http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/comment-page-7/
In his blog Jonathon Dudley observes the hard stance of evangelicals against abortion. Of course he rehearses some of the asinine remarks of so-called evangelical politicians, but may be correct when he says these gaffs point to a false assumption that evangelicals have always been on the extreme end of the abortion debate. According to Dudley, such an interpretation of scripture is a relatively new phenomenon. He goes on to cite a special issue of Christianity Today from the late sixties where Bruce Waltke claimed the Bible clearly taught that life began at birth, and no earlier. He says that the Southern Baptist Convention even passed a resolution in the early 70's supporting the legalization of abortion.
Dudley continues providing a history lesson outlining the evolution of various Christian leader’s position on the beginning of life, hence the morality of abortion. Such a shift in biblical interpretation has had obvious effects on the political climate. Dudley’s point is to challenge the mindless followers of anti-abortion advocates to realize that religious opinion on the matter has not always been settled, and therefore perhaps it shouldn’t be a settled biblical issue today. Perhaps the issue is not solved by a timeless biblical principle.
Dudley is correct in asserting that one shouldn’t blindly follow one person’s interpretation of scripture. This would be the place for caution while praying for the Holy Spirit to lead one into truth and wisdom, holding fast to the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints.
Dudley is also correct that evangelicals have not always agreed on what the Bible has taught concerning the beginning of life. This could be said about many, if not all of the doctrines of scripture, for biblical interpretation has its complexities. Yet, Dudley is incorrect when he implies that inconsistency in the past automatically equals error in the present. Therefore, when it comes to forming one’s own convictions, the history of biblical interpretation can teach much, yet there are many more considerations and scholarship to take into account. And ultimately one must always come back to wrestle with the text itself.
I am unapologetically pro-life and anti-abortion, and I believe the scripture teaches that human personhood begins at conception. Yet one thing certainly to be gleaned from Dudley’s observations is the need for humility when approaching holy writ, and the need for graciousness when communicating biblical convictions in a hotly debated environment. Convictions can be drawn from scripture, held without flinching, while at the same time being an occasion to display humility and graciousness, while remaining teachable for those occasions when correction is made available to us.
