Elaina Ramsay

Evangelical Left Panel Condemns Anti-Abortion Movement

on February 4, 2022

Terminating a pregnancy is a valid decision consistent with Christian and Jewish traditions, according to speakers on a panel identifying as Evangelical Christians who are broadly supportive of abortion rights.

“People have, want, and need abortion for a variety of reasons, and they are all valid,” asserted Elaina Ramsay, Executive Director of Faith Choice Ohio, an affiliate of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), and a board member of Red Letter Christians. Ramsey stated that she is founder of a Christian pro-choice abortion clinic.

Ramsay, alongside six panelists, condemned the anti-abortion movement in the United States during an October 25 town hall discussion on Christianity and abortion hosted by Evangelical Left groups Red Letter Christians and Freedom Road.

Author and minister the Rev. Rob Schenck advocated for pro-life causes on Capitol Hill across 25 years. Schenck on the panel described witnessing politicians use the issue of abortion as a tool for political gain.

The first time a senator said, “abortion is murder” on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Schenck alleged that as he heard the words he was thinking not of “babies or moms,” but “of the victory that was for our movement.” Schenck told of meetings with political strategists, fundraisers, and public relations firms in which it was announced: “You give me something that makes your people fearful, makes your people angry, and I’ll get the voters to sign anything you want them to sign.”

With a similar tone to Schenck, Jerushah Duford criticized the church for its approach to abortion. Duford, a granddaughter of the late evangelist Billy Graham, stated that when women discover she is a Christian, they anticipate “shame and judgment” from the church.

“That’s not my Jesus, that’s not how he would respond,” Duford described, but added, “I cannot say that’s not how you would be treated.”

The church, according to Duford, prioritizes shame about love, grace, and forgiveness. She hopes that women will “come to the church like a hospital,” rather than flee to an abortion clinic.

While Duford appeared to maintain a pro-life position, most panelists articulated a pro-choice policy position.

Freedom Road founder and president Lisa Sharon Harper made similar contentions to Ramsay about the validity of abortion, stating that abortion is a “gray area” in Scripture.

Harper characterized Psalm 139, in which David says “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” as “a poem, not law.” Furthermore, Harper stated that Exodus 21:22-23, which describes penalties to someone who harms a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, as illustrative of a law that treats the life of the born and the unborn differently. Exodus chapter 21 states that a man causing a woman to miscarry will be subject to a fine. However, if a man causes a woman to lose her life, then he too shall be killed. Harper interprets this law to prove a difference in the value of the life of the unborn and the mother.

Schenck built off Harper’s argument by appealing to Jewish teaching on abortion. He said that there is an “absence of any reference to [abortion] by Jesus.” However, knowing that Jesus was Jewish, Schenck states, the Christian can assume that Jesus “held the same belief on this subject as all other Jews at that time.”

The former pro-life activist described Judaism as not rejecting abortion, but rather teaching that the fetus “is of a different status than the breathing.” While the life of the unborn does possess worth, “if there is a question between the life of the mother and the life of the developing human in the womb, there is a moral obligation to abort the pregnancy.”

Ramsay sought to broaden the meaning of the term “pro-life” beyond opposition to abortion. The Ohio activist argued that those seeking to discuss abortion should first discuss “Latinx women coming to this country…and being forced to be sterilized,” an apparent reference to a formal complaint brought before the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General. That complaint alleged that unnecessary hysterectomies were being performed in 2020 on immigrants in custody at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Georgia. Ramsey also expressed concern for “people not able to raise their families in a safe community when they have to fear police brutality.”

According to theologian and social activist Ron Sider, author of Completely Pro-Life, a true pro-life Christianity includes “racism, poverty, environmental issues, and so on.” 

The panelists hosted by Red Letter Christians and Freedom Road fall into a broader category of progressive Christianity. While they offer insightful criticism of the pro-life movement, the condoning of abortion for any reason is not within the historic Christian tradition.

As Christians, we are called to a pro-life position, which need not end at birth.

In Matthew chapter 25, Jesus tells of a king speaking to those entering his kingdom.

