The American Vision

Culture Through the Lens of Scripture

Blocking the doors: Operation Rescue . . . the Churches!

by 10 Comments

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in (Matt. 23:13).

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered (Luke 11:52).

I told a friend of mine, an old veteran of the antiabortion movements, that there is a new, young generation of radicals with promise. I told him, “They are no-compromise. Abortion is murder. They want to end abortion now. They want no exceptions. They are total abolitionists.” He listened.

Then I told him, “They go out every day and work outside abortion clinics.”

He responded:

“They need to be outside the churches. That’s where the problem is.”

Discerning the real problems

I went on to inform him of their efforts to get churches to repent. But his comment—when he was totally unaware of anything like #ChurchRepent—speaks volumes. The problem rests mainly within the churches and their leadership. We will not end abortion ever without repentance and change here.

I am moved to cover these lessons after what we observed over the last weekend. This involves the decision by Rusty Thomas and Operation Save America activists to return to the tactics Operation Rescue employed in the 1980s and 90s—sit-in blockades of the doors of abortion clinics. Rusty and nine others were arrested for criminal trespassing on May 13. At least one report brandishes the “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances” (FACE) Act, which could mean federal charges as well.

The reaction was a firestorm across social media, as most are already aware—but it was an in-house storm among abortion activists. Some approved the actions. Some demurred or detracted. Others condemned. Fights erupted. It is not my intention to rehearse all the back-and-forth that ensued. I purpose only to offer a few thoughts why the OR approach failed, will fail again if we don’t make the necessary changes, and what hope there is for change.

Several years ago, an aging Rushdoony was asked if he approved of Operation Rescue’s tactics. Here was his response:

The two great eras of abortion have been our Lord’s time to the fall of Rome and this century. Yet we never find either our lord or Saint Paul saying: “Go out and block the entry ways to the abortuaries of Rome.” Never. Why? Because regeneration is our approach, not coercion. . . .

A great many babies are aborted annually. A million and a quarter. But euthanasia is routinely practiced, homosexuality, adultery, every kind of evil prevails around us. We have a population that is reprobate. How in the world are you going to deal with that by coercive of tactics?

Moreover, if you set a precedent of lawlessness of blocking the entry ways to abortuaries, what’s to prevent these people from doing the same to our churches? As a matter of fact, it has been done already. Saint Patrick’s cathedral has had homosexuals and pro-abortion people enter and do everything to disturb the services and to break them up. So, if we practice it, we cannot protest if it is practiced against us. Why didn’t our Lord and Saint Paul mount an operation rescue, when abortion was so common in that age? It was very simple: they knew that the answer had to be regeneration, the atonement. These people are placing human life above faith in Christ. . . .

It’s very sad what is happening. But I know a very fine woman who did her best to talk one woman out of an abortion; it would have been her fourth. She succeeded. Within two or three years that child, horribly abused, was taken from that mother by the police. Do you see the point? You’re dealing with an ungodly generation. Now when you go through the Bible, and I did in one little book I wrote on the Myth of Overpopulation and I got all the references to birth. And God in his word speaks of blessed fertility and unblessed fertility of the ungodly. Now there is nothing we can do with these ungodly women. They love death; they get an abortion some of them for the pleasure of killing life. And they are suicidal. They are on drugs. They do everything that is suicidal. What we need to do is to work to convert them, because the only change can come through Christ. Not through our coercive tactics. We don’t adopt the way of the world.

Let me add one thing more. One of our staff members, Joseph McAuliffe, is pastor of Tampa Covenant Church in Florida, it’s a charismatic church. He’s a leader in Tampa on Christian activities. And he has met with legislators and they have said we can get a bill through banning abortion in Florida, only on one condition: if we will agree to permit it in cases of rape and cases of incest. Write it that way and were sure we can get it through. We have enough votes, but if you don’t we can’t. Do you know who blocked that bill? The operation rescue people. It would have put them out of business. It’s like the cancer researchers in the United States. They get hundreds of millions a year from the federal government to do cancer research and do you think any of them will want to see it cured? They will all be out of jobs. Operation rescue has become a movement that wants to keep on moving. Not to solve a problem. Our basic approach must be evangelization. If people are not regenerated neither they nor their children have any hope.

This was far from Rushdoony’s finest hour, and his comments here are at best a mixed bag. (I’ll show you in a moment how Gary North rightly opposed this thinking.) Nevertheless, there is food for thought even here, particularly in regard to engaging in political action in a political environment overwhelmingly dominated by reprobates and reprobate law. We’ll return to this.

Even in such a venue, however, it is difficult to surmount the piety of the response that says, “If it saves the life of just one child, it’s worth it.” One could respond, “What if the action saves the life of one but the consequences cost the lives of a dozen more you could have saved through other means?”

This dispute becomes a priority to solve only if the saving of individual lives is the sole numerator of success. If the abolition of human abortion—a judicial standard—is the ultimate goal, we need to have other considerations. If you feel called to individual rescues, I’ll leave that calculus to you and your conscience. I am looking at the larger picture (and I don’t mean to discount anyone’s efforts in the narrow one by saying that).

As for even acts like OSA perpetrated this weekend, North defends it, and I think rightly destroys any absolute critic of such tactics. The liberals have been making utter fools of the churches for decades now:

Legalized abortion has now made Christian social irresponsibility appear ridiculous. Thus, we find millions of Christians who give occasional lip service (and very little money) to the fight against abortion. We find a small minority willing to picket an abortion clinic occasionally. We find an even tinier minority ready to devote regular time and regular money to fighting abortion, including fighting it politically. And then, in the summer of 1988, a handful of non-violent activists began to “up the ante” by breaking local property laws in Atlanta, Georgia, and later other cities by interposing their bodies between murderous mothers and their murderous accomplices, state-licensed physicians.

(Strange, isn’t it? Liberals for 70 years insisted that “human rights are more important than property rights!” This phrase supposedly proved that high taxes and government regulation of the economy are morally legitimate. But these days, the liberals have spotted a problem with this slogan. A bunch of crazy Christians have started intruding onto the property of wealthy, state-licensed murderers — excuse me, physicians — to interfere with the daily slaughter of the innocents. Now, all of a sudden, the defense of private property is high on the liberals’ list of priorities. Liberals certainly enjoy taxing the high incomes of physicians, but they want them to earn those juicy taxable incomes, especially if those incomes come from killing judicially innocent babies. Population control, and all that. And … liberals will never actually say this in print, of course … these slaughtered babies are mostly blacks and Hispanics. You know. Those kind of people! They have concluded that an abortion is less expensive to the welfare state than two decades of aid to a dependent child, but they never say this in public. They think that the cheapest way to “break the cycle of poverty” is to kill the next generation of the potentially poor. And never forget: indigent old people are also part of that cycle.)

