Archive for the ‘Consistent Life Ethic’ Category

Reflections on Personal Discernment – The Abortion Issue

Monday, July 28th, 2025

NOTE: This is a paper prepared by me (Bill Samuel) in December 1993 (very slightly revised since) as part of my participation in the Spiritual Nurturer Program of the School of the Spirit. It was originally published on a domain I no longer control.

While reading Paul Lacey’s On Leading and Being Led (Pendle Hill Pamphlet #264), I found myself reflecting on my experience of discernment over the years on the issue of abortion. It seemed right that this should be the topic of my first reflective paper.

Earliest Remembrances

I don’t remember thinking about abortion or hearing about it when I was growing up. My first memory related to the abortion issue dates from my college years. Some students in my dormitory put up a sign on their door reading:

ACME ABORTION SERVICE

YOU RAPE, WE SCRAPE

NO FETUS CAN BEAT US

The college administration found this sign so offensive that they put considerable pressure on the students to remove it. However, I don’t remember any discussions of what made the sign offensive or of the abortion issue. Although it certainly illustrates the traditional feminist position (still upheld by Feminists for Life) that abortion is a male tool of oppression, I don’t remember doing much thinking about the issue at the time. However, the fact that I still recall the sign more than a quarter of a century later would seem to indicate that it had a real effect on me at some level.

As a young adult, I was very involved in peace and social justice causes. I identified with the left and was inclined to align myself with the most common left points of view on matters which I had not personally considered in depth. There was a period in which I probably would have tended to say I was “pro-choice” if asked my position on abortion. However, I was not active on this issue and had no strong views.

Influences of Others

During the Vietnam War, I spent a period of time very involved in a 24-hour-a-day vigil for peace in front of the White House started by New York Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quakers) and later turned over to a local group calling itself the White House Daily Meeting of Friends. The vigilers were my closest friends. I respected the spiritual wisdom of several of the vigilers, and they affected both my spiritual outlook and my views on issues.

One day, a couple of vigilers went off on an errand and didn’t come back for some time. When they came back, they explained why they had been gone so long. Their route had taken them past the office of the Papal Nuncio. A group was demonstrating there against the position of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. My friends felt compelled to counter-demonstrate. They found some cardboard, made some signs, carried them and engaged in dialogue with the original protesters.

Until that time, I had not known the position of these friends on abortion. Their deep conviction that abortion was contrary to the will of God brought me to seriously consider the issue for the first time. I found that other vigilers whose spiritual wisdom I respected had the same conviction on abortion. This was a key test for me. How had God moved those whose lives demonstrated their trust in the Divine Source?

The position of these friends was what has come to be known as the “seamless garment” or “consistency” perspective. They held that all life was sacred in God’s eyes, and that all taking of human life (most took it further than human life, and were vegetarians as I had always been) was wrong. Therefore, war, capital punishment and abortion were all evil for the same reason. This view of the Friends’ peace testimony made sense to me. Vigil leaflets, which I prepared in consultation with other vigilers, began to include a section on abortion.

After being developed initially through the influence of those to whom I looked for spiritual guidance, my pro-life abortion position has been confirmed repeatedly through this test of the religious convictions of others. I worked for several years in the Legislative Office of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). There came a time when WILPF members began pressing for the organization to work for abortion rights and abortion funding. Our little staff of three – one active Jew, one disillusioned Catholic and one Friend – discussed this in a staff meeting. We found that all three of us felt for religious reasons we could not do such work for the organization.

I was also active for several years in the war tax resistance movement. As the alternative fund movement grew, our local group began to consider starting a local fund. I discussed this with one war tax resistance activist whose way of life exemplified her religious convictions. She told me she wasn’t sure if she could participate, because she feared such a fund might give money to abortion clinics. “I have the same problem with abortion that I have with war,” she told me.