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,’” the king says. The righteous answered him, asking when did they do those things? The King responds, “As you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

Christians are called to help the needy and suffering in all aspects of society, including in the lives of unborn children and their mothers. Pro-life Christians should care about the unborn, the homeless, the trafficked, the prisoners, the elderly, the wounded, the persecuted. Christians should be a voice for the voiceless, from the beginning of life until death.

  1. Comment by Jeff on February 4, 2022 at 8:20 am

    “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”

    No, child of GOD, these are not “Red Letter Christians”. They are not Christians at all, but rather antichrists. They like to call themselves “progressive” but they are merely regressive marxists. To be antichrist is perhaps THE fundamental tenet of all marxism, including the “new” Gramscian marxism.

    The destination of their “Freedom Road” is bondage and eternal destruction. Their “Faith Choice” is to choose to worship the father of lies, the thief who steals, kills, destroys.

    Jesus Christ alone is progress! He said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.”

    Choose CHRIST. Choose Truth and Life!

  2. Comment by Douglas E Ehrhardt on February 4, 2022 at 10:36 am

    Deception, these leftists always throw in social justice issues with the destruction of innocent life . Like pro life believers don’t care about people once they are born. Creepy.

  3. Comment by David S. on February 4, 2022 at 11:03 am

    “Schenck built off Harper’s argument by appealing to Jewish teaching on abortion. He said that there is an “absence of any reference to [abortion] by Jesus.” ”

    I love how these people almost always use the “the Bible doesn’t have any reference to Jesus commenting on….” argument to lend credence that their assertions are within the pale of historic, orthodox Christian teachings after they have gone through all their whole trapeze routine as if it is some magical incantation. The Scriptures are silent regarding a lot of things where Jesus may have most certainly had a teaching, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t teach or address the issue. They overlook the concluding comments to John that indicate that the Gospels only include a fraction of what Jesus said and did, and the Scriptures contain one key assertion, he perfectly upheld the teachings of the Law and the Prophets. Surely the learned individuals who make this statement know that both are there. It just seem that these people conveniently ignore, when those teachings do not support their assertions, about as quickly as Henry VIII ignored the church’s historic teachings on marriage and divorce, once those teachings created an inconvenience.

  4. Comment by td on February 4, 2022 at 3:34 pm

    People always make rationalizations to justify any behavior that they want God to endorse. There is no way Christianity can endorse abortion. Yes, of course, to spare the life of the mother from known imminent death is the only reasonable moral exception.

    But this panel seems very confused. While they could reasonably make an argument for why abortion before a certain time in the pregnancy should be legal, you certainly cannot make an argument for why abortion isn’t morally wrong. They seem to be arguing that it isn’t wrong and that we shouldn’t be teaching people that it’s wrong.

  5. Comment by Tom on February 4, 2022 at 5:38 pm

    I would like to know what is “evangelical” about this collection of people.

  6. Comment by David on February 4, 2022 at 6:15 pm

    Prior to their takeovers by conservatives, both the Methodist and Southern Baptist churches supported abortion rights. Obviously, there is a disagreement among Christians as to the status of abortion. Natural abortion is a major feature of human reproduction taking many if not most conceptions. Mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

  7. Comment by Jeff on February 4, 2022 at 8:24 pm

    >> Prior to their takeovers by conservatives, both the Methodist and Southern Baptist churches supported abortion rights.

    That’s a bald-faced lie, David.

    >> Natural abortion is a major feature of human reproduction taking many if not most conceptions.

    To carry your twisted, diabolical “logic” through to completion: because EVERYONE dies eventually, you assert that it is morally acceptable in GOD’s sight for you to murder another human being at your whim. That’s evil.

    You need to repent prior to *your* last breath, David. I pray that you do.

  8. Comment by David on February 4, 2022 at 9:20 pm

    To quote a recent article by Mark Tooley, “United Methodism first affirmed abortion rights in 1970 but has steadily adopted more pro-life stances over the last 30 years.” God obviously favors abortion—your argument is with him, not me.

  9. Comment by David on February 5, 2022 at 6:04 am

    For those too lazy to look up the quote, here is the link:

    https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/02/03/methodist-pro-life/

    The question of the abortion debate is whether or not a fetus has the same value as a born person. As pointed out in the article, there are serious doubts about this even in scripture. Is crushing an acorn the same as cutting down an oak tree? Most would say not. What is translated as “soul” or “spirit” are related to breathing. A fetus becomes a person at birth and not before they have breathed air biblically.

