“The Overturn of Roe v Wade: How Should Christians Respond?”

Far from pro-life strategies being inadequate, and based on the Scriptural foundation that life begins, is sustained, and ends in accordance with God’s power and purposes,¹⁵ there is a continuum of proper Christian response rooted in promoting and preserving life that goes from merely holding a pro-life stance all the way to adoption and everything in between.¹⁶ Therefore, one is pro-life “enough” to raise a child and not abort it! All additional pro-life advocacy and participation—voting, praying for the abolition of abortion, giving to the church or other organizations that support orphan care and pro-life causes, caring for and grieving with mothers who have had abortions, fostering, adopting, etc.—is icing on the cake of not killing babies! To act in acknowledgment of God as Creator and Sustainer of life—its beginning and end—is to be pro-life “enough.”

Perhaps the main problem with the womb-to-tomb objection is obscured vision. When pro-abortionists assume the moral superiority of their political strategies and trust a well-worn misleading media narrative that becomes the social imaginary, it requires nary a glance at the empirical data nor any meaningful consideration of what pro-lifers actually do. However, beyond the narrative, at pregnancy resource centers, in churches, and in Christian families, there is an entire unseen world of pro-life activity where God’s people are doing exactly what they believe about the sanctity of life and the dignity of all humanity as created in God’s image.

Study after study provides ample irrefutable statistical evidence proving that, on average, Christians overwhelmingly put their money and actions where their mouths and beliefs are much more than the pro-abortionist objections, wider cultural perceptions, and common media narratives would have you believe, and even moreso, when compared to the actual practice of the average person holding to pro-abortion views.

² For an explanation of our “Essentials–Convictions–Opinions” Chart, what each section means, and how much importance to give to one’s answer to the title question is covered in the Intro to GQA, under “Not All Questions Carry Equal Weight: The ‘Essentials–Convictions–Opinions Chart’”.

³ While at this point I intend to focus on questions of application and leave the biblical/theological case against abortion and the answering of objections against the pro-life case for later GQAs, for now, I may make moral claims with little argumentation beyond Scripture references, theological asides, and noting authors, schools of thought, etc. Also—for my abolitionist friends already freaking out because I didn’t call abortion “murder”—of course abortion is murder. But I want to be careful to avoid inflammatory language when it isn’t necessary, given my audience, and when, statistically, perhaps as many as 40% of women in America have had at least one abortion (https://www.newsweek.com/about-40-percent-american-women-have-had-abortions-math-behind-stat-222664). In an average congregation, that may mean quite a few women. Sometimes avoiding offense may seem like lack of courage until proved as wisdom. For anyone reading this who has been involved in abortion and hasn’t yet dealt with God, repented, and received God’s healing grace, His forgiveness and help are available. Go to hopecentergreeneville.com. For more on our official church stance on abortion, see the links at footnote 8.

⁴ Re Barbara and Dr. J. C. (“Jack”) Willke’s legacy in the pro-life movement: https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/pro-life-pioneer-barbara-willke-dead-at-90/13656; https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2013/04/mrs-barbara-willke-r-i-p/amp/#.UW03qaUb7zI; https://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/15/barbara-willke-godmother-of-modern-pro-life-movement-passes-away/. Handbook on Abortion was co-written with her husband, Dr J. C. Willke.

⁵ The most reliable estimates of the number of babies killed by abortion since its federal legalization in 1973 are between 60-65 million, based largely on statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, which is a major pro-abortion lobby and research foundation. See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/abortion-incidence-us.pdf, and http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/communications/stateofabortion2022.pdf.

