Part 3: The Call to Commitment

RICHARD FREDERICKS, PH.D. | Former Adventist Pastor

Should the Adventist Church take a stand against the practice of abortion? Yes, for many reasons. The most common argument against this step is a very legitimate desire to protect personal freedom of choice. But for us as a Christian community the crucial question is not whether or not God has given this freedom to His people. He certainly has. Rather, for us the question is whether our choices are just and moral.

Individuals are free to practice adultery or cruelty, but such choices are neither moral nor Christ like. Neither is the choice to kill an unborn child in an attempt to solve a present crisis. Our choices must be in line with God’s will for our lives.

Another roadblock to a biblically consistent Adventist position is a curious denial of ethical accountability because of eschatological speculations. What could happen is causing us to deny what is happening. Prominent speakers within our church have said those on the side of the sanctity of life are the vanguard of the “religious right” that would bring in legislation limiting our religious freedom. They conclude we must avoid being identified with these Christians in their struggle against abortion and infanticide. This is curious. Sad. Speculations about a future death decree should not make us actively participate in a present one. Surely for the unborn of America this is already a “time of trouble such as has never been.”

Others said “It is a Catholic issue.” Is protecting innocent life the private domain of the Catholic Church? Proverbs 24:11-12 and a host of other warnings from God (in the minor prophets especially) call us to defend the weak, voiceless and oppressed. Of Josiah God said:

“He pled the cause of the afflicted and the needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?” declares the Lord. “But your eyes [apostate Israel] and heart are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, and on the shedding of innocent blood” (Jer 22:16; cf. Jer 5:26-29).

The Bottom Line of Agreement: Compassion

Often those on both sides of this debate have seen themselves as the defenders of compassion, either compassion for the unborn child or the woman in crisis. Surely this is a divine impulse and it must be our common ground, our point of agreement as a church. A response which is truly and consistently compassionate to everyone involved in a crisis pregnancy must be our constant goal.

This would require consensus on two points. First, there is a need to admit the increasingly obvious medical and psychological reality that abortion has a second victim: the woman. Abortion not only destroys a child, but damages and sometimes destroys the very person it is suggested it will help. Because of this, compassion for the woman (as well as the child) dictates alternate answers.

The second point of consensus must be our individual commitment to offering sacrificial and redemptive support to these women. Are we really motivated by compassion rather than expediency and self-interest? Then we must realize that all truly compassionate people are individually involved people. “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you will have an abundance for doing every good deed” (2 Corinthians 9:8). By God’s grace we have the resources to meet the medical, physical, financial and relational needs of every woman in crisis within our sphere of influence. Believing that God’s resources are adequate for the situations He gives us we can preserve and affirm life for everyone involved.

These women who sought abortion as an answer, and there are hundreds of them now beginning to speak out, live with the reality that they chose to destroy the only child they will ever carry.

In terms of the woman as abortion’s second victim, there is a growing body of medical literature that is somewhat begrudgingly admitting the reoccurring negative physical and psychological consequences of abortion. These are reviewed in detail in Pam Koerbal’s book: Abortion’s Second Victim. Let me mention just two aspects specifically. Perhaps as high as 100% of all women who abort their first child are involuntarily made incapable of conceiving or carrying to term another child. These women who sought abortion as an answer, and there are hundreds of them now beginning to speak out, live with the reality that they chose to destroy the only child they will ever carry.

Secondly, does abortion really solve the immediate emotional crisis? Here I want to speak from personal experience. I have counseled with six students and one close friend following their abortions. The story in each case was sickeningly similar. Career plans, money, self-esteem, boyfriend’s affection: abortion promised to keep all intact. They were told the fetus was their hindrance to a happy life. The counselor at the clinic promised a quick escape back to freedom once the unwanted “blob of tissue” was removed quickly and painlessly (for only $500. thank-you).

In each case, the abortion only deepened the crisis and hastened the already deteriorating relationships and self-worth. Two girls who had abortions to stay in school ended up leaving. Another who had it against her will because of extreme pressure by her boyfriend and parents now refuses to have any contact with either, and suffers from severe depression. Another girl, who worked in the women’s residence hall, following a suction abortion, vomited uncontrollably every time she turned on a vacuum sweeper. Another suffered from reoccurring nightmares of a baby girl crying and found herself illogically hoping, each time she saw a little girl from the back, that it would be the child she had aborted. Still another of my students wrote this letter before we talked:

“I am writing to explain the many times I was absent to your class in the month of March. I can’t really say the exact reason why I did not come because it is very, very personal. It is so personal, that my parents or friends do not even know what I have gone and am [sic] still going through. A reason, I can mention, for not coming is that some times I was just too [sic] depressed to be around people, and my problem too complicated to concentrate on anything else. Sometimes all I wanted to do was stay in bed. Things got so bad that I felt there was no hope anymore—I now know what it feels like to cry for help within the depths of your soul… when you feel like you are in hell.”

