Prop 139 vs. Psalm 139
Election season is upon us. There’s not a day that goes by for most of us in which we are not hit with TV/on-line ads, phone calls, signs (of which, admittedly, I have two in my yard), and more. But despite how tiresome it all can be, important matters are at stake. I plan to vote, and before then, want to find out about the people running for various offices, and the issues that are before us.
To that end, I spent one evening poring through the “What’s On My Ballot?” booklet sent out by the Arizona Secretary of State. I particularly appreciated (maybe even enjoyed?) looking through the various propositions, or “props”. For each prop, the booklet gives us: the text of the proposed law or amendment to an existing law; an objective analysis; and arguments written by Arizona citizens who are either for or against the prop.
As I was reading through each prop, I got to Prop 139, which if passed will amend the Arizona Constitution to create a fundamental legal right to abortion in Arizona. If I’m not mistaken, of all the props in the booklet, this one has the most people commenting, both for and against. The arguments are mostly well written, and I wasn’t too surprised by any of them.
That is, until I got to the bottom of p. 186. There, many members of a church – Chalice Christian Church, one of our fellow Disciples of Christ churches, in fact – placed their argument in favor of Prop 139. I wasn’t necessarily surprised by seeing Christians supporting the right of abortion. That’s fairly common, and even in our own congregation, there’s a diversity of opinion on this matter. What surprised me was the premise upon which the support is based – their support comes “because of, not in opposition to, the teachings of Jesus.”
(From here on, I mostly will refer to the published argument by the members of Chalice Christian Church as an “article,” written by “Chalice,” though I would guess that not all of the church’s members signed on. I recognize that it’s signed by individuals, and not by the church as a whole, so the words are only for simplicity.)
I think this premise, and the article as a whole, are worth addressing, because if the teachings of Jesus do indeed undergird support for the right to an abortion, then there have been billions of misguided Christians throughout the centuries and into the present regarding this matter.
Their article comes in several parts, the first of which, if I may paraphrase, is that Jesus is against injustice, and if a woman can’t have an abortion – whether because it’s illegal, or unaffordable – that’s unjust. Moreover, Jesus in His own day lifted up and supported women despite the very male-dominated society in which He lived. Translated to our day, His followers ought to lift up and support women by doing what we can to provide abortion access.
It is most definitely true that Jesus is against injustice, and that He lifts up and supports women. One of the Bible passages cited in the article is John 8, in which Jesus saves a woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death. (It is that account from which we get the phrase, “You who are without sin, cast the first stone.”) After challenging those who are condemning her, causing them to drop their rocks and walk away, Jesus doesn’t condemn her. But He does tell her, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” He is merciful to her (and in fact, protects her), but He is truthful, and respects her enough to guide her into what is right. It’s basically a “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach.
Contrary to Chalice, I suppose I could use John 8 to support a position of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” with “sin” being that of abortion. To be convincing to Chalice, and others who take a radical pro-choice position, there first would need to be an acknowledgment that at some point in a pregnancy, the aborting (i.e, killing) of an unborn child is sinful.
But at this point, you might be wondering – “What does John 8 have to with abortion? It’s not about abortion at all.” That’s correct. In fact, NONE of the passages cited in the article by Chalice are about abortion. Jesus didn’t talk about abortion in His teachings as recorded in the gospels.
Having said that, we do know that early Christians opposed abortion, a practice that was fairly common in the Roman Empire. Moreover, Christians were quite involved in the care of abandoned children, “some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.” (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/abortion-and-early-church/) It seems unlikely that the followers of Jesus in the early stages of the Christian movement, if they were alive today, would vote in favor of Prop 139.
Further, I noticed that the article left out some gospel passages that might call to question the premise of their pro-choice argument. For example, a pregnant Mary (mother of Jesus) came to the home of her pregnant relative Elizabeth, and “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” (Luke 1:41) The Greek word used for “baby” here refers to unborn children as well as infants. It’s almost as if the baby in Elizabeth’s womb was an actual person, deserving of every protection that might be offered. Jesus also said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
Like the Bible passages cited by Chalice, neither of these are about abortion specifically. But doesn’t abortion have to do as much with babies as it does with women? There are, after all, two very impacted parties involved – one of whom has a choice, and the other whom does not. If the one without a choice is not even considered (which in the Chalice article, he or she is not), where is the justice in that?
Moreover, if it is to be argued that the unborn do not have rights, I would ask Christians who support Prop 139 specifically, by what measure? By what measure does each individual life, created under the providence and power of God, not deserve the opportunity, if not the right, to live?
