Taking Up The Cross In A Time Of War

Sermon for Lent 2, Year B, 3/16/03 (Three days before the invasion of Iraq)

St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Genesis 22:1-14, Psalm 16:5-11, Romans 8:31-39, Mark 8:31-38

In the year 390, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, sent a letter to one of his parishioners. Ambrose was convinced that this parishioner had committed a grievous and public sin. In his letter, Ambrose told the parishioner that until he repented publicly he would not be allowed to receive Communion.  Ambrose had excommunicated him. But this was no ordinary church member. It was Theodosius, emperor of the Roman Empire. It seems one of Theodosius’ officials had been murdered in the Greek city of Thessalonica. The exact circumstances are unclear. Perhaps it was a tax revolt.  Perhaps it was a random terrorist attack. In any event, Theodosius had done what emperors always do. He sent in the army to teach the people of Thessalonica, and by extension the rest of the empire, a lesson. Some 7,000 people – men, women, and children – were killed, the vast majority of whom had had nothing to do with the death of the official. Ambrose was not a pacifist, but he knew that the emperor’s actions needed to be condemned even if it meant the very real possibility of being sent to prison or killed.  Emperors don’t usually like to be challenged. Against all odds, Emperor Theodosius repented and publicly sought absolution from his bishop.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Ambrose and Theodosius lately. What would Ambrose say about the looming invasion of Iraq?  Would it make any difference? Christian leaders around the world and the leaders of nearly every Christian denomination in America have stated that this war does not meet the standards of a just war. The Pope has declared the same. But it does not seem to matter.

Some of these leaders can perhaps be written off as the religious lackeys of the left – people who would reflexively oppose any use of force by America. But, not all of them. The current Pope has never been accused of being a liberal lackey. Nor is Miroslav Volf, an evangelical theologian on the faculty of Yale. There are others who cannot be so easily written off.

There are some theologians who have argued that a preemptive war on Iraq is justifiable. One has to wonder though if the religious lackeys of the left don’t have their parallel among some conservatives who have never seen a war waged by their own country that they could not justify. Did Theodosius have any theologians around to reassure him that his use of force was necessary and justified for the good order of the Empire?  “You can’t run an empire after all without a little collateral damage.” One problem I have with the just war theory is that in practice it is too elastic. It can be stretched, and has been, to support every war this nation and others have waged. Too often, the just war theory has become merely the “excuse war theory.”

I have referred in passing to the pending war in sermons a couple times recently but have been hesitant to address it directly. On reason for that hesitancy is that the texts have not seemed to naturally lend themselves to addressing the issue of Iraq. I do not want to do violence to the scriptures just so I can preach against violence. Another reason for my hesitancy is that I, like you have heard too many sermons where the pulpit was used as a platform for the preacher’s political prejudices rather than a proclamation of the gospel.  I am wary of doing the same. I have also been hesitant because I am all too aware that I am no Ambrose. And you are not Theodosius.  None of us here this morning has any control over the decision to attack Iraq.  And, to be perfectly honest, I have been hesitant to address the topic directly because I don’t particularly like controversy. But this morning’s text and the urgency of the situation lead me to wade into the thicket. 

Jesus said: “If any want to be my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” I want to explore with you this question, what does it mean to take up the cross in a time of war?

There has been lots of public talk about God recently; some of it by the president, some of it by those who oppose him. But talk about God is cheap and all too often self-serving. I am convinced that any talk about God without the cross tends to be either insipid or dangerous. There have been plenty of examples of both lately.

What does it mean to take up the cross in a time of war? I have said before that I am persuaded that the way of the cross means a commitment to peace. It is harder to get around Jesus’ nonviolence and that of his earliest followers than some want to suggest. But, any talk of peace must not avoid the reality of sin and death. Talk of peace that implies that if we are just nice to others they will be nice to us is not the way of the cross. It is simply naïve. Any serious talk of nonviolence must recognize that it is a call to martyrdom. My own, certainly, but more problematically, the martyrdom of others who I might otherwise intervene to help. Being resolutely nonviolent does not mean doing nothing, but to totally avoid having blood on my hands in a world of violence, sin and death means being prepared to stand by while others bleed. That is not an easy way. But, I am not convinced that it is not the way of the cross.

There is no avoiding the hard fact that, whether we commit to nonviolence or to the “judicious” use of violence, we are all stretched out between the catastrophe we have made of the world and the promise of God’s good creation and his kingdom.

