OPC Statements and Communications on Issues in Society

From time to time, as situations have arisen, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has spoken to issues in society, whether by statements, letters, or petitions. Here are a few examples:

1. 1937 Statements on Atheistic Movements, Communism, and Pacifism.

At its third general assembly (1937), the OPC (then called the Presbyterian Church of America) adopted an overture to warn all their churches to take their stand against atheistic movements and “that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church.”

WHEREAS atheistic movements under various names are working through the Church life of this nation, not only to overthrow the Christian faith of the present adult generation, but seriously to impair the the faith of the growing youth of our nation, therefore: 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Presbytery of California, Presbyterian Church America, respectfully overtures the Third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, meeting in Philadelphia, June 1, 1937, to warn all of our churches and churches which will ultimately be formed to take their stand against all such movements, and so to indoctrinate our people in the doctrines of the Christian faith that they will be able to discern the true from the false, and that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church. 

Passed by unanimous vote of the Presbytery of California, of the Presbyterian Church of America, on April 13, 1937.

Concurred in by Northwest, Chicago Area.

Concurred with slight amendment, Iowa.

The overture was approved by the General Assembly by a vote of 42 to 30. The same assembly also adopted another overture in amended form publicly reaffirming WCF 23.1-2 in light of “widespread confusion of thought in this nation on the relation of Christians to military institutions of duly constituted civil authorities”.

2. 1972 Statement on Abortion

In 1972, the 39th General Assembly of the OPC adopted a statement affirming that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). 

Believing that unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, given by God as a blessing to their parents, we therefore affirm that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). We state the following reasons:

1. The Bible treats human personhood as beginning at conception (Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Jeremiah 1:4,5; Luke 1:14-44; 1:29-38; Exodus 21:22-25). 
2. The Bible considers the human person to be a complete person (Genesis 2:7; Numbers 23:10; Deuteronomy 6:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). This unity is severed only by death and then only temporarily until the natural, intended union is restored at the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). 
3. The Bible forbids murder because man is created in the image of God (Genesis 9:5, 6). The Bible further says that succeeding generations of men are conceived in the image of God (Genesis 5:1-3). 

We call upon society and the church to show compassion toward unwed mothers and mothers of unwanted children. To this end, not only sympathetic counsel, but also concrete help should be extended (1 John 3:16-18; James 2:14-17).

But we also call upon our society to return to the law of God, recognizing the Word of God that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

You can find this statement on the OPC website here and in the minutes of the 39th GA of the OPC (Minutes, May 15-20, 1972, pp. 17-18, 149). The background for this is that the General Assembly set up a study committee on the topic in 1970 in response to an overture from the Presbytery of New Jersey asking the assembly to declare "that life being given by God should not be terminated by abortion, apart from valid medical grounds related to the preservation of the life of the mother." (1970 was the same year that Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court of the USA.) This study committee delivered its report to the assembly in 1971. This report was sent to the presbyteries, and two of them (NJ and Northern CA) sent overtures to the next assembly with similar proposed statements. A slightly amended version of one of these was the statement adopted in 1972. (The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, a decision that was later overruled by its Dobbs decision in 2022.)

There was a protest submitted by some members of the assembly against making this statement, not for the content, but because they objected to making such statements apart from particular judicial cases. The assembly's response to the protest called attention to WCF 31.2 and added "The church of Christ, in assembly at Jerusalem, resolved a case of doctrine and conscience not brought to it as a judicial proceeding against any individual (Acts 15). Granting that resolutions on such cases should be made with discretion and only in matters of great concern, the Assembly reaffirms its right and duty to declare the truth ministerially to the people of God and the world in which we live."

3. 1993 Petition to the President Regarding the Sin of Homosexual Activity

In 1993, the 60th General Assembly of the OPC submitted a humble petition to President Clinton, asking him to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. The terminology of "humble petition" comes from our Confession of Faith, which says that "Synods and councils ... are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate" (WCF 31.4). 

Bill Clinton had been elected president in 1992 and in his campaign he had indicated he would allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Once he became president, he called for legislation that would lift the ban that prohibited this. In this context, the Presbytery of Northern California sent an overture to the General Assembly with proposed language for a petition, and this was amended and adopted. This petition can be found on the OPC website here as well as in the minutes of the 60th GA of the OPC. 

The 60th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church humbly petitions the President of the United States of America to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. We support this petition with the following considerations.

Based on the Word of God and his creation law, homosexuality (including bisexuality and lesbianism) violates God's non-negotiable moral standard and therefore is sin. According to the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, it is an abomination and contrary to nature as God intended for man and woman. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22). "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27).

The practice of homosexuality is a reproach to any nation. It undermines the family, and poses a substantial threat to the general health, safety and welfare of our citizens. Your own Christian background ought to demonstrate to you the practical benefits of upholding the biblical stand against homosexuality, especially in light of the current epidemic of AIDS and other diseases spread through homosexual conduct.

And, specifically, we urge you as Commander-in-Chief of all the armed services not to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Lifting the ban would effectively discriminate against chaplains who hold to biblical ethics by forbidding them to preach God's law against this sin. Such a prohibition compromises the Free Exercise of Religion clause as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Moreover, any such preaching subsequent to lifting the ban might be considered a hate crime.

