This is the next in our series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we’re looking at the section on pornography that’s at the end of Chapter 7 (which is on marriage).

Is pornography sinful?

Grudem starts off by pointing out that the Bible portrays sex outside of marriage as sin. He cites over a dozen passages which talk about adultery and fornication as sinful. Grudem then goes on to point out that God is concerned with our attitudes as well as our actions, citing Exodus 20:17 (don’t covet) – which explicitly forbids a man from wanting somebody else’s wife sexually. He then points out that in Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said that lusting after somebody is to commit adultery with them in your heart. He then goes on to cite Ezekiel 23:14-17 as an example of how sexual sin progresses. Because pornography is material designed to make us lust after somebody, Grudem rightly concludes that Christians should consider using porn to be morally wrong.

What is the practical effect of pornography?

Grudem says that a married man who uses pornography robs his wife of emotional affection, and turns his heart away from her. He says that it hinders that marriage’s sexual relationship, and will have long-lasting effects on the marriage. He also says that the man’s wife will often have a sense of this, even if she never discovers that he is using porn.

Grudem also says that there a number of sociological studies that detail the harmful effects of pornography on people who use it, and points to a report produced by the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, which summarises the impact. He cites passages from the report that say that porn causes deception within marriages, that it can lead to divorce, that it promotes adultery, prostitution, and unreal expectations. It also expresses concern at the general sexualisation of the media – saying that children now receive the majority of their sex education from the media.

He says that the report identifies several false messages about sex sent by our culture, namely.

• Sex with anyone, under any circumstances, any way it is desired, is beneficial and does not have negative consequences
• Women have one value – to meet the sexual demands of men
• Marriage and children are obstacles to sexual fulfillment
• Everyone is involved in promiscuous sexual activity, infidelity,and premarital sex

It also deals with pornography as an addiction, and estimates that around 6-8% of Americans are sex addicts. Grudem then points out that sex clubs and strip parlours tend to attract criminal activity – the most notable statistic cited is that the number of sex offences in areas of Phoenix with adult businesses is 506% higher than in other areas.

How should this affect politics?

Grudem believes that looking at pornography should not be a criminal offence, reasoning that there are no laws against the worse sin of fornication, and that where there have been they have not been enforced. He does, however, think that creating and distributing pornographic material should be illegal, as it hurts society as a whole. He then goes into a US-specific issue of how this squares with the first amendment to the US constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech), pointing out that obscene material has always been an exception alongside things like incitement to riot. Finally, he claims that past successes in restricting pornographic materia mean that such laws can be easily enforced.

The elephant in the room

Many discussions about regulating pornographic material fail to mention the 21st Century elephant in the room – the internet. Grudem makes passing reference to it in the final paragraph of this section. He cites an ABA Journal article which says “… the real reason Internet obscenity has not been tackled stems from the fact that law enforcement seems not to have the time, resources, or inclination to pursue it”.

This sentiment seems to me to be somewhat naive. The internet is a vast international network. If one nation passes laws against pornography, then porn websites will simply move to a country that allows their material. If one site gets shut down and its owners are prosecuted, then several more will quickly take its place. That’s exactly what has happened with attempts to bring down filesharing websites, and there’s no reason to believe that porn websites would follow a different path.

The only way to effectively regulate anything but the most extreme (and universally objectionable) internet content is to enact filtering software to block the material at some point between the website and the end user, rather than to hunt down those running the site. And even that is anything but foolproof – such software will always let some objectionable content through, censor some non-objectionable content, or most likely both.

In conclusion, Grudem is right that pornography is something that Christians should find morally objectionable, and that it does have many negative consequences. But I think he’s wrong to say that it’s something that can be effectively regulated by national governments in the internet age.

Bookmark to:

This is the next in our series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we’re looking at chapter 7, on the issue of marriage. Before we start on what Grudem actually does say, it’s worth pointing out that the chapter doesn’t mention promiscuity and cohabitation, which are, in reality, the biggest threats to the institution of marriage. Perhaps he doesn’t think that there’s anything that can be done about these problems in the political realm, or that his suggested policies to protect marriage will automatically reduce the rate of both promiscuity and cohabitation.

What is marriage?

