The New Zealand Christian Network has a number of major concerns about the proposed liberalisation of New Zealand’s abortion legislation.
What is missing in the proposed new legislation, asserts spokesperson Dr Stuart Lange, is clear evidence of concern to respect and protect the life of those unborn. “How can politicians say they care about society’s most vulnerable people, then have this huge blind spot about those most vulnerable of all, unborn children?”
The existing legislation is less than perfect, and often too loosely applied, but it does at least implicitly seek to balance the health of the mother and the great seriousness of ending an unborn baby’s life.
Those proposing the change say that abortion needs to be “decriminalised”. But that is a misleading argument. Under the current legislation, no woman undergoing a “lawful” abortion is ever committing a criminal act. Only abortionists who operate outside of the law commit a crime.
Proponents of the change say that abortion must become simply a “woman’s health issue”. But what about the health of the unborn child? Abortion remains an extreme and tragic event, invariably with fatal consequences for one of the two people involved.
The network acknowledges that aborting a baby is often an agonising decision for a woman, and can also have ongoing effects on her well-being.
NZCN believes that current legislation, for all its flaws, is much to be preferred to what is proposed.
It urges members of parliament to vote against what is proposed.
Dr Stuart Lange National Director New Zealand Christian Network
“I don’t want it, so it isn’t there!” is the third part in the Atheism is not all it’s cracked up to be series by Gavan O’ Farrell, who works as a public sector lawyer.
So far, this series on atheism has discussed whether we theists are “irrational” (Part 1) and whether morality is viable without God (Part 2).
I’ll now briefly canvas some of the other things atheists often say.
Two seemingly peripheral arguments
“Which religion?”: A common reason for rejecting God seems to be: “There are thousands of religions, most of them mutually incompatible, they can’t all be true.”
You’d have to look hard to find “thousands”. Anyway, however many there are, my response is “If you are curious, you will do the work of inquiring, just as a serious scientist does when faced with a difficult and complex natural question. If you are not curious, or not willing to do the work, just say so”.
This atheist assertion insinuates, “Religions can’t all be true, so none of them are”, which is clearly illogical: one of them could be true, the atheist just doesn’t know which one. The pervasiveness of theistic belief (globally and throughout history) should really make a genuine sceptic curious.
The “onus of proof”: You will often hear atheists say it is up to theists to prove God’s existence. This made better sense when Christians were doing the talking while the atheists just appraised the arguments.
This has changed, atheists now make a positive assertion “You may not claim a fact unless there is empirical/scientific proof of that fact”. They are now on the front foot, pushing their [limited and limiting] theory of knowledge.
We do wish to persuade about God, but it’s not a matter of “proof” (see Part 1). As I understand the dynamics, we Christians commend our faith to others. I haven’t noticed any Christians insisting on belief in God – not recently, anyway. By contrast, atheists insist that it is only permissible to talk facts (including facts about God) if those facts are proved empirically/scientifically. This insistence swings the onus of proof onto them: they may no longer assume this view and impose it, they must establish it.
It is worth remarking that the location of the onus of proof has no bearing on the issue of whether or not God exists: it’s just a discussion protocol.
I mention these arguments, not because they are intrinsically important but because they come up so frequently. They have negligible logical value as arguments. Really, they seem to me to be excuses rather than arguments – attempted justification for not believing and for not being inquisitive. Another refuge, like the “empiricist box” (Part 1).
It won’t hurt us to acknowledge that not wanting God to exist is entirely understandable. We all value our autonomy and we’re all at least half-inclined to resent authority. Even faith (a shifting, moody thing) is not a 24-7, airtight defence against this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if simply not wanting God to exist turned out to be the central point. And, to the extent that we Christians can empathise, a meeting-point.
“Christianity is not ‘good news’ but bad news”
Atheists often say Christianity is evil and offer a bundle of “proofs” which have become familiar – war, forced conversion, the Spanish Inquisition, witch-hunting, tolerance of slavery, the oppression of women and gays, the suppression of science and, more recently, protected paedophilia. To this list might be added Old Testament violence and the “immoral” nature of Redemption by Christ’s death.
Sometimes, atheists add that they would refuse to worship a God who is behind all of this – a strange assertion that wants to sound heroic but can’t possibly be if there is no God.
