The Tyranny of Nice

Let me paint you a picture.

You leave your house in the morning for work, or church, or school. As you step outside your house, you notice that’s something’s different. There are tiny splashes of crimson on the sidewalk in front of your house. As you walk closer, you realize with a sickening feeling that those tiny scarlet splashes merely outline the final resting places of tiny corpses, so tiny you have to lean over and squint at them—and when you do, you see tiny, perfectly formed arms, legs, and worst of all—faces. Faces that you do not want to see. Perfectly formed human beings, grotesquely mangled, savagely violated, and finally, callously abandoned.

And there are hundreds of them, stretching up the street. In order to go about your day’s activities, you must first step over 266 tiny bodies.

That might sound dramatic to some. In fact, I’m sure it does. And that is precisely why the gatekeepers of Christian schools and churches often do everything in their power to ensure you will never have to look a victim of abortion in the face. Many seem hell-bent on making sure that no student, no congregant, should ever have to grapple with the world-changing and gut-wrenching realization that we have failed millions of tiny human beings. Another day, another small sacrifice on the Altar of Nice. But don’t worry. You won’t have to step over the corpses as you go about your day. They’ve either been incinerated or packed into bio-hazardous bins, safely away from our fragile consciences. And there are plenty of pro-life people who want to make sure you don’t even see the only evidence of their fate that exists to tell their story: Abortion imagery.

Beyond the detailed and comprehensive explanations that has already been laid out regarding the need for showing abortion when we talk about well, abortion. A pro-life educator being told they can educate a class about abortion as long as they do not provide any documentary evidence of their claims (besides being just plain absurd) is the equivalent of telling a history teacher to educate his or her class about the Holocaust without showing any concentration camp pictures. Or a humanitarian worker to lecture about starvation in Africa without showing pictures of the starvation victims. Or an anti-smoker campaigner who can say that smoking makes your lungs black, but is forbidden to show any pictures of said claim.

There is no intellectually sustainable reason for this position. There is only the constant, infuriating, knee-jerk desire to keep everybody “happy,” whatever that means. Keep feeding them the morphine of cute stories and completely ignore the victims of abortion, so that when kids actually do go out and have abortions (and trust me, we have met many post-abortive teens in Christian schools) we can at least tell these shattered girls that we tried to protect them from any sort of emotional reaction to a picture. That’s right. You saved kids from a normal, human reaction to a picture of a human our society betrayed—but in the process, you may have removed the last barrier between them and a lifetime of pain and regret. It’s a good thing that no teens watch slasher flicks or gory movies. That would really traumatize them.

If you are pro-life, you know, as I do, that abortion has killed millions of pre-born children in Canada already. You are aware that the number of lives lost here already exceeds the number of lives lost in many of the other titanic injustices of our age. What would your response be to someone in the 1930’s and 1940’s who opposed the killing of Jews, but also opposed showing any pictures of the concentration camps to average citizens? Would you not say that they, too, were aiding in the cover-up?

If you know, as I do, that the pre-born are human beings whose right to life is being violated on a day-today basis, can you in honesty object to my comparison? Who does this suppression of evidence help, and who does it hurt?

It’s something to think about.

The Thunder Bay Assault: A Child’s Conscience versus A Man’s Anger

Two days ago, an angry man assaulted several of our female Caravan team members while engaging the public through Choice” Chain in the Algoma Business District of Thunder Bay, Ontario. He was walking by our demonstration with a little girl, and almost immediately became irate.”

According to Caravan team member Maaike Rosendal:

After he had screamed at Choice” Chain volunteers across the street, Thunder Bay local, Brian, walked towards us. While waving a stick at me, he encouraged the little girl with him (I’d estimate around 3 years old) to stand in front of the sign so he could take a picture. Screaming at us that he was going to put pictures of vaginas in public while making obscene gestures, he asked, “How would you like that, huh?”

I explained the difference between showing pictures of an injustice to turn people off versus showing obscene images which turn people on, when the little girl piped up, “What is it, Brian?”

“Ask them,” he responded angrily.

When I told her it was a baby, she asked, “What happened to the baby? Why is it broken?”

Me: “The doctor killed the baby.”

Little girl: “Why did he kill it?”

Me: “I don’t know sweetheart, but it’s sad, isn’t it?”

Little girl: “Uhuh, but why is there blood?”

Me: “Because the baby got hurt. I’m sure Brian loves you very much though, and that he’ll make sure you’re always safe.”

Then Brian interjected to me, “I don’t want you talking to her!” Then he angrily shouted to the little girl, “Go to your mom!” He pushed her into her mom’s direction, who was across the street; this resulted in the little girl almost running into traffic.  Thankfully he had enough sense to grab her by the arm and while swearing, he crossed the street.

The little girl continued to ask about the aborted pre-born children on the signs when she was with her mother on the other side of the street.  She inquired, “Mommy, there’s a dead baby; why did the doctors kill the baby?”

This little girl is the perfect illustration of what pro-life activists have found to be true time and time again: Children have functioning consciences. When they see a dismembered baby, they want to know why that happened, and who allowed it to happen. They do not get disturbed by the pictures so much as the obscene language and temper tantrums of their parents.

The angry man came back shortly afterwards, displaying his disdain for women and pre-born children by dumping a two-litre jug of milk on the heads of a three of the pro-life girls standing on the sidewalk with signs.

This is the response of a man furious that women dared to stand up and speak for women and children, and furious that the little girl did not share his anger at the protestors, but rather wanted to know, “Why did the doctors kill the baby?” This little girl knew instinctively what Brian could not grasp intellectually: That when faced with evidence of an injustice, we should ask why the injustice is happening, not react with more violence towards those who stand to expose it.

Used with permission from

Graphic Images Save Lives

“You’re making me feel bad,” she said. “I went along with two of my friends when they had their abortions because I wanted to support their choice. One of them was my brother’s girlfriend too.” I expressed my sympathy. “I’m so sorry to hear that. I didn’t come here to make you feel bad, yet I’m glad you now know what happened during the abortion. The truth often hurts but also sets free.” I offered her information about post-abortion help, which she eagerly accepted, then looked at the pictures again. “That would’ve been my niece or nephew, but I didn’t know.”

