder. Can it be considered merciful in certain situations to terminate? Is there something to be said for sparing mother and/or child from public embarrassment, economic burden, disability, and other pains that can sometimes come with carrying a pregnancy to term?
Two major Old Testament figures wrestled over this very question. Both wondered if life is worth living if one’s quality of life is burdensome.
Job was a terror victim who lost all of his assets, his business, his wife’s respect, and ten children. Jeremiah was a prophet living in exile, a bereaved widower, and hated by virtually everyone that God had called him to love and serve.
Both men made the same statement: “Cursed be the day that I was born.”
Jeremiah took the thought further when he said, “Cursed be the day when my mother bore me…Cursed be the man who brought the news to my Father, because he did not kill me in the womb…why was I born to see toil and sorrow and spend my days in shame?” (Jeremiah 20:14-18).
Pro-choice advocates might say, “See? Even one of God’s prophets said that he should have been aborted!” That is to say, they might understand Jeremiah’s words as a quality of life argument. If inordinate suffering is probable, says the quality of life argument, then it is more merciful and just to terminate life rather than it is to sustain it.
But if Jeremiah or Job truly believed this, each would have followed through with the thought and taken his own life, yes? If the merciful and just thing to do with a life wrought by endless suffering and sorrow is to end the life and thereby end the suffering, why did neither of these men take matters into his own hands? I think it is because in cursing the day they were born, both of these men of God were venting their raw emotions—emotions that were real but that they also knew were not true.
Deep down, in spite of expressing a desire to not go on living, both Job and Jeremiah understood that the chief deciding factor is not the quality of life but rather the value of life. Because every human bears the image of God, s/he is of inestimable value.
Jeremiah did not take his life in his own hands, no doubt because God had declared to him years before, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you…” (Jeremiah 1:5).
Similar thoughts are expressed elsewhere in Scripture. “You formed my inmost parts,” the Psalmist prays, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13, 16).
“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb,” it is said about John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).
The Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a born infant or toddler (yeled) is the same Old Testament Hebrew word used in reference to a fetus.
When Does Personhood Begin?
The testimony of Scripture is unequivocal that from the moment that sperm and egg unite, you have a new living soul and carrier of the divine imprint. An embryo is never spoken of as a potential life, but is only and always spoken of as a life. Personhood begins at, and continues on from, the moment of conception.
Even the abortion provider I referenced above recognizes this. In the course of conversation, he said that every abortion he has performed over the years has made him feel sick to his stomach. When his grandson with Down Syndrome was born, he resolved that he would never abort a child with Down Syndrome again.
He went on to say that he believes human life begins at conception, and that terminating a pregnancy ends human life. These were his words, not mine. While many (myself included) are deeply opposed to the doctor’s willingness to perform abortions on demand in spite of his beliefs about life in the womb, at least he is honest enough to admit that as long as he provides abortions, he will be choosing to live in moral inconsistency.
Some Moral Dilemmas to Consider
Some other relevant things I learned recently:
> Approximately 2 million couples in America alone are on adoption waiting lists.
> The abortion industry is very profitable. People and organizations make a lot of money terminating pregnancies, thus incentivizing providers not to make abortion rare.
> 66% of abortions are performed on the 30% minority of Blacks and Hispanics. Notably, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in part for the purpose of exterminating Black babies. Historically and today, there are significant racial implications concerning abortion.
> A disturblingly disproportionate percentage of children with Down Syndrome are aborted, even though people with Down are known to be among the happiest people groups in the world.
> 98% of abortions are purely elective due to an unwanted pregnancy in which the mother’s health or life is not at risk.
> 90% of women considering an abortion who see a sonogram choose to keep the child.
> At conception, the full set of DNA is present—23 genes from the mother, and 23 from the father. Scientifically, an embryo is human from the start.
