Baptist History and Abortion Views

[rlvaughn]

In the Billy Graham thread I posted a link to Billy Graham’s abortion views in the 1960s (which he may or may not have changed later). Jerome objected to the source, but offered no reason that Graham’s views were misrepresented. I do not think he was misrepresented for his views held then. For example, in 1970 ‘Christians for Life’ picketed a Billy Graham crusade because “Graham, although opposed to abortion in most cases, was willing to permit it in cases of rape and incest, as well as when the mother’s life was in danger.”

Recently I have read some articles online that incline one to think that Baptists generally were not opposed to abortion until much later than after the Roe v. Wade decision. (For example, think Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority in 1979.) Certain accurate historical facts may be pushed forward to highlight this scenario. I do not think all the facts support that conclusion. For this reason I think a thread relating to the topic of abortion in Baptist history might be apropos.

(In January of 1973, I was a freshman in High School. Such religious, moral, and legal decisions were not in the forefront of my interests, and my memory has no recollection of how our local Baptist received the news of Roe v. Wade.)

 

[rlvaughn]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973. The majority vote was 7-to-2 in favor of Roe/abortion. Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented. Richard Nixon, the President of the U.S. at the time, did not publicly comment about the decision. Strangely, from our current vista, but perhaps not for the times, representatives in the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Press welcomed the decision. W. Barry Garrett wrote, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.” (“High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A Right of Privacy’,” January 31, 1973, as cited in Baptist Press Initial Reporting on Roe v. Wade by Trevin Wax) Marie Griffith, in “Southern Baptists, Gender Hierarchy, and the Road to Trump,” says that Baptists in the late 1960’s and early 70’s “certainly appeared to see abortion as a women’s issue. When the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in 1973’s Roe v Wade decision, Southern Baptist leaders appeared to support access to abortion, at least under circumstances with which they could sympathize.” This probably should not be surprising given that at their meeting in St. Louis, Missouri in 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution included calling “upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

 

[rlvaughn]

SBC Resolution On Abortion, St. Louis, Missouri, 1971:
WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

[Note: Wm. Robert Johnston archives all the Southern Baptist Convention resolutions on abortion through 2009 HERE. These and more recent resolutions can be located on the SBC website by entering “abortion” in the Resolutions Search.

 

[rlvaughn]

As might be expected, some of the Northern Baptists were leaders for abortion reform (aka legalization of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman’s health). One of them in the late 1960’s was Howard Moody, who was the pastor of Judson Memorial Church in New York, an American Baptist congregation. (Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, Daniel K. Williams, 2016, pp. 65-66)

In what appears to be an older but officially current statement, American Baptists opposed abortion “as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception” and “as a primary means of birth control,” but stopped far short of a blanket condemnation of abortion. The full statement may be found HERE.

 

[rlvaughn]

In contrast to the pro-abortion emphasis, other Baptists opposed abortion both before and immediately after Roe. “The fundamental Baptist evangelist John R. Rice declared in 1945 that abortion, which he considered ‘the murder of the little one where conception has already taken place,’ was ‘a crime prohibited by law and condemned by all decent people’.”

Carl F. H. Henry, a Baptist whose roots were in the Northern Baptist Convention, in Eternity magazine in 1971 called abortion “murder.” One opponent of the Roe decision whose opposition began almost immediately was Jesse Helms, a Southern Baptist who was a freshman senator from North Carolina.

(Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, Daniel K. Williams, 2016, pp. 145, 213)

 

[Jerome]

Jerome objected to the source, but offered no reason that Graham’s views were misrepresented. I do not think he was misrepresented for his views held then.

I provided the source, a 1960s William F. Buckley Firing Line interview:

 

[rlvaughn]

I provided the source, a 1960s William F. Buckley Firing Line interview

Providing the full interview was nice, but you also complained about the source where the excerpt was provided, which seemed to imply they might be mistaken. Perhaps I misread your intent.

The foul squawkers over at the Pullet and Hen blog have given just a snippet from a William F. Buckley interview with Graham from the 1960s.

Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr., Episode 153, Recorded on June 12, 1969

 

[MartyF]

The SBC does not enforce doctrine.

That being said, I think attitudes have changed among people against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

In the case of rape, people are realizing that this is nearly impossible to adjudicate before it gets way too far in a pregnancy. Others give a better alternative - Put the rapist to death.

I think the 1971 convention was an uninformed anti-abortion stance.

