In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson gave pro-life advocates something they thought they wanted: Roe v. Wade was no longer the ruling precedent regarding abortion. Efforts aimed at electing officials who would appoint more conservative judges have been only partially successful. I say partially because even in states where anti-abortion policies have been enacted, many have only set gestational limits on abortion ranging from six to 18 weeks. From a Christian perspective, such policies can hardly be considered unqualified “wins.”
Dobbs has provided the opportunity for state officials to craft new abortion policies, but that opportunity hasn’t resulted in outcomes fully aligned with Christian convictions about life’s sanctity. As such, it is difficult to believe Dobbs represents the decision for which Christian pro-life advocates were hoping and fighting. State policy changes post-Roe should remind Christians of the gap between conservative and Christian doctrines. Christians cannot depend on right, left, or center to fully align with Christian convictions because no law, political philosophy, or set of values can change the human heart.
Consider, for instance, that 63% of U. S. adults believe abortion should be “legal in all/most cases.” There is also a case to be made that this percentage understates the percentage of people who would accept compromises with regard to abortion policy rather than holding to a strict pro-life position. On some level, we need to recognize that the abortion question is downstream from deeper theological issues related to insecurity and lack of control. Those without Christ do not benefit from the peace that surpasses all understanding. They are left to navigate the difficulties of the broken world using their own resources. Legislating abortion can’t solve relational and quality-of-life concerns because pregnancy and child-rearing are time-consuming and resource-heavy activities that throw many people into insecure positions.
As a Guttmacher Institute research report published in 2005 concludes, “Nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that they could not afford to have a child now, and large proportions mentioned responsibilities to children, partner issues and unreadiness to parent.” The report also notes that these factors are often intertwined. Even if abortion were prohibited, these problems would remain. Because they remain, it seems likely that abortion will continue to be a viable option for many women who perceive themselves to be in a vulnerable position.
While there are a number of ministries and organizations that offer alternatives to abortion, the ongoing social, emotional, professional, and economic issues associated with pregnancy and childcare leave many women with a burden they don’t feel they can carry. Pointing to the existing foster care system and adoption pipeline as a solution is also problematic because, despite the efforts of those involved, the resources supporting foster care are inadequate in many ways. Telling women to carry babies full turn and to give them over to the foster care system is one thing. Supporting efforts to reinforce and expand the foster care system and similar services are quite another. As active and generous as Christians have been in these areas, more activity and generosity are needed.
Highlighting the pragmatic concerns that often lead to the choice to terminate a pregnancy is not (in any way, shape, or form) an endorsement of that choice. Rather, it is a sobering reminder that abortion is not simply a matter of affirming life’s sanctity in the abstract, but of deciding to honor that sanctity within the difficult circumstances of a broken world. Christians need to struggle with the simple fact that prohibiting abortion will not relieve the pressures many people will still feel in the face of an unexpected pregnancy.
Where does that leave Christians? First, it does not preclude ongoing political participation. Political participation, however, must be done with appropriate caution. The political realm provides only provisional solutions. More than that, the political realm is not committed to Christ even though it sits under his authority (Matt 28:19; Rom 13:1-4). As such, Christians must not put too much weight on political activism because, like Egypt, all political entities are “broken reeds” that do not deserve our unqualified trust (Isa 36:6).
Second, we must avoid becoming callous to the difficulties people face. Abortion is, at its root, a theological issue. Refusing to depend on God, those in the world have a limited set of options and resources. The situations many people find themselves in and, often, bring upon themselves should prompt the body of Christ to lament. Through such lamentation, we acknowledge not only that the lives of the unborn are cut short, but that the lives of women and men are not as they should be. We also acknowledge our need for God to act through us and apart from us. Lament reminds us that our strategies will always be insufficient.
Third, Christians are not seeking to control the behavior of humanity so that acts of immorality are completely eliminated. Such a task is neither possible nor desirable. Reforming the government or “winning back the culture” isn’t our primary task. It cannot be primary because Christians recognize the political realm’s limited contribution and refuse to allow stopgap measures to supplant activities like making disciples of Jesus Christ that yield true transformation. To put it differently, Christians practice “religion that is pure and undefiled” (Jam 1:27) even if doing so leaves the world more broken than we found it. We are loyal to God trusting that he will do more than we could ever ask or think.
As Christians reflect on Dobbs, we must almost certainly recognize that political and legislative strategies are inadequate and necessary. They are necessary because Christians need to be speaking theologically to governing authorities. They are also necessary because the governing authorities are in place to restrain evil and disorder. They are inadequate because legislative action only restrains evil. A lost world needs to be restrained in a variety of ways. Yet, restraint is not transformation or new creation. No matter how effective governing authorities may be at restraining evil, they cannot fix our broken world. As such, whatever else we do in the present, we wait patiently and faithfully for God to make all things new.
Dr. James Spencer currently serves as President of Useful to God and President of D. L. Moody Center. His newest book titled “Serpents and Doves: Christians, Politics, and the Art of Bearing Witness” is available on amazon.com. He previously published “Christian Resistance: Learning to Defy the World and Follow Jesus,” “Useful to God: Eight Lessons from the Life of D. L. Moody,” “Thinking Christian: Essays on Testimony, Accountability, and the Christian Mind,” as well as co-authoring “Trajectories: A Gospel-Centered Introduction to Old Testament Theology.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member