She had no idea. She didn’t know that her friend’s “choice” tore apart the tiny body of a pre-born child. She didn’t know that supporting such a choice allowed her brother’s baby to be decapitated, dismembered and disembowelled. She now knows the ugly truth because a graphic image of abortion conveyed just that. Had she seen the pictures a few weeks or months earlier, this young woman would have done everything in her power to prevent the abortions from taking place. Instead, two babies are now dead.

Another young woman we spoke with was opposed to abortion with the exception of pregnancies resulting from rape. Needless to say, she also wouldn’t impose her beliefs upon anyone else, not upon her friend scheduled for an abortion next week either. I pointed to my baby and asked whether she would have the responsibility to take action if I was planning to kill him next week. “Of course,” she exclaimed. “That would be terrible.” Pointing to a picture of a first-trimester aborted fetus I gently asked, “Do you think it’s any different with your friend’s child who, if you don’t do anything, will soon look like that?”

She had no idea either. She believed that being pro-life was merely a personal preference, not an objective truth that compels us to respect the lives of all people, including the pre-born. The abortion images changed it all. Instantly aware of her responsibility she asked for pamphlets and contact information for her friend. Perhaps, because pro-lifers showed her the truth, a small child will live. Many others have certainly survived for that very reason.

Far too often we’ve heard pro-lifers object to showing graphic abortion images. We agree that they are disturbing. They keep us from sleeping soundly, as they should, but more importantly, they change minds and save lives. Postcards, posters, signs, and trucks with graphic abortion images continually convict and convince of the pro-life truth, and the aforementioned are only two of many instances that prove this. But the converse is true as well. Babies die when we censor the truth, preventing women from knowing what abortion does and allowing pre-born children to be killed in their mother’s womb. Every child that is killed due to the mother’s ignorance is an indictment upon Christians and pro-lifers who have the knowledge and means necessary to save those lives.

Each of us has a responsibility to speak truth and show compassion, especially to the very least (Matthew 25:40). Additionally, the Bible makes it clear that the sins of our nation are our own (e.g. Proverbs 29:12) and that no one can wash their hands of innocent blood. What makes it worse, however, is when Christians without any Biblical reason whatsoever and in contravention of our Reformed heritage actively oppose a pro-life strategy that is truthful and hugely effective in saving lives, simply because it makes them uncomfortable. Our hands already drip with the blood of pre-born children by virtue of the fact that our tax dollars pay for every single abortion. And yet, even conservative church leaders who take it upon themselves to speak out on behalf of the voiceless and support the actions of those who seek to stop abortion are slandered and mocked by some in an extremely unbiblical way.

There are those in the Christian communities in North America who feel that it is a positive thing that they can sleep well at night, unburdened by the blood of thousands of children who were butchered during the day, bought and paid for by the tax dollars of our labour. There are those in the Christian community who seem to be more passionate about opposing the efforts of the largest pro-life educational movement in Canada than they are in ending the killing.

Ask yourselves a question: If you are at peace with a culture that murders its own children, is that staying true to Christianity and as close to our Reformed background as possible?

If you can consider yourself “personally pro-life” (much like Pontius Pilate was) but pass the blame for abortion onto others and do not fight it, are you not also to blame?

If you are fighting pro-life activists more actively then abortion, how much does abortion actually concern you? Have you written more letters complaining about graphic images, or abortion?

The EndtheKilling youth movement swells by the week, with Reformed people of all denominations flocking to get involved, make a difference, and save the lives of Canadian children. If you cannot support their efforts, at the very least do not oppose it. We have met too many women who had abortions because we were too late in exposing it to them. Dozens have told us they would not have had abortions if we had gotten to them earlier. For the sake of their children and thousands who are being “drawn unto death” every day, we ask for your support. We fully and completely respect all those who seek to fight abortion in their own ways, and are uncomfortable with the activism we have chosen. But let us not condemn each other’s efforts.

For as Abraham Lincoln once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

One of the favorite atheist rebuttals” during arguments concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,and  among other issues of historicity confirming Christian record, is the flippant statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is generally followed by a triumphant look on the part of the atheist, who is quite positive that his or her extensive reading of the Wiki-Quotes of Christopher Hitchens handily trump any examination of historiography or philosophical consistency.

But let’s take a closer look at that statement. Does the statement extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” actually hold true, or for that matter, really mean anything?

That statement can be broken up into three sections, which should be examined individually before examined in conjunction with each other:

1. Extraordinary Claims
2. Requires
3. Extraordinary Evidence

Let’s first unpackage the beginning of the sentence. When, for example, Christians give the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ or for His miracles, atheists call this an extraordinary claim. A “claim,” of course, could be defined as a proposition of some sort. But what is extraordinary? Which claims are defined as extraordinary, which claims are mundane, and which claims are, let’s say, completely extraordinary? Is there some sort of scale that grades claims on how extraordinary they are? An objective ranking from one to ten?

This even applies on a very basic cultural level. Let us give you a very basic example:

EG. “Buddhist and Hindu belief systems formed in India and Tibet teach that the body is governed by many chakras, or energy centres. There are seven major chakras: six are aligned in an ascending column from the base of the spine to the tip of the head and one hovers outside the body, between the genitals and the knees.

Anne Rooney, The Story of Medicine, Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2011, pg, 15

To people who have grown up in Western culture, this would be a more extraordinary claim. People living in India might not find it so extraordinary. This makes the concepts of extraordinary completely subjective. How can an objective value be placed upon a word such as extraordinary? The idea that certain claims, such as the resurrection of Jesus or biblical miracles in general are extraordinary, is completely the subjective opinion of the person stating this. We could point out that for over a millenia it would be the atheist’s denial of Jesus’ life as described in the Gospels which would be an extraordinary claim. This irony just goes to further prove the point that calling a claim extraordinary, while a clever rhetorical device, is essentially meaningless.

Before examining the second point, let’s briefly unpackage the third while we’re discussing the concept of extraordinary claims.

3. Extraordinary Evidence.

In order to really see what the questioner is demanding here, both words must be examined. We`ve looked at extraordinary, and determined that it is both subjective and ambiguous. So what of “evidence?”

Evidence is a very slippery word. What does evidence mean–and who gets to decide? The idea of evidence looks very different from person to person. A Yogi’s idea of evidence might seem very different then what a scientist considers to be evidence.