As we can see, there are various and troubling moral dilemmas for those on the side of “choice.” The question is sometimes raised, how is it even possible, in the name of justice, to advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion when the weakest human being in the equation is left without a choice and without a defense? Justice and mercy, to be truly just and merciful, demand that the most vulnerable, powerless, defenseless, and voiceless ones receive the strongest defense, advocacy, and protection.
As James writes, “There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy” (James 2:13).
This is no small thing. There is much at stake.
The So-Called “1-2%” Must Not be Dismissed or Devalued
Whereas pro-life folks believe that pro-choice folks support violence against children in the womb, pro-choice folks believe that pro-life folks can be indifferent, even cold, toward mothers in distress. Even though, as highlighted above, 98% of abortions occur when the mother’s life or health is not at risk, the remaining 2% is significant, representing roughly 10,000 mothers and children in crisis. Where there is greater complexity due to a crisis situation, pro-life folks must do more than merely advocate for (or now, celebrate and move on from) anti-abortion legislation.
Anyone can cast a vote. Anyone can share their pro-life views on Facebook or Twitter. But do pro-life people think they have done justly and loved mercy by merely working to get the law on their side?
Pro-life folks, too, must grapple with the imperative to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Loving your neighbor calls for showing mercy, which requires showing up meaningfully and supportively for women and children in distress. Otherwise, we are fooling ourselves. We may be pro-infant in theory, but this does not mean we are pro-life in the truest and most comprehensive sense of the term.
To show mercy is to help bear the burdens that afflicted people carry. Mercy puts itself in the shoes of those who are ashamed, alone, and scared. What if it was us or our loved ones facing an unexpected or crisis pregnancy?
What if we were the unmarried woman living in poverty?
What if we were the college student who was a victim of date rape?
What if we were the woman with a husband or a boyfriend demanding, “Take care of it, or else…?”
What if we were the teenage girl whose parents have made it clear that they will not support the birth or adoption route, but will only support termination, “otherwise she is on her own?”
What if we were the mother who has been told that the child has zero chance of surviving outside the womb, or of surviving the pregnancy itself?
These are real situations.
A friend of mine who is a pro-life gynecologist, who has never and will never perform an abortion, relayed an in-real-life patient situation to me that was devastating. A young pregnant girl came in to his office distressed because a few thugs decided that they would force her into a private room and then, one after the other, take advantage of her ten year old body.
You read correctly. The girl was ten.
If you are pro-life, for a moment put yourself in the shoes of this girl or in the shoes of her parents. Is it enough to merely achieve pro-life legislation to protect the unborn child? Or must something be added to the legislation to ensure mercy and justice for all? What about the child who is carrying that baby in her underdeveloped uterus? Indeed, something that is comprehensive and “womb to tomb” is called for.
Referencing James again, it would not be enough to simply look at this ten-year old girl and her parents and say, “You shall not murder. Now that we have that settled, go in peace, be warmed and filled—Take care of yourselves while I go about my own life”—without offering to come alongside them to help bear their varied, complex, and gut-wrenching burdens (James 2:16)?
This is what the scribes and Pharisees were known for doing. They demanded that people keep God’s law…don’t commit adultery, don’t murder, and so on…but they would not lift a finger to help people carry the burden (Luke 11:46).
Said another way, faith without works is dead.
“There will be judgment without mercy to those who show no mercy.”
The Kingdom of God: Becoming Comprehensively Pro-Life
I believe that the only way forward is to adopt a Kingdom vision that includes but also goes far beyond the civic vision on this issue. If we continue to treat this as nothing more than a political issue, we will miss an important Kingdom opportunity.
What might such a Kingdom opportunity look like?
The Pax Romana can teach us something about this. Pax Romana or “Roman Peace” was a euphemistic (dishonest) term coined by the people in power during the first and second century Roman oppression. Social Darwinism was the rule of the day, in which the terms of justice were decided by the powerful, who made certain that the terms of “justice” privileged them. Those in a weaker position had no choice but to live according to those terms.
