When the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in January 1973 ruled that the US Constitution protects the right to abortion, CT showed no hesitation in decrying both the legal reasoning and the moral travesty of abortion.
This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people, as expressed in the now vacated abortion laws of almost all states, including 1972 laws in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, and recently clearly reaffirmed by state-wide referendums in two states (Michigan and North Dakota).
We would not normally expect the Court to consider the teachings of Christianity and paganism before rendering a decision on the constitutionality of a law, but in this case it has chosen to do so, and the results are enlightening: it has clearly decided for paganism, and against Christianity, and this in disregard even of democratic sentiment, which in this case appears to follow Christian tradition and to reject permissive abortion legislation.
The Court notes that “ancient religion” did not bar abortion (Roe et al. v. Wade, No. 70–18 [1973], VI, 1); by “ancient religion,” it clearly means paganism, since Judaism and Christianity did bar abortion. …
Having previously seen fit to ban the formal, admittedly superficial, and possibly hypocritical acknowledgment of God that used to take place in public-school prayers and Bible readings, the Court has now repudiated the Old Testament’s standards on capital punishment as cruel and without utility, and has rejected the almost universal consensus of Christian moral teachers through the centuries on abortion. Its latest decision reveals a callous utilitarianism about children in the womb that harmonizes little with the extreme delicacy of its conscience regarding the imposition of capital punishment.
CT noted that many commentators seemed to think only Roman Catholics were opposed to abortion, but that just wasn’t the case, quoting Maryland Rep. Lawrence J. Hogan.
Hogan said that much anti-abortion activity comes from Protestant ranks. In Maryland, he said, a Baptist minister is heading the fight, and in Minnesota the anti-abortion leaders are Lutheran. He added that Orthodox Jews are also strongly against abortion. Reform Jews, however, seem to favor abortion. …
Protestant leaders seem divided on the issue. While the Baptist minister in Maryland opposes abortion, W. A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, seemed satisfied with the high court’s ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” …
Two Protestant theologians, Albert C. Outler of Southern Methodist University and J. Robert Nelson of Boston University School of Theology, disapprove of the decision. The two men, both Methodists, disagree with their denomination’s official position, which is strongly pro-abortion.
CT also noticed a need for Christians to think clearly on another moral issue in 1973: homosexuality.
The last two years have witnessed a flood of literature advocating tolerance, approval, and even a kind of appreciation for homosexual behavior. Much of this writing comes from ostensibly Christian quarters. Because of the religious or Christian language in which the prohomosexuality arguments are often couched, evangelicals need to familiarize themselves with the biblical approach to this problem.
Editor in chief Harold Lindsell took on the issue in “Homosexuals and the Church.”
My purpose here is not to consider the case for or against laws restricting homosexual conduct. Nor will I discuss whether homosexuals should be given equal job opportunities in business, government, and the armed forces. I will not here make a case against private homosexual activities between consenting adults. My intention is to deal with two questions: What is the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality? And what should the attitude of the churches be toward the place of homosexuals in their midst? …
I exclude from discussion non-practicing homosexuals; there is no reason why they should not be received into any church and ordained to any ministry. My concern here is with practicing homosexuals. …
Everywhere Scripture dictates that believers are to love sinners even as they hate their sins. The lack of compassion many Christians show for homosexuals is inexcusable. It may be easier to show compassion for the drunkard and the adulterer than for the homosexual. But this ought not to be. Christians who are deeply offended by homosexual behavior must still reflect the compassion of Christ for sheep who have gone astray. And they must have a heart of loving concern for homosexuals’ redemption and for their personhood, however much it has been defiled by sin.
CT reported that some evangelicals were also very concerned about feminism in 1973 and the changing social exception for women in American society.
The credit or blame for the most provocative remark to be heard during a church convention so far this year probably goes to Mrs. Harold Walker of Fort Smith, Arkansas. “Most church problems are caused by women!” she told the National Women’s Auxiliary of the American Baptist Association last month. Mrs. Walker, a thirtyish pastor’s wife and mother, made the observation in an address to the auxiliary in which she roundly denounced women’s lib.
“I believe Paul knew what he was talking about when he placed woman in her rightful place in the church,” said Mrs. Walker. “If you have been in church work very long, you know that most church problems are caused by women—women who rebel against fulfilling their God-given position.”
Some 1,000 women were on hand for the auxiliary meeting, which preceded the annual national-messenger of the ABA in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The magazine also gave space, though, to an evangelical woman who argued that feminism was deeply Christian.
The original women’s rights movement was fervently religious. For the most part, nineteenth-and early twentieth-century feminists professed Christianity and took the Bible seriously. When critics hurled theological arguments against them, they sought to answer with well-reasoned rebuttals. Christian feminists of the 1970s may find it helpful to see how they waged the battle. …
The feminists liked to refer to the first chapter of Genesis, pointing out that God created both male and female human beings in his image and gave them joint dominion over the earth. Alluding to Psalm 8, Quaker abolitionist Angelina Grimke wrote that woman (like man, created in God’s image) was “crowned with glory and honor; created only a little lower than the angels—not, as is almost universally assumed, a little lower than man.” Woman at creation was given the same honor, privileges, and responsibilities as man.
Critics who opposed equality for women bypassed Genesis 1 and preferred to stress Genesis 2. This chapter clearly taught, they insisted, that woman was created for man and that man was superior to woman. Wasn’t Eve given to Adam to be his helpmate? Wasn’t it obvious that God intended the woman to honor and serve the man rather than to have her own independent existence?
No, said Christian feminists. They could not believe that woman had been created as an afterthought, solely for man’s benefit. One way they refuted this interpretation was to argue that the words translated “a help meet for him” could just as well be rendered “a helper like unto himself.” The expression did not signify weakness, subservience, and inferiority. (After all, God himself is spoken of in Scripture as our helper.)
