a new book

 

Forward: Biblical Authority and the Abortion Debate

Forward written by Paul D. Simmons, Th.M., Ph. D. Clinical Professor, School of Medicine and Adjunct in Philosophy, University of Louisville, KY.

Few people bring the passion, energy, or insights motivated by serious biblical scholarship to the abortion debate, as does John V. Stevens, Sr. He brings an authentic witness to his claims about biblical authority and the religious bases of his involvement in this divisive debate. His writings through the years have focused consistently on the twin concerns for truth and justice. His approach to truth involves an informed perspective on what the Bible actually says. He does not substitute claims that are widely disseminated by the mass media but have little, if any, factual relation to the texts of Scripture. His concern for justice embraces issues from the manner in which women are treated to the constitutional protections for religious freedom in belief and practices.

Both the demands of truth and the requirements of justice are loudly claimed by the powerful religious coalition that has dominated the public debate about abortion for the past three decades. The problem is that dissimulation and prejudgments dominate their arguments and the proposals they pursue with such vigor and vehemence. Three “Justice Sundays” were organized by politicized evangelicals in their pursuit of dominance in American governance. Their pronouncements and perspectives had nothing to do with justice as portrayed in Scripture, however, or, for that matter, in American jurisprudence. It had to do with putting pressure on the Administration to appoint only those “justices,” that is, judges, who would support their agenda in making and enforcing American laws. Speakers specifically targeted Supreme Court appointments.

The social contract of tolerance and protection for people of different religious persuasions and practices is a major emphasis in John Stevens’ approach to the abortion debate. The law is obliged to provide “equal protection” to women who choose to abort, as well as to those who choose not to abort, regardless of the circumstances. Both act on the basis of powerful moral and/or faith beliefs that inform and give support to the decision. Any effort to foreclose the option for choice by those religious groups who oppose any grounds for abortion is, at the same time, an exercise in religious intolerance and a breach of the wall between church and state.

The Abortion Controversy places the legal question in perspective by drawing on the history of the debate from the colonial era to the latest decisions of the Supreme Court. In doing so, Stevens describes the major players and their church-state patterns of action and beliefs. He rightly portrays the Puritans as heavy-handed and authoritarian in matters of personal morals. Their style of governance was one that emphasized the dominance of the clergy, not the religious or moral commitments of the individual. The idea of theocratic governance was not invented by the Puritans, but they found stalwart and committed partners in seeking the dominance of the church in shaping public policy and constitutional law in groups such as orthodox Roman Catholics. That theocratic mentality is still found on the American scene. Stevens pulls off its mask, showing the threat it represents to democratic governance and religious freedom. The challenge is for Americans to recognize and resist those movements and ideas that deny the basic premise of the American experiment in democracy.

   read more