One historian described the Pax Romana as a coerced compliance in which all opponents had been beaten down and had lost the ability to resist, and in which the weak and afflicted had no legal protection.
As in Hitler’s Germany, certain classes of humans were seen as a drain on society and therefore disposable. Widows, the infirm, people with special needs, the poor, and unwanted children (especially girls)…all were vulnerable and none had the assurance that their human rights would be honored.
Archaeologists discovered a letter written by a traveling Roman businessman to his pregnant wife. Unable to make it back home in time for the child’s birth, he wrote to her that if the child is a boy, she should keep it. If it is a girl, she should throw it out.
In came the people of Jesus. Compelled by a Kingdom vision, “No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold…and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32-35).
In ancient Rome, people of the Way said to the Roman Caesar something similar to what Mother Teresa once said at a National Prayer Breakfast to a sitting U.S. President:
“Please stop aborting your babies and give them to me.”
This is also what the early Christians said to the Roman Caesar. “We will take care of your sick. We will feed your hungry. We will shelter your widows. We will adopt and raise your children with special needs and disabilities. We will take care of your pregnant mothers.”
By the third century A.D., the moral and social fabric of Rome was transformed. The Roman world was “infected by love,” as one historian has said. Even the Emperor Julian, famously known and feared for his murderous disdain for Christians, conceded in a letter that the growth of the “Christian sect” had gotten out of control because Christians took better care of Rome’s afflicted than Rome did.
What could this look like for us? I think I will leave you with an excerpt from a doctor, also a Christian, because I cannot find a way to improve on his words:
The centerpiece of our life and faith is the One who so loved us that He died for us…Where does that leave us? First, don’t murder. This is true for both sides of this issue. While exerting one’s autonomy and taking of innocent life in abortion is clearly wrong and disallowed by Scripture, so is being vitriolic and hating others on the other side of an issue. Second, do unto others as you would want for them to do unto you—assuming your positions were reversed. Imagine that you are the one making a decision on the other side. As we fight about life in utero, let’s not forget the person standing in front of us.
Build relationship and community. There is enough hurt to go around…I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that God is the Giver of life. As a Christian, I want to support a politic that does give preference to Biblical views on this matter, because I believe that they make for flourishing of humans. I also must believe that government, Biblically speaking, must make room for dissent.
Wouldn’t it be great if communities existed where ANY mother, married or unmarried, would feel welcomed and loved and known that her needs and the needs of her child would be attended to? If the Church does what the Church is called to do, then there will be no poor or disregarded or demeaned in our midst.
In short, I would rather build community and dialogue and live in a society where abortion, due to the love ready to be given to any child and any mother, is not merely illegal…
…but unthinkable.
Scott also wrote a post on JULY 14, 2022 entitle Roe v. Wade Has Been Overturned…What Now? that offers much of the same content as the above article but it further adds to his current thinking.
A PASTORAL LETTER ON ROE V WADE
DEAR CHURCH OF THE CITY FAMILY,
As you are by now aware, this week, after 50 years of legal standing, Roe vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. This ruling has effectively pushed abortion rights back to the state level. It is hard to put into words how monumental and contested this decision will be in our larger cultural debates.
That being said, discerning how to follow Jesus well in a Post-Roe world requires a biblical, thoughtful, and compassionate response around the issue of abortion and a decision of this magnitude.
It is important to note that this is not just a legal ruling, an ethical or moral decision, or just a theological position. It has profound personal implications that touch the lives of millions of people that we live beside, work with, and worship next to week by week. Over the last 17 years, Christy and I have cared for and pastored dozens of women who have had abortions, many for whom this has been the most significant and painful event of their lives. This means the implications of this decision are not just about the culture out there. This is about our church family, trying to follow Jesus in a broken world, and how we respond to many in pain.
So, how should we respond in light of a decision like this?
First, we should note that Christians have historically placed a sacred value on children, born and unborn. In the ancient world, children were seen as commodities for family gain, and nothing more than property to be disposed of if unwanted.
