“Abortion Abolitionism”:A Theological Critique (abridged)
The debate over abortion abolitionism (AA) often focuses on interpretations of Wilberforce’s strategy to end slavery or the pragmatic benefits of either “incremental” or “total abolition” Bills. These are important discussions. However, I believe the doctrinal foundations of the AA movement is a critical area which often seems neglected in the “debate”.
AA is rooted in a theological framework that combines:
• Theonomy (specifically Theonomic ethics)
• Presuppositional apologetics
• Postmillennial eschatology
I am persuaded that Theonomy is what shapes and drives the entire AA movement. Followers of the AA movement may not actively align with or even be aware of this particular doctrinal foundation. However, the leaders of the movement, although rarely declared explicitly, have publicly expressed as holding to the doctrine of Theonomy.
What is Theonomy? Theonomy comes from the Greek words theos (God) and nomos (law), meaning "God's law." In simple terms, theonomy teaches that Christians are obligated to obey the “whole law of God”, a key phrase in Theonomic theology (as well as AA rhetoric).
According to theonomic doctrine, civil governments, unless explicitly stated in the New Testament, should enforce God's law as revealed in the whole of Scripture. This includes not only God's moral commands, but also the civil laws given to ancient Israel. This conviction forms the theological foundation of the Abortion Abolitionism movement.
For me, the central disagreement with AA concerns the nature and function of God's law. Historically Christian theology has distinguished between the moral, ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Testament. While the moral law still remains binding, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 9:1-28) and the civil laws given to ancient Israel belonged to their unique covenant status as a theocratic nation. AA rejects that distinction, whilst agreeing with historical Christianity on the nature of the ceremonial and moral law, they argue that Israel's civil legislation continues as a pattern for modern civil government, again, unless explicitly repealed in the NT.
In contrast to Theonomy, the NT teaches that Christians are no longer governed by Israel's civil code but by Christ (Matt 5:17, Rom 7:6). Although moral principles behind those laws remain, the exact civil legislation of Ancient Israel does not continue as the legal framework for modern nations.
What about the principle of “general equity”? Theonomists significantly misapply this doctrine by extending it beyond its historic Reformed meaning. General equity teaches that we apply the enduring moral principles found in Israel's civil laws. Theonomy takes a different approach. It begins by assuming Israel's civil laws remain binding unless the New Testament explicitly repeals them. That results in a fundamentally different hermeneutic.
The covenantal shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament changes how Christians relate to civil government. Unlike the “come and see” missional approach of the ancient Israel (1 Kings 10:5, Isaiah 42:6), the New Covenant missional imperative is to “go and tell” (Matt 28:19-20). As a result, the people of God are now drawn from ‘every nation, tribe, people and language’ (Rev. 7:9) and are therefore subject to the civil law of the human governments in which they find themselves situated (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-17). Rather than seeking to impose the civil code of ancient Israel upon the nations, Christians are called to influence society through "salt and light" ministry (Matt. 5:13–16), which of course includes engagement with civil authority.
So, why the “incremental” approach to ending abortion? Simply, if a law can save lives today, Christians should support it. The Bible condemns partiality only when the ideal is achievable and not sought. For example, the Church does not, unlike the Old Testament kings, have the authority nor the immediate means to produce the perfect law instantly. If we could - we would end abortion immediately. Until then, to refuse an incremental Bill, that can protect unborn children today, unlike an “abolistionist” Bill, which currently has no realistic prospect of becoming law, is not a sign of greater faithfulness, but actually a violation and failure to love one’s neighbour.
In conclusion, the central disagreement between the AA movement and the historic pro-life movement is not ultimately about legislative strategy but about theology. Before Christians debate immediatism or incrementalism, they must first determine which ethical framework most faithfully reflects the unfolding pattern of redemptive history and the New Testament's teaching on the Church's engagement with civil government. Once that question is answered, the appropriate legislative strategy follows.
Finally, whilst I reject the AA position, as well as their repeated accusations of Pro-Life work being “sinful”, I do love them as brothers and sisters in Christ and I urge them to consider whether they believe the theological foundations of the movement best represent Christ and His Word. Furthermore, even though I disagree with them on strategy, I respect the zeal and the courage they display in highlighting the devastating plight of the unborn in the public arena.
As an aside, my hope and prayer is that the Lord uses this “debate” to force Churches to think deeply about the issue of abortion and their own appropriate response and engagement.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Matthew Cliff
· Chief Executive Officer @ Cherish Life
· Visiting Lecturer @ Brisbane School of Theology (Subjects - Christian Worldview, Christian Ethics & Christian Apologetics)
· PhD Candidate @ University of Aberdeen
This is an abridged version of a larger article. For the full article click here