Atheists should hesitate before offering moral judgements (see Part 2) but, on the other hand, we Christians should not rely on this to avoid discussion of wrongs we know the Church has done. After all, the Church consists largely of human beings and has wielded enormous power – a notoriously dangerous combination. For the most part, though, the proofs rely on the hasty acceptance of information that is skewed or incomplete.
Christianiy’s track record is critical to the plausibility of Christianity because it is difficult to recommend Christ if history shows that accepting this recommendation is a bad idea. In Part 4, I’ll mention some books that help set our track record straight.
The dark side of this track record is also another excuse for not being inquisitive, this time about Christianity. After all, atheists don’t seem to consider the possibility that God might also be appalled at some things the Church has done.
The attack on Redemption is a separate matter, and is entirely misconceived. Our critics liken it to the ancient ritual of “scapegoating”, where a village would seize a goat, load it up with paraphernalia representing the village’s sins and drive it into the desert so that the sins (and the goat) are never seen again.
We believe Christ volunteered to, so to speak, “carry our sins into the desert”, that He did this long ago without any urging from you or me, that He returned in excellent condition and that He now asks us whether the sins He bore included ours. We say Yes, not to be cruel, but out of common sense and awe-struck gratitude. It would be unspeakably stupid to say No.
‘Morality and the human being‘ is the second part in the Atheism is not all it’s cracked up to be series by Gavan O’ Farrell, who works as a public sector lawyer.
Atheists say that Christians often accuse them of being wicked. Such an accusation (which I’ve personally never heard in New Zealand) is not only rude but false: it is quite apparent that many atheists are very moral people.
However, this is despite their atheism. I say this because I suggest that atheists cannot explain their morals. The morals of virtually all atheists are inherited from Christianity – especially the very basic ideas that human beings are highly (and equally) significant.
After all, New Zealand’s secularism is post-Christian: it didn’t arrive out of the blue, like a baby delivered by a stork. Like a real baby, it was generated organically and possesses inherited traits.
Moral relativism
Most atheists say they are moral relativists, who believe there are no “objective” moral requirements that apply to everyone. For them, what we think is an objective morality is just the set of moral constructs developed by our society. Other societies have theirs too and it is impossible to judge another society, no matter what it does, because there is no objective global standard. Many moral relativists go further and say that relativism operates at the individual level: “my morality and my right/wrong” vs “your morality etc”.
As I understand it, moral relativism has long been discredited in philosophical circles. For example, when they promote “tolerance” of other views as being immune from criticism, they insist on this tolerance as an absolute requirement – which contradicts their whole position.
In addition, relativism doesn’t capture the reality of moral discourse. When two people disagree about a moral question, their views are in conflict. However, if two relativists “disagree”, their views don’t conflict because they’re describing their respective moral feelings about the topic, not the moral character of the topic itself (because it has no objective moral character). Their “disagreement” is like A and B discussing headaches, with A saying “I have a headache” and B replying “Well, I don’t have a headache”.
Anyhow, I have found that people who call themselves relativists don’t really seem to mean it. They use it to ward off criticism directed at them: “That’s just your right and wrong (etc)”. But, when they criticise others, they tend to speak very dogmatically, as though there is an objective standard (which they don’t explain).
It is tempting to disdain relativism, but it remains important because a large number of people nominally subscribe to it.
Objective secular morality
Some atheists do acknowledge that morality consists of objective rules, or at least principles, that apply to every individual and every society.
Evolved morality:
Some atheists believe that basic “moral” behaviours (eg altruism) evolved in order for societies (or humanity itself) to survive.
I accept evolution, but it just “happens”, it doesn’t give value and has no authority. We don’t obey moral rules (eg behave altruistically) just because we find them in our midst. We need a reason to obey them.
If we are urged to obey for the sake of the survival of humanity, we can still ask why humanity “should” survive. There is an epic urge to survive, but this is different from “should”. Especially nowadays, when some say we shouldn’t survive because of the harm we’ve caused to the environment.
Deduced morality:
Other atheists try to develop an objective secular morality from the ground up.
Consequentialism:
This approach to morality says an action is right or wrong according to its consequences. However –
By speaking of good and bad consequences, this approach again assumes certain values (eg survival or well-being) and just imposes them. Besides, whose well-being are we supposed to value, and why? Just humans? All humans?
Consequentialism rests on the idea that the ends justify the means, and we all know how ruthless and dangerous that can be.