To cover this, the article then moves from the gospels – which are about Jesus and found in the New Testament – to the Old Testament. Here, Chalice says this: “nothing in the Hebrew or Christian Bible condemns terminating a pregnancy.” (“Hebrew Bible” is the Old Testament; “Christian Bible” is the New Testament). Perhaps I’m stretching the meaning of their statement, but in it I am hearing that the unborn do not have rights. They cite three passages to support this statement:
The first is Genesis 2:7 – the creation of the first man, Adam – out of which the article claims “life begins at breath.” I think the argument they are making is that, according to the Old Testament, an unborn baby is not an actual person because it hasn’t yet taken a breath. I acknowledge that there is great debate over when personhood begins. But this passage does not apply to that debate. The creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event. Exactly how unique? Not only did Adam and Eve not come from a womb – they weren’t children. Ever. They were created by God as fully formed adults. Using this unique case to make an argument for when life begins is a hasty generalization.
The second is Exodus 21:22. Chalice says this passage, that goes through verse 25, shows that a terminated pregnancy is not considered to be murder, and therefore presumably not condemned by God. Since abortion is a terminated pregnancy, it likewise is not condemned. I had heard this Exodus 21 argument once before (from another Disciples of Christ source), and after doing just a bit of research, realized how wrong this argument is.
To see why it is so wrong, I recommend a great article by Greg Koukl of “Stand to Reason” (https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion). But let me make two quick comments: (1) IF the Exodus passage is about a terminated pregnancy, then it’s about an unintended miscarriage, not an intentional abortion (the practice that would be enshrined by Prop 139); however, (2) the passage is very likely not even about an unintended miscarriage. The Hebrew words do not indicate anything about a dead baby, but instead a living baby born prematurely due to two men fighting and accidentally hitting a pregnant woman. The passage says that if there is no harm, there still will be a fine to be paid; but if there is harm, then there will be “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. In Exodus 21, the harm is not specific to the woman. Indeed, there’s little reason to believe it does not include the baby, and very good evidence to believe it does. If that is true, then the Bible does indeed condemn the termination of a pregnancy, even if accidental. Indeed, it seems to be closer to supporting the conclusion that life inside the womb is as valuable as life outside it.
The third is Numbers 5:11-31, which is about - according to the article - “potentially inducing a miscarriage to test marital fidelity.” Numbers 5 is a very unusual Bible passage, which could be discussed at length. But here’s what is relevant to the topic at hand: it says nothing either about a woman being pregnant or having a miscarriage, much less an abortion. See another article by “Stand to Reason” to read more (https://www.str.org/w/did-god-ordain-abortion-as-punishment-for-infidelity-).
I am hoping the people from Chalice who signed onto this article did not know the facts of these biblical passages, and have been deceived by someone else promulgating false ideas about them. Otherwise, using these passages to show that the Bible does not seem to have a problem with the practice of abortion – and therefore as Christians we should support Prop 139 – is being intentionally deceptive. I would argue that’s not a good thing to do in general, and it’s especially not good to do using God’s Word.
The final sentence of the article by Chalice is: “Our faith inspires our support of Prop 139.” If that number – 139 – rings a bell, you may be recalling another 139 – Psalm 139 – which is a song to the Lord of all creation. In verses 13-14, the psalmist sings out: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” That’s quite a contrast from the ideology behind Prop 139.
As I wrote earlier, there is a diversity of opinion amongst Christians on the matter of abortion. As you can tell, I personally believe that as Christians we should generally be against abortion and in support of life, at all stages of a child’s development. And yet, there are horrible, extenuating circumstances that at the very least cause many of us to support – or at least understand - legal exceptions for abortion. I am glad to live in a nation, and a state, where we can have these opinions, talk about them, and take action on them.
As important, if not more so, we who are Christians should never condemn those who have gone through an abortion, or may be facing that decision now. We ought to have Jesus as our model. We are called to speak the truth, but in love. (Ephesians 4:15) And we are called to be compassionate, forgiving, and loving. I pray that nothing I’ve written has convinced you that Christians ought to do anything other than love our neighbors as ourselves.
But there’s still that “speak the truth” part that must not go by the wayside. And the truth is that what the members of Chalice Christian Church have done is twist the Bible beyond what it will bear. I wrote this article to bring clarity to what the Bible actually says and does not say. Of course, you and I will vote as we will. We each have various factors that influence our voting decisions. But if you are a Christian who plans to vote in favor of Prop 139, I hope you will not do what they have done – wrongly use God’s Word as one of the factors to justify your vote.