In defiant resistance to this idea, Christians stated that children had inherent value in the eyes of God, being made in His image, and formed in the womb according to His marvelous design. The people of God in the Old Testament were strongly condemned by God when they used children the ways the pagan nations did, offering them in child sacrifice, or handing them over to idolatry. In the New Testament, children were shown counter-cultural value as being members of the Christian community, capable of both response and participation.
The scriptures also show God miraculously involved in the life of the womb, from Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Mary, the mother of our Lord. God makes the claim that He is Lord of all creation, and that includes what happens with our bodies. Scripture teaches that our bodies belong to God, not ourselves, and our thinking about our bodies should not be framed around cultural rights, but biblical responsibility to honor God with our bodies. This view of the way of Jesus means that discipleship includes how we think about sexuality, the creation of life, the family, and the kind of world that honors God’s design and creational intent.
The early church also had a distinct theological value for children, and is clear in what the early disciples taught. For example, The Didache states, “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.” Tertullian (A.D. 197), while responding to claims that Christians sacrificed babies wrote, “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.”
However, this teaching did not lead to judgement, but to deep compassion as disfigured children from failed abortions were adopted and cared for by followers of Jesus. Children given to “exposure” or infanticide were cared for and adopted by Christians and taken into their care. Orphanages sprung up, often run and funded by Christians to care for unwanted children in the Greco Roman world. Christians did not just believe life mattered, they showed it with their actions in category defying ways that have echoed through the centuries down to us.
The church has had a consistent witness for thousands of years that life begins in the womb, all children, born and unborn, are sacred and the bear the image of God, our bodies belong to God, and it is the task of the church to cherish and value its youngest members.
So, when a decision that overturns abortion is given in our land, followers of Jesus should be glad that precious lives will be saved, and that God-given life will be held in higher regard. This will make for a more ethical and just society, for us, and the unborn generation to come.
However, though the church has had a consistent vision of the sacredness of life, it has at times failed to live up to that vision in a holistic manner. The church has at times moralized where it should have empathized, and sermonized where it should have sacrificed. In Matthew 23:4-5 Jesus harshest rebuke was offered to the Pharisees who, “Tied up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
This is not a time for a pharisaical victory lap. This is not a time to simply lift a finger. This is a time for discipleship, generosity, grace, and putting our faith into action. The church is at its best when it cares about life, not just birth. When it has a consistent whole life ethic that cares about Creation and the world God has given us to steward, concern for gun violence and the horrific killing of innocent children in the classrooms of America, and care for the poor that takes into account the crushing conditions that make many feel like they have no other option but to have an abortion. This is a moment for a fresh vision of what a robust and consistent Christian ethic of life looks like, and a call to embody radical discipleship and sacrifice in our broken and hurting world.
We should seek to support women caught in these kinds of painful situations by giving and serving the many organizations that love and serve women who feel like they have no other options. We should understand the real cost of parenting a child, and move beyond the horizon of our own concern to be the family of God to them by opening our hearts, homes, wallets, tables, and schedules to care for the least of these.
Our love must take on action as John reminds us, in 1 John 3:16-18. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”
This kind of whole life vision will be dismissed by many, misunderstood by some, and condemned by others, but it is something we are called to courageously hold with humble conviction. It is also something I believe our church has sought to do over the years, and hope we will continue to excel in during the years ahead.
Secondly, we must also guard our hearts against political ideology, and reaffirm our commitment to the Lordship of Jesus and to seeking His Kingdom first.
When the Supreme court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, many conservatives decried the Court while progressives wept tears of joy in the streets. Now many progressives weep, while conservatives sing the Courts praises. It goes to show that rulings come and go, Justices come and go, even nations come and go, but as followers of Jesus, we must keep our eyes on things above and not over identify with human systems or political parties for the sake of our convictions. This kind of idolatrous hope that puts its faith in a politician or a party has done tremendous damage to our witness these last few years, and will take decades of humble and costly discipleship to restore.
