The Episcopal Church: Supporting Abortion Since 1967

[The Liturgist]

I believe our opinions of moral theology may not be as great as is our respective tolerance levels for those that think differently than we do.

I have yet to attend any faith body where I agreed with everything and I doubt I ever shall. That includes The Episcopal Church. Nonetheless, within this body I obviously have decided what I value about the worship experience outweighs any places where I differ. I have strong belief that the church should be open to all. And, I do like that about us.

You were correct initially. I am but a humble pew warmer and frequent Senior Warden of the Vestry. I am a psychotherapist. I watched the burdens on my dad, a Methodist preacher. I long ago decided being clergy was just too crazy of a job, even for me.

Well if you can handle psychotherapy, I reckon you could handle clergy, particularly if you were to serve in a purely liturgical capacity. What is hard is the pastoral care, but the liturgy is not difficult in comparison. I think this is why some people seek to become monastic priests, because of the opportunity to celebrate the liturgy without being a parish priest. Likewise cathedral chapters have some aspects of this.

 

[kiwimac]

Indeed, this is a critical point. Now to be sure, there are individual parishes within the Episcopal Church, and even dioceses, which are still adhering to scriptural doctrine. So individual Episcopalian parishes are still helping to discourage abortion.

Still others are essentially preaching an orthodox doctrine in a broad church, inoffensive way, which seeks to avoid the divisive issue, which I understand, but feel is not quite doing enough. Old North Church in Boston exemplified this with the delicate manner in which the rector or vicar or whoever the regular assigned priest for that congregation handled it. However he really did not have much of a choice, I expect.

However as my retired traditional Episcopalian friend explained, the problem is largely with the seminaries, in that there are really only one, maybe two or three left, which are solidly traditional, Nashotah House coming to mind as one of them.

So the problem is not that all Episcopal parishes or dioceses are pro-abortion, which is certainly not the case, but rather, that a large number of its seminaries are at a minimum, “pro-choice”, which is a doctrinal position most Christians and indeed I think most Anglicans regard as contradicted by scripture, tradition and reason, and making matters worse, the Episcopal Church as an Anglican province has been supporting abortion since 1967, which is something only a small minority of Anglican provinces are doing. This event also coincided with the first signs of a decline of membership.

There is no biblical teaching on abortion.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no biblical teaching on abortion.

Respectfully, there is, because aside from the general prohibitions on homicide and suicide, which also preclude euthanasia, there is also the specific prohibition on sacrificing ones‘ children by passing them through the fire to Moloch.

Now, since Moloch is no longer intentionally worshipped, and since we know from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, we can still see that the idea of Moloch and other demons impersonating gods to the pagans of antiquity (Psalm 95 vs. 5 in the Septuagint “The gods of the gentiles are demons), we can use an Alexandrian mode of exegesis and say that an abortion is a sanitized version of passing a child through the fire to Moloch, in that it facilitates disposing of unwanted children under the guise of a medical procedure in order to ensure a more prosperous life for the rest of the family. I believe in my exegesis on this point both from an Alexandrian typological perspective and from an Antiochene literal historical approach can be verified by my friends @MarkRohfrietsch , @prodromos , @Ignatius the Kiwi @Der Alte , @chevyontheriver and @dzheremi , with @prodromos , @Ignatius the Kiwi and @dzheremi likely having the most familiarity with Alexandrian exegesis, and @MarkRohfrietsch , @Der Alte and @chevyontheriver likely having the most familiarity with Antiochene exegesis, and due to the prevalence of Antiochene exegesis in the West

 

[Paidiske]

I question seminaries' degree of influence. To what degree can an institution of learning "educate out" a conservative or traditional stance from an individual? I'd rather think it begins earlier than that during the discernment level of candidates for the priesthood. That is the first opportunity to screen out candidates not conforming to particular theology or convention. Once the gate is opened, the die is cast...to mix a metaphor. I have degrees from a state university and from a Catholic university. I can't say the bent of either changed me very much from what I brought into them in the first place.

