Abortion, Theologically Understood

[Amazing Rando]

Here's a lecture given by Duke Divinity School professor and Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas on a church-centered approach to wrestling with the question of abortion. I'd like to know what others here think of his thoughts. :smile:

Check the whole thing out here (http://lifewatch.org/abortion.html).

I believe that it is essential that the church face the issue of abortion in a distinctly Christian manner. Because of that, I am hereby addressing not society in general, but those of us who call ourselves Christians. I also want to be clear that I am not addressing abortion as a legal issue. I believe the issue, for the church, must be framed not around the banners of 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life,' but around God's call to care for the least among us whom Jesus calls his sisters and brothers.

"So, in this sermon, I will make three points. The first point is that the Gospel favors women and children. The second point is that the customary framing of the abortion issue by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is unbiblical because it assumes that the woman is ultimately responsible for both herself and for any child she might carry. The third point is that a Christian response must reframe the issue to focus on responsibility rather than rights."

So, what do you think?

[Darth Executor]

I might read it later if I remember, although his claim that the gospel is feminist sounds like a really big stretch.

[dizzle]

I might read it later if I remember, although his claim that the gospel is feminist sounds like a really big stretch.

First I didn't read the paper yet but his claim doesn't sound feminist to me, it sounds similar to the rule of the sea, women and children first. It favour women and children, but it is hardly a feminist rule, in fact it is a distinctly benevolent patriarchal rule that the men are to sacrifice themselves to protect the weaker.

Edit to add: I read part of it, he does say "feminist" but at first glance he didn't mean like it in the negative way that we have come to see in culture.

[Ryokan]

Here's a lecture given by Duke Divinity School professor and Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas on a church-centered approach to wrestling with the question of abortion. I'd like to know what others here think of his thoughts. :smile:

Check the whole thing out here (http://lifewatch.org/abortion.html).

I believe that it is essential that the church face the issue of abortion in a distinctly Christian manner. Because of that, I am hereby addressing not society in general, but those of us who call ourselves Christians. I also want to be clear that I am not addressing abortion as a legal issue. I believe the issue, for the church, must be framed not around the banners of 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life,' but around God's call to care for the least among us whom Jesus calls his sisters and brothers.

"So, in this sermon, I will make three points. The first point is that the Gospel favors women and children. The second point is that the customary framing of the abortion issue by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is unbiblical because it assumes that the woman is ultimately responsible for both herself and for any child she might carry. The third point is that a Christian response must reframe the issue to focus on responsibility rather than rights."

So, what do you think?
My issue is that it kinda ignores the reponsibility of the pregnant woman in question. It is, in my mind, not feminist but reactionary, framing the woman as a helpless victim of men and society. I also think is rejection of inalienable rights as unChristian is, well, flawed and also deeply reactionary. Also for his rejection of life's sacredness. Basically, I see his arguement as a vieled push for some sort of communitarian ideology guised as Christianity, which is neither very Christian, very American, or very helpful for how the Church should respond to abortion because any honestly life affirming position is going to have to a. decide what life is and where it starts and b. end the legal sanction of the act in order to protect the rights of the child that child to life. He sides steps these questions, using the abortion issue as a trojan horse for his other theological and social ideas. He is all like "I don't knwo what abortion law should be" but then is like "We need a child allowance. So my thought is that I pretty much reject everything the guy says. I'd even say he is dishonest.

[Amazing Rando]

I might read it later if I remember, although his claim that the gospel is feminist sounds like a really big stretch.

One thing I've discovered by reading Hauerwas is that he often makes attention-grabbing claims for the sheer purpose of making you sit up and pay attention, and only later in the piece will he carefully nuance what he has said. This is one such case. The claim that the gospel is "feminist" is a claim that the God of the Bible, who cares deeply for the weak and the marginalized members of society, is gravely concerned when women are abused or taken advantage of. This relates to the issue of abortion because so often, American women are emotionally abused by the politicians, the lobbyists, the media, and even by the men in their lives into thinking they have no other choice but to abort their baby.

