In August, pro-life activists in Kansas tried to amend the state constitution to remove its right to abortion. The effort, entitled the “Value Them Both Amendment,” failed by a wide margin.
In the run up to the election, Adam Hamilton, pastor at the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas, held a July 27 “Conversation About Faith and Abortion” with his congregants and others. Hamilton’s church is the largest in American United Methodism. He identifies as a “centrist’ who opposes his denomination’s traditional teachings about marriage and sexuality.
United Methodism has an officially ambiguous stance on abortion that has become more pro-life in recent years. Declining Mainline Protestant denominations, which are historically liberal, have generally affirmed abortion rights over the last 50 years. Survey results from Hamilton’s church indicate his church is as divided on abortion as society.
Hamilton viewed this conversation in his church about abortion in Kansas as a way for both sides to practice the injunction in the biblical book of James to be “quick to listen” and “slow to speak,” and in so doing, better “love [God] and love our neighbor.”
The need for listening and kindness was apparently much needed at the famed megachurch. Before the event, a survey concerning views on abortion was released to the congregation, garnering 4,393 responses. The results showed that, even within the church, views on the subject were highly disparate, suggesting that the statewide result in Kansas should not have come as too much of a surprise.
Of the respondents, Hamilton explained that “77% were women, and 23% were men.” Furthermore, while “the people who took the survey were nearly equally divided between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents,” it is noteworthy that more of the men taking the survey tended to be Republicans and more of the women were Democrats. Women were also more likely than the general respondent to declare that they “were very confident” in their views on abortion policy.
With these demographics, views unsurprisingly ranged from heavily pro-life to heavily pro-choice. Still, though no side could claim an outright majority, the survey results revealed that those with pro-choice attitudes outnumbered those with pro-life attitudes by 47% to 44%, including 11% who favored abortion’s legality all throughout pregnancy until birth (as compared to the 1% of respondents who claimed abortion should be entirely illegal with no exceptions).
Hamilton noted, however, that “most people are somewhere not on the ends, but somewhere closer to the middle” on regulating abortion. The plurality response was to suggest that “I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t believe I should be legislating that to other people,” with 23% of respondents choosing that answer. This particular answer was considered a pro-life position, and included more than half of all pro-life survey responses.
Given the stark divides within Hamilton’s congregation and historic Christian teaching about abortion, Hamilton interpreted his role in the talk as not telling people “How [they] should vote on August 2,” but rather how they might “better understand people in different places.”
To facilitate that end, several female speakers, including Dr. Michelle Lentell (an OB-GYN), U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, former Kansas state representative Stephanie Sharp, and Dr. Brenda Shoup (a gynecologist), spoke alongside Hamilton to discuss the medical, legal, and political contours of the issue.
Hamilton closed the town hall presentation with meditations upon one more statistic. All respondents were asked the question: “do you consider your own stances to be more or less loving and compassionate than the opposing view?” According to Hamilton, “58% said ‘my position is more loving and compassionate than the other side,’” while “41% said ‘it’s equally loving and compassionate’” when compared to the opposite view.
This, according to Hamilton, evinced his congregation’s striving for goodness. “Nobody goes out there and says, ‘What can I do that’s the most unloving thing to do,’ or, ‘How can I do something that’s against God’s will?’”
“If you’re a Christian,” Hamilton summarized, “you are trying to do God’s will and you are trying to understand what God would have you do.”
Of course, regardless of intentions, however benevolent they may be, the fact remains that there are better and worse ways of addressing a situation as morally charged as the matter of abortion.
Hamilton describes himself as “pro-life with a heavy heart, and the heavy heart means that [he has] compassion for people who are walking through really horrible times.” This heavy heart, he elaborated, also meant that “there may be situations that I don’t fully understand, but that may merit or may call for” abortion.
Still, Hamilton maintained that despite that possibility, he doesn’t “ever give advice to somebody to have an abortion.” Indeed, in an attempt to limit the total number of abortions, Hamilton also maintained that “birth control” should be “made free and accessible to anyone.”
Throughout the event, Hamilton insisted that both sides of the debate had legitimate desires and that ultimately Christians across the aisle simply need to listen to each other and share God’s love.
But given the Kansas referendum result, we should ask whether this relativistic attitude from our churches has failed to promote in society, and even within the church, a high regard for all human life.
Comment by Tom on September 7, 2022 at 3:53 pm
“somewhere closer to the middle” on regulating abortion.
Considering that abortion is the mutilation and murder of a human life, what on earth might a “middle” position be? Is it like a “middle” position on the Holocaust or the racial theories of the Nazis? Sheesh.
Comment by td on September 7, 2022 at 10:46 pm
Adam hamilton and abortion.
So much for his mega-church making disciples. It was his suburban county that delivered crushing margins for defeat of the constitutional amendment. His county was the seat of misinformation, scare tactics, lies, and fear mongering.
Did hamilton step in to correct these lies?
Did he speak out about how the kansas supreme court’s decision went way beyond Roe and Casey?
Did hamilton even address that abortion was wrong?
Did hamilton speak out against mainstream coalition umc pastor mark holland running loudly for us senate as a pro abortion candidate and nominee?
We have to face that the support for abortion as a woman’s right largely rests in wealthy, suburban areas- areas just like hamilton’s mega church. Areas in which it is thought that nothing should be allowed to encroach on a person’s “right” to control every aspect of his or her life. Where comfort can not be allowed to be sacrificed, not even for the life of a child. Truly it is exactly the opposite, the child can be sacrificed for the comfort of the mother.
Pro-choice for the mother. No choice for the child or the father. No choice for the sister or brother. No choice for the grandfather or grandmother. And certainly no choice allowed for God.
Comment by David Mu on September 8, 2022 at 1:18 am
Over 63 million since Roe is an rather hard number of abortions to overlook. I was always for the ‘safe, legal and few’ position, but these past several years have had me re-consider this. Frankly, when I began to hear supporters call it a reason for celebration shows me an evil coming from this ruling, and rising out of an harden heart that has evil in it.
Comment by Hamilton is a hypocrite on September 8, 2022 at 7:29 am
“Both sides have legitimate desires” is just a bald faced lie.
One side wishes to save innocent pre-born children/fetuses, the other side selfishly wishes sexual freedom and if that means killing pre-born children/fetuses so be it. There is no middle ground here except for the ethical problems of rape, incest, and the physical health of the mother which almost all agree that abortion is a sad but moral act.
There are many children in awful situations these days, stuck in single-parents households, or in poverty, or in abusive situations. It’s not their fault and often it is not totally the fault of the birth mother other than the fact she engaged in sex outside of marriage and the commitments it entails. But to add legitimacy to the killing of innocents when parroting the other policies of the hard left as Hamilton does makes a mockery of his supposed middle-of-the-road position.
It’s obvious that he support is ‘choice’, meaning dead pre-born children/fetuses while trying to play to both sides. And the Bishops backtracking on the Protocol think there is a big enough tent for everyone to live under while doing ‘the mission’. Ah, no.
Comment by Sue on September 8, 2022 at 7:45 am
I have seen a child die alone in the NICU – up for adoption, born at 23 weeks, family neglected – on morphine because they were born with neonatal abstinence syndrome since their mom took drugs the entire pregnancy. There is suffering in abortion but there is also suffering in life. I never wanted to see a baby born at 23 weeks weighing 1 pound die without any family present. It happens. To think that abortions are the only way children are dying is incorrect. Some are born struggling to survive after their own mother harmed them not by abortion but by their actions – drug use, No prenatal care, smoking, alcohol. And some of those children die. “Choosing Life” is not fair to those born under those situations. Life is messy, life is complicated, and so is abortion.
Comment by PSC on September 8, 2022 at 11:27 am
Just wait until your wife or daughter receives a fatal diagnosis during the first trimester of pregnancy, yet chooses to carry fully knowing the end will be a spontaneous abortion, a stillbirth, or a live birth with a life expectancy of hours or days — not weeks, months or years. Will you support her throughout with your prayers and presence, or will you suggest termination to avoid the ultimate outcome, believing it will lessen her period of grief?
Comment by Star Tripper on September 8, 2022 at 12:33 pm
“I believe slavery is wrong, but I don’t believe I should be legislating that to other people,” — Whig politician, 1849
Comment by Jeff on September 8, 2022 at 12:46 pm
Of the many heretics infesting UMC clergy & episcopacy, Adam Hamilton is the worst; he has used his popular voice and pen to carve the sacred Word of GOD into pieces, and then discard or diminish the parts that get in the way of his love affair with the world. He thereby multiplies his own wickedness by encouraging and supporting others in the open practice of heresy. Pray for the souls who are headed to perdition under Adam Hamilton’s guidance. Pray for him too.
Comment by Jeff on September 8, 2022 at 12:54 pm
Sue, PSC,
You put forth these anecdotes as representative of abortion today — yet you well know that the VAST majority of actual abortions are simply murders of convenience to protect a preferred lifestyle.
There is a word to describe your specious arguments: disingenuous.
Comment by Phil on September 8, 2022 at 1:39 pm
Hamilton you wrote, “There is no middle ground here except for the ethical problems of rape, incest, and the physical health of the mother which almost all agree that abortion is a sad but moral act.”
Except not all do agree on the exceptions you named. There are many self-described pro-lifers, many of them in positions of power such as politicians, who do not believe in exceptions for rape or even incest. I’ve even heard some say they wouldn’t make exceptions for the physical health or life of the mother or deny that such medical complications exist (they do). Some of the laws being proposed or passed now by state governments either make no exceptions or are so vague or strict in their language that doctors themselves have come forward to say they’re afraid they’ll be prosecuted for providing life-saving care to women. Women who would fall under these exceptions are being turned away in some states simply because their doctor fell like there’s a constant target on their back. Laws such as the one in Texas that have empowered private citizens to issue suits against doctors or health clinics providing abortions will make this much worse, because the vigilantes filing these cases won’t understand or care about the specifics of the pregnancy nor will they have any concern for the well-being of the mother or the reputation of the doctor. They will be militants looking to make a name for themselves in what they see as some larger war against abortion. We’re creating a dangerous environment for our doctors.
More to the point in states with these new restrictive laws around abortion nearly every case concerning the life or well-being of mother or the viability of the fetus are being aired in public and becoming politized by the debate. I haven’t talked to any pro-life or pro-choice who could possibly contemplate making a 10-year-old girl carry a baby to full-term, and yet there were anti-abortion activists and statesmen who condemned the Indiana doctor who performed the procedure on her. Indiana’s own attorney general opened an investigation into the doctor basically just to get his name in the paper and offer red meat to his base, and that was in a state that still had broad access to abortion. I know you think Roe was a terrible mistake, but one thing it did establish was that abortion regardless of the circumstances was a matter of privacy between the women and her doctor. By overturning it in the way we have, we’ve exposed every case of abortion (even the ones you and I might both deem necessary) to be decided in public debate rather than medical science. Any mother who has a non-viable, life-threatening, or traumatic pregnancy will potentially have their case broadcasted, debated, exploited, and/or ultimately decided by the media and court of public opinion. As Indiana has shown it won’t matter what the actual law says when emotions are so high on both sides and people see it as a zero-sum game. This is a consequence of the end of Roe no one considered, but we desperately need to have a conversation about.
Comment by Hi Phil, please reread my post. on September 8, 2022 at 2:51 pm
Nice reply, now it’s time to see the receipts.
First, notice I said ‘almost all” not ‘all’, just like I would not say that every pro-choice person agrees with those who say that abortion is moral at all times in a pregnancy, including labor and delivery, or that infanticide is moral for days after birth.
Second, please tell us how many people say that. Who are they, how many of them say that, and what is their effect on public policy? You might find a small minority of pro-life people who say that, but let us compare that number to the population of Iceland and millions of people who say it is perfectly moral to abort children with Down’s Syndrome and do it without hesitation.
