www.mybethelbaptist.com

Someone recently brought up the issue of denominations that support abortion which caused me to begin to think about the issue more clearly as it relates to denominations. The person opened a book which listed the ABC-USA as a denomination that supports abortion. That sentence prompted me to look into the matter further. While the sentence is not entirely true, that the ABC-USA supports abortion or is what I would call “pro-choice,” I did discover an interesting example of political spin.

By looking at the ABC-USA website and trying to find some resources, I was overwhelmed to learn that the ABC-USA has virtually every issue covered. They have an opinion on nearly all issues that are happening in the world and in the church. You can find these resources here: http://abc-usa.org/Resources/ABCResources/PolicyStatementsResolutions/tabid/199/Default.aspx

I immediately looked into the statement on Abortion. I have to say that I was not impressed. I actually believed that the book which cited the ABC-USA as pro-choice was incorrect, since there was no footnote to substantiate the source. What I found was that the ABC-USA has a highly nuanced resolution concerning abortion. Amazingly, the resolution is no resolution at all. Rather, the ABC-USA flounders around and says that the issue is so complex and difficult that the General Board is not able to make an actual resolution on the issue. Here is the quote:

We acknowledge the diversity of deeply held convictions within our fellowship even as

we seek to interpret the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many American

Baptists believe that, biblically, human life begins at conception, that abortion is immoral

and a destruction of a human being created in God’s image (Job 31:15; Psalm 139:13-16;

Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:44; Proverbs 31:8-9; Galatians 1:15). Many others believe that

while abortion is a regrettable reality, it can be a morally acceptable action and they

choose to act on the biblical principles of compassion and justice (John 8:1-11; Exodus

21:22-25; Matthew 7:1-5; James 2:2-13) and freedom of will (John 16:13; Roman 14:4-5,

10-13). Many gradations of opinion between these basic positions have been expressed

within our fellowship.

We also recognize that we are divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state

regarding abortion. Many of our membership seek legal safeguards to protect unborn life.

Many others advocate for and support family planning legislation, including legalized

abortion as in the best interest of women in particular and society in general. Again, we

have many points of view between these two positions. Consequently, we acknowledge

the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his

or her beliefs.

I noticed the spin immediately. The denomination doesnt want to take a stand and so says that the issue is up to the individual church member to decide for themselves. This is the basic stance that they have taken with the issue of homosexuality. Because abortion and homosexuality are such divisive issues, therefore we must not divide over them and the General Board will leave it up to individaul churches to decide for themselves.

I understand the reasoning of the ABC-USA. They do not want to dictate to the churches and associations what they are or are not to believe. This is typical of any Baptist denomination that holds to Liberty of Conscience and the Autonomy of the Local Church. The denomination cannot dictate what individual churches believe and do. Sort of.

While I understand their reasoning, I am appalled that every other issue besides abortion and homosexuality IS addressed by the General Board. The Board has made decisions on every other moral issue such as war, capital punishment, missle defence, alcohol, tobacco, slavery, and even for the self-determination of Puerto Rico! (which I am in favor of).

My question is simple: How do they determine which moral issue to take an official stand on and which to not take a stand on? I do believe that if I personally advocated polygamy or slavery, I would immediately be rejected by the ABC-USA if I were moving the church into that direction (which I am NOT). If as a church, we advocated any principle which may be perfectly legal yet went against a resolution of the General Board there would be pressure put on us to remove ourselves.

The point is, is that the denomination has a long history of taking a stand on important moral issues such as Women’s Suffrage, slavery, and civil rights. Why the indifference over abortion and homosexuality? The denomination led the charge along with Martin Luther King Jr to end segregation, but will not even say that abortion is immoral? Perhaps the issue is more complex that I can understand. After all, we must be united in order to promote missions. There is no reason to divide over these “non-essentials.” As the gospel leaves the center, we reap the consequences. Despite what is written, the gospel has indeed left and all there is left to gather around is social action.

 

 

No Comments »

Just a few final comments on William Stacy Johnson’s book  A Time To Embrace. In many ways, the book is very typical of what most moderate scholars believe. And of course there is the use of the trump card of egalitarians, Galatians 3:28. Dr. Johnson also uses Galatians 3:28 to trump everything else the Bible says about men and women (150). Paul says to the Galatians in 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ” (ESV). I guess that settles everything. I suppose we should not bother reading the verse in context or consider other verses such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12. As much as the moderate camp decries the use of “homophobic clobber verses” they sure are apt to use their own. I guess that settles the question altogether. There are no gender differences and we are not to make distinctions.

Of course Paul was writing within a context and he was making a specific point that everyone seems to overlook. In fact the point is found in verse 29, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” The whole chapter is dealing with the relationship between Jew and Gentile in light of the New Covenant.  The promises of God were made to Abraham and his offspring. By faith (as opposed to race) we are now children of God in Christ Jesus (26). That is, we are the offspring of Abraham by faith.

On the contrary, there are distinctions that still exist. Onesimus was still a slave of Philemon. Priscilla was still a woman, as was Phoebe. They had distinct roles within society and within the church. So in all Johnson’s talk about context and the meaning of the text, he seems to have forgotten his own advice here.

Finally, Johnson gives us something to really think about. He finishes his case for the ordination of practising homosexuals quite poorly. His hermeneutic becomes evident to everyone. For he writes, “If the meaning of scripture is limited to what ancient minds could have imagined, then there is no such thing as a Word of God that is active and living”(152). The problem is that he has just argued that in order to really understand words like arsenokoitos and malachai  we have to understand the ancient writer’s intention!

Then he says on page 153, “Marriage is not a fixed order of creation but an order of redemption.” He claims that marriage is transformative like a “means of grace.” I think he has brought us back to square one. The ending is quite melodramatic. He just spent 150 pages defending his reasons from scripture only to say, “these things aren’t fixed rules.” My question is, “Why bother using scripture to defend the ordination of practising homosexuals if the meaning of the text is whatever makes sense to the general society?” I understand his point that marriage norms do change over time, but the principle must be fixed and that is the principle set forth in creation and defended by the Lord Christ in Mark 10. When Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce, he didn’t argue from current cultural norms. He argued from a fixed norm from the creation account (Mark 10:1-12).

I have no problem with the pro-homosexual party to argue their case for same-gender marriage and the ordination of practising homosexuals. I just wish that they would not try to support their arguments from scripture. It doesn’t hold water at the end of the day. Conservative Christians know that the case for the acceptance of homoeroticism, argued from scripture, falls flat. Dr. Johnson’s book does not further their cause. I appreciate his irenic spirit, but at the end of the day, I am unconvinced of the arguments. I approached the book hoping that lawyers were more convincing than biblical scholars, but am still disappointed.

For further reading, see Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 441-471 and Modern Theology 16:1 (J 2000), 61-73.

No Comments »