Therefore, for the honor of Christ and his Church, and the welfare of our nation, we exhort you to remember the words of the wisest magistrate, "Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). Our prayers go with you, your family and your administration, and we commend to you the salvation that comes only though Jesus Christ our Lord. "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Very respectfully submitted,

The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

June, 1993

At the end of that year, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was adopted by the Department of Defense as a compromise measure that continued to bar openly homosexual persons from the military.  

4. 2001 Statement on Women and the Military

In 1998, the General Assembly of the OPC set up a study committee on women and the military, in light of the possibility that the requirement to register for the Selective Service might be extended to women. This committee presented an initial report in 1999. The General Assembly returned the report and pending motions to the committee for further study and reflection and added two more members to the committee. In 2000, the General Assembly ran out of time to consider the expanded report. In 2001, the 68th General Assembly of the OPC heard the report and responded by adopting the following statement: 

The 68th GA declares that the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.

The OPC was not alone in making such statements. I have posted about this before, and you can read the statements from the PCA, RPCNA, and ARPC at this link.

There was a protest made by some members of the assembly over whether there was sufficient biblical grounds for the statement, objecting that the statement rested on a report that argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law, supposing this to be in contradiction to WCF 19.4. The General Assembly responded that it adopted the statement because it was convinced there was sufficient biblical grounds, that New Testament passages affirm the principles that lay behind the direct teaching of the Old Testament on the topic, and that it is legitimate to declare a position argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law (giving examples of where this is done in our confessional standards). I think the General Assembly got it right here and that this is a good example of how the judicial laws of the Old Testament continue to bind nations today as far as their general equity requires (WCF 19.4). In the Bible, men alone are assigned the responsibility for national defense (Neh. 4:14, Num. 1:2-3, Deut. 24:5), and this was not something pertaining to ancient Israel alone, but a principle based in the creation order (Gen. 1:27, Is. 19:16, Jer. 51:30, 1 Peter 3:7). I have written more about WCF 19.4 and general equity here and here. 

5. 2010 Letter to the Department of Defense 

In 2010, the 77th General Assembly of the OPC sent a letter to the The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group. You can find the letter on the OPC website here, and I will quote both the stated clerk's note regarding the context as well as the letter itself. 

Stated clerk's note: The United States Secretary of Defense has established a Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group to "review issues associated with the possible repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654, which would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and to develop an implementation plan, should Congress repeal the law." In the course of that review the working group solicited comments from agencies that endorse chaplains. The 77th General Assembly of the OPC has responded to that request with the following letter.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Office of the General Assembly

George R. Cottenden, Stated Clerk

July 20, 2010

TO: The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group

c/o Chaplain (COL) Gary Linsky

SUBJECT: Concern about Repeal of the Current Military Policy Prohibiting Homosexual Behavior

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is thankful for the opportunity to respond to the letter of Major General (S) Gregory A. Biscone, USAF, Chief of Staff and the subsequent letter from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense under the signatures of Chaplain (Major General) Douglas L. Carver, USA, Chairman and Army Chief of Chaplains; RADM; CHC, Robert F. Burt, USN: Chief of Chaplains; and Chaplain (Major General) Cecil R. Richardson, USAF, Chief of Chaplains soliciting our "views ... regarding the impact of the repeal of [10 U.S.C. §654]" and promoting dialog "with civilian organizations regarding religious issues" (see attachments 1 & 2). We regret that the Assembly itself could not make the 15 May 2010 deadline, for our denomination did not meet in deliberative session until our July General Assembly. This is the official response that supersedes the earlier communication you received 15 May 2010 (see attachment 3).

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is gravely concerned over the potential repeal of 10 U.S.C. 8654 that governs the service of homosexual individuals in our military. Therefore, we are grateful for your desire to consider carefully the moral implications of your approving sexual practices that God has explicitly condemned.

We are concerned that the repeal of the current law may go so far as to force our currently serving chaplains to choose between violating their ordination vows and resigning from the military. They have affirmatively answered the following question in their ordination: "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" Thus, OPC chaplains preach and counsel from the Scriptures because they are convinced that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). (All Bible citations are from the English Standard Version.)

We are concerned that other members of the OPC who are serving in the Armed Forces may also be coerced to teach and enforce a policy that explicitly violates the Word of God. When they took their membership vows in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church they answered "Yes" to this question: "Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?"

Several Bible passages forthrightly state God's condemnation of homosexual behavior. From the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Romans 1:18-33 in the New Testament historically and prophetically describes how the wrath of God is revealed against people who, by their own sinful behavior, suppress the truth about the one true God and how the moral disintegration of society follows. In the consequent moral disintegration in human society, the acceptance of homosexuality is a prominent symptom: "26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature: 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Our military chaplains and members are concerned about the following specific consequences:

• Chaplains may be open to charges of discrimination or command reprimand when they preach or counsel in accordance with the passages in the Bible which directly speak of the sin of homosexual practice. Such threats compromise the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion clause and the freedom of speech as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11—Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.)

• Bibles in military chapels and on military bases may be under the threat of excision of all passages which speak very directly to the sin of homosexual practice. Whether it be under the guise of opposing "hate speech" or alleging insubordinate opposition to a policy of the Department of Defense, the effort may be made soon after the repeal of the law.