Grudem starts off with the early chapters of Genesis, pointing to Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Genesis 2:25), that their marriage established a pattern for humanity (Genesis 2:23-24), and that having children was a significant part of the purpose of marriage (Genesis 1:27-28). He then points out that this was Jesus’ understanding of marriage (Matthew 19:3-6),and that marriage was originally intended as a lifelong relationship (Matthew 19:8). He also notes that faithfulness to your spouse is an important part of marriage, citing the command to not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14, Matthew 19:18, Romans 2:22; 13:9, James 2:11), although he does allow that there are some circumstances where divorce is acceptable..

He goes on to say that this definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman was intended to be universal, rather than part of a law meant for the Jewish people. He notes that it dates back to the beginning of humanity, that God holds people from all nations to account for not holding to it (Jude 7, Genesis 12:17-20, Leviticus 18:27, Mark 6:17-18, Revelation 18:3,9). Grudem therefore says that Christians should argue for government to adopt that definition of marriage.

He also says that marriage is the most fundamental institution in any society. He bases this on the fact that marriage is instituted right at the beginning of the Bible, before any other human institution. He argues that the institution is universal – all societies have had some form of marriage, and have recognised and protected it. He cites the work of anthropologist J D Unwin, who looked at the decline of eighty six cultures, and said that “strict marital monogamy” was central to social energy and growth, and that no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Unwin said that there was “no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and post-nuptial continence” (i.e. abstaining from sex outside of marriage).

Grudem also notes in passing that the Bible forbids incest (Leviticus 18:1-18; 20:11-20, Deuteronomy 22:30, 1 Corinthians 5:1-2).

Furthermore, Grudem thinks that it is the role of government to define and regulate marriage, as it fits three of the purposes of government – restraining evil, bringing good in society, and bringing order to society, and lists several reasons why he thinks it does each of these jobs. He points out that government is the only institution that can define marriage for an entire society.

He also says that government should encourage marriage because of the unique benefits it brings to a society. In particular, he says that the first benefit is that marriage provides the best environment for having babies, in terms of security, the child having both a mother and a father who care and provide for it, a greater chance of both parents sticking with it and supporting both each other and the child. He has a long list of ways in which he believes married couples raise and nurture children more effectively than any other relationship. Grudem believes that extending benefits for married couples to other forms of relationships means that society is encouraging harm for the nation by reducing the incentives to marriage.

What about Gay Marriage or Polygamy?

Grudem deals with the most controversial political issue surrounding marriage by pointing to five Bible verses prohibiting gay sex. These are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Grudem rejects the claim that these passages refer to only particular types of gay sex on the basis that the passages do not make such distinctions. He doesn’t deal with claims I’ve seen before that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (and it may well be the same word in 1 Timothy 1:9-10) has been mistranslated, and that it doesn’t refer to gay sex at all. He cites several a number of writings from near the era of the New Testament which use similar language to these passages to refer to gay sex.

He cites Jeffrey Satinover,a psychiatrist who has lectured at both Yale and Harvard, as an authority who argues that gay sexual practices (particularly anal sex) causes medical harm, and that gay men are far more promiscuous.

On polygamy, Grudem says that Biblical examples of polygamy are cases where God allowed it, even though it wasn’t His original plan for marriage. He points out that there are numerous examples in the Bible where polygamy leads to problems within a marriage or a family, that it doesn’t treat women as equal in value to their husbands (as passages like Genesis 1:27 or 1 Peter 3:7 say should be the case), and that polygamy is explicitly forbidden for church leaders (1 Timothy 3:2).

What about Divorce?

Grudem points out that the law of Moses assumes divorce will happen in some form (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Leviticus 21:7, 14, Numbers 30:9). And cites Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 as evidence that divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality (i.e. adultery) is not sinful, whilst divorce for other reasons probably is. He also cites 1 Corinthians 7:15, where Paul suggests that divorce is acceptable where an unbelieving spouse deserts their Christian husband or wife.

On the basis of this, he argues that the law should seek to protect married couples from abandonment by their spouse and from harm. He advocates mandatory counselling and significant mandatory waiting periods before a divorce could take place. He also advocates abandoning no-fault divorce – returning to a situation where divorce required evidence of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. He also advocates serious penalties (including jail time) for physically abusive spouses, and a strict reinforcement of the obligation for financial support, though I’m not sure exactly what he means by that.

The Legal Case

Grudem also makes some legal arguments relating solely to the US. He points out that appeals courts in the US have repeatedly held that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting marriage between one man and one woman, that no right to either polygamy or gay marriage is found in the US Constitution, argues that restricting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate anybody’s fundamental rights (he compares gay people demanding the right to marry another man/woman to a man demanding the right to marry his sister or his mother), and he wants to see an amendment to the US Constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Is this imposing morality?

