All Comments for: We're Not Finished | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2008 |

FOOLISH THINGS

We're Not Finished

Abortion is not simply one item on our social agenda.

Stan Guthrie | posted 5/20/2008 09:29AM

Ever since C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer pricked our consciences, abortion has been on the front burner for socially minded evangelicals. Thirty-five years since Roe v. Wade, it's time to ask ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 28 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

sjd	Posted: May 30, 2008 9:53 PM


Well said, Stan. Amen and amen.

Dave	Posted: May 23, 2008 12:10 PM

Picture this. A man is hit by a car and lies injured, bleeding from an artery. Two people run up to help. One is a liberal evangelical who says to the man: “You’re bleeding but we have to deal with more than a single issue here, blah blah.” The other person says “go call 911 quick!” and proceeds to staunch the bleeding, waiting for EMS. The injured man no doubt has multiple concerns in his life but sometimes you have to deal with single life-and-death issues first. The United States is bleeding from an artery. Maybe the bleeding is slowing. Maybe we are getting low on blood.

ugh.	Posted: May 23, 2008 9:57 AM

"Tim: Which is more important? Alleviation of poverty or life?" Are you serious? There are women watching their children die of starvation and disease. There are women giving birth to children knowing that all that awaits them is a life as an indentured servant or a prostitute. You can't say that one is more important than the other; they go hand in hand. To insinuate that "life" is more important than alleviating poverty is to demonstrate your ignorance that poverty takes more life on this planet than abortion. Step outside your North American suburban cauldesac and take a look at this world we're living in. Abortion is the last thing we should be worrying about.

vega	Posted: May 23, 2008 9:36 AM

This is Christian myopia at its finest. If abortion is made illegal with exceptions (rape, incest), then you will see the number of women claiming to be raped in order to obtain abortions skyrocket; that's an ethical mire no one wants to run into. If abortion is made illegal without exceptions, then women will be forced to deliver babies of rape and incest or even greatly endanger their own lives. The focus should be on making abortion IRRELEVANT, not illegal. I'd like to see more Christians put their energy into making the world safer and more just for all life, instead of just trying to make sure that every fertilized egg makes it way onto the planet regardless of the conditions that await it.

J Lahey

Posted: May 23, 2008 6:31 AM


Abortion must be opposed, but not at the expense of other moral issues such as taking care of the poor and the new working poor as well as a host of other issues. Being single issue has allowed one party to dominate the Evangelical vote and all the other issues have suffered because this party is not strong or interesred in the other issues.

MerryKate

Posted: May 22, 2008 9:18 PM

In "Who Really Cares?", Arthur C. Brooks exposes the lie that conservatives give less to society than liberals. As a group, religious conservatives are the largest supporters of charities, both in monetary giving and volunteer hours. The idea that they need to bring us into the 21st century is a joke - we got here ahead of them. But we need to keep abortion at the forefront of our activism. Abortion is not a victimless crime. It kills a child, emotionally (and sometimes physically) scars a woman, and damages the soul of a nation. How we regard human life influences every other decision we will make about the value of a person. If we're just bits of meat that can be disposed of, then sexual trafficking is just business and genocide is just politics. But if human life is priceless, then children are not disposable, human rights are inviolable and society will fight for them. Evangelicals must lead the way on all these fronts, starting with the sanctity of human life.

DRF	Posted: May 22, 2008 3:35 PM

They've got a point. I'm writing this as a pro-choice Catholic, but I have often complained that many pro-lifers might as well adopt the call of "once you're born, you're on your own." Probably the worst case was a women's shelter that promised pregnant women housing and support until they established themselves, but then kicked them out once they passed the legal deadline for abortion. Yes, I know you're not all like that, but still. A child before birth may or may not be a human life, but one after birth definitely is. You guys might be able to argue that they're not worth any more of your attention, but they're certainly not worth less.

Josh Y.