As Dr Gerald Sittser says, “Power at the expense of the gospel is not a power the church should ever seek.”
As Augustine noted in his book “The City of God”, we are citizens of two kingdoms, the city of man, and the city of God, and though there is much common grace in the world, and we are called to work for Gods Kingdom where we can, as our ultimate hope is in the city of God, not the city of man. He wrote, “The earthly city glories in itself, the Heavenly City glories in the Lord.” For some Americans this feels like victory, for others defeat, but for followers of Jesus it is a reminder that we ultimately work and long for another kingdom beyond this temporary one, where there will be no more death, or sorrow, or crying, and all tears will be wiped away, including the tears of abortion. We put our trust in the King of that heavenly city and glory only in the Lord.
Finally, we must be a champion of women, all women, as Jesus taught us by His life and witness in the gospels. This is a time to affirm the biblical vision of the dignity and worth of women in the sight of the Lord. I can’t image the sense of anxiety many women must be feeling, as deeply personal, and complicated feelings rise in these uncertain times. Women’s rights can often be nothing more than political talking points, bantered around for votes and endorsements by political strategists, who care more about being elected than the people they represent. However, Jesus did not treat women that way, and those who follow Him must not either.
As Catholic social activist and journalist Dorothy Day so powerfully noted, “Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.”
The church, our church, must be a place of hope and healing for the weary women in our world. Weary of proving their worth, weary of shame for their mistakes, weary of wondering if there is truly a safe space for them to flourish in the world. Jesus created space like that, and we must too.
Who can forget His love for Mary, creating space for her to sit at his feet and learn as a disciple? Who can forget His compassion for the woman caught in adultery, who he did not condemn but freed to sin no more? Who can forget His defense of Mary when she broke the bottle of perfume giving all that she had? It was a woman who stayed the cross, faithful while the male disciples fled, and women who first witnessed the resurrection and preached of the good news to the apostles?
We cannot forget, and as a church family, we must embody recognition and honor for women today.
There is much more that needs to be said, but I felt like it was important to respond to the historic events of this past week and give you my pastoral perspective.
You may agree with me, or disagree, but I want you to know, we will continue to be a church that seeks to follow Jesus with category defying love, cares about life as historically taught and shown in the scriptures, loves and empowers women, and chooses the life that Jesus sets before us in these confusing times. I hope you will join us.
Much love and prayerful concern,
Pastor Jon Tyson
As you are by now aware, this week, after 50 years of legal standing, Roe vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. This ruling has effectively pushed abortion rights back to the state level. It is hard to put into words how monumental and contested this decision will be in our larger cultural debates.
That being said, discerning how to follow Jesus well in a Post-Roe world requires a biblical, thoughtful, and compassionate response around the issue of abortion and a decision of this magnitude.
It is important to note that this is not just a legal ruling, an ethical or moral decision, or just a theological position. It has profound personal implications that touch the lives of millions of people that we live beside, work with, and worship next to week by week. Over the last 17 years, Christy and I have cared for and pastored dozens of women who have had abortions, many for whom this has been the most significant and painful event of their lives. This means the implications of this decision are not just about the culture out there. This is about our church family, trying to follow Jesus in a broken world, and how we respond to many in pain.
So, how should we respond in light of a decision like this?
First, we should note that Christians have historically placed a sacred value on children, born and unborn. In the ancient world, children were seen as commodities for family gain, and nothing more than property to be disposed of if unwanted.
In defiant resistance to this idea, Christians stated that children had inherent value in the eyes of God, being made in His image, and formed in the womb according to His marvelous design. The people of God in the Old Testament were strongly condemned by God when they used children the ways the pagan nations did, offering them in child sacrifice, or handing them over to idolatry. In the New Testament, children were shown counter-cultural value as being members of the Christian community, capable of both response and participation.