Grudem argues that his viewpoint is not trying to impose a Christian moral standard on society, but is attempting to persuade others that these moral standards are beneficial.

So what does Grudem think marriage policy should look like?

Grudem wants to see the law define marriage as between one man and one woman, and that the law should also keep historical and traditional standards such as having a minimum age for getting married, insisting on consent, preventing bigamy, and preventing incest. He believes that known homosexuals should continue to be prohibited from military service, citing several sources who say that it would have detrimental effects on military morale and effectiveness. He believes that the principle of freedom of association means that private organisations should be allowed to exclude gays from certain positions (he cites the Boy Scouts’ refusal to allow gay scoutmasters).

He thinks that gay and lesbian relationships should not be granted the status of marriage. He is doubtful about the possibility of civil partnerships, but believes that if they are adopted they should be available to a wider variety of long-term relationships (e.g. two siblings living together in a non-sexual relationship). He is happy with gay couples getting rights like hospital visitation and access to medical records, but not to financial benefits. He says that such benefits are intended to encourage the bearing of children, and that granting them would imply that society actively approves of (rather than merely accepts) such relationships.

He also argues that homosexuals should not be considered a “protected class”, which would mean that they have special rights to protect them against discrimination. The basis of his stance here is that those whose morality says that gay sex is wrong would be unable by law to act in a way that it is consistent with those beliefs.

He doesn’t, however, think that there should be laws banning gay sex, because laws prohibiting private consensual acts between unrelated adults are seldom or never enforced, and hence pointless. He also points out that any attempt to enforce such laws would inevitably mean excessive government intrusion into peoples’ private lives.

How close is Grudem to the Bible on this issue?

I think, reading this, that Grudem has missed one element of the Bible’s teaching on the issue from his analysis. As Christians, we should not expect the society in which we live to come anywhere close to living out our sexual morality. In 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul is shocked that one member of the Corinthian church not only fails to live up to Christian moral standards, but even manages to do something that would scandalise the pagan culture of Corinth. The clear implication is that Paul expects those outside the church to have lower standards than those inside it. This doesn’t mean that Christians can’t try to raise a society’s level of morality, but it does mean that we should not expect to be successful in doing so.

As I said in the intro, the main problem with this section is that Grudem focuses almost exclusively on the issue of homosexuality, with a brief diversion into the issue of polygamy. A fully Biblical approach to the politics of marriage in the 21st Century surely has to say something about generic sexual promiscuity and cohabitation – which are, by far, the biggest threats to the institution. Grudem however, mentions these issues only in passing. Yes, Gay marriage is a live political issue in a way that promiscuity and cohabitation aren’t, but that’s not a good reason to exclude them from the debate.

On divorce, I agree that many of the measures he cites would bring down the divorce rate – particularly compulsory counselling for couples seeking a divorce (though clearly there has to be an exception in cases where there is evidence of abuse on either side). Even those who want to see divorce made relatively easy have to admit that a large number of marriages that end in divorce could be saved if the couple were willing to put a bit of effort into reconciliation. The modern cliché of “we just don’t love each other any more” is a problem that can usually be overcome if both parties make an effort. Love is at least as much something we do as something we feel.

When it comes to the issue of gay marriage, I don’t have space to properly look at the arguments for and against the Bible teaching that gay sex is sinful (that would take a whole series of posts). But I will argue that believing it to be sinful doesn’t necessarily mean you take Grudem’s hardline anti-gay-rights approach (just as accepting that it is morally acceptable doesn’t necessarily commit you to supporting gay marriage). To me, Grudem’s policy suggestions on the issue feel very “ivory tower”, rather than interacting with what can actually be achieved. This may, in part, be a difference between the US and UK political situation as here in the UK revoking civil partnerships (which are, legally speaking, identical to marriage) could only happen following a seismic cultural shift in attitudes towards homosexuality. In any case, his approach lacks the sophistication of somebody like Peter Ould, who regularly interacts with the gay community.

Grudem’s arguments for preserving the traditional definition of marriage are definitely something that can be applied in the political sphere. However, given that we live in a society where same-sex relationships are both commonplace and socially acceptable, it does seems somewhat bizarre to argue that a democratic government should limit its recognition of those relationships. If Christians, or anybody else, wants to change government policy in this regard, then changing society’s attitudes is a necessary first step. Unless and until that happens, the gay rights movement will hold the ground it has won over the last few decades.