⁶ 2 things: (1) This may also be as much a reason for placing it in the category of “opinions” as in “convictions”. (2) While wading into the relationship between church, culture, and politics will have to wait for further GQAs, and some may disagree with me, here’s some of my thinking. It seems obvious to me that the prima facie intent of the First Amendment to the US Constitution to create and manage a tension between freedom from federally compelled religious observance (“Establishment Clause”) and freedom for religious practice (“Free Exercise Clause”) has skewed, not just toward, but beyond freedom from compelled observance toward an absolute freedom from all moral persuasion that militantly privatizes religious practice and discourse. As a result, we are quickly becoming a morally, culturally, intellectually, and emotionally impoverished nation. We now hardly know how to meaningfully discuss anything beyond trifling amusements. (So, yes, I absolutely believe Christians are called to be a moral conscience in their communities. And no, the “separation of church and state” isn’t a phrase nor even a “wall” in the Constitution. That was Jefferson’s later informal summary of the Constitutional guidance, found in correspondence with Baptists in Danbury, CT, to help reassure them, ironically, that their religious freedoms would remain undefiled from federal interference. Btw, here’s a good summary of my stance re church and politics: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/03/putting-first-things-first.) Back to the task at hand—I see at least a few problems with this ‘absolute freedom from all moral and religious persuasion in the public square.’ (1) At the risk of offending political progressives, historians, and lawyers with this oversimplification of categories, from my perspective the framework that interprets the Constitution as a “living document” whose meaning changes with culture tends toward an unwise denial of natural law. Natural law assumes that moral values are derived from the created order and are therefore infused into the Constitution as a priori rights the framers called “unalienable” because they were not created by the Constitution but were being defended by it. This is why an originalist/textualist framework that at least seeks authorial intent and then applies meaning to modern culture tends to do so not from the majority consent of the governed but from a more deeply rooted and divinely derived moral code. There’s a huge difference between “rights” that are instituted by humans passing laws by fiat (“unconstrained”) and rights that are recognized as inherent in nature and protected by codification in law (“restrained”). (See here for some introduction to the whys and whats of various approaches to Constitutional interpretation: https://bit.ly/3ASRkVq. Also, the “Interactive Constitution” is a helpful nonpartisan resource for learning about how these different approaches play out in practical terms. To know some of where I root the aforementioned categories, see Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions re the “constrained” and “unconstrained.” For more on Sowell, who I believe is a national treasure and the most important public intellectual you've never heard of, see this Prager U video.) (2) This ‘absolute freedom from…’ is impossible by any name. Remaining apolitical sounds like a nice theory and may provide you the emotional margin to deny responsibility for living one’s claims, but there is no such thing as moral neutrality. All laws—democratically voted upon or imposed at gunpoint—are rooted in personal beliefs about and desires for the world. So, while it is true that the government ‘cannot legislate morality’ such that passing laws will change peoples’ hearts, produce moral virtue, or belief in its presuppositions, nonetheless, laws are not morally impotent. In practical terms, laws affect actual behavior. Not only do they perform a teaching function by conveying moral virtue but they restrain evil and threaten its prosecution. (See Brown Bags & Bibles episode #15 for more.) (3) Christian antipathy toward any and all political involvement that is rooted in fear of tone policing or those who abuse the “Establishment Clause” in the name of privatizing faith will mean Christians never speak the truth in public about anything—the gospel included! (Or at least, to be entirely transparent, I am referring to those who call themselves Christians but aren’t. Yeah, I said it! Those who are Christians, who don’t fear man, are ready to die for truth that benefits our fellow man. ← Btw, how absolutely stupid that this sounds naive and radical to our enlightened modern mind. We don’t have Bibles in our hands if not for countless untold Christians who were truly centered in Christ such that they were willing to die for much less!) To summarize, while some US Supreme Court justices have justifiably used the commonly cited “wall of separation between church and state” as a framer-sourced precedent for their arguments, this needn’t scare us away from cultural or even political engagement. For it is not actually in the Constitution, it may obscure more than help because the intent was to create and manage a relational tension rather than establish total separation, it is bad for our nation to entirely privatize religious faith, and at the least, it is certainly not a mandate to ‘never discuss religion and politics.’ (And btw, the Scriptures do not teach total submission to governmental authority. Again, see BB&B Episode #15.) This is not an argument for anything remotely like a “state church” nor the “Christian nationalism” that many would have you believe is the conspiracy of anyone who values Scriptural sufficiency or voted for Trump. But remaining silent on issues made clear in the Scriptures may be less about the wisdom of keeping our relationships smooth and more about prizing personal comfort that is lack of courage and obedience to the world.

