Bethany Baptist Church, Roseville, Minnesota
January 29, 1989
How does one preach a sermon on abortion? The term itself evokes such emotions that it is not surprising abortion has been the most wrenching social issue of the 1980's in America, and it promises to be so in the 1990's, as well.
For some, the term is too strong, and they prefer to speak about "ending pregnancies" or "removing pregnancy tissue." For others, it is too weak, and they prefer to speak of murder and holocausts. The Latin words from which the term derives simply mean "away from a place." That is, an abortion is the removing of something from a place. As it is commonly used today, it means the removal from a woman's womb of a fetus, with the intended result that it die in the process.
Last Sunday was National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, commemorating the 1973 Supreme Court decision that allowed for abortions under certain, fairly broad, circumstances. Every year it arouses high passions, with demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in public places. Some from this church have even taken part in some of these.
Unfortunately, the issue of abortion is not an "academic" issue that can be endlessly debated, with very few real-world implications. Some of you know that, in the past, theologians considering the nature of angels have debated how many of them would fit on the head of a pin. This is a good question to entertain friends with, perhaps, or good for a Bible trivia game, but it has few immediate implications.
Abortion, however, presses itself on us every day, if only because thousands are performed every day in this country, dozens in the Twin Cities area. We cannot be neutral about it and expect that our neutrality will have no effect. If, on the one hand, we believe that abortion is acceptable under some or any circumstances, then this has implications for many women who are denied abortions by parental or church pressure, or lack of finances, or some other reason. It has implications for many women who are made to feel guilty about having had an abortion, as well. If, on the other hand, we believe that abortion is unacceptable under any or almost any circumstances, then this naturally has implications for those who regularly perform abortions, for those who have them, and for the unborn children it affects. And, this issue touches us even more closely. Almost all of us know someone who has had an abortion, and some here today may even have had one themselves.
So, then, how does one preach a sermon on abortion? This is not to be a legal brief or an academic paper (although my wife, I think, is afraid I am going to make it into one!). Rather, it is a sermon. As I understand it, a sermon is the communication of a word from God to a contemporary audience and situation, based upon exposition of the ancient word from God, the Bible. This being the case, then it should be relatively easy to preach a sermon on abortion: I need only to exposit any Biblical text that addresses the issue, and the answer should be clear.
Unfortunately, the Bible has no texts that speak about abortion directly. It would appear that it was not practiced at all in Israel, and there are no Biblical laws that refer to it. This is somewhat surprising, since there are references to the practice, and legislation prohibiting it, in Near Eastern cultures during Old Testament times. Some take this silence in the Old Testament as proof that abortion was permitted in Israel, since it was not expressly forbidden. Others argue that it was exceptional, not only in Israel, but in surrounding nations, and that the Bible did not attempt to be exhaustive in legislating against all evil practices, particularly when they were relatively rare.
Thus, I still ask myself, how does one preach a sermon on abortion? I suppose one answer is that I should not, since the Bible does not speak to the issue. That would be an easy answer, but it is not too helpful. We evangelicals believe that the Bible gives us guidelines, at least, if not direct teaching, to all of the important issues in our lives.
I believe the Bible does speak to the issue of abortion, even if it does not mention the specific problem per se. This is because the central issue concerning abortion -- theologically, medically, morally -- is whether a human fetus is a full human being. If the fetus is fully human, then abortion is the killing of a full human being. If the fetus is not fully human, then abortion does not kill a full human being. The Bible does speak to this issue, on at least two fronts. First, the Bible certainly does speak of what it is to be human. Second, the Bible also mentions the unborn in several places.
Thus, my sermon today has two points. First, the Bible holds human life -- and human personhood -- in very high regard, and so should we. Second, the Bible regards unborn human life as fully human, and so should we. After developing these two points, I will try to emphasize some practical implications that arise from them.
The Bible Holds Human Life -- and Human Personhood -- in Very High Regard.
I do not think that any Christian would dispute this fact. Intuitively, we know that God loves us and values us. He created us, after all. He created us in his own image (Gen. 1:26-28). He set us over the animals and the rest of creation to rule responsibly over them. He made us a little lower than the angels -- or God himself -- (Psalm 8). He invested himself heavily in us, as evidenced by his repeated suffering whenever Israel went astray and especially as evidenced by his giving of himself -- his own Son -- to die for us, in our place.
