Part II: The Quality of Life Ethic

RICHARD FREDERICKS, PH.D. | Former Adventist Pastor

This portion of the article flows from two basic perspectives. First, it takes seriously the authority Scripture has over human reason as the final arbitrator in all significant ethical and moral issues. Then it argues that the principles and themes of Scripture are far from silent concerning abortion.¹⁸  Rather, biblical theology and the morality that flows from it, in both the Old and New Testament, stand in opposition to this type of solution to human problems; as well as the philosophy of humanity and human happiness that supports it.

First consider three ways the Old Testament speaks to the issue:

1. God is against murder. “You shall not murder” (Hebrew: ratsach, Exodus 20:13). The sixth commandment may allow for some forms of capital punishment or self-defense. But the Hebrew term, and its context, consistently defines as murder, then forbids and unequivocally condemns the taking of any innocent human life by violent means (Exodus 23:7). No exceptions are offered, no conditions (economic, emotional or otherwise) are given where taking an innocent life is acceptable to God. He repeatedly condemns (lit. declares a curse upon) any who take the life of an innocent human being in a futile attempt to atone for their own sins as in Deut. 24:16. Proverbs 6:16-17 states “six things which the Lord hates….hands that shed innocent blood.”

More specifically, God views as especially heinous the sacrifice of children for the sins of the parents (see Jeremiah 7:30-34 and Micah 6:7); and those who “ripped open the pregnant women (double murder) to enlarge their borders: (Amos 1:13). In Psalm 106, verses 35-40 God sends destructive judgments upon His people who have accepted the practices of the Canaanites, leading them to “shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters.”  In Jeremiah 22 God directly links child sacrifice with greed, the desire for materialistic self-fulfillment (22:3, 13-17).

This link is confirmed in the Biblical Archeological Review (Jan/Feb. 1984). Archeologists have discovered that the practice of child sacrifices in Carthage similar to those condemned in the Old Testament were motivated by economic reasons, but with religious justification. Child sacrifice was more prevalent in wealthy homes than in poor ones. The wealthy were disposing of their “unwanted” children in order to preserve their lifestyle and standard of living.¹⁹  God declares this mindset both fatal and alien to His kingdom.

2. Because God condemns the taking of innocent human life, the next step is to recognize God affirms the personhood of the unborn. In both the Old and New Testament the term used to describe a human being in the womb is child, the same term used to describe an infant after birth. There is nothing anywhere in Scripture to indicate God views the unborn child as only a potential life. Rather all babies in the womb are spoken of as persons, as unique and distinct individuals with identity and worth, for whom God already has a destiny.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5)

“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord am the Maker of all things;” “Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you.” Isaiah 44:24; 2; NASB.

“Thou didst form me in my mother’s womb…Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me when as yet there was not one of them.” (Psalm 139:13).²⁰

3. God is especially for the weak, the orphan, the voiceless and the oppressed. Those who are without a power base in society are the objects of His special regard; and are to be so treated by His people: “Vindicate the weak and fatherless, do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3-4). If unborn are persons to God they are the most defenseless of persons. To be God’s servant is to defend such as these in a selfish, brutal world.

We could find more in the Old Testament to expand upon these themes. But it is the New Testament’s record of God’s redemptive acts through Jesus Christ that most clearly rejects the assumptions under girding the quality of life ethic and all its applications.

The Gospels elicit an immediate sense that Jesus formed a kingdom where the self-centered, materialistic values of the world are turned upside down. “If anyone would be My disciple, let him deny himself, take up his cross (sacrifice himself) and follow Me. For whoever would save his life will loose it” (Matt 16:21-26).

Fulfillment, on Jesus’ terms, is discovered in the midst of a self-denying life lived for others, not through wealth, autonomy and the frantic pursuit of individual rights or self-fulfillment. Christ redefined true fulfillment as valuing all others, especially children, more than we value autonomy or personal comfort.