But what if nonviolence is not the only faithful posture for Christians? I am catholic enough to recognize that the majority wisdom of the Church has believed that it is not. I take that seriously.  But even then we must ask, what does it mean to take up the cross in a time of war? Another problem with the just war approach as it is usually presented is that it does not ask this question seriously enough. I have serious reservations about a moral system in which the particulars of Jesus’ teaching, life, and cross are essentially irrelevant. Hindus, Moslems, and agnostics could all support the classic just war approach. What does it have to do with Jesus and the cross?

If we decide that sometimes we cannot avoid participating in violence, we still have to make that decision in light of the cross and of Jesus. What does the way of the cross look like then? This way must also be understood as a way of martyrdom, but not first and foremost in the obvious sense that some are going to die in a war. That is true, but we must accept the way of the cross as first of all dying to ourselves and following Jesus. Among other things that means:

1) Taking up the cross in a time of war means getting our loyalties straight. I saw a woman wearing a t-shirt last summer that I found very troubling and very telling. It was a white t-shirt that had JESUSAVES written across the front. I believe he does. But that was not the only message on the shirt. It actually looked more like this: JESUSAVES. All the letters were blue except for those in the middle – USA – which were red. It was a telling icon of the confused syncretism of many Christians in America. Who saves?  Jesus? The USA? Or, are the two so entwined that we can’t tell the difference? We cannot begin to discern whether war in general or this war in particular is justifiable until we can tell the difference between the way of Jesus and the way of the United States. The way of the cross means dying to, and being suspect of, all other loyalties. If talk of just war just means that it is OK for Christians to kill when their government says so, it is not the way of the cross.

2) Taking up the cross in a time of war means the way of humility. It means being prepared to entertain the possibility that we are wrong. It means asking, why does most of the rest of the world disagree with us? Even those governments that support the United States’ invasion of Iraq do so against the will of the overwhelming majority of their people. Most of those closest to Iraq do not agree with us.  Right and wrong are not determined by majority vote. But, it is arrogant to presume that everyone else is automatically wrong because they don’t see it our way.

If it is America’s fate to be the de facto empire of the world, it will make a big difference how we live that out. The way of the cross means we cannot lord it over others. We have not been doing a very good job of it lately. Because the United States has been seen as lording it over others, we have remarkably managed to loose a public relations contest with a thug and tyrant like Saddam Hussein and alienated much of the world. Humility means listening to those who disagree with us, not derisively dismissing them so we can ignore their concerns.

We might not need U.N. approval to go to war. The just war approach allows that any nation has the right, on its own authority, to defend itself when attacked. But, Iraq has not attacked us and it is not clear that it is able to. If, however, we are going to war to enforce U.N. resolutions, it would seem the proper authority resides in the body that passed the resolutions. What does it mean to enforce the will of others against their will? What if Egypt and Syria decide on their own to enforce the U.N.’s resolutions condemning Israeli settlements on the West Bank? I do not think we would find that to our liking. We apparently haven’t run out of patience there.  Humility means we must be careful of the precedents we set just because we can.

3) Taking up the cross in a time of war means we must recognize our own sin. It is a Lenten theme.  It is a Christian theme. Much of the rest of the world looks to America as an example, a beacon of hope, liberty, and prosperity. But it is also suspect of our power and of our motives. We need to deny ourselves the indulgence of self-justification and recognize that this is neither accidental nor simply a matter of colossal misunderstanding. There are reasons many in the world do not trust us.  I am very concerned that as a result of this war and our behavior leading up to it we will be living with the deep resentment of much of the rest of the world for a long time. And we will only be less safe and secure for it.

Recognizing our sin means we need to be suspicious of our own motives. Can it be that every country that opposes war with Iraq has mixed motives, but the United States does not? Do we really believe that we are the only ones who are realistic about the dangers of the world? Do we really believe that we the only ones who have courage? We need to take the reality and pervasiveness of sin more seriously than that.

4) Taking up the cross in a time of war means repentance. We need be prepared to repent of sins we commit as individuals and as a nation. And if sometimes we decide we must resort to violence, we need to repent for that violence. Some have suggested that the classic just war approach does not presume that violence is wrong. I do not know if that is true. If it is the just war theory needs to be rethought in light of Jesus and the cross. Killing some people for the sake of other people is always a devil’s bargain – even if we decide it is the only bargain we can make. St. Basil of Caesarea who was a contemporary of Ambrose said that though the church had decided that sometimes we must resort to war, when we do so we should repent and those who participate should do penance, enduring a time of exclusion from the sacrament. That is the position still of the Eastern Orthodox Church which is not pacifist, but has never accepted the theory that for Christians war can be just or pleasing to God.

