What is your stance on abortion?

Question: I’ve heard that you lost members of your congregation because you refused to take a stand in the abortion debate. If this is true, I’m deeply disappointed in you. Preachers should not be afraid of offending people. So please tell me, what is your stance on abortion?

Answer: I am pro-life to the core of my being. I believe that all life is a sacred creation of God. I thus am opposed to all unnecessary violence toward any life, and especially human life. (People who know me know that I even avoid killing bugs if at all possible!). So obviously, I am opposed to abortion. Abortion is predicated on the pervasive, fallen, anti-Christian assumption the violence solves things. In the long run, it always deepens and perpetuates problems. It never solves them.

Yet, it’s also true that I refuse to tell attenders at my church (Woodland Hill Church) how they should vote on this (and every other) issue. This is not because I’m afraid of offending anybody — obviously, since my refusal to get behind pro-life politicians and agendas (or pro-choice politicians and agendas) resulted in many people being offended and leaving my church. The truth is that I offend people all the time at my church and routinely have people leave. This doesn’t bother me in the least as long as I believe what I’m teaching is true.

My refusal to jump on the pro-life political bandwagon (or any political bandwagon) is based on two things: The example of Jesus and the ambiguity of politics.

The Example of Jesus
First, I see no precedent in the ministry of Jesus or the entire New Testament for Kingdom leaders to be steering Kingdom people on “the right way” to participate in politics. Jesus never so much as commented on the politics of his day — despite living in politically hot times, and despite people constantly trying to get him to weigh in on various issues. The Kingdom he came to establish, and the Kingdom we are part of, is “not of this world” (Jn 18:36). Our main job as Kingdom people is to imitate (literally “mimic”) him in all things (e.g. Eph. 5:1-2).

We need to always remember that we are citizens of heaven before we are citizens of any earthly country (Phil. 3:20). Indeed, we’re to consider ourselves exiles and foreigners in this land (1 Pet 2:11). As guerrilla warriors stationed in enemy occupied territory, we’re not to become preoccupied with civilian affairs (1 Tim.2:4). Nor is it our business to judge, let alone try to rule, those outside the church (1 Cor. 5:12). Our only job is to bear witness to the reality of God’s reign by serving the world. Hence, I don’t believe it’s my job as a leader in the Kingdom to be trying to tell other Kingdom people how — or even if — they should vote.

The Ambiguity of Politics
Second, an issue is political if it divides the polis (Greek for city-state). Political solutions are attempts to unite the polis around a particular resolution. In pluralistic societies such as America, these issues are almost always extremely complex. Good, decent Bible-believing people can and do fundamentally disagree about them. There is no single, unambiguous way to translate one’s Kingdom convictions — including convictions about the wrongness of abortion — into a political solution.

Here’s a small sampling of some of the ambiguous questions surrounding the political issue of abortion:

* Is working to pass a law against abortion the best way to prevent it? Some studies suggest that abortions are as common in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries were it’s permitted. Some studies also suggest that poverty rates affect abortion rates much more than laws. So one could argue that a candidate who is pro-choice but has a better economic program would do more to save unborn lives than a pro-life candidate who has an economic program that does less to alleviate poverty.

Then again, one could argue the opposite. And, of course, people fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a “good” economic program.

* Is working to outlaw all abortions the best way to save unborn lives? Maybe, maybe not. Polls have for years shown that the vast majority of Americans agree that the fewer the abortions, the better, and that the later an abortion is performed, the worse it is. Yet, we as a society are not working together to create a society in which abortions are increasingly rare and late term abortions don’t happen at all, mainly because the opposing sides are polarized, paranoid and therefore uncompromising. Politics is “the art of compromise” — by definition, since we’re trying resolve an issue that divides the polis. Often in politics, the best way to ensure you won’t get any of what you want is to insist on getting everything that you want.

So one could argue that the best political solution right now – the one that would save the most unborn lives – isn’t the uncompromising one, but is rather the one that tries to find common ground among the differing parties. It may be that, while it feels more righteous to tow an uncompromising line on the abortion issue, doing so actually contributes to unborn babies being killed! At least you could see how a good and intelligent person might think this (or think the opposite!)

I have suggested that we might as a society make headway on this deeply divisive issue by taking the universally agreed upon criteria for what constitutes death — the loss of legal personhood — and simply reverse it, making it the agreed upon criteria for the beginning of legal personhood. When a person’s brain activity falls below a certain minimum threshold, we no longer consider them a legal person. So, perhaps we could get the majority of people in America to agree that when a fetus’ brain activity rises above this minimum threshold, we should consider them a legal person, possessing all the rights of human beings. I’m told this occurs roughly around the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy.

I put this forward not because it is what I myself believe, but because, in our pluralistic context, I think it might be a solution that would unite the polis, allow us to work together to achieve what the majority of us want (fewer abortions) and thus save the lives of unborn children.

But, I could of course be wrong about all of this. And whether I’m right or wrong, as a leader in the Kingdom I can’t call my position the “Christian” position and I can’t encourage people to vote along the lines of my proposed political solution. Indeed, the only reason I even bring it up is to illustrate my point about the ambiguity of politics in a pluralistic society.

