When I stepped on to the campus of Occidental College in the fall of 1973, the first assignment with which I was tasked was a paper for my Bioethics class. I didn’t really know what Bioethics was at the time. But incoming freshmen were to select from among a few intimidating choices – and I chose what seemed to be the least intimidating.

The initial assignment made me rethink that decision. I was charged with writing ten pages on whether or not it was acceptable to legislate morality.

I honestly don’t remember much of what I wrote…although I painfully recollect that it was on a typewriter. But having grown up in a fairly conservative, Republican household, I suspect that my ideals back in the day led me to lend steadfast support to the concept of legislating Christian morality.

I likely first focused on the Declaration of Independence in which God’s role in creation and man’s God-given rights are themes central to the text’s purpose. I may have invoked the fact that the U.S. Constitution, contrary to popular belief, does not specifically call for a separation of church and state. My arguments reflecting an openness to framing laws based on Christian values probably referenced these documents, as many such arguments do today.

My thinking, however, has evolved over these many years – as has my Christianity.

Those who have engaged with this blog to even a limited extent will know that I describe myself prior to my 2011 regeneration in Jesus as a Christian of convenience and rationalization. Thus, when I completed my first college assignment a half-century ago, my Christianity was frail but my conservatism was intact.

Unlike some, four years of undergraduate study at a liberal arts college – and a fifth to get a Masters – did not dramatically alter my modestly conservative perspective. In fact, it would not be until the late 1990’s that I finally changed my political affiliation from Republican to unaffiliated – where it remains today.

That change was prompted by a series of what were, in my estimation at the time, an endless stream of flawed political aspirants put forth by both major parties, many of whom had ascended to relevance through questionable means and for purposes that were entirely self-serving. Perhaps not much has changed in that regard.

But the issue of legislating morality did not find its way onto my radar screen again…until my bible studies got serious in 2011. Those studies led me to a particular sensitivity to the rising tide of a controversial cultural phenomenon: Christian nationalism.

In an article in Christianity Today (Feb 3 1921), Paul D. Miller defined Christian nationalism as follows:

“Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way.”

Christian nationalism resurrected my consideration of legislating morality. In essence, Christian nationalism advocates precisely that: the design and enactment of laws that are based first and foremost on Christian values. And, effectively, this is a position to which I lent credibility nearly 50 years ago.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17

In 2011, I was reborn as a new creation. My subsequent deep dive into God’s word led me to rethink my earlier unqualified receptiveness to the notion of faith-based legislation.

My personal study of the New Testament leads me to believe that Christians should not look to the legislative process to institutionalize the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Of course, neither should we be hindered in practicing it.) And while it is very worthy of institutionalizing, I have personally come to the belief that God does not will that we do so – and that we, instead, come to obedience through faith rather than legal compulsion.

The foundational presupposition of my convictions is that the Lord God has given each of us free will. That is, every one of His creations has the liberty to make choices that are consistent with Christian commands and values as directed by His word. That direction is transparent to all who choose to avail themselves of it. But unless those choices put others at risk, they should not, with qualification, be mandated or coerced.

For there is but one choice that matters, one choice that will lead us to an eternity with Christ; that is the choice to have faith in Him. Jesus died on the cross so that our poor choices matter not. His grace, ours through faith in Him alone, will cleanse us of the imperfect decisions we all make and the sins we all commit.

Keep your heart with all diligence,
For out of it spring the issues of life.

Proverbs 4:23

It is the heart that reflects one’s faith, upon which eternal life depends. It is the heart that Jesus sought to change when His followers received the Great Commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20a)

Above all else, changing a defiant heart requires compassion and love. So what are the implications of such a platform for my personal perceptions for the role of government?

At a very high level, I believe that the government’s overarching function is to ensure that its citizens can exercise their (God-given) free will so long as, in doing so, those citizens do not inhibit others from doing the same.

I understand that quite a voluminous manifesto could be written on such a position. Certainly, there are many nuances and exceptions around this viewpoint that must be considered and debated. A government must, for example, institute a system and collect taxes that will fund the defense of its citizens’ free will. It must adopt a legal system that protects individuals from those that would inhibit its reasonable exercise.

But the underlying principle is that individuals must be empowered to make choices that reflect their faith in God and determine their eternity. If moral choices are mandated legislatively, one’s faith – or lack thereof – remains untested and undeveloped. Behaviors are coerced, souls are not saved.

The Elephant in the Room

I can already hear many of my Christian brothers and sisters demanding to know where I stand on abortion in light of the sentiments stated heretofore. My integrity compels compliance…so here goes.