Trespassing for Dear Life

This tactic of “trespassing for dear life” has now begun to divide the Christian community. It has already divided Christian leaders. This division appears to cut across denominational and even ideological lines. Christian leaders are being forced to take a position, pro or con, with regard to the legitimacy of this physical interposition. Like Congress, they prefer to avoid taking sides, but the pressures can no longer be avoided easily, at least for Reubenites.

There are two signs in front of abortion clinics:

“No Trespassing”
“Thou Shalt Not Kill”

The “No Trespassing” sign is symbolically stuck into the grass. The “Thou Shalt Not Kill” sign is literally being carried (or ought to be literally carried) by an anti-abortion picketer.

The picketers have now begun to realize that they face a major moral decision: either ignore the implicit “No Trespassing” sign or ignore the covenantal implications of the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” sign. The fact of the matter is that if Christians continue to obey the abortionists’ “No Trespassing” signs, God may no longer honor this humanistic nation’s “No Trespassing” sign to Him. He will eventually come in national judgment with a vengeance. This is a basic teaching of biblical covenant theology. (It is conveniently ignored in the pseudo-covenant theology of the critics.)

A small, hard core of dedicated Christians has now decided that they cannot obey both signs at the same time. One of these imperatives must be obeyed, and to obey it, the other imperative must be disobeyed. This has precipitated a crisis.

There is a much larger group of Christians that pretends that there is nothing inherently contradictory about these two signs. There is nothing going on behind closed clinic doors that Christians have a moral imperative and judicial authorization from God to get more directly involved in stopping. They prefer not to think about the two signs. They see the first one and assume that it has the highest authority.

There have been other “No Trespassing” signs in history. Outside of German concentration camps in 1943, for instance. But Christians in Germany honored those signs. They forgot the words of Proverbs:

If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Proverbs 24:10-12)

You need to read North’s whole article (yes, it’s long, and yes you should read it all).

But OR’s days are long behind us. Even back when they had thousands on their side, the tactics failed. The church is even more sheepish and unwilling today. When a group like OSA resurrects the tactic, even some stout-hearted and strong-tongued antiabortionists balk and begin to criticize. They personally think there are more effective ways to do it (I agree), and that walking into a sure-fire jail sentence and possible huge fines is not the most productive tactic. This is especially true because so many people are so far checked out of the game: the churches largely don’t care, the public draws back in shock, and leaders devour each other over disagreements.

But, what this means is that the only problems with this door-blocking tactic are, therefore, pragmatic: we don’t have enough Christians willing to do so, we don’t have the organization, we don’t have the leadership or the PR yet developed, etc., and the consequences will be averse to us as individuals and possibly to the cause as a whole.

But why do we not have willing Christians? Why so few willing churches? Why no organization? Why ineffective leadership? Why brethren quarreling over what should be obvious? Why brethren calling each other liars and wicked when we already agree on 99% of what we believe and are doing? Why no effective PR?

There is only one answer to this, and it centers upon the role, message, and willingness of the preaching in the Body of Christ.

Which is to say, the problem with ending abortion now is a problem with the churches, because that’s where all these things should come from—if the church was consistent with its professed ethics.

Problem: the church is not consistent with its professed ethics (the Ten Commandments), but it is consistent with its theology of soul-only salvation, personal-only piety, and fear of engaging—nay, even addressing!—let alone resisting, the civil government. It is their theology and practice of not rocking the cultural boat. This has become both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

A pragmatic objection, however, is nothing but a fancy way of saying “that won’t work!” This is nothing more than a fear-based argument—at the very least, fear of failure. We need some help here.

Lessons from a critical review

In 1991, Christian and libertarian, Constitutional rights attorney John Whitehead (https://www.rutherford.org/) published an academic review: “Civil Disobedience and Operation Rescue: A Historical and Theoretical Analysis.”1  Anyone interested in activism needs to read this paper. He brings up several interesting issues concerning why OR failed and what we need to learn from it.

All tactics are pragmatic to some degree. The question in all applications of all tactics is not whether we are being pragmatic or principled (you cannot escape either), but whether we are being as pragmatic and as principled as we can be. In his theoretical section, Whitehead notes,

Justice-based civil disobedience is used to oppose and reverse the majority’s unjust oppression of a minority. Those practicing justice-based civil disobedience must not break the law until the normal political processes have been fully exhausted and are found to offer no hope of success. Moreover, justice-based civil disobedience may not be used if it will make matters worse.

That last sentence is key: even pragmatic analyses (perhaps especially pragmatic analyses) must judge themselves by what principled goal they are serving, and whether it is pragmatic in the long term. (In other words, is your pragmatism really pragmatic after all?)

He continues,

There are two approaches to activities within the category of justice-based civil disobedience: (1) persuasive strategies, which “force the majority to listen to arguments against its program, in the expectation that the majority will then change its mind and disapprove that program;” and (2) nonpersuasive strategies, which aim “not to change the majority’s mind, but to increase the cost of pursuing the program the majority still favors, in the hope that the majority will find the new cost unacceptably high.”

It should be clear that door-blocking is in the latter category. It should be equally clear that without broad enough participation in the tactic, and without broad enough empathy in the population (or even the churches), this tactic is doomed to failure. If the public doesn’t care, and Christians don’t participate in numbers great enough to burden the police departments, then the cost being imposed will not be anywhere near high enough for the public to care.

The leftists are aware of this: the sole purpose of the FACE Act was to shift the burden of cost so far back in the direction of Christian activists that they would not dare even attempt such practices again.

This again indicates all that the churches lack: no will, no conviction, no organization, and no leadership on the issue. This leads to submission, resignation, and apathy. But this apathy is perhaps the greatest cause of the violence of abortion. It’s a passive cause, but it’s a cause nonetheless, and one for which we are accountable.