• Marriage and family retreats conducted by chaplains intended to strengthen traditional marriages and families may have to include homosexual couples, which will violate chaplains' faith tenets and may discourage the voluntary participation of unmarried, heterosexual couples.

• Homosexual couples may seek union ceremonies or marriages, which are in violation of the beliefs and ordination vows of a large percentage of military chaplains, not just those from this denomination. Refusal may invite the charge of discrimination and command reprimand.

These expressions are consistent with the Chaplain's Manual of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains and Military Personnel, Section "Policy and Guidance; V. HOMOSEXUALITY" (we will be happy to provide a copy upon request) and our own denomination's Instruments of the General Assembly, Appendix A (www.opc.org/GA/Instruments2009.pdf, p. 3023, starting at line 530).

We provide this response for the good of the nation, for the integrity and effectiveness of the chaplains who serve the nation on behalf of their church, for the military and spiritual welfare of our members who serve in the Armed Forces, and for the protection of the constitutional principle of the free exercise of religion.

Sincerely,

George R. Cottenden

Stated Clerk, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Enclosures: 3

DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Committee on Chaplains and Military Personnel to CRWG correspondence

cc: Major General Douglas L. Carver, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Army

Rear Admiral Robert F. Burt, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Navy

Major General Cecil R. Richardson, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Air Force

Rear Admiral Mark L. Tidd, Chaplain of the Marine Corps

Chaplain (COL) Thomas E. Preston, Executive Director, Armed Forces Chaplain Board

19th Century Presbyterians and Abortion

When the Orthodox Presbyterian Church affirmed in 1972 "that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment," they were not breaking new ground.

The 1869 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America unanimously adopted the following committee report:

"That it is with great pain we are constrained to admit the increasing prevalence, in many parts of our country, of unscriptural views of the marriage relation, in consequence of which the obligations of that relation are disregarded by many, and separations of husbands and wives, and divorces for slight and unwarranted reasons are becoming more frequent every year. Nor can we shut our eyes to the fact that the horrible crime of infanticide, especially in the form of the destruction, by parents, of their own offspring, before birth, also prevails to an alarming extent. The evils which these errors and crimes have already brought upon our country, and the worse evils which they threaten in the near future, make it imperative, as we believe, that the whole power of the ministry and Church of Jesus Christ should be put forth in maintenance of the truth, and of virtue in regard to these things. Many causes have operated to produce a corruption of the public morals so deplorable, prominent among which may be mentioned the facility with which divorces may be obtained in some of the States, constant promulgation of false ideas of marriage and its duties, by means of books, lectures, &c., and the distribution, through the mails, of impure publications. But an influence no less powerful than any of these, is the growing devotion to fashion and luxury of this age, and the idea which practically obtains to so great an extent, that pleasure, instead of the glory of God and the enjoyment of his favor, is the great object of life. It is therefore the duty of the Church of Christ to oppose, in every practical way, these and all other corrupting agencies and tendencies, and we especially urge upon all ministers of the gospel the duty of giving instruction to the people of their respective charges, as to the scriptural doctrine concerning the marriage relation. We warn them against joining in wedlock any who may have been divorced upon other than scriptural grounds. We also enjoin upon church sessions the exercise of due discipline in the cases of those members who may be guilty of violating the law of Christ in this particular.

"This Assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own offspring before birth with abhorrence, as a crime against God, and against nature, and as the frequency of such murders can no longer be concealed, we hereby warn those that are guilty of this crime, that except they repent, they cannot inherit eternal life. We also exhort those who have been called to preach the gospel, and all who love purity and truth, and who would avert the just judgment of Almighty God from the nation, that they be no longer silent or tolerant of these things, but that they endeavor by all proper means, to stay the flood of impurity and cruelty. We call upon all to remember that marriage is honorable, not only in itself, but in its ends. Therefore, those who seek to avoid the responsibility and cares connected with the bringing up of children, not only deprive themselves of one of the greatest blessings of life, and fly in the face of God's decrees, but do violence to their own natures, and will be found out of their sins even in this world."

This statement is quoted in a book by Hugh Lenox Hodge, the brother of theologian Charles Hodge. Hugh Hodge was a committed Presbyterian and the Professor of Obstetrics and the Diseases of Women at the University of Pennsylvania. He wrote a book, Foeticide, or Criminal Abortion in 1869, to join with the efforts of his profession to "illuminate the public mind on the nature of this crime, and to urge our legislative and executive officers to greater stringency in the formation and execution of legal enactments" (p. 4). He argued that human existence and the union of our body and soul begins at conception, and that from that point the child “is truly a perfect human being, and that its criminal destruction is murder” (p. 27). The book can be found online here: Foeticide, or Criminal Abortion.

The Bible and Abortion

On the one hand, one does not need the Bible to understand that abortion is immoral. It is against the law revealed in the natural order and conscience that a mother should seek the destruction of her unborn offspring. She is made to nourish and care for this little living human being. 