To that end, I spent one evening poring through the “What’s On My Ballot?” booklet sent out by the Arizona Secretary of State. I particularly appreciated (maybe even enjoyed?) looking through the various propositions, or “props”. For each prop, the booklet gives us: the text of the proposed law or amendment to an existing law; an objective analysis; and arguments written by Arizona citizens who are either for or against the prop.
As I was reading through each prop, I got to Prop 139, which if passed will amend the Arizona Constitution to create a fundamental legal right to abortion in Arizona. If I’m not mistaken, of all the props in the booklet, this one has the most people commenting, both for and against. The arguments are mostly well written, and I wasn’t too surprised by any of them.
That is, until I got to the bottom of p. 186. There, many members of a church – Chalice Christian Church, one of our fellow Disciples of Christ churches, in fact – placed their argument in favor of Prop 139. I wasn’t necessarily surprised by seeing Christians supporting the right of abortion. That’s fairly common, and even in our own congregation, there’s a diversity of opinion on this matter. What surprised me was the premise upon which the support is based – their support comes “because of, not in opposition to, the teachings of Jesus.”
(From here on, I mostly will refer to the published argument by the members of Chalice Christian Church as an “article,” written by “Chalice,” though I would guess that not all of the church’s members signed on. I recognize that it’s signed by individuals, and not by the church as a whole, so the words are only for simplicity.)
I think this premise, and the article as a whole, are worth addressing, because if the teachings of Jesus do indeed undergird support for the right to an abortion, then there have been billions of misguided Christians throughout the centuries and into the present regarding this matter.
Their article comes in several parts, the first of which, if I may paraphrase, is that Jesus is against injustice, and if a woman can’t have an abortion – whether because it’s illegal, or unaffordable – that’s unjust. Moreover, Jesus in His own day lifted up and supported women despite the very male-dominated society in which He lived. Translated to our day, His followers ought to lift up and support women by doing what we can to provide abortion access.
It is most definitely true that Jesus is against injustice, and that He lifts up and supports women. One of the Bible passages cited in the article is John 8, in which Jesus saves a woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death. (It is that account from which we get the phrase, “You who are without sin, cast the first stone.”) After challenging those who are condemning her, causing them to drop their rocks and walk away, Jesus doesn’t condemn her. But He does tell her, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” He is merciful to her (and in fact, protects her), but He is truthful, and respects her enough to guide her into what is right. It’s basically a “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach.
Contrary to Chalice, I suppose I could use John 8 to support a position of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” with “sin” being that of abortion. To be convincing to Chalice, and others who take a radical pro-choice position, there first would need to be an acknowledgment that at some point in a pregnancy, the aborting (i.e, killing) of an unborn child is sinful.
But at this point, you might be wondering – “What does John 8 have to with abortion? It’s not about abortion at all.” That’s correct. In fact, NONE of the passages cited in the article by Chalice are about abortion. Jesus didn’t talk about abortion in His teachings as recorded in the gospels.
Having said that, we do know that early Christians opposed abortion, a practice that was fairly common in the Roman Empire. Moreover, Christians were quite involved in the care of abandoned children, “some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.” (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/abortion-and-early-church/) It seems unlikely that the followers of Jesus in the early stages of the Christian movement, if they were alive today, would vote in favor of Prop 139.
Further, I noticed that the article left out some gospel passages that might call to question the premise of their pro-choice argument. For example, a pregnant Mary (mother of Jesus) came to the home of her pregnant relative Elizabeth, and “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” (Luke 1:41) The Greek word used for “baby” here refers to unborn children as well as infants. It’s almost as if the baby in Elizabeth’s womb was an actual person, deserving of every protection that might be offered. Jesus also said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
Like the Bible passages cited by Chalice, neither of these are about abortion specifically. But doesn’t abortion have to do as much with babies as it does with women? There are, after all, two very impacted parties involved – one of whom has a choice, and the other whom does not. If the one without a choice is not even considered (which in the Chalice article, he or she is not), where is the justice in that?
Moreover, if it is to be argued that the unborn do not have rights, I would ask Christians who support Prop 139 specifically, by what measure? By what measure does each individual life, created under the providence and power of God, not deserve the opportunity, if not the right, to live?
To cover this, the article then moves from the gospels – which are about Jesus and found in the New Testament – to the Old Testament. Here, Chalice says this: “nothing in the Hebrew or Christian Bible condemns terminating a pregnancy.” (“Hebrew Bible” is the Old Testament; “Christian Bible” is the New Testament). Perhaps I’m stretching the meaning of their statement, but in it I am hearing that the unborn do not have rights. They cite three passages to support this statement:
The first is Genesis 2:7 – the creation of the first man, Adam – out of which the article claims “life begins at breath.” I think the argument they are making is that, according to the Old Testament, an unborn baby is not an actual person because it hasn’t yet taken a breath. I acknowledge that there is great debate over when personhood begins. But this passage does not apply to that debate. The creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event. Exactly how unique? Not only did Adam and Eve not come from a womb – they weren’t children. Ever. They were created by God as fully formed adults. Using this unique case to make an argument for when life begins is a hasty generalization.