Whitehead quotes a civil disobedience theorist, who imo nails it:

apathetic obedience may in the long run be a greater source of violence than either active obedience or civil disobedience. Passive acquiescence assumes rather indifferent citizens, who are unconcerned with the social evils which tend to inevitably develop in large, complicated, and bureaucratic societies. The longer these evils fester, the more likely they are to provoke eventual violence in reaction.2

Whitehead’s section on practical lessons has several nuggets worth consideration, at least. Here are a few:

On organization: “The success of reform or protest movements appears to be directly related to the organization of parties to carry out acts of defiance. According to one authority on reform, “[c]hange comes from power, and power comes from organization.” Unlike the colonial revolutionaries, Operation Rescue has not followed a deliberate, unified, and informed pattern of civil disobedience. Operation Rescue appears to lack a coordinated and knowledgeable group of leaders who act behind the scenes to weigh the pros and cons of the group’s activities.”3

However true this may ultimately be for success of other movements in the future, or not, it is clearly true that it spelled failure for hundreds of such rescues by OR in the 80s and 90s. There is no chance, then, of success from only a single such rescue today, without significant changes first.

Second, on consistency. OR seemed to change its approach in its later permutation:

One might argue that the intimidation tactics presently advocated by Operation Rescue appear to be directed primarily toward mitigation or elimination of punishment for the acts of civil disobedience by Operation Rescue members. Such tactics fail to affect directly the use of abortions or generate Christian “repentance.” In fact, one might argue that such intimidation tactics might well generate the same type of negative response from the American public as was exhibited against the antiwar protestors, i.e., that the protesters are seeking not to create a more just society, but rather that the protesters are seeking to destroy or denigrate some very fundamental premises of the American system—namely, the importance of an independent judiciary.4

Third, on PR: “When a reform movement fails to educate the general public on its alms and objectives, its effectiveness often is dramatically reduced. . . . Operation Rescue has not been successful in persuading and informing the majority of the American public as to the necessity and/or correctness of its activities. This failure appears to have occurred for two reasons. First, Operation Rescue previously limited its efforts only to conducting rescues at abortion centers. Second, the organization has not received favorable media attention. . . . Public reaction is largely uninformed and uninspired with respect to Operation Rescue.”5

Despite all the critical analysis and criticism, Whitehead argues that the door-blocking tactic, historically and theoretically speaking, is a justified tactic. Nevertheless, he concludes, “certain basic historical and theoretical-conceptual guidelines must be adopted and followed if any movement based upon civil disobedience is to succeed. To do otherwise, is to invite defeat and to fail to take into account the costs of one’s acts.”6

There is yet another person who seems to agree with the basic problems at the root of OR’s failure, and that is OR’s founder, Randall Terry. He is quoted as to the problem:

Historically, silence and accommodation has done nothing to help the oppressed. It only strengthens the hands of the oppressors. That is the lesson of Nazi Germany and of the Eastern Bloc countries. Hitler went after the insane, the feeble, the elderly. The Christian community, by not taking action, contributed to Hitler’s strengthening and its own weakening, and ultimately to the death of 30 to 40 million people. When the Christian community tolerates the oppression of a few, it paves the way for the oppression of the many. It doesn’t stop with rescuers. Today, people are being arrested for praying or picketing on sidewalks, something they have a constitutional right to do.7

He also saw the apathy he was up against:

Even a brief overview of American history proves that political change usually comes after social upheaval. The birth of America, the end of slavery, women’s voting rights, repeal of prohibition, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the feminist movement all testify to one truth: whether for good or bad, political change comes after a group of Americans bring enough tension in the nation and pressure on politicians that the laws are changed. Politicians see the light after they feel the heat!

The truth is, we don’t stand a chance of ending this holocaust without righteous social upheaval occurring across the country that “inspires” politicians to amend the Constitution. Right now they have no reason to. The status quo is peaceful. But if even one percent of the evangelical and Catholic community (about 800,000 people) would take their own rhetoric seriously (“Abortion is murder!”) and start acting like children are being killed, things would change. By doing massive rescues, we could create the tension needed to turn the tide. When government officials have to choose between jailing tens of thousands of good, decent citizens, or making child killing illegal again, they will choose the latter, partly because there are no jails big enough to hold us if we move together in large numbers!

That righteous upheaval was missing in when Terry wrote it 1987. It was missing when North published in 1988–1989. It was missing when Whitehead published in 1991. It is lacking today. The simmerings of righteous indignation, however, are moving AHA, #EndAbotionNow, the remnants of the old guard, and others, to get radical once again, and much great work is being done.

What to do

Any movement which intends to succeed in this area has got to begin, first, with seeding the truth in its most uncompromising and radical form, across the country, in every church and every heart of every Christian. We must spread the ideology as widely as possible, and create an absolute abhorrence of murder and the culture of death.

Second, the seeds must sprout and grow strong. If the necessary convictions do not spread, there is no hope. If they do not take root and withstand competition with the various weeds (excuses, arguments, apathy, hostility) in the garden of God, then they cannot flower and bear fruit.

Third, if the seed of radical truth finally takes root, the fruits of truth will appear: repentance. Widespread repentance will indicate true revival among the churches.

Fourth, a repentant church armed with the full truth of God, revived and reinvigorated, will lead to a Reformation; that will lead to developed political views, preaching, and activism. That will be the path to cultural renewal.

Fifth, a church that is truly active and truly relevant to the culture will spark a true culture war. The world, and the churches dominated in various ways by the world, with rise up and attempt to persecute the revived Body of Christ in the land. (This is when going to jail may really have some public significance.) It is here we will see the most radical and meaningful public clash between God’s people and the forces of death. This process, this battle, will expose the ferocious evil of the culture of death and the central importance of the institution of child sacrifice to it, and the true murderous nature of the whole.

Sixth, this exposure of truth and resistance to it will provide the window of opportunity for God ‘s people to abolish human abortion, ending this public wickedness in our time.

Please note, no one gets anywhere in this process unless we first successfully seed radical truth. This means my friend is right: we need to be engaging the churches—the body of Christ. That is where this must start.

I personally think it is premature to be blocking clinic doors. I think the far, far greater problem is the Pharisees blocking up the doors of the kingdom and of truth (Matt. 23:13; Luke 11:52): they won’t enter themselves, and they won’t let anyone else enter. This prevents the spread of radical Christianity and true practical Christianity. Before engaging in a largely symbolic resurrection of Operation Rescue, we need a concentrated effort on Operation Rescue the Churches—rescue them from the apathetic acquiescence to the social norm, sin, murder, and culture of death.