I have had several friends whose position on abortion has changed towards a pro-life posture as they have spiritually grown. Usually this has come to a surprise to them. Their experience has been confirmed for me through the results of a poll I saw recently. The poll showed that, regardless of religious affiliation, people were more likely to take a pro-life stance the more active they were in their religious faith.

Although these incidents demonstrate the reinforcement of my pro-life position by others whose lives seem to me to demonstrate faithfulness to God, it is also true that many people with whom I share much spiritually have a different position on abortion. But in discussing the issue with them, their arguments have never seemed to me to be fundamentally spiritual. They start with a deep sense of identification with women with “problem pregnancies” and/or with “unwanted” children – an identification that rings true with me as exemplifying Christ’s own identification with the “least of these.” But this does not separate them from my pro-life friends, who have the same deep compassion.

The difference, as I have discerned it, is in the broader spiritual context. My pro-choice friends basically seem to accept the world’s assumptions about “unwanted” children and women’s options. My pro-life friends reject these assumptions, assuming that God can redeem any situation. The fact that in our human wisdom we can not see any “way out” for women in very difficult situations or any concrete possibility for a good life for the children is simply unconvincing to my pro-life friends and to me. My faith that God can redeem situations that seem hopeless from a human point of view is strengthened by my reading of many examples in the pro-life press.

I also see a parallel to the issue of war and peace. Serious arguments for violent responses to real problems come not from a love for the response, but from deep concern for the problems the response attempts to address. One can make good human arguments that military action is needed to counter the evil deeds of an Adolf Hitler or a Saddam Hussein. People who make these arguments usually have no love for war, just as most pro-choice people have no love for abortion. While one can always make human arguments against any particular military action, these have never been as convincing to me as the spiritual arguments. The Friends’ peace testimony is not based upon a worldly analysis of what works.

The Lesson From My Own Life

Another way I discern is by looking at how God has worked in my life. The story of how I came into this world definitely influences my position on abortion. When I was a fetus, the doctors were convinced that were I to live, I would be severely handicapped, both physically and mentally. My mother also had severe medical problems at the time of my birth. However, I turned out to be a very healthy baby, with no evident handicaps. My mother has lived an active life for decades since my birth. This demonstrates for me that what doctors or other experts “know” is not necessarily the truth. Our human understanding is always limited. And God’s ability to redeem any situation is not limited by scientific laws. My mother’s turning me over to God while I was in her womb made all the difference.

The arguments that abortion is justified in certain instances rest on assumptions based on human understanding about what will happen if abortion is not chosen. What the story of my life tells me is that these assumptions fail to account for the ways God can work. This lesson from my own life is confirmed by many stories I have heard and read of others.

The Test From Scripture

I believe it is wise to test our understandings with the written record contained in scripture. I recognize this is not easy and straightforward. Scripture does not speak directly to a current situation and may not say anything explicitly about certain issues. It is subject to interpretation, and we can easily mislead ourselves by twisting our interpretation of scripture to the desired result. Nevertheless, it provides a key reference point.

My own view of the Bible is that it is a record written by people inspired by God, filtered through their languages, cultures and experiences. The Bible also reflects a growth in understanding of how God works among us, and the New Testament reflects a fuller understanding than the Old for the most part.

In seeking to understand God’s will on any matter through the scripture, we should avoid over-emphasis on one or two brief verses. Rather, we should look for the themes that run through the Bible, particularly through Jesus’ teachings and the early church’s understanding of the Christian message. We then apply scriptural principles to a particular matter. In using a particular text, we should examine whether our application of the text to the matter at issue is consistent with the central themes of scripture. And, finally, we must seek and test scriptural understanding with the Spirit that brought forth the scriptures, as Quakers have particularly emphasized over the years. Prayer is fundamental to the right use of scripture.

The Bible does not have any direct references to abortion. The scripture that comes to me when I prayerfully consider abortion is “…as you did it to one of the least of these…you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40, NRSV) This text is reliable as it is simply one of the most graphic statements of a theme that is repeated over and over in scripture. And it seems clear to me that an unborn child is a prime example of one of the least of these. The unborn child is powerless and dependent. An unborn child with severe genetic defects, a prime candidate for abortion, is particularly one of the least of these. My understanding of this scripture as applied to abortion is that each abortion is, in some sense, a crucifixion of Christ.

