United Methodism on Abortion
May 29, 2008
Paul T. Stallsworth
The United Methodist Church’s General Conference is composed of nearly 1,000 delegates (lay and clergy) from around the world. It assembles every four years and determines—after deliberating and voting—what The United Methodist Church is to teach and practice, and how the church is to order its life, during the next quadrennium. The Book of Discipline (2004) makes this clear: “No person, no paper, no organization, has the authority to speak officially for The United Methodist Church, this right having been reserved exclusively to the General Conference under the Constitution.”
From April 23 until May 2, the 2008 General Conference met in Fort Worth, Texas. While the worship services and various presentations were elaborate productions, the conference’s main event was the legislative process. Predictably, the denomination’s teaching on abortion received more than a little attention at the conference. (Just as predictably, the church’s doctrine and discipline, with regard to homosexual practice, received even more attention.)
Before reviewing the 2008 General Conference’s action on the church’s official teaching on abortion, a little history is in order. While the 1968 General Conference did not articulate an explicit position on abortion, it was warming to the task. In language that hinted at what was to come, it declared: “We believe that planned parenthood, practiced with respect for human life, fulfills rather than violates the will of God. . . . This issue must be seen in reference to the pressing population problem now before the whole world.”
In 1972, General Conference adopted the denomination’s first explicit teaching on abortion under the heading “Birth and Death.” While nuanced, the 1972 statement was fundamentally for choice, as this sentence indicates: “We support the removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws relating to other procedures of standard medical practice.” Much of the 1972 statement remains in the disciplinary book to this day.
Since 1976, each General Conference (except 2004) has amended the church’s teaching on abortion. Most of those changes, while marginal, have been in a pro-life direction.
Again, the most recent General Conference revised United Methodist teaching on abortion. Thanks to votes by the Sanctity of Life legislative subcommittee, the Church and Society II legislative committee, and the entire conference, General Conference 2008 edited the paragraph adopted by General Conference 2004 in the following way:
A careful reading of the above paragraph reveals that the 2008 version is much more pro-life than the 2004 version. By respecting equally the life of the unborn child and the life of the mother, by supporting notification and consent before an abortion involving a minor, by offering ministries to reduce unintended pregnancy, by affirming (and encouraging church support of) crisis pregnancy centers, and by urging family counsel in decision-making about abortion, the additional language is decisively pro-life. Furthermore, by removing language about an “unacceptable pregnancy,” “past Christian teaching” (which seems to be used as a cover for what follows in the sentence), and what may “warrant” abortion, some of the paragraph’s more pro-choice references have been removed. (The sentence on anesthesia appears to be neutral, neither pro-life nor pro-choice.)
Yet it must be admitted that United Methodism’s official teaching will require further improvement. The extreme ambiguity of the sentence “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures” maintains the denomination’s commitment to abortion rights. Exactly what conflicts “may justify” the taking of the life of the unborn child? The statement does not say. Hence, presumably all such conflicts—real and imagined—can be taken as justification for abortion and for abortion rights. Hence, this sentence, well interpreted, supports all abortion rights. (This is organizationally verified by United Methodist agencies’ maintaining membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice [RCRC], a political lobby that defends and advances all abortion rights, and that opposes all moral arguments, political moves, and legal decisions against abortion. It should be mentioned that the 2008 General Conference sustained United Methodist membership in RCRC by a margin of only 32 votes out of a total of 800 cast; this is the narrowest vote, to date, on United Methodist membership in RCRC.)
Over the course of General Conferences to come, the denomination’s commitment to abortion rights will most likely be dismantled and then perhaps eliminated. After all, it seems that the most energy in the denomination, on this issue, is found among pro-life United Methodists. This abundance in energy, some of which was associated with renewal groups and some of which was less organized, led to a tremendous amount of pro-life legislation for General Conference being written by United Methodists from across the church. Furthermore, though some of the more pro-choice delegates to General Conference displayed savvy political skills in holding off the pro-life advance, political skills among the pro-life delegates are sure to increase. This, too, will enhance the likelihood of United Methodism distancing itself from nearly unlimited abortion rights.
Additional reasons might be given for The United Methodist Church to rid itself of a commitment to abortion rights: the increasing numbers of African delegates (who are, in the main, pro-life) to General Conference; the horrifyingly high abortion rates (though the annual totals are continuing to decrease) in the United States; the pro-life drift of American public opinion (which United Methodism seems to follow); the uncommon clarity of ecumenical teaching on the dignity of the human person; and the providence of God. Taken together, these factors will most certainly help a future General Conference remove its pro-choice commitment from its otherwise pro-life teaching.
But given General Conference’s democratic ways and means, and given United Methodism’s middling nature (which always wants to offend the least possible number), the denomination’s turn away from the support of abortion rights might take more than a little while. Even so, in 2008, regarding teaching about abortion, change is in the air of the United Methodist household.
The Reverend Paul T. Stallsworth is pastor of St. Peter’s United Methodist Church in Morehead City, North Carolina, and president of the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality. He also edits Lifewatch, a quarterly newsletter that witnesses to the Gospel of Life within The United Methodist Church.
From April 23 until May 2, the 2008 General Conference met in Fort Worth, Texas. While the worship services and various presentations were elaborate productions, the conference’s main event was the legislative process. Predictably, the denomination’s teaching on abortion received more than a little attention at the conference. (Just as predictably, the church’s doctrine and discipline, with regard to homosexual practice, received even more attention.)
Before reviewing the 2008 General Conference’s action on the church’s official teaching on abortion, a little history is in order. While the 1968 General Conference did not articulate an explicit position on abortion, it was warming to the task. In language that hinted at what was to come, it declared: “We believe that planned parenthood, practiced with respect for human life, fulfills rather than violates the will of God. . . . This issue must be seen in reference to the pressing population problem now before the whole world.”
In 1972, General Conference adopted the denomination’s first explicit teaching on abortion under the heading “Birth and Death.” While nuanced, the 1972 statement was fundamentally for choice, as this sentence indicates: “We support the removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws relating to other procedures of standard medical practice.” Much of the 1972 statement remains in the disciplinary book to this day.
Since 1976, each General Conference (except 2004) has amended the church’s teaching on abortion. Most of those changes, while marginal, have been in a pro-life direction.
Again, the most recent General Conference revised United Methodist teaching on abortion. Thanks to votes by the Sanctity of Life legislative subcommittee, the Church and Society II legislative committee, and the entire conference, General Conference 2008 edited the paragraph adopted by General Conference 2004 in the following way:
Paragraph [to be determined]) Abortion—The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, wWe recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Before providing their services, abortion providers should be required to offer women the option of anesthesia. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that maywarrantcause them to consider abortion. The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See Paragraph 161L.) We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.” [Struck-through textindicates deletions by the 2008 General Conference, and bold text indicates additions by the 2008 General Conference.]
A careful reading of the above paragraph reveals that the 2008 version is much more pro-life than the 2004 version. By respecting equally the life of the unborn child and the life of the mother, by supporting notification and consent before an abortion involving a minor, by offering ministries to reduce unintended pregnancy, by affirming (and encouraging church support of) crisis pregnancy centers, and by urging family counsel in decision-making about abortion, the additional language is decisively pro-life. Furthermore, by removing language about an “unacceptable pregnancy,” “past Christian teaching” (which seems to be used as a cover for what follows in the sentence), and what may “warrant” abortion, some of the paragraph’s more pro-choice references have been removed. (The sentence on anesthesia appears to be neutral, neither pro-life nor pro-choice.)
Yet it must be admitted that United Methodism’s official teaching will require further improvement. The extreme ambiguity of the sentence “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures” maintains the denomination’s commitment to abortion rights. Exactly what conflicts “may justify” the taking of the life of the unborn child? The statement does not say. Hence, presumably all such conflicts—real and imagined—can be taken as justification for abortion and for abortion rights. Hence, this sentence, well interpreted, supports all abortion rights. (This is organizationally verified by United Methodist agencies’ maintaining membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice [RCRC], a political lobby that defends and advances all abortion rights, and that opposes all moral arguments, political moves, and legal decisions against abortion. It should be mentioned that the 2008 General Conference sustained United Methodist membership in RCRC by a margin of only 32 votes out of a total of 800 cast; this is the narrowest vote, to date, on United Methodist membership in RCRC.)
Over the course of General Conferences to come, the denomination’s commitment to abortion rights will most likely be dismantled and then perhaps eliminated. After all, it seems that the most energy in the denomination, on this issue, is found among pro-life United Methodists. This abundance in energy, some of which was associated with renewal groups and some of which was less organized, led to a tremendous amount of pro-life legislation for General Conference being written by United Methodists from across the church. Furthermore, though some of the more pro-choice delegates to General Conference displayed savvy political skills in holding off the pro-life advance, political skills among the pro-life delegates are sure to increase. This, too, will enhance the likelihood of United Methodism distancing itself from nearly unlimited abortion rights.
Additional reasons might be given for The United Methodist Church to rid itself of a commitment to abortion rights: the increasing numbers of African delegates (who are, in the main, pro-life) to General Conference; the horrifyingly high abortion rates (though the annual totals are continuing to decrease) in the United States; the pro-life drift of American public opinion (which United Methodism seems to follow); the uncommon clarity of ecumenical teaching on the dignity of the human person; and the providence of God. Taken together, these factors will most certainly help a future General Conference remove its pro-choice commitment from its otherwise pro-life teaching.
But given General Conference’s democratic ways and means, and given United Methodism’s middling nature (which always wants to offend the least possible number), the denomination’s turn away from the support of abortion rights might take more than a little while. Even so, in 2008, regarding teaching about abortion, change is in the air of the United Methodist household.
The Reverend Paul T. Stallsworth is pastor of St. Peter’s United Methodist Church in Morehead City, North Carolina, and president of the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality. He also edits Lifewatch, a quarterly newsletter that witnesses to the Gospel of Life within The United Methodist Church.
Comments:
8.6.2009 | 3:08pm
Bill says:
It is incredible that you consider the Methodist Church pro-life, just absolutely incredible. Now I know why my sister's (a Methodist) greatest heroine is Margaret Sanger, a person in my book who ranks with the worst people the world has ever produced. She belongs on the list with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., in fact she belongs at the very top of the list. No other person in all of human history has been responsible for more deaths than Margaret Sanger. She was a eugenicist, a population controller, and the first major "free love" advocate in the United States. Over a billion unborn babies have been killed since abortion has been legalized, and the Methodist Church is part of the bringing about of that statistic. You literally vote on the truth. Incredible. Have you ever wondered why the membership of your "Church" has been diminishing for decades? Oh, you'll vote for homosexuality I promise you. You are moving farther and farther away from historical Christianity every day.
10.16.2009 | 4:21pm
Chris says:
I think, as a member of this nation and as a member of this church, that the Methodist Church's stance on the issue of abortion is one of the most realistic and Christ-like that I've read or been aware of. I teach United States History, and something that many people don't know is that abortion was a very common practice up until, coincidentally, the time of Margaret Sanger. By legalizing abortion we haven't made it more common, we have made it safer. I stand by my church, the Methodist church, in this. they are showing more love and compassion than any other group on this issue, and i know that if one of my girls was stuck in such a situation, the Methodist church would be there for her.
1.17.2010 | 11:21am
Jack A. Kissir says:
As a member of Salem United Methodist church in Havana, Florida, I think that the Abortion statement that was re-written in 2008 from the one written in 2004 is to the point and very well written. It does not condone nor condemn abortion. There are many instances when it is a medical necessity for an abortion and no one should be made to feel judged if they have to make that decision. I also agree that abortion should not be used simply for a birth control agent. Having always been a "Pro Choice" person, I did not ever think it was right to use it as just a means to get yourself out of trouble for doing something you chose to do, however; I also belive that it should be available to those who really need it without condemnation. I am proud of the statement written in 2008 by the United Methodist Confrence! I would hop and pray that they do not slip into a "judgmental statement" in our next conference, and become completely "Pro Life". Either or can verge on fanatical behavior. Any further change in wording that would lean towards complete "Pro Life" would make me began rethink keeping my membership in the United Methodist Church.
Jack A. Kissir
Jack A. Kissir
2.14.2010 | 8:53am
Sue says:
The United Methodist Church needs to remove the line that states : We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life."
Late Term Abortion is brutal, barbaric and murder. The baby feels pain. There is no reason to half way deliver the baby from the mother and then crush its skull! How in the world does this save or protect the mother's health or life??? This is infantcide. The baby is already born and can survive on it's own!
This needs to be changed ASAP! Not very Christian or loving if you ask me!
Late Term Abortion is brutal, barbaric and murder. The baby feels pain. There is no reason to half way deliver the baby from the mother and then crush its skull! How in the world does this save or protect the mother's health or life??? This is infantcide. The baby is already born and can survive on it's own!
This needs to be changed ASAP! Not very Christian or loving if you ask me!
6.20.2010 | 1:06pm
Michael says:
Faiths, such as Methodism which are a essentially form of "Christianity-Lite" have miserably failed in the support of saving the unborn. I have been personally touched by this in my own marriage to a now "former" Methodist who aborted a child during her college years for no other reason(s) than, she feared parental disappointment and the morning sickness was interfering with her class attendance, she was hesitant (her typically Protestant boyfriend refused marriage "left the decision to her", code for : DO IT) to do what she did not BUT had NO solid moral/religious dogma to bolster her.
As she (now a Roman Catholic for 19 years) has reflected, hundreds of painful/tearful times, that a stricter moral code spoken of often and clearly stated/reinforced in church and in the home likely have prevented this tragedy, which still haunts her. A faith that invests more in "fellowship" than outright teaching right from wrong is bound to leave its members vulnerable to the evils of this culture.
As she (now a Roman Catholic for 19 years) has reflected, hundreds of painful/tearful times, that a stricter moral code spoken of often and clearly stated/reinforced in church and in the home likely have prevented this tragedy, which still haunts her. A faith that invests more in "fellowship" than outright teaching right from wrong is bound to leave its members vulnerable to the evils of this culture.
7.18.2010 | 11:23am
HOLLOWAYIMOGENE27 says:
All people deserve good life time and mortgage loans or just student loan will make it much better. Just because freedom bases on money state.
7.23.2010 | 12:26am
EdwardD says:
Matthew 18.
Jesus gives us a warning....maybe the Methodist's should read their bibles.
Jesus gives us a warning....maybe the Methodist's should read their bibles.
1.26.2011 | 1:44am
Michael Vercimak says:
The fundamental question you must answer regarding abortion is whether or not the unborn child is a human being. If you correctly conclude that he/she is then the killing (yes killing) of this innocent person is murder. There can be no justification, no rationalization, and no sanction for the taking of the innocent life of a child. The taking of the child's life to save the mothers almost never happens. I have been a physician for 40 years and I have never seen or heard of a real situation where it was necessary to kill a woman's child to save her life. We all share the blame for this most heinous holocaust but those who sit in religous authority who refuse or are too cowardly to speak out against this wickedness will have the to face the anger and wrath of our Lord at their Day of Judgement!
3.3.2011 | 5:16pm
Ron Schneider says:
Rev 3:16 - "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." If there was ever a lukewarm (wishy-washy) position for a Church statement on abortion, this is it. Dr. Vercimak is absolutely correct on this issue, and I am disappointed to see the United Methodist Church's position on this horrific act. Every time I read it, it saddens me. It is the major reason I am not a member of the Methodist Church. As the Director of Pregnancy Centers I can verify that 98% of all abortions are done for one reason only - - - CONVENIENCE! Less than 2% of abortions are done for the reason that almost every pro-abortion person immediately throws at you when they find out you are pro-life, and that is "What about the life of the mother, or incest and rape!" The reality, as Dr. Vercimak says above, is that almost never is the woman's life at risk. Also, two-thirds of women who are raped and become pregnant, carry the child and most of them place their baby for adoption. Whether the Methodist Church likes it or not, abortion has become an "after the fact birth control method."
7.12.2011 | 9:19pm
Paul Dorsey says:
I was born and raised a United Methodist but left the church when I was 14 and
joined the more inclusive, Episcopal Church. I am firmly committed to a woman's right to choose and both churches have a long and proud history in supporting women's issues and other "justice" issues! Abortion should never be criminalized and I definately believe that government has no business in legislating morality.
Women who are raped, or victim of insence, or health of the woman, should always be respected as to having an abortion. I will always be a progressive and loving Christian that believes in inclusivity and encouraging people to have as much freedom to do as they want, within the confine's of church teaching!
joined the more inclusive, Episcopal Church. I am firmly committed to a woman's right to choose and both churches have a long and proud history in supporting women's issues and other "justice" issues! Abortion should never be criminalized and I definately believe that government has no business in legislating morality.
Women who are raped, or victim of insence, or health of the woman, should always be respected as to having an abortion. I will always be a progressive and loving Christian that believes in inclusivity and encouraging people to have as much freedom to do as they want, within the confine's of church teaching!
11.6.2011 | 11:53am
Robert Gibbonsmeyers says:
As a child in the 60's the ambiguity of Methodist teaching on abortion showed me the lukewarm commitment to life and I left the Church for a faith more consistent with regard to life issues, a proper decision then in my youth that I never regretted.
I agreed with Rev 3:16 since I was a lector at the age of 11 and saw the truth in God's word, now I spend my days trying to live that faith.
I agreed with Rev 3:16 since I was a lector at the age of 11 and saw the truth in God's word, now I spend my days trying to live that faith.
2.5.2012 | 1:29am
John says:
The Methodist church is obviously part of the "do whatever feels good movement" that passes for Christianity today. The statement from the Book of Discipline attempts to walk both sides of the line. The Methodists obviously forget Jesus' injunction that a man cannot serve two masters.
2.19.2012 | 1:39pm
Catherine says:
It never occurred to me that my church would support such a horrific act. I suppose they have been fooled along with the rest of us fallible humans. I will either seek to bring about a pro-life congregation, or will have to leave this church.
3.19.2012 | 3:46pm
JohnFasanello says:
LENTEN REFLECTION—THEN VS. NOW?
God (the “Ancient of Days”) sent His Son (Jesus) to preach the good news (“Gospel”) of salvation through belief, love, repentance, and reform…and died on the cross to make the perfect sacrifice to the Father-- and thus open the gates of Heaven to mankind.
Many early Christians died rather than renounce their faith. They believed wholeheartedly in the doctrines of the Church. Otherwise, they would have “died in vain.”
So who is right—those early Christians—or some of the modern ones who have decided to change the doctrines of Christianity to suit their own purposes? Are the ancient beliefs of the Church to be manipulated, mangled or even eliminated so that modern people can “do their own thing”? What would that say about true belief and trust in the Lord?
Let us lead into the present topic by quoting one of the spiritual predecessors of Christianity, the Jewish historian and friend of the Romans, Josephus: “The law…forbids woman to cause abortion.…She will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing mankind.” That is God’s law.
The first Christians knew and believed this. It appears in many non-canonical writings, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and others.
Tertullian, in his Apologetics, calls abortion murder: “He is a man…the fruit is always present in the seed.” (Science may have caught up with the obvious logic there.) Many other early writers told the Romans the same, as in: “We Christians do not murder—not even the fetus of the womb.”
From the first to the fourth centuries (and beyond) Christian writers assailed abortion. As early as the fourth century, Church councils made formal condemnations of abortion as murder. (No matter when “ensoulment” might be thought to occur, there is no proof of its alleged time of arrival. Therefore, even in the early days of Christianity, induced abortion was considered a most serious sin.)
So, if this was the belief of the first Christians…how can any Christian today deny the truth of the Faith—that abortion is murder—and still say, “Oh, I’m a good Christian”?
When Abe Lincoln told his children to suppose that a dog’s tail is a leg; then how many legs does a dog have? They replied, “Five.” His answer was “No— calling a dog’s tail a leg don’t make it a leg.”
Likewise, changing or denying whichever doctrines of the Church one does not want to follow does not make one a good Christian….It does, however, make a mockery of those early martyrs who died rather than deny the fullness of the Faith. Worse, it means denying what Jesus obviously taught his disciples—which means denying Him.
Again: Who is right—those Christians closest to Christ in time—or the modern “interpreters” and modifiers of the ancient truths?
Believe, repent, reform—live the good life as God wills it. Fellow Christians—spread the word!
God (the “Ancient of Days”) sent His Son (Jesus) to preach the good news (“Gospel”) of salvation through belief, love, repentance, and reform…and died on the cross to make the perfect sacrifice to the Father-- and thus open the gates of Heaven to mankind.
Many early Christians died rather than renounce their faith. They believed wholeheartedly in the doctrines of the Church. Otherwise, they would have “died in vain.”
So who is right—those early Christians—or some of the modern ones who have decided to change the doctrines of Christianity to suit their own purposes? Are the ancient beliefs of the Church to be manipulated, mangled or even eliminated so that modern people can “do their own thing”? What would that say about true belief and trust in the Lord?
Let us lead into the present topic by quoting one of the spiritual predecessors of Christianity, the Jewish historian and friend of the Romans, Josephus: “The law…forbids woman to cause abortion.…She will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing mankind.” That is God’s law.
The first Christians knew and believed this. It appears in many non-canonical writings, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and others.
Tertullian, in his Apologetics, calls abortion murder: “He is a man…the fruit is always present in the seed.” (Science may have caught up with the obvious logic there.) Many other early writers told the Romans the same, as in: “We Christians do not murder—not even the fetus of the womb.”
From the first to the fourth centuries (and beyond) Christian writers assailed abortion. As early as the fourth century, Church councils made formal condemnations of abortion as murder. (No matter when “ensoulment” might be thought to occur, there is no proof of its alleged time of arrival. Therefore, even in the early days of Christianity, induced abortion was considered a most serious sin.)
So, if this was the belief of the first Christians…how can any Christian today deny the truth of the Faith—that abortion is murder—and still say, “Oh, I’m a good Christian”?
When Abe Lincoln told his children to suppose that a dog’s tail is a leg; then how many legs does a dog have? They replied, “Five.” His answer was “No— calling a dog’s tail a leg don’t make it a leg.”
Likewise, changing or denying whichever doctrines of the Church one does not want to follow does not make one a good Christian….It does, however, make a mockery of those early martyrs who died rather than deny the fullness of the Faith. Worse, it means denying what Jesus obviously taught his disciples—which means denying Him.
Again: Who is right—those Christians closest to Christ in time—or the modern “interpreters” and modifiers of the ancient truths?
Believe, repent, reform—live the good life as God wills it. Fellow Christians—spread the word!
4.23.2012 | 11:34pm
Ron Bliss says:
Chris states that "leagalizing abortion we haven't made it more common, we have made it safer." This is so totally arrogant that one can hardly respond to it.
Why should it be safer? Why should there be abortion? That is like saying, those who murder a victim can be given intravenous life ending drugs because it is safer than other options!
Abortions today are common place. In early 1973, it was considered murder.
Wow! Big change. From a murder to a petty med. procedure.
One Supreme Court Judge has creaed over 51 million abortions in the U.S alone.
A woman and a mans body is a creation by God, and the excuse that it is "our choice" to do with our bodies is our own business is accurate to a degree but when a mother is carrying a child, her choice in the "childs" life or death is no longer her choice. The child is not a threatening tumor. A terminal disease. A life changing horror.
A child afterall is a child, not a choice. Does any devout Christian actually believe
that Jesus Christ in the presence of any man or woman would give His approval to kill their child? Woud anyone actuallyl dare to stand before Jesus and tell Him that you approved of aborting a child from its womb that God created? Are you kidding me?
Why should it be safer? Why should there be abortion? That is like saying, those who murder a victim can be given intravenous life ending drugs because it is safer than other options!
Abortions today are common place. In early 1973, it was considered murder.
Wow! Big change. From a murder to a petty med. procedure.
One Supreme Court Judge has creaed over 51 million abortions in the U.S alone.
A woman and a mans body is a creation by God, and the excuse that it is "our choice" to do with our bodies is our own business is accurate to a degree but when a mother is carrying a child, her choice in the "childs" life or death is no longer her choice. The child is not a threatening tumor. A terminal disease. A life changing horror.
A child afterall is a child, not a choice. Does any devout Christian actually believe
that Jesus Christ in the presence of any man or woman would give His approval to kill their child? Woud anyone actuallyl dare to stand before Jesus and tell Him that you approved of aborting a child from its womb that God created? Are you kidding me?
5.30.2012 | 5:35pm
Matt says:
I am a Roman Catholic who was also adopted. My stance on abortion is firm. Abortion is unacceptable and should be illegal. I am only on this website because I recently went through an abortion with my girlfriend (a methodist). One I did not accept and profoundly and openly fought against. My efforts did little and the abortion took place. Because I am a man, I had no legal way to stop it. My remorse and guilt have overtaken my life because I couldn't stop the atrocity from taking place. I am here because I wanted to know more about what the Methodist church taught and what my girlfriend has learned and from I just read, it tells me nothing. Abortion isn't a grey area and it seems that's how they put it. My heart is breaking and it seems that if she were brought up in a stricter faith that has clear cut rules then maybe this could have been avoided. Not saying Roman Catholics don't have abortions because I know they do but at least the church has a firm stance and tells them what is right and wrong as clear as as anything that is taught within my faith. A direct quote from my girlfriend: "maybe if I had your faith I'd be stronger and be able to accept this". Thanks Methodist church and your grey area stance on one of the biggest moral issues worldwide.
9.24.2012 | 2:05pm
toni says:
I was adopted. Adoption papers indicate i was the product of either rape or an affair. I was not a mistake. I love the Lord and and am grateful to the poor lady who carried me for 9 months to birth. My parents were wonderful loving people to me, to their first (biological) child and to the many foster children they kept. I was not a mistake. God took a difficult situation and made a faithful Christian. How can anyone think abortion is OK except when the mother's life is in jeopardy and thus the child would be lost anyway? Churches should spend their time teaching children to morals and responsibilities regarding sex and be very supportive and kind to those who are unfortunate enough to be raped.
3.24.2013 | 2:27pm
Old Jimma says:
I'm glad the Methodist church is moving in the right direction with abortion.
Old Jimma
(Methodist since 1957)
Old Jimma
(Methodist since 1957)