It used to be in the US and much of the West that compromise was something important to do to maintain a civil society. Among other things Row v. Wade and Casey destroyed that term and it’s affects on our society. Saying that a few people taking a radical position paints all pro-life people as extremists is absurd.
Comment by David on September 8, 2022 at 3:55 pm
Down Syndrome is a terrible disease. It often begins with cardiac problems at birth. Affected persons face cognitive problems and then about a third will develop severe dementia by their 50s. Unfortunately, the pro-lifers like to point to the small minority population that are mosaics for Down, that is only some of their cells have the extra chromosome. Normally, fetuses with the wrong number of chromosomes, estimated at over a third of conceptions, are naturally aborted, but this is not the case with Down Syndrome. There are far worse things such as cyclopia, but they often do not survive long past birth.
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13243541.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_PAY-BABY-WITH-ONE-EYE.jpg
Comment by Sue on September 8, 2022 at 4:05 pm
Jeff,
Not disingenuous, actual daily life for people who work in hospitals. What I am saying is, abortion is sad. But seeing babies suffering to survive while being born premature and addicted to opioids is sad too. It’s not disingenuous, having emotions and sympathy to those who hurt – the unborn, the stillborn, the born and struggling, the parents making decisions – is genuine. Life is fragile. Let’s respect each other and understand that we might not agree on everything. It’s ok. I can respect your views.
Comment by Jeff on September 8, 2022 at 6:35 pm
Very well, Sue. So in your moral sphere, what restrictions on abortion do you deem acceptable? In mine, abortion is acceptable when the mother’s life is truly at risk.
And would you agree with the statement that the VAST majority of abortions are simply for convenience and lifestyle continuation reasons?
Comment by PSC on September 8, 2022 at 7:20 pm
Jeff,
Not a specious argument or an anecdote. Our family lived it – tears, prayers, pain, and all. What a journey, ending in a life of three hours. I’ll repeat my earlier question: “Will you support her throughout with your prayers and presence, or will you suggest termination to avoid the ultimate outcome, believing it will lessen her period of grief?”
Comment by PSC on September 8, 2022 at 7:28 pm
Jeff,
Not a specious argument or an anecdote. Our family lived it, through all the pain, prayer, love, and all. What a journey, ending in a three-hour life. I’ll end with how I ended earlier: “Will you support her throughout with your prayers and presence, or will you suggest termination to avoid the ultimate outcome, believing it will lessen her period of grief?”
Comment by PSC on September 8, 2022 at 7:30 pm
Sorry for the re-post. Didn’t see first one as soon as I anticipated.
Comment by Jeff on September 8, 2022 at 7:39 pm
PSC,
Earlier you said:
“Just wait until your wife or daughter receives a fatal diagnosis during the first trimester of pregnancy, yet chooses to carry fully knowing the end will be a spontaneous abortion, a stillbirth, or a live birth with a life expectancy of hours or days …”
Trusting in the LORD, she chose life! I would support her and the new life within her, per her courageous choice.
Comment by Phil on September 8, 2022 at 10:24 pm
Hamilton,
I believe it is you who are trying to twist my words. I never said all pro-lifers were extremists, in fact I think I stated the opposite very clearly in the my reply. Many of my own family identify as pro-life, but support abortion under the exceptions you mentioned in your original post.
What I said was that there are certainly people who don’t allow such exceptions and that far from being angry outliers writing from their parents’ basements you may imagine them to be, a number of them do enjoy remarkable power and influence. Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum once said during a primary debate that he does believe a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should be forced to carry the fetus to term. Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano has said he would outlaw abortion in the state with “no exceptions” even for the life of the mother. Former Indiana RNC vice-chair and counsel for the National Right to Life Committee James Bopp said of the case of the 10-year-old-girl who was impregnated by her rapist, “She would have had the baby [under a new proposed anti-abortion law he helped craft for the State of Indiana], and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.” Other big names like Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and Herschel Walker have also said they are against exceptions for rape or incest.
At least 11 states have passed laws in the lead up to Dobbs that outlaw abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest. Laws in states such as Louisiana and Texas concerning exceptions are also so vague in their wording that doctors and clinics have already begun turning away women whose pregnancies pose a severe risk to their health or whose fetuses are non-viable because these doctors are afraid they will be prosecuted. Some states (including my own home state) are passing or considering laws that don’t even provide outright protection from prosecution to doctors who perform abortions to save women’s lives. They only state that these circumstances can be “considered by the court when doctor offers up their defense.” If you were a doctor would you feel safe providing a life-saving abortion for a pregnant woman under such laws?
Again, I’m not writing this to attack all pro-lifers. In fact, I trying to find some common ground here because we at least both agree cases of rape, incest, and severe risk to the life or general health of the mother should be exceptions to any abortion law. I’m asking what are you and other pro-lifers who agree with you going to do to protect those exceptions that are already being lost in the shuffle as we speak?
Comment by Phil on September 8, 2022 at 10:32 pm
PSC,
I’m truly sorry your family had to go through such a tragic and traumatic ordeal. I can’t even begin to imagine how hard that must of been, but I admire your courage in speaking openly about it on this forum where compassion or empathy can easily get lost in the heat of the debate. I’m certainly no less guilty of the sin of indifference than anyone else here, but you’ve reminded me of what often gets forgotten or overlooked in these discussions that is vitally important to remember. I thank you for that.
Phil
Comment by George on September 8, 2022 at 11:24 pm
Adam Hamilton’s wishy washy views on abortion makes me think about the scripture, Revelation 3:16. I have heard more than one liberal pastor take this same position. They think by doing this, they will keep their hands from getting dirty. So when the new and improved Book of discipline goes to print, they can hide behind its words, but what about God’s words? Adam Hamilton is very smart , but that doesn’t make him right.
Comment by PSC on September 9, 2022 at 6:08 am
Phil,
Thank you, and blessings to you and those you love.
Comment by PSC on September 9, 2022 at 7:05 am
Jeff,
A courageous choice indeed.
Comment by Diane on September 18, 2022 at 3:14 am
Been reading chapter on abortion, pre-Roe, in Shirley Chsholm’s Book, Unbought and Unbossed, 1970. Our focus is on a fetus. He focus is on the fact that except for the very rich, when contraception fails (and it does), unintended pregnancy impacts economic stability of the mother. I lived for ten years in a retirement community, where many women were never able to accumulate enough wealth in their lifetimes on low-wage paying jobs. They struggle to care for themselves on social security income. Their old age is not happy.
Chisholm frames reproductive rights as an economic stability issue for women…noting when abortion is illegal, women will always continue to risk their lives to have an abortion. Will it be a safe one ot one that is botched, causing life long injury or death.
Chisholm makes another point about the inherent racism in abortion bans. White women with financial means will have access to safe abortions; the pregnancy-related death rate due to botched abortions will always be much higher among women of color than white women.
Prior to Roe v Wade, Chisholm identifies the underground network that white women accessed to get safe abortions when abortion was illegal. Life endangerment of the mother qualified one for a safe abortion. White women with financial means were instructed to see a psychiatrist, lie about the pregnancy was causing suicidal thoughts and because of “life endangerment”, the woman got a safe abortion when the highly paid psychiatrist signed off on her qualifying for one.
I can vouch for this – had no idea that this circumventing strategy was widespread, almost a favored white-race coded system. Several years ago, a friend (White) confided she’d gotten an abortion in 1966 while in high school. She said it was easy – parents paid for her to see a psychiatrist, she was coached to tell him she was suicidal and got a safe abortion. She’s in her seventies now – in terms of economic stability impact, the abortion allowed her to finish high school, get a college degree that qualified her for a high-paying profession with a nice pension plus social security. She’s doing well and has no regrets about having an abortion.
Just something to think about. Our country has a mostly-male run government with a pattern of punishing women in re to reproductive rights (actually the lack of them): forced birth, forced sterilization, no time off for dr visit for contraception, no contraceptive insurance, especially at faith based businesses, costly contraception, inaccessible contraception,
It’s all about punishing women