The various lists and references to the “least of these” in scripture do not include the unborn child. But I don’t believe the Bible attempts to exhaustively provide such lists, so this does not indicate to me that including unborn children is stretching the meaning of the Biblical references.

There are several scriptural references to God’s work with us before we are born. “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13, NRSV) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you….” (Jeremiah 1:5, NRSV) The story of Jesus’s birth exemplifies God’s love and knowledge of us before we are born. Jesus was conceived by an unmarried woman in humble circumstances; a situation that might justify abortion in many modern minds.

The theme running through this paper of God’s understanding being different than human understanding is a major Biblical theme. “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom….” (1 Corinthians 1:25, NRSV). We are called in live in Jesus’ “upside down kingdom.”

Friends (Quakers) and the Bible

Concluding Reflections

My own wrestling with the issue of abortion over the years has been important to my spiritual formation. It has led me to a position that is in contrast to that of many around me. Therefore, it has stimulated me to reflect on discernment, on the fundamental principles of my faith, and on my own faithfulness to God’s call when it is easier to be silent or complicit in what I inwardly believe to be wrong in the sight of God. It has led me to focus on some key questions. Who is really in control? In whom (or what) do I put my faith?

2025 Postscript – I want to highlight two books that came out long after I wrote this paper. Both deal with the understanding of pre-Constantinian Christians about violence, covering a variety of forms of violence, including abortion. They reflect that early Christians consistently held that the teachings of Jesus forbade Christians from participating in any form of killing.

Consistently Pro-Life: The Ethics of Bloodshed in Ancient Christianity by Rob Arner. 2010, Pickwick Publications. This is based on a thesis prepared by the author. He read everything he could find from the Early church fathers, and found their views of violence entirely consistent with each other and reflecting what we today call the consistent life ethic.

The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive Sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment, edited by Ronald J. Sider. 2012, Baker Academic. This book provides quotes translated into English from early Christian writers. It also includes some other source material, such as archaeological finds.

I can’t breathe

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

My black brothers and sisters are being killed by police officers with impunity.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Dozens of U.S. cities prohibit people from feeding the homeless where they live.

I CAN’T BREATHE

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and private prison operators make money out of people’s misery and use the imprisoned as slave labor.

I CAN’T BREATHE

We are one of the richest countries in the world, and yet millions of our citizens lack adequate food, housing or medical care.

I CAN’T BREATHE

We are one of only three countries in the world without paid maternity leave, and millions of poor women have their unborn babies killed because they can’t see how they can support them.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Representatives of big corporate interests are put in charge of agencies that are supposed to regulate them, resulting in serious harm to our people, our land and our environment.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Palestinians are denied basic human rights, and my country gives billions of dollars to the oppressors.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Egypt sentences hundreds of peaceful protestors to death, and my Secretary of State praises the country ‘s “democracy” and we give billions of dollars to the Egyptian forces of oppression.

I CAN’T BREATHE

SOA/WHINSEC trains those from Latin America who oppress those struggling for freedom, and kill with impunity.

I CAN’T BREATHE

U.S. drones attack foreign countries, and only 1 in 28 of those killed are official targets, and many more are children and women.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Billions of our innocent fellow creatures are held in inhumane conditions, tortured and slaughtered for our palates, causing considerable human health problems and contributing greatly to global climate change.

I CAN’T BREATHE

Unfortunately, I could go on and on.

Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:23-24 (NRSV)

How long, O Lord, how long?

-Bill Samuel, December 3, 2014

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama, Christmas 2010

Saturday, December 25th, 2010

Merry Christmas, Mr. President, to you and your lovely family.