Certainly there are the some spiritually arrogant women who thumb their noses at the Church, saying "My body, my choice!" or some such other disavowal of responsibility. But the author would say (and I'd agree) that these women are in the minority of those who choose to abort their children. The larger percentage (in my opinion) have more or less been bullied into their abortions by the more powerful people and forces in their lives. In this context, to say that the gospel is feminist is to rightly point out the deep empathy that God feels for the abused women (as evidenced by the prominent place of women in the Gospels, for example), and that ultimately, God will not stand idly by while women are used and abused, and while innocent children are murdered by the demonic powers around them.

[Amazing Rando]

First I didn't read the paper yet but his claim doesn't sound feminist to me, it sounds similar to the rule of the sea, women and children first. It favour women and children, but it is hardly a feminist rule, in fact it is a distinctly benevolent patriarchal rule that the men are to sacrifice themselves to protect the weaker.

Edit to add: I read part of it, he does say "feminist" but at first glance he didn't mean like it in the negative way that we have come to see in culture.

Precisely- he means "feminist" in the same way Jesus of the gospels exhibits a special concern for the well-being of women (in contrast to the pagan society around him which considered women to be nothing more than "incomplete men.")

[Ryokan]

One thing I've discovered by reading Hauerwas is that he often makes attention-grabbing claims for the sheer purpose of making you sit up and pay attention, and only later in the piece will he carefully nuance what he has said. This is one such case. The claim that the gospel is "feminist" is a claim that the God of the Bible, who cares deeply for the weak and the marginalized members of society, is gravely concerned when women are abused or taken advantage of. This relates to the issue of abortion because so often, American women are emotionally abused by the politicians, the lobbyists, the media, and even by the men in their lives into thinking they have no other choice but to abort their baby.

Certainly there are the some spiritually arrogant women who thumb their noses at the Church, saying "My body, my choice!" or some such other disavowal of responsibility. But the author would say (and I'd agree) that these women are in the minority of those who choose to abort their children. The larger percentage (in my opinion) have more or less been bullied into their abortions by the more powerful people and forces in their lives. Isn't most sin like this? Powerful forces push us into situations where the easy solution feels like the only one?

[Amazing Rando]

My issue is that it kinda ignores the reponsibility of the pregnant woman in question. It is, in my mind, not feminist but reactionary, framing the woman as a helpless victim of men and society. I also think is rejection of inalienable rights as unChristian is, well, flawed and also deeply reactionary.

I think he's right on that point. Here's a portion of the paragraph in question:

Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.

Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us." Of course pots and pans are equally important.

No concept of "rights" divorced from faith convictions ever existed prior to the Enlightenment. The Declaration of Independence's assertion that everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," is a statement about the god of Enlightenment deism, not the God of the Bible. In the context of abortion, Hauerwas notes that people often appeal to Enlightenment notions of "rights" both for and against the choice of abortion. Anti-abortion people cite the baby's "right to life" while pro-abortion people cite the mother's "right to choose," as if these things actually existed in any tangible sense, and were gifts of God himself.

The problem is, the whole framework of the debate is skewed, and the church has bought right into it by arguing on the world's terms. The fruits of this can easily be seen by the number of professing Christians who are now indistinguishable from atheistic society because they believe choosing to kill an unborn child is an acceptable choice.

For the early church, the issue of abortion was absolutely not debatable. "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born," says 1st century Didache in chapter 2. Unlike today, the church's teaching on the matter was clear and unambiguous- The church forbid killing children, either born or unborn, not because of the child's supposedly "unalienable right to life" or anything like that, but because it was seen as a commandment of God himself not to kill them. The problem with appealing to "rights" as a basis for moral discourse is that it rips out the whole reason Christians have historically held that certain actions are morally acceptable and certain actions are forbidden for the people of God- because God has commanded that it be this way. The commandments of the Lord and the example of Christ were probably the last things in the world on Thomas Jefferson's mind when he penned the Declaration of Independence.

[Amazing Rando]

Isn't most sin like this? Powerful forces push us into situations where the easy solution feels like the only one?

Absolutely- but I don't think it's ever an either/or situation. I think that sin is the result of some combination of personal rejection of God's reign in our lives (that's the personal responsibility side), and also the powers that help push us away from the righteous path (that's the part played by demons/powers/etc.). When we sin, these two factors work together in driving us down what the Didache calls "The Way of Death."

[Darth Executor]

Ok, I read through it (although assume I just skimmed because I have a headache and couldn't really pay attention as much as I wanted to). I agree with most of Ryo's criticism, although I think he's right to focus on men so much because men often get to dodge out of the way of criticism.