⁷ With apologies to my Reformed Presbyterian and mildly Theonomic Postmillennial friends, I’m not ready to make proper Christian response to the overturn of Roe v Wade and the particulars of pro-life strategies a matter of “conviction.” For those confused with all the previous jargon: In basic terms, “theonomy” is an intramural debate about the extent to which the Old Testament law (especially the moral law summarized in the 10 Commandments) still do or don’t apply today, after Jesus’ fulfillment of them. “Postmillennialism” is the conviction that Jesus’ second coming is “after” (“post”) the “thousand years” of Revelation 20, meaning they see the gospel spreading in triumph such that God’s Kingdom will reign in peace and righteousness over the earth before He returns to judge and fully establish His forever Kingdom.

⁸ For more, see Brown Bags & Bags Episodes #29 and #30 which explain and work through our Elders Position Paper on the “Sanctity of Human Life,” and our Confession of Faith, which says, “We believe in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception” (Psalm 139:13-16).

⁹ As proof we at fccgreene.org are careful not to conflate faith and politics, check out a 3-week series we did preceding the 2016 presidential election called “Primary Politics”. Here’s some of the verbiage we used as intro: “Has political idolatry distracted you from living as God intends? What if, according to the Bible, a government, regardless of its worldly power, political structure, or claim to authority, doesn’t establish but only protects what we call rights that were given to us by God? And yet, despite this audacious claim to ultimate power, God asks us to wisely submit to the authority of our civil government. What if real protection for the follower of Christ has literally nothing to do with military might, political power, and passing of legislation that make our lives ‘better’? If we understood clearly the almighty power of God and what He is doing in the world, we would understand our existence here and now to be about participation in a citizenry where our lives are votes that reveal the truth of God’s sovereignty. Because Christ makes us citizens in a kingdom with no end, ‘Your life is your vote!’ for a King whose reign brings true and lasting peace and freedom.” Also, if you haven’t yet read the two sections toward the end of the “Intro to GQA,” they will also provide some context: “(5) I Also Write GQAs as a Burkean Political Conservative, But That Will (Hopefully) Only Emerge With the Practicalities of Moral Issues on Which the Bible Speaks, But Again, So What?!” and “To Those Who Claim, ‘Well, I’m Just a ‘Biblicist!’’ or ‘I’m Apolitical! I say, ‘Hogwash!’”

¹⁰ If a particular aspect of the ensuing discussion warrants a different assessment, I will specify as much.

¹¹ Polly Rothstein and Marian Williams, “Choice” (New York: Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, 1983), printed and distributed by the NARAL Foundation, Washington, D.C.

¹² For a fantastic Christ-centered introduction to logical fallacies that goes way beyond typical summarized sources you’ll find online (like logicalfallacies.org and fallacydetective.com, to which I often refer), read Dr. Jason Lisle’s Introduction to Logic. It’s perfect for a homeschool curriculum, btw.

¹³ Btw, I know it’s popular to use this phrase as if it means the question is “begging” to be asked, but that’s an improper begging of the question. “Begging the question,” translated from the Latin petitio principii, essentially means “assuming the original point,” and it is a form of a circular argument that means to avoid and argue around the question! See https://www.logicalfallacies.org/begging-the-question.html, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/begs-the-question, https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/begging-the-question, https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2021/11/beg-the-question.html, and https://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/10/23/thursday-grammar-begging-the-question.

