She Will Be Saved Through Childbearing: An Argument Against Abortion
Photo by Given Ideas
Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:15 NRSV)
The Wesleyan Church (hereafter TWC) is scheduled to consider Memorial 53 on the “sanctity of human life.” If adopted, it will mean adding to TWC’s basic principles the following statement: “To respect all human life by abstaining from participation in abortion or the abortion industry” (Memorial 53). There is also a memorial being prepared for rewording TWC’s “Special Direction” on abortion so that exceptions to the prohibition on abortion might no longer be an interpretive option (see Kenny R. Johnston, “From Conception to Natural Death: Reflections on The Wesleyan Church’s ‘Special Direction’ on Abortion,” Firebrand).
These would be landmark decisions in TWC, a denomination that began as an abolitionist movement in the nineteenth century to combat slavery and which has been a platform for women's rights in the twentieth. Significantly, TWC's longstanding acceptance and promotion of affirming women at the highest positions of ministry (TWC Position Statement on Women in Ministry) is relevant for the above amendments on abortion. The reason for this is that TWC has a firm commitment to the authority and inerrancy of scripture, which it believes affirms women in every role of ministerial leadership. This is a position I both adopt and defend.
Affirming women in every level of ministerial leadership means that certain problematic passages need explaining, among which is 1 Timothy 2:11–15. The two strongest pro-egalitarian explanations of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 come from Bruce Winters and Cynthia Westfall. (By pro-egalitarian I mean that women are called to serve in every level of ministerial leadership.) But their arguments depend on premises that would also entail implications regarding abortion. This article is a short demonstration of how this is the case.
Bruce Winters and Abortion-as-Dangerous
In 2003 Winters published Roman Wives, Roman Widows, a book that drew special attention to passages that have sometimes been misunderstood regarding women's roles in the early church. Winters argues that within first-century Roman culture, there had arisen the ideal of female potential and beauty, the "new woman". However, she was often associated with various characteristics regarded as morally vicious. (To say that some act is "morally vicious" is to simply to say that it deviates from an ethical and moral standard.) According to Winters, it is this Roman ideal with its "mores" that was being contrasted in 1 Timothy with "the virtues of the modest wife" (Winters, Bruce W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. William B. Eerdmans, 2003, 97).
Against this backdrop, argues Winters, Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2 find their meaning. It was not that women are inherently subservient to men or wives to their husbands nor that they are under a curse of childbearing as penance, but that the ideal of the new woman is antithetical to the virtues of the gospel.
Mores of the New Woman
One significant attitude that was prevalent for the new woman was a disdain for childbearing and nursing. Writes Winters, “In spite of the idealizing of the family in the first century, Seneca noted that some women in his day … tried to hide their pregnancy, such were their disdain of pregnancy and the preoccupation with the shape of their body” (111). The recognized means for avoiding pregnancy was abortion or contraceptives, which, Winters demonstrates, were regarded as dangerous. He cites Ovid as a witness: “[O]ften she who kills what is in her womb dies herself” (111).
Along with other practices of the new woman (such as certain promiscuous and suggestive ways of dressing and adorning), abortion was debated as immoral or morally vicious. Seneca described it as crushing "the hope of children that were being nurtured in [a mother's] body," and Ovid asked, "Can it be that, to be free of the flaws of stretchmarks, you have to scatter the tragic sands of carnage?" (111). Ovid was no model of virtue, but his statement reveals the sort of ethical attitude to abortion that could be found at that time.
According to Winters, given the context of the dangers of abortion for the new woman ideal, we should understand 1 Timothy 2:15 as saying that a pregnant woman would be preserved from death through childbearing because she would be avoiding the dangers of abortion by doing so. Here, however, Winters appears mistaken.
An Argument for the Viciousness of Abortion
Winters implies that Paul is not taking a stance against the moral viciousness of abortion but against the dangers of it. Up to this point, his argument is that all of the elements of the Ephesus problem in 1 Timothy 2 have to do with the contrast between the virtuous Christian woman and the vicious new woman. This is the hermeneutical key. Why, though, would Paul suddenly shift his meaning to the woman's safety rather than her virtue? This appears to violate, or at least fail to appropriate, Winters' hermeneutical premise that Paul is contrasting the morally vicious new woman with the morally virtuous Christian woman.
Winters' interpretation of the flow of the text is vice/virtue, vice/virtue, dangerous/safe. It is a vice of the new woman that she adorns herself in sexually suggestive ways but the virtue of the Christian woman is that she is modest. It is the vice of the new woman that she violently usurps authority from her husband but the virtue of the Christian woman that she refuses to do so. We would think that Winters' next interpretive move would be to make another vice/virtue distinction regarding abortion/childbearing. Instead, he argues that it is the danger of the new woman to have an abortion but the safety of the Christian woman to be childbearing. But this seems out of place. It is like saying that all of A is really important for understanding all of B, then abandoning A for understanding B.
But as Winters himself demonstrates, abortion was not only regarded as dangerous but also morally vicious. It is more compelling and consistent, then, to make the third leg of comparison also a matter of moral contrast rather than merely an issue of safety. Instead of, "don't endanger your life like the new woman who aborts," rather "don't 'scatter the tragic sands of carnage' like the new woman" (Ovid). And this would reflect the early Christian view on abortion as a crime against one's neighbor as in the Didache (2:2), an authoritative document of the late first or early second century.
My argument is that if Winters' broader thesis is correct, then it would appear more hermeneutically consistent to see that Paul was still highlighting the moral virtue of a Christian woman who affirms life in contrast to one who destroys it. We might even say that if we accept Winters' thesis, then Paul might have been confronting abortion as the pinnacle of the "new woman" problem, and suggesting childbearing as the pinnacle of virtue (relatively speaking).
Saved from what then?
On my proposal, we might be left wondering what sort of "saving" Paul is referring to if the emphasis is not the inherent safety of childbearing over abortion. As I see it there are three options. The first would be that the mother would be protected in childbearing, not because childbearing was inherently safer (though that is true), but because she chose the virtuous path of life (which implies faith, love, and holiness with modesty). The second would be that final salvation is in view. On this option, and if interpreted through a Wesleyan view of sanctification, a woman caught between the new ideal and the Christian ideal is faced with a choice of going on in good works of faith and virtue, of not abandoning faith so as to finally persevere.
The third option entails both of the above. This appears to be how John Wesley interpreted the passage, as pointing to present rescue from death as well as to final salvation. "Carried safe through the pain and danger which that sentence entails upon them for the transgression; yea, and finally saved, if they continue in loving faith and holy wisdom" (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament). And on this interpretation, using the background provided by Winters, childbearing is only the condition for final salvation insofar that it is an alternative to the viciousness of abortion.
Cynthia Westfall and Pregnancy-as-Dangerous
In 2016, Westfall published Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ, and she offers an equally compelling context for 1 Timothy 2:15 with important differences from Winters.
1 Timothy 2:15 has sometimes been understood to imply that women should embrace their punishment of painful birth as the means of their due penance for the mishap of Genesis 3, whereby they will be saved. More recently, Westfall demonstrates, scholars argue that the verse does not mean God will give them salvation from sin so long as they bear children, but that God will carry them safely through the dangers of birth if they exercise the Christian virtue of faith, love, and holiness with modesty.
Like Winters, Westfall sees salvation as having to do with rescue from present danger. Unlike Winters, she sees childbearing as the problem rather than the solution. She even suggests that, possibly, the dangers associated with childbearing contributed to the problems in Ephesus addressed in 1 Timothy. She writes,
If there were concerns about childbirth that were contributing to the problems in Ephesus among the women, then it is likely that Paul would address those concerns. How likely was it that childbirth would have been an issue that fueled false teaching? Childbirth, or maternal mortality, has been a primary threat to women’s safety, health, and life throughout history. Therefore, the consequences of Eve’s action are a primary concern to all women and those who care about them. Women’s religious beliefs and practices were dominated by childbirth and pregnancy-related issues. Furthermore, the Christian women in Ephesus had a special connection between their former religious practice and childbearing. Artemis was the patron goddess of the city of Ephesus, and she was literally the savior to whom the women went for safety and protection in childbirth. (Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Baker Academic, 2016, 135–6)
This is usually understood as the Artemis-cult explanation of 1 Timothy 2. According to Westfall, then, Paul's response was to encourage women to put their faith in God as opposed to Artemis or strict teachings of abstinence that forbade marriage or potentially sex within marriage (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3; 5:14). The dangers of childbearing were neither a reason to abandon fidelity to God or the practices of marriage. Instead, it was regarded as a reason all the more to turn to God in faith, hope, and holiness.
On this interpretation, 1 Timothy 2:15 was not written to drive home the curse of Eve's violation but to give her hope in the face of Adam's.
But if Westfall is correct, then Paul was issuing a corrective against unwarranted abstinence and idolatry, both regarded as morally vicious. Women could trust God in the face of the dangers of childbearing rather than avoiding childbearing. God was to be the one to whom they looked.
Westfall even compares 1 Timothy 2:15 to the promise of healing in James 5:15.
It is important to notice that 1 Timothy 2:15 is not a global promise to all women any more than James 5:15 or the promises in the psalms are global promises to all people. Deliverance from the dangers of childbirth depends on perseverance in faith, love, holiness, and self-control [from both the wife and the husband, she argues]. (138)
Worth pointing out is that Westfall is not arguing that if a pregnant woman walks in holiness that nothing harmful will happen to her. Nor is she arguing that medical intervention is a violation of faith. She is simply appealing to the fact that 1 Timothy 2:15 is of similar stripes to James 5:15.
Like Winters, Westfall sees in this passage deliverance from the present dangers of childbearing. Unlike Winters, she sees the entire passage as rooted in the dangers of pregnancy. For Westfall, abortion is not a factor in the discussion. Pregnancy is dangerous; therefore it caused some morally vicious reactions that Paul wanted to correct.
An Argument Against an Exceptions Clause for Abortion
Many believe that abortion is wrong because they believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Preborn persons, therefore, have a right to life; a right to be protected and valued; a right to medical treatment when endangered. Many also believe, however, that in the case of a mother's life being threatened by pregnancy, abortion is sometimes morally justified. The stance of TWC in its “Special Directions” could be interpreted this way (and is interpreted this way in its position statement on abortion [Sanctity of Life]).
The Wesleyan Church seeks to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and, thus, is opposed to the use of induced abortion. However, it recognizes that there may be rare pregnancies where there are grave medical conditions threatening the life of the mother, which could raise a serious question about taking the life of the unborn child. In such a case, a decision should be made only after very prayerful consideration following medical and spiritual counseling. ("Special Directions," The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church 2022, 410:11)
But on Westfall's understanding of 1 Timothy 2:15, it seems to me that her working premise precludes an exception clause for abortion. Though she does not have abortion in view as key to the context, she does have a morally vicious alternative to childbearing in view, an alternative that is not sufficiently justified by the dangers of childbearing. On her understanding, it seems to me Paul is arguing in the following way.
The dangers of childbearing is not a morally justifiable reason for a vicious act.
Forbidding marriage (or possibly marital abstinence) is morally vicious.
Therefore, the dangers of childbearing is not a morally justifiable reason for forbidding marriage or for marital abstinence.
But if this is true, and if abortion is generally understood as a vicious act, then it seems to follow that "the dangers of childbearing is not a morally justifiable reason for abortion."
Important Distinction
An important clarification needs to be made here. I understand that by abortion is meant the direct and intentional ending of a preborn person's life in a womb, not the termination of a pregnancy per se, nor the removing of a preborn person who is no longer living. In the latter, the life is no longer in the preborn body and therefore there is no life to be taken. In the former, it is feasible to end a pregnancy without intending to end the life of the preborn person.
In such a case that a mother's life is severely threatened, it does not seem to me vicious that the preborn person is separated from the womb and treated with life-saving medical care. This would essentially be a premature birth wherein both the mother and the preborn are treated as patients with life-saving care and respect in so far as possible. For more on how this distinction works, see Johnston, "From Conception to Natural Death: Reflections on The Wesleyan Church's 'Special Direction' on Abortion," Firebrand.
Consequently, if 1 Timothy 2:15 means what Westfall says it means, then it seems to follow that a pregnant woman should turn to God in faith, love, and holiness rather than to abortion as a means for protection. This would only be true if we understand that abortion is not simply a medical intervention, but an otherwise morally vicious act. The danger is not sufficient for morally justifying an otherwise vicious act.
Closing Thoughts
I find both Winters and Westfall convincing on a number of issues related to difficult passages regarding the roles of women in ministry. However, on their own hermeneutics for 1 Timothy 2:15, I think we must consider important implications regarding the issue of abortion as consequent upon those interpretations.
On Winters' view, there was a choice between the way of the new woman with her pride, adornment, and spite for childbearing and the way of the virtuous woman with her humility, modesty, and value for childbearing. On Westfall's view, there was a choice when confronted with the dangers of pregnancy between turning to Artemis (the goddess of chastity) and turning in faithfulness to God (the God of new life and new creation). The former was an alignment with God's virtues while the latter was an alignment with God's methods of provision.
In 2023, 1,037,000 abortions were reported in the U.S. and as of 2024, it is estimated that one in four U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45 (Guttmacher). To give a comparison, those who died of car accidents in the US in 2023 were 44,450.
I leave the reader with this final thought. If we can understand how and why the gospel was contextualized in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 for the first century, then we can see that it is relevant today and for similar reasons. With the sort of statistics above, it is clear that the womb is both despised and feared in American culture.
As in the Didache, the deliberate taking of the preborn person's life is a violation against our neighbor, the most innocent neighbor we have. This has always been the pro-life argument championed by the Catholic Church, and it is a solid one.
Kenny R. Johnston is an ordained pastor in The Wesleyan Church and a PhD student at London School of Theology.