Lent is about taking up the cross, denying ourselves, and following Jesus. It includes denying our tendency toward self-justification – as individuals, as a church, and as a nation.  It means dying to other loyalties.  It means humility. It means acknowledging our own sinfulness.  It means repentance. It is a way of martyrdom. If any want to be my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow.

I can’t say whether, if he were here, Ambrose would oppose war with Iraq. What disturbs me more is that for many Christians in America – it wouldn’t matter.

An Episcopal Bishop's Teaching on Abortion, Part 4: Scripture – New Testament

As we saw in the last post, there is little if anything in the Old Testament that directly addresses abortion. There is even less in the New Testament. Jesus says nothing about it. Paul writes nothing about it[1]. This is curious because abortion was not at all unheard of 2,000 years ago. Roman and Greek philosophers of the time had a range of things to say on the subject.

It is significant that the Jewish understanding at the time of Jesus was that while the life in the womb had value and was in some sense sacred as a potential human being, it was not a fully human person before birth. According to Jewish commentary from around the time and place of Jesus if it came to it, the mother’s life must take precedence.[2]

This has remained more or less the teaching of Judaism since. Joseph Schenker, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, summarized the attitude toward abortion in the classic sources of Jewish law:

1. That the only indication considered for abortion is a hazard to the mother’s life.

2. That, otherwise, the destruction of an unborn child is a grave offence, although not murder.

3. That it can be viewed that the fetus is granted some recognition of human life, but it does not equal that of the mother’s, and can be sacrificed if her life is in danger.[3]

Something like Dr. Schenker’s summary would have been the common Jewish teaching at the time of the New Testament. That Jesus and the rest of the New Testament say nothing to directly contradict this understanding does not necessarily mean agreement with it. Arguments from silence cannot take us very far. Still, it does seem significant, given Jesus’ willingness to take issue with the understanding of his contemporaries on other issues.

We must also note that, grounded though Christianity is in Judaism, it is not the same. We do not share all the same scriptures and those that we do share, we interpret differently. We have different traditions beyond the scriptures. Both traditions have wrestled with questions around the issue of abortion. In both traditions, the answers to those questions have been complex. For more on the Jewish understanding, see this footnote.[4]

While there is nothing in the New Testament that explicitly and clearly addresses abortion, that does not mean it has nothing relevant to say on the topic. There are other themes and passages that could have bearing on how we might think about abortion, the life in the womb, and the agency of the woman bearing that life. There is Jesus’s uncommon respect for women and their personal integrity. There is also his even more uncommon valuing of children. There is the general commitment to care for the vulnerable and the “least of these.” There is the Visitation in which John leaps in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary appears bearing Jesus in hers (Luke 1:39–56). We will look at some of these later. Next, I want to look at another authority that Christians look to in order to make sense of things – the Church’s tradition.

---

[1] A possible exception is the reference to pharmekeia in Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 9:21; and 18:23. This can mean any kind of medicine or drugs (“pharmacy” comes from this Greek root).  It can also mean potions, particularly magic potions – something that was common in the ancient world. Hence it is commonly translated as witchcraft or sorcery. But in some early Christian texts, e.g., the Didache, it is listed alongside abortion which seems to suggest the possible meaning of drugs meant to induce abortions. But it is not clear that that is the meaning when it is used in the New Testament.

[2] Mishna 7.6 : “If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and bring it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child].” (https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Oholot.7.6?lang=bi)

[3] Schenker, Joseph G., ‘The Beginning of Human Life: Status of embryo. Perspectives in Halakha (Jewish Religious Law)’, Springer Science, Business Media, LLC, Published online: 13 June 2008

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10815-008-9221-6)

[4] Meacham, Tirzah and Lipinsky, Yoelit, ‘Abortion: Halakhic Perspectives’, Jewish Women’s Archive, July 27, 2022 (https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion#pid-18948)

Fischer, Elli, ‘What You’re Getting Wrong About Abortion And Judaism’, The Forward, August 1, 2022 (https://forward.com/life/406465/what-youre-getting-wrong-about-abortion-and-judaism)

Next:

Part 5: Tradition

Previous:

Part 1: The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion

Part 2: Context

Part 3: Old Testament

An Episcopal Bishop's Teaching on Abortion, Part 3: Scripture – Old Testament

The Outline of the Faith, or Catechism, in the Book of Common Prayer affirms that the Christian Scriptures are “the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.” (p. 853). So, that is where Christians begin when discerning answers to moral questions.