The scriptures also show God miraculously involved in the life of the womb, from Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Mary, the mother of our Lord. God makes the claim that He is Lord of all creation, and that includes what happens with our bodies. Scripture teaches that our bodies belong to God, not ourselves, and our thinking about our bodies should not be framed around cultural rights, but biblical responsibility to honor God with our bodies. This view of the way of Jesus means that discipleship includes how we think about sexuality, the creation of life, the family, and the kind of world that honors God’s design and creational intent.
The early church also had a distinct theological value for children, and is clear in what the early disciples taught. For example, The Didache states, “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.” Tertullian (A.D. 197), while responding to claims that Christians sacrificed babies wrote, “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.”
However, this teaching did not lead to judgement, but to deep compassion as disfigured children from failed abortions were adopted and cared for by followers of Jesus. Children given to “exposure” or infanticide were cared for and adopted by Christians and taken into their care. Orphanages sprung up, often run and funded by Christians to care for unwanted children in the Greco Roman world. Christians did not just believe life mattered, they showed it with their actions in category defying ways that have echoed through the centuries down to us.
The church has had a consistent witness for thousands of years that life begins in the womb, all children, born and unborn, are sacred and the bear the image of God, our bodies belong to God, and it is the task of the church to cherish and value its youngest members.
So, when a decision that overturns abortion is given in our land, followers of Jesus should be glad that precious lives will be saved, and that God-given life will be held in higher regard. This will make for a more ethical and just society, for us, and the unborn generation to come.
However, though the church has had a consistent vision of the sacredness of life, it has at times failed to live up to that vision in a holistic manner. The church has at times moralized where it should have empathized, and sermonized where it should have sacrificed. In Matthew 23:4-5 Jesus harshest rebuke was offered to the Pharisees who, “Tied up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
This is not a time for a pharisaical victory lap. This is not a time to simply lift a finger. This is a time for discipleship, generosity, grace, and putting our faith into action. The church is at its best when it cares about life, not just birth. When it has a consistent whole life ethic that cares about Creation and the world God has given us to steward, concern for gun violence and the horrific killing of innocent children in the classrooms of America, and care for the poor that takes into account the crushing conditions that make many feel like they have no other option but to have an abortion. This is a moment for a fresh vision of what a robust and consistent Christian ethic of life looks like, and a call to embody radical discipleship and sacrifice in our broken and hurting world.
We should seek to support women caught in these kinds of painful situations by giving and serving the many organizations that love and serve women who feel like they have no other options. We should understand the real cost of parenting a child, and move beyond the horizon of our own concern to be the family of God to them by opening our hearts, homes, wallets, tables, and schedules to care for the least of these.
Our love must take on action as John reminds us, in 1 John 3:16-18. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”
This kind of whole life vision will be dismissed by many, misunderstood by some, and condemned by others, but it is something we are called to courageously hold with humble conviction. It is also something I believe our church has sought to do over the years, and hope we will continue to excel in during the years ahead.
Secondly, we must also guard our hearts against political ideology, and reaffirm our commitment to the Lordship of Jesus and to seeking His Kingdom first.
When the Supreme court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, many conservatives decried the Court while progressives wept tears of joy in the streets. Now many progressives weep, while conservatives sing the Courts praises. It goes to show that rulings come and go, Justices come and go, even nations come and go, but as followers of Jesus, we must keep our eyes on things above and not over identify with human systems or political parties for the sake of our convictions. This kind of idolatrous hope that puts its faith in a politician or a party has done tremendous damage to our witness these last few years, and will take decades of humble and costly discipleship to restore.
As Dr Gerald Sittser says, “Power at the expense of the gospel is not a power the church should ever seek.”