For example:

There is something which speaks within us in the language of eternity, not merely in the language of transitoriness. The consciousness of the transitoriness of things is an indication of the presence of a non-transitory eternity. This is a subtle voice that speaks within us, but it gets stifled, smothered by the mud that is thrown over it and the dust that is kicked up by the activity of the senses which blinds our eyes until we cannot see what is hidden behind this profundity within our own selves.”

The Yogi believes that “senses… blind our eyes until we cannot see what is hidden behind this profundity within our own selves,” whereas a scientist uses the senses to find evidence. The scientist will go through the rigours of the scientific method to find evidence and the Yogi will go through the rigors of meditation to find the “profundity within our own selves.”

Thus, even the word “evidence” itself must be clarified if it is to be deemed objective instead of subjective. The person who is making the claim must be able to demonstrate what they call evidence is actually valid evidence. A search of human philosophy will demonstrate that this is harder to do then what most people first think.[1]

The final word in this sentence is “requires.”

2. Requires.

Even if one could show that “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence” are indeed objective, which looks extremely unlikely, it is hard to see why one “requires” them to correlate to each other. What if a claim is indeed true, but there is little evidence for it? Under this approach the person would fall into error because of this completely unproven approach. He would deny the claim because of this word. At one time there was little evidence that the earth was round, so the scientific community thought the earth was flat. There was plenty of evidence for that, just look at the ocean. It looks flat. There doesn’t seem to be a necessary connection between an Extraordinary Claim and Extraordinary Evidence. Rather, it appears that this approach could lead one into error.

This entire article might seem to some a flippant response to a reasonable demand. But is the demand reasonable? From a philosophical perspective, the recent tomes being churned out by the self-labelled “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” are exceptionally shallow books. Do they ask good questions? Yes. Do they bring up some good points? Absolutely. Are they in any way philosophically consistent to the point that their thesis of anti-theism can be accepted? Absolutely not. And thus, the rhetorical devices of the anti-theist crowd must be held to the same high standards they disingenuously claim to hold religion to.

The stark reality is that the witty statement “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is one that in every sense that matters is semantically meaningless. It is actually an attempt to demand the evidence that the asker would require to believe in something without explaining why that is necessary. When the polemical anti-God, anti-Christian rhetoric of someone like Christopher Hitchens is examined, it becomes quite clear that no matter what evidence is presented, he never would have decided to believe in God’s existence because the idea itself was reprehensible to him.

And thus, this statement should be abandoned as a rhetorical device, rather then a valid argument, due to its lack of meaning and philosophical function.

[1] For example, If the atheists using this phrase would then state that only reason or only the scientific method can provide true evidence, then they must explain why reason cannot in and of itself prove that reason is rational, or that the scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate that its methods actually produce truthful results.

Christians – The Last True Contrarians

There is probably no more sought after title among writers, activists and idealistic university students than that of “contrarian”—the martyr-like defender of a righteous cause. Many even attempt to become contrarians by wittily opposing the mainstream as much as possible, in spite of the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to appear the martyr by opposing global warming. I find the desire to be a contrarian to be extremely self contradictory—if a contrarian is indeed one who defends a righteous cause, than while the contrarian may in fact be a voice crying in the wilderness, he should not enjoy being so. Instead, a contrarian by definition should long for his views—if indeed he actually believes them to be true—to be main stream.

And what true contrarians are left in today’s washed-out culture? It often seems as if the era of youthful rage against injustice is over, simply because the great causes of today are more or less agreed upon. Environmentalism is trendy, even to some extent among conservatives. No one is advocating for any sort of racist apartheid or devaluing of any ethnic group. Every one pretty much agrees (albeit with much apathy) that the genocides in Darfur, Congo and elsewhere are horrific and should be put to an end (just not by us.) For the most part, what passes for controversy today are manufactured tempests in teacups, with greedy journalists eagerly waiting for someone, anyone to say anything that resembles racism, or sexism, or some other “ism.”

Ironically, I think that the last real contrarians are the Christians.

Christians do not want to be contrarians. They want to be main stream, simply because Christianity is a religion that makes universalist claims. If Christians actually do believe their own faith, they must believe that the entire world would be better off following biblical truth. Of course, much of this truth is quite uncomfortable to today’s culture of instant gratification and moral relativism.

We believe abortion, based on embryology, biology, and moral philosophy is the wilful destruction of a human life that we have no right to take.

We believe that gay marriage should not be permitted, based on both religious truth and the societal implications that reflect that truth.

We believe that promiscuity is not only immoral, but damaging to society.

We believe that Christianity is the only true faith.

These views, while once prevalent, are not very popular now, although I would argue that all but the last of these statements is self-evident. If you challenge our culture on abortion, you get called “anti-choice,” or “misogynist,” or some other creative slur. If you challenge the idea that gay marriage is a valid concept, you get compared to George Wallace or some equally distasteful racist. And if you point out the ill effects of promiscuity, you get called a prude, or sexually repressed, or worse.

Yet, Christians do not wallow in the idea that we are “contrarians,” hugging this epithet to ourselves as a badge of honour. Because, as any genuine contrarian, we would prefer that others would recognize the truth in what we say and change their minds. We genuinely believe that if people would comport themselves in a Christian fashion, society would be better off.

Now, I realize that it may be hard to believe that country that lacked a sky-rocketing STD rate, plunging demographics, and broken homes could be better. But we actually believe it.

Even if everyone else thinks something to the contrary.

How To Die In Oregon: Our Culture’s Dance with the Devil

Generally, people don’t like a story where all the main characters die. However, that is precisely the point of a new HBO documentary entitled How to Die in Oregon, which traces the lives—and deaths–of a number of people after the passage of Oregon’s notorious 1994 assisted suicide, or “Die with Dignity” law.

The documentary begins with a morbid scene of a volunteer from an assisted suicide group called “Compassion and Choices” asking an old man surrounded by his family two questions: “You know you have the right to change your mind?” and “Do you know what this medication will do to you?”

The man answers gruffly that he wants do die, and affirms that he knows he is choosing suicide. The scene closes morbidly as the man breathes his last.

This documentary is a perfect example of how those who reject biblical truth are selling their message to the next generation. “I’m very against religion telling me what to do,” declares one man defiantly. And the message of “dying with dignity” is cleverly sold to viewers as it follows the lives of a number of elderly people and cancer victims, all asking for “medication” that will kill them while saying things that while intended to be comforting, should chill all of us.

“I don’t want to be a burden.”