It must be admitted, though, that the Bible has nothing to say explicitly about deliberate abortion. Even theologians who firmly oppose abortion concede this. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote,

The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it.[1]

Though he affirms a pro-life position, New Testament scholar, Richard B. Hayes, admits,

The Bible contains no text about abortion. This simple fact – often ignored by those who would make opposition to abortion a virtual litmus test of true Christian faith – places the issue of abortion in a very different category . . .[2]

That the Old Testament says nothing directly about abortion is curious, given that it contains extensive and explicit regulations about sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and even menstruation. But there are no regulations about abortion. This is notable because some, though not all, ancient societies did have laws explicitly forbidding abortion. This is true of ancient Assyrian, Greek, and Roman law codes. Even then, it is uncertain if these laws were intended for the sake of the life in the womb. Such laws might have been meant to protect the pregnant woman given that most methods of abortion were as likely to end in her death as in a successful termination of the pregnancy. More likely, given that these ancient societies were exceedingly patriarchal, laws against abortion were as much as anything to protect the rights of the father who legally had the right to kill the baby after birth if he chose.

One place the Old Testament might come close to addressing something like abortion is Exodus 21:22–23 which reads:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

There is a basic lack of clarity in the passage. To whom does “no further harm” refer? Is it the miscarried baby or the woman, or either one? From the earliest Jewish interpreters in the Talmud to most contemporary scholars the consensus interpretation is that financial compensation is due the father if the fetus is lost while more severe penalties are exacted if “further harm” comes to the woman. That interpretation is in line with the law codes of many of ancient Israel’s neighbors. Not every scholar agrees with that consensus, but it is the majority view held by Old Testament scholars.[3]

In any event, the lack of clarity means it is not a passage we can rely on to settle the question as to the moral value of the fetus or the morality of elective abortion. It also raises the question in a less patriarchal age, why the fine for the reckless causing of a miscarriage is determined by the father rather than the mother.

Another passage in the Old Testament that possibly refers to something like abortion is Numbers 5:11–31.  Here, a woman suspected of adultery is given a concoction by a priest in order to determine her guilt and inflict a penalty. Like the passage above, this passage is notoriously hard to understand or even translate. Some translations, e.g., the New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, and English Standard Version, seem to suggest that the penalty is essentially an induced miscarriage or abortion. Other translations suggest the penalty is some physical affliction on the woman. So, this is another passage that is too uncertain to have much bearing on the subject. Either way, one might wonder why the man with whom the woman had the affair is unpunished by the potion.

These are the only two places in the Old Testament that address anything like abortion. The sacredness of life, human and otherwise, is a general theme of the Old Testament and there is of course the commandment against killing. The question is, “Does that prohibition include the life in the womb or, if so, to what extent?” Abortion is never explicitly equated with murder in the Old Testament. That does not necessarily mean that abortion is simply morally neutral. Indeed, there are passages that point to the value of fetal life (Job 10:9-11, Psalm 139:12). But that abortion is simply or always murder is more than can be proved reading the Old Testament alone. This more complicated position on the moral weight of abortion has been the Jewish understanding as we will see more in the next installment.

There are other passages from the Old Testament that have some bearing on the question such as Job 10:9-11, Psalm 139:12, and Jeremiah 1:5. We will look at those later. But, next, we'll look at the New Testament.

---

[1] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, Para. 61 (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html)

[2] Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 446. See also, Meilander, Gilbert, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, p. 29

[3] See for example The Rabbi Sacks Legacy, ‘The Meaning of Texts’ (https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/mishpatim/the-meaning-of-texts/)

Next:

Part 4: Scripture – New Testament 

Previous:

Part 1: The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion

Part 2: Context

An Episcopal Bishop's Teaching on Abortion, Part 2 – Context

Introduction

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and placed the question of abortion into the hands of each state. Americans, including church members, have mixed feelings and complex convictions regarding abortion, as reflected in various polls.[1] Most Americans want safe, legal abortion to be available. A majority is also uncomfortable with abortion in at least some circumstances. Of course, morality is not simply a matter of public opinion. The resolutions passed by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention[2] reflect the tension in these overlapping majorities.

That the issue and the questions surrounding it are complex is reflected in the Church’s history as it has grappled with the morality of abortion. The official teaching of the Church and that of its major saints and theologians have not been simple or straightforward.