Koerbel cites a study of the emotional state of forty-six randomly selected post-abortion women responding to a questionnaire. In this study, 87% of the women reported an increase in feelings of guilt, 78% an increase in a sense of grief, 76% had increased depression and remorse, 67% experienced an increase in anger and more than 60% struggled with a sense of shame and bitterness about their abortion decision.²⁹ Recently I have had two single young ladies come to me for help who are pregnant and determined to keep this child as a means of compensating for the terrible regret and loss of self-respect they felt from an earlier abortion. Compassionate?

A woman does have the “legal right” and the personal freedom to take the life of her child. But as a Christian we must recognize she does not have God’s grace or approval for such an action. Killing the fetus is a violation of God’s commandment; it is sin and is therefore futile for healing a damaged life. Doing so will not solve an emotional and moral crisis, but will only horribly deepen it. As Dr. John Wilke stated: “It is easier to scrape the baby out of a woman’s womb than to scrape the memory of that baby out of her conscience.”

We are false to our calling as Christ’s disciples when we intimate to a woman who may lack the support and emotional strength she needs to face her pregnancy that she will find healing and emotional strength by aborting her child. In reality, abortions only terminate innocent children, not the moral or emotional crises of their parents.

Talk is cheap. Our task as individuals and as a community is to provide the support women need to be a giver—not a taker—of life. To encourage women in crisis pregnancies to give their unborn child life we must stand by them and help meet their needs. The real question is not: “What should we tell a woman in crisis to do?”; but rather: “What should we, as Christ’s disciples, do for her when she reaches out for help?” We need to love, not just with “word or tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 Jn 3:18).

I want to illustrate this point by mentioning a specific story of a young woman named Joan because it has been referred to in several articles within Adventist publications.³⁰ Joan, after disassociating herself from the church and her parents following high school, became involved sexually with a married man. Realizing the futility of her lifestyle, Joan ended the relationship and found a renewed relationship with Christ. She returned to college with her parents’ help, intent on studying for dentistry, only to realize six weeks later that she was pregnant.

She sought counsel. She did not want to contact the man nor tell her parents. The author states: “She had considered continuing the pregnancy and putting the baby up for adoption, but she saw no way of finding a place to live, support herself, and explaining her actions to her family and friends.” Her options he says, seemed to be suicide, abortion or dropping out of school and disappearing, and then concludes her story with these words:

“The conclusion to Joan’s story will not help—her story has no fairy tale ending. After much indecision, Joan finally elected to leave school and confront her parents with her problem. She also decided to continue the pregnancy and relinquish the infant for adoption. But when the baby was born, she changed her mind and chose to keep it. She felt so little acceptance by her parents and her church that she sought public assistance and now lives alone with her child. She has not returned to college and has no hope of doing so at this time. She, her child, and all whose lives touch theirs will continue to need a special measure of God’s forgiving and redeeming love.”

What is the tragedy in this story? Is it Joan’s courageous decision to give her child life? Not at all. This story graphically illustrates the failure, on the part of the affluent upper-middle class Adventist college community to whom she turned, to be authentic and sacrificial Christians. Listen again to the options listed by Joan’s counselor. Abortion, suicide or “disappearing.” Why was he and his community incapable of coming up with a fourth? Where were the heart and hands of this church?

Joan should have found, not platitudes or “non-judgmental feedback,” but the continued assurance of God’s forgiveness and help (in the context of her own recent recommitment to Him) followed by a tangible, practical outpouring of financial, medical and emotional support. All those resources were available, and the reason God had given them was for just such a purpose. The tragic failure here belongs to those who allowed Joan to face the consequences of a brave decision alone.

Are we doing nothing to provide alternatives to abortion because we don’t want our lives or prosperity disturbed? Like the world around us, have we become more worried about comfort and affluence than about affirming God’s call?

Are we doing nothing to provide alternatives to abortion because we don’t want our lives or prosperity disturbed? Like the world around us, have we become more worried about comfort and affluence than about affirming God’s call: “I set before you this day life and death. Choose life!” For a life-affirming church, God is able to give abundantly, so that we may have “sufficiency in everything….an abundance for every good work” (2 Cor 9:8; see also Romans 8:30-31).

William Willimon, a professor of Christian Ministry at Duke University gives a practical and beautiful example of what it really means to be Christ’s agents to someone in crisis:

“One Monday morning I was attending a minister’s morning coffee hour. We got into a discussion about abortion. A bunch of older clergy were against it, a bunch of younger clergy for it. One of those who was against it was asked. “Now wait a minute. You’re not going to tell me that you think some 15-16 year old is capable of bearing a child, are you?”

“Well,” the fellow replied, backing off a little bit, “there are some circumstances when an abortion might be OK.”

Sitting there stirring his coffee was a pastor of one of the largest black United Methodist churches in Greenville. He said, “What’s wrong with a 16-year old giving birth? She can get pregnant, can’t she?”

Then we said, “Joe, you can’t believe a 16-year old could care for a child.”

He replied, “No, I don’t believe that, I don’t believe a 26-year old can care for a child. Or a 36-year old. Pick any age. One person can’t raise a child.”

So I said, “Look, Joe, the statistics show that by the year 1990, half of all American children will be raised in single-parent households.”

“So?” he replied. “They can’t do it.”

We asked, “What do you do when you have a 16-year old get pregnant in your church?”

He explained, “Well, it happened last week. We baptized the baby last Sunday, and I said how glad we were to have this new member in this church. Then I called down an elderly couple in the church, and I said, ‘Now we’re going to baptize this baby, and bring it into the family. What I want you all to do is to raise this baby, and while you’re doing that raise the momma with it because the momma right now needs it.’ This couple is in their 60’s, and they’ve raised about 20 kids. They know what they’re doing. And I said. ‘If you need any of us, let us know. We’re here. It’s our child too.’ That’s what we do at my church.”³¹

As Adventists, our challenge is to actively adopt the world view of Scripture and find a better alternative than death in the face of economic and emotional problems. Armed with a commitment to life, and confident in the resources of our Creator, we are called to demonstrate Christ’s alternative within a decaying society:

“A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another, even as I have loved you” (John 13:34). “For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give Himself as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

“Abortion in our culture [and church] is not only the killing of unborn children, but also the aborting of innocence (by making uninformed women both its partners and its victims), the denigrating of life (by denying the unborns’ personhood and promoting death), the aborting of truth (through the prevalence of deceit, propaganda, and euphemism), the aborting of love (by leading to infanticide, child abuse, and euthanasia), and finally, the aborting of humanity itself.”³²

---

Suggested Guidelines for Crisis Pregnancies and Medical Protocol within Seventh-day Adventist Institutions

1. Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) medical institutions do not allow abortions to be performed for social or economic reasons.³³ Such procedures, commonly referred to as ‘elective abortions,’ are inconsistent with the Biblically derived belief that human life (including the life of the unborn child) is sacred, and of higher value than individual or corporate considerations of convenience, lifestyle preference or economic prosperity.

2.  SDA medical institutions will allow an abortion to be performed only if:

     a.) it is required to save the physical life of the mother; or 

     b.) in exceptional cases of anacephalic fetuses or equally rare cases of clearly diagnosed fatal congenital defects.³⁴  In such situations the abortion will be performed only after professional consultation between the primary physician, two advising physicians and a hospital chaplain.

3. Individual SDA church congregations will be assisted in establishing a crisis pregnancy network to assist, as necessary, Adventist women and their families in a crisis pregnancy. Such assistance should include affordable pre- and postnatal medical care, support in helping students continue their education, financial planning and assistance, and spiritual and emotional nurture.

4. The SDA church requires at the elementary, academy and college level, (appropriate to the maturity level of each) Scripturally-based, values oriented seminars focused on Christian principles of sexual behavior and accountability stressing the significant consequences of all moral choices.

Compassion and repentance

On issues of this nature church discipline on a denominational level is a conundrum. No rule or set of rules deal with all possible situations adequately and redemptively. Within the individual congregation, disfellowshipping should be seriously considered against physicians who routinely perform elective abortions. 

The woman in crisis who receives an abortion is a dramatically different situation. When a Christian woman in a moral or emotional crisis feels abortion is her only viable option, it signifies a failure on the part of her entire church community to create a redemptive atmosphere that allows acceptance, repentance and forgiveness to occur—and tangible support to be given. In such cases, deeper issues need to be addressed by everyone involved with a corporate attitude of compassion and repentance. †

Footnotes

29. Pam Koerbal, Abortion’s Second Victim, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), pp. 140-41. Here again it must be mentioned that there are now four national women’s organizations, supporting hundreds of local chapters, created solely to minister to damaged women and significant others suffering from post-abortion syndrome.
30. See Ministry, May, 1988; p. 12 and 16.
31. William Willimon, “A Crisis of Identity,” Sojourners; (May, 1986); p. 27
32. Quoted from Michael J. Gorman, “The Issues of Life,” in Christianity Today, September 4, 1987, p. 38.
33. This does not imply that social (including psychological and emotional) or economic considerations are trivial. Very few, if any, women consider an abortion for trivial reasons. But emotional and economic crises are best resolved with the Christian community, not by killing the unborn child, but by compassionate and tangible support for the mother.
34. Perhaps the toughest exception often discussed is the extremely rare request for abortion resulting from violent rape. The caution here should be the reality that it is not the unborn child who is a criminal or enemy. The child is an innocent life. If anyone should die, a more logical argument would be in favor of the death penalty for the rapist, not the child. But in those very rare cases where a woman conceives due to a violent assault and rape and believes she cannot carry such a child to term, the protocol committee of each hospital should consider her needs seriously and compassionately. The Christian ideal remains the redemption of both the mother and the child.