“It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

“I just want to close my eyes and drift off…”

The film is eminently visceral, and incurs powerful emotions. It follows the journey of one likeable, dignified woman with cancer as she tells her children and husband that when she loses certain functions, she wants to take poison to end her own life. As the documentary records her grief, the grief of her family, and the gut-wrenching pain she suffers from her cancer, you begin to feel empathy. Her suffering tore at my guts while I watched. You slowly begin to understand why she’s making the decision to die.

That is because when we abandon any objective truth, decisions become about how one feels, not about what is right. Compassion becomes not what is best for someone, but what will make them feel the best temporarily. The documentary does not once address the fact that death is the gateway to an eternity, that we will not just “close our eyes and drift off,” but rather face our Creator. It cites people talking about how they want ultimate control over their lives, without examining whether or not that control is ours to take.

Neither does it address more fundamental truths. Why is human life valuable in the first place? What are the dangers, the “slippery slope” of assisted suicide? When God is taken out of the picture and we succumb to utilitarianism, it can be argued that suicide in the face of suffering is the right answer. Of course, if God does exist, then our desire for the “right” to choose our own time to die is just one more evidence of our complete societal rejection of the sovereignty of God. This documentary tries to normalize death, ignoring the fact that death is inherently unnatural—a punishment for our original sin that should never be considered normal.

And while the secularists will immediately accuse me of a slippery slope argument, how can we not examine the implications of allowing the practice of medicine extend to the gruesome business of ending lives? We have only to look at the Netherlands, where reports tell us many are euthanized without their consent, and the elderly often fear going to the hospital because doctors have become dispensers of death as well as life. They cannot be sure that what the doctor is putting in their IV bag is medicine—because the word “medicine” has been mangled to include poison.

Indeed, the documentary does admit the possibility of this, citing a man named Randy Stroup. Stroup was suffering from prostate cancer, and asked his health insurance provider to cover new chemotherapy treatments. Instead, he received a letter informing him that while his prognosis wasn’t good enough to waste money on chemo, they would pay for “end of life treatment.” Essentially, they quietly informed him that his life was no longer worth fighting for, and that if he wanted to die, they would pay for the poison.

When Stroup went public, the Oregon Health Board reversed its decision. However, this scenario is just a little preview of what is to come. With many reports citing the desertion of elderly parents and relatives in care homes by the younger generation, we should ask ourselves not just what a terminal cancer patient would do with a perverse law like this, but what impatient and greedy children might do as they see “their” inheritance slowly shrinking to pay for the care of their parents. When love waxes cold and human life is valueless, there may be many who will say in despair, “I don’t want to be a burden” and actually believe that taking their own life is “the decent thing to do.”

For Canadian readers, take note. The documentary also interviews a woman named Nancy Niedzielski, who helped crusade for the legalization of assisted suicide in Washington State. On her way to an interview with a Canadian radio station, she comments: “Evidently this is a hot topic in Canada.”

And so it is. We must remain vigilant against the further eroding of our Christian heritage and further attacks on the value of human life, created in God’s image. When you receive requests for assistance by those who seek to combat euthanasia and other attacks on human life, please respond. The churches are the conscience of the nation. If those consciences fall silent, what can we expect? Look to the Netherlands, and say “Not here. Not in Canada.” Look at their mobile euthanasia units, the commitment of infanticide due to the 2002 Groningen Policy, and their downgrading of human life, and make a decision. This cannot happen here.

Here, we can still fight.

Sex is powerful… and dangerous

A few years ago, a professor named Chap Clark decided to do a study of adolescent high school students to find out what they thought about sex. Since close to half of high school students are reportedly sexually active, Chap Clark wanted to find out what the stories behind the statistics were. What he found shocked him.

“I was surprised to realize that for most mid-adolescents the issue of sex had lost its mystique and has become almost commonplace. They have been conditioned to expect so much from sex and have been so tainted by overexposure… as one student told me, ‘sex is a game and a toy, nothing more.'”

Because of how our culture treats sex, this attitude has become a reality across North America.

Sex sells and pop culture sells sex

In today’s culture, it is extremely difficult for a Christian to adhere to Christian values. Our popular culture is working against us – the music industry, Hollywood and television all use sex and extremely explicit material to sell their products.

Music genres such as hip hop and rock glorify sex as something that everyone should be doing, a casual activity to be pursued and celebrated. There’s a reason rock music accompanied the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s with the symptomatic tagline “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.” The message is simple: do whatever makes you feel good. The world is full of pleasures. Go out and get your share. The title of a song by the Canadian band Nickelback sums it all up: Sex is always the Answer.

Hollywood and television sell the same message, with movies increasingly showing sex as glamorous, casual – and most importantly – something that doesn’t have any consequences. In fact, when I was attending Simon Fraser University, one classmate said to me, “Guys these days don’t have any excuse for not having sex. Music and TV have done half the job for us.”

Is sex worth protecting?

For many young Christians, that is the essential question. Is sex actually a big deal?

Christian young people are some times inclined to look at extramarital sex as yet one more thing we are not allowed to do in a long list of demands given to us by God in the Bible. So yes, we know that technically we are not allowed to have sex outside of marriage. But, we can rationalize, we’re not allowed to lie, be lazy, disobey our parents, or be disrespectful of authority either. So extramarital sex is wrong, sure, but is it any bigger deal than any other sin?

That answer is, yes. And in many ways.

Having sex outside of marriage can impact our entire lives in ways we don’t even comprehend.

What Christians often do not realize about the laws given to us by God in the Bible is that He did not give us these rules purely to restrict us. We might sometimes think these rules are simply a long, seemingly arbitrary list, that limits are possibilities for fun. But the truth is, in many cases, God gave us these rules to protect us from ourselves. Because God created human beings in His image, God also knows infinitely better than we do what lifestyle is best for us, physically, psychologically, and spiritually.

Just to give you a quick example to illustrate what I mean, the dietary laws God gave in the Old Testament included a number of prohibitions about certain foods. We now know that many of these restrictions were also quite helpful from a health perspective. With the limited cooking technology of that day, including the lack of refrigeration, and lack of knowledge concerning bacteria, many of the foods on the prohibited list would have poisoned the eaters. In essence, God gave His people the first health codes.

The same concept applies to sex. Sex in and of itself is not a bad thing—in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is a beautiful creation of God given to mankind in the Garden of Eden. Sex was one of God’s great gifts to men and women, and one that He gave for them to enjoy and cherish. However, if sex is used outside of the context in which God created it, it can have devastating and poisonous consequences.

