Open Letter to Stated Clerk J. Herbert Nelson, the Assembly Committee on Health, Safety and Benefits, the Board of Pensions, the Office of Theology and Worship, and all members of the PC(USA) regarding the statement adopted by the 222nd General Assembly on July 8th, 2022 on abortion: We are members, elders, and ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA). These views specifically do not represent those of our respective congregations or governing bodies; those who have signed this letter do so with the understanding that “God is the Lord of the conscience,” as HSB-11 stated. We are asking:
(1) That the Stated Clerk specifically, and denominational leadership generally, clarify in a statement or by other means that points of view outside those expressed by the General Assembly may also have biblical and confessional support, and that there is room for persons of differing thoughts on this issue within the PC(USA).
(2) That the next General Assembly revisit the statement, reconsider the statement theologically and philosophically, and develop a position regarding abortion that reflects thoughtfully on Scripture and respect for life.
To begin with, we are deeply concerned by this statement’s lack of theological or Scriptural discussion, and the fact that the Assembly rejected an amendment to encourage women to pray before deciding upon an abortion. Certainly, the church should encourage people to pray about all decisions, especially one that ends life.
The church should begin with Scripture and prayer, not come to a politically informed decision and then seek to ground it theologically. The statement’s conclusion, that the church should “Reject attempts at all levels of government to reduce, limit, or eliminate access to contraceptive and abortion care,” is extraordinarily broad and, for that reason, appears to be a reaction to political events, not the product of prolonged reflection about a complicated issue. The statement gives no room for the reality of human sinfulness that is so prevalent in Scripture and our Confessions. See, e.g., Romans 6:23; The Confession of 1967, 9:12-13. Instead, the statement endows women with an inhuman capacity to make the correct decision about ending a pregnancy. The statement would, for example, promote the legality of an abortion in the ninth month for the purposes of sex selection. Few Americans and, we believe, few Presbyterians would agree that such an abortion would be moral or should be this broadly legalized. Indeed, the church’s stated position goes far beyond Roe v. Wade.
As an example of its being informed by secular ideologies rather than theological ones, the statement bases its conclusions on “bodily autonomy.” Scripture, by contrast, does not support a stringent view of bodily autonomy. Rather, Scripture describes humankind more often as a beloved community—for example, the church as the body of Christ, one body, with many members, who have a responsibility to care for one another and even to sacrifice for one another. I Corinthians 12:12-27.
But whether people support this position or not, the church’s role is not to parrot political ideas; people in our secularized culture already have plenty of political perspectives to choose from. Our culture has become so deeply divided that people are failing to see and recognize the humanity of others who disagree with them. People are seeking a moral and theological voice that speaks truth to all aspects of human life, including political parties on both sides of the aisle. Rather than mimic the partisanship of our days, the church should provide a better way that respects the diversity of thought around a complex and challenging issue.
Intensifying our differences rather than considering them, the rationale for the statement seems to indicate that the contrary position held by our church for many years and held by many Presbyterians today is inherently sinful. We well understand that the rationale is different from the statement, but it will become part of the recorded record of the PC(USA) on this issue. The rationale for the current statement includes these disturbing words:
"We confess that the PCUSA has contributed to the distorted framing of justification when we have focused on identifying which reasons are 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' for ending a pregnancy. We regret that our complicity in framing some abortions as 'justified' and others as 'unjustifiable' has contributed to the culture of shame and stigma that the justification frame creates."
By “confessing” the ills of the previous, more nuanced statement, which is described as “distorted” and “regretful,” the rationale suggests that any position short of recognizing all abortions as morally and legally justifiable would itself be wrong or sinful. This is an incredible shift, especially considering that historical records of Christians denouncing abortion exist from the first century onwards. The Didache, which is commonly dated from 50-70 AD, and the Epistle of Barnabas, dated the beginning of the second century AD, commanded Christians not to practice abortion. The second-century writings of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria also condemned the practice. Even the prior position of the PCUSA for fifty years recognized the value of life and outlined justifiable reasons for ending a pregnancy, but denounced abortion as birth control.
Please consider what this new confessional language does for those of us, and we believe there are many, in the PCUSA who believe that a pregnancy is a human life and therefore moral limits exist to ending that life. In our church, according to this statement, not only was John the Baptist leaping from within his mother’s womb at the presence of Jesus—also an unborn child—not a human life, but any perspective that would "shame" Elizabeth for killing him at any moment during her pregnancy for any reason is itself considered sinful and worthy of confession and repentance. There are those of us who do believe in and affirm women’s rights and support gender justice and access to health care. We simply have a different understanding of when life begins. We are asking that that point of view be respected within the church and that a statement to that effect be issued by our Stated Clerk and other denominational leaders.
We would also encourage our church to consider, prior to the next General Assembly, the ample logical, scientific, philosophical, and theological support for the understanding that life begins at fertilization. The life that is created genetically at fertilization is a separate life because it has separate DNA, separate body parts, a separate heartbeat, and an independent life cycle. It is a human life, created in the image of God. See Mark 12:13-17. The fact that the life will be dependent for nine months on another person to survive is irrelevant to its being a life.
Further, even for those who do not believe life begins at fertilization, all Presbyterians should consider the frequency at which the abortion procedure is currently utilized and the sad realities that frequency indicates. Nearly twenty percent of pregnancies are aborted, about one million per year. If human life were held by society to begin at fertilization, abortion would be the leading cause of death in the United States by a large margin, the next leading cause of death being heart disease, about seven hundred thousand fatalities per year (COVID-19, during 2021, killed about four hundred thousand people). The numbers regarding abortion in the United States today indicate that abortion is not being used as an option of last resort. The previous statement, demonstrating respect for life and concern surrounding the circumstances leading to undesired pregnancies, denounced abortion as a form of birth control. Rather than viewing children as a blessing and a heritage from the Lord, see I Corinthians 6:19-20, the “bodily autonomy” perspective views children as an inconvenience to be extinguished whenever they interfere with our personal desires. This is not a biblical perspective on pregnancy and childbearing.
Instead of wedding itself to this secular perspective, the church’s statement should affirm the life-giving efforts of our congregations and individuals, especially through crisis pregnancy centers, to help those who find themselves in difficult situations. Abortion addresses the consequences, but not the causes, of those situations, and the position of our church should recognize and address that fact. For example, abortions often result from sexual misconduct and abuse, and can be the result of pressure from the father of the child or abusers to cover up their wrongs. Even those who believe in broad access to abortion should recognize that some regulations surrounding abortion, such as parental consent, mandatory reporting, and other regulations, are necessary to protect against abuse.
In conclusion, we pray heartily for the PC(USA) and all its congregations and members, that, “speaking the truth in love,” we may “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.” Ephesians 4:15-16. We ask once again that the leadership of the denomination voice support for, and understanding that, Presbyterians can come to a different conclusion on this matter. We pray that one day the vociferous spirit of this age, the spirit that refuses to even consider any truth but its own, will end, and we can better listen to one another, and seek to understand together what God’s will is in this, and all, things.
Grace and peace, the undersigned:
