That the Christian Reformed Synod in 1972 found it necessary to make a pronouncement on the subject of abortion is indicative of the times in which we live, and indicative, also of the fact that we are not isolated from, nor immune to, contemporary attitudes and practices.
That Synod refused to go along with current trends toward liberalized abortion views may he considered commendable to some while others may find it disconcerting that Synod found it necessary to speak on the subject at all.
A study committee had been appointed by the Synod of 1971, acting in response to various requested, “to search out and set forth the scriptural teaching relative to (induced) abortion and recommend a statement to Synod for adoption.” The appointed committee fulfilled its mandate and submitted us report to the Synod of 1972, hut this Synod rejected two key aspects of their report, namely:
1. That the Bible does not speak clearly on the matter of abortion.
2. That abortion is permissible under some circumstances even though the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
The study committee was well agreed that the Bible clearly teaches that that is God’s imagebearer; that man has an eternal destiny; that man’s life is protected by the sixth commandment; and that he is required to act towards his neighbor in love. The question remained, however, is the human embryo even in its earliest stages a human individual, or is it not? Is it possibly only in the process of becoming human, and, therefore, not yet human? The latter was essentially the position of the report. Given the privilege of the floor at Synod, one of the members of the committee declared that it is “unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable” either from Scripture or from science that the fertilized ovum is a veritable human being.
Another member of the study committee, a medical doctor, although he had signed the report, had written a letter to Synod stating that he was not in agreement with the report. Given the privilege of the roof , he explained that he had signed the report only to get it before Synod. The doctor went on to state and to illustrate that, from the point of conception to old age and death, man exists as a totality, and is unique, an individual with a fixed genetic code. At the time of fertilization there is a union of male and female chromosomes and genes resulting in a fixed genetic code according to which pattern there is growth, development and change to the end of life, but throughout the entire process it is always the same individual who existed from the time of conception. The fertilized ovum is human from the beginning and to destroy it is to destroy a human being.
If the human embryo from its inception is to be considered a human individual, then the Bible has spoken clearly on abortion in the words, “Thou shalt not kill.” If the human embryo in its early stages is not yet human, but merely in the process of becoming human, then the Bible has not spoken directly and dearly about abortion.
A RELATED POSITION
A second position taken by the report of the study committee but eventually rejected by the Synod, is that abortion may be permissible under some circumstances, although only under “the most unusual circumstances, circumstances in which other biblically sanctioned human values are being threatened by not terminating a pregnancy.” Just what those other “biblically sanctioned human values” might be were not clearly spelled out. Could it be, possibly the emotional and mental stability of a prospective mother? Or, perhaps the social position or economic well-being of other members of the family? In regard to this the study committee report advised that Synod declare:
“. . . Moreover Synod is unwilling to specify the other conditions under which abortion might be considered a viable alternative, since this might seem to eliminate the necessity of communal, prayerful deliberation in every human situation.” (Recommendation 4.)
This recommendation was obviously based upon the view that the embryo is in the process of becoming human. and not as yet fully human, and therefore, in unusual circumstances may be destroyed.
To be sure, all members of the study committee were agreed that the developing human embryo is not to be treated lightly even in the earliest stage of its development. (The report made references to Psalm 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 1:20; and other passages.) They agreed that the human embryo is not to be regarded as just a glob of protoplasm, or a bit of extraneous tissue which may be disposed of at the whim of a prospective mother; nevertheless, neither must the fertilized ovum be equated with a veritable human being.
If, on the other hand, contrary to the view of the study committee, a new human individual has been formed at the time of conception, the extreme measure of destroying this newly formed human life may be considered only when necessary to save the life of another, namely the prospective mother.
SYNOD TAKES ITS STAND
After several hours of deliberation Synod, which included among its delegates several medical doctors, adopted the following statements:
1. That Synod affirm the unique value of all human life and the special relationship of man to God as His imagebearer.
2. That Synod, mindful of the sixth commandment, condemn the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any stage of its development from the point of conception to the point of death.
3. That Synod affirm that an induced abortion is an allowable option only when the life of the prospective mother is genuinely threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy.
Synod, however, did more than merely say that abortion is not a permissible way out of problem pregnancies. Synod also called upon the believing community to share the burden of those who are faced with difficult situations because of problem pregnancies; to deal with love and concern in all such cases, both with the wed and the unwed; moreover, also to speak out against the evils of abortion, and to encourage and promote action and legislation in harmony with the Scripture.
AN IMPLICATION
By adopting point 2, “that synod condemn the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any state of its development from the point of conception to the point of death,” Synod has also declared impermissible the use of the intra-uterine device (the I.U.D.), the “morning-after pill” or any abortifacients or birth-control devices which permit the ovum to be fertilized but which prevent its development.
SETTLED AND BINDING
The Christian Reformed Church now has a stand on abortion. As grounds for appointing a committee to study this matter the Synod of 1971 listed: 1) the need for consistency, and 2) the need to give moral guidance to our membership. We now do have a stand to which we can conveniently refer our people. We should also have consistency, although there may be some who feel that their consciences have been unduly bound, Synod understood that, and struggled with that, but was nevertheless constrained to say, “Thus saith the Lord.”
Harold Hollander, pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Wellsburg, Iowa, was a delegate from Classis Northcentral Iowa to the 1972 Synod.
That Synod refused to go along with current trends toward liberalized abortion views may he considered commendable to some while others may find it disconcerting that Synod found it necessary to speak on the subject at all.
A study committee had been appointed by the Synod of 1971, acting in response to various requested, “to search out and set forth the scriptural teaching relative to (induced) abortion and recommend a statement to Synod for adoption.” The appointed committee fulfilled its mandate and submitted us report to the Synod of 1972, hut this Synod rejected two key aspects of their report, namely:
1. That the Bible does not speak clearly on the matter of abortion.
2. That abortion is permissible under some circumstances even though the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
The study committee was well agreed that the Bible clearly teaches that that is God’s imagebearer; that man has an eternal destiny; that man’s life is protected by the sixth commandment; and that he is required to act towards his neighbor in love. The question remained, however, is the human embryo even in its earliest stages a human individual, or is it not? Is it possibly only in the process of becoming human, and, therefore, not yet human? The latter was essentially the position of the report. Given the privilege of the floor at Synod, one of the members of the committee declared that it is “unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable” either from Scripture or from science that the fertilized ovum is a veritable human being.
Another member of the study committee, a medical doctor, although he had signed the report, had written a letter to Synod stating that he was not in agreement with the report. Given the privilege of the roof , he explained that he had signed the report only to get it before Synod. The doctor went on to state and to illustrate that, from the point of conception to old age and death, man exists as a totality, and is unique, an individual with a fixed genetic code. At the time of fertilization there is a union of male and female chromosomes and genes resulting in a fixed genetic code according to which pattern there is growth, development and change to the end of life, but throughout the entire process it is always the same individual who existed from the time of conception. The fertilized ovum is human from the beginning and to destroy it is to destroy a human being.
If the human embryo from its inception is to be considered a human individual, then the Bible has spoken clearly on abortion in the words, “Thou shalt not kill.” If the human embryo in its early stages is not yet human, but merely in the process of becoming human, then the Bible has not spoken directly and dearly about abortion.
A RELATED POSITION
A second position taken by the report of the study committee but eventually rejected by the Synod, is that abortion may be permissible under some circumstances, although only under “the most unusual circumstances, circumstances in which other biblically sanctioned human values are being threatened by not terminating a pregnancy.” Just what those other “biblically sanctioned human values” might be were not clearly spelled out. Could it be, possibly the emotional and mental stability of a prospective mother? Or, perhaps the social position or economic well-being of other members of the family? In regard to this the study committee report advised that Synod declare:
“. . . Moreover Synod is unwilling to specify the other conditions under which abortion might be considered a viable alternative, since this might seem to eliminate the necessity of communal, prayerful deliberation in every human situation.” (Recommendation 4.)
This recommendation was obviously based upon the view that the embryo is in the process of becoming human. and not as yet fully human, and therefore, in unusual circumstances may be destroyed.
To be sure, all members of the study committee were agreed that the developing human embryo is not to be treated lightly even in the earliest stage of its development. (The report made references to Psalm 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 1:20; and other passages.) They agreed that the human embryo is not to be regarded as just a glob of protoplasm, or a bit of extraneous tissue which may be disposed of at the whim of a prospective mother; nevertheless, neither must the fertilized ovum be equated with a veritable human being.
If, on the other hand, contrary to the view of the study committee, a new human individual has been formed at the time of conception, the extreme measure of destroying this newly formed human life may be considered only when necessary to save the life of another, namely the prospective mother.
SYNOD TAKES ITS STAND
After several hours of deliberation Synod, which included among its delegates several medical doctors, adopted the following statements:
1. That Synod affirm the unique value of all human life and the special relationship of man to God as His imagebearer.
2. That Synod, mindful of the sixth commandment, condemn the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any stage of its development from the point of conception to the point of death.
3. That Synod affirm that an induced abortion is an allowable option only when the life of the prospective mother is genuinely threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy.
Synod, however, did more than merely say that abortion is not a permissible way out of problem pregnancies. Synod also called upon the believing community to share the burden of those who are faced with difficult situations because of problem pregnancies; to deal with love and concern in all such cases, both with the wed and the unwed; moreover, also to speak out against the evils of abortion, and to encourage and promote action and legislation in harmony with the Scripture.
AN IMPLICATION
By adopting point 2, “that synod condemn the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any state of its development from the point of conception to the point of death,” Synod has also declared impermissible the use of the intra-uterine device (the I.U.D.), the “morning-after pill” or any abortifacients or birth-control devices which permit the ovum to be fertilized but which prevent its development.
SETTLED AND BINDING
The Christian Reformed Church now has a stand on abortion. As grounds for appointing a committee to study this matter the Synod of 1971 listed: 1) the need for consistency, and 2) the need to give moral guidance to our membership. We now do have a stand to which we can conveniently refer our people. We should also have consistency, although there may be some who feel that their consciences have been unduly bound, Synod understood that, and struggled with that, but was nevertheless constrained to say, “Thus saith the Lord.”
Harold Hollander, pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Wellsburg, Iowa, was a delegate from Classis Northcentral Iowa to the 1972 Synod.