If Christians want to protect the institution of marriage, then our first priority in doing so has to be to model good marriages to the society around us. If we genuinely believe marriage to be the bedrock of a society then we need to act in ways that help change the current trends ofpromiscuity and cohabitation – demonstrating the benefits of both Biblical singlehood and Biblical marriage over the kinds of sexual relationships that currently dominate our society. Without doing that, any attempt to make political changes will prove as farcical as the infamous “Back to Basics” campaign the Conservative government ran back in the early 90s.

In short, there are more effective ways of defending marriage than focusing on the issue of homosexuality. Proposing changes in the law is somewhat futile unless and until society starts viewing sex in terms of morality rather than in terms of fun, freedom and self-expression. At most, a law-based approach will hold the fort against the sexual morality that has dominated Western society since the 1960s. And whilst Grudem may be thinking in terms of what his ideal set of laws would be, rather than about how Christians can take effective political action on the issue, this is an area of policy where the cultural context absolutely determines the political possibilities. And for a book about politics, missing that makes it fairly clear that Grudem is writing a theoretical book rather than one that can realistically be put into practice.

Bookmark to:

This is the next in the series of articles critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we look at the section on the death penalty. This is the only point where Grudem looks at the principles behind the criminal justice system (which is the wider context in which we have to look at this issue), so let’s start by looking at his arguments about that, before diving into the death penalty itself

Should we punish criminals?

There are a wide range of opinions about what our criminal justice system should aim to do. Should it be there to extract revenge on behalf of the victims, to punish criminals for what they’ve done, to deter them from doing it in the first place, to keep them locked up and away from the rest of society, or to reform and rehabilitate them? Most people consider it to be for most or all of those purposes at once, and the balance varies from country to country.

Grudem starts with some verses in Romans. Romans 12:19 says that Christians should not seek revenge – instead we should forgive those who wrong us. This carries on in Romans 12:20-21 by encouraging us to give good things to those who do us wrong, and to overcome evil with good. Then, a few verses later, Romans 13:4 says that government exists, in part, to avenge wrongs and carry out God’s wrath against wrongdoers. Grudem’s conclusion is that, as Christians, we should want government to carry out God’s vengeance against criminals.

He basically divides the two differing statements in this passage into, on one hand, showing personal kindness towards criminals (including praying for their salvation), and on the other wanting the legal process to pay the criminal back for what he (or she) has done. In arguing that Christians should want to see crimes avenged, he also cites Revelation 6:9-10 – where Christians in heaven (who are no longer sinful) express this desire.

Whilst these passages do seem to weight the criminal justice debate far more towards the punitive end of the spectrum than I would like, they do also offer considerable scope for Christians to push for more restorative forms of criminal justice. The theme of the verses that finish off chapter 12 is best summarised in Romans 12:14, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse”. And this appears to be the main thrust of verse 21′s command to “overcome evil with good”. This kind of approach is crucial to the rehabilitation side of criminal justice, and, in my view, we should try to ensure that there is enough of that in the system.

So, does the Bible endorse capital punishment?

Grudem starts with the Old Testament, going back to Genesis 9:5-6, where God – speaking to Noah – demands the death penalty for murder on the basis that we are made in the image of God. Because this was a command to Noah, Grudem believes that it applies to all of humanity. He also cites Romans 13:4, where government is described as “bearing the sword”. He says that this must mean the death penalty (rather than being symbolic of authority) because of various other Bible passages that refer to it as the instrument of death. He also cites Peter 2:13-14, which talks about government punishing the criminal, but does not say anything about the means.

Grudem also deals with a number of Biblical objections to his view. He points out that Exodus 20:13 (often translated “you shall not kill”) refers to murder, and not necessarily to all killing. He says that Matthew 5:38-39, where Jesus advocates going beyond “eye for an eye” (limiting the punishment to be proportional to the crime) to “turn the other cheek” refers to the actions of individuals, not to those of governments. He dismisses the idea that Matthew 22:39 (love your neighbour as yourself) is an argument against the death penalty, because it also appears in the Mosaic law, which endorses the death penalty. He dismisses arguments from Matthew 26:52, where Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away, because Jesus was ensuring his arrest (and hence the crucifixion), rather than making a general point.

He also dismisses the argument from John 8:2-11 about the woman caught in adultery on three grounds – firstly, that the woman was guilty of adultery, not murder. Secondly, that the question was a trap. If Jesus said “execute her”, he’d be inciting rebellion against Rome – who didn’t allow the Jewish authorities to execute criminals themselves. If he said “spare her”, he’d be telling Jews to break the law of Moses (which would have sentenced both the woman and her lover to death). And thirdly, that there is some doubt about whether the passage was in the original text.

Grudem also notes that the pardoning of some murderers (notably Cain in Genesis 4:8-16 and David in 2 Samuel 12:13) illustrates the freedom of God to pardon people. It is interesting here that Grudem does not suggest that civil government has the freedom to pardon people from its own authority. Finally, he argues (again) against the “whole life ethic” suggested by many others – notably Jim Wallis and Pope John Paul II. He says that a Christian approach should instead be a “whole Bible ethic” and be faithful to what the Bible says on any given issue.

There are, however, some Christian arguments against the death penalty that Grudem does not consider. Firstly, he does not consider the possibility of being for the death penalty in principle, but against it in practice (an approach that was most notably taken by Augustine – unquestionably one of the most important Christian theologians of all time). He also doesn’t question whether the cross should alter our view. In God’s eyes, the penalty for all sin is death (Romans 6:23), but Jesus’ death satisfies God’s wrath for our sins (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10). This isn’t definitive either way, but it does raise questions about the extent to which the death penalty is still appropriate.

Does the death penalty actually deter crime?

Grudem also argues that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. His main argument is a graph that shows a decrease in the murder rate in the US at the same time as the number of executions went up, and some citations by a few researchers who say that there is some deterrence effect. Grudem’s graph, however, does not prove anything. In order to prove that the correlation is statistically significant (and, hence, the link is more than co-incidence), we need a lot more data. And even then, we need to prove whether the link is direct (executions prevent murders, or murders reduce the number of executions) or indirect (something else is causing both a rise in murder rate and a drop in the number of executions).

And, although Grudem appears unaware of it, there is plenty of other statistical evidence suggesting the contrary (here’s a decent summary). The most quoted evidence against deterrence are comparisons of the murder rates between US states with and without the death penalty (summarised here). States which execute consistently have a higher murder rate than those that don’t.

Even taking this extra information into account, it’s difficult to be sure which way the evidence points, as the low number of executions makes it difficult to determine their effect, and there are a lot of other factors which are almost certainly more significant. From what I’ve read, the chance of getting caught affects the decision to murder somebody far more than the penalty the murderer will pay if he or she is caught.

Can the death penalty be just and fair?

Grudem argues that there are no known examples of an innocent man being put to death since the death penalty was brought back to the US in 1976, although there have been cases of death-row prisoners being released due to DNA testing.This latter fact is worrying, because these people shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Cases like that of the Birmingham Six, where the police committed perjury (including forging forensic evidence) in order to ensure the conviction of suspected terrorists make me worry that the standard of evidence isn’t high enough to prevent this.

There is also an inconsistency in Grudem’s approach here – he appears to support a strong appeals structure (which, inevitably, will take a lot of time), but in arguing that the death penalty should be a deterrent, he argues that execution should be carried out swiftly to increase the impact (citing Ecclesiastes 8:11 – which supports sentencing in general being swift).

Grudem argues that “racial and economic disparities in the death penalty” (a euphemism for the fact that almost all of the inhabitants of death row in the US are black and/or poor – rich and white murderers almost always get a life sentence instead) does not constitute an argument against the death penalty, but an argument for reform of the sentencing system to ensure that it is fairly and equitably administered. He does not say how this can be achieved, but he’s right in saying that it’s not really an argument against the death penalty.

Finally, he argues that instances where the death penalty has been abused (such as historic executions for heresy) do not invalidate what he sees as the rightful use of execution.

Why is it important?

Grudem finishes by saying that this issue is important for four reasons. That God teaches that governments should carry out the death penalty at least for the crime of murder. That it “satisfies a deep human sense that just punishment is required” when somebody is murdered. That it satisfies God’s requirement for just punishment in such cases. That it acts as a deterrent to murder.

Is he right?

Whilst I can’t disagree with Grudem’s conculsion that the Bible teaches the death penalty, I have to say that the idea of it makes me uneasy. My instinct is the same as Augustine’s – to agree that the Bible supports it, but to oppose it in practice. The statistical evidence appears to point towards it not being a deterrent, and the chances of somebody being wrongly executed simply seem too high to take the risk. I can’t support the simplistic “it’s barbaric” argument of many anti-death-penalty campaigners, but I am persuaded by their more sophisticated evidence-based arguments.

Bookmark to:

Abortion is almost certainly the most emotive and divisive political issue of our era. If you express a pro-life view, you are branded as anti-women, but if you express a pro-choice view, you may be branded a baby killer. Furthermore, it’s not even possible to talk about the issue without choosing a side – if you talk about aborting an unborn child, you’re implicitly saying that abortion is wrong. If, on the other hand, you talk about aborting a foetus, then you’re implying that it isn’t fully human, and hence that abortion is morally acceptable. All of which makes me slightly relieved that this post is the latest in the series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible, rather than me laying out my own opinion. When it comes to terminology, I’m basically going to use the same terms Grudem uses.

What does the Bible say about abortion?

The first thing Grudem says is that the Bible considers human beings to be people from the moment of conception. He cites three different types of Bible passage.

The first are those with a specific reference to a preborn child exhibiting some kind of personhood. The passages in question are Luke 1:41-44 (where Elizabeth was in the sixth month of pregnancy), and Genesis 25:22-23 (where we do not know how far into the pregnancy Rebekah was, except that she knew that her preborn twins were struggling within the womb).

The second are more generic references to preborn children. Psalm 51:5 shows David considering himself to be sinful from the moment of conception, whilst Psalm 139:13 is a more generic reference to God playing an active part in creating us whilst we were in the womb.

The final passage is Exodus 21:22-25. This is from the law of Moses, which functioned as the God-given civil law for the people of Israel. It outlines the penalty to be paid when somebody accidentally causes a miscarriage or a premature birth. Grudem notes that the penalty to be paid by law if the child is harmed is equal to that if the mother is harmed, whilst there is still a fine to be paid if no harm is done to the child. He also notes that the penalty for accidentally causing harm to a preborn child is higher than that for accidentally causing harm to anybody else in society.

These passages leave very little wriggle room for a Christian who wants to conclude that a preborn child is not (at least theologically speaking) a person in his or her own right At most, you could conclude that a preborn child that is younger than the Biblical examples might possibly not count. But it would be a pretty tenuous conclusion.

Other arguments that preborn children are people

Grudem cites a lengthy passage by a scientist that concludes that the process of fertilisation is the creation of a human being. He rejects the pro-choice argument that preborn children are unable to interact and survive on their own, likening this to a person in a coma or a newborn infant.

He rejects the argument that abortion is justified in the case of birth defects, rape, or incest on the grounds that we would never kill such a child after it had been born. He also points out that sometimes the diagnosis of a birth defect is incorrect, and that cases of abortion or incest are only a tiny minority of abortions.

Grudem does, however, accept abortion in the extremely rare case that the life of the mother is at stake because in those cases the death of the mother means the death of both her and the child.

He also makes some arguments that are not strictly scientific or theological. These include the deaths of millions of people via abortion, and he says that it has claimed the lives of 50 million Americans. He also argues that a pregnant woman has an instinctive sense that a pregnancy is actually a baby, rather than a piece of tissue or a part of her body.

What should the law say?

Grudem argues that this should translate into several distinct policy stances. Firstly, he thinks that abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother – although he would accept a compromise law that also allows it in the case of rape and incest. He is flexible about the penalties for breaking this law, wanting to ensure that they are not so severe that the law would not gain public support.

Secondly, he says that no government policies should promote or fund abortions. He singles out foreign aid that is used on “population control” – saying that it involves paying for abortions.

Thirdly, he believes that no government policy should compel people to participate in abortions or to dispense drugs that cause abortions.

Fourthly he says that no funding should be given to the creation of human embryos for the purposes of medical research.

Fifthly, he praises the US ban on partial-birth abortions.

Finally, he believes that the most important legal goal is to overturn Roe vs Wade – the Supreme Court ruling that said that a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional. Grudem thinks that, should the case be brought, four of the nine current members of the Supreme Court would probably overturn it, four would vote to keep it, whilst one is in the middle. This leads him to believe that it is essential that the Republicans gain both the Presidency and control of the US Senate

Skipping ahead for a minute, Grudem finishes the section on abortion by citing Jeremiah 7:30-34, where God gives a very severe warning to a nation that had begun sacrificing their own children to the god Molech. He worries that, because his nation elected a President who is a strong supporter of abortion “rights” (his punctuation) and a sizable majority of Democrats in the Senate who hold similar views, that God will evaluate the USA in a similar light.

