Approaching the issue of abortion, one can already hear jaws clenching, fists tightening, and breaths being drawn to unleash a case for one side or the other. This fervent belief is amplified in the evangelical Christian sector, and in our more immediate context, APU.
It is widely stated and thoroughly understood by students, faculty and administration that Azusa Pacific holds the view that all life is sacred, and that abortion is taking God’s work into human hands, therefore overstepping our boundaries as human beings.
What stuck me as interesting, and quite honestly, disappointing, is the fact that APU does not offer child care whatsoever to struggling parents (or any parents, for that matter). Upon my questioning in the women’s resource center – the administrative assistant I talked to had to ask two separate superiors about the issue before obtaining an answer – I realized that this was an ethical dilemma for a school that claims to revere all life brought into this world.
Let’s entertain the highly probable scenario that there is a young man and woman are in a relationship, and both attend APU. They are completely dependent upon government aid and minimum-wage salaries and are attempting to take a heavy course load in hopes that they can graduate early. For the sake of the example we will call the couple “Sarah” and “Slate.” While these two are dating, they make the mutual commitment to each other to engage in sexual relations. As the weeks go by, Sarah discovers she is pregnant.
Aside from the extreme pressure she faces to stay celibate, and the devastating guilt she will face within her home, school and church environments, if Sarah decides to keep the baby she has to think about her financial situation. How she will provide for her future child?
Now let’s say that she tells Slate, who proceeds to panic, internally justify his disengagement, and finally tell her he can’t afford to bring a child into the world, a life he cannot financially support.
Sarah is left to her own devices to raise the child, and since she cannot apply for free or even discounted child care through APU, she is essentially left with the choice to either drop out of school or make the very difficult choice of terminating the pregnancy.
Now let me be perfectly clear: I am not assuming there are absolutely no alternative child care options besides APU-subsidized services, but I am calling out a major disparity between the administration’s ideologies and its actions on campus.
On the APU website, under a tab labeled “What We Believe: Human Sexuality,” the sixth tenet reads: “The New Testament teaches that followers of Christ are to remain celibate outside the bond of marriage. In sexual union, both body and soul are deeply impacted. A person who engages in sexual unions outside the bond of marriage sins against his or her own body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18-20).”
Many of us who identify with the evangelical Christian faith would agree with this statement, but we would also, probably more readily and fervently, agree with this one: “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy” (Psalm 82 KJV).
For those who prefer a more heavy-handed example from the Old Testament, take heed of this divine promise: “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22 NIV).
C.S. Lewis, in his book “Mere Christianity,” puts this situation in the perspective of forgiveness as he states: “I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find, ‘Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.’ There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven.” None of this is intended to vilify APU or its administration, but instead I hope to shine light on a hypocritical loophole that exists in our immediate institution that makes strong pro-life claims.
At the end of the day, there needs to be further discourse on this issue among SGA, the student body as a whole, administration, faculty and the community in which we live. Out of this honest, respectful dialogue we can come to a sensible conclusion that will both honor the merciful, omnipotent provider we follow as Christians, as well as lift up financially unstable parents regardless of their age or the circumstances in which the baby was brought into this world.
If we truly believe in the pro-life ideology and stance, it’s time to stop shouting our beliefs, close our mouths and begin the diligent work needed to embrace new life with dignity and responsibility.