  10. Comment by Al on February 5, 2022 at 7:35 am

    Interesting how they try to score by saying Jesus never said this or that, or that the Bible doesn’t expressly forbid something. Like they care what the Bible says!

  11. Comment by Steve on February 5, 2022 at 9:31 am

    It’s obviously deeply immoral to suggest that a baby can be killed any time before it starts breathing. Cherry picking a few suggestions in the Bible about when the soul enters the body doesn’t change that. Also, haven’t seen any proof that Southern Baptists were ever pro-abortion.

  12. Comment by Thomas on February 5, 2022 at 9:31 am

    Unbelievable hypocrisy from people who claim to be Christian concerning the unborn. The question of abortion is like the question of sentencing Jesus to death a second time or not. Modern day Herod are on the side of those who want to do it, Christians are those who want to save it, and modern dayPilate believe they can wash they hands from the death of the unborn. All Jewish and Christian tradition condemned abortion at the time of Jesus. “First-Century Judaism Condemned Abortion/ For example, the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184–186 (c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50) says that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.”/ Included among those who do evil in the apocalyptic Sibylline Oracles were women who “aborted what they carried in the womb” (2.281–282)./
    Similarly, the apocryphal book 1 Enoch (2nd or 1st century B.C.) declares that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb” (69.12)./ Finally, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that “the law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus” (Against Apion 2.202).” “Michael J. Gorman, “Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World”.

  13. Comment by Thomas on February 5, 2022 at 9:34 am

    “Against the bleak backdrop of Roman culture, the Hebrew “sanctity of human life” ethic provided the moral framework for early Christian condemnation of abortion and infanticide./ For instance, the Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”/ Another noncanonical early Christian text, the Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.”/ There are numerous other examples of Christian condemnation of both infanticide and abortion. In fact, some biblical scholars have argued that the silence of the NT on abortion per se is due to the fact that it was simply assumed to be beyond the pale of early Christian practice. Nevertheless, Luke (a physician) points to fetal personhood when he observes that the unborn John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth came into the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus at the time (Luke 1:44).” Michael J. Gorman, “Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World”.

  14. Comment by David on February 5, 2022 at 12:20 pm

    For Southern Baptist past support for abortion rights read this:

    https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

  15. Comment by David on February 5, 2022 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you, Thomas, for those references from early Judaism and Christianity. Most helpful.

    My understanding of so-called Red Letter Christians is that they take seriously the gospels’ injunctions against violence, including combat in warfare. I assume they would also reject the legitimacy of capital punishment. If so, then it seems incongruous that they would approve what in effect is violence in the womb.

    But perhaps they are more consistent than I am taking them to be. If they follow the anabaptist view that Christians are not permitted to wield the coercive powers of the state, and if they take a pacifist approach to the use of the sword to punish injustice, then it may be that they are unwilling to see the state intervene to protect the unborn child. That’s all I can come up with. Otherwise I find it incomprehensible.

  16. Comment by Steve on February 5, 2022 at 4:37 pm

    Well that article at Bill Moyers is pretty weak and short, relying upon an op-ed in “The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention”. Bear in mind, op-eds (as they originally started off at least) were OPPOSITION EDITORIALS: they were meant to present an alternative point of view, back in the days when news services were less focused on presenting a monolithic narrative. In physical newspapers, official editorials are often on the left (along with letters to the editor), op-eds on the right. I found a stronger and more detailed summary of Southern Baptist attitudes towards abortion at https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life/. As the article puts it, theology regarding abortion was not well developed prior to Roe v Wade, although the average congregant would have had the general feeling that abortion was wrong. Fast forwarding to 1971, a “SBC resolution on abortion appeared to capture the consensus. It stated that “society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life.”
    But the resolution added, “We call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.””
    As the article further recounts, the Roe v Wade decision occasioned a lot of back and forth in the following years, pro-choice arguments being prominent enough that mainstream media plausibly listed Southern Baptists among pro-choice denomination. But the matter was not settled; there were other Southern Baptists who advocated otherwise, eventually winning the discussion. If we judge a denomination by its official pronouncements, given the resolution previously mentioned, Southern Baptists were never officially pro-choice except in the most extreme circumstances.