¹⁴ Pro-abortion advocates have long tied this particular critique of pro-lifers to a political worldview that is increasingly wed to a secularism that takes it far afield from even social/modern liberalism’s goals. (By “social/modern liberalism” I do not mean anything pejorative, but simply the belief in large-scale government programs to address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education, etc., as distinct from “classic liberalism,” which holds to many tenets with which most modern conservatives would most certainly agree. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism for more. Also see “(5) I Also Write GQAs as a Burkean Political Conservative, But That Will (Mostly) Only Emerge on the Practicalities of Moral Issues on Which the Bible Speaks, But Again, So What?!“ toward the end of the “Intro to GQA”.) This means pro-abortion advocates are usually philosophically and politically tied to a worldview that perceives the “right” to speak to the morality of another’s circumstances at all—whether abortion or otherwise—is an unwarranted source of objective truth because it doesn’t adequately account for the “standpoint” of the oppressed or underprivileged. Regardless of the debatable questions of epistemology, any secular system of civics that rejects God’s moral law as the foundation for producing and protecting an unalienable common grace for all will eventually implode. (In fact, I believe that common grace, which is the theological father of natural law, is the only viable moral foundation for truly pluralistic societal flourishing. (See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, for a basic definition of “common grace,” which is distinct from “saving grace”, https://ref.ly/o/stberkhof/1262841?length=291. See also BB&B Episode #73 at the 23:23 mark and https://www.gotquestions.org/common-grace.html. Nevertheless, to nail the point a bit further, the contradictory modern societal values of individual autonomy at any cost and insistence on measuring human agency according to sociopolitically constructed categories of power—especially neo-Marxian “oppressed” and “oppressor”—cannot long coexist. We know this from the ugly history of 20th-century political movements resulting in, conservatively, hundreds of millions of deaths. However, more germane to my point, at the local level, the effect of constantly redefining human rights according to emotional whims and the relativizing of objective truth in subjective terms (standpoint epistemology, retributive justice, intersectionality, victimization, etc.) inevitably results in a rampant identity politics that when, embodied in everyday relationships, militates against the selflessness required to raise families that build healthy long-term cultural institutions. To make it simple, if our younger generations continue buying into subjective values, cultural victimization, and increasingly calling themselves LGBTQIA+, genderfluid, pansexual, etc., they will not bear and raise children and will actively seek to destroy and/or redefine existing institutions that do not affirm them. Paying even passing attention to the content produced by most media sources is evidence enough that we are already experiencing this. Now don’t misunderstand, the Scriptures are clear that Christians are on the side of those who are unjustly oppressed by evil. The categories of “oppressed” and “oppressor” are per se valid, but not as sociopolitically-constructed and intersectionally-defined special-interest groups would have us believe, i.e., apart from biblical categories of the evil of partiality, unequal weights, etc. Take, for example, how well-known Critical Theorist José Medina describes objectivity in relative terms that are mediated according to sociopolitically-constructed categories of power: “[T]here is a cognitive asymmetry between the standpoint of the oppressed and the standpoint of the privileged that gives an advantage to the former over the latter. … [T]he perspectives from the lives of the less powerful can offer a more objective view of the social world, a view based on their experiences of being underprivileged that captures real disparities, instead of a view that ignores (or even erases) experiences of oppression and is more likely to be oblivious or blind to disparities and insensitive to injustice” (Medina, José. The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 197). Granted, there is some truth worth acknowledging in Medina’s suggestions—that others’ experiences add objective truth value and such intentional ”erasing” of real oppression for an advantage can be a form of injustice—but not only is true retributive justice apart from omniscience impossible, but on Medina’s own terms, is there any greater injustice than the murder of an unborn child—who wields the least socio-cultural power—merely to avoid the economic responsibility, career inconvenience, or societal shame of carrying that child to term?! The issue is not whether we are to help those who are hurting but rather clearly defining who that is, how they are being unjustly hurt, the method and effectiveness of the help offered, and the extent of fruit for human flourishing. I just happen to believe that innocent babies in the womb are categorically the most oppressed and underprivileged among us—those whose experiences of oppression are the most culturally erased by being killed.

¹⁵ The specific biblical and theological case will come in further GQAs.