* There are also lots of ambiguous metaphysical and ethical questions one has to wrestle with concerning the issue of abortion. Is it self-evident to all rational and decent people that full personhood begins at conception? Would only an unintelligent or indecent person disagree with this? Is using the morning-after pill as wrong as partial birth abortion? Should women who take the morning-after pill be tried as murderers, as much as people who kill toddlers or adults? If not, why not? And if not, what about women who terminate their pregnancies (say) in the fourth week as opposed to women who do so in the ninth month? Are there different levels of criminality here? Should both be punished equally as murderers? Whether you answer “yes” or “no,” is your answer unambiguous? Could an intelligent and decent person disagree with your answer?

* What about those rare cases when the pregnancy is the result of rape or where it threatens the woman’s life? If full personhood begins at conception, why should the circumstances of the conception make any difference? And, if the unborn is at any particular stage deemed to be a full person with full rights, why should the threat to the mother be weighed more heavily than the threat to the unborn? Yet, many (most?) pro-lifers who insist it is self-evident that full personhood begins at conception want to make exceptions in these circumstances? Why?

* Even more fundamentally, who should have the right to decide how these difficult questions should be answered for society as a whole? You? Me? Government? The woman with the unwanted pregnancy?

These are obviously tough issues that intelligent, decent and even Christian people can and do disagree on. Two Christians may believe it’s wrong for them as followers of Jesus to ever terminate a pregnancy and yet fundamentally disagree about the best way to solve the political issue of abortion.

Yet, this unresolvable ambiguity should cause us no concern, since resolving ambiguous issues that divide the polis isn’t part of our unique calling as Kingdom people anyways! Following Jesus doesn’t give us any unique wisdom about how to run society. What it must do, however, is make us more willing to sacrifice ourselves for others — including for the unborn.

The Uniquely Kingdom Approach to Abortion
The unique Kingdom approach to abortion doesn’t focus on figuring out the “right” political solution, getting “the right” candidates into office or getting the “right” bills passed. As with everything else about the Kingdom, it rather focuses on manifesting the self-sacrificial love of God towards women with unwanted pregnancies and towards their unborn children.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. An unmarried 18-year-old woman I’ll call Becky became pregnant. She was afraid to tell her strict Christian parents because she was convinced they would disown her in disgrace and make her move out of the house. This in turn would severely jeopardize her plans to attend college and fulfill her dream of becoming a veterinarian. Consequently, she was planning on having an abortion.

Becky confided in a neighborhood friend of the family I’ll call Dorthey. Dorthey was a middle aged divorced woman who over the years had developed a special relationship with Becky. When Becky told Dorthey of her plan, Dorthey didn’t judge her or dump her opinions about abortion on her. She simply offered to help. If Becky chose to have an abortion, Dorthey offered to help with her post-abortion recovery. But, believing that abortion was not the best solution to Becky’s dilemma, she lovingly encouraged Becky to think seriously about her planned course of action.

Even more importantly, she offered to do whatever it took to make going full term feasible for Becky.

If Becky’s parents kicked her out of the house (which they did), Dorthey offered her basement as a place to stay. It wasn’t much, but it was something. Whatever financial and emotional support Becky would need throughout the pregnancy, Dorthey offered to provide as best as she was able (she ended up taking out a second mortgage on her house). If Becky wanted to give the baby up for adoption, Dorthey would help with this. If Becky wanted to keep the child (which she ended up doing), Dorthey would help her with this as well (she became the Godmother). And, on top of this, Dorthey promised to work with Becky to help make it financially possible to pursue her dream of becoming a veterinarian.

As a result, Becky went through with the pregnancy, moved in with Dorthey, pursued her dream part-time while both she and Dorthey raised her daughter.

This is an example of being “pro-life” Kingdom style, for Dorthey was willing to sacrifice on behalf of Becky and her unborn child. Dorthey’s sacrifice wasn’t rooted in a particular way of resolving the complex, ambiguous questions mentioned above. In fact, Dorthey didn’t claim to know much about these difficult issues. She only believed it is better to affirm life whenever possible rather than to terminate it, and she was willing to communicate this conviction in any way she could by paying a price.

The price Dorthey paid was much greater than the price of a vote, carrying a picket sign or signing a petition. But this is why Dorthey’s way of being “pro-life” was a distinctly Kingdom way of being “pro-life.” It has nothing to do with one’s opinions about which limited, ambiguous, kingdom-of-the-world option is “right.” It’s got everything to do with replicating Jesus’ Calvary-quality love to others.

It may be worth noting that, for a variety of complex reasons, Dorthey tended to vote “pro-choice.” Yet, I submit Dorthey was far more pro-life than many who profess to being “pro-life” because they vote a certain way.

I believe the Church is called to be a Church of Dortheys, not just on the abortion issue, but on every issue. We’re not called to pretend we have more wisdom or righteousness than others when it comes to political problems. We are rather called to imitate Jesus in manifesting God’s love for all people at all times — including women who are considering abortion.

On the abortion issue, as on all other issues, the Kingdom is not about how we vote. It’s about the sacrificial way we’re willing to live.