The difficult question here is "What is human personhood, and how do we receive it?" (We should note here that the word "person" does not occur in the original languages of the Bible. The relevant Hebrew and Greek terms are "man," "woman," "humanity," "soul," "life." Nonetheless, we are searching for that which is more than merely biological life, and "personhood" (or "person") is an adequate English word for now.)
The answer to the first part of this question is that humans are persons because we possess the image of God (Gen. 1:27). It is precisely this that distinguishes us from the animals, according to this passage (1:26-28). Now, much has been written as to what the image of God actually is. (It certainly does not mean we look like him physically!) The immediate context suggests dominion over creation as the expression of God's image. Others point to humanity's spiritual, rational, and moral qualities as the expression of God's image. Certainly both emphases contain elements of the truth about them. Most likely, God's image in us is the totality of our beings, and not just one or two facets of it. Nevertheless, I want to highlight what most theologians point to as God's image in us, and that is that we are essentially spiritual, rational, moral beings.
The answer to the second part of the question I just posed -- "How do we receive it?" -- is not specifically addressed in Scripture, but we can deduce some things about the process. For Adam and Eve -- i.e., for the initial expressions of humanity -- it was "created," i.e., it was given them at the time they were brought forth. For the rest of humanity, it is not so clear. However, there is very good reason to believe that the image of God is passed on to us from our parents, i.e., it is inherited just as we inherit other qualities. This is particularly so when we remember that we speak of the sinful nature that we inherit as descendants of Adam (see Paul's arguments in Romans 5). That is, it passes from generation to generation, in a deadly, unbroken heritage. It is not something we are given at a certain moment in time: we are born with it, this "gift" from our parents -- indeed, we received it just as certainly as we received our genetic code, and just as early. This sinful nature is part of what I just referred to as the spiritual or moral dimension of the image of God in us (although it is a terrible perversion of it, of course!).
Thus, we can easily conclude that God holds in very high regard that which he has created in us, even though it is tarnished, hidden, suppressed, and perverted by the Fall.
The Bible Regards Unborn Human Life as Fully Human.
In the psalm that was read this morning -- Psalm 139 -- we see the psalmist speaking about God's creative activity as he was developing in the womb. Similarly, Job speaks of God fashioning and making him altogether ... clothing him with skin and flesh and knitting him together with bones and sinews (Job 10:8-12).
Yet, we know that God does not create us ex nihilo, out of nothing. Our life and form come from our parents: the statement in Gen. 2:2 about God resting from all his work shows that God ceased from any further creative activity in that sense. Thus, we inherit our physical life from our parents.
But, we also receive more than this from our parents. We also receive the image of God from them. Gen. 5:3 states that Adam, who had been created in the image of God (5:1), fathered a son in his own image, in his own likeness. This remarkable passage surely is intended to show us more than just physical resemblance; the repetition of Adam as God's image in this passage clearly indicates that this image is now being passed down, seminally.
We also receive our sinful natures from our parents, as suggested above. Paul speaks of this in Romans 5, and he speaks in 7:23 of "the law of sin which is in my members," i.e., which is an integral part of him. Several OT passages speak in these terms, as well (Job 14:4; 15:14; Ps. 58:3).
A key OT passage in this regard is found in Ps. 51:5-6 [Heb 7-8]. Both verses show that an individual's spiritual, moral capacity is an integral part of him/her from the womb (and v. 5 suggests that it is present from the moment of conception!). Note verse 6: the words translated as "inner parts" and "inmost place" (NIV) properly refer to the mother's womb, not to the psalmist's inner being. (The words literally mean "covered-over parts" and "bottled-up place.") Thus, verse 6 teaches that God desires righteousness to be a part of humanity even from the womb! Thus, both verses speak of an individual's spiritual, moral capacity: verse 5 of his sinful nature and verse 6 of the potential for righteous things.
A final OT passage that we may note is Exod. 21:22-25. This is the closest the Bible gets to speaking of abortion: it is a legal text dealing with penalties to be imposed when men strike a pregnant woman in the course of fighting with each other. It has been much discussed and variously translated, but I believe the NIV is correct in its translation and understanding: a premature birth is involved here, not a miscarriage. The text exacts a fine (for the trauma of premature birth) if neither mother or child dies, but if either dies or is otherwise harmed, then the law of proportional punishment applied. This text shows that the value of the unborn child's life was on a par with that of the mother (or any other human): if it died, the principle was "a life for a life."
Conclusion: Practical Implications
While there are numerous other texts that are discussed to show that unborn human life has all the inherent qualities -- and thus, the same value -- as other human life, these must suffice for now. To summarize: God values human life highly because it bears his image, an image which is passed on seminally from generation to generation. Those texts that do speak of unborn human life treat it as of equal value to human life that has been born.
What, then, are some of the practical implications of these conclusions? First of all, if unborn human life is of equal value to any other human life, then the taking of this unborn life can only be justified under the same circumstances in which we might justify the taking of other human life. For example, we conceivably could justify capital punishment (on the grounds that a person is so guilty that death is the only appropriate penalty), but the unborn human life in no way can fit into this category. We conceivably could justify killing in war, on the grounds that belligerent combatants are "fair game," but most Christians who do so would also hold to some form of a "just-war" theory that would not justify killing of innocent non-combatants. Here again, the unborn human life is not analogous to a wartime combatant. It would seem that the only other clear case of justifiably taking a human life is when it is done to protect another human life (and, of course, a strict pacifist position would deny even this). In the context of the unborn human life, we could then justify the taking of this life if it threatened the life of its mother.
Now, many Christians -- including some here this morning -- who are apalled at the easy access to abortion in our society today and the cavalier attitudes toward it, would nonetheless argue that abortion should be permissible in more cases than just this one, such as in cases of rape or incest, or potentially deformed babies (physically or mentally). These are difficult issues and decisions. However, we should note very clearly that the reasoning behind allowing for abortions in these latter cases is very different from the reasoning behind allowing for abortion when the mother's life is at stake. In the first case, the reason is life; in the others, it is trauma. I personally find it difficult to justify moving from the first case to the second set of cases. While these cases represent unspeakable trauma (and I cannot pretend that I ever will begin to understand the trauma of being raped, and my wife and I do not have a deformed child), nevertheless it does not seem to me that the reasoning in these cases differ essentially -- except by degree -- from the reasoning at the other end of the spectrum, where easy abortion "on demand" is demanded on the basis of the mental or other "trauma" (and, for many, this means "inconvenience") that a particular pregnancy will impose.
Are there ways in which we can be "pro-life" with regard to abortion? Yes, there are. First, we can lobby to restrict existing law on abortion. For example, some abortions result in a live birth, and then the baby is left -- exposed -- to die; this has taken several hours in some cases. We need laws that would permit such babies to be saved and placed under state or private custody. Second, we can work -- and pray! -- toward a reversal or restriction of the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion, back to the days when every state recognized the exceptional thing that it should be.
If you are of an activist stripe, you can demonstrate on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, or at other times, at the state capitol or at an abortion clinic. You can get involved with the "Rescue Movement," which is "rescuing" unborn children by persuading some mothers-to-be not to have abortions.
Less dramatically, we can get involved with a Christian crisis-pregnancy center that ministers to pregnant teenagers and others. We can counsel gently and compassionately with women who are considering abortions, or have had abortions. There are many things we can do. [Incidentally, I have prepared a nine-page annotated bibliography of books and articles on abortion that also includes names, addresses, and telephone numbers of national and local pro-life organizations, for those who are interested. You may pick up a copy from the shelf just outside the back doors of the sanctuary.]
If you are confronted with abortion in a more personal way, you can remember the things we have considered this morning. If you find yourself in a situation where you are tempted to have an abortion, you can remember these things. If someone you know is considering an abortion, you can remember these things.
In closing, let me make one final suggestion. Those of us who claim to be "pro-life" would advance our cause immeasurably in the eyes of the world if we were perceived to be consistently "pro-life" instead of selectively so. The evangelical world is guilty, I am afraid, of the charge that we seem to be more interested in unborn human life than in human life in the ghettoes, than in human life on skid row, than in human life in nursing homes, and so forth. We seem to abandon concern for the unborn child as soon as she is born. The Bible is full of admonitions to help and care for the poor, the disadvantaged, widows, orphans, aliens. We are to do this with the same passion that we defend the rights of unborn children. If we do not, then we are doing what we claim our opponents do: we are valuing some types of human life more highly than others.
If the world were to see us taking care of pregnant teenagers, unwed mothers and their children, providing foster homes and adoptive homes for those children that some mothers could not keep, even those hard-to-place children, and giving to those places that do these things, then we would have a more credible voice as we spoke up in support of all human life and spoke out against abortion.