The consequences of sex outside of marriage can be placed into three categories: physical consequences, psychological consequences, and spiritual consequences.

1. Physical consequences

Before 1960, there were only two Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) that were widespread enough for people to worry about: syphilis and gonorrhea. Only two diseases! However, when people started to ignore the limits that God had placed on sex, the consequences were not just spiritual. Because humans ignored the natural order that God created, the consequences were very physical.

Today, there are twenty-five categories of STDs. Not twenty-five new STD’s, twenty-five new categories.

For example, you may have heard of herpes. Herpes is an incurable sexual disease. You can get herpes from one sexual encounter, and you will have it for the rest of your life. One in five Americans over the age of twelve has this disease. Herpes comes in eight different strains, and you can contract anywhere between one and all eight strains at the same time. You also may have heard of the STD hepatitis. Well, there isn’t just hepatitis B, the one you most likely have heard of. Hepatitis comes in strains A through G.

Approximately one in four high school students will graduate with an STD. Most of them have no idea that they have contracted one. In fact, one half of sexually active single adults has, or will have, at least one STD. Four out of ten girls will contract an STD the very first time they have sex.

Let me put the enormity of this problem in perspective for you.

Every day in the United States, 1,500 people die from cancer. Another 2,600 die from a heart-related illness like a heart attack or a stroke. And every day, more than 50,000 people will contract a sexually transmitted disease. That’s 19 million people every year! There are only 300 million people in the entire United States. From an economic perspective, direct medical costs associated with sexually transmitted diseases in the United States are estimated to be thirteen billion dollars annually. There truly is no such thing as a free lunch – or “free love.”

Some of you would immediately point to the fact that there’s medication to control even the incurable STDs.

Yes, you can control diseases like herpes with medication. But if a woman has a herpes outbreak during childbirth, there is a significant chance that her child will die.

And there are STDs that are lethal. I’m sure you’ve all heard of AIDS. While AIDS does happen more often in homosexuals (once again an example of contravening God’s natural order) it is increasingly common in heterosexuals as well. Men and women have been arrested and put in jail for sleeping with people and not first informing them that they were HIV positive – the reason this is a crime is because, as a result, their “casual sex partners” may die of AIDS.

Incidentally, condoms rarely prevent STDs. This is according to a man known as the “Condom King,” Dr. Thomas Fitch of the Center for Disease Control.

Sexually transmitted diseases, even the curable ones, are no picnic either. Here is how abstinence speaker Lakita Garth describes a very common STD, genital warts:

“If you get genital warts, you’re going to start growing warts in your genital area. They grow on top of each other, and they’ll begin to form nodules and clusters that look like broccoli. They’re called condyloma. They make it painful to sit and painful to walk. And they’re most painful when they’re being removed.”

Now if someone thinks that an STD is unlikely because they are only having sex with one person, Dr. Everette Koop, the former U.S. Surgeon General warns otherwise:

“When you have sex with someone, you are having sex with everyone they have had sex with for the last ten years, and everyone they and their partners have had sex with for the last ten years.”

The bedroom could end up pretty crowded.

The final physical consequence of casual sex is one that should seem so obvious that I shouldn’t even have to point out, but many in today’s culture seem to have forgotten it: pregnancy. For some strange reason, when people decided that sex could be “recreational,” they forgot the very simple fact that sex creates babies. It’s why your genitalia are called “reproductive organs,” not “recreational organs.”

Anyone having sex outside of marriage is clearly not ready for a child – children need responsible committed parents. So sex before marriage has, in our culture, led to two devastating circumstances.

One, the baby gets raised without the benefit of having a father around.

Two, the baby is not raised at all; it is aborted. Every year in Canada, over 100,000 unborn children are brutally destroyed. In the United States, it is over a million.

When people around you are casually talking about their sexual conquests, remember that millions of tiny children are being horrifically destroyed so that our culture can engage in “recreational sex.” Millions of babies have been sacrificed on the altar of our lust and ultimate selfishness. Phrases such as “casual sex” and “recreational sex” are merely a flimsy facade attempting to shield a mass grave containing millions of dismembered pre-born corpses: our very own sacrifice to the Molech.

2. Psychological and Emotional Consequences

Aside from physical consequences, there are also psychological and emotional consequences to having sex outside of marriage. Many people today think that they can have casual sex with a number of different people, especially during their college years, and then settle down and marry their dream partner without any real impact on the relationship they hope will last a lifetime.

The fact actually is that since God created humans to be monogamous – one man and one woman, just as God created Adam and Eve – sex outside of marriage has a huge impact on future relationships.

Many readers have probably heard of the concept of “never being able to forget your first love.” This is a common theme in both literature and poetry, where everyone seems to agree that forgetting your first love is always the hardest, if even possible.

There is actually a biological and psychological explanation behind this phenomenon. Sexual contact releases powerful chemicals into the brain called neurotransmitters. These chemicals trigger immediate sensations – but they do far more. In their book Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex Is Affecting Our Children, authors Dr. Joe McIlhaney Jr. and Dr. Freda McKissic Bush write:

“When two people touch each other in a warm, meaningful and intimate way, oxytocin is released into the woman’s brain. The oxytocin then does two things: increases a woman’s desire for more touch and causes bonding of the woman to the man she has been spending time in physical contact with.”

The bonding agent most active in the male brain is called vasopressin. As McIlhaney and Bush explain:

“Vasopressin seems to have two primary functions related to relationships – bonding of the man to his mate and attachment to his offspring… vasopressin seems to be the primary cause of men attaching to women with whom they have close and intimate physical contact.”

However, when men and women decide to have sex with multiple partners, they begin to lose their ability to bond with a partner, which is why promiscuous people have a far harder time staying in a long-term relationship. There is a simple example to illustrate this: try putting masking tape on your arm. The first time you pull it off, it will be painful. The second time you pull it off, it will hurt less. If you keep doing it, there will be no bonding between the adhesive and your skin at all.

God created men and women to be monogamous, and when He told us in the Bible to avoid sex outside of marriage, He wasn’t simply giving us a restriction — He was informing us how our biology and psychology function, and telling us what would lead to the healthiest, most fulfilling relationships.

Since we have ignored this, statistics tell us that sexually active teens are three times as likely to face depression if they are female, and twice as likely if they are male. They are three times more likely to attempt suicide if they are female and seven times more likely if they are male, and far more likely to divorce if they marry. As Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll puts it, today’s pattern is “hook up, shack up, break up.”

3. Spiritual Consequences

Obviously, all sin has spiritual consequences because it is rebellion against God. Because having sex outside of marriage has such a power to affect lifelong relationships, it is more likely to affect men and women in this area as well.

God created sex to be shared between a husband and a wife. God, by the rules set out in the Bible, warned us of the power of sex and the impact it could have outside the natural order. Sex is extremely powerful, and can enslave those who become obsessed or addicted with it. Unhealthy and sinful obsessions have obvious consequences for one’s church and spiritual life.

For example, pornography is a $60 billion a year industry. One thousand dollars is spent in the United States every second on pornography, and a new porn film is made every hour. Pornography, because people are so visual, actually triggers a chemical reaction in the brain, releasing what are known as “erototoxins.” These erototoxins literally rewire your brain, and the images are often burned into one’s memory, inerasable.

Sex in its true form is one man and one woman, giving themselves to each other. Sex is not intended to be a biological activity to stimulate the brain’s pleasure centers; sex, according to the Bible, is two “becoming one flesh.” While today sex is characterized as “getting some,” it is supposed to be about giving yourself to your spouse.

Abstinence speaker Lakita Garth relates an interesting story. When she told her college roommate that she wasn’t having sex, her roommate looked at her aghast. “Don’t you feel like you’re missing out on anything?” she asked.

Lakita replied:

“I have missed out. I have missed out on the thrill of waking up wondering if my early pregnancy test will turn blue. I missed out on not getting to walk into a clinic with my best friend holding my hand because my boyfriend isn’t going with me unless he’s dragging me in. I missed out on sharing the same joy as my ex-roommate, who has pinpointed the day her child would have been born if she had not aborted, and who cries herself to sleep every year because she’s named him and celebrates his birthday. I’m even more saddened that five years from now I’ll miss out on waking up to stare at the ceiling of an AIDS hospice like my cousin Ricky and my friend Rod before they died…You’re right. I’ve missed out… on all the wonderful opportunities you’ve opened yourself up for.”

In a spiritual sense, sex is a powerful action that can take over your mind, destroy your relationships, and ruin your chances to have a healthy church life. Getting involved with sex outside of marriage has the chance of numbing or destroying your conscience. That is not fire we should be playing with.


So, we looked at all the horrible consequences of sex outside of marriage. And we’ve also looked at how God has tried to protect us from these consequences by telling us, in his Word, how sex should be treated. We’ve gone over STDs, abortion, the destruction of emotional bonding, and how porn addiction can change you forever.

But the good news about sex is that the Bible has it one hundred percent right. Even the secular, sex-obsessed culture has noticed that Christians have it right when it comes to sex. Sure, they make fun of us and call us prudes. But statistics everywhere show that married people have the most satisfying sex lives. The statistics even show that married people have far better sex lives than those who just live together, because of the commitment shared by those who have dedicated themselves to each other in marriage. In all polls taken, the simple fact is that married people have more sex, and better sex lives.

Sex is not a negative thing. Sex is an extremely positive thing – when it is enjoyed in the context of God’s plan and the natural order He has created. Christians who wait for sex, unlike many in the outside culture, have something actually fulfilling to look forward to. This is not about Christians demonizing sex – it is about Christians enjoying sex in the way God intended.

The Destruction of Innocence

The Devil is a gentleman, and asks you down to stay
At his little place at What’sitsname (it isn’t far away).
They say the sport is splendid; there is always something new,
And fairy scenes, and fearful feats that none but he can do.

–The Aristocrat, 1912

It is clear to all those of a socially conservative bent in today’s society that from a Christian point of view, things are going drastically wrong. Abortion on demand is legal and prevalent. Pornography addiction is at staggering highs. The concept of marriage and family is constantly being twisted and “revised” to include unnatural sexual relationships, which are then publicly celebrated. Promiscuity is rampant and promoted by most of mainstream culture. And news sites straight-facedly publish headlines such as “Amsterdam Decriminalizes Public Sex in Famous Park.”

These problems are often viewed as separate issues, although with more than a few similarities. There are groups dedicated to ending abortion, protecting traditional marriage, fighting pornography and promoting abstinence. But the question remains: besides the fact that these practices and lifestyles are sinful and in opposition to God’s plan for mankind, are there any common denominators between the various public sins creeping—or sprinting—into Western society today?

There is one: The systematic destruction of innocence.

“Innocence” has a number of definitions, all of them meaning more or less the same thing—”freedom from sin or moral wrong,” “guiltlessness,” and “lack of knowledge or understanding.” Innocence was once prized in traditional cultures—fathers protected their children, and for the most part it was agreed that the darker demons of human nature should be kept harnessed and out of sight to avoid the corruption of society at large. The concept of “public indecency” or “public lewdness”—which would now be referred to as “Tuesday in San Francisco” or “the Gay Pride Parade”—was still one that was held in healthy contempt.

Of course, Christians would trace the very concept of sin itself back to the destruction of innocence: when Satan appeared as a serpent in the Garden of Eden, he promised them knowledge and the ability to be like God, knowing right from wrong. Instead, when their innocence was destroyed by their adherence to Satan’s suggestions, they realized that they were naked—and they were ashamed. Instead of being able to discern right from wrong, mankind learned how to do wrong. And humans have been perfecting that skill—if I may be briefly paradoxical—ever since.

Carefully consider each of todays most public and prevalent evils and the destruction of innocence can be found at the very heart of each. Abortion is the brutal decapitation, dismemberment, and disembowelment of a tiny, helpless child. Pornography wrenches the concept of love and sex away from the institution of commitment and marriage and sells the bodies of girls and women as commodities to be abused for one-sided pleasure. The gay liberation movement flaunts their “pride” in the streets, showing off their bodies and their fantasies and broadcasting their sexual proclivities to the public at large, regardless of age or willingness. And everywhere, the promotion of sex. Dripping from billboards and movie posters, blasting from speakers in malls, stores and vehicles. Taking a child downtown in the city for a day is like setting out into a moral minefield—a full scale frontal assault on what John Bunyan called “the eye-gate.” Satan doesn’t need to disguise himself as a serpent anymore. He can put on a suit and stroll down the street.

This is why the forces of secularism are trying to force the ideals of hedonism and relativism on children first and foremost—destroy innocence at its earliest and purest point, and you will create citizens ready to settle into the brave new world. California dictates that children must learn about “gay heroes.” Quebec forces school children to take a relativistic religion course even if the parents oppose it. New York proposes sex education that details the most vile and deviant sexual practices. “Children’s entertainment” becomes increasingly awash with crude sexual innuendo. And everywhere in our schools—the promotion of sexual promiscuity. No discussion of why preserving sex for a meaningful marriage relationship is genuinely healthiest, but simply a presenting of the various “options,” handing out free condoms and telling them to have fun. Every relationship must have a sexual aspect. There is no such thing as “innocence” in the society that is being created.

This has progressed to the point where even defending the concept of innocence and purity is considered bigoted, intolerant and close-minded. Do you oppose the gay pride parade, especially for its public lewdness? Bigot! Do you want the children in your family to learn about sex at an age-appropriate time and in the context of God’s plan for mankind? Prude! Do you and your family oppose abortion and the sex slave industry of pornography? Intolerant misogynists!

A friend of mine even had to comment in a university class recently on the proposed notion of Anne of Green Gables and her friend Diana in the much-loved classic Canadian series having a lesbian relationship—the rebuttal of which caused the theorist to accuse her critics of being hetero-centrist. However, my friend’s response puts it perfectly: “She fails to understand that perhaps what readers found troubling was not the possibility of a homosexual character, but rather the implication that a perfectly innocent and beautiful friendship between children is being described as sexual. While it is true that homosexuality remains a taboo topic in certain social circles, in Anne’s case, the outrage is directed not at homosexuality, but at the perverse need to make the chaste appear sensual.”

While the forces of hedonism and relativism and the cacophony of their leaders attempt to destroy “the innocence of a child” and whatever innocence the rest of society has left, it is important to fight back against these insidious practices and worldviews. We must fight to stop the destruction of pre-born children. We must fight against access to pornography, which reduces the women of our society to a saleable “item” and rewires the brains of countless youth. We must preserve the Christian institution of marriage, with all its benefits and all its security. And we must not allow the concepts of innocence and purity to be lost forever. We already lost Paradise. Let us not lose the future of our children.

Are Graphic Abortion Images Like Pornography?

It has come to the attention of a number of my colleagues and I that there are not only a number of people outside the pro-life camp but also some who consider themselves part of it who feel that graphic abortion imagery is wrong because it is comparable to pornography. I was at first tempted to ignore the comparison because I felt it ludicrous and unfounded. Obviously, abortion imagery depicts an injustice while with pornography, the images themselves are the injustice—abortion imagery exposes a travesty, while pornographic images are a travesty. However, since the accusation is persisting, it warrants a careful analysis and response.

In considering this comparison, it is important to note how pornography is defined. According to one online dictionary, pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.” I think it is clear to all that abortion imagery—evidence of the violence abortion does to the pre-born child—is not in any way comparable to pornography, which consists of images of an explicitly sexual nature. Abortion imagery is not used for even remotely sexual purposes, but rather to decry the inhumanity of this barbaric procedure and to point out what the results of recreational sex—so glorified by pornography—can bring about. Pornography is part of the culture of promiscuity that has contributed to abortion so greatly.

In this instance graphic abortion imagery, which displays the tiny victims of abortion, is analogous to Holocaust imagery, which show older victims of systematic violence. However, I am sure that we can agree that pictures of the Holocaust are not analogous to pornography—and that this would be an offensive claim to make—just as attending the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC would not be analogous to visiting a Playboy Club or pornography store. When thoughtfully considered, the pornography comparison reveals itself to be an extremely offensive comparison to make—both to the victims and those who stand to reveal their fate.

After searching through past critiques of graphic abortion imagery, I found that abortion advocates have often used this accusation, and that there have been detailed responses given. So as not to reinvent the wheel, I would like to share one succinct rebuttal to this notion:

John Jansen of the Pro-Life Action League:

“The difference between graphic abortion pictures and pornography can be seen in their respective reasons for existence.

“The clear and obvious purpose of pornography is to elicit sexual arousal in the viewer. In so doing, pornographic images distort the reality about the human body, and about God’s plan for human sexuality.

“Pornography takes the truth and twists it into a lie — namely, that sex is primarily about individual gratification — and as a result, its psychological, emotional, and moral damage is devastating.

“Graphic abortion pictures, however, have precisely the opposite effect. Showing images of aborted babies presents the truth of what abortion really is, and the reason for displaying them is to elicit sympathy for unborn children and awaken consciences about the gravely evil nature of abortion.”

Because the charge that graphic abortion imagery is comparable to pornography is a serious one—the implication being that showing graphic images is immoral—we have decided to respond on this website, as we plan to discuss pro-life issues from a religious and moral perspective as opposed to a pragmatic, strategy oriented perspective. We believe that this charge is completely baseless to the point of being offensive, as the implications of the accusation is that all photographic evidence of murder victims, including injustices of the past regularly shown in our classrooms, can be characterized as “pornographic.” To compare documentation of the fate of so many of our pre-born neighbours to imagery designed to incur sexual arousal is one that has no intellectual foundation, and one that should be discarded due to lack of coherence and credibility.”

The Reformed Case for Pro-Life Action

We live in a culture where openly sinful behaviours are increasingly becoming the norm while opposing them is labelled “judgemental.” It is therefore good to consider whether or not those who hold to objective Christian principles are morally obligated to act out in defence of Christian beliefs. Of the many public sins that plague North America, abortion, the decapitation, dismemberment and disembowelment of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy by the millions is undoubtedly the most horrific—and the most prevalent. (Example: At least 25 percent of unborn children are slaughtered every single year.)

The idea of public pro-life action, however, seems foreign and somehow “un-Reformed” to many. While it can safely be assumed that none of us would at least openly claim to be pro-abortion, many find themselves ill at ease with decisive action on behalf of the unborn. Here I do not refer to good pro-life events such as “Walks for Life” etc., but rather witnessing on behalf of the unborn children to the public at large—actions that will directly save the lives of children and will also involve contact with non-Christians. After examining the Bible and our Reformed heritage, however, it becomes very clear that speaking out to defend the Christian idea that all life is sacred is one that is not only encouraged, but demanded.

What does the Bible Say?

Reformed people are generally quite familiar with the Bible verses confirming the child in the womb as a human created in God’s image. (See Isaiah 46:3-5, Psalm 127:3-5, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 119: 73, Luke 1:41-42 etc.) In contrast, consider how God speaks in Scripture of the sin of child sacrifice, of which abortion is a clear form. While ancient people sacrificed their children to Molech, we sacrifice our children on the altar of our own lusts, ambitions, pleasure, or convenience. In Jeremiah 7:31, after decrying the wickedness of the people, the prophet writes: “And they have built the high places of Tophet…to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart.” The act of child sacrifice, whether in ancient or modern times, is so evil that it never even entered God’s mind that people could do this to their offspring. God further condemns this sin in many places in the Bible—see Deuteronomy 12:31, Ezekiel 16:20-43, Psalm 106:37-42 and Jeremiah 19:3-11.

The Bible clearly confirms the unborn child as a human being requiring protection, and condemns child sacrifice in the harshest terms. At the same time it demands that we intervene on the behalf of the helpless. Jesus commanded His followers to love their neighbour, which by the biblical definition of human life unquestionably includes unborn children. Consider also the Good Samaritan, who helped the wounded man regardless of the sacrifice and inconvenience towards himself, while the religious people of the day walked on by. The most explicit command God gives us to intervene on behalf of the helpless is found in Proverbs 24:11-12. There He states: “If thou forebear 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? Doth he not know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

These texts from Scripture show us that abortion is not only evil, but also that sacrificing children to the idol of one’s own lust is considered to be an especially grave evil, and one which God is not willing to tolerate. It is impossible to deny that children are being brutally slaughtered in North America. It is equally true that we cannot pretend that we are ignorant of this fact. The Bible clearly states that we have a duty to protect our unborn neighbours—and that God will judge nations and peoples who “forbear” from this duty. The question is: are we willing to do so publicly?

What does our Reformed Heritage say?

Both John Calvin and Martin Luther, who were unquestionably the “radicals” of their day, spoke out against abortion specifically. Luther commented on the greatness of “the wickedness of human nature” that would cause people to “kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God.” John Calvin stated in his commentary on Exodus that “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”

Is there, however, precedent among our forefathers for action which takes us into contact with the world at large, using avenues that fall outside of the Christian community? The answer to this question is an emphatic yes. While a careful examination of our past reveals that the majority of our most esteemed forefathers were willing to face the outside culture—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, to name the most obvious ones–the writings and actions of our forebears also show that taking action against worldly public sins is not only right, but required. The idea that speaking out publicly against murder is somehow “un-Reformed” would have been very foreign to these men.

Reverend John Newton was a proponent of public advocacy as well. After his conversion, the former slave trader wrote many hymns such as “Amazing Grace” and an autobiography entitled Out of the Depths, but also encouraged others to take action against sinful injustices against the weakest members of society in the public sphere. William Wilberforce, the British Parliamentarian who spent his whole life crusading against (and eventually abolishing) slavery, was one of them. He approached Rev. Newton at the age of 26 to explain that he had undergone a religious conversion and felt he should perhaps leave politics. Instead of giving his blessing, John Newton urged him not to leave politics—but rather to use his position in Parliament to fight against evil. It was Rev. Newton who urged Wilberforce to take up the fight against slavery, and even assisted him by testifying against the slave trade in front of Parliament. Both Newton and Wilberforce knew it as a Christian’s duty to take decisive action, against all opposition, on behalf of the weakest members of society.

The founder of the NRC denomination, Rev. G.H Kersten, also advocated against ‘putting our candle under a bushel,’ but rather to fight for Christian principles in the public square. He said that “there is a withdrawal from the world, non-involvement in politics, and a lack of Christian schools. Thus we are going further and further astray.” His well-known biography by Rev. Golverdingen states that Rev. Kersten himself felt drawn into politics because “he could not resign himself to the passivity he observed in the congregations.” Rev. Golverdingen notes that “Rev. Kersten also berated the indecisiveness and indifference toward national interest by some members of his own circles,” even preaching a sermon where he compared those who refused to defend Christian principles in the public square to the tribe of Reuben refusing to join Deborah in going to battle against Sisera and the Canaanites. As we know, Rev. Kersten himself eventually became a politician in order to defend Reformed principles in the public sphere.

To close, I note how J.C Ryle deals with Christian interaction with the world in his well-read work Practical Religion. Ryle states: “When St. Paul said, ‘Come out and be separate’, he did not mean that Christians ought to decline all intercourse with unconverted people, and refuse to go into their society. There is not warrant for such conduct in the New Testament.” He further noted: “To know nothing about what is going on among mankind, and never to look at a newspaper,–to care nothing about the government of one’s country, and to be utterly indifferent as to the persons who guide its counsels and make its laws—all this may seem very right and proper in the eyes of some people. But I take leave to think that is an idle, selfish neglect of duty…Christians who plume themselves on their ignorance of secular things are precisely the Christians who bring religion into contempt.”

Defending the Sanctity of Life

It seems that there is an increasingly prevalent attitude among Christians that it is somehow wrong to ‘offend’ people, and that since pro-life activism will inevitably offend people, it should therefore be avoided. First, I must point out that a message that involves telling the culture at large that they are murdering their children isn’t going to be popular. If it was, we wouldn’t have the problem. Second, it is an extremely un-Christian and un-Reformed idea that just because our message of truth might not be welcomed by the world, and thus persecution may result, that we should avoid it. If Christians are so at peace with those who believe that killing unborn children is permissible that offending them is “un-Reformed”, it is perhaps necessary to take a second look at this unholy alliance and consider whether or not it is right in the eyes of God who values all life created in His image. If churches are indeed the consciences of nations, and those consciences have fallen silent, we can scarcely be surprised that things have gone horribly wrong.

The Bible demands that we protect our unborn neighbours. Our Reformed heritage shows us that our forbearers did not feel that it was in any way sinful to oppose evil in the public square. Abortion is the greatest evil in our society, an evil where the innocent blood of millions cries out for justice. We cannot withdraw ourselves from our biblical mandate laid out with such clarity in Scripture to protect unborn children with weak excuses that ignore the demands of Scripture and the examples and writings of our forefathers. Hence, Christian pro-life advocates should not have to defend their action. Apathetic Christians should have to defend their inaction.