Notes:

 

  1. Washington and Lee Law Review 48, No. 1 (1991): 77–122.(↩)
  2. Quoted in Whitehead, 100.(↩)
  3. Whitehead, 109.(↩)
  4. Whitehead, 110.(↩)
  5. Whitehead, 111–112, 114.(↩)
  6. Whitehead, 121–122.(↩)
  7. Quoted in Whitehead, 110n196.(↩)

Report from the Abolish Human Abortion Texas Conference and Rally

by 20 Comments

If you are not aware of what the Abortion Abolitionist movement is doing, you need to be. This is a seed that has grown into a sapling and has potential to bear fruit for life and the healing of the nations in the Kingdom. There is much work to be done, but this is a great start.

I left my house at 4am last Friday, and arrived back home at 12:30am this morning, all in support of Texas HB 948, to Abolish Human Abortion in total, now.

During this mission to the Abolish Human Abortion Texas conference and rally, a large group of Abortion Abolitionists marched 2.3 miles through downtown Austin chanting, “Equal Justice, Equal Protection; We the people demand abolition,” among other things, handing out tracts and cards along the way. Hundreds of heads turned and smartphones were held aloft all along the way, while shouts of support competed with rabid feminist taunts of “my body” and middle fingers.

As we arrived at the capitol building, we entered an even larger throng of Abolitionists chanting the haunting song “A Voice as Strong as Thunder,” while a shofar blew in the distance, applause and cheers ascended, and tears were being shed. About 1,000 serious souls sent up war cries, praise, and prayer, creating a mixture of solemn silence and loud anticipation.

For the next hour or so, several people, leaders, and supporters, as well as the seven co-authors of the Bill, spoke and rallied at the capitol building. We learned that this bill was just referred to the State Affairs Committee, and that the next action step is to pressure the Chairman of that Committee to give it a hearing. Learn about that here.

The pro-infanticide, pro-abort, pro-murder forces have already arrayed against this. While the early reports are that calls coming into the capitol are overwhelmingly against the bill, the secretary also added that most of those calls are from out of state. In-state calls are supported, but are being drowned out by organized out-of-state pro-abort forces. We need to fight back. Even if you’re not in Texas, you can counteract the nationwide cult of death by calling into the Texas State Affairs Committee in support of HB 948.

Why would you want to do this? First, because you are a Christian. You love your neighbors—the Abolitionists fighting and the unborn ones.

Second, because it will help end abortion in your state, too. The Abolish Human Abortion movement is built on a radically decentralized model that focuses on individual, local, and state level efforts. I have written about the power and viability of this model in Restoring America One County at a Time. In short, what’s being exercised in Texas right now (and also in Idaho and other places), can and will be exported to every State in this nation in order to Abolish Human Abortion totally and End Abortion Now. Your help and participation in supporting others’ state efforts now is key to building the momentum toward similar efforts around the country.

Third, because the “traditional” pro-life movement has utterly failed. It has failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because “incrementalism” is a method which generally only works for evil causes, not righteous ones. While that may sound shocking to many of you, I explain a little bit of why in the brief exhortation I gave the conference yesterday, called “Crumbs, Dust, and Trigger Words.” Watch what was captured of it (most) below.

Fourth, you should do it because, as Bojidar Marinov shared with us, the biblical message and mission is one of optimism: the future is ours. The only sure way to fail is not to try. The only way to win is to be involved. Get involved.

Spend a little time today scrolling the Abolish Human Abortion Facebook page, watch most of the several talks at this weekend’s conference (all great and inspiring!), and make sure to call the Committee in Texas. Get involved, then look for an Abolitionist group in your area.

(Apologies: the first few minutes were beset by technical difficulties. Also, the background noise near the end was the rythmic praise and worship from a church meeting in the next conference room—but the timing was perfect 🙂 .)

An Abolitionist responds to false allegations (some things never change)

by Leave a Comment

Of the numberless public misrepresentations that are made of my sentiments and purposes, either through ignorance or malignity, it is very seldom that I am induced to take the slightest notice. The pages of the Liberator, for the last nineteen years, bear witness, that I have voluntarily published hundreds of columns of the most defamatory material against myself personally, without uttering a single word in self-defense; so conscious have I been of the rectitude of my course, and the purity of my intentions. But I am moved to depart from my usual habit, in such cases, by a communication which appeared in the Transcript of Tuesday, under the signature of ‘SIGMA’; first, because the author of it claims to be a gentleman and a Christian—on what grounds I know not; and secondly, because his attack is made in connection with a speech recently delivered by me in New York, which has been wickedly perverted or stupidly misapprehended in various quarters.

. . . He says, ‘it is well known (!) that Mr. Garrison has, upon various public occasions, discharged upon the community impudent and disgusting blasphemy’; . . .

‘SIGMA’ is an adept at the use of opprobrious epithets; but, one thing the readers of his libelous article will do me the justice to remember, and that is, he does not quote a single sentence or word from my lips to sustain his ‘blasphemous’ allegation. For more than twenty years, I have been before the public as an editor and a lecturer; and during all that time, I challenge ‘SIGMA’ to produce anything from my pen or lips irreverent toward God, derogatory to the character of Jesus, or hostile to pure and undefiled religion. What crime have I winked at, what popular iniquity shrunk from rebuking, what cross refused to bear, what peril avoided, what sacrifice in the cause of down-trodden humanity been unwilling to make? Has not my life been devoted to the promotion of all that is pure, lovely, beneficent, and Christ-like? And is it to my shame, or to my praise, that I have fiercely arrayed against me all that is profligate, brutal, profane, lawless, and tyrannical, on the one hand—and all that is cowardly, time-serving, bigoted and hypocritical, on the other? I am feared, anathematized, threatened by those who ‘trade in slaves and the souls of men,’—who insult, degrade and trample upon the image of God—who systematically violate every command in the Decalogue, and every precept in the Gospel:—is this an evidence of my impiety? . . .

What shall be said of the fairness of honor of the man, who takes a garbled report of a speech from a paper intensely hostile to the speaker, and, assuming it to be authentic, makes it the occasion of scattering in this community the most unjust and inflammatory comments upon it? Is this doing as he would be done by? Can anything be more despicable? What I said at New York was comprehensively this—that the popular tests of piety, in this nation, were of no significance, and proved nothing of the love of God or man, because ‘the offence of the cross’ has ceased, and it is everywhere safe and reputable to embrace them. Is this ‘blasphemy,’ or the utterance of an undeniable fact? I said that a profession of faith in Jesus, now costs nothing; for his praises are everywhere sung and his deeds are everywhere lauded,—by none more loudly than by those who enslave and imbrute their fellow-men; and, therefore, this is no longer a true test of piety. Can this be truthfully denied? Finally, I declared my faith in a Jesus who redeems, not enslaves; who binds up the broken-hearted, not crushes the weak; who goes for proclaiming liberty throughout all the land, not for perpetuating human thraldom—the Jesus who lived and suffered eighteen hundred years ago. Was that an impious sentiment? Had I not been riotously interrupted, my design was to have shown how striking has been the analogy between the Anti-Slavery movement in the United States, and promulgation of Christianity in Judea—both experiencing essentially the same treatment, despised and rejected of men, hooted by the rabble, denounced by the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted by the rulers; their advocates accused of being ‘pestilent and seditious fellows, seeking to turn the world upside-down’ ‘the filth of the earth and the offscouring of all things,’—scourged, imprisoned, and in some cases put to an ignominious death,—accused of blasphemy,—‘in perils of robbers, in perils by their own countrymen, in perils in the city, in perils among false brethren. . . .

From time to time, old things pass away—all things become new. While, in this age and country, the recognition of Jesus, as the Messiah, subjects no one to shame, reproach or peril, eighteen centuries ago, in Judea, it cost everything; and Jesus himself was crucified as an imposter and blasphemer. And still, in the person of THE SLAVE, is he despised, and rejected.

[“TO THE EDITOR OF THE BOSTON TRANSCRIPT [May 17, 1850.],” William Lloyd Garrison. The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison, Volume IV: From Disunionism to the Brink of War, 1850-1860, ed. by Louis Ruchames (Cambridge , MA and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975), 16-22.]

***

It turns out, ‘sigma’ was Lucius Manlius Sargent, something of a classics scholar, poet, and author. He was a fierce denunciator of all that he disliked, among which was immediate Abolitionism. He was also, however, a prominent voice in the temperance movement, and favored prohibitionism for that.

It appears to me that the analogy Garrison wished to draw is just as prominent today in regard to the immediate abolition of abortion. There is not a word drawn from Scripture here which did not apply just as fully to the persecution—built on lies, repeated by religious leaders—of the Abolitionists in the 19th century, and which does not still apply to the Abolitionists of our era. The only difference may be the degree to which murder can be said to exceed the wickedness even of American slavery, and therefore today’s slandering leaders that much more culpable. —JM

Paul Washer, AHA, and the hope that truth will prevail

by 24 Comments

By now most of you are familiar with the presence of abortion abolitionists at the G3 Conference and some of the ugly rumors spread about it afterwards. What you may not know is that while so many interested parties were working to malign these guys, one prominent speaker actually took the time to speak with them, listen to them, and you can hear his change of tone as he has misperceptions corrected and learns the other side of the story. The most important part of this is that, in the process, some myths are busted that turn out to offer a tremendous case example for all of us when it comes to spreading falsehoods specifically, and integrity with print media in general.

The video below shows a discussion between Paul Washer and abortion abolitionists who were active outside G3. They called to him and offered him some of their literature. He obliged and engaged them in discussion. His first question was laced with suspicion based on things he had heard.

He asked, “Are you the group also that is attacking the local church?” The girl answers, “Sir, we’re not attacking the local church.”

He followed, “What about elders and all kinds of things like that?” Again, “If you guys are the guys that I think you are, you’re also . . . it’s like you’re attacking local churches everywhere instead of doing what you should be doing.”

The young man, Wayne Groover, explained that these claims, so often repeated by a few interested parties, are straw men and slander, and that he is a member of a local church and is submitted to elders—“I absolutely submit.”

What occurred next, and almost in passing, in this discussion made me raise an eyebrow. He mentioned going about things the wrong way, such as “if you’re attacking and destroying churches and things. . . .”

Wait a minute. “Destroying”? Where is that coming from?

Then it got even more interesting.

After complimenting how kind these activists were, and promising to read their literature and research it, he returned to the concern:

But I have heard, you know, like, somebody went into a church in San Antonio or something—I don’t know what it was—tore it to pieces, or something, I don’t—Like I said, I just need to get a sure word.

I was really confused by this. Are there actually reports of AHA activists breaking into churches and tearing them to pieces? Or has he confused some random news story of vandalism with some other memories to arrive this impression? Or what?

The answer lies in how the incendiary language and false accusations of critics spread around the web until someone’s hyperbole becomes an ugly reputation for violence pinned on someone else—totally unrighteously.

The impression comes from the careless writings of a pastor of a church that was visited by a couple abortion activists. Let me say clearly this was one of the clumsiest interactions from an abolitionist I have seen (about the only really clumsy one I’ve seen). Fortunately, the guy involved later posted an apology for not listening well enough and coming across as a legalist. He certainly also needs to learn how better to communicate what he’s trying to say before he does any more such interaction. But the insistence that the pastor’s church repent of apathy when it in fact does have abortion outreaches and ministries riled the pastor who then posted about his experience online. He was far from fair in how he represented the work of abolitionists:

They claim to want to work with other churches, and yet their approach is to break down the doors of your church, overturn the tables, and call the entire church to repent of not being involved in abortion ministry to their satisfaction.

This—this!—is the origin of Paul Washer’s misperception that AHA members broke into a church and tore it to pieces.

Now, this may have been hyperbole on the Pastor’s part, but that was certainly not clear from his post, which was filled with a tremendous number of other exaggerations as well. It certainly was not clear to anyone who didn’t know better, or who was hearing about AHA for the first time. Extreme language like this can lead to false impressions, and, sure enough, next thing we have even prominent ministers like Paul Washer walking around with the idea in their head that AHA activists have literally committed violence and destroyed churches!

One young lady responded to this Pastor’s indelicate charge properly:

I’d like to ask Pastor Ramos to be careful with his words. “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent” (Prov. 10:19). These careless words communicate something that is incongruous with how the two men who visited Heritage Grace that day acted. There was no irrational anger, no table flipping, and no self-righteous demands. Just two men seeking to ask for help at “a good man’s house”.

Her whole article addresses the intemperate, inaccurate, and angry response of the pastor, and answers several of the factually false charges he levels. It contains some interesting perspective and I recommend you read it.

Now let this sink in for a minute. One guy has one less-than stellar interaction, but then sits down and pens hyperbolic, incendiary falsehoods that came across so literally that a reader the likes of Paul Washer came away with a slanderous impression.

First, just imagine how many other such attacks may be just as hyperbolic and yet just as false.

Second, witness how easy it is for even the most discerning of believers to believe slanderous false impressions based on such things.

Third, imagine what could be the case, then, when rumors are blown into exaggerations are blown into lies and are repeated heavily by a handful of parties who may have some level of influence—some who have allowed themselves uncharacteristically to blow overgeneralizations into fallacies, and some who act with prejudice and malice in an attempt to destroy other people’s reputations.

Imagine, from what we just saw with how Brother Washer himself was misled by such a phenomenon, how so much more evil and wickedness will be spread and unfortunately believed by posts like this:

I’m not a prophet. Neither do I have any evidence that what I’m about to suggest will happen. However, I truly believe that someone flying the AHA banner will one-day bomb an abortuary or try to kill an abortionist. Again, I don’t know this will happen. But I fear it will.

This was posted by a prominent street preacher, respected and believed by many.

Or consider a very beloved Reformed Baptist apologist who generalized AHA on social media as a “jihad.”

Or consider the numerous times such folk have been called—often by well-known ministers or preachers who have much respect and influence—“church-haters,” “anti-church,” “rebels,” “cult,” “cultists,” “dangerous,” “outside the church,” “fighting the church,” all of which are broad, often undefined, fallacious generalizations and extreme exaggerations applied indiscriminately to over 50,000 people with very little to no proof of the claims made—certainly not in their extreme form.

Let me be the first to say that the moment I see actual proof of any such claims, I’ll be the first to agree to the evidence provided concerning the offending parties. Until then, we need to follow the example Washer exhibited in the limited moments of this brief exchange:

The Good News

Groover responded to Washer, “Yes sir. I can promise you that there are slanderous things that second-hand witnesses are spreading—it’s insanity.”

Washer responds, “I understand that. It’s like one guy told me, he goes, ‘Paul Washer. You are not a worker of the devil; you are the devil himself.’”

In other words, Washer knows what it feels like to be slandered himself.

Then he pointed out another piece of evidence he thought spoke against AHA. It turned out, however, that he had yet another misperception:

PW: “Well, you know, but, like there’s a guy protesting right there that . . . Hitler, Luther, whatever. Is that one of your guys? . . . I think that’s a bad argument, but. . . .”

DW (Deanna Waller): “‘Everything that Hitler did was legal?’”

PW: “No, what I’m saying is, identifying Martin Luther with Hitler. . . . There’s a guy over there talking about Martin Luther.”

WG: “Martin Luther King?”

PW: “No, I thought it was Martin Luther.”

WG: “No, sir, no sir. . . . It says, ‘Never forget, everything Hitler did in Nazi Germany was legal. —Martin Luther King.’ You know what I’m saying?”

Once corrected, Washer realized he had made a mistake and saw no problem: “Oh, OK.”

Washer repeated what he said earlier: “Again, I will look into this more thoroughly because you’ve been kind. . . . Proverbs and Paul’s admonition to Timothy is never to judge anyone till you hear the second side of the story—the other side. . . . I will.”

He concluded: “I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I’ll look at this.”

The bad news is that I know who some of Paul Washer’s friends are, and they are some of the very people who posted the most extreme lies I listed above. I fear, therefore, that Paul Washer may yet be further misled and neglect to research the other side by actually contacting many of the leading abolitionists who labor under the mission of AHA, and then conclude for himself. I could be wrong. I don’t know Paul Washer and have never met him, but he comes across as a man of high integrity, compassion for truth and justice, and courage to state what the truth is no matter the cost. I hope he follows through properly and reports the results by an outstretched hand. But it’s hard to withstand the repeated entreaties of people you like and trust and to hold them in suspicion that they may be intensely wrong.

The good news, however, is exhibited in this video: when we listen, we may find that we have been misled by misperceptions and falsehoods that have been repeated as mantras, and we may find out that the vast majority of such people are not church-haters, and none are the violent terrorist and jihadists that has been unbelievably claimed. Just maybe. And that’s good news.

A warning against slander, from people you trust

There is absolutely no place in the Christian world for the type of loose speaking that maligns and demonizes other people’s reputations falsely. There is no place for fallacies of generalization. There is certainly no place in the church for doing such things purposefully with the design of discrediting.

Every one of us knows this, but we all need to submit to one another and hold each other accountable, because this particular sin, particularly in the age of social media, is absolute rampant fire in which we—if we have any passion for sound doctrines and applications at all—can all easily find ourselves consumed on occasion.

So, don’t even trust my word alone for it. Listen to men we all trust:

Verse 18. Let the lying lips be put to silence. A right good and Christian prayer; who but a bad man would give liars more license than need be? May God silence them either by leading them to repentance, by putting them to thorough shame, or by placing them in positions where what they may say will stand for nothing. Which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous. The sin of slanderers lies partly in the matter of their speech; “they speak grievous things;” things cutting deep into the feelings of good men, and wounding them sorely in that tender place—their reputations. The sin is further enhanced by the manner of their speech; they speak proudly and contemptuously; they talk as if they themselves were the cream of society, and the righteous the mere scum of vulgarity. Proud thoughts of self are generally attended by debasing estimates of others. —Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, Psa. 31:18.

The deadliest of all venom is the slander of the unscrupulous. Some men care not what they say so long as they can vex and injure. Our text, however, must not be confined in its reference to some few individuals, for in the inspired epistle to the Romans it is quoted by the apostle as being true of us all. So depraved are we by nature that the most venomous creatures are our fit types. The old serpent has not only inoculated us with his venom, but he has caused us to be ourselves producers of the like poison: it lies under our lips, ready for use, and, alas, it is all too freely used when we grow angry, and desire to take vengeance upon any who have caused us vexation. It is sadly wonderful what hard things even good men will say when provoked; . . . by nature we have as great a store of venomous words as a cobra has of poison. —Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, Psa. 140:3.

[I]n order to constitute slander, it is not necessary that the word spoken should be false—half truths are often more calumnious than whole falsehoods. It is not even necessary that a word should be distinctly uttered; a dropped lip, an arched eyebrow, a shrugged shoulder, a significant look, an incredulous expression of countenance, nay, even an emphatic silence, may do the work; and when the light and trifling thing which has done the mischief has fluttered off, the venom is left behind, to work and rankle, to inflame hearts, to fever human existence, and to poison human society at the fountain springs of life. Very emphatically was it said by one whose whole being had smarted under such affliction, Adders’ poison is under their lips.—Frederick William Robertson. —Quoted in Spurgeon, Treasury of David, notes to Psa. 140:3.

And finally,

The purport of the commandment is, since God, who is truth, abhors falsehood, we must cultivate unfeigned truth towards each other. The sum, therefore, will be, that we must not by calumnies and false accusations injure our neighbour’s name, or by falsehood impair his fortunes; in fine, that we must not injure any one from petulance, or a love of evil-speaking. To this prohibition corresponds the command, that we must faithfully assist every one, as far as in us lies, in asserting the truth, for the maintenance of his good name and his estate. . . .

[T]here can be no doubt, that as in the previous commandment he prohibited cruelty unchastity, and avarice, so here he prohibits falsehood, which consists of the two parts to which we have adverted. By malignant or vicious detraction, we sin against our neighbour’s good name: by lying, sometimes even by casting a slur upon him, we injure him in his estate. It makes no difference whether you suppose that formal and judicial testimony is here intended, or the ordinary testimony which is given in private conversation. . . .

The equity of this is perfectly clear. For if a good name is more precious than riches, a man, in being robbed of his good name, is no less injured than if he were robbed of his goods; while, in the latter case, false testimony is sometimes not less injurious than rapine committed by the hand.

And yet it is strange, with what supine security men everywhere sin in this respect. Indeed, very few are found who do not notoriously labour under this disease: such is the envenomed delight we take both in prying into and exposing our neighbour’s faults. Let us not imagine it is a sufficient excuse to say that on many occasions our statements are not false. He who forbids us to defame our neighbour’s reputation by falsehood, desires us to keep it untarnished in so far as truth will permit. Though the commandment is only directed against falsehood, it intimates that the preservation of our neighbour’s good name is recommended. It ought to be a sufficient inducement to us to guard our neighbour’s good name, that God takes an interest in it. —John Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.47–48.

And it was helpful for Paul Washer to put his response in the context of the Proverb, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prove. 18:17).

We need far fewer first cases and far more examination.

Abolitionism versus the establishment — a convicting mirror

by 32 Comments

As we watch gospel personalities criticize groups who are both spreading awareness for the immediate abolition of human abortion and calling the evangelical church to repent of its apathy (like R. C. Sproul, Sr. has courageously done), it will be helpful to put things in perspective. Here, history can be of great service, although I will warn you, if you’re not into being convicted, proceed no further.

“Abolitionism” today refers to the immediate end of abortion. In other words, it wants to #EndAbortionNow. But most people are familiar with the word from a previous era—the abolitionism made famous by William Wilberforce as well as many such activists in America.

Most people are probably aware of the general religious convictions of men like Wilberfore, William Lloyd Garrison, Theodore Weld, and women like Harriet Beecher Stowe. Most people who know much about the abolitionists know that there were religious motivations behind their actions.

What most people do not know is the unfortunate fact that these religious figures were considered fringe elements by the majority of Americans, certainly by the religiously informed. What most people do not know is that the greatest published opposition by far to the abolition of slavery in America was the mainline, establishment churches.

In the history books, this opposition is often well-highlighted among the Southern theologians, but the opposition to radical—immediate—abolition was just as strong from churches and ministers in the Northern free states as well.

A great illustration of this comes in the case of Andover Seminary in the mid-1830s.

Abolition at Andover

Andover was the Westminster Seminary of its day, having been founded by conservative Calvinist ministers, including Jedidiah Morse of American history fame, who had fled the Unitarian takeover at Harvard around 1805.

Several students at the seminary were persuaded by the radical abolitionists Garrison, Weld, and others. They formed a society and organized lectures by these at the seminary chapel, but almost as soon as the abolitionist fire began to spread, the seminary leaders moved to shut them down, and largely succeeded. They succeeded, anyway, in ensuring that the institution itself would remain officially opposed to immediate abolition and in favor of the lip-service version, gradualism and colonization. In the end, while I think the author of the article I am about to feature was a bit too soft on the leadership, he does conclude that “one of the most important, if not the significant, factor predisposing the educators to reject organized immediatism was their professional self-image. . . .”1

You can find the whole article here.2 I recommend the whole of it for those interested. I’ll relate just a few relevant facts.

The abolitionist movement started on campus in 1833. It was tiny at first, but the work it did was huge. It “criticized the unexamined presuppositions of colonization and voiced the salient arguments of immediatism.”3 The “student abolitionists publicly repudiated colonization” as a movement ultimately built on racism. It was “spurred by hatred and prejudice toward blacks” and thus “proposed to rid America of an unwanted people.”4 These students consistently attacked this prejudice, the slavery built upon it, and the compromise of an emancipation only pending deportation as sinful and contrary to the principles of the gospel. By 1835, 40 out of 164 students sided with the abolitionists, and actually more than that were unofficially on board.5

In other words, up until this point, the establishment’s apathetic, but “professional” and publicly-favorable position had gone unchallenged. When it was exposed by applications of godly ethics and theological principles, students began to see the logic and unrighteousness of it. Awareness and a desire for action grew, and the establishment suddenly realized it had cause for concern—embarrassment of themselves if nothing else.

The convicting mirror here should be becoming evident already, but the full reality appears in the reaction of the leadership. They called a meeting between the faculty and students in 1835, and the faculty, one after the other, preached to the students the dire need “to cease further agitation of the explosive issue.”6 The most disheartening—but enlightening as a historical mirror—point is the reasoning they provided for the need to shut down agitation for immediate abolition.

Reasoning for inaction

Thompson lists four reasons. Of these, only one has any tinge of merit, one is poor, and the remaining two are utterly reprehensible. But here’s the even worse part: they are all four argued still today as reasons to distance oneself and one’s organization from immediate abolitionism of abortion.

The first reason was that debate on the seminary campus would cause division and injure brotherly love among the students. This is the poor reason. What is higher education for if not for hammering out divisive issues? Why was there not some forum for debating issues, especially the most crucial social issue of their day? What we see here is a false piety that values a false unity based in institutionally-imposed censorship. But such silence does not promote brotherly love or unity; it simply creates a coerced neutrality which universally indicates victory for the status quo. In other words, this route creates a safe space for the status quo and ensures nothing imediate will never happen.

The second reason has a façade of merit, but in reality is one more version of the classic dualism inherent in “two kingdoms” theologies. “Professionally” stated, the argument says that “to become embroiled in the slavery question would sidetrack the students from their proper role as Christian scholars and candidates for the ministry.”7 How in the world slavery could not qualify as an issue of at least Christian scholarship, if not ministry, is beyond me. But separating the two like this is what status quo-defending pietists always do, and the Southern theologians were experts at saying, “well slavery is a civil issue, and we only deal with spiritual issues here, sorry.”

Later in his life, Andover Professor Moses Stuart would publish his work against American slavery as a moral wrong and in favor of gradual emancipation. In it, his dualistic theology would shine through: “I have frequented the lecture-room, in the Theological Seminary here, near forty years; yet I believe none of all my pupils will charge me with occupying their time in political lectures.”8 To him this was something to be proud of, as was the fact that he played a central role in suppressing the students’ abolitionism as well—by using such theology.

Reprehensible

Beyond these tactics, however, the leadership got startlingly candid—and this is where the reprehensible arguments come. The third argument made was that “to take sides publicly on such a divisive issue would jeopardize their usefulness as ministers by making it difficult for them to secure a church or other post.”9

This is a classic veiled threat: fall in line, or you won’t have a job. Rock the church-boat, and you won’t have a paycheck.

This threat is the reprehensible bullying of cowardly men. And it is used just a widely today as it was then. It is rarely presented in such overt terms, but it is always the unspoken assumption for all seminary students who wish to graduate through the ranks of the organization, get ordained and accepted, and actually receive a pulpit. If your family wants to eat, don’t preach unapproved subjects, certainly not controversial social issues.

Finally, added onto this intimidation tactic, the seminary also revealed its own fear of losing money. The faculty argued that “to plunge the seminary into a bitter wrangle would cast a shadow over the future prospects of the school . . . by alienating friendly churches and wealthy benefactors. . . .”10

There you have it. Don’t do anything to get this institution associated with immediate abolition because our large donors would not like that. Boom. We want you to have a paycheck, and we want to make sure we have one, too. Meanwhile, four million souls remained in chains and slavery, and the best the establishment could do was say one day they may be freed, gradually, maybe a few at a time, and then we can ship them back to Africa. For now, stop convicting folk with your divisive, immediatist and equality nonsense, because there’s a lot of money at stake for us.

Of course, the slave holders in the South could have said the same thing—and many of them did.

So did their pastors.

So did their representatives in Congress, assembled.

So do the opponents of radical, immediate abolition of abortion today.

The appeals seem to have been effective. The majority of students passed a resolution disapproving of all action on the subject of slavery. But when it was clear that the more conscientious among them would still meet, the faculty petitioned the seminary’s Board of Trustees for power to forbid any student associations to be formed without approval of the faculty. This would mean the outlawing of any abolitionist groups meeting on campus, and the power to kick them out if they did.

The Trustees granted the request. After 1835, there is no evidence of any challenge to the faculty’s view. Any protest was confined to off-campus activity and private letters. But the hostility to abolition remained on campus, despite the now-outward appearance of peace and order. One student wrote to Theodore Weld in 1837, “God’s own book is insulted here and that by those who minister at the altar—aye by those who are appointed to train up the ‘leaders of the sacramental hosts of God’s elect.’” But aside from this, the forces of the establishment ended any discussion of immediate abolition.11

Look in the mirror

So, now, look in the mirror you defenders of the establishment, of the organized leadership. Look in the mirror you who criticize the zealous, uncompromising work of today’s immediate abolitionists of human abortion. See the image of yourselves in these leaders:

See them call any debate over the most serious ethical issue we have ever faced “divisive.”

See them label the challenge to apathy “divisive.”

See them hide the demands of justice and God’s Law beneath the false veneer of “unity” and “brotherly love.”

See them ensure the victory of man’s worse crimes with censorship.

See them call the most serious ethical issue we have ever faced “a sidetrack.” It’s not a priority.

See them absolve themselves of ethical duty by separating spiritual issues from “political.”

See them threaten ministers with the loss of a job if they speak out.

See them suppress the truth in the unrighteous covetousness of large donations.

See them intimidate those who would speak out in their ranks.

See them label radical abolitionists as fringe, divisive, distracting, kooks, church haters, having bad theology, and even dangerous.

When intimidation alone doesn’t work, see them use force and compulsion to kick them out.

See them all the while write books, give lectures, and hold conferences on how much they oppose the very evil they are protecting through all these actions.

Look in the mirror, and see your seminary students. See your seminaries. See your pastor. See your church leaders. See your parachurch leaders. See your Christian representatives. See your favorite theologian.

Most of all, look in his mirror and see yourself. Four million souls suffered and many died while thousands of pious theologians made excuses, bullied people, postured publicly, and spread lies which protected their professional image and their flow of funds, and cashed large checks. Today, they do exactly the same things while tens of millions of souls are murdered routinely in the womb. Nothing has changed, except that the apathy of the church has risen in proportion to the bloodshed, and its war on immediate abolitionists has intensified to match.

The hostility toward activists who preach the need for the immediate, coming from established organizations and ministers is as reprehensible now as it was then, and the arguments and reasoning virtually identical. The church needs to repent, and this means scores of leaders need to repent and show an example to their followings of repentance from apathy. I can only echo wholeheartedly the appeal of Dr. Sproul:

It is time for churches that see the evil of abortion to stand up and be counted—no matter the risk or the cost. When the church is silent in the midst of a holocaust, she ceases to be a real church. Wherever human dignity is under attack, it is the duty of the church and of the Christian to rise up in protest against it. This is not a political matter, and neither is it a temporary matter. It is not a matter over which Christians may disagree. It is a matter of life and death, the results of which will count forever.

Check yourself, Christian.

 

  1. J. Earl Thompson, “Abolitionism and Theological Education at Andover,” The New England Quarterly 47, no. 2 (June, 1974): 241.(↩)
  2. You’ll need a subscription or a library visit to do more than read it online one page at a time.(↩)
  3. Thompson, 243.(↩)
  4. Thompson, 243.(↩)
  5. Thompson, 245.(↩)
  6. Thompson, 246.(↩)
  7. Thompson, 246.(↩)
  8. Thompson, 255.(↩)
  9. Thompson, 246; my emphasis.(↩)
  10. Thompson, 247; my emphasis.(↩)
  11. Quoted in Thompson, 251.(↩)