  17. Comment by Steve on February 5, 2022 at 5:00 pm

    On further review, that part of the resolution saying “carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother” is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. But some people probably told themselves that was a high standard. Depends on who’s doing the ascertaining I guess; if a mental health professional, they’d probably rubber stamp any early abortion desired; if clergy, maybe less permissive.

  18. Comment by Thomas on February 5, 2022 at 6:50 pm

    Red-Letter Christians do include people who are pro-life and others who aren`t. Shane Claiborne is believed to be pro-life. So is Tony Campolo. Unfortunately progressive Christians tend to often become moral relativists on the sanctity of unborn human life.

  19. Comment by Gayle Ataceri on February 6, 2022 at 9:08 am

    The passage in Exodus 21 that is misconstrued to demote the unborn to a lower status is based on a poor translation. The literal Hebrew that has been translated as both “premature birth” and “miscarriage” is “her children go forth.” If there is no harm when the unborn child “goes forth,” a fine still must be paid for causing an early labor. If there is harm to the child, it is “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” In other words, a fighting man who unintentionally caused the death of an unborn child would be liable to capital punishment.

    Here is the passage:

    22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    John Piper provides a discussion here:
    https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates

    Also, an article from a Hebrew Scholar published by Penn State that favors “premature birth” as the correct translation for “her children go forth” in Exodus 21:22.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424831

  20. Comment by Walt Pryor on February 6, 2022 at 5:03 pm

    These people fit perfectly with the Church that has lost their first love. It is amazing how weak the human mind is. It is amazing how easily Satan can deceive weak minds by adding a little twisted scripture, and a little perverted psychology.
    These people may those who Jesus says; “I never knew you!”

  21. Comment by Kent on February 8, 2022 at 7:06 pm

    They’re hypocritical Christians, just like the right-wing Christians who are in favor of capital punishment. You can’t be “pro-life” and support killing human beings.

  22. Comment by Loren J Golden on February 13, 2022 at 5:18 pm

    To David’s point, the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission two years ago published a brief history of the development of that denomination’s position on abortion.  According to the ERLC:
     
    1. “Prior to the 1970s, many Southern Baptists either took no position on abortion or accepted legal abortion under certain conditions.”
     
    2. “Abortion was not discussed much within the (SBC) in the years preceding legalized abortion.”
     
    3. When the SCOTUS made its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, “some Southern Baptists criticized the ruling while maintaining their support of” a 1971 SBC resolution that supported “legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
     
    4. The position of the SBC on abortion did not begin to change until the late 1970s, culminating in a 1980 resolution “supporting appropriate legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.”
     
    5. “In 1984, Southern Baptists for Life was started to advance the pro-life cause within the denomination.”

  23. Comment by Loren J Golden on February 13, 2022 at 6:02 pm

    “Author and minister the Rev. Rob Schenck advocated for pro-life causes on Capitol Hill across 25 years. Schenck on the panel described witnessing politicians use the issue of abortion as a tool for political gain.”
     
    This works on both sides of the political aisle.  That Democrats ostensibly privately think abortion morally wrong while insisting that it must remain legal and safe, with no restrictions whatsoever, does not justify the deliberate taking of human life in abortion.  Conversely, that Republicans leverage support of pro-life legislation to garner the support of conservative constituents in their home states does not negate the legitimacy of organizations that seek to limit or end the moral evil of abortion.
     
    “The first time a senator said, ‘abortion is murder’ on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Schenck alleged that as he heard the words he was thinking not of ‘babies or moms,’ but ‘of the victory that was for our movement.’  Schenck told of meetings with political strategists, fundraisers, and public relations firms in which it was announced: ‘You give me something that makes your people fearful, makes your people angry, and I’ll get the voters to sign anything you want them to sign.’”
     
    This only demonstrates Schenck’s shallow faith at the time he was advocating for the right of unborn children to live.  His recent decision to change his advocacy only demonstrates that nothing significant has changed therein.
     
    “Harper characterized Psalm 139, in which David says ‘you knit me together in my mother’s womb’ as ‘a poem, not law.’”
     
    No one using Psalm 139 in demonstrating the Bible’s opposition to abortion is suggesting that it is law.  Rather, the use of Psalm 139 points out that David is saying that it was he who was created in his mother’s womb, not some non-person fetal tissue matter that did not become him until sometime later.
     
    “Harper stated that Exodus 21:22-23, which describes penalties to someone who harms a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, as illustrative of a law that treats the life of the born and the unborn differently.  Exodus chapter 21 states that a man causing a woman to miscarry will be subject to a fine.  However, if a man causes a woman to lose her life, then he too shall be killed.  Harper interprets this law to prove a difference in the value of the life of the unborn and the mother.”
     
    This is a misinterpretation of the passage.  The ESV renders this as, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.  But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc.  What is translated here as, “children come out,” is the Hebrew phrase, yeled yatsa, literally meaning “child (yeled) depart yatsa),” without any indication as to whether the child is born alive or miscarried.  The use of “miscarriage” (Heb. shakol; cf. Gen. 31.38, Ex. 23.26, II Kg. 2.21, Job 21.10, Hos. 9.14) in translations like RSV and the NASB is in error.  This is evaluating whether or not lasting harm (Heb. ason) has occurred when a pregnant woman has been struck, omitting any specific reference to the recipient of the lasting harm—whether to the mother or to the child who proceeds from her after she has been struck—leading logically to the conclusion that the condition of the law is whether either the mother or the child has received lasting harm from the injury.  If the pregnant woman’s child is born alive without having received injury from the blow that she had received, then no lasting harm has been done to the child.  On the other hand, if she miscarries, lasting harm has, in fact, been done, terminating the life of the child, and the one who struck her is legally culpable for the child’s death and subject to the law’s penalty, namely, “life for life.”

  24. Comment by Loren J Golden on February 13, 2022 at 6:56 pm

    “I would like to know what is ‘evangelical’ about this collection of people.”
     
    They claim the label because they are coming from churches that were founded as Evangelical churches twenty or more years ago, not because they hold to a high view of Scripture that is characteristic of Evangelicalism.
     
    In the mid-1990s, scholars such as Mark Noll and David Wells warned that a lack of serious thought, especially regarding Christian theology, and of serious cultural engagement, in certain quarters of the Evangelical movement, produced an insufficient grounding in the Christian faith that would inevitably lead to a new theological liberalism.  Sadly, time has proven them correct.
     
    “They’re hypocritical Christians, just like the right-wing Christians who are in favor of capital punishment.  You can’t be ‘pro-life’ and support killing human beings.”
     
    Be very careful when painting with such a wide brush.  Part and parcel of the covenant God made with Noah following the Great Deluge was the commandment that whoever or whatever took the life of man was to be killed in just recompense, for doing so was tantamount to killing God in effigy:
    “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man.  From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
    “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
         by man shall his blood be shed,
    for God made man in his own image.” (Gen. 9.5-6)
     
    Further, in establishing the Mosaic Law that governed Old Testament Israel, God required the death penalty for violations against a number of moral and ceremonial commandments.  With the passing of Old Testament Israel, the Judicial Law, with its penalties, is passed away, and with the establishment of the New Covenant in the Lord Jesus’ blood, the Old Covenant, with its ceremonial commandments, is likewise passed away.  Now, the civil magistrate (or the secular government) has the authority to establish penalties for violations of civil law, including the death penalty for certain crimes, and Christians are obligated by God to observe his authority (Mt. 22.15-22, Mk. 12.13-17, Lk. 20.19-26, Rom. 13.1-7, Tit. 3.1, I Pet. 2.13-17).
     
    So then, if God, who never changes (Num. 23.19, Ps. 102.26-27, Mal. 3.6, Jas. 1.17), has in the past required His chosen people to employ the death penalty against those convicted of violating certain laws, even if He does not require them to do so today, and if He in the New Testament has said nothing against the civil magistrate employing the death penalty for serious crimes, who are you to bind the conscience of Christians today to the belief that there is no fundamental moral difference between the unjust taking of innocent human life, such as abortion, and the employment of capital punishment by the state as a just recompense for those rightly convicted of grievous crimes, particularly murder?

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.