Article adapted from episode content.
The contemporary landscape of theological discourse is increasingly marked by a shift away from historical, objective standards toward a framework where truth is determined by individual perspective and social location. This phenomenon is perhaps most visible in the rise of progressive Christianity, a movement that often seeks to “reinform” central doctrines to align with modern societal preferences. At the forefront of this shift is Rebecca Todd Peters, a Presbyterian pastor and author of the 2018 book Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Abortion. Her work provides a significant case study in the transition of Christianity from an objective explanation of reality into a purely subjective experience rooted in personal narrative and social theory.
The Progressive Jettisoning of Objective Authority
A foundational characteristic of the worldview presented by Peters is the explicit abandonment of the Bible as an authoritative, objective source of truth for modern life. In her framework, the Scriptures are viewed as an “outdated,” 2,000-year-old text that, while perhaps possessing some historical utility, has been superseded by human progress. This perspective suggests that society has “progressed beyond” the constraints of traditional biblical ethics, necessitating a radical update of the Apostle Paul’s teachings and other scriptural doctrines.
When the objective authority of Scripture is removed, it is inevitably replaced by a different standard of truth. For Peters and many within the progressive movement, this replacement is moral relativism. In this view, morality is no longer discovered through revelation or natural law but is constructed by the individual based on their specific circumstances. For instance, Peters frames the decision to undergo an abortion as a moral choice that belongs solely to the individual woman, as she is deemed the one “best equipped” to determine the morality of the act based on her own life story. This effectively reduces the “moral good” to whatever the subject deems beneficial or compassionate within their own experience.
Standpoint Epistemology and the Marxist Framework
The shift toward subjectivity is further solidified by the adoption of standpoint epistemology, a key component of what is often described as a “woke” worldview. This approach reduces ethics and morality to the perspective of the perceived “oppressed victim” rather than adhering to an external, objective standard. Peters utilizes the language of intersectional feminism and critical theory, framing traditional Christianity as a “patriarchal” and “misogynistic” force that acts as an oppressor of women.
Within this Marxist-influenced framework, the validity of a moral claim is tied to the “lived experience” of the person making it. Peters’ own argument is deeply intertwined with her personal history, including the painful experiences of two abortions she describes in her book. The underlying premise of her argument is that because an experience is difficult or painful, there can be no objective moral standard that applies to it; the individual’s perspective must remain the final arbiter of truth. This approach assumes that any external moral claim—such as the pro-life position—is not an attempt at objective truth but merely an expression of “outside oppressive forces”.
The Devaluation of the Unborn through Linguistic Redefinition
Central to the subjective reimagining of Christianity is the necessary devaluation of the unborn, a group that must be excluded from the category of “human” to justify abortion as a “moral good”. Peters’ rhetoric is built upon a series of undefended assumptions regarding the nature of the unborn. She avoids traditional terminology, instead employing words like “prenate” or describing the developing human being as a “potential person”.
Furthermore, she attempts to neutralize the scientific evidence that challenges her subjective framework. Peters argues that the scientific consensus in embryology—that a distinct, living, and whole human life begins at conception—is itself merely a “theological position” rather than a factual observation of reality. By dismissing science as theology, she attempts to relegate the pro-life case to the realm of subjective religious belief, which she contends should not be “imposed” on others. This reveals a critical aspect of her worldview: religious truth claims are not viewed as “real knowledge” or “objectively true with a capital T”; they are merely subjective preferences that do not correspond to the way the world actually is.
Defining Objective Truth: Christianity as Reality
In contrast to the subjective experience championed by Peters, the historical Christian worldview asserts that Christianity is objectively true. To claim that Christianity is “true” in this sense is not an expression of personal arrogance or a mere preference for one’s “favorite” belief system. Rather, it is a claim that the Christian worldview provides the best explanation of the way the world really is. It is a system that corresponds to reality better than any alternative explanation.
The distinction between subjective and objective truth is vital for navigating this debate:
- Subjective Truths: These deal with personal preferences and are created by the subject (e.g., one’s favorite flavor of ice cream). They depend entirely on the individual.
- Objective Truths: These are about reality and exist independently of the subject. They are true whether a person prefers them, believes them, or is even aware of them. Mathematics serves as a prime example: two plus two equals four regardless of one’s personal feelings about numbers.
By claiming Christianity is objectively true, believers are actually submitting their views to an objective standard that all parties can use to weigh evidence and evaluate claims. This is a posture of humility, as it acknowledges that one’s beliefs can be tested against reality and proven right or wrong. Conversely, the subjectivist often views a challenge to their beliefs as a “personal attack” because their identity is inextricably tied to their own constructed “truth,” leaving them unable to engage in reasoned, objective debate.
Engaging the Subjectivist with Confidence
When engaging those who follow the “subjective experience” model of Christianity, pro-life advocates are encouraged to adopt a posture of confidence rather than defensiveness. Because the pro-life view is grounded in objective reality—supported by both science and logic—advocates do not need to be “on edge” or “hyper-sensitive” to every syllable offered by a critic. This confidence allows for a gracious engagement that begins with curiosity and common ground.
A key strategy is to use the “tactics” of asking clarifying questions to expose the underlying assumptions of the subjectivist position. For example, when someone like Peters claims abortion is a “blessing” or an “act of love,” the advocate should ask: “What do you mean by those words?”. By defining terms, the advocate can highlight that such descriptions only “make sense” if one assumes the unborn are not human. If we were talking about killing a five-year-old, no one would describe the act as a “moral good” or a “blessing”. Exposing this hidden premise is essential for bringing the conversation back to the reality of the human person in the womb.
The Missing Gospel and the Path to Healing
Perhaps the most significant indictment of the “progressive Christian argument for abortion” is its total omission of the gospel. Peters’ work rarely mentions Scripture, and when it does, it is often in a negative light or used to promote vague concepts like “kindness” while ignoring the central message of the cross. This omission is logically consistent with a worldview that offers no objective savior and no real diagnosis of human brokenness.
Without an objective savior, those who have been harmed by abortion are left with only “subjective” remedies, such as “shouting their abortion” to feel better. This secular framework offers no true solution for the guilt and pain that even Peters acknowledges abortion can cause. In contrast, the true Christian worldview offers the gospel as the only remedy for healing. The gospel provides an objective substitute in Christ, who bore the wrath of God for sin, offering a real path to hope, healing, and flourishing that no subjective “blessing” can provide.
Conclusion: The Demand for Worldview Training
The “mess” created by reducing Christianity to subjective experience highlights the urgent need for comprehensive worldview training for the next generation. Students are increasingly hungry for a defense of the faith that moves beyond feelings and addresses the “hard things” of the world with intellectual rigor. Organizations like Summit Ministries and conferences such as the Reality Apologetics Conference are instrumental in this task, equipping thousands of students to recognize the flaws in secular and progressive worldviews.
Ultimately, the conflict between Rebecca Todd Peters and historical Christianity is a battle between standpoint epistemology and objective truth. By reclaiming the understanding that human rights and moral truths are discovered in reality rather than constructed by experience, the pro-life movement can offer a more thorough and satisfying explanation of human dignity. Christianity is not a subjective experience to be manipulated for political or personal ends; it is a “Truth with a capital T” that demands our submission and offers our only true hope.