Chris Kimball is a friend of BCC and former bishop.
INTRODUCTION
Abortion is controversial. Controversy presents an opportunity and challenge for hard thinking. This is one small corner of the hard thinking, focused on the role and practice of a bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not a global statement or manifesto, and not intended as an invitation to debate all the issues with abortion.
As an introduction, here is the LDS Church’s position from the General Handbook of Instructions as of September 2, 2022, followed by my personal views and position.
General Handbook of Instructions: Section 38.6.1 (Abortion)
The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
- Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
- A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
- A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.
Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances if a Church member has been involved in an abortion. A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5). However, a membership council should not be considered if a member was involved in an abortion before baptism. Nor should membership councils or restrictions be considered for members who were involved in an abortion for any of the three reasons outlined earlier in this section.
Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.
As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.
Although details have changed, the overall pattern has been the same since 1976 (see this column by Jana Riess).
In my paraphrase, the Church’s position is a very strong condemnation using the “shall not kill or anything like it” formulation, but with limited exceptions, and with the woman (or the “responsible persons”) making the ultimate decision and bearing the consequences.
There is a way to argue this standard is very strict. There is a way to argue this standard has too many exceptions. There is a way to argue this standard is actually a choice standard. Looking around the figurative room of Mormondom, it is reasonable to believe that very many members and leaders, in their private personal opinions, are not 100% aligned with the Church’s statement. Probably many are ready to salute out of loyalty, but if asked would describe a personal opinion that differs, whether more pro-life or more pro-choice (as those terms are understood in common practice) or simply quibbles with the wording or some of the details.
So that my prejudices and biases are open and obvious, and not any kind of hidden agenda, here’s my personal position:
- With respect to abortion in the abstract, I am most closely aligned with “safe, legal, and rare.” I’m cognizant of concern that “rare” can suggest blame or censure or guilt. I use it anyway, meaning “rare” as a policy prescription, a way to validate policies and practices that reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and increase the number of cases where a pregnancy is happily and successfully carried to full term.
- With respect to decision making, I’m almost 100% in the woman decides camp. I regret hard decisions for anybody, but as between the state or the church or a committee of doctors or any other decision-making body I’ve heard of, and the pregnant woman, I put my faith in the pregnant woman. I say “almost 100%” because I am open to a conversation about legislating certain edge cases but I’m not seeing an opportunity for that conversation in the current state of heightened controversy.
- With respect to church discipline, I am strongly pastoral by which I mean that I understand discipline not as punishment or retribution or even justice, but useful and warranted (only) to help the individual or to protect others from future harm.
COUNSELING
I used to be a bishop serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like I acknowledged in the introduction, I have personal views on abortion. Other bishops also have strong opinions about abortion. Our opinions often are not exactly the same as the General Handbook of Instructions (for this purpose different is all we need). Pursuant to the “Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process” I’ve often thought about what to do if and when a woman who is pregnant and considering an abortion comes to counsel with me. What would I tell her? How would I counsel her?
In a general sense, I would listen, ask questions, and pay attention. Then reflect back some version of “You seem to have thought this through. You are making sense.” Or in the alternative, “I don’t think you’ve thought this through completely. It seems like you’re skipping a step. I know this is awful, but I really do think you have more work to do.”
With regard to the Church’s position as stated in the General Handbook, because the Handbook is readily available at LDS.org and in the LDS Library app, and because the individual has already demonstrated that she is thoughtful and careful by coming to me in the first place, I would assume but verify that she knows what the Church has to say about abortion. If she does not I’d make sure she has the text. Whether she follows the counsel or not, it’s an important part of the information she should have. But if she already knows the Church position, I would not find value in repeating the Handbook text. On the flip side, I would consider it a dereliction of duty to quote the Handbook and stop the discussion with the reading.
It is not uncommon to answer this kind of question with “listen to the Spirit and act accordingly.” For myself, if I had a clear indication (including a “stay out of it” indication) I’d be tempted to follow it. However, in real life, after many decades of experience, I am wary of the Spirit answer. If a prompting feels like new or novel information, or if it runs contrary to my prior beliefs and biases, then I have some confidence. But I fear that nine times out of ten the “Spirit” will answer in accord with my priors, and then I don’t trust it.
What I would not do is rely on or give my personal opinion about abortion. Right or wrong, exceptional or permissive, pro life or pro choice, my personal opinion is out of place in the bishop counseling role. I think it would be exactly the wrong thing to do, to bring my personal opinion into the bishop’s office.
JUDGMENT
There’s another possible scenario for bishops regarding abortion. Suppose that after-the-fact a woman comes to me as bishop to confess that she had an abortion, in a private procedure that involved only a tight circle of responsible persons and medical personnel. Naturally, I still have my own opinions about abortion in general and perhaps about the women’s particular circumstances. I also have opinions about membership councils and restrictions. So how would I proceed?
First of all, I would set aside the “protecting others from harm” leg of disciplinary purpose. One could argue harm to the fetus, but by definition that’s a past event and would not meet my desire to protect against future harm to others. Others, taking more of a punishment or justice approach to church discipline, might argue that punishing the woman with some form of discipline will send a message to others that may prevent future harm in other situations. Personally, I consider that an abhorrent and abusive use of church discipline. I wouldn’t do it.
Turning to the pastoral side of church discipline, I would listen, ask questions, and pay attention. And think and pray about what’s best for the woman. If she is wracked with guilt and second thoughts, I would work with her along the lines of “a person may repent and be forgiven” (from the Handbook). Whether or not I think a sin has been committed, whether or not I think she is guilty of something horrible, the guilt is a present problem in her life and I would look for ways to help her through it. If a membership council or some kind of temporary restriction would be useful in that work, I would use it but only in consultation and, in practical effect, at her request. Not as any form of punishment or aggravation. If the passage of time, or consultation with a therapist, or replaying the situation with a knowledgeable medical professional would help, I would encourage her to pursue any of those approaches. If reviewing her consideration of the identified exceptional circumstances in the Handbook would help, I would encourage the review with me as bishop, or with someone else.
I would not punt to the stake president. For all practical purposes the Church disciplinary system falls within the purview of stake presidents. Bishops take direction from stake presidents. Stake presidents have almost all the decisions and control. With respect to abortion, the Handbook invites bishops to refer questions to the stake president. I suspect it is very common for a bishop to consult with his stake president and follow directions, thus mooting the present discussion about what bishops should do.
The idea of consulting with the stake president is complicated and I’m being judgmental about myself when I say I would not take that route. When I was a bishop in my late 30s/early 40s, I was not the type to consult with the stake president. Looking back, I think it was hubris and ego, and I think that attitude did not serve me well. Mistakes were made and I wish I had done differently. On the other hand, now in my late 60s and older than most stake presidents I have known, I would consciously and intentionally put my judgment ahead of my stake president’s judgment and direction, and would do what I thought best whether or not advised differently. For this and many more reasons, it is hard to imagine I would be called as a bishop at this stage in my life. Perhaps punting to the stake president is the right answer. I just know I wouldn’t do it.
The other thing I would not do is bring my personal opinions about abortion into the bishop’s office. The work that happens in that room should not be about my opinions, or even my sense of right and wrong. The work that happens should be all about helping the member be right with herself in her ongoing walk with God. The pastor doesn’t first say “here’s what you do.” The pastor first asks “how can I help.”