CT editors were very interested in a massive, multi-denominational push for evangelism in 1973, dedicating numerous articles over the course of the year to “Key 73.”
When this vision abruptly broke upon the American church scene, it met with spontaneous, unconditional acceptance. How wonderful for North America! Replace disunity and cynicism and selfishness with the flame of God’s love moving from heart to heart! Reach every home with a winsome witness to Jesus Christ! And yet, will it happen? Why shouldn’t it happen? Others have written in these columns that action is the order of the day: let each Christian select a personal evangelistic project and begin to put heart and strength into its accomplishment. American and Canadian churches will be transformed! Imagine the difference if every Christian begins to say: “God works through me; God works where I am!” Imagine the many new converts who will join them in the worship and service of God!
But can this vision be realized? Can we actually come under the compulsion of God’s Spirit so that we are transformed into God’s envoys to the unbelieving world around us? I believe so.
A mid-year check-in reported that Key 73 was seeing “phenomenal” results.
Although the first phase in many places began unspectacularly, there were already impressive pilot programs in 1972, and Christians in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Detroit, and Seattle, among other metropolises, found their stride in the first weeks of the new year. … Scripture distribution quickly accelerated to the point where the American Bible Society was dispatching 600,000 to 700,000 copies of Luke-Acts weekly. …
On the local level, there are impressive reports of evangelical engagement. In one New York area, twenty-one churches in the Kenmore-Tonawanda region, spurred by Kenmore Baptist Church, distributed 50,000 copies of Touched by the Fire (Luke-Acts) by personal presentation house to house on a Sunday afternoon in March.
CT continued to inform readers about Christians in Communist-controlled countries. Carl F. H. Henry reported that, despite persecution, Christians in places like Burma refused to give up the faith. In fact, the church saw “survival and growth.”
When nearly all the missionaries were ordered out of Burma in 1966, many observers feared the worst. But the church in Burma is very much alive and is growing—evidence, perhaps, that the early missions efforts provided a solid base for the church to carry on with its own leadership. …
Ten years ago General U Ne Win ushered in a socialist government and isolationist policies after wresting control from then Premier U Nu. Since that time the country has deteriorated steadily on the economic front. Rice and teak exports have dwindled. Warring insurgents control nearly half the land area. Because of these and other factors, inflation has hurt Burma—and the churches—badly. Small churches have a difficult time paying a full-time pastor. Some pool their funds to hire one man to work on a circuit basis.
All the denominationally supported general-education schools were nationalized in the mid-sixties. However, the Bible schools and seminaries are still open, and more than forty Bible schools hold classes. … Street meetings are still carried on, and Bible distribution is taking place. Radio scripts are produced in the country and shipped to Bangkok for production and later airing on Far East Broadcasting Company transmitters from Manilla.
Not all issues of 1973 were as clear-cut as Communist persecution, sexual ethics, and abortion, however. CT went back and forth on the seriousness of reports that some people working for President Richard Nixon broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex.
At stake are moral and ethical issues that cannot be overlooked. Citizens have a right to expect their government to act uprightly. When public figures breach the common canons of conduct, every citizen should be morally outraged. …
We will accept at face value the claim of the President that he was not personally involved in the sordid Watergate affair. But now that he knows of its existence and is aware of the names of those who have already been tried and found guilty, and probably of others who have not yet been brought to justice, his duty is clear. It is Mr. Nixon’s solemn responsibility as President and as a Christian to see that the matter is thoroughly and fully investigated, that executive privilege is waived so that the facts can be uncovered, and that the full weight of the judicial processes is employed to guarantee that justice is done.
Mr. Nixon has one other responsibility. He should purge his administration of all who have been involved in this squalid affair. In this way people everywhere will know that his administration will not put up with this sort of thing, and even more, that he himself has taken a stand for ethical and moral principles that have suffered so greatly because of Watergate.
Editors stated that Watergate went beyond standard political intelligence gathering, but noted that Washington immorality was rampant:
The illegal acts that the term [Watergate] now signifies must be condemned.
Billy Graham … commented that Watergate is “a symptom of the deeper moral crisis that affects society.” How right he is! Anyone at all familiar with the Washington scene knows there are skeletons stacked high in some congressional closets. If all these doors were opened, the Watergate scandal would no doubt rate only second billing.
The magazine was also alarmed at allegations that the immorality of the Nixon administration was somehow the fault of evangelicals, since the president was closely associated with Billy Graham and regularly invited ministers to lead worship services in the White House.
None of this can be laid at the door of revivalism and pietism. Evangelical evangelists including Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Finney, Moody, Torrey, and Graham have always preached against such sins. Billy Graham put it clearly: “Lying, cheating, stealing, fornication, and adultery are always wrong. They are a breach of God’s law no matter who does them.” The Watergate and Pentagon Papers malefactors operated on the principle that the end justified the means, a principle that Hitler’s Eichmann used so murderously.
Evangelicals believe in ethical absolutes and have always said that good ends must be secured by right means. …
The Watergate and Pentagon Papers malefactors may have had plenty of religion; what they lacked was genuine Christianity and obedience to the Ten Commandments. If they had refused to lie, cheat, and steal, there would have been no Pentagon Papers case and no Watergate. If the principles advocated by revivalists and pietists had been upheld, there would have been no need for a Senate investigating committee (which, we might add, has on the whole produced a regrettable spectacle in which prejudice and an accusatory attitude seem to belie claims of objectivity).
It wasn’t the last time that evangelical association with political leaders would raise ethical questions.
The post Troubling Moral Issues in 1973 appeared first on Christianity Today.