As Augustine noted in his book “The City of God”, we are citizens of two kingdoms, the city of man, and the city of God, and though there is much common grace in the world, and we are called to work for Gods Kingdom where we can, as our ultimate hope is in the city of God, not the city of man. He wrote, “The earthly city glories in itself, the Heavenly City glories in the Lord.” For some Americans this feels like victory, for others defeat, but for followers of Jesus it is a reminder that we ultimately work and long for another kingdom beyond this temporary one, where there will be no more death, or sorrow, or crying, and all tears will be wiped away, including the tears of abortion. We put our trust in the King of that heavenly city and glory only in the Lord.
Finally, we must be a champion of women, all women, as Jesus taught us by His life and witness in the gospels. This is a time to affirm the biblical vision of the dignity and worth of women in the sight of the Lord. I can’t image the sense of anxiety many women must be feeling, as deeply personal, and complicated feelings rise in these uncertain times. Women’s rights can often be nothing more than political talking points, bantered around for votes and endorsements by political strategists, who care more about being elected than the people they represent. However, Jesus did not treat women that way, and those who follow Him must not either.
As Catholic social activist and journalist Dorothy Day so powerfully noted, “Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.”
The church, our church, must be a place of hope and healing for the weary women in our world. Weary of proving their worth, weary of shame for their mistakes, weary of wondering if there is truly a safe space for them to flourish in the world. Jesus created space like that, and we must too.
Who can forget His love for Mary, creating space for her to sit at his feet and learn as a disciple? Who can forget His compassion for the woman caught in adultery, who he did not condemn but freed to sin no more? Who can forget His defense of Mary when she broke the bottle of perfume giving all that she had? It was a woman who stayed the cross, faithful while the male disciples fled, and women who first witnessed the resurrection and preached of the good news to the apostles?
We cannot forget, and as a church family, we must embody recognition and honor for women today.
There is much more that needs to be said, but I felt like it was important to respond to the historic events of this past week and give you my pastoral perspective.
You may agree with me, or disagree, but I want you to know, we will continue to be a church that seeks to follow Jesus with category defying love, cares about life as historically taught and shown in the scriptures, loves and empowers women, and chooses the life that Jesus sets before us in these confusing times. I hope you will join us.
Much love and prayerful concern,
Pastor Jon Tyson
Pastoral Statement From Rich Villodas On Supreme Court Ruling re: Roe v. Wade June 24, 2022
Once again, we are at a moment in history where a pastoral word is needed. Just a few weeks ago there was a leak regarding a monumental shift in our country regarding abortion. Well, that day has swiftly arrived.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has not overturned abortion rights throughout the nation, but has given states the power to make abortion illegal or protect its legal status. In New York state, this ruling will not make much difference as it relates to access to abortion, however, decisions of this nature will have massive ripple effects.
At New Life, this ruling has been met with tears of joy and tears of lament. Many in our community are rejoicing, seeing this ruling as an act of God’s grace for the unborn. Many are grieving, seeing this ruling as a callous and oppressive decision against the well-being of women.
Because of the nature of our immense diversity, these moments bring to the surface the challenge of our distinctiveness—namely that our diversity encompasses ethnic, race, class, political, and theological differences.
Few matters in our nation are as contentious and explosive as abortion. And, discovering common convictions that move us forward may seem elusive. I hope the words that follow will help unite us in the spirit of Christ's love.
At New Life, we have preached and have worked hard to embody an ethic of life. Whether we are referring to image bearers in the wombs of their mothers, families caught in a cycle of poverty, racial injustice, or undocumented immigrants, we have preached and witnessed to the God of life. We believe God is the author of life, compassion, and love.
We may be tempted to see a verdict and not an image-bearer. We may be tempted to celebrate a theological value and ignore those disproportionately affected. I believe, however, that this is an opportunity for us to discern, listen, and humbly seek to understand the implications and unintended—or perhaps intended—consequences of this decision. We must consider the impact it will have on women, many of whom are in our families, churches, and communities (studies show 1 in 4 women will have an abortion and 4 out of 10 women who get abortions attend church regularly). In some states, because of the moral and political zeal around this matter, women who need special care will be depersonalized—meaning, their story and condition will not be seen as unique and worthy of careful deliberation, and their lives could become endangered.