Fulfillment, on Jesus’ terms, is discovered in the midst of a self-denying life lived for others, not through wealth, autonomy and the frantic pursuit of individual rights or self-fulfillment. Christ redefined true fulfillment as valuing all others, especially children,²¹ more than we value autonomy or personal comfort. This participation, even if it is in the “Fellowship of suffering,” (Phil 3:10) with One who gave Himself on the cross for sinners is the heart of Christianity. It declares all human life valuable. This agape lifestyle is illustrated in a number of New Testament themes:

1. The Gospel reveals a God who accepts and values each of us as persons, but not on the basis of what we have achieved—or ever will achieve. Christ offered Himself in sacrificial love to those who were unworthy, and incapable of earning such love by their attractiveness, achievements or assets. In other words, God does not accept us because we measure up; rather God’s love embraces us in our morally and spiritually defective state and declares us acceptable by grace. This is the antithesis of humans having relative status based on an acceptable level of assets or achievement.

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6; see also Eph. 2:3-6; 1 Tim 1:15).

“When the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy…” (Titus 3:4-5).

We must not miss this point. While the “quality of life” ethic is totally consistent to an evolutionary, atheistic “survival of the fittest” worldview; it is antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel. Since Eden, God has shown Himself to be redemptive through great personal Self-sacrifice. He didn’t respond to sin by ripping Adam and Eve to pieces, even though they were now morally deformed and would cause Him great suffering and inconvenience. Instead He opened a way back to the tree of life by giving Himself. ²²

Abortion as a False Gospel

Abortion is a false gospel. The Christian Gospel declares that the son of God, in divine love offered Himself as the all-sufficient (“once-for-all”) atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Often abortion serves as a human atonement for moral sin which denies the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross as God’s answer for healing human transgression. Abortion promises redemption and peace through the blood of the unborn rather than the blood of Christ. His sacrifice becomes irrelevant.

For many, abortion is a futile attempt to remove the consequences of sin by terminating the fetus, a solution which ignores their moral guilt, the need for repentance, and Christ’s “atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). False guilt (feeling bad about something which is not wrong) is unhealthy, but false innocence (feeling good about evil) is deadly.

Abortion also assaults the Gospel by breeding sociological perfectionism where people who are inconvenient or fail to measure up are denied human value and subsequently denied life. This is the opposite of life lived as a response to God’s grace. It conditions us to ask the question: “What can this person do for me?” rather than responding to our own unmerited acceptance from God with the question: “How can I offer such love to those who need it most?”

Whether we communicate to our children: “Grandma is no longer a functional person and it is expensive to take care of her, so we’re going to help her have a good death;” vs. “Grandma can’t communicate with us but she is still Grandma; and we can still love her and take care of her until she dies” makes a real difference. Children raised with the first orientation grow up eliminating people who are inconvenient. Those taught the second grow up understanding the power of grace. When she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 Mother Teresa said:

“To me, the nations with legalized abortions are the poorest nations. The great destroyer of peace today is the crime against the innocent unborn child… In destroying the child, we are destroying love, destroying the image of God in the world.”

In the New Testament, love is never simply warm emotions or a fuzzy theological concept. It is a way of thinking and especially, of living. The Apostles’ concept of love grew out of a concrete, historical reality—a bloody cross on a windswept hill called Golgotha. Jesus’ death for sinners taught them that genuine love is always costly, and above all else, sacrificial and redemptive. To buy into the idea of love as self-satisfaction minus suffering; pleasure minus pain; or commitment only to relationships that promise no inconvenience is to deny the Gospel.

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.  And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (I John 3:16. NIV).

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:10,11 NIV).

The enemies of early Christians were compelled to say “behold how they love one another,” In the book of Acts these first disciples were identified as “the people of the Way.” They were a distinct community whose lifestyle was radically different from the society around them. Their values were different— above all, the value they put on human life. This became evident in their relationships, as the earliest non-biblical Christian moral code, the Didache, illustrates:

“Our oldest moral catechism prepared candidates for baptism by instructing them: ‘You will not kill. You will not have sex with other people’s spouses. You will not abuse young children. You will not have sex outside of marriage. You will not abort fetuses.”’²³

For these early Christians, the value of the unborn child was a logical extension of the Gospel. This put them at odds with the prevailing practice in Roman society where abortion was rampant. In every age, the way in which the Christian community deals with the weakest and most needy in its midst is an accurate reflection of how personally real the power of the Gospel is to its members.

The church is in serious trouble when its corporate and personal agendas and fears are such that it has no desire to accept into its midst the “burden of unwanted children.” In the process of killing our unwanted children we kill ourselves.