A consequentialist moral rule is only a rule-of-thumb. If lying is morally wrong because it usually does more harm than good, I must still decide what my specific intended lie will cause.
I can only consider the foreseeable consequences: the actual consequences are yet to occur. A consequentialist can’t judge an action until afterwards. We need to know beforehand!
And my decision could take ages. Every action has myriad consequences that go forever. This is unworkable.
Workable or not, any rules emerging from consequentialism are made by human beings. I end up being completely subject to majority rule. We know the majority can be wrong, which reminds us that the majority has power, not moral authority.
Consideration of consequences is an important element of moral decision-making, but it’s not all there is to it.
Positivism:
The alternative approach is “positivism”: the rules identify behaviour that is considered to be inherently right or wrong. EG lying is inherently wrong, wrong by its nature, no calculations are needed. This is more realistic and workable as it relies on an intuitive repugnance for lying rather than a remote sense that the lie might do more harm than good.
However, secular positivism also assumes values and also subjects us to the dubious moral authority of the majority.
The human being:
When all the theorising about morality is done, nothing beats a rich definition of the human being as a reason for us behaving well towards each other.
However, relying on “the evidence”, the atheist tells us that human beings are no more than the latest gorilla upgrade, the planet’s most complex organism and top predator and that each of us is a mixed bag of kindness and malice. If this is all a human is, it makes equal sense to hate them as to love them.
Atheists talk about justice because they believe in equality. Good, but the evidence says people are not equal: many differences are socially constructed, but there are also real inherent superiorities (eg intelligence, strength, agility, prowess, disposition).
We Christians believe each human being to be extremely significant and equally so, regardless of other characteristics, because we are made in God’s image and likeness. This Imago Dei is the trump card. Loving people and giving them justice makes immediate sense because of what they are: a human being demands love and justice simply by being a human being.
Secularists reject all this, of course, and have not yet identified (or even imagined) anything lovable to replace it. The basics of post-Christian secular morality are really a memory of Christianity.
Afterthought
It may be that the atheists’ difficulty in explaining the value of the individual human being has helped give rise to the new ethos, identity politics. While this ethos pays lip-service to “human rights”, it has actually moved well away from the idea of valuing each person individually. Identity politics sees only groups.
Groups are certainly important, but only because they are groups of individual human beings: the value of the group is the result of simple arithmetic.
Identity politics doesn’t get this. After all, it creates the groups – herds, really. Identity politics displays the astonishing arrogance of beholding a spectacularly complex and unique human being and allocating them to a herd by reference to a handful of characteristics (sex, “gender”, sexual orientation, race). So much about each person is simply ignored! Then the herders tell us which herd is “good” and which is “bad”.
Identity politics is spurious, of course, but it must be taken seriously because it has become so powerful (and dangerous). While many atheists are on the political Left, the more serious among them may have to break ranks from identity politics in due course, for the sake of intellectual integrity.
Jesus’ prayer for unity among his disciples has rung out down through the generations. Nigel Irwin believes this prayer remains in effect to this day. He tells us about an international movement that encourages churches in every city and town to function as one to advance gospel transformation.
I cannot think of too many endeavours more exciting and inspiring than to be part of God’s answer to the prayer of Jesus in John 17. As he turned his face toward Golgotha and the cross, Jesus earnestly prayed to his Father that his followers would be one—that they would walk in unity, so that the world would know that the Father sent the Son, and loved them even as he loved Jesus.
As we know, God answered Jesus’ prayer through his death and resurrection, making us one, which was his ‘manifold wisdom’ from the beginning (Ephesians 2:14 and 3:10).
Followers of Jesus are subsequently commanded to maintain this unity, established through Christ by the Spirit, in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). New Zealand’s inaugural Movement Day event last month was coordinated in obedience to this command.
Movement Day in New Zealand
Following in the footsteps of 30 other global cities in 2019, Wellington hosted New Zealand’s own expression of Movement Day on the 14th and 15th of May at the Salvation Army Citadel in Vivian Street.
Leaders from throughout the nation came together to celebrate all that God is doing, and to accelerate the advance of the gospel in Aotearoa. We heard powerful transformation stories from 14 cities and towns, from Northland to Invercargill. We also heard specialist perspectives on unity and collaboration from key speakers such as Tak Bhana (Church Unlimited), Dave Mann (The Hope Project), Stuart Lange (NZ Christian Network), and Mark Powell (NZ Christian Network).
Additionally, our international guests Roger Sutton (GATHER, United Kingdom), Ian Shelton (OneHeart Australia) and Craig Sider, (President of Movement.org, New York) helped us to see that we are part of a truly global move of the Holy Spirit to promote and strategise unity for the sake of Christ.
Multiplying impact
The key principle behind Movement Day is the call of God for his church in every city and town to function as one. As stated on Movement Day’s website,
The goal of a MD expression…is to accelerate a gospel movement—catalyzing highly trained, motivated and committed leaders determined to find solutions to the “stubborn facts” plaguing a city or region. We define “stubborn facts,” as crime, poverty, spiritual apathy, struggling educational systems, unemployment, etc. Our approach: multiply the impact of one, through the unity of many.
We can see the dysfunction and pain in our towns and cities. As we are moved to weep over these things, I believe God is calling us to collaborate as churches with each other, and with Christian leaders in the marketplace, para-church, and civic government spheres, to address the pain and felt needs of our town or city, for the sake of Jesus.
When our communities see the church working together and with leaders from other spheres, they see the unifying power of the gospel, where it is Jesus Christ alone who is glorified, rather than any one church or denomination. A divided church contradicts the unifying principle weaved throughout Scripture, of God bringing his people together as one with Christ and each other.
Building God’s Kingdom
Critical to unity is an absolute commitment to ensuring that we are primarily interested in building God’s Kingdom, not our own empire. As church leaders, there is a temptation to build our own particular congregation in prominence and influence. Pride is a subtle but powerful obstacle to unity because we can often struggle with the blurring of boundaries around our church congregations, as our churches come together and work as one.
Movement Day is not an advocate of dissolving denominations. On the contrary, we believe our denominations bring vital strengths to the one church in the city/town. However, the Apostle Paul’s epistles were written not to denominations, but to cities.
Consequently, when we read his exhortation for the church to be one, we must read that firstly in the context of the one church in the city, rather than individual churches isolated from one another.
Paul’s teaching to the church in Corinth was that we need every member of the body to bring their unique gift, combining it with all of the others to present a cohesive and powerful whole in our pursuit of gospel transformation in the town or city in which we’re placed.
We can tend to assume this teaching relates primarily to our local congregation, however Paul began his letter with the words, “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2). It is clear then that when Paul speaks of the Body of Christ in its diversity, he is calling us to unity at a broader level than just the congregation.
Our Movement Day expression was focused on setting aside our own agendas, telling the stories of God at work, and seeking him for leading and strategy as we headed home to our towns and cities to accelerate the advance of gospel transformation. No one speaker or region was given preference or prominence; rather, everything was done for the glory of God alone. Following Paul’s exhortation to the Colossian church, we were intentional about ensuring that everything we did, in word or deed, was done in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17)
The next Movement Day
This will not be a one-off event. As we gather the leadership team together in the coming months, we will be seeking God for guidance on when to plan for the next Movement Day event.
I encourage you to keep an eye out for news of the next one. In the meantime, I welcome your contact if you’re interested in talking further about how we as Baptists might be champions for unity in the many places we’re called to lead throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.
Nigel has been senior pastor at Whanganui Central Baptist Church for almost seven years. He is also director of City by City and executive director of Movement Day New Zealand. Nigel is married to Suzanna and they have a 10-year-old foster daughter and two impossibly cute dogs. Nigel can be contacted about Movement Day here.
This article was originally published by the Baptist Magazine and has been reposted with their permission.
Over the years, I have found abortion to be by far the most divisive and heated moral, legal and political issue of all. Perhaps this is not remarkable. Euthanasia is also divisive, reminding us that matters of life and death have always been regarded as significant. In fact, to say “It’s a matter of life and death!” is a familiar way of indicating just how important an issue is.
Of course, the heat of the abortion issue is also due to the fact that many women feel that women have been imposed upon by a man-led system for a very long time and that any prohibition of abortion is one of the most intrusive impositions of all.
We wouldn’t need to discuss abortion if a pregnant woman were the only person involved in the procedure. If the embryo or foetus were just a “mass” – say, a tumour or infected tissue – out it would go as soon as possible, no questions asked. However, as soon as it becomes apparent, or even just possible, that the woman is not the only person involved, the scenario changes entirely and the subject must be paused for consideration.
I’ve been on the Pro-life side of the fence for some time, though not a signed-up member of any organisation. A while back, I came to realise that the focus of the Pro-life movement was too narrow. It tended to be so preoccupied with the issue of killing the human embryo/foetus that it ignored other considerations. I can’t think of anything more significant than killing an innocent human being, but there is still more to the abortion issue than this. In particular, there is the pregnant woman (or girl), another human being no less important than her unborn child.
Coming at this from a Christian perspective and what I think is the preferred secular perspective, I say that the Pro-life movement and the community generally owe the pregnant woman love, and there is a great deal more to love than judging, even you manage to judge correctly.
For some time, the battle-lines were drawn between one side that promoted the interests of the unborn child with little or no regard to the woman, unless her life was threatened, and the other side that promoted the interests of the woman with no regard to the unborn child. We all took a side.
I’m relieved that the Pro-life movement no longer sees itself playing a partisan role in a zero-sum game. It has realised that the woman and child are each infinitely precious and that the community’s role is to protect and support them both.
As far as I can tell, the Pro-choice movement shows no corresponding sign of maturing: it remains steadfastly dedicated to promoting the interests of the woman without regard to the unborn child. In fact, the unborn child is seldom mentioned – is, rather, the subject of a silent but determined denialism. It has become the tiny “elephant in the room” in abortion discourse.
I see this denialism as the main reason why it is so difficult to converse with Pro-choice advocates. For a discussion to be potentially fruitful, there usually needs to be a shared understanding about who is involved in the issue under discussion. Perhaps the Pro-choicers are genuinely afraid that the pregnant woman will be sacrificed or overlooked for the sake of the child, which would be unfair. If so, their minds need to be put at ease about this: the woman matters just as much as the child does. Of course, although discussion with Pro-choice is very difficult, we should always be willing to attempt it.
“Health issue” and the human being
Rebranding abortion as a ‘health issue’ is the latest attempt to avoid recognising that there are, or might be, two people involved and not just one. According to this view, the unborn child is just a “mass” so that the woman is the only person involved.
My impression is that Pro-choicers see the health sector as a refuge from moral responsibility, another “safe space”, in which the moral character of the decision to terminate does not arise. Indeed, a place in which the woman presents as a patient – not necessarily a victim, but still someone who is needy and an object of sympathy and tenderness, someone frequently asked “Are you comfortable?”. A space in which moral abdication is permitted. It is unfortunate that a significant proportion of the community likes to resort to such a “space”, for one reason or another.
I suspect that refuge in the health sector is sought because questions about the unborn child have proved awkward and “uncomfortable” for Pro-choicers: after all, it is always tempting to avoid feelings of guilt or even misgivings about possible guilt. Arguments that the unborn child is not a human being, and not even a potential human being in any significant sense, have not fared well.
Pro-choice usually try to justify abortions by constricting the definition of “human being” – for example, by saying the embryo/foetus must have a heartbeat, or lung function, or brain function, or even awareness, before claiming the coveted title. This approach exposes Pro-choicers to the problem that many children and adults are occasionally without these functions and capacities for a time, relying on drugs or machinery, and yet we still regard them as human beings. Even when life-support is turned off, it is seen as having supported the life of a human being.
When a person is deliberately killed, even with justification, they are usually given the courtesy of being acknowledged as a person, and the killing is regarded as morally significant – as justified in spite of the fact that a human being is killed. This is true in all situations (including war, capital punishment, euthanasia) except abortion, which has been placed in a kind of moral blind-spot by those promoting it.
A minority of Pro-choicers are more honest about abortion – recognising what it involves but justifying it in the interests of population control. It’s a poor rationale, even in number-crunching terms, as abortion on demand clearly won’t end the world’s population crisis. Those who wish to cull the human race will have to look elsewhere – euthanasia, I suppose, especially by extending “eligibility”. That may not be sufficient either, so we should perhaps regard a cull as not the best approach to managing population and as a shabby justification for abortion.
Returning to the denialism of the majority, I would be surprised if an open discussion about the status of the embryo/foetus produced resolution. We are more likely to be left with a dilemma: As we don’t “know” (or can’t agree) about the status of the embryo/foetus, we will have to decide on which side to err.
Do we err on the side of including it in the “human being” category or on the side of excluding it? Which is the better error?
I suggest that, as a matter of principle, we should err on the side of being generous about this, if only because of the awful consequences of the opposite error. Throughout history, the device of “dehumanising” some group of people or other – women, non-whites, slaves, enemies – has been used for great evil and has done great harm. Let’s not repeat it. It may not be long before clones want access to the category of human being, and also the products of AI will have to be considered (for “person”, at least, if not “human being”). Already, a river or two has been given the deemed status of legal “person” in New Zealand legislation. It seems strange to include all these in the Human or Person category, while a naturally generated human embryo/foetus continues to be excluded.
And why is it excluded? Because it is not wanted, nothing more than that.
It makes very good sense to focus on conception as the time when a human comes into being:
The DNA – the blueprint of a brand new, extremely complex and unique person – is already in place, along with all the building materials. It’s not like any other blueprint or design: construction is underway, nothing has to be done but watch and wait.
Later stages of development seem arbitrary and, as mentioned above, have terrible ramifications for other people.
From a hypothetically neutral point-of-view, this is the better “error” in an environment of uncertainty.
Whatever the status of the embryo/foetus while in utero, there is also the argument about it being a potential human life. Even this is resisted by Pro-choice, though it seems to me that to argue against the human potential of the “mass” is barely even sincere. After all, the only reason the embryo/foetus is terminated is because of its potential to develop into an obvious human being.
The sooner we all come to an understanding about the embryo/foetus, the sooner we can plan for what happens to the child once born and how to support the woman (if she needs support) in the meantime. Of course, she can adopt the child out: there is a ready market of couples who are struggling with IVF or with adopting overseas. Beforehand, the community’s focus should be on the well-being of the pregnant woman or girl because some are in dire straits, sometimes through no fault of their own.
I shouldn’t close without saying something about the “backyard abortion” argument and the scenario in which the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
The “backyard abortion”
It is true that an abortion performed in unhygienic circumstances by someone who is not a highly trained professional is dangerous to the pregnant woman.
However, I would say this risk of harm to a woman from a backyard abortion is not relevant to the issue of abortion on demand.
When abortion is legally available on demand, the pregnant woman who wishes to terminate the embryo/foetus asks the Government to help her do it in a way that makes things safe for her, so only the embryo/foetus dies. If the embryo/foetus is just a mass, no problem, the request is morally neutral. However, if the embryo/foetus is a human being, or at least “human enough” to be worth protecting, the request made of the Government is very different as it now has a significant moral component.
It is perhaps easier to make the point by analogy. Consider this reasoning:
Person A intends to kill Person B;
in fact, A is definitely going to kill B, no matter what;
this inevitable killing would be safer for A if A knew where B was at the appointed time (so A could surprise B with a bullet and not be shot in return);
due to the availability of comprehensive surveillance, the State could tell A where B is at any given time;
to ensure that only one person is killed, rather than two, the State should let A know where B is.
Who in their right mind would ask the State to do this?! The State is obliged to protect both A and B. The same is true when it comes to abortion.The backyard abortion is dramatic and emotive, but provides no justification for abortion on demand.
The worst scenarios
Surprisingly, the scenario in which the pregnant woman or girl was raped is a red herring. Not because it isn’t important: her plight is terrible to contemplate (or even attempt to contemplate). Rather, because Pro-choice introduce it into the discussion cynically.
I could imagine a compromise outcome being to allow abortion only in cases of rape, incest and, as now, risk to the life of the pregnant woman or girl. It would be a compromise, of course, not quite satisfactory to Pro-life but far better than abortion on demand. However, it turns out to be academic because, if ever this idea is put to Pro-choice, they say “No way, we want abortion on demand”. So, these terrible scenarios are actually not relevant to what must be decided, they are just introduced to manipulate the discussion.
Even so, it wouldn’t hurt Pro-lifers to be mindful of what some women and girls will have to endure if we had our way and abortion was generally prohibited. We should take the trouble to hear, if we can, a full account of the nightmarish 9 months that awaits someone who takes the product of a rape to term. And of what she endures afterwards: the rape may have long-term adverse effects and carrying the child to term might exacerbate these effects.
For all I know, a secular discussion (not premised on the infinitely precious status of a human life) might conclude that there is a certain degree of suffering that somehow outweighs the value of a human life. Once the embryo/foetus is recognised, perhaps that’s the terrible discussion that must take place.
Whether or not any such discussion takes place, I think we owe some empathic understanding to the women and girls concerned. Having said that, though, these terrible scenarios are not relevant to the topic of abortion on demand. They are only relevant to the possible compromise result, which Pro-choice will not accept. The Pro-life side might accept it (I don’t know) on the basis that it greatly reduces the number of abortions and therefore saves many lives.
Close
Returning to the main issue, we should make sure we promote the well-being of both mother and child. Pro-choice tries to present abortion as a zero-sum game and force everyone into taking sides. It is very important to resist this manipulation.
The real choice is between the following two ways of understanding the abortion issue:
In the Wake of the New Zealand Attacks: Suggestions for a Church Response to Populism and White Nationalism
By Wissam al-Saliby*
This article first appeared on the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary website and has been republished here with permission. Please see below for more information about the author.
The recent massacre of Muslim worshipers in New Zealand was the manifestation of a growing global phenomenon which has been described as nationalist populism, white nationalism, extreme supremacist ideology, xenophobia, racism, populist nationalism, and other terms.
Related to this phenomenon is a sense of eroding national identity in many countries, and increasingly negative attitudes toward religious minorities, particularly Muslims. These societal developments have led many to vote for Brexit in the U.K., to vote for the far-right in France and in other European countries, or to vote in a recent Swiss referendum in support of a proposal to ‘make national laws supersede international laws.’
In some countries, Evangelical churches are accused of complicity.
These nationalisms, first expressed in Europe and then in other regions, have been the product of a deep discontent of citizens with liberal democracies, which in the framework of globalization have not been able to resolve critical situations both at the economic (inequality) and political (mistrust and questioning of democracy, especially in relation to situations of increased insecurity and criminality) levels. The mistrust of societies in liberal political systems and the undeniable crisis of bourgeois and representative democracies led, as a major example, to a strong racist, xenophobic, homophobic and misogynist discourse permeating Brazil. The threatening arguments have been supported by a good part of the local evangelical churches that played the role of structuring mechanism of social values, and that legitimize the hegemonic domination.
Large and seemingly unwavering Evangelical support for U.S. president Donald Trump has also raised questions of Evangelical association with the president’s nationalist rhetoric and its implications on relations within American society (race issues, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism) and relations with the rest of the world (economic nationalism, immigration). This recent Foreign Policy article title is revealing: America’s Islamophobia Is Forged at the Pulpit.
What could a Church response to this phenomenon be? Here are some suggestions:
First, the Church reaffirms biblical values and denounces nationalist populism and supremacist ideologies, as well as other intolerant ideologies, prophetically and with humility. We need to address the difficult political and societal challenges of the moment, acknowledging our own sinfulness, and reaffirming the love of neighbor.
This is exactly what our World Evangelical Alliance team in Geneva is trying to do. On Friday, March 15, we contributed to the debate at the Human Rights Council on the mitigation and countering of rising nationalist populism and extreme supremacist ideologies via an oral statement. The statement was self-critical, and affirmed the right and need for every nation to provide for its own security. Our statement added:
The World Evangelical Alliance would like to affirm that in our understanding, Christian values are not compatible with anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic and xenophobic discourses. Nationalism, when it stirs up a sense of victimhood, grievance, and blame against other groups in society, when it stokes fear and hatred of ‘the other’, is anything but Christian (…)
We are concerned that so-called Christian values have been leveraged to foster hatred, and discrimination against those adhering to other religions, or from other nationalities and regions of the world.
Claiming to protect Christian values or communities by shutting out those who seek safe refuge from violence and suffering is unacceptable, undermines Christian witness in the world, and raises up national boundaries as idols.
It would be amazing to see local churches, pastors and priests echoing these messages in their Sunday sermons.
Second, the Church seeks to equip the believers in recognizing and resisting intolerant ideologies wherever they appear on the political spectrum. This is exactly what the European Evangelical Alliance (EEA) is currently pursuing through its Issachar Project. Seeking to help Evangelicals in Europe understand the times (1 Chronicles 12:32), the EEA produced resources designed for individual Christians, home groups and local churches. In one of these papers, Julia Doxat-Purser, EEA Socio-Political Representative and Religious Liberty Coordinator, wrote:
EEA hopes that these papers will enable Christian leaders to reflect on our troubled times and to discern how they can enable others to resist the many temptations of these ideologies, to expose and challenge the idols and dangers, to earnestly intercede for their nation and continent and to be engaged and hope-filled citizens, offering the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Third, the Church acts upon our values and puts the parable of the Good Samaritan into action! All over the world, the missional drive of Evangelical Churches is the perfect example of putting love into action. I have experienced it first-hand. And yet, I have also seen that the same church that sends teams on a 12-hour flight for ministry to a specific people group, might struggle to reach members of that same people group who live only one hour away by car. Meanwhile, other churches, faced with refugees on their doorsteps, can find themselves ill-equipped and react like the rich man towards Lazarus.
In the first draft of our Human Rights Council statement on nationalist populism, I included the following first-person paragraph that I later removed considering that it did not speak to an intergovernmental body such as the Human Rights Council. This paragraph speaks to the Church:
The antidote that we found in my country, Lebanon, for Muslim extremism is for the churches to love, care for and serve the Muslim refugees. Surprisingly, this not only softened the hearts of the Muslim refugees but also softened our own hearts and helped us understand what it means that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore equal in dignity and respect. It strengthened our faith.
Indeed, in Lebanon, the churches that opted to serve the Syrian refugee communities were ‘rewarded’ with an unprecedented opportunity to comprehend what Jesus meant by loving the neighbor, what Jesus meant by the parable of the good Samaritan, and with the experience of harvest that the first-century Church witnessed when the Gentiles first believed in Jesus Christ.
Fourth, the Church cultivates cross-border unity in the spirit of John 17. One implication of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for unity includes listening to brothers and sisters in Christ on the other side of borders, whether these are the borders of States, or political, ethnic or religious divides.
Examples of disunity are easy to come by – whether between Iraqi churches (see Martin Accad’s blog on this issue) or towards Palestinian brothers and sisters (for example, attitudes of some towards Bethlehem Bible College’s Christ at the Checkpointconference) or when a missionary lands in country to plant a church and fails to navigate the existing church landscape (see Mike Kuhn’s blog: The Commodification of Mission in the Muslim World). Also, in an age of populism, I have sadly seen Christian media platforms and Evangelical opinion leaders sow disunity, adopt a belligerent tone, and flourish on divisiveness within the Body of Christ and in society under the banner of Christian values.
On the other hand, as a staff member of the World Evangelical Alliance, I have seen wonderful examples of the pursuit of unity through the regional evangelical alliances of Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. Another wonderful example of unity comes from the Coptic and Evangelical churches in Egypt – a good model for church relations in the Middle East. As global migration makes communities more diverse in the Northern hemisphere, and knowing that the Church permeates all communities, the 2012 Evangelical Immigration Table in the United States is also an approach for addressing the hot topic and demonstrating unity.
* Wissam al-Saliby is the Advocacy Officer of the World Evangelical Alliance. He holds a master’s degree in international law from the University of Aix-en-Provence, France, with an emphasis on protection and human security. Between 2013 and 2017, al-Saliby was the Development and Partner Relations Manager of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary. Now based in Geneva, al-Saliby relays reports from WEA’s member Evangelical alliances in more than 100 nations to the U.N., with the aim of advancing respect for religious freedom and the rule of law. Twitter: www.twitter.com/walsaliby
Moral relativism
We wouldn’t need to discuss abortion if a pregnant woman were the only person involved in the procedure. If the embryo or foetus were just a “mass” – say, a tumour or infected tissue – out it would go as soon as possible, no questions asked. However, as soon as it becomes apparent, or even just possible, that the woman is not the only person involved, the scenario changes entirely and the subject must be paused for consideration.
I’m relieved that the Pro-life movement no longer sees itself playing a partisan role in a zero-sum game. It has realised that the woman and child are each infinitely precious and that the community’s role is to protect and support them both.
Pro-choice usually try to justify abortions by constricting the definition of “human being” – for example, by saying the embryo/foetus must have a heartbeat, or lung function, or brain function, or even awareness, before claiming the coveted title. This approach exposes Pro-choicers to the problem that many children and adults are occasionally without these functions and capacities for a time, relying on drugs or machinery, and yet we still regard them as human beings. Even when life-support is turned off, it is seen as having supported the life of a human being.
Whatever the status of the embryo/foetus while in utero, there is also the argument about it being a potential human life. Even this is resisted by Pro-choice, though it seems to me that to argue against the human potential of the “mass” is barely even sincere. After all, the only reason the embryo/foetus is terminated is because of its potential to develop into an obvious human being.