Abortion is a blight on humanity. To view a pregnancy as an inconvenient consequence of personal lusts is shameful. Such a perspective is a transparent reflection of society’s rampant unwillingness to accept responsibility for the choices we make. It is that aversion to accountability that is prompting a societal repudiation of the Christian faith.

The immediate question, however, is less about salvation than it is legislation: should abortion, aside from extraordinary circumstances (e.g. mother’s health), be prohibited?

Let me reiterate my underlying point of reference: the government’s overarching function is to ensure that its citizens can exercise their (God-given) free will so long as, in doing so, those citizens do not inhibit others from doing the same.

Thus, the question really becomes do I believe that a fertilized egg is a person that, if aborted, would be inhibited from exercising his or her free will?

The Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant, unchanging word of God, intimates that the answer is yes. I say “intimates” because the act of abortion is not addressed specifically in the Bible. We are left to distill God’s teaching and thereby determine how to be obedient to His word.

The biblical references upon which I draw my personal conclusions are these:

• Conception is not accidental. It is part of God’s plan and the Bible is unequivocal in declaring that He knows each of us prior to conception. This is affirmed both in Psalm 139: 13-16 (“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”). Because He knows us and forms each of us with a purpose, abortion undermines God’s intent.
• Throughout the Bible, children are characterized as a blessing from God. We may not always understand them as such at the time, but God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8) and the Bible seems clear to me on this point. To reject a blessing from God is to reject God.

As I read and re-read what I have written here, some may have the impression that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth – that my acceptance of legislation against abortion is based on the definition of a person, but my definition of a person is derived from a moral or religious perspective. And, thus, I am advocating the legislation of morality.

That impression is not entirely unfair. But we must each base our definition of a “life” on something. I choose to base mine on the word of God.

Many choose another definition. Perhaps it is on one’s ability to survive on its own outside the womb – or to have the cognitive ability to learn or make choices. Maybe, for some, it is defined by a heartbeat.

Imagine a 7 year-old boy tragically injured in an automobile accident. Say that child, God forbid, was in a coma, exhibiting minimal brain activity, unable to sustain a heartbeat or breathe without mechanical support, and was being fed through a tube.

Imagine further that the attending physician concluded that there was a 10% possibility that this young boy might regain consciousness and, eventually, live a physically normal life. Ten percent? What reasonable individual would call for the cessation of resuscitation efforts? If there was even a 1% possibility of saving this life, most would advocate for all life-saving measures to be pursued.

A human fetus that survives at least to clinical recognition (5-6 weeks) has a 90% probability of a healthy birth. Like the accident victim, the fetus exhibits minimal brain activity and cannot survive independently. But, unlike the injured boy, the brain activity will accelerate quickly, and dependence on external stimuli for breath, heartbeat and digestion will almost certainly disappear. Given that the functional status of the two beings is similar, how can one reasonably advocate for the child but not for the fetus that has a far greater likelihood of becoming whole?

At the outset, it was not my intention to dive deeply into this issue. I have undoubtedly disappointed some. Perhaps I have heartened others. But my acceptance of legal impediments to abortion stems from my belief that abortion subverts God’s intended purposes.

I remain unconvinced, however, that legislation is the most potent instrument for minimizing the number of abortions performed in this country, though it is consistent with my conviction that the law is to be used to protect the free will of a human life.

Although the tide has changed in the legislative battle, abortion is and will remain available through legal or illegal channels to those determined to terminate a pregnancy. Restrictions on abortions have indeed had an impact on the number of procedures but, if the ultimate numeric objective is zero, pro-life advocates must focus on the heart of the individual, not just the law of the land.

Consider that social divisions – such as those regarding abortion, sexuality, etc. – have not been reversed through the efforts to legislate moral concerns. Instead, conflict and friction have deepened and entrenched those divisions. Rarely does legislation change one’s heart.

Perhaps we can start by toning down the rhetoric. We cannot save lives – those in the womb or outside – through coercion and condemnation. It can be argued that in order to save the life in the womb, we must sometimes first save the soul of the one enveloping it.

As previously asserted, the heart is where we will find one’s faith – or lack thereof. Changing the heart requires love above all else, not conflict or coercion. Ultimately, we must appeal to the humanity of those confronted with a choice. Moreover, we must be a living testimony to God’s love for others. As the Apostle John instructs us:

My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

1 John 3:18

I understand that this is all a bit simplistic. I confess that I don’t have the perfect plan to change hearts, but I do know that it starts with love rather than simple condemnation. Knowing that those who are disobedient to God’s word will one day face judgment, faithful Christians must change tack. Let us lower the volume on our outrage and seek whatever means or platforms we have to teach that God is love (1 John 4:8). We don’t need a sledgehammer to convey that truth. We need to follow the example of Jesus Christ.

He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

1 John 2:6