Posted: May 22, 2008 10:19 AM

Does it strike anyone else as curious that the issues propped up today by the "increasingly self-confident wing of sincere evangelicals" are the popular, easy to stand on issues. Think about these: Poverty. Genocide. Environmentalism. Economic justice. Sex trafficing. HIV/Aids. These are all the "sexy" issues of our day. It takes nothing to say that you are for any of these. Granted...it does take wonderful conviction to actaully DO something about any of them...and the people who engage with these issues, I certainly applaud. But there is something wrong in thinking these are THE issues for us to stand on. OF COURSE we should be concerned about all of these. Its Biblical and consciously right to do so. But to "stand" on these issues is easy. Nearly everyone agrees on these. However, to take a stand on abortion? That's not sexy anymore. Morality issues? Definitely not kosher. Are we so concerned with popularity these days that we cannot stand for all? Let's not cherry pick our issues.

Steve

Posted: May 21, 2008 10:33 AM

Good article. I believe that christians should do more to help others and alleviate suffering around us. This includes abortion and since the tide has turned, mnow is not the time to slack off . Abortion is an issue that has been a killer to Democrats. I have long suspected that Wallis is a shill for the Democratic party and that his true intent is to confuse and diffuse christian political support for Republicans. Christians must at the same time not let themselves think that the Republicans are morally better or really our friends. The church must step forward and reaffirm her role in society. This will not happen by passing laws or political action. Sider and Wallis's faith rests on the use of the government to alleviate the problems they see.

Dorry

Posted: May 21, 2008 12:54 AM


What about addressing the societal pressures, like the sexualized advertising, that encourage sex? Isn't this more the root cause of abortion? Abortion is really the end result.

Delwyn Campbell

Posted: May 20, 2008 10:53 PM

I suppose, as Leroy views this situation, that we would be where we are today without the Pro-life movement. I would like to see him, or those who hold to this position, explain how this would happen. If there were no pro-life movement, what would have turned the tide. It certainly did not turn in Europe, where the Church largely went into hibernation except behind the Iron Curtain. God hates murder, and said so in Scripture. What has God said in regard to snail darters and global warming? The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was not pro-choice then, and it is sad that some of its leaders have accepted 30 pieces of silver from Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, and her ungodly offspring are a bigger threat to the African American community than my air conditioning unit will ever be.

Dave N.

Posted: May 20, 2008 10:40 PM


Sadly, Guthrie apparently seeks political solutions for what are essentially spiritual problems. Jesus chose the opposite path.

Trent

Posted: May 20, 2008 8:56 PM

Wallis talks about a consistent ethic of life. Even within the wide range of issues which would suggest a consistent ethic of life, some may be ranked as more significant than others. Those in which people are directly killed, may rank higher than those in which people lives are not lost. So Abortion perhaps should be a bigger issue than poverty (even though poverty indirectly contributes to abortion and other causes of death). But even given such a ranking system for issues abortion would rank alongside genocide, civilian war casualties and probably even alongside deaths caused by environmental damage. There are no grounds for claiming that unborn lives are worth more than the living who'se lives are lost. The reverse may actually be true. There is no scriptural support for life beginning at conception. There has to be more to the Christian message than stem cells. Neither party holds to a consistent ethic of life, and abortion is not the only ay to kill an innocent.

A Hermit

Posted: May 20, 2008 8:08 PM

While Mr. Guthrie is right that abortion must be opposed, he is blind to the fact that human life cannot exist with the support of the whole of creation. Humanity is the crown of creation, not above it. The greatest threat to human life is not abortion, but the materialism and greed that lies behind it and the destruction of God's creation that sustains all human life- the environment. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to vote on abortion as the primary issue. In this country, to vote against abortion means you vote for someone who is for greed, spending billions on the military and nuclear weapons to preserve lavish lifestyles at the expense of creation. Abortion is not legally mandated in this country- individuals can choose. When individuals who wish to permit the destruction of our life support system-the environment- to support an economic system that is based on the idolatry of the profit system, we are stuck with the results. We must vote with ALL life-creation in mind.

tim	Posted: May 20, 2008 7:11 PM


Which is more important? Alleviation of poverty or life?

Jim	Posted: May 20, 2008 6:02 PM


I wonder how much longer slavery would have persisted without the constant pressure that came only from the abolitionists throughout the 1850s. Supporters of slavery would have been quite happy to have had weakened opponents with a broad agenda.