[Ryokan]

I think he's right on that point. Here's a portion of the paragraph in question:

Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.

Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us." Of course pots and pans are equally important.

No concept of "rights" divorced from faith convictions ever existed prior to the Enlightenment. The Declaration of Independence's assertion that everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," is a statement about the god of Enlightenment deism, not the God of the Bible. In the context of abortion, Hauerwas notes that people often appeal to Enlightenment notions of "rights" both for and against the choice of abortion. Anti-abortion people cite the baby's "right to life" while pro-abortion people cite the mother's "right to choose," as if these things actually existed in any tangible sense, and were gifts of God himself.

The problem is, the whole framework of the debate is skewed, and the church has bought right into it by arguing on the world's terms. The fruits of this can easily be seen by the number of professing Christians who are now indistinguishable from atheistic society because they believe choosing to kill an unborn child is an acceptable choice.

For the early church, the issue of abortion was absolutely not debatable. "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born," says 1st century Didache in chapter 2. Unlike today, the church's teaching on the matter was clear and unambiguous- The church forbid killing children, either born or unborn, not because of the child's supposedly "unalienable right to life" or anything like that, but because it was seen as a commandment of God himself not to kill them. The problem with appealing to "rights" as a basis for moral discourse is that it rips out the whole reason Christians have historically held that certain actions are morally acceptable and certain actions are forbidden for the people of God- because God has commanded that it be this way. The commandments of the Lord and the example of Christ were probably the last things in the world on Thomas Jefferson's mind when he penned the Declaration of Independence.
The problem, I think, Rando, is the way rights are generally framed and what they are, and where modern democratic governments gain their legitimacy from. Individual Christians have duties and responsibilities to the Church, God, etc. They don't have utter and complete control over their life and their body in that sense. However, rights as we are speaking of them are protections people have from the state, a state that derives its legitimacy not from God but from the governed. When it is said our creator gave us rights, what is meant is gave each of us, not the state, the right to decide these issues. They are free to obey or ignore God's commands, whatever they percieve those commands to be. And the idea their are certain arenas the state should never enter and certain rights it should protect is not in the sense I've described philosphically flawed, unChristian, or anything other than one of the most important and positive forces in the history of governance.

[Ryokan]

Absolutely- but I don't think it's ever an either/or situation. I think that sin is the result of some combination of personal rejection of God's reign in our lives (that's the personal responsibility side), and also the powers that help push us away from the righteous path (that's the part played by demons/powers/etc.). When we sin, these two factors work together in driving us down what the Didache calls "The Way of Death."
Which leads me to question why Hauerwas wants to flip what he sees as our focus on one extreme to the other extreme.

[Darth Executor]

Hey Rando, I have a question. The article says:

"I often remind my right-to-life friends that Christians took their children with them to martyrdom rather than have them raised pagan. "

What exactly does he mean? In particular, how did they take their children to martyrdom?

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Rando, I have a question. The article says:

"I often remind my right-to-life friends that Christians took their children with them to martyrdom rather than have them raised pagan. "

What exactly does he mean? In particular, how did they take their children to martyrdom?

He means that during the first three centuries of the Christian church's existence martyrdom was a near-constant danger. During that time, there were numerous known occasions in which Christian parents, facing the stake, were given the choice of giving up their children to be raised in (say) Caesar's household or as the adopted sons and daughters of an aristocratic pagan family, or being martyred alongside them. Almost without exception, the Christian parents chose to keep their children at their side in death rather than allow them to be raised pagan (no matter how privileged).

I've just been reading a church history book, which cites Eusebius giving one such example:

A small town of Phrygia, inhabited solely by Christians, was completely surrounded by soldiers while the men were in it. Throwing fire into it, they consumed them with the women and children while they were calling upon Christ. This they did because all the inhabitants of the city, and the curator himself, and the governor, with all who held office, and the entire populace, confessed themselves Christians, and would not in the least obey those who commanded them to worship idols.

As you might guess, the "right to life" was not something the early Christians appealed very often in order to save their own skins, or even those of their children. It's a bit shocking to our modern sensibilities and "pro-family" outlook, but the church saw that faithful witness (even in death) to be more important than a prolonged life of paganism.