To rejoice over this verdict without a corresponding commitment to seeing women, and families—especially the poor—resourced is the height of Christian hypocrisy. As Christians, we are not here to win political points and grow in worldly power. We are here to work for a world that reflects the justice, compassion, and love of the kingdom of Jesus.
My hope in all of this is that our congregation and our New Life CDC can continue to serve vulnerable women and families. That we will do our part to work towards the common good to see abortions continue to decrease — knowing, of course, that legislation will not lead to the elimination of abortions.
My hope is that we will continue to educate ourselves, to work for the formation of healthy families, and to seek to create a more loving and just world where expanded medical and childcare access becomes the norm.
May we humbly be a people who embody the good news of the gospel—a gospel that cares as much about our bodies, as it does our souls. May we live with compassionate curiosity, recognizing that responding to this matter requires wisdom and nuance. And may we live with a social imagination large enough to address the many layers of our fractured existence. May we do so, all in the name of Jesus.
- Pastor Rich
The Supreme Court’s ruling has not overturned abortion rights throughout the nation, but has given states the power to make abortion illegal or protect its legal status. In New York state, this ruling will not make much difference as it relates to access to abortion, however, decisions of this nature will have massive ripple effects.
At New Life, this ruling has been met with tears of joy and tears of lament. Many in our community are rejoicing, seeing this ruling as an act of God’s grace for the unborn. Many are grieving, seeing this ruling as a callous and oppressive decision against the well-being of women.
Because of the nature of our immense diversity, these moments bring to the surface the challenge of our distinctiveness—namely that our diversity encompasses ethnic, race, class, political, and theological differences.
Few matters in our nation are as contentious and explosive as abortion. And, discovering common convictions that move us forward may seem elusive. I hope the words that follow will help unite us in the spirit of Christ's love.
At New Life, we have preached and have worked hard to embody an ethic of life. Whether we are referring to image bearers in the wombs of their mothers, families caught in a cycle of poverty, racial injustice, or undocumented immigrants, we have preached and witnessed to the God of life. We believe God is the author of life, compassion, and love.
We may be tempted to see a verdict and not an image-bearer. We may be tempted to celebrate a theological value and ignore those disproportionately affected. I believe, however, that this is an opportunity for us to discern, listen, and humbly seek to understand the implications and unintended—or perhaps intended—consequences of this decision. We must consider the impact it will have on women, many of whom are in our families, churches, and communities (studies show 1 in 4 women will have an abortion and 4 out of 10 women who get abortions attend church regularly). In some states, because of the moral and political zeal around this matter, women who need special care will be depersonalized—meaning, their story and condition will not be seen as unique and worthy of careful deliberation, and their lives could become endangered.
To rejoice over this verdict without a corresponding commitment to seeing women, and families—especially the poor—resourced is the height of Christian hypocrisy. As Christians, we are not here to win political points and grow in worldly power. We are here to work for a world that reflects the justice, compassion, and love of the kingdom of Jesus.
My hope in all of this is that our congregation and our New Life CDC can continue to serve vulnerable women and families. That we will do our part to work towards the common good to see abortions continue to decrease — knowing, of course, that legislation will not lead to the elimination of abortions.
My hope is that we will continue to educate ourselves, to work for the formation of healthy families, and to seek to create a more loving and just world where expanded medical and childcare access becomes the norm.
May we humbly be a people who embody the good news of the gospel—a gospel that cares as much about our bodies, as it does our souls. May we live with compassionate curiosity, recognizing that responding to this matter requires wisdom and nuance. And may we live with a social imagination large enough to address the many layers of our fractured existence. May we do so, all in the name of Jesus.
- Pastor Rich
Our church (Riverside Community Church) currently supports three ministries designed to help support the value of all life:
Life Choices
Women’s Choice Network
Young Lives, Penn Hills
Life Choices
Women’s Choice Network
Young Lives, Penn Hills