Marty

 

[agedman]

From the babies perspective:

I would rather be aborted and safe in the arms of Jesus then be born, live a life of depravity, die in rebellion and spend eternity in hell.​

From the mother's perspective:

I would abort the baby of rape and incest knowing that such actions perpetrated against me were contrary to the law of both God and man, and therefore that which is created is unholy.​

From the Scripture perspective:

31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
​

My own perspective:

What right do I have to hold the ungodly to laws that even the redeemed violate? Rather, let the ungodly be ungodly. The darkness will then be so contrasted with the light as to be distinguishable and not some blurry gray areas of personal preference in which it is God who is the justice system.​

 

[MartyF]

From the babies perspective:
I would rather be aborted and safe in the arms of Jesus then be born, live a life of depravity, die in rebellion and spend eternity in hell.

This is so very wrong on so many levels. Its a perversion of God’s mercy and is not true.

From the mother's perspective:
I would abort the baby of rape and incest knowing that such actions perpetrated against me were contrary to the law of both God and man, and therefore that which is created is unholy.

Nuts. The Bible does not say babies born of rape are unholy. You’re spouting hogwash.

I doubt any woman thinks this.

From the Scripture perspective:
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

A better passage.

Exodus 21:22-25 NLT
[22] "Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. [23] But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, [24] an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, [25] a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

The life of the unborn bay was recognizd by God.

My own perspective:
What right do I have to hold the ungodly to laws that even the redeemed violate? Rather, let the ungodly be ungodly. The darkness will then be so contrasted with the light as to be distinguishable and not some blurry gray areas of personal preference in which it is God who is the justice system.

I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourself above it all, labeling both sides equally at fault, ignoring injustice, and thereby removing yourself from the struggle for God.

Marty

 

[rlvaughn]

The SBC does not enforce doctrine.

Correct, resolutions are just statements of the belief and opinion of the messengers of the particular convention that passes it.

That being said, I think attitudes have changed among people against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

In the case of rape, people are realizing that this is nearly impossible to adjudicate before it gets way too far in a pregnancy. Others give a better alternative - Put the rapist to death.

I think the 1971 convention was an uninformed anti-abortion stance.

My guess is that this 1971 resolution was drawn up by someone in the moderate wing of the Convention, who were in control of things at that time. I think looking at the resolutions of the SBC to the present show a change across the years as to how abortion is viewed by the messengers of the Convention.

 

[Jerome]

Newspaper article from 1969:

https://newspaperarchive.com/san-antonio-express-nov-06-1969-p-68/

"Dr. Criswell Favors Abortion Law Changes
Dr. W. A. Criswell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Wednesday called for liberalization of abortion laws in the United States. 'I am in favor of liberalizing our abortion laws, because I'm a human,' Dr. Criswell told newsmen in a press conference during the Baptist General Convention of Texas meeting here through Thursday. Abortion will be debated by the convention Thursday morning. The Dallas clergyman who is a messenger (delegate) to the San Antonio meeting said that present U.S. abortion laws are 'very, very uncompromising.' He said much of the U.S. feeling on abortion resulted from 'theological doctrine that comes largely out of the Catholic Church.' The Roman Catholic Church is strongly against the idea of abortion. Dr. Criswell said, "The wife should have the privilege of aborting a conception." Asked his position on the blief that abortion is murder, Dr. Criswell said 'The child comes into being when God breathes into his nostrils the breath of life.' Dr. Criswell also voiced his approval of the Sunday Blue Laws."

 

[agedman]

This is so very wrong on so many levels. Its a perversion of God’s mercy and is not true.

I take it then that you are not one who considers that a child is "safe" until the age of accountability? Baptists have held this view from the beginning which is one reason we differ from Presbyterians by not baptizing infants.

Nuts. The Bible does not say babies born of rape are unholy. You’re spouting hogwash.

I doubt any woman thinks this.

Actually, most rape victims think this very thing. They are plagued with self imposed guilt, shame, and a nightmare of having to bear and bring up a child that was forced upon them.

Typically, those who have never had to minister to those who have this trauma in their life respond in a manner such as yours.

As far as what the Bible says about babies born of rape, the Scriptures are very careful to align that with a forever commitment that had to be made. Without the commitment, the person who violated the woman was put to death or paid a very large sum to the parents.

Such was and is to this day an unholy act and the results, without the Scriptural correction, would or do remain unholy.

A better passage.

Exodus 21:22-25 NLT
[22] "Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. [23] But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, [24] an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, [25] a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

The life of the unborn bay was recognizd by God.