The reality, as I've observed it, is that the process of going to seminary does change you; but not necessarily in predictable ways. Some are "formed" in ways in keeping with the ethos of their seminary. Some react against that and come out hardened in contrary views. A very great deal depends on the quality of relationships, both among students and with the staff, and there are so many things which can influence that in various ways. I certainly have colleagues whose views and practices are so different from my own, despite having been in the same seminary at the same time, that you'd be surprised to learn of a common background.

That said, in my experience (admittedly now somewhat out of date, since I went through formal discernment about fifteen years ago), questions about things like views on abortion were not asked during the discernment process. They are more likely to become explicitly an issue, once ordained, if one is seeking to move from one diocese to another.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no biblical teaching on abortion.

Additionally, aside from the exegetical interpretation I provided above, I would further argue that a specific Scriptural verse is entirely unneeded, because prior to the 20th century, all records indicate that the Christian Church, by which I mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which the current Nicene denominations are descended, always opposed abortion on an absolute level, as did Judaism and Islam.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From Exodus 21:22; note the implications:

22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is no biblical teaching on abortion.

If the Bible Alone does not forbid something in a spelled out way is it automatically to be allowed? So abortion is good because it isn't condemned by name in the Bible? That would be yet another flaw in the popular idea of Sola Scriptura. The Bible does say that the Holy Spirit will teach on all things so the Church gets it right. Not that the Bible alone contains all morality.

 

[PloverWing]

If the Bible Alone does not forbid something in a spelled out way is it automatically to be allowed? So abortion is good because it isn't condemned by name in the Bible? That would be yet another flaw in the popular idea of Sola Scriptura. The Bible does say that the Holy Spirit will teach on all things so the Church gets it right. Not that the Bible alone contains all morality.

Anglican thought relies on a mixture of Scripture, tradition, and reason. We are often called upon to make ethical decisions about matters that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, or about matters in which our 21st century cultures are different from the cultures of the ancient world. In those cases, we have to engage in careful reasoning, making use of the important principles from Scripture and tradition.

I believe that kiwimac was replying to The Liturgist's assertion that prohibiting all abortion was a "scriptural doctrine". The appeal to tradition in post #45 is a stronger argument.

 

[The Liturgist]

Anglican thought relies on a mixture of Scripture, tradition, and reason. We are often called upon to make ethical decisions about matters that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, or about matters in which our 21st century cultures are different from the cultures of the ancient world. In those cases, we have to engage in careful reasoning, making use of the important principles from Scripture and tradition.

I believe that kiwimac was replying to The Liturgist's assertion that prohibiting all abortion was a "scriptural doctrine". The appeal to tradition in post #45 is a stronger argument.

It is both a scriptural doctrine, if we interpret scripture reasonably and according to tradition, and a tradition in its own right, and in asserting that, I believe a majority of Anglicans in a majority of Anglican provinces would agree with me. Also, I was not even explictly considering Exodus 21:22, but I think if we combine that with the Moloch argument, it becomes difficult to argue against this position.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Anglican thought relies on a mixture of Scripture, tradition, and reason. We are often called upon to make ethical decisions about matters that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, or about matters in which our 21st century cultures are different from the cultures of the ancient world. In those cases, we have to engage in careful reasoning, making use of the important principles from Scripture and tradition.

I think I understand that. Maybe. And I would agree that moral decision making is not strictly a Scriptural thing

I believe that kiwimac was replying to The Liturgist's assertion that prohibiting all abortion was a "scriptural doctrine". The appeal to tradition in post #45 is a stronger argument.

kiwimac seemed to be saying that because the Bible didn't condemn it, it wasn't a sin. Did I read that wrong?

 

[PloverWing]

kiwimac seemed to be saying that because the Bible didn't condemn it, it wasn't a sin. Did I read that wrong?

I think so. I think he was disagreeing about whether abortion is clearly condemned in the Bible. Whether abortion is always morally wrong is a larger, and different, question.