The church is in serious trouble when its corporate and personal agendas and fears are such that it has no desire to accept into its midst the “burden of unwanted children.” In the process of killing our unwanted children we kill ourselves. We must maintain hope, not in ourselves (nor in our children), but in God—thus allowing us to receive the weak, the stranger, the outcast, the “other”—even if it is our own child.

2. The Incarnation speaks strongly against abortion and the ethic supporting it. Jesus Christ identified with all humanity—even the unborn. When the “Word became flesh” He began as an unborn child, a fetus. Part of the revelation of His “glory” (John 1:14) was to enter into the womb of an unmarried but pregnant teenager. Was He at that moment “potential life” with only relative value?²⁴

Remember, Jesus was born into poverty and hardship, destined for suffering. If we look at the nativity story in all its harsh reality, one wonders what advice we would have offered Mary today about her pregnancy. Birth in a filthy stable. Only rags available to dress the child. Jesus’ identification with the poor and underprivileged rather than the successful, powerful or prosperous was so real He had literally “no place to lay His head.” This is such a low “quality of life” by modern reasoning it would have been far better for Mary to terminate her pregnancy. Yet this life is the ultimate revelation of the “glory” of God (John 17:1-5).

3. In the New Testament the “love of money” is not the key to happiness, but “the root of all the evils.” It is a mindset that causes “those who want to get rich” to “fall into temptation” and “wander away from the faith” (1 Tim 6:5-11). Jesus emphatically declared that “no one can serve.. God and money” (Matt 6:24); that “life does not consist in the abundance of possessions,” therefore His disciples must “guard against every form of greed” (Luke 12:16-21). When John, in Revelation. describes Babylon the great harlot in whom is found the blood of “all who have been slain on the earth” (18:24), he pictures her as that spirit in humanity that values gold and silver above human lives (18:11-13).

This is crucial. If listened to carefully it becomes clear most arguments for abortion or killing the defective appeal to economic self-interest. They warn that preserving and protecting such people threatens either present or potential financial prosperity. The biblical priority is radically different. Paul identifies greed as the sin of idolatry—the most fatal sin in the Old Testament (Col 3:5; Eph 5:5). More than any other topic Jesus talked about the danger of basing life’s decisions and goals on money, and flatly declared “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” and “turning His gaze upon His disciples, He said, ‘Blessed are [even] you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of heaven.” This meaning derived from discipleship is in direct opposition to the belief that a life of potential material hardship is a life not worth living.

The Epistle of James, while not directly referring to abortion, concerns itself with human injustice and the link between greed and violence against the innocent: “You lust and do not have, so you murder… You have lived on the earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves through slaughter; and murdered the innocent who were not opposing you. Your gold and silver [money] will testify against you…in the last days” (James 4:1-4; 5:5-6.3).

Happiness is found in the company of the committed whose purpose is to mirror Christ’s unearned, undeserved love by identifying with those who need it most: the weak, the frail, the poor and the helpless…

Jesus said, “So therefore no one of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33). Clearly the Christian’s goal in life is discipleship to Christ, not self-centered autonomy or financial independence. Christ’s call is to simplicity (not to poverty) in order to free up resources for kingdom work— the very work of helping the needy and protecting the weak. Happiness is found in the company of the committed whose purpose is to mirror Christ’s unearned, undeserved love by identifying with those who need it most: the weak, the frail, the poor and the helpless:

“For inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, My brethren, you have done it unto Me” (Matt 25:40).

“The rest of the world goes about disposing of the very young and the very old, the very weak, the very vulnerable, and the very poor, calling that reality. But the church is called to adopt and embrace the little ones in the name of the Lord, who was once a little one.”²⁵

4.  Finally, the “quality of life” ethic is rooted in the greatest sin of all: man’ desire to play God. Trying to be autonomous, the creature living as if his finite reason were the highest authority and therefore taking the prerogatives of the Creator—this is the essence of sin. Paul speaks of “the lie” as “worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25, see context. verses 18-32).