Some Personal Context

I have come to see it as less than straightforward. I invite you to prayerfully think it through with me. I have long been persuaded by what is often referred to as the “consistent ethic of life,” which is committed to cherishing, defending, and nurturing the flourishing of all life (including to one degree or another, life in the womb). Such an approach opposes nearly all uses of violence and all “the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God” (BCP, p. 302). Many Christians whose life and teaching I respect have held this ethic, e.g., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Day, Fanny Lou Hamer, Helen Prejean (of ‘Dead Man Walking’ fame), Joan Chittister, Stanley Hauerwas, Rowan Williams, and others. That remains generally where my convictions lie.

In my 20’s, I was on the board of a pro-life organization, Matrix Lifeline, in Bloomington, IN (like those commended by General Convention Resolution D105 in 1994[3]). Ironically, the chair of the board of that organization was a woman who was also a leader in the local Democratic Party. And when I was invited to speak on the topic with a class at Indiana University, my counterpart defending the pro-choice position was a woman who was involved in the local Republican Party. Things were different then.

Recent Historical Context

This last point is significant. Things were different before the 1980’s. The abortion fault lines have not always run simply between conservatives and liberals/progressives, whether inside or outside the church. The Roman Catholic Church has long been Pro-Life and opposed to abortion (though, as we will see, even that is more complicated in the tradition). But that has not always been so for other Christians, including conservative Christians.

In 1968, before Roe v Wade, Christianity Today, the conservative Evangelical Christian magazine founded by Billy Graham, gathered 25 conservative evangelical theologians, doctors, and scientists to discuss the morality of abortion in a “Protestant Symposium on the Control of Human Reproduction.” The statement coming out of that symposium affirmed, “Whether or not the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”[4] A special issue of Christianity Today followed including a lead essay by conservative Old Testament scholar, Bruce Waltke who asserted, “the absence of any biblical text forbidding abortion” and “the Old Testament does not equate the fetus with a living person.”[5]

In 1971, another conservative Christian magazine, Eternity, published an essay by Nancy Hardesty that came to a similar conclusion. Also in 1971, conservative Evangelical scholar and apologist, Norman Geisler, published a book with Zondervan (a conservative Christian book company) in which he contrasted the Roman Catholic position with what he understood to be the biblical view, asserting that “The embryo is not fully human.”[6]

There were certainly also conservative evangelicals who disagreed with these positions[7], but there was no anti-abortion consensus among those who otherwise shared basic conservative theological commitments And it was not considered a litmus test issue.

Nor was there a consensus among more liberal/progressive Christians. Some Protestant theologians influential among liberal/progressives who were not conservative evangelicals, like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, argued for a more pro-life position. In ‘Ethics’, Bonhoeffer wrote,

Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And this is nothing but murder.[8]

Many of the Roman Catholics and others who formed the first anti-abortion organizations in the late 1960s were liberal Democrats who also opposed the Vietnam War and nuclear proliferation.[9] Civil Rights icon, Fannie Lou Hammer, was also pro-life.[10]

The November 1980 issue of the progressive Christian magazine, Sojourners was dedicated to affirming a pro-life position from a more progressive position. There were several essays by women and men including one by Jesse Jackson[11]. 

Certainly, many liberal/progressive theologians advocated for a more pro-choice position[12]. But, again, there was not a clear consensus on the issue despite many shared convictions otherwise.

Well into the 1970’s, there were a significant number of pro-life Democrats and a similarly significant number of pro-choice Republicans. It has not always been a matter of conservatives on one side and liberals/progressives on the other. Beginning in the later 1970’s into the early ‘80’s, many liberals who had been pro-life became pro-choice and many conservatives who had been pro-choice became pro-life.

It is worth wondering what happened culturally and politically in those years and what has happened over the last generation or so that has made the divisions over abortion so much starker, more contentious, and a matter of partisan identity.[13] We might also wonder if a Christian understanding of abortion or any other moral issue should be expected to fit neatly into the contemporary categories of conservative or liberal or progressive.

An Episcopal Bishop’s Case for a Christian Understanding

The Episcopal Church has passed a number of resolutions over the last several decades on the subject of abortion at its General Convention. Together, those resolutions affirm the sanctity of life and strongly condemn abortion in some circumstances while defending access to safe, legal abortion as a necessary option for women. Thus, they reflect the conflicted, complex convictions many have and have had on the subject.