Chris

Posted: May 20, 2008 5:32 PM

Those who define the pro-life movement as focusing only on banning abortion, are missing what is really happening. Pro-lifers are involved in helping women in crisis pregnancies, adoption and foster care, helping teens respect themselves enough to delay sexual activity, post-abortion counseling and support, supporting single mothers and their children, advocating for stem-cell research that does not involve destroying nascent life and the list goes on. The point of the article is that we can all do something. Don't we look like hypocrites when we criticize a country like Sudan while we ignore the killing that goes on in our own country?

Nicola

Posted: May 20, 2008 5:03 PM

An unborn child's life is precious. But so are the lives of adults and children who are killed in genocide or war. I agree with Pieter - it's not an either/or situation. How great it would be if we started talking and acting just as much on Darfur or Zimbabwe, or helping those with HIV! We need to talk about right-to-life without excluding the cries for help from so many other people in the world, who are in also in need of compassion and help.

James Wartian

Posted: May 20, 2008 4:34 PM


Very well said. I think the core issue is the sanctity of life. It is true that a proper perspective of the sanctity of life may well impact our thinking and action in regards to poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the sex trade. But to make abortion one of many issues fails to acknowledge the finality that an actual life is lost every time an abortion is performed.

Pieter

Posted: May 20, 2008 3:58 PM


Doesn't need to be either/or. Let's find policies that will reduce the number of abortions and have the bipartisan support to actually get enacted, as well as focusing on other important issues like poverty, climate change, torture, etc.

John G.

Posted: May 20, 2008 2:44 PM

The essential point which Wallis and Sider miss is that the two key issues for true evangelicals (which they are not), abortion and the redefinition of marriage, are matters capable of destroying society completely. None of the other areas these so-called "new evangelicals" are concerned about can do that. And at least one, global warming, is simply a myth propagated by the scientific community because it gives them a sense of power (they are the "priesthood" of our society, alas), and by politicians such as Al Gore who hope to benefit from the resulting hysteria. While Wallis, Sider, et. al., are so worked up over other issues, babies are still being killed, and the marriage-redefinition agenda advances.

Michael G Wilson

Posted: May 20, 2008 2:20 PM

I don't think anybody is suggesting that abortion be put on the back burner, just that some major efforts should be put into other areas as well. Abortion could be the equal among maybe five or six "really big" problems that we are concerned about (or maybe even the first among equals). Voting for a Republican whose only virtue is espousing right-to-life while ignoring possible global warming, global poverty and hunger, the rich versus poor nations, etc., etc., versus a Democrat who is pro-choice but addresses sincerely all the other problems in the world gives me a real moral dilemma. Either way we vote it will be up to us to push for the problems the winning candidate does not push.

Bill	Posted: May 20, 2008 2:03 PM

Martin Luther King was crusading for more than integration. There were social and moral issues that needed to be corrected that merely achieving integration would not solve. In fact, we are still working on those issues. There are other issues connected to abortion that merely banning abortion will not solve, such as sex education, exploitation and abuse of women, etc. We need to be equally concerned and vigilant about eliminating some of the reasons seek abortions.

Jon	Posted: May 20, 2008 1:46 PM


Thank you Stan for speaking out. It's already painfully clear that many on the CT staff aspire to be openly on the Obama bandwagon. The issue isn't the man, but the profession of godliness while denying its power. Watching this play out will speak volumes about the discernment level of the American church, and whether CT will once again pull back from the brink to which it periodically veers.

Leroy

Posted: May 20, 2008 1:32 PM

Guthrie misses the point. The abortion tide turned, not because of, but in spite of the behavior of the right 2 life movement. The last thing we need is more people standing outside of abortion clinics w/ posters of aborted fetuses. W/out a doubt movies like Juno and Knocked Up w/ no pro life agenda will do more to change the minds of young women who find themselves pregnant than a billion abortion protesters. The biggest problem with the pro life movement its bad science and its failure to make the obvious/necessary distinction between between "life" at the moment of conception and the undeniable existence of a separate being w/ unique DNA and all the characteristics that define such a being as human, albeit a very small one, after the 1st trimester. Ironically, the 1973 Supreme Court decision, even w/ its faulty jurisprudence came closer to the truth than evangelicals dare concede. All our energies have been focused on the tiniest sliver of "life". Wallis not Guthrie got it right.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment