What Changed the Evangelical Stance on Abortion

[Realworldjack]

In the 1960's and early 70's evangelicals showed very little concern about abortion. In fact, there were a good number of evangelical individuals, and organizations who publicly supported abortion. Moreover, in 1968 "Christianity Today" (the flag ship magazine of evangelicals at the time) gathered 26 theologians from throughout the evangelical world to discuss the morality of abortion, and the statement coming out of this meeting of theologians stated,

“Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,”

So then, as we can see, these theologians could not agree as to whether abortion would even be a sin. However, the statement continues,

“but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

As you can see, these theologians could not agree as to whether abortion would even be a sin, but they were of one accord as far as abortion being legal.

Another point I would like to make is, although there were indeed Christians who opposed abortion in the 1960's and early 70's there were very few, if any Christians who insisted that it would be impossible to be a Christian and support the right to abortion.

Question for debate: What was it which caused Evangelicals to change their position on abortion so drastically?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: What was it which caused Evangelicals to change their position on abortion so drastically?

It's pretty well documented. The moral majority waged a successful campaign to convince theologically conservative Christians that abortion, gay rights, and women's rights were dangerous to their way of life. This accomplished two things: first, theological conservatism became associated with political conservatism and, second, prohibition of abortion became a specific plank of politically conservative platforms.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #2]


Well said. However, I believe one thing which is missing that most Christians would not like to admit is the fact that the issue was not really abortion, since we know the Evangelicals were not all that concerned about abortion before, or even years after Roe v. Wade. Rather, the real issue which caused Evangelicals to ban together as a united voting bloc was segregation which is well documented as well.

The main point is, the Evangelical today, along with most other Christians who are opposed to abortion are completely ignorant of how Evangelicals came to oppose abortion as the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals do. In other words, they are ignorant of the fact that many Evangelicals supported abortion, along with the fact that there would have been very few Christians who were opposed to abortion at the time, who would have insisted that it would be impossible to be a Christian who supported abortion. This did not begin until the late 1970's. As I have told another member of this site, "the Evangelicals had a plan in order to cause Evangelicals to become a voting bloc, and they were extremely successful in their efforts, and they have most all Evangelicals exactly where they want them". They have them to the point in which it is almost impossible for the individual Evangelical to think for themselves, which is one of the things cult leaders attempt to accomplish. If these Evangelicals were able to think for themselves, they would discover that the real issue which caused Evangelicals to unite as a voting bloc had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, but had everything in the world to do with the fact that Evangelicals did not want to be forced to accept the black race as being equal to the white race.

[historia]

It's pretty well documented. The moral majority waged a successful campaign to convince theologically conservative Christians that abortion, gay rights, and women's rights were dangerous to their way of life.

the real issue which caused Evangelicals to unite as a voting bloc had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, but had everything in the world to do with the fact that Evangelicals did not want to be forced to accept the black race as being equal to the white race.

It seems to me that neither of these points satisfactorily answers the question.

The Wikipedia article notes that the Moral Majority politically mobilized white Evangelical Christians around a number of social issues. But that doesn't, in itself, explain why abortion should be among those social issues.

The more one points to other issues, such as segregation, being the "real" animating concern for white Evangelicals, the harder it becomes to explain why abortion was added to the list at all.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #4]

The more we point to other issues, such as segregation, being the "real" animating concern, the harder it becomes to explain why abortion should be in the list at all.

My friend, that is the point. Evangelicals were mostly indifferent to abortion, and any other political issues until the federal government began to take away the tax-exempt status of Christian segregated schools. Keep in mind, it was the "Moral Majority" leader Jerry Falwell who was one of the ones effected, since he had started a segregated college, with another being Bob Jones University. Both Falwell and Jones denied admission to black students and were not happy in the least that they were being a target of the government. But we all know that it is not very attractive for a Christian to argue that they want to have the right to not have to associate with another race. Ergo, the Evangelicals were forced to find another issue which would unite the majority of Evangelicals into a voting bloc.

The Roe v. Wade decision was in 1973 with mostly silence from the Evangelicals, with some Evangelicals even praising the ruling. Jerry Falwell even admits himself he did not preach his first sermon against abortion until 1978 some five years after Roe v. Wade. The point is, somehow, someway, abortion became an issue in which one cannot even identify as a Christian and support a candidate who even considers abortion as an option.

[historia]

The point is, somehow, someway, abortion became an issue in which one cannot even identify as a Christian and support a candidate who even considers abortion as an option.

But that's more or less just restating the question for debate, right? Shouldn't "the point" of this thread be to actually answer how and in which way abortion became a concern for white Evangelicals?

Evangelicals were forced to find another issue which would unite the majority of Evangelicals into a voting bloc.

Why just one issue? And why abortion instead of the half dozen or so other social issues on which white Evangelicals already agreed?

Again, the fact that a political action group like the Moral Majority wanted to mobilize evangelical voters doesn't, in itself, explain why abortion would be the issue that would galvanize white Evangelicals, unless that was already a concern for those voters. This is putting the cart before the horse.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #6]

But that's more or less just restating the question for debate, right?

I do not see how pointing out the fact that Evangelicals were mostly indifferent to abortion in the 1960's and 70's to the point now that it is almost impossible for one to identify as a Christian and support a candidate who may believe abortion is a possibility, is repeating the question as to how this may have occurred?

Shouldn't "the point" of this thread be to actually answer how and in which way abortion became a concern for white Evangelicals?

That is the point of the thread. The fact is, I already know the answer. I was prompted to create this OP after reading an article on the web which included this sentence,

I need not recount all the various ways our government in the past 75 years has openly supported positions which hardly any Christian at any point in history would have countenanced, such as gay marriage and the “right” to abortion.

As you can see, Lynch is either ignorant of the facts concerning the Christian stance on abortion, or he is bearing false witness, because there was a time in which many Christians supported the right to an abortion. This got me to thinking that if Lynch, who holds a PhD is ignorant of this history concerning the Christian stance on abortion then it is more than likely the case that many other Christians retain this faulty understanding. My goal is to engage fellow Christians in order to determine if they understand this history. It is also my goal to demonstrate that we as Christians have been sold a bill of goods by the leaders of the religious right into thinking that it is impossible to identify as a Christian and support the right to an abortion, when it is a fact that many Christians in my lifetime did in fact support abortion.

Why just one issue? And why abortion instead of the half dozen or so other social issues on which white Evangelicals already agreed?

Exactly what other issues are you referring to "on which white Evangelicals already agreed?" I mean, we have just discovered that Evangelicals were not agreed on the abortion issue. This is one of the reasons the National Association of Evangelicals initially did not want to be involved in politics, because it was not their aim to use their platform to unite folks concerning political issues. Rather, the aim of the NAE was to unite the different denominations over the meaning of the Gospel. Moreover, it would have been almost impossible to get all Evangelicals to agree on political issues seeing as how Evangelicals held different and opposing opinions. However, the one thing which did unite the Evangelicals was the issue of segregation. But as we all know, it does not look very good for Christians to be insisting the right to remain separate from another race. Ergo, Falwell by his own admission did not preach his first sermon against abortion until 1978 some 5 years after Roe v. Wade, and now you have your one issue to unite most all evangelicals into a voting bloc. Even Paul Wyrick, a key figure in the formation of the New Right and the Religious Right, admitted that the movement's origins were indeed rooted in segregation.

Again, the fact that a political action group like the Moral Majority wanted to mobilize evangelical voters doesn't, in itself, explain why abortion would be the issue that would galvanize white Evangelicals, unless that was already a concern for those voters. This is putting the cart before the horse.

My friend, I have the receipts which clearly demonstrate that Evangelicals were not united on the abortion issue until the 1980's. One such receipt is the fact that in 1968. 5 years before Roe v. Wade, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism gathered 26 theologians from within the Evangelical world to discuss and debate the morality of abortion. These theologians gathered for several days, and the statement which came out of these meetings read,

“Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,”

Notice here, that these theologians could not even agree as to whether abortion would even be a sin. But it goes on to say

"but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

This is just one of a number of other things I can point out which would demonstrate that abortion was not already a concern to the Evangelicals. This is the exact "fantasy world" I am attempting to expose. The fact is, until the "Moral Majority" and the Christian right, Evangelicals were divided over the issue of abortion. This is the "real world" as opposed to the "fantasy land" most Christians inhabit which can cause one who holds a PhD to proclaim,

"hardly any Christian at any point in history would have countenanced, such things as gay marriage and the “right” to abortion."

[historia]

But that's more or less just restating the question for debate, right?

I do not see how pointing out the fact that Evangelicals were mostly indifferent to abortion in the 1960's and 70's to the point now that it is almost impossible for one to identify as a Christian and support a candidate who may believe abortion is a possibility, is repeating the question as to how this may have occurred?

Because simply noting that there has been a change in white Evangelical attitudes toward abortion doesn't tell us why it changed or how it changed. You've written a lot over the past few posts arguing that there has been a change -- which no one here doubts -- but haven't satisfactorily explained why or how it changed.

You've suggested it has something to do with the Moral Majority, because some of that group's leaders found abortion -- an issue that Evangelicals had mixed views toward -- to be a useful issue to "unite" them politically, but that doesn't make sense.

[Difflugia]

It seems to me that neither of these points satisfactorily answers the question.

The Wikipedia article notes that the Moral Majority politically mobilized white Evangelical Christians around a number of social issues. But that doesn't, in itself, explain why abortion should be among those social issues.

The more one points to other issues, such as segregation, being the "real" animating concern for white Evangelicals, the harder it becomes to explain why abortion was added to the list at all.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. There's no particular reason why any of the social issues should be there any more than the others. The question is why Evangelical Christians at large rallied around that set of social issues and I think the reason is the Moral Majority's campaign. There were already conservative Christian groups that championed issues on that list, so they were already issues that Christians were being asked to consider within the context of their Christianity. In that sense, I think that opposition to abortion rights was as much a commodity as any other individual issue being pushed by the Moral Majority. One may question, for example, what the real impetus was behind Falwell's campaign, but it looks to me like the successful campaign itself is the reason that abortion became one of the issues attached to Evangelical Christianity. I don't think there would have been appreciably more resistance, for example, if anti-vaccination rhetoric had replaced the anti-abortion stance. In that case, I think we'd have seen Evangelical Christianity galvanize as antivax during the 80s instead of anti-abortion.

[historia]

This is putting the cart before the horse.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

In so far as we both perceive that the other has things backwards, I suspect we're looking at this issue from two different angles.

It seems to me the OP lays out two separate, albeit related, changes: Since the early 1970s, white Evangelicals have changed (1) their religious views on abortion, and (2) their political views on abortion.

While we might be able to ascribe (2) to the efforts of the Moral Majority, I don't think we can say the same thing about (1). And, since (1) necessarily proceeds (2) -- you have to first consider abortion to be immoral before deciding what, if anything, the government ought to do about it -- it seems to me any satisfactory answer to the question of "what caused Evangelicals to change their position on abortion" cannot begin and end with the Moral Majority.

There were already conservative Christian groups that championed issues on that list, so they were already issues that Christians were being asked to consider within the context of their Christianity.

Right, so these other groups' prior work to change white Evangelical's religious views on abortion has to be part of the explanation, which up until now was missing.