Arguments for keeping abortion legal

In this section, Grudem actually goes into some detail dealing with objections to his view. He rejects the idea that banning abortion would be a wrongful restriction of freedom, saying that the freedom in question is freedom to take your child’s life. He rejects the view that abortion should be allowed because “all children should be wanted”, because it implies that it’s perfectly fine to kill a child that you don’t want. He rejects the idea that you can be personally against abortion but not support laws against it because it’s equivalent to saying that you are against murder, but not to the extent of having laws against it.

Grudem also rejects the idea that abortion should be legal because Christians “shouldn’t try to impose their moral standards on other people”, pointing out that there are plenty of laws that are based on moral standards. He then looks at the specific moral standards involved in this issue: firstly that people should not be allowed to murder (a view which is held almost universally), and secondly that a preborn child counts as a human being – which he points out is the real point of contention. Grudem rejects the argument because he aims not to impose his views on society, but to persuade others to adopt that standard.

The more interesting alternative takes he mentions, however, are two views proposed by Jim Wallis in the book God’s Politics. My copy of Wallis’ book is currently on loan, but I took the time to re-read the chapter on Life Issues in the follow-up Seven Ways to Change the World.

The first of these ideas is that our aim should be to reduce the causes of abortion, rather than ban it. Grudem objects to this on the basis that it’s just changing the subject, and that the relevant social programs will not stop the crimes. He refers back to his outline of a Christian worldview, which he believes shows that the ultimate cause of abortion is people making evil choices (an approach I suggested was somewhat lopsided when we covered that section). He advocates a “both and” approach, of undertaking these programmes at the same time as banning abortion.

However, I think that he has misunderstood what Wallis is trying to say. Grudem is writing from the viewpoint of an academic trying to pin down the answer to a question. Wallis, however, is a political activist – his focus is on making as much of a difference as possible. As far as Wallis is concerned, the Religious Right’s 30 year campaign to overturn Roe vs Wade has failed. It hasn’t reduced the number of abortions, and the goal appears to be as far away as ever. Therefore, Wallace is concentrating his efforts on the things that will make a difference. Furthermore, his approach appears to be paying some dividends in moving pro-choice people to a more moderate position. Instead of Grudem’s partisan approach, Wallis is building bridges to the other side, and playing a part in moving many pro-choicers towards a position where they see abortion as something regrettable.

Grudem also disagrees with Wallis’s call for a “consistent ethic of life”, which involves opposition to capital punishment, opposition to nuclear weapons, and increased government help for the poor. Grudem complains that this is moving the goalposts – minimising the importance of the issue of abortion, and confusing it with a range of more controversial issues. He reiterates his view that a vote for a Democratic candidate for President or Congress is a vote for 1 million abortions per year.

But, again, Grudem doesn’t seem to understand Wallis’s activist perspective. By framing the debate in those terms, Wallis is trying to defuse liberal criticisms of the pro-life lobby. Because pro-lifers are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment, nuclear weapons, and hawkish foreign policy, we are thought of as hypocrites. Because of the way the pro-life movement is associated with right-wing economics – and hence reluctant, at best, to give additional support to parents for whom the aborted child would have been a burden, it is frequently portrayed as not giving a damn about the children that it hopes to save. By trying to counteract these perceptions Wallis is trying to be the “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence” that Grudem thinks should characterise Christian involvement in politics. Meanwhile, those who take Grudem’s stance on the issue are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the “angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgmental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence” that he rejects as a model for Christian politics.

Conclusions

Grudem’s case that abortion is wrong is, for a Christian, pretty much rock-solid. However, his analysis of the political consequences of this leaves much to be desired. He doesn’t even mention the argument that banning abortion would mean women simply resort to back-street abortions or cross a border to get one (and in some countries, pro-choice organisations pay the costs of doing just that). As that’s the strongest argument the pro-choice camp has, ignoring it is poor form.

My biggest concern, however is that, in tackling Jim Wallis’ position, Grudem clearly misses the points Wallis is trying to make. He ends up attacking the approach that is most likely to bring people around to a pro-life perspective. Without a cultural shift towards a pro-life view, it seems exceedingly unlikely that any significant progress can be made on the issue. Which means that, from where I’m standing, Grudem appears to have shot himself in the foot.

Bookmark to: