Category: Articles & papers

blas-phem-y, n. An intentional and defiant dishonoring of the nature, name, or work of God by word or action. —Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia

* * *

Frank asseveration is long overdue: Pulpit silence on the abortion holocaust is nothing short of blasphemy.

I’m aware this is a serious charge. But the church’s decades-long tacit sanction of mass murder is a serious matter.

We need to stop mincing words. When heinous acts—even acts of omission, like silence in the face of evil—are deliberately committed in the name of God, there is no more fitting word to describe it. It is blasphemy: the intentional and defiant dishonoring of God. To fail to call it what it is minimizes, and effectively harbors and perpetuates, the abominable practice through euphemism’s power to anesthetize sensibilities. The sanction of this unspeakable evil must end immediately. And there is good reason to believe it can.

In March I outlined a One-Minute Strategy for Ending Abortion ‘Overnight.’”  (reprinted here) It met with overwhelmingly enthusiastic approval from a broad cross-section of lay Christians and Jews worldwide. But troublingly, it generated virtually no response from church leadership except among Catholics.

Intentional

That suggested to me more than mere happenstance. It suggested intentionality. So I wrote a second article (reprinted here), subtitling it “An Open Letter to Evangelical Pastors in America.” I hoped to coax out the reasons for the unresponsiveness. But I obtained virtually identical results: enthusiastic embrace at the pew level, but no significant adoption of the strategy by church leadership, and no explanation for the overall general unresponsiveness.

Which continues to baffle and frustrate me. The One-Minute Strategy to End Abortion (acronym “TOM’S TEA”) is so simple and straightforward. I can think of no good reason for not implementing it. If there is one, no one is telling me.

In fact, evangelical pastors aren’t telling me anything. I do get the very occasional defensive soundbite, consisting of a few sentences contending that “the mission of the church is simply to preach the gospel, period.” But one would think a matter of this gravity would warrant either a formal defense, or else the immediate embrace of a strategy like the one proposed. Instead, the silence persists and the church continues by default to approve and enable the modern-day equivalent of Moloch child-sacrifice.

Defiant

And then there’s the “defiant” aspect. If “intentional” is roughly synonymous with “purposeful,” then “defiant” is something darker still. But again, the days—indeed, the shameful decades—of pulling punches are at an end.

Defiance connotes not merely what may be construed as ignorant purposefulness, but deliberate, stubborn willfulness. It means that whatever ideas underlie pulpit silence, the remedy is not so much robust reeducation as radical repentance.

Martin Luther King, Jr., would agree. He would unflinchingly impute defiant culpability. It was King who famously stated, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” Dr. King also said, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer likewise would agree that this is an eyes-wide-open, deep moral problem. Said Bonhoeffer, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Charles Finney would not only agree but bring it home to the church’s leaders, where the preponderance of responsibility falls:

Brethren, our preaching will bear its legitimate fruits. If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree. If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it. Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation.

The ideas of these men are thoroughly biblical. In fact, James says the hallmark of spurious faith is profession without concomitant action to care for the neediest, most helpless people. Without the accompanying works of what he terms “pure religion,” our supposed faith is not faith at all. (Significantly, James is also the one who wrote, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.”)

The pulpit that preaches the gospel of God’s love but refuses to consistently decry abortion is one of the most blatant and profound examples of “faith without works” I can think of. Churches doing this effectively negate by their actions the very message they preach. They may have a name and reputation that they are alive, but they prove by their works—or lack thereof—that they are dead (Revelation 3:1).

Hear me: If silence in the face of great evil is itself great evil, then where there is reasonable prospect of diminishing the evil by decrying it, silence becomes an evil that is positively monstrous. There is reasonable prospect of diminishing this evil by decrying it. Please let that sink in.

If the thought of 3,500 babies being savagely murdered every day doesn’t keep you awake at night, my silent, God-empowered-to-say-and-do-something-about-it friends who stand in pulpits week after week ostensibly dispensing the message of God’s love for “the least of these,” then maybe the thought that you are complicit in an unspeakably great evil and shall one day answer for it, will.

Again I implore you: Implement some form of the One-Minute Strategy in your church as soon as possible, and then, performing works consistent with our most holy faith, admonish your congregation to vote pro-life on November 6—or else defend, here in public, in writing, why you won’t.

But do something. Not to act is to act. Silence is blasphemy.

* * *

“This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy; for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.” (2 Kings 19:3)

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Doing pro-life work is often met with resistance, sometimes from where we least expect it. Whether we make the Biblical case for public pro-life action or for a boycott of companies that support Planned Parenthood, Christians have responded that there are too many societal sins to justify a focus on fighting abortion. And when we point out the urgency of God’s command to do all we can to save “those that are ready to be slain,” others defend their inaction by saying something along these lines: “Remember, all sins are equal!”

It is not my intention to vilify those people. Some have asked genuine questions about prioritizing pro-life work, and perhaps for others, the intent behind proclaiming all sins as equal is to assure fellow sinners that God is willing to forgive, regardless of the heinousness of sin. But for many, “all sins are equal” has become an all too familiar mantra, unfortunately used to excuse unbiblical behaviour.

It is because of such claims that we examine our own position. Is it fair to reject the call to save pre-born children from death because there are other, just as pressing evils to fight? To find the answer, our Reformed heritage suggests none else but the Scriptures as our starting point. What does the Word of God say? Are all sins really equal?

First of all, it is true that every sin deserves God’s wrath, both in this life and in the one to come, as we can find in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death.” The Bible is clear that our Creator’s perfect holiness demands justice for even the slightest transgression. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). This means we need the righteousness of another, of the Mediator, to escape God’s wrath and be counted righteous in the sight of the Lord.

But since one sin is enough to condemn us to hell, does that mean that all sins are evil to the same degree and that the consequences are all the same? And does that mean we have an obligation to fight every sin equally? The Bible shows the contrary.

The first piece of relevant evidence is a series of events in which God brings judgment on groups of people in Old Testament times. Consider the Flood (Genesis 6–9), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19), the Exodus (Exodus 7-12), the Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17), and the Babylonian exile (2 Kings 24-25). God bore with sin, oppression, and rebellion only to a point, until the measure was full. When the line was crossed, whether in degree or frequency, God treated the people, previously blessed with His grace, in a vastly different way. If all sins were equal, why the distinction?

Furthermore, when individuals sinned there were different sacrifices prescribed for each situation and different punishments required for certain sins. For example, a thief paid restitution but those who committed adultery or premeditated murder were put to death (Exodus 22, Leviticus 1-6, 16-17, 20). Thus, God provided a system of jurisprudence that reflected His will in taking all sin seriously but also showed that some were worse than others.

There is at least one more telling example in the Old Testament: Numbers 15. The chapter describes two different kinds of sin: the unwitting or accidental sin, which has an offering prescribed for it (vs. 22-29) and the defiant, premeditated, or haughty sin, which cannot be forgiven and therefore has no prescribed sacrifice.  This sin is persistent and goes beyond the breaking of a specific commandment to the point of a deliberate rejection of Word of the Lord (vs. 30, 31). Evidently, in the Law of Moses, not all sin is the same.

What about the New Testament? We see the same trend under the new dispensation, which becomes especially clear in the words of the Saviour Himself. For instance, in Luke 12, the Lord Jesus explains that those who know the revealed will of God but do not act accordingly “shall be beaten with many stripes” and that “it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for [Capernaum]” (Matthew 11:23, 24) because of its unbelief and refusal to repent. He also said to Pilate, “He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11). Hence, there are degrees of punishment, which implies degrees of guiltiness, which means that some sins are more blameworthy than others.

In summary, all sins are equal in that they all deserve God’s wrath, no matter how trivial they seem. No sins are small when committed against a great and generous God but beyond this, the gravity of each transgression depends on varying factors, as observed in both the Old and New Testament. It makes a difference whether those committing the sin know better, are in the public eye or objects of public trust, and whether one commits or omits deliberately (1 Kings 11:9-10, 2 Samuel 12:7-10, Romans 2:17-23, Romans 1:32, Matthew 18:15-17). The severity of sin is further determined by the persons offended or harmed, in particular the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but also any fellow Christians or those who ought to be aided or protected by virtue of their vulnerability (Hebrews 10:28-29, Matthew 18:6, Proverbs 24:11-12). A consideration of these and many more texts shows that the Bible’s answer to our question is very clear. In the words of The Shorter Westminster Catechism, “Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.”

To deny these distinctions trivializes sin and may even serve as an excuse for one’s own behaviour. When the clear teaching of Scripture is rejected in favour of feel-good theology, the playing field is dangerously leveled. Murdering a child can then be belittled as no more sinful than stealing a cookie and as a result, lack of action in response to either of these wrongs hardly makes a difference. After all, all sins are equal, right?

Wrong. Not only do the Scriptures tell us that some sins are worse than others, it also tells us in no uncertain terms that God hates a certain practice: child sacrifice, also known as abortion (Leviticus 18, 20, Jeremiah 19). Considering the factors that aggravate sin, this means that the procedure that intentionally destroys the crown jewel of creation—a small child knitted in the mother’s womb, is the greatest evil of our time. As John Calvin said, “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”

But before you point fingers at those who perform or undergo abortions, listen to the words of the Lord in Proverbs 24:11-12. “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?”

The implication? Once again considering the factors that aggravate sin, this means that failing to do anything about abortion is perhaps worse yet, especially when we know better and ought to be the salt and light of this world, but omit to save those who are being slaughtered. It also means that if innocent human beings are in danger, we are to come to their rescue in every possible way. That’s why, when it comes to abortion, we are confident that it should be a matter of priority, and that the Christian church bears the greatest burden of responsibility in fighting this evil.

As Martin Luther once wrote, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that point which the world and the devil are that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proven, and to be steady on all the battle fronts besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

As long as the blood of precious pre-born children is being shed in our own backyard, this is the evil we must face with the greatest urgency. Why? Because not all sins are equal.

I have this hobby that I like. It is about as nerdy of a hobby as I can think of. I love reading philosophy books. I know, don’t judge me too harshly. I enjoy reading them from different cultures and times.

I have a few eras that I am interested in, but one of my favorite eras and subjects is atheistic writings of the 1500’s to around the first half of the last century. I like to figure out why people think that there not being a God seems reasonable to them. But, I have to explain why I cut off my time at about 1950’s or so. The reason is the intellectual side of Atheism has taken a dive for the worst; Russell was much more compelling then Dawkins. That is not to say there are not some mildly compelling modern Atheistic philosophers today, it just seems as if Atheism has already reached its zenith and is in slow decline. Time will tell if it makes a comeback.

So, what does this have to do with the Modern Progressive? Before we explore this, we need to look a little into the past. At the time of the Reformation, spiritual information was taken out of the hands of the Catholic Magisterium. This put sacred knowledge out of the hands of Latin speaking clergy and into people outside the Church’s influence. The domino effect of this eventually put education out of the influence of the Church as well. Yet, things remained “Christian” for a while. But, then a new birth was happening, a new light. It was thought that we were moving from the darkness into the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was fundamentally a separation of what was viewed as “subjective” things (like purpose and meaning), from “objective” things (like logic and sense perception). While Christianity sought to combine all these elements, the Enlightenment broke them apart and dissected them. Then we put “subjective” ideas into the realm of personal preference, and made “objective” ideas discussed in the public square. Things like religion were relegated to the home, while things like science were allowed in political arenas. Thus, the creation of the “Secular State.”

The Scientific Method grew during this time and became a force in schooling, eventually gaining such stature that if you were to be thought of as “educated” you needed to subjugate your thinking to a “scientific” system. To be an educated man was to be a scientific man. And few could deny the promise of this new science. It opened up new lands, new inventions, and a new Utopia. Instead of waiting for the New Heavens and the New Earth, we set about creating it. Utopian literature sprang up and dotted the literary landscape, with authors presenting their view of the new scientific age to come, the perfect society. Science was now the new religion that promised a better world and people were very optimistic. But, two events happened to change this; World War I and II. As the terror fell on two cities in Japan, the idea of a scientific utopia was shaken. We saw that science could be to our ruin instead of our savior. Replacing earlier utopian visions, were now stories of supposed scientific Utopias where the hero fought against all odds to topple this now evil “Utopia”. We became suspicious of precisely what we had always hoped for.

So, what does my extremely poor history lesson have to do with Modern Progressives? Well, first notice the word “modern.” By this, I am meaning people who define themselves as “progressive” that are born sometime after World War II. This is the era where the Utopia was in ruins, Marx fell with the Wall, and there was no objective goal mark for us to reach. Second, we look at the word “progressive.” This word denotes movement towards a goal. Here we have a problem, what is the goal we are to move towards? The Utopia has been burned to the ground by two atomic bombs. For every Utopia set up, a hero comes and brings it down. So, how can we know any movement we make is “Progressive”? Sure we can change things up, but with no goal in sight, how can we know progression had been made?

Some might think that anything which is new is “progressive.” We allow for abortion and this makes us a “progressive” society. Unless a society has some end goal in mind, a Utopia if you will, then movement away from existing societal norms can hardly be thought of as “progressive”. This is merely movement. Is this regression? Is it lateral movement? How can we know? The moral of the today’s age is that perfection is unknowable. Progressives have some fuzzy ideal in mind, possibly looking a little like the lyrics of “Imagine”, but this is hardly something we can use as a measuring rod.

With the death of God in our society, we built our Utopias. When these fell, we killed any concepts of progression. Progressives are therefore in an illusion, they push for movement but there is little indication they are progressing. The term is meaningless to the Agnostic or Atheist, but this is the group that most often uses this term to describe themselves. Odd, don’t you think?

News Story: Government-funded ‘registry of homophobic acts’

Gai Ecoute has launched a new registry that will put people on a list that commit what they feel are homophobic acts.

This registry was launched in partnership with and receiving funding from Quebec’s Justice Department. People will anonymously tip this agency towards groups or individuals who commit actions which are deemed homophobic. In describing what a homophobic act is, the organization gives the following description; any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general: physical abuse, verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, offensive graffiti, abuse, injurious mockery, inappropriate media coverage and discrimination.”

Some of these descriptions I think are very reasonable. No one should tolerate “physical abuse” based on someone’s sexual preference for example. This is indeed criminal. However, we can see how the New Tolerance plays itself out here. If “any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general” is considered homophobic, then the New Tolerance is very intolerant. If you accept the homosexual lifestyle you are “tolerant”, but if you say anything negative about homosexuality, you are “intolerant”. Is this a very tolerance position? I cannot see how even advocates of the homosexual lifestyle can fail to notice that this vision of “tolerance” is about as intolerant as you can get. This is an obvious contradiction.

To further show how intolerant this group is, they even define homophobia as “inappropriate media coverage.” It will be interesting to see what they mean by “inappropriate”, but it is sounding like even giving media coverage to this discussion will black-ball you. It seems that they are trying to intimidate people who have different views as they do about homosexuality, and also squash all public discussion as well. This doesn’t sound like a free democratic society, but more like a totalitarian regime. Yes, this is the true face of the New Tolerance once you look past the mask.

Another troubling aspect of this is that the tipsters can remain anonymous. This is not how law works in a democracy. Having the ability to face your accuser is a fundamental aspect of Canadian law, yet this very basic ideal is skirted in the name of “tolerance.” No need to make a homosexual advocate have to show some responsibility for his or her accusations, the New Tolerance takes care of their own. The accuser should at the very least be made to show his or her face when acting in a way that might greatly affect someone else’s life. This will allow the person being accused (or lawyer) to cross examine the accusations of the accuser. This seems obvious.

And this leads me to my final consideration. What is the registry for? Will it be used to legally trample on the people or organizations that are on the list? Will the list be public? Its’ close ties with Quebec’s Justice Department is a bit unsettling. Their intentions should be made public, if they haven’t done so already.

All this is just another example of the New Tolerance. This whole movement is a contradiction and should be exposed as such. Otherwise, real human rights will be chipped away while fabricated human rights will be championed and promoted. As we stumble down the rabbit trail, we are starting to find ourselves in Wonderland where things just don’t make much sense anymore.”

“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.

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.”
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/epist/epistemology_06.html

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.

“

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.

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.

Conclusion

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 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.

Why is it that this year alone over 80 laws have been passed in the United States restricting abortion and yet in Canada we have not been able to pass one law in over 20 years?

It is easy to dish out the blame: It’s our secular society! The Supreme Court! Our gutless politicians! Pierre Trudeau! Stephen Harper! The evil mainstream media! … and so on. But an honest analysis will reveal that at least part of the problem lies with us – the pro-life movement in Canada.

That’s a statement liable to raise both eyebrows and blood pressure, but it is also a truth that is verified time and time again by those who are most intimately involved in this battle, including MPs, pro-life leaders, and even radical pro-abortion activists. It is also something that more people are finding the courage to openly admit, knowing full well they will be challenged for it by the pro-life community itself.

But if part of the problem is with ourselves, that is actually very encouraging. It means that the appalling reality of 100,000+ abortions every year in Canada can be changed. There are a lot of people and institutions that we may not be able to change. But we can definitely change ourselves, including our strategies

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing

Abortion legislation could be advanced in Canada if the pro-life community can move beyond a hidden and long-standing dispute that has mired our efforts for over twenty years. Key leaders and organizations within the pro-life movement have been opposing many efforts for abortion laws on the grounds that we may not support or advance laws that do not give equal protection to all unborn children, even if it is a step in that direction. So, for example, they would oppose legislation that would make abortion illegal only in the third trimester, because they would view such a bill as legitimizing abortion in the first two trimesters.

This position sounds convincing because we know that it is wrong to compromise our conviction that all human life must be protected. But there is no reason why we would have to compromise this conviction when supporting laws that limit the evil of abortion as much as is humanly possible in this sin-filled world.

That’s the great news – that we can, in good conscience, proactively fight against abortion in our Parliament and Legislatures and see real successes in the coming decade. We can do this by closing the gap between public opinion and the current status quo which legally permits abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. One step at a time, we can expose and limit the ongoing injustice of abortion that our society is trying so desperately to hide. And we can do this together, as a united pro-life movement. There is much reason for optimism and hope.

How can I be so sure we can start seeing real successes? This is one of those issues that take more than a few facts, Bible texts, or talking points to build a case. In fact, it has taken me years to study this issue and discuss it with pro-life leaders, pastors, MPs, and friends. Although this may be a longer than usual read, the issue is of critical importance if we are serious about making progress in the abortion fight. So please, read on!

#1 – Understanding the pro-life movement

Stephanie Gray from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has done a good job explaining how there are three arms of the pro-life movement in Canada; she labels them the pastoral, prophetic, and political arms. Understanding these three arms and their unique responsibilities is key to understanding how we should move forward.

The pastoral arm

There are over 135 pregnancy care centres in Canada that come alongside pregnant women with the help they need to choose life and then have their child. They provide a range of services including pregnancy-related information, crisis phone lines, counselling, pregnancy tests, maternity clