The Evangelical Abortion Inconsistency

If you've read many of my posts, you know by now that one of the most consistent traits of traditionalist Christians is that they're not very consistent in their theological thinking. This is possibly no more obvious than in their views on the subject of abortion. Most evangelicals I know of, for instance, are extremely anti-abortion, and yet when I consider the issue I would think that they should be the most pro-abortion group of people out there.

Why?

Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called "the age of accountability." A child reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die apparently go to heaven (or so the doctrine goes) because they're too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in hell forever if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian.

Now I'd estimate that 90% or more of the human population will go to hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if everlasting torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are as they'd probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn't those traditionalists who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they're willing to risk the eternal souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? Since there is a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (depending on where and when you happen to live the odds might vary, but they're still pretty grim), wouldn't you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in everlasting hell for those past this age then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible eternal outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you're still alive and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).

If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children's soul with a fate far worse, and far longer, than simple death or injury?

No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I'm wrong. I've made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don't expect to have it happen anytime soon either.



Just for the record, since I'm a Christian Universalist I obviously don't believe that anyone ends up in hell for eternity so I am not promoting murder here, nor is this a post in favour of, or against, abortion. This post is simply to challenge yet another inconsistency in traditionalist Christian ideology.

Theology is Theory

No matter what theological conclusions you might have come to over your lifetime, one of the most important factors to remember is that theology is just theory.

Whether you believe in biblical literalism and inerrancy or a more figurative method of interpreting Scripture, whether you lean towards a pre-trib/pre-mil rapture or towards an amillennial eschatology, whether you think that God is a triune set of persons or think that He is actually just one being manifesting in different forms, and even whether you are convinced that non-believers will suffer forever in hell or are sure that everyone will eventually make it to heaven, we all have to realize that any of us could be wrong about any of these subjects because in the end there's no way to know with absolute certainty that what we believe is true.

Even if an angel or a being claiming to be God appeared before you telling you that "this particular doctrine is absolutely true," you can't know that this entity is being entirely truthful, and even if said being wasn't lying, you very well might be confused about what it was that you were told actually meant.

It might sound like I'm calling for agnosticism here, and you'd be absolutely right, except that you might be confused here as well because agnosticism is not necessarily what you think it is. To be agnostic doesn't mean that one has to reject all forms of spiritual belief. Rather, to be agnostic about theological claims can simply mean that one is humble enough to admit that one can't know things for certain that can't be proven and recognizing that one might actually be wrong about their metaphysical ideas.

So embrace your faith, but have the humility of the agnostic. Proclaim your doctrinal views, but do so with the understanding that you might have it all wrong and may one day have to admit to everyone that you no longer believe as you once did. I've had to do this more than a few times in my life and it's taught me to be much more careful about just how dogmatic I am when discussing what is ultimately nothing more than theory.