The first lie the Bible records is Satan’s assertion to Eve that she could “be as God” (Gen 3:5). Isaiah identifies the one overpowering determination of the Satanic spirit as:  “I will exalt myself….I will make myself like the Most High” (Isa 14:14), and he described spiritual Babylon (the archetypal kingdom of human rebellion against God, cf. Daniel 4:30) in these words: “You sensual one, who dwells securely, who says in your heart, I am and there is no one besides me” (Isa 47:8) .²⁶

In quality of life literature two types of statements reflect the human desire for autonomy and omniscience. The first defends the “absolute rights” of men and women to total sexual freedom, and of each woman to do what she wants with “her own body” (meaning the unborn child). The second suggests that those who are born with physical, mental or emotional handicaps—or even into poverty- -would be better off dead.

Do we have absolute rights to do what we want with our bodies? Is personal autonomy a “Christian right” to be defended by the church? “You are not your own: you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:20). The New Testament calls us to accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It never defends “personal autonomy” or defines freedom in terms of autonomy: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23).

God’s grace never covers willful, cherished sin, and autonomy is the primordial sin (Isa 14:12-14). Auto-nomy literally means “self-law”—the sinful desire to be one’s own ultimate authority. Again, in Genesis 3:4-6 it is the serpent who distorts true freedom into personal autonomy (“Ye shall be as gods”). Jesus’ own discussion of authentic freedom is found in John 8:28-36; here it is defined within the context of discipleship and abiding in His Word. Biblical freedom is the opposite of autonomy. Making the will of “God” synonymous with being true to ones self, as in Eastern mysticism, is simply the idolatry the Bible warns against disguised in psychological terminology (see Rev 9:20-21),

As to the second theme, by acting on the assumption that they know some unborn would be better off dead, physicians and others now play God. They act as if they are omniscient, speaking with certainty about the misery “unwanted” children will both cause and experience. Really? Who gave these prophets their crystal ball? Will this new child’s life be a continual burden or a joyful praise to God? How can we know?²⁷ The greatest Gospel singer of this century was the illegitimate daughter of a 16 year old, poor, black girl who was raped.

To argue for death as the best answer to life’s problems lacks imagination and a sense of God’s redemptive might. For an atheist this limitedness is understandable, for a Christian it is bankrupt.

In reality, over 90% of the teenagers who commit suicide come from rich families where they have successful, educated parents, no material hardships and no handicaps. Among adults it is the rich, the beautiful and the successful (by material standards) who commit suicide. Suicide among the poor is extremely rare and among the handicapped it is almost non-existent!²⁸

The lives of most successful men and women are lives of endured hardships and obstacles overcome. Read Beethoven’s family background, including a deranged father, a syphillic mother, a mentally retarded older brother and a sibling born blind. Surely Planned Parenthood would have said to Ludwig’s mother: “Protect your freedom, terminate the poor thing.” Their “god” is human speculation, and that god is small and impotent. To argue for death as the best answer to life’s problems lacks imagination and a sense of God’s redemptive might. For an atheist this limitedness is understandable, for a Christian it is bankrupt.

In summary, God is actively involved with the unborn as persons of value. Therefore since abortion is the taking of such an innocent human life it becomes, Biblically, not only an act of murder, but an assault on the purpose of Christ’s life, His Gospel and His call to discipleship.

The conclusion (Part 3) of this article will be presented next week.

Footnotes

18. Personally, I have not seen a “pro-choice” ethic that is even remotely derived from a Biblical base. While the Bible may be referred to as a starting point, the thought forms and language which under gird a defense of abortion are (and I believe, must be) consistently relativistic, humanistic and hedonistic (e.g., personal “rights to autonomy and self-fulfillment,” thought forms alien to Biblical Christianity.).
19. Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolff: “Child Sacrifice at Carthage: Religious Rite or Population Control?” (Biblical Archeological Review; January/February, 1984), pp. 31-49.
20. Some religious scholars, seeking to avoid the twin facts that, Scripturally, an unborn baby is a human child and killing any innocent human, especially children, is murder, have used a very curious rationalization. They argue that since no Bible text specifically states “aborting an unborn child is murder” it therefore is not murder in Scripture. This extreme bit of narrow proof-text logic has even appeared in scholarly articles. If one were to accept it, then one could argue with equal validity it is alright to murder a six year old or a 36 year old, for there is not a single text that states specifically: “thou shall not murder a six year old child.” Even casual exegesis of  Scripture confirms three clear and consistent principles: the unborn are viewed as developing children by God; the taking of an innocent human life (murder) is hated and condemned by God; and this hatred especially applies to child sacrifices done in an attempt to insure the prosperity or cover the sins of the parents.
21. See especially Mark 10:13-16 and Matthew 18:1-6. It should be remembered that Jesus did not say that unless children become as adults they cannot enter the kingdom, but just the opposite. When a society begins to devalue and destroy its children for the sake of personal comfort and autonomy, such a society is quickly becoming immune to conversion.
22. Many have argued for abortion as the lesser of two evils, and suggested as an ethical analogy the deliberate lies told by those hiding Jews from Nazis; or by those helping runaway slaves escape to freedom in the north. It is an illegitimate comparison. In both of the above illustrations those involved risked and at times gave their own lives (personal sacrifice) to save the lives of two groups of humans who had been legally declared non-humans. Abortion is exactly the opposite; it devalues to a sub-human level and terminates another human to preserve one’s own lifestyle. In a Christian worldview, such a decision is not the lesser of two evils, but rather it is akin to the mindset that allowed the horrors of Nazism and the brutality of slavery.
23. William Willimon: “A Crisis of Identity: The Struggle of Mainline Protestant Churches” in Sojourners (Vol 15, No 5/May, 1986), p.28.
24. In this context it is valuable to notice how Luke, a physician, documents the conception of John the Baptist. An angel tells Zechariah that his son will be “filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15, see also vs.41-44 NASB).
25. William Willimon. “A Crisis of Identity: The Struggle of Mainline Modern Protestantism.” in Sojourners. (Vol 15; No 5; May, 1986). p. 28
26. Emil Brunner writes: “All human sin has an element of weakness; it is mingled with anxiety for one’s life, a fear of losing something by obedience to God… Man’s arrogance consists in believing that he can look after himself better than God can, that he knows what is good for him better than his Creator” (Emil Brunner, Man in Revolt, [Phila.; Westminster Press, 1939] p.131). Ellen White, in describing the voice of Satan to the soul, writes: “I can give you riches, pleasures, honor, and happiness. Hearken to my council. Do not allow yourself to be carried away with whimsical notions of honesty or self-sacrifice. Thus multitudes are deceived. They consent to live for the service of self, and Satan is satisfied” (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, [Mountain View, CA; Pacific Press, 1948] p. 130).
27. “To have destroyed the defective infant, Hellen Keller, would have been to destroy also the teacher-humanitarian who was Anne Sullivan. In countless cases throughout the world a defective child has not been an expensive, heart-rending burden but a priceless gift that has brought out the hidden strengths of a father, a mother and sisters and brothers….How foolish that we condemn the ‘Me-Generation’ and then are tempted to remove from them the defective children who offer them the opportunity to forget the me and to remember the others.…We will never know how many Helen Kellers and Beethovens are destroyed each year in America’s abortion mills, or how many Anne Sullivans are left without the challenge that makes an Anne Sullivan. We climb a mountain because it is there and calls us. We solve a problem because it is there and challenges us. How terrible if someone leveled all the mountains and removed all the problems. How little opportunity would be left for human beings to become both really human and really Godlike.” George Tribou, quoted in John Powell: Abortion; The Silent Holocaust; p.129.
28. In a recent letter (9/1/88) one of the editorial team of the Adventist Review, after affirming the church’s pro-choice position” stated: “Another important point, it seems to me, is that to take a pro-life position is to say that death is the worst possible fate. This is not so. There are many things worse than death such as a miserable, hopeless life”. He then backs up this assertion by quoting Jesus, in reference to Judas: “It would have been better for this man if he had not been born.” This thinking is tragic at two levels. First, he apparently argues, in advance of the fact, that many lives are hopeless. This is odd for a man who professes faith in the redeeming and transforming power of God. Secondly, he twists Scripture from a spiritual to a materialistic context and implies Jesus is referring to material or emotional hardship rather that persistent and final rebellion when He acknowledges the horror of Judas’ fatal choice. In reality, if this writer were to quote the Gospels accurately he would be compelled to admit that Jesus holds out far more hope for the poor, the outcast and the despised than for the esteemed, the affluent and the powerful.

—Republished from Proclamation!, March/April, 2003.