Around the Links

Holy Abortion? by Gorman and Brooks

Can abortion ever be considered holy? New Testament scholar Michael J. Gorman and educator Ann Loar Brooks say, “No!” In Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Gorman and Brooks evaluate the position of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) by analyzing their published material and resources. The authors then proceed to critically compare the position of RCRC with official statements of its member Christian groups, among which two United Methodist agencies are numbered – the General Board of Church and Society and the General Board of Global Ministries: Women’s Division. The authors aim to demonstrate that principles and values of RCRC are in fundamental contradiction with the principles and values of their Christian member groups.
RCRC is self-described as “the interfaith movement for choice” whose primary work is in education and advocacy for the pro-choice position on abortion. The authors’ critique of RCRC takes into account a number of their published resources but focuses primarily on a worship resource entitled Prayerfully Pro-Choice: Resources for Worship. The thorough critique of RCRC focuses on six themes prevalent in RCRC literature:
  • Absolute God-given Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, including Abortion Rights (12)
  • The Isolation of the Woman or Teen as Sovereign Moral Agent (16)
  • The Trivialization of the Moral Status of Unborn Human Life (19)
  • The Legitimacy of Abortion as Birth Control (22)
  • The Holiness of Abortion (26)
  • A Pro-Choice God, Attested in Scripture, Who Blesses All Decisions (28).
Gorman and Brooks conclude their critique by evaluating RCRC through the lens of the historic Christian debate on how to approach war. Three positions have been held: the non-violence tradition, the just-war tradition, and the holy-war tradition. The authors argue that these traditions developed chronologically and that Christianity has generally but not entirely been purged of the holy-war tradition. The authors use this lens to demonstrate that RCRC shares in principle the values of the holy-war tradition which include:
  • the absence of external moral or legal restraints
  • the isolation and sovereignty of the moral agent
  • the lack of concern for the moral status of the targets
  • the absence of criteria to justify the action
  • the holiness of the act
  • the blessing of God (31).
The authors charge that the presence of anything like a holy-war attitude or ethic in any organization ought to raise very serious and grave concerns among its members (31).
Having demonstrated the position of RCRC, Gorman and Brooks turn to the statements on abortion of its Christian member groups (The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church). In its social principles, the United Methodist Church, “in contrast to RCRC, affirms its reluctance to approve abortion, its belief in the ‘sanctity of unborn human life,’ and the necessity of assistance in decision making. It explicitly rejects abortion as birth control and places restrictions on its being considered at all (‘tragic conflicts of life with life’). Partial-birth abortion is permitted only in extreme cases” (36).
The authors argue that member bodies, like the two United Methodist agencies listed above, approach abortion through the lens of the just-war tradition, in which abortion is considered a lamentable last resort to be considered only in the case of tragic conflicts of life with life precisely because the unborn human life is held in sanctity. This, of course, is in contrast to the holy-war approach of RCRC where abortion is seen as an always available sacred and free choice sanctioned and blessed by god.
The authors, therefore, call for Christian groups to disassociate themselves from RCRC. Gorman and Brooks also seek to advance the conversation by considering abortion theologically and calling for abortion to be seen as, “a war of the powerful against the weak” (49, italics original). The authors also call for the conversation to be advanced through the articulation of a Christian and biblical theology of freedom, in which freedom is not the freedom to choose whatever one wishes but the freedom to sacrifice oneself in Christ likeness for the sake of the other (48-49).
This is a much needed volume that is an invaluable resources for pastors and laypersons. The authors provide a strong and thorough critique of RCRC and unmask its attempts to appear consistent with the historic and biblical Christian faith. I join the authors in calling for Christian groups to cut all ties with RCRC and to think more biblically and Christianly about the truly horrifying problem of abortion and the culture of death it perpetuates.

For further reading:
Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Pagan, and Jewish Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World (Wipf & Stock, 1998) by Michael J. Gorman

Part of the Problem

I got a call today from a salesman for a company called Bluefish TV. Among other things, they sell DVDs and video downloads of illustrations for pastors to use in sermons. I listened to the gentleman make his sales pitch which went something like this: Americans today have short attention spans because they are over-saturated with visual media. And though this is unfortunate, it means that you, as a preacher, are going to have a hard time getting people to listen to you for very long. Therefore, you should buy our video clips of illustrations and sprinkle them in your sermons because that’s the sort of media to which people in our society have been conditioned, and it’s the only way they’re going to pay attention to you. Oh and, by the way, we are better than our competition because we give you more clips for less cash!

Now the obvious problem here is that the folks at Bluefish TV and their competition are part of the problem, not the solution. They are part of the problem because they are contributing to the over-saturation of society with visual media. Rather than encouraging pastors to be counter-cultural and preach the pure Word, they are calling for pastors to buy their clips and contribute to the lamentable reality that people won’t listen unless there is a digital image rolling in the background.

The solution is for preachers to refuse to use video clips in their sermons. Preachers must remember that God has promised to save through the foolishness of preaching the gospel, which is God’s power for salvation. God has not promised to work through our video clips. If he had, there would be more revivals breaking out in movie theaters. Yes, this is against the tide of the culture, but so is the gospel. We need to cultivate the spiritual disciplines of extending our attention spans and careful listening to biblical teaching. We have a limited amount of time to address our people with the Word of God on a weekly basis; we must not abdicate that time to Hollywood!