This passage does not refer to one raped, but to a married woman who gives birth prematurely. If the child is alive, then there is a financial settlement. If the child is born dead, there is a sacrifice of life.

I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourself above it all, labeling both sides equally at fault, ignoring injustice, and thereby removing yourself from the struggle for God.

Marty

What would impress you to think I am not aware of the temptation of pride from my post?

The Scriptures state that the believer is to contend for the faith. That I did and that which you discredit.

At no point was there "label(ing) both sides equally at fault, ignore(ing) injustice, and remove(ing) myself (yourself) from the struggle for God."

Rather, I pointed out the principle of Scriptures that John records:

"Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." (Rev. 22)
​

You may, of the flesh, consider yourself doing God's battle or in your words, "struggle for God" but such struggle/battle should never assume that righteousness is attained by the change of laws, traditions, or statutes.

Zeal for God outside belief in Christ is of little value. Such is the statement of Romans 10.

It is important that if the believer is going to contend, that the contention is over the faith and not over the flesh.

 

[rlvaughn]

I take it then that you are not one who considers that a child is "safe" until the age of accountability? Baptists have held this view from the beginning which is one reason we differ from Presbyterians by not baptizing infants....

I put the OP in the Baptist History forum for the (hopeful) purpose of discussing how Baptists have viewed this in history rather than having a debate about abortion. It's a free country and you guys are free to discuss what you will, but as for my part I'd like to focus on the Baptist history connection.

 

[rlvaughn]

I have run across this Jerry Falwell comment (dated 1979) referenced several times online, but I haven't found any who gave the source:

“The Roman Catholic Church for many years has stood virtually alone against abortion. I think it’s an indictment against the rest of us that we’ve allowed them to stand alone.”

Without any context, it seems to imply that Baptists had not previously opposed abortion to any extent. I suspect, but can't be sure, thathis statement 6 years after Roe v. Wade is about Baptists not engaging this in the political realm and he & the Moral Majority would begin doing.

 

[rlvaughn]

Newspaper article from 1969:

https://newspaperarchive.com/san-antonio-express-nov-06-1969-p-68/

"Dr. Criswell Favors Abortion Law Changes...

That would certainly imply that Criswell would have supported the 1971 resolution! And we wouldn't say he represented the moderate wing of the Convention.

 

[Jerome]

Also, Criswell was supposedly Graham's pastor at the time.

 

[Jerome]

From a 1973 resolution of the National Association of Evangelicals, featured on its website just a few years ago:

https://web.archive.org/web/2015050...e.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions

"...we deplore in the strongest possible terms the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to terminate a pregnancy for no better reason than personal convenience or sociological considerations. We reaffirm our conviction that abortion on demand for social adjustment or to solve economic problems is morally wrong. At the same time we recognize the necessity for therapeutic abortions to safeguard the health or the life of the mother, as in the case of tubular pregnancies. Other pregnancies, such as those resulting from rape or incest may require deliberate termination, but the decision should be made only after there has been medical, psychological and religious counseling of the most sensitive kind."

 

[Jerome]

1971 and 1973 resolutions of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches:

http://www.garbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/abortion-1971.pdf
http://www.garbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Abortion-19731.pdf

 

[rlvaughn]

Converge (formerly Baptist General Conference) resolutions, including two on abortion:
https://converge.org/files/ww/resource/document/2012-07-19-resolutions.pdf

1971:
Being very much aware of the current concern about the liberalization of existing laws related
to abortion; and, recognizing the necessity of periodic reevaluation of laws which are so
intimately related to human well-being; Be it resolved that: We exhort our people to be guided
by these basic Christian principles as they relate themselves to the controversy and concern
surrounding the abortion problem:
1. The Stewardship of Life
Human life is a gift from God and as such is a sacred trust. In those areas of human experience where life is so basically involved such as conception and abortion we ought always to be governed by our awareness of the sacredness of life; and,
2. Individual Responsibility
We as Christians ought not to regard abortion as a means of evading individual responsibility; and,
3. Christian Morality
Since many abortions are sought as a result of an immoral sexual relationship, we must submit that the most effective solution to the abortion problem is the revival of the Christian concept of morality wherein the fruits of sexual relationships are accepted as a trust from God and not an inconvenience to be disposed of; and,
4. The Christian community should respond in sympathetic understanding to the individuals immediately involved, whatever action is taken in regard to abortion.