On the other hand, I want explain the biblical case against abortion for three reasons. First, the Bible is the true and faithful and authoritative word of our Creator, and I am a minister of this word. Second, many people profess to accept the authority of the Bible. Certainly Christians do. Even some non-Christians have respect for it. Politicians on all sides will quote it to support their policies. Third, over the years, I have seen people claim that the Bible support abortion, a dangerously misleading interpretation not only out of accord with Christian teaching from the 1st-3rd centuries to the present, but out of accord with the Bible itself.

Let me recognize at the outset that many women resort to abortion in the midst of difficult circumstances. Childbearing itself is difficult, and this is even more the case in some situations. Yet difficult circumstances are not necessarily exemptions. They can also be temptations to do the wrong thing. And that is the case in these difficult situations that motivate women to seek abortion. They do not justify the killing of the unborn, but should be addressed in other ways. I do recognize, as do our state laws that prohibit abortion, that there are rare cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) where it is justified to remove the baby before it is safe to do so to save the life of the mother, although this is quite different from what is normally called abortion.

While the Bible does not explicitly deal with abortion, it does so implicitly by condemning the murder of human beings and recognizing unborn children as human beings. As my denomination stated in 1972, "Believing that unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, given by God as a blessing to their parents, we therefore affirm that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)." To support this, let me review some passages of Scripture.

Genesis 5:1-3 and 9:6

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)

In Genesis 9, God explains that murder is wrong because it unjustly takes the life of one who bears God’s image. Biblical ethics provides a reason to value all humans, grounding their right to life not on their level of intelligence, physical abilities, racial identity, or usefulness to society, but as beings made in the image of God.

Genesis 5:1-3 explains how this identity is conveyed to the next generation. It is not imputed to them at some point in their life. Rather, humans have the image of God by being produced from other images of God. “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God…When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gen. 5:1, 3). Mankind, like the rest of creation, produces according to its kind. From conception, the child is made in the image of God.

Genesis 2:7

“…then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” (Genesis 2:7)

Some justify abortion with this verse, saying that life begins with breath. But life is given to Adam with a breath since Adam was created as an adult, and living adults generally breathe. But if an adult stops breathing, are they dead? Not necessarily. We do CPR. Why? Because there is hope they will breathe again. The unborn do not yet breathe, but at birth they will. Their lack of breath is not proof they are dead. It is proof they need the care of others. But they are biologically alive, not dead. Additionally, the Bible also speaks of the life of flesh being its blood (Lev. 17:11, 14), and does so in the context of prohibiting murder (Gen. 9:4-5, 4:10). Living humans and animals generally have blood circulating through them sustaining their life, and this includes unborn children (15-21 days post-fertilization). Again, I do not think this is meant to define life with scientific precision, but it is more to the point in this discussion, and it shows the Bible can use more than one marker to identify life.

Exodus 21:22-25

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Exodus 21:22–25)

This case law describes a situation where men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and her children come out with two results, no harm or harm.

The first case (no harm) involves a premature birth and a penalty for striking the woman in such a way; the second case (harm) involves harm to the woman and/or her children, with a further penalty that fits the harm done. This is the traditional interpretation. I think this is still the best interpretation, since (1) in the first case the word for miscarriage is not used, nor do the words used indicate such a meaning, and (2) the harm is not specified, leaving it applicable to the woman and her children mentioned in the passage. Both the father and the judges had responsibility to protect and seek justice for the pregnant woman and her children. If that is the case with harm due to carelessness, how much more when harm is premeditated. 

Some, though, interpret it differently. They say the first case involves a penalty for the accidental causing of a miscarriage, and the second case includes a further penalty if the woman is harmed. But even if this interpretation is correct - and I do not think it is - it does not greatly change its implications for abortion. Note that the child dies in both of these cases, and in both there is a penalty. The penalty in the second case is for compound crime toward both the mother and child. It is not comparing the death of the child to the death of the woman. Also, that the accidental causing of a miscarriage is penalized with a fine does not mean the child is not a person or alive. There is also a monetary fine in Exodus 21:32 for the death of a slave (and others, Ex. 21:29-31) by an ox accustomed to gore, but the Bible affirms their personhood and life (e.g. Ex. 21:2, 12, 16, 20, 26-27, Job 31:13-14). 

Numbers 5:11-31

“May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’” (Numbers 5:22)

Some claim that this passage provides a God-approved instance of abortion. This passages describes a highly unique test for when a husband was overcome with jealousy, believing his wife to be guilty of adultery without witnesses to verify the claim.

First, this “trial by ordeal” was different from those found in other nations because it used a symbolic but naturally harmless substance (water with some dust and ink) which could supernaturally produce a harmful result in the guilty, rather than using a naturally harmful substance in the hope that the innocent would be supernaturally delivered.

Second, if this passage refers to the death of an unborn child, it would be God alone who caused this, and so this would not give anyone the right to take this matter into their own hands. God gave life and he can take it away. He has laid a curse upon all mankind in response to our fall into sin that all will die, and he chooses the day of our death.

Third, this passage does not refer to the death of an unborn child. In the case of a guilty woman, it says it would make “your womb swell and your thigh fall away,” or as the CSB puts it, “causing your belly to swell and your womb to shrivel.” These terms are best understood in light of 2:28, which says that the innocent woman “shall be free and shall conceive children.” So rather than referring to miscarriage, the punishment is best understood as a visible disease indicating guilt and causing infertility. In this case, the outcome for the guilty woman would be curse and infertility, while the vindication of the innocent woman would include the blessing of conception and children.