 

[Margaret3110]

Now, since Moloch is no longer intentionally worshipped, and since we know from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, we can still see that the idea of Moloch and other demons impersonating gods to the pagans of antiquity (Psalm 95 vs. 5 in the Septuagint “The gods of the gentiles are demons), we can use an Alexandrian mode of exegesis and say that an abortion is a sanitized version of passing a child through the fire to Moloch, in that it facilitates disposing of unwanted children under the guise of a medical procedure in order to ensure a more prosperous life for the rest of the family

I think this is a stretch. And btw, literal idolatry and paganism still exist.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think this is a stretch. And btw, literal idolatry and paganism still exist.

A literal and deliberate offering to Moloch may be a stretch. It is at least metaphorically apt. Maybe there is not a deity in mind, but it does seem to be a sacrifice to ensures a more prosperous life for all but the unlucky victim.

 

[Margaret3110]

A literal and deliberate offering to Moloch may be a stretch. It is at least metaphorically apt. Maybe there is not a deity in mind, but it does seem to be a sacrifice to ensures a more prosperous life for all but the unlucky victim.

Sure. You can make a metaphorical connection of sorts. And I don't think scripture supports abortion. But I think saying that the meaning of the text today is that abortion is wrong does a disservice. IMO, we still today need to be reminded that the cultural context in which God chose the Israelites and separated them was one in which people all around were literally, deliberately, killing their children in sacrifice to other gods.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think this is a stretch. And btw, literal idolatry and paganism still exist.

Whereas literal idolatry still exists unfortunately, child sacrifices to Moloch are not literally occurring, thus, St. Paul allows us to apply that verse to the abortion problem.

 

[The Liturgist]

A literal and deliberate offering to Moloch may be a stretch. It is at least metaphorically apt. Maybe there is not a deity in mind, but it does seem to be a sacrifice to ensures a more prosperous life for all but the unlucky victim.

Indeed, it is exactly that, and conversely, we can also look at Psalm 95 v 5 LXX’s Masoretic counterpart, Psalms 96:5 , which reads “The gods of the gentiles are idols.” And idols as St. Paul warns are a more encompassing concept.

So if we combine the Septuagint and Masoretic reading we get “The gods of the gentiles are demonic idols,” which I think is a particularly good reading, because either they are idols depicting demons impersonating god, or they are the false idols like money, jewelry, lifestyle items, sexuality and other passions that people sacrifice to in an atheistic or other materialist-secularist society.

 

[kiwimac]

It is both a scriptural doctrine, if we interpret scripture reasonably and according to tradition, and a tradition in its own right, and in asserting that, I believe a majority of Anglicans in a majority of Anglican provinces would agree with me. Also, I was not even explictly considering Exodus 21:22, but I think if we combine that with the Moloch argument, it becomes difficult to argue against this position.

Exodus 21:22 refers to damage to the woman not to the foetus.

 

[kiwimac]

I think I understand that. Maybe. And I would agree that moral decision making is not strictly a Scriptural thing

kiwimac seemed to be saying that because the Bible didn't condemn it, it wasn't a sin. Did I read that wrong?

No, you are not wrong. Abortion is never condemned in scripture which means that we must deal with it with compassion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sure. You can make a metaphorical connection of sorts. And I don't think scripture supports abortion. But I think saying that the meaning of the text today is that abortion is wrong does a disservice. IMO, we still today need to be reminded that the cultural context in which God chose the Israelites and separated them was one in which people all around were literally, deliberately, killing their children in sacrifice to other gods.

My first instinct is not to try to find a condemnation of abortion in Scripture. It's clear enough from the early Church history of rescuing newborns at the dump that abortion can't be right. Even if it isn't spelled out. I find the locus of Tradition to be the most telling. Israel and the Church were surrounded by a sex besotted set of cultures, and pregnancies were often enough not a desired thing. There were all sorts of contraceptives and abortifacients, some effective and others not, some more dangerous than others. And Scripture does tell us to avoid the pharmakopia, a shorthand for the contraceptives and abortifacients that were quite common. One of them was made from Nile crocodile dung. It probably caused an infection and sterility.

 

[Margaret3110]

And Scripture does tell us to avoid the pharmakopia, a shorthand for the contraceptives and abortifacients that were quite common.

Do you have a verse for that?