The second is Exodus 21:22. Chalice says this passage, that goes through verse 25, shows that a terminated pregnancy is not considered to be murder, and therefore presumably not condemned by God. Since abortion is a terminated pregnancy, it likewise is not condemned. I had heard this Exodus 21 argument once before (from another Disciples of Christ source), and after doing just a bit of research, realized how wrong this argument is.
To see why it is so wrong, I recommend a great article by Greg Koukl of “Stand to Reason” (https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion). But let me make two quick comments: (1) IF the Exodus passage is about a terminated pregnancy, then it’s about an unintended miscarriage, not an intentional abortion (the practice that would be enshrined by Prop 139); however, (2) the passage is very likely not even about an unintended miscarriage. The Hebrew words do not indicate anything about a dead baby, but instead a living baby born prematurely due to two men fighting and accidentally hitting a pregnant woman. The passage says that if there is no harm, there still will be a fine to be paid; but if there is harm, then there will be “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. In Exodus 21, the harm is not specific to the woman. Indeed, there’s little reason to believe it does not include the baby, and very good evidence to believe it does. If that is true, then the Bible does indeed condemn the termination of a pregnancy, even if accidental. Indeed, it seems to be closer to supporting the conclusion that life inside the womb is as valuable as life outside it.
The third is Numbers 5:11-31, which is about - according to the article - “potentially inducing a miscarriage to test marital fidelity.” Numbers 5 is a very unusual Bible passage, which could be discussed at length. But here’s what is relevant to the topic at hand: it says nothing either about a woman being pregnant or having a miscarriage, much less an abortion. See another article by “Stand to Reason” to read more (https://www.str.org/w/did-god-ordain-abortion-as-punishment-for-infidelity-).
I am hoping the people from Chalice who signed onto this article did not know the facts of these biblical passages, and have been deceived by someone else promulgating false ideas about them. Otherwise, using these passages to show that the Bible does not seem to have a problem with the practice of abortion – and therefore as Christians we should support Prop 139 – is being intentionally deceptive. I would argue that’s not a good thing to do in general, and it’s especially not good to do using God’s Word.
The final sentence of the article by Chalice is: “Our faith inspires our support of Prop 139.” If that number – 139 – rings a bell, you may be recalling another 139 – Psalm 139 – which is a song to the Lord of all creation. In verses 13-14, the psalmist sings out: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” That’s quite a contrast from the ideology behind Prop 139.
As I wrote earlier, there is a diversity of opinion amongst Christians on the matter of abortion. As you can tell, I personally believe that as Christians we should generally be against abortion and in support of life, at all stages of a child’s development. And yet, there are horrible, extenuating circumstances that at the very least cause many of us to support – or at least understand - legal exceptions for abortion. I am glad to live in a nation, and a state, where we can have these opinions, talk about them, and take action on them.
As important, if not more so, we who are Christians should never condemn those who have gone through an abortion, or may be facing that decision now. We ought to have Jesus as our model. We are called to speak the truth, but in love. (Ephesians 4:15) And we are called to be compassionate, forgiving, and loving. I pray that nothing I’ve written has convinced you that Christians ought to do anything other than love our neighbors as ourselves.
But there’s still that “speak the truth” part that must not go by the wayside. And the truth is that what the members of Chalice Christian Church have done is twist the Bible beyond what it will bear. I wrote this article to bring clarity to what the Bible actually says and does not say. Of course, you and I will vote as we will. We each have various factors that influence our voting decisions. But if you are a Christian who plans to vote in favor of Prop 139, I hope you will not do what they have done – wrongly use God’s Word as one of the factors to justify your vote.
3 Comments
Thank you Pastor Dave for this blog. Hopefully it will become a weekly event
Thank you for sharing.
n My heart has been so heavy over this issue. Thank you for your thoughts. Looking forward to your next blog.
Pastor Dave, thank you for standing up for life according to the scriptures. Seems we are living in increased times of testing and purification. Being a leader who helps us navigate through the heavy fog of deception is not easy, yet it honors our Lord and Savior, a daily goal followers of Christ ought to strive for. I don't want to be one of the "elect" who fall for deception (Matthew 24:24 - For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.)