In this teaching series I will explore the issue of abortion, the life in the womb, and the agency of the woman bearing that life, offering what I believe is a faithful and reasonable understanding based on scripture, tradition, and creation (biology and science). That understanding recognizes that the holy mystery of becoming fully human is a gradual process in the womb and that the pregnant woman is not merely a passive vessel of that process of becoming. The moral balance at first tilts toward the agency of the pregnant woman (usually along with the father) and gradually tilts to include the baby developing in her womb.

I invite your feedback, comments and questions along the way. I also ask for your patience as we make our way toward a conclusion.

---

[1] Saad, Lydia, ‘Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?(https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx)

 Americans’ Opinions About Abortion, Jan. 2022, Marist Poll (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.kofc.org/en/resources/communications/marist-polling-slide-deck2022.pdf)

 ‘Public Opinion on Abortion’, Pew Research Center, May 17, 2022(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/)

 Saad, Lydia, ‘“Pro-Choice” Identification Rises to Near Record High in U.S.’ (https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx)

[2] The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion(https://anoddworkofgrace.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-episcopal-churchs-stated-position.html)

[3] https://episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1994-D105

[4] ‘A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction’, Christianity Today, November 8, 1968, (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1968/november-8/protestant-affirmation-on-control-of-human-reproduction.html)

[5] Waltke, Bruce K., ‘The Old Testament and Birth Control: Family Planning Under the Law’, Christianity Today, November 8, 1968, (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1968/november-8/old-testament-and-birth-control.html)

[6] Geisler, Norman, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand-Rapids, Michigan, 1971

[7] For example, Cottrell, Jack W., ‘Abortion and the Mosaic Law’, Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1973/march-16/abortion-and-mosaic-law.html)

[8] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Ethics, Fortress Press, p. 206

[9] Williams, Daniel K., ‘The Partisan Trajectory of the American Pro-Life Movement: How a Liberal Catholic Campaign Became a Conservative Evangelical Cause’, Religions, 2015, 6, 451–475

(https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/2/451 pdf)

[10] See https://www.feministsforlife.org/herstory-fannie-lou-hamer/

[11] Sojourners Magazine, November 1980, (https://sojo.net/magazine/november-1980).

[12] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529175737/50-years-ago-a-network-of-clergy-helped-women-seeking-abortion

[13] See Williams, Daniel K., ‘The Partisan Trajectory of the American Pro-Life Movement: How a Liberal Catholic Campaign Became a Conservative Evangelical Cause’, Religions, 2015, 6, 451–475(https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/2/451) See also: Roach, David, ‘How Southern Baptists became pro-life’, Baptist Press, January 16, 2015 (https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life)

 

Part 1: The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion

Part 3: Scripture – Old Testament 

 

 

The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion

At the 149^th Convention of the Diocese of Fond du Lac held on Oct. 29, 2022,, a resolution was proposed regarding the church’s teaching on abortion (see the first comment below).

To address this resolution, I will be posting a series of teachings on the subject over the next several weeks beginning with listing below the resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church over the last several decades.

There is perhaps no moral issue more contentious, more polarizing, more emotionally charged, and, more complicated than abortion. It is a daunting topic to engage. Women and men with varying opinions have deeply held convictions and emotions on the issue. Many feel conflicted and ambivalent. This complexity is reflected in the resolutions passed over the years by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

In 1967, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed a “Statement on Abortion.” That statement has been reaffirmed with some revision in several subsequent General Conventions, reaching its latest and fullest expression in 1994. Additional resolutions related to childbirth and abortion have been adopted at General Conventions. Taken together, these resolutions affirm the sanctity of life while also defending safe and legal abortion as a necessary option for women.

These resolutions constitute the closest thing the Episcopal Church has to an official teaching. The Episcopal Church has no pope or magisterium by which teaching or dogma are promulgated such as to be binding on the conscience of every member. Historically, the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Tradition more generally, have allowed for more freedom of conscience than some other Christian traditions. That is part of the beauty of our tradition.

That does not mean that members of the Episcopal Church are free to believe whatever they want or to simply rely on their own wisdom or prejudices. The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons do contain teaching on doctrine and morals. Beyond that, we are committed to testing our thinking and behavior against the teaching of scripture guided by tradition using faithfully formed and informed reason as best we can. I think we can add as another guide to our discernment what the great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, called the “works of nature” and those before him called the “Book of Nature.” In other words, we also seek understanding by contemplating and studying creation.

Together we seek to have our imaginations and our lives shaped by those sources of our faith. We all affirm the faith as defined in the Book of Common Prayer. Beyond that, as Christians have always done, we will disagree on some things. We will seek to persuade one another in charity and encourage one another to deeper faithfulness. And we will continue to gather to worship the One who weaves us together and together weaves us into the eternal life and love and joy of the Holy Trinity.

While the following resolutions are not binding and members may disagree with all or parts, they do represent what we have affirmed as a body gathered in General Convention. Therefore, they are to be taken seriously and it is good for Episcopalians to be familiar with them. To that end, I encourage you to read them carefully.

 

General Convention Resolutions       

Resolution 1994-A054: Reaffirm General Convention Statement on Childbirth and Abortion

Resolved, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms resolution C047 from the 69th General Convention, which states:

All human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness. Human life, therefore, should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God. It is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual and physiological aspects of sex and sexuality.

The Book of Common Prayer affirms that "the birth of a child is a joyous and solemn occasion in the life of a family. It is also an occasion for rejoicing in the Christian community" (p. 440). As Christians we also affirm responsible family planning.

We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community.

While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.

In those cases where an abortion is being considered, members of this Church are urged to seek the dictates of their conscience in prayer, to seek the advice and counsel of members of the Christian community and where appropriate, the sacramental life of this Church.

Whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to a problem pregnancy, they are to explore, with grave seriousness, with the person or persons seeking advice and counsel, as alternatives to abortion, other positive courses of action, including, but not limited to, the following possibilities: the parents raising the child; another family member raising the child; making the child available for adoption.

It is the responsibility of members of this Church, especially the clergy, to become aware of local agencies and resources which will assist those faced with problem pregnancies.

We believe that legislation concerning abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that the individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored as the position of this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.

Resolution 1982-A065: Condemn Use of Abortion for Gender Selection and Non-serious Abnormalities

Resolved, That the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church strongly condemns the act of abortion when the sole purpose of such action is the selection of the sex of the child; and be it further

Resolved, That this new ability to diagnose serious abnormalities in the fetus before birth is a welcome gift to reduce pain and sorrow in the parents and suffering in the newborn, but that abortion after the diagnosis of non-serious or trivial abnormalities, or abortion in a case where purely cosmetic abnormalities are discovered, is also strongly condemned.

 

Resolution 1988-D124: Condemn Acts of Violence Against Abortion Facilities and Their Clients

Resolved, That this 69th General Convention of the Episcopal Church condemn all actions of violence against abortion clinics; and be it further

Resolved, That this Convention deplore any acts of violence against those persons seeking the services available at such clinics.

 

Resolution 1988-A089: Promote Use of Materials on Human Sexuality and Abortion for All Age

Resolved, That this 69th General Convention call on the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council to provide and promote the use of materials on human sexuality, birth control and family planning for all age groups as part of this Church's on-going Christian Education curricula as reflective of God's creation; and be it further

Resolved, That the topic of abortion be included in the Church's education curricula and that these materials be explicit, with a full understanding of the physical, emotional and spiritual realities and risks involved in abortion; and be it further

Resolved, That we encourage the members of this Church to give strong support to responsible local public and private school programs of education in human sexuality.

Resolution 1991-C037: Oppose Legislation Requiring Parental Consent for Termination of Pregnancy

Resolved, That, in the matter of requiring parental notification or consent when minor women seek safe means of acting on their decisions to seek termination of pregnancy, this 70th General Convention go on record as opposing efforts to legislate requiring such notification or consent, unless such notification or consent laws allow non-judicial bypass, in the event of the inability to notify parents or where family dysfunction may put such minors at serious physical, psychological or emotional risk, whereby such minors can make an informed decision with the notification or consent of some other responsible adult with experience and/or expertise, such as a clergy person, teacher, guidance counselor, mental health professional or other family member.

Resolution 1991-A096: Continue Discussion on the Use of Fetal Tissue for Research Use

Resolved, That the 70th General Convention rejects conception for the purpose of providing fetal tissues for therapeutic or medical research usages; and be it further

Resolved, That this 70th General Convention rejects the use of fetal tissues aborted for financial profit for use in therapy and medical research, and be it further

Resolved, That the discussion concerning the use for therapeutic or medical research purposes of tissues from healthy fetuses, aborted to save the life of the mother, be continued during the next triennium.

Resolution 1994-D105: Commend the Work of Pregnancy Care Centers

Resolved, That the 71st General Convention commend the members of this church who minister through pregnancy care centers, thereby helping to accomplish the will of General Convention to "assist those faced with problem pregnancy" (1988 General Convention Resolution on Abortion); and be it further

Resolved, That this General Convention commends the work and mission of pregnancy care centers which stress unconditional love and acceptance, for women and their unborn children; and be it further

Resolved, That we encourage the work of local pregnancy care centers to develop an outreach of love to pregnant women and to mothers and their children.

 

Resolution: 1994-D091: Practice of Forced Abortions and Sterilization in China

Resolved, That the 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church deplore the practice of forced abortions and forced sterilization in the families of the People's Republic of China; and be it further

Resolved, That the Episcopal Church of the United States urge the U.S. government to consider all requests for political asylum by pregnant Chinese citizens and their families in the U. S. subject to forced abortion laws upon return to China; and be it further

Resolved, That this 71st General Convention request the Secretary to communicate immediately the intention of this resolution to Vice President Gore who will head the U.S. delegation to the U.N. sponsored International Conference on Population and Development to be held in Cairo beginning September 5, 1994, and to the U.S. Secretary of State, and to Anglican Bishop Ding of the China Christian Council.

Resolution 1997-D065: Express Grave Concern Over Misuse of Partial Birth Abortion

Resolved, That this 72nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church express grave concern about the use in the third trimester of pregnancy of the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (commonly called "partial birth abortion") except in extreme situations; and be it further

Resolved, That the 72nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church continue to encourage its Dioceses and Congregations to give necessary aid and support to all pregnant women.

Resolution 2000-D104: Affirm Adoption and Support Legislation on Adoption Counseling

Resolved, That the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirm the value of adoption and recognize it is in the best interest of the child to be adopted by a stable person or family to nurture him or her; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention of the Episcopal Church urge the U.S. Congress to pass legislation making adoption counseling available to those facing an unplanned pregnancy and to those seeking to adopt.

Resolution 2018-D032: Advocate for Gender Equity, Including Reproductive Rights, in Healthcare

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention of The Episcopal Church acknowledge the need for universal and equitable access to good quality health care that allows for equal utilization for those with equal need; and be it further

Resolved, That this Convention acknowledge that equitable access to women’s health care, including women’s reproductive health care, is an integral part of a woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being; and be it further

Resolved, That The Episcopal Church call for women’s reproductive health and reproductive health procedures to be treated as all other medical procedures, and not singled out or omitted by or because of gender; and be it further

Resolved, That The Episcopal Church support health care that takes into account the specific health care needs of all persons, including women; and be it further

Resolved, That this Convention direct the Office of Government Relations and the Episcopal Public Policy Network to urge all Episcopalians to advocate for government to address the specific needs of health care for everyone, especially women's and girls’ health care, by:

·       Supporting legislation that creates equal utilization of health care for those in equal need, regardless of ability to pay, and reject reasons for unequal use as well as strategies that promote unequal access to health care;

·       Advocating for everyone to have the right to make decisions about their bodies and those decisions should be between themselves and their provider (reaffirming 1994 A054: That The… “Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision … or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.);

·       Ensuring equal access to every health care service regardless of gender (reaffirming 1994 A055: that the… “General Convention urge adequate government funding and support for research and development, prevention and treatment in matters affecting the health and quality of life of women, including domestic violence, AIDS, heart disease, breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer, safe and effective contraceptives, and other methods of pregnancy prevention, maternity care, menopause and chronic illnesses unique to or prevalent among women);

·       Ensuring health care is equal in coverage and cost regardless of gender.

Resolution 2022-D083: Addressing the erosion of reproductive rights and autonomy

Resolved, that the 80th General Convention recognizes that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous undertakings that risk permanent disability and death for those who bear children; and be it further

Resolved, that the Episcopal Church reaffirms that parenthood “should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God” (1988-C047); and be it further;

Resolved, that the Episcopal Church recognizes that access to abortion is a key element in preserving the health, independence, and autonomy of those who can bear children; and be it further;

Resolved, that the 80th General Convention affirms that all Episcopalians should be able to access abortion services and birth control with no restriction on movement, autonomy, type, or timing; and be it further

Resolved, that the 80th General Convention understands that the protection of religious liberty extends to all Episcopalians who may need or desire to access, to utilize, to aid others in the procurement of, or to offer abortion services.

Part 2: Context

Part 3: Old Testament

Part 4: New Testament

Part 5: Tradition

Part 6: Tradition, continued

Part 7: Back to the Bible

Part 8:  Wisdom and the Glorious Works of Nature

Part 9: Rights, Choice, Obligations, and Community

Part 10: Conclusion