When the argument against moral legislation fails, professing Christians who advocate for abortion make a strange appeal to the gospel. We say strange because it is an indirect appeal. One that uses a mix of biblical terminology and modern talking points.
The initial approach to this strange appeal will be to personal liberty or something to that effect. The oft quoted phrase is “old white men should not tell a woman what she should or should not be allowed to do with her body.” As strange as the juxtaposition of the two representatives parties is (old white men next to all women), the inference that this somehow aligns with the gospel is all the stranger.
Reframed as a question, it reads this way: Why shouldn’t old white men tell women what to do with their bodies? The gospel.
If that clear and straightforward rebuttal does not suffice, the next pro-gospel argument is that there cannot be a return to the dark ages when abortions were illegal and had to be done in back alleys or with coat hangers. The gospel simply will not allow it.
After this argument is refuted by stating that murdering a child in the womb should be a difficult and dangerous task to accomplish, as with any murder, the next pro-gospel defense is to “rebuke the accuser.” That is, it is then stated that it is anti-gospel and judgmental to call the act of a woman who intentionally kills her unborn child murder. This is usually followed by a reference to John 8, the account of the woman caught in adultery, especially 8:11, what some call “the gospel in a nutshell.”
Yet when it is pointed out that, while Jesus does not condemn this woman to death, he does clearly indicate that her prior behavior was sinful by his command to “go and sin no more,” the barrage of questions begins. “What about rape or incest?” “What about the life of the mother?” And so on.
This pro-gospel appeal via a grasping at statistical straws is usually the final attempt made. If it is unsuccessful, the appellant will cease their efforts, as it is clear that the person to whom their appeal has been made does not understand or is out of touch with the truth of the gospel.
End scene.
There is much that could be said in regards to this strange gospel appeal. Many of the points argued are not biblical reiterations but political regurgitations, wherein “the gospel” is used as a blanket term to cover all the holes in moral reasoning. But what is most distressing is the inference that not only is advocacy for legal abortion affirmed by the gospel, it is part and parcel with gospel-driven compassion.
For professing Christians to make such claims shows a serious need for a clear biblical definition of both the gospel and compassion, as well as whether or not either definition supports advocacy for abortion. We will provide those definitions and the subsequent evaluation in what follows.
The gospel, over the centuries it has existed, has become a very loaded term. Christians use it in a variety of ways, many of which have no direct link to its original meaning. Contrary to popular belief, the Greek term translated ”gospel”, [εὐαγγέλιον euangelion], was not originally a biblical term. It was a Roman term.
When Caesar Augustus became the ruler of the Roman Empire, he sent out evangelists [εὐαγγελιστής, euangelistes] to proclaim the “good news” [gospel, euangelion] that he, Caesar, was Emperor [kyrios: Lord or King] and Savior [soter] of the world. All of these terms predated Jesus, Thus, the Roman Empire is the original cultural-historical context (there it is again) of the term “gospel”, not the scriptures.
Throughout the biblical “gospel” accounts, as well as the rest of the New Testament, similar language is used for Jesus. Lord [kyrios], in reference to Caesar Augustus, was the term describing him as Emperor of Rome. When the terms Lord [kyrios] and Savior [soter], are applied to Jesus, it broadens the scope to cosmic proportions. The gospel of the Kingdom then is that Jesus is the Kyrios [Emperor] and Soter [Savior] of not just the world but the universe—the entire created order. And he achieved this through his death on a cross, burial, resurrection, and ascension. That is the basic biblical definition of the gospel.
As such, any argument advocating for abortion using the gospel, as defined above, as support is nonsensical. Simply replace “the gospel” with the biblical definition and this becomes evident.
“Old white men shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies because Jesus is Lord and Savior of the world.”
“Abortions shouldn’t be illegal and made to be done in back alleys with coat hangers because Jesus is Lord and Savior of the world.”
Neither of those two statements are coherently defended or justified by tacking “because the gospel“ onto them. The good news that Jesus is Lord and Savior of the world is not good news for abortion.
“I am astonished that you are turning away so quickly from the one who called you by the grace of Christ to a different gospel, not that there is a different gospel, except there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! As we said before, and now I say again, if anyone is proclaiming a gospel to you contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed!”
Galatians 1:6-9 LEB
Another word that has become overloaded and is used as argumentative buckshot is compassion. The etymology of the term is ”com” which means “with” and “passion” which means “to suffer.” As such the definition of compassion is “to suffer with.”
The difficulty with applying “compassion” to the issue of abortion as a natural component of “the gospel” is that there must be a decision made as to whom one is going “to suffer with.” The main objective of pro-abortion voices has been to convince the masses, Christian or otherwise, that a child in utero is not actually nor fully human. For the most part, this attempt at dehumanization has been successful. “It’s just a clump of cells” has become somewhat of a mantra among the pro-abortion community, right alongside “my body, my choice”.
However, despite this pervasive propaganda, most abortion-affirming Christians do not use the “clump of cells” argument. How could they? Instead, they appeal to circumstantial difficulties and select situational evils to justify their defense of the gospel-driven compassion of abortion. But this begs the question: “Compassion for whom?”
Certainly there is no compassion being shown to the unborn child, whose life has been ended due to no fault of their own. Any argument made for abortion as an act of compassion toward the mother can be equally made, if not more so, against abortion as an act of compassion toward the child.
While the evils referred to by abortion-affirming Christans which, to them, create the “need” for it, are heinous, how does ending the life of the child produced by those evils offset them or set them right? Is it “an eye for an eye” now? The child is innocent of any wrongdoing. Yet in order to mediate justice, the child must be executed? And yes, we’ve chosen our words carefully.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also. And the one who wants to go to court with you and take your tunic, let him have your outer garment also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
Matthew 5:38-42 LEB
What we’re addressing here is the claim that as a professing Christian, in order to demonstrate loyalty to the “gospel”, and show “compassion”, we must defend the legality of abortion. On the contrary, such an insistence is to imply that the gospel of Jesus Christ (as defined above) means that compassion is synonymous, in certain situations, with the execution of an innocent child. That is what is meant when the actual biblical definitions of those terms are applied to a pro-abortion argument.
Now that the terms have been clearly and correctly defined, if what was stated above is not what is meant when a professing Christian appeals to ”the gospel” and “compassion” to affirm abortion, perhaps they ought to choose their words more carefully.