[Darth Executor]

He means that during the first three centuries of the Christian church's existence martyrdom was a near-constant danger. During that time, there were numerous known occasions in which Christian parents, facing the stake, were given the choice of giving up their children to be raised in (say) Caesar's household or as the adopted sons and daughters of an aristocratic pagan family, or being martyred alongside them. Almost without exception, the Christian parents chose to keep their children at their side in death rather than allow them to be raised pagan (no matter how privileged).

The specific I was inquiring about is more along the lines of "were the Christians asked to give up their children; did the parents just kill them before the Romans could take them" kinda stuff. The quote you gave isn't particularly helpful as it doesn't tell us if the Romans asked for the children to raise them as pagans before they killed the Christians.

As you might guess, the "right to life" was not something the early Christians appealed very often in order to save their own skins, or even those of their children. It's a bit shocking to our modern sensibilities and "pro-family" outlook, but the church saw that faithful witness (even in death) to be more important than a prolonged life of paganism.

I'm still thinking over the meaning of the word "rights" (and if they exist, which come from the Christian God and which come from some deist whose opinion is of no relevance to me) but it seems to me that you're all over the place in this paragraph. Claiming you should not be killed because you have the right to live is not the same thing as becoming pagan. One could make this claim, get laughed at by the Romans and then choose to die if the Romans did not find the appeal very convincing.

[Amazing Rando]

The specific I was inquiring about is more along the lines of "were the Christians asked to give up their children; did the parents just kill them before the Romans could take them" kinda stuff. The quote you gave isn't particularly helpful as it doesn't tell us if the Romans asked for the children to raise them as pagans before they killed the Christians.

Ah, I gotcha. Well if the quote from the Didache is at all telling about early Christian attitudes, I can be fairly certain that committed Christian parents would have never intentionally take their children's lives. But for something to compare it to, you've heard of what happened at the Masada fortress in AD 73, haven't you?

As I see it, Masada is one way in which early Christian morality contrasted sharply with that of non-Messianic Judaism in the 1st century.

[kneel2hymn]

It seems that the intent of his speech was to act as a wake up call to the modern church. To remind us that our place in the debate is not in whether or not it is right or wrong but to provide real, usable solutions to women who often feel they have none. He is in effect saying "it isn't good enough to say 'this is morally wrong don't do it' you as the church must provide a stable alternative that can empower the mother who feels trapped into getting an abortion to say "no" because she no longer is feels trapped and isolated."

In order to do that we have to keep the promises we make at baptism and fulfill them as if we were fulfilling them to the Lord. If we tell a woman she is wrong for aborting but offer her no workable solution to the two primary reasons for abortion.

1)I can't afford to have a baby.
2)I am afraid of ending up alone if I do.

Then all we have done is compounded her feelings of entrapment and isolation with guilt.

Our focus on individualism has caused us to lose sight of the Acts 2 & 4 church. The church founded on those 2 chapters is capable of offering a solution to both problems by offering both resources and relationship. It says, "'please don't, we will help you, we will pay for the medical bills,we will stand by you when no one else will." Then sets out to find ways of making good on those promises.

[Darth Executor]

Ah, I gotcha. Well if the quote from the Didache is at all telling about early Christian attitudes, I can be fairly certain that committed Christian parents would have never intentionally take their children's lives. But for something to compare it to, you've heard of what happened at the Masada fortress in AD 73, haven't you?

As I see it, Masada is one way in which early Christian morality contrasted sharply with that of non-Messianic Judaism in the 1st century.

Hmm. I'm really not sure it's all that different. It's similar to shooting somebody vs hiring an assassin to shoot somebody. IMO, you're equally guilty in both situations (not saying it's wrong to let your children die/kill them in either case, I'm still not sure). In both situations the adult defenders could have spared their children but chose to have them die instead of becoming pagans.

[kneel2hymn]

Hmm. I'm really not sure it's all that different. It's similar to shooting somebody vs hiring an assassin to shoot somebody. IMO, you're equally guilty in both situations (not saying it's wrong to let your children die/kill them in either case, I'm still not sure). In both situations the adult defenders could have spared their children but chose to have them die instead of becoming pagans.


Better to die young and go to heaven than die old and go to hell.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Here's a lecture given by Duke Divinity School professor and Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas on a church-centered approach to wrestling with the question of abortion. I'd like to know what others here think of his thoughts. :smile:

Check the whole thing out here (http://lifewatch.org/abortion.html).

I believe that it is essential that the church face the issue of abortion in a distinctly Christian manner. Because of that, I am hereby addressing not society in general, but those of us who call ourselves Christians. I also want to be clear that I am not addressing abortion as a legal issue. I believe the issue, for the church, must be framed not around the banners of 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life,' but around God's call to care for the least among us whom Jesus calls his sisters and brothers.

"So, in this sermon, I will make three points. The first point is that the Gospel favors women and children. The second point is that the customary framing of the abortion issue by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is unbiblical because it assumes that the woman is ultimately responsible for both herself and for any child she might carry. The third point is that a Christian response must reframe the issue to focus on responsibility rather than rights."

So, what do you think?

Responsibilities/Duties are the obverses of rights. One cannot separate the two.

Also, formulating a church-centric approach to showing love to Women and their children, born and unborn, does not remove the still relevant issue of whether and when we shd treat the unborn as legally protected persons with protections against arbitrary loss of life akin to those currently given to newborns.

dlw

[Ryokan]

Responsibilities/Duties are the obverses of rights. One cannot separate the two.

Also, formulating a church-centric approach to showing love to Women and their children, born and unborn, does not remove the still relevant issue of whether and when we shd treat the unborn as legally protected persons with protections against arbitrary loss of life akin to those currently given to newborns.

dlw
Yeah, that.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yeah, that.

Who's da Man?

dlw

[Darth Executor]

Better to die young and go to heaven than die old and go to hell.

No, I'm not satisfied. Killing babies sends them straight to heaven, so why not kill them all?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

No, I'm not satisfied. Killing babies sends them straight to heaven, so why not kill them all?

We are called in the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations, not to maximize the number of souls that go to heaven.

Though, I do believe the aborted unborn human beings will go to heaven and that relativizes the effective prevention of abortions to be less important ultimately than bearing witness to non-Christians and discipling other Christians.

Though, I also don't think that rules out changing when we first treat the unborn as legally-protected persons.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Let me rewrite this.

Responsibilities/Duties are the obverses of rights. One cannot separate the two.

Literally speaking, Responsibilities always go along with rights. As such, Hauerwas's point seems more rhetorical. Instead of being about taking away womens' rights, prolife activism is about renewing the Church's(or Society's) responsibility towards the unborn children.

Also, formulating a church-centric approach to showing love to Women and their children, born and unborn, does not remove the still relevant issue of whether and when we shd treat the unborn as legally protected persons with protections against arbitrary loss of life akin to those currently given to newborns.

I've nothing against getting more Christians to act at the grass-roots level in self-sacrificial ways to show love to women and their unborn children. I've no doubt that such acts would both effectively prevent abortions and bear witness to Jesus. I just don't see that as inherently "distinctly Christian". In other words, I could imagine non-christians emulating the same sorts of acts. It seems to me to be more of an Anabaptist approach. It is an approach that radically deemphasizes the importance of Christians trying to change legally when an elective abortion would be considered murder or be made illegal.

I have no problems with Christians participating in making legal changes, so long as we realize that we are fallible and reflect on our goals and strategies and how they seem to impact our witness to others.

As such, I don't see Hauerwas' approach resolving the bitter conflict on the matter of the politics of abortion among Christians. It seems to me to refocus the conflict among Christians more on the value of Anabaptist distinctives and whether they are truly biblically mandated.

dlw

[kneel2hymn]

No, I'm not satisfied. Killing babies sends them straight to heaven, so why not kill them all?


They are two completely separate issues. Abortion is the killing of unborn babies simply to prevent them from being born. Martyrdom is chosing to die for what you believe in and refusing to allow your children to be raised in a false religion that resigns them to an eternal death in the end. North America is not a good example of these two issues playing out side by side but much of the third world is.

BTW the original question being asked was about the logic of the early churchs martyrs in chosing to have their children die with them and I gave it to you. The logic was simple. They so firmly believed in Christ that they refused to allow thier children to be raised separated from Him.

[Tickle Me Goody]

it is a distinctly benevolent patriarchal rule that the men are to sacrifice themselves to protect the weaker.


And here I thought that darth kitten was actually Dee Dee.

DD would never consider herself to be "weaker".