Psalm 51:5

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5)

In this confession of sin written by King David, he confesses not only his sinful acts, but his sinful nature. This verse does not refer to the sins of his mother, since it is a confession of his sins and since it refers in the same way to both his birth and conception. He is stating a fundamental truth in Christian theology that following Adam’s sin, all his descendants by ordinary generation are sinners by nature and under condemnation (Rom. 5:12, 18-19, Eph. 2:3), who may be saved only by Christ (who can save born and unborn infants as well as adults, see next point). As Psalm 51:5 teaches, this sinfulness is true of us from the beginning of our existence. And this begins with conception. If an unborn child can be considered a sinner, then unborn children are to be regarded as distinct living human beings.

Psalms 22:9-10 and 71:5-6

“Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” (Psalm 22:9–10)

“For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 71:5–6)

Not only are unborn children participants in man’s fall, but they may also be participants in man’s renewed covenant with God. God can show this mercy to all unborn children, and he has particularly given us hope regarding the children of believers, to be their God (Gen. 17:6). As the writers of the Psalms looked back to their relationship with God over the years, they could look back even to their life in the womb. If an unborn child can be considered as a believer in God in relationship with him, then unborn children are to be regarded as distinct living human beings made in the image of God.

Judges 13:4-5

“Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (Judges 13:4–5)

These words were spoken by the Lord to the wife of Manoah, telling of how she would conceive and bear Samson. Samson would be a Nazirite from the womb, and so his mother would need to abide by the dietary laws of the Nazirite, since the child receives his nourishment from his mother. A Nazirite was one who was specially consecrated to the Lord (Num. 6:2-3). If an unborn child can be a Nazirite, already bound by Nazirite laws, then unborn children are to be regarded as distinct living human beings made in the image of God.

Luke 1:15, 44

“…he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb for his work of making known the Son of God in the flesh. John began this work while he was yet unborn. When pregnant Mary visited John’s mother Elizabeth, Elizabeth said to her, “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:43-44) Again, this implies that the unborn are distinct living human beings.

Matthew 1:18

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18)

The Son of God took on human nature when he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. He was a distinct living human from his conception onward. Jesus is also eternal God, but with respect to his humanity, he was made like us in every respect, except without sin (Heb. 2:17, 4:15).

Conclusion

The law which commands us, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13, KJV), applies to unborn children. The Bible teaches that we are to regard them as distinct and living human beings made in the image of God, and that therefore we ought not to murder such beings. The Bible makes no distinction within the life in the womb such as viability. It assumes a continuity of personhood and existence from conception to after birth. 

It is a mother’s duty to care for the helpless infant entrusted to her womb, just as it is likewise a father’s duty to care for the infant he has begotten. This parental responsibility of care and protection begins at conception. Often these duties are made easy by the parental affection and fulfillment which often accompanies this work. But things can get quite difficult, especially as we labor under the curse (Gen. 3:16-19), and so these duties ought to be reinforced by encouragement, support, and praise, as well as by custom, education, and law. When things break down to such an extent that a mother begins to contemplate the destruction of her child at the hands of the abortionist, the government has a duty to defend the life of the innocent and protect the unborn child from abortion (Psalm 82:3-4, Prov. 30:8-9, Rom. 13:3-4).

This position should be part of a larger program that supports marriage and the family (Ex. 20:12-14, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Tim. 5:4, 8-16). This includes passing laws such as those that limit divorce (Matt. 19:3-9), deliver the afflicted from violence (Ps. 82:3-4), hold men accountable for premarital sex (Ex. 22:16-17), and punish rapists (Deut. 22:25-27). It also involves extended family and other people and institutions stepping in when the nuclear family breaks down (1 Tim. 5:3-10, Deut. 14:29, Ruth 1-4). But while this full program ought to be promoted, the unborn should not be neglected until everything else is in place. Let them be protected by the law of the land, and let the church call people to turn from this sin and to turn to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who gives forgiveness and hope to all who repent and believe.

A Mother's Love and Duty

“They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children…”
(Titus 2:3–4)

Do young women really need to be taught to love their children? Isn’t a mother’s love proverbial for its constancy, protectiveness, and warmth? Nevertheless, it is clear that this love does need to be taught and encouraged in this fallen world.

It is a mother’s duty to care for the helpless infant entrusted to her womb, just as it is likewise a father’s duty to care for the infant he has begotten. This parental responsibility of care and protection begins at conception. Often these duties are made easy by the parental affection and fulfillment which often accompanies this work. But since things can get difficult, these duties ought to be reinforced by encouragement, support, and praise, as well as by custom, education, and law.

When things break down to such an extent that a mother begins to plan the destruction of her child, the government has a duty to defend the life of the innocent and protect the unborn child from abortion. I pray that the Supreme Court follows through in overruling Roe and Casey, and also that our society turns unto the mercy of God in Christ and his ways of faithfulness and love.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Q. 67: Which is the sixth commandment?

Answer: The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 68: What is required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

Q. 69: What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour, unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto. (WSC)

The primary reason undergirding the sixth commandment can be found in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” God has made man in his own image. To kill a human is to offer violence to God, desecrating his image. Instead, humans are owed a basic respect due to being made in the image of God, a respect which includes all lawful endeavors to preserve human life.

This commandment has great relevance to many contemporary issues. For example, it forbids abortion, because a person’s right to life depends not on independence or mental capacity, but on his or her identity as a human, made in the image of God, which begins at conception. It also forbids racism, that is, animosity, contempt, or injustice on the basis of race, for all people groups are descended from Adam, made in the image of God.

This law against killing is not without exception, as Genesis 9:6 makes clear. The duty to preserve and vindicate human life sometimes requires the taking of human life under God’s authority. It is just to take human life in cases of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense, although even in these cases the Bible gives us directions, qualifications, and limits.

On the other hand, the law does more than prohibit murder. It prohibits causing death by carelessness. It prohibits the attitudes, words, and practices that dishonor the image of God and shows violence to human life. It requires all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others. In general, we might summarize the command with these points:

1. Avoid murderous thoughts (1 John 3:15-18, Titus 3:3), but respond to injury with love (Matt. 5:43-45).

2. Avoid murderous and reviling words (Matt. 5:21-22, James 3:6-10), but use kind and courteous speech (Titus 3:2) and promote peace (Matt. 5:9, Rom. 12:18).

3. Avoid murderous acts (Genesis 9:3-6), but defend and support human life by responsible and charitable provision (James 2:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:8), care for health (1 Tim. 5:23, Prov. 17:22, 23:19-21, Eccl. 10:17, 2 Kings 20:7), self-defense (Ex. 22:2), and supporting the state’s role in public justice (Rom. 13:4, Prov. 31:8-9).

4. Avoid or prevent situations that needlessly endanger yourself or others (Deut. 22:8, Prov. 1:10-11, 15-16).

Abortion, Feminism, and the Creation Order

The point of anti-abortion laws is the same as existing laws against murder. The pro-life position argues that abortion is murder, the unjust taking of innocent human life.

This is why many of the objections to anti-abortion laws make no sense to someone who is pro-life. For example, exceptions for rape and incest do not make sense. Rape and incest should be punished, but they do not justify the killing of an innocent party.

This is not a "war against women." The focus of anti-abortion laws and the pro-life position is on the life of the unborn child. Its goal is not to punish or suppress women - in fact, the pro-life movement has resulted in many charitable efforts to help pregnant women and their children in difficult circumstances.

With that said, egalitarian feminism is waging a war, with unborn children as casualties. This is not true of all feminists - some have opposed abortion, pointing to other solutions such as birth control, adoption, and accommodations in the work place. But a certain type of feminism believes that women need access to abortion to eliminate the difference between men and women and preserve individual autonomy. With its individualist and egalitarian principles, it comes into conflict with nature (that is, the way things are designed to work).

In general, we naturally desire sex, which naturally leads to pregnancy, which naturally leads to distinctions between men and women and their abilities. Fathers and mothers have natural obligations to their children, just as those children will have reciprocal obligations to their parents. All this naturally leads to traditional marriage as the best arrangement for these factors, all of this being designed by God, including marriage.

The conservative and biblical approach is to strengthen marriage and the family (Ex. 20:12-14, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Tim. 5:4, 8-16). This includes passing laws such as those that limit divorce (Matt. 19:3-9), hold men accountable for premarital sex (Ex. 22:16-17), and punish rapists (Deut. 22:25-27). It also involves extended family and other institutions stepping in when the family breaks down (1 Tim. 5:3-10, Deut. 14:29, Ruth 1-4). Its approach is to exhort people to fulfill their natural obligations through custom, education, and law. But the modern theory that affirms a woman’s right to kill her unborn child for the sake of autonomy and equality ultimately denies that such obligations exist, which is a big problem. Like Cain, they distance themselves from the victim and disown their responsibility. "Am I my child's keeper?" As Carl Trueman puts it,

“Abortion is simply one way in which a fictional notion of what it means to be human is reflected in our culture and enabled by law. In denying the obligation of the mother and father to the child, legal abortion denies not simply the personhood of the child in the womb, but also the humanity of the mother and the father.” 

Thoughts on "Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden"

Earlier this month, a group describing themselves as "Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden" issued a short statement explaining their support for Joe Biden for president, asserting that "Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump." That is a bold claim and I think it warrants some criticism.

I think the biggest error in the statement is when it compares the failure of the government to provide more healthcare and childcare with the civil government’s protection and support for murderers (in the case of abortion). Healthcare and childcare are natural responsibilities of the family - even the church needs to be careful to not supplant the family in caring for the needy (1 Timothy 5:3-6). But the civil government's foundational mandate is to punish the one who sheds innocent blood (Gen. 9:6). 

(Besides healthcare and childcare, the other Democratic policy it mentioned is raising the minimum wage, but President Trump has expressed openness to raising the federal minimum wage, although he prefers to gives the states the freedom to make their own decisions on the matter.)

Ironically, while opposing “one issue” political thinking, the statement still boils everything down to being “pro-life.” It neglects the importance of private property and religious liberty, the protection of which are also important duties of civil government. And both are being threatened by present trends in the Democratic party. It also neglects the issue of what role the civil government has in promoting a "biblical shaped ethic of life." The civil government is but one tool in the toolbox in the work of preserving the life of ourselves and our neighbors. 

I agree that a “biblically balanced” agenda is important. If you want to know what I think that looks like, check out this post: The Duty of Civil Government. Both political parties in our country fall short in some ways. Yet I am far from being convinced that Joe Biden’s policies reflect this biblical agenda more than Donald Trump’s. 

A Few Points on the Current Abortion Debate

The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City

As Alabama and Missouri have recently passed relatively strong laws against abortion, there has been an escalation of the already strong debate in our society on the subject of abortion and the state. I have posted here in the past on the case against abortion from the Bible and the church fathers. Here I want to make a few points on the current debate on anti-abortion legislation.

1. The point of anti-abortion laws is the same as existing laws against murder. The pro-life position argues that abortion is murder, the unjust taking of innocent human life.

This is why exceptions for rape and incest make no sense to someone who is pro-life. Rape should be strongly punished, but it does not justify the killing of an innocent party.

This is also why the argument for "safe, legal" abortions as opposed to "unsafe, illegal" abortions makes no sense - the fact that robbery and murder are illegal do make those actions more dangerous, but this is not an argument to make them legal (in this vein, see this satire article). It is the job of the civil government to protect and vindicate innocent life and punish those who take it unjustly.

2. Anti-abortion legislation, like all legislation against crime, is a moral issue, so it is no surprise that religion is involved. This is why the argument against imposing my religious views on others does not hold weight. If you asked me why murder, stealing, or perjury is wrong and unjust, I would also appeal to my religious beliefs. Non-Christians still have some god-like authoritative source for their moral judgments, which they then seek to impose by law in society. (And few object to the imposition of religious beliefs when they are invoked to support the fair treatment of minorities and immigrants.)

"Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law. Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society" (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 4). 

3. This is not a "war against women," but a certain type of feminism is waging a war against the unborn. In line with my first point, the focus of anti-abortion laws and the pro-life position is on the life of the unborn child. Its goal is not to punish or suppress women - in fact, the pro-life movement has resulted in many charitable efforts to help pregnant women and their children in difficult circumstances. With that said, egalitarian feminism does come into conflict with nature. With its insistence that men and women must have identical options, abilities, and positions, it runs into the fact that men and women are created with different bodies.

In general, we are created to naturally desire sex, which naturally leads to pregnancy, which naturally leads to distinctions between men and women and their abilities. All this naturally leads to traditional marriage as the best arrangement for these factors, all of this being designed by God. The conservative and biblical approach is to strengthen marriage, passing laws such as those that limit divorce (Matt. 19:3-9), hold men accountable for premarital sex (Ex. 22:16-17), and punish rapists (Deut. 22:25-27). But egalitarian and individualist theories have sought to get rid of all distinctions between men and women, even if it means killing the unborn.

Now some feminists, including many of the founders of feminism, have not taken their position to this extreme and have opposed abortion, pointing to other solutions such as birth control, adoption, and accommodations in the work place. But a certain type of feminism believes that women need the ability to have their unborn children killed so they can be free and equal. But it is a sorry version of freedom and equality that requires women to betray their own unborn offspring and have the innocent murdered. So yes, the pro-life position does conflict with a certain type of feminism, but this is because this type of feminism is waging a war on unborn children.

Biblical Priorities for Election Day

As we approach Election Day, it is a good time to remember that nations are accountable to serve God in their political capacity. Christians in particular ought to set an example of obedience to God in the civil realm. And His word is not silent on the matter. So how does Scripture guide our choice of civil leaders?

1. Choose those who are of good character. Whether in church or state, when the Bible lists qualification for an office, it emphasizes character. When Israel chose its leaders, it was told to choose "men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe" (Ex. 18:21) and "wise" (Deut. 1:13). This responsibility does not seem unique to Israel, since it came from Jethro, a non-Israelite. Indeed, Proverbs states that "It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness" (16:12) and "Fine speech is not becoming to a fool; still less is false speech to a prince" (17:7). The fear of God results in good character that is governed by the law of God, both one's personal life and in his public calling. Israel's king, who was to be a model for the nations, was to write out and study God's word so that "he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them" (17:19). Those who do not submit to God's law in their positions and behavior will be prone to be untrustworthy and tyrannical, being driven by their whims or the fear of man, vulnerable to bribes and threats.

2. Choose those who are are skilled. Israel was also told to choose "able men" (Ex. 18:21), "wise, understanding, and experienced men" (Deut. 1:13). Good character is essential, but someone with good character might still be ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities of the office. Civil leaders need practical wisdom, discernment, and communication skills, as well as the knowledge required to accomplish the task. It was a curse to Israel when their civil leaders were (at least figuratively) "infants" (Is. 3:4, 12; Eccl. 10:16). Being young in age is not an insurmountable obstacle (e.g. Solomon and Josiah were good but young leaders), but leaders who are lacking in the ability and discernment which often (though not always) comes with experience should be avoided, especially for the more important roles. And less experienced leaders would do well to take Solomon's approach: "O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in...Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?” (1 Kings 3:7, 9).

3. Choose those who have their priorities straight. Civil leaders bear authority delegated to them from God, and as such they are responsible to Him for its use. We ought to choose leaders who understand what their main tasks are. Fundamentally, the civil government is a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). It upholds justice by overseeing restitution to the victim and administering punishments for crime. Its first and most basic task was to execute the murderer: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (Gen. 9:6). Innocent human life was to be vindicated by the power of the sword. Today, innocent human life is taken across our country by the practice of abortion. It should be a priority for civil leaders to criminalize this practice. Also, a primary priority of godly men and women in pagan governments that we find in the Bible (e.g. Joseph, Daniel, Esther) is the protection of God's people, the church. Those who bless God's people shall be blessed, and those who persecute or trouble God's people pick a fight with God (Gen. 12:3, Matt. 10:40-42, Is. 60:19-14).

4. Choose those who seek to maximize freedom for their people. Civil leaders with their priorities straight will not get carried away with taking on tasks beyond their calling. They will not seek to be an aggressive military power since the power of the sword they have is for justice and defense. They will not seek to take over education, health, and welfare, since these are responsibilities of family, neighbors, associations, communities, and churches. It might step in as a last resort, but this is regrettable and a sign of failure among the people. A wise and good leader will not burden his people with excessive taxation (Prov. 29:4, Amos 5:11, 1 Sam. 8:11-18, 1 Kings 12), which also requires limits on spending, since debt is also generally unwise and enslaving (Prov. 22:7). The goal for civil leaders should be freedom and peace for the people so that, as Paul says, "we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim. 2:2).

The Biblical Case Against Abortion

A little while back I posted some quotes from several early church fathers where they clearly condemned abortion. I also expounded on one of those quotes on my other blog. Here I want to make the biblical case against abortion.

While the Bible does not explicitly deal with abortion, it does condemn the murder of human people and recognizes unborn children as such, seeing continuity between before and after birth.

1. The Bible condemns murder, and does so because man is made in the image of God:

"You shall not murder."

(Exodus 20:13)

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image."

(Genesis 9:6)

2. The Bible presents unborn children as people having individual relationships with God (sometimes with personal faith), and with each other:

"...and Rebekah his wife conceived. The children struggled together within her, and she said, 'If it is thus, why is this happening to me?' So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her,

'Two nations are in your womb,

and two peoples from within you shall be divided;

the one shall be stronger than the other,

the older shall serve the younger.'

When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob."

(Genesis 25:21b-26)

"On you was I cast from my birth,

and from my mother's womb you have been my God."

(Psalm 22:10)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

and in sin did my mother conceive me."

(Psalm 51:5)

"Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;

you are he who took me from my mother's womb.

My praise is continually of you."

(Psalm 71:6)

"...he [John] will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

(Luke 1:15)

"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...'For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.'"

(Luke 1:41, 44)

3. Because unborn children are thus human persons with souls, the law of God provides legal protection of unborn children:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

(Exodus 21:22-25)

In this passage even the non-intentional causing of a premature birth without injury involved is punished with a fine. If there is injury caused, then there should be civil punishment fitting to the damage (life for life, etc...). Obviously the intentional practice of causing the death of the unborn child would be very strictly punished according to biblical law. 

Some argue that the harm referred to is harm to the woman and that a miscarriage is being discussed. But the word for miscarriage is not used here, nor do the words used indicate such a meaning, and the harm is not specified to the woman, but harm to either woman or child seems to be meant. But even if they are right, the passage still shows that in an accidental case of causing miscarriage (i.e. manslaughter) there is a fine. If it was an intentional causing of the death of the unborn child, more than a fine would be expected as the civil penalty.

4. Other considerations include:

God makes and cares for the unborn baby in a personal way (e.g. Psalms 139:13-16).

The person of Jesus Christ took on human nature (added to his person) and lived His human life from conception onwards (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:31-35).

Thus, the unborn child is a human person, and the child being unborn does not exempt the intentional killing of the unborn child from being murder, which is contrary to God's law and is sin. It should be resisted by individuals, families, churches, and civil governments, with their proper authority, lest our land continue to be defiled by this sin.

5. One more point. Killing children, born and unborn, is not only a sin, but a judgement upon a people:

"Samaria shall bear her guilt,

because she has rebelled against her God;

they shall fall by the sword;

their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,

and their pregnant women ripped open."

(Hosea 13:16)

See also: Deuteronomy 28:53-57, Isaiah 13:16, Nahum 3:10, Psalm 137:8-9

Thus, not only ought we to oppose abortion, but we also ought to repent of our sins, and of our nation's sins, relying on God's grace and salvation.

Early Church Fathers on Abortion

You might remember me posting the quote from the Didache (c. AD 90) "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant." Well here are a few more quotes from fellow Christians who wrote 1,800-1,900 years ago on the subject of abortion.

The Epistle of Barnabas 19:5, (AD 80-120), in declaring the way of life, says "Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born. Thou shalt not withhold thy hand from thy son or daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of God."

Clement (AD 190) in The Paedagogus, Book 2, Chapter 10 "Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings." Clement also in describing the main themes of the Christian community says, "Abortion is killing human life that is under God’s care, design and providence."

Tertullian (AD 160-240) writes in The Apology, Chapter 9: "In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed."

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 222) in The Refutation of All Heresies Book 9, Chapter 7 says, "Women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!"