In your Christmas radio message you said, “many are fighting halfway around the globe – in hopes that someday, our children and grandchildren won’t have to.” I believe that you were sincere in saying that, but I ask you to look at that statement in light of the facts of history.

Many of your predecessors said the same thing with respect to the wars they were fighting. People on both sides of every war seem to say that. World War I was called the “war to end all wars.” This hope has proven itself through thousands of years of history to be misplaced. To the extent that history can be said to have proven anything, I believe it can be said to have proven that you don’t bring an end to wars by waging war. It not only doesn’t sound logical; it just doesn’t work.

Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Is it just possible that Jesus knew what he was talking about? Is it possible that you really do not achieve good ends by slaughtering people?

In your Nobel address, you said you could not be guided as President by the examples of Gandhi and King. Your implication was that the ideas of peacemakers are impractical in “the world as it is.”

Is it possible that it isn’t people like Jesus, Gandhi and King who aren’t facing the reality of “the world as it is” but those that advocate and wage wars? None of these men ever held political office. Yet each of them accomplished a lot more for good than you, the most powerful political leader in the world, will ever achieve by squandering our nation’s dedicated people and resources on wars. And they lived in “the world as it is.”

Mr. President, I implore you to re-consider your following of an approach that has proven over and over again to be ineffective, and causes untold misery. I ask you to abandon the approach of endless wars and instead offer us the politics of hope and lead our country in more positive directions that will constructively use the idealism of those currently on the battlefield and our material resources.

I Am Thankful

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

We are on the eve of Thanksgiving in the United States, where it is a major holiday. I believe in having an attitude of gratitude.

I could go on at great length with things I have to be thankful for, but I will just list a few today:

  • I am thankful for my Lord, Savior, Teacher and Friend Jesus Christ, in whom I live, move and have my being.
  • I am thankful for my sweet, loving wife Young, who brings me so much joy.
  • I am thankful for being raised by loving parents who showed me by example how to live.
  • I am thankful for Cedar Ridge Community Church, a loving faith community dedicated to growing in discipleship.
  • I am thankful for the several small groups of which I am a part, places of spiritual growth and friendship.
  • I am thankful for my work situation, in which I can do meaningful work as part of a team of great people.
  • I am thankful for my colleagues on the Board of Consistent Life, a delightful group with which to work for a world in which all human life is treated with respect and dignity.

Who have you thanked today?

Why I’m Voting for Joe

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

On November 4, we have an Election Day in the United States which will result in the choosing of the next President. Many people have explained for whom they’re voting, and I’ll join them in that. And that often includes why they’re not voting for someone else.

Very few of my friends seem to have seriously considered voting for John McCain, and I don’t think most of them would expect me to vote for him. So I won’t devote much energy to explaining why I’m not voting for him. I will reference him occasionally, but the major issue in the circles in which I move is whether to vote for Obama or for some non-duopoly candidate, so that is what I will principally address in this post.

Why I’m Not Voting for Obama

Since many people are making the assumption that if you don’t want McCain to be President, you should vote for Obama, let me address why I disagree.

I don’t believe in voting for the lesser evil. I think voting for evil is morally wrong. Of course you aren’t likely to agree with any candidate 100%, but it seems to me that you need to view them as on the whole working in the right direction to vote for them in good conscience. Since I believe that the fundamental assumptions that underlie much of the policies of the country are wrong, that means I don’t vote for candidates who basically uphold those assumptions, even if they may tweak them slightly in the right direction. Obama does not seem to reject any major assumption of our system, and has never stood for any significant change to the best of my knowledge, so he is not seriously in contention for my vote.

Let me just outline a few of the ways in which Obama represents the wrong way:

  • He has voted to spend over half of the discretionary budget on the military – current and future mass murder. And his campaign position is that we spend too little on the military, and should spend more. Furthermore, he wants to increase the size of the active duty military forces. [McCain’s official position is virtually identical on all of this, although he did cite the military budget in the last debate when asked where he could cut.]
  • He favors massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan [so does McCain], and military attacks on Pakistan [McCain has criticized him for that].
  • He has said that the first thing he will do when in office is sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would outlaw all restrictions on abortion by the Federal, state, and local governments [McCain opposes it]. This is consistent with his record of opposing all abortion restrictions in the past. And while he says he is in favor of reduction in abortions, he refuses to support the Pregnant Women Support Act, a Democratic-sponsored measure which would provide the kind of social supports that make it easier for women to choose life.
  • He favors the death penalty, even though he admits it is ineffective, because he believes in vengeance.
  • He is a strong supporter of subsidies for corn-based ethanol [McCain opposes them]. Simply from an environmental standpoint, this is bad because producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But its most disastrous effect is on the poor. The diversion of corn to ethanol production is a major contributing factor to the precipitous rise in world grain prices we have seen (the International Food Policy Research Institute estimates bioenergy accounts for 30% of the increase). Skyrocketing grain prices mean poor people can not afford the food they need to survive. UN Food and Agricultural Organization Director-General Jacques-Diouf said, “The fact is that people are dying already.”
  • He favors “clean coal” [as does McCain], although experts say that there is no way to make coal production environmentally responsible.
  • He decided to attempt to buy the election with the massive sums he can raise, much of it from Wall Street and other corporatist elements, instead of accepting public funding of his campaign, even though he promised to accept public funding if his opponent did [and McCain has accepted public funding, resulting in having less than 1/6 of the funds Obama has].

Poverty and the “Matthew 25 Network”

There is a group calling itself the “Matthew 25 Network” organized by a Democratic operative which has recruited a number of pastors. Despite the name, it does not exist to encourage people to act in accordance with Matthew 25. It is rather an attempt to use Christ to support partisan political purposes, which is arguably blasphemy. Christ refused to align himself with any of the major religio-political parties of his day, and instead preached and practiced an alternative vision.

The “Matthew 25 Network” exists to support Barack Obama for President. This despite the fact that Obama’s policies are in direct contradiction to the principles Christ outlined in Matthew 25 of supporting the poor and outcast. Not only are his subsidies for corn-based ethanol production currently killing poor people, but his skewed national priorities directly result in killing the poor (most of the casualties from war) and also result in the lack of resources for programs to address social needs. As former President Dwight Eisenhower noted, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Jesus did not say of the righteous:

For I was hungry, and you used the grain that could have fed me to produce ethanol. I was thirsty, and you used water resources to produce “clean coal” and ethanol. I was a stranger, and you bombed foreigners. I needed clothes, and the money you spent on clothes went for military uniforms. I was sick, and you devoted your resources to wars so there wasn’t enough for health care. I was in prison, and you executed me so the society could wreak vengeance.

If Not a Duopoly Candidate, then Who?

McCain and Obama aren’t the only people running for President. There are some who are on many state ballots, some on a few, and others running solely as write-in candidates. Many of these candidates represent a markedly different vision than that of McCain and Obama.

On many issues, I agree with the positions of Ralph Nader (independent) and Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). However, while these candidates stand for life in many respects, their campaign platforms do not stand up for the unborn, the veritable “least of these” (whom the “Matthew 25 Network” ignores). Nader seems preferable because he did come out in a 2004 interview for banning feticide, so seems at least open to recognizing the dignity and worth of the unborn. Nader is on 45 state ballots, more than any other alternative candidate. So if you’re going to vote for someone on the ballot, I would suggest you vote for Ralph Nader.

I intend to vote for Joe Schriner. He is a Christian who is running as a consistent life ethic candidate. He is right on all the life issues on which Obama is wrong. He is a strong environmentalist, and an advocate of simple living. He had hoped to run in the Green Party primaries, but his campaign was blocked by state Green Party leaders who objected to his being pro-life on abortion. I urge everyone to write-in Joe Schriner for President and Dale Way for Vice President. He is a registered write-in candidate in several states, including my state of Maryland.

Mary Rider goes to jail joyfully

Friday, August 8th, 2008

Guest blog entry from Patrick O’Neill

Note from Bill Samuel: I know Mary Rider from Consistent Life, of which we are both Board members.

My wife, Mary Rider, a mother of eight children, received a 15-day jail sentence for praying during a North Carolina execution.

Mary, cofounder of the Fr. Charlie Mulholland Catholic Worker House in Garner, N.C., was sentenced to 15 days in the Wake County Jail on August 7, stemming from her August 18, 2006 arrest for trespass during a protest of the execution of Sammy Flippen at Raleigh’s Central Prison.

Mary and three others attempted to symbolically enter the prison to stop the execution. At a police line, the four knelt in prayer in the driveway where witnesses enter the prison.

Mary, 48, who has six children age 14 or less, was sentenced to jail after telling Wake County Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan that her conscience would not allow her to pay a $100 fine and $130 court costs into a system that oppressed the poor and carried out executions in her name. A social worker, Mary told the judge she would agree to perform community service in lieu of the fine and court costs.

The judge, a firm and cold man, who frequently undercut Mary’s attempts to defend herself based on Catholic Moral Teaching and the First Amendment, seemed to take personally Mary’s conviction that the “judicial system” is racist and oppressive.

“Ms. Rider has stated that the judicial system is one too flawed and too imperfect,” Morgan said. “I am a member of this system.”

By agreeing to give Mary community service, he was in a sense validating her criticisms of the system, Morgan said.

“It’s easy to open your wallet, pay that money and walk out of court,” Mary’s pro bono lawyer, Tim Vanderweert, told the judge. “It’s much more difficult to perform community service.”

In the course of the three-day jury trial, Morgan did not allow expert witness – renowned Constitutional law professor Dan Pollitt – to testify to the jury as to why Mary’s actions in trying to stop Sammy’s execution were legally valid under the Constitution. Doing so “would invade the providence of the jury,” Morgan said.

He also limited the testimony of Duke Divinity School professor of Christian ethics Stanley Hauerwas, who tried to make the case that Mary’s actions in defense of life were justified by Papal decree and Church teaching.

“I am a Christian theologian, and the subject of theology is God,” Hauerwas told the court. “Catholic moral teaching is the longest tradition of Church history. Since Christians are a people who worship a person who died at the hands of the state, that being capital punishment, Christianity’s relationship to the state is at the heart of what Catholic ethics is about … Christians are not allowed to give their ultimate loyalties to the state.”

In her testimony, Mary shared a story about a time she was called to jury duty at age 18 in Eastern North Carolina. Although she was not selected to sit for the capital murder trial, Mary, who is also a mitigation specialist, said she was surprised to learn that only jurors who supported the death penalty could be seated.

“The only people in the jury are those who believe firmly in the death penalty,” Mary said. “It seems like you’re stacking the cards against the defendant already.”

The judge instructed the jury to only consider the question of whether Mary trespassed or not. Although the jurors were out more than an hour, those initially opposed to conviction were won over. One juror told me after the verdict that since they didn’t get to hear Prof. Pollitt, they were unable to acquit her.

In her sentencing, Mary read the story from Acts when Peter said he “must obey God and not men.”

“I am choosing to suffer for my faith and fidelity to Jesus,” Mary told the judge. “Spending time in jail for me would be an honor. Rather than a deterrent, it would be a privilege to encourage others to do the same.”

The judge said he had no choice but to sentence Mary to 15 days. The jailers placed handcuffs on Mary as her children openly sobbed on the front row of the gallery.

“You’re lucky to have a wife like that, and you’re lucky to have a mother like that,” Professor Pollitt told me and my daughter, Veronica.

Indeed we are.

Mary is expected to be in the Wake County Jail until Aug. 21. To write her:

     Mary Rider
     Wake County Jail
     P.O. Box 2419
     Raleigh, NC 27602

or at her home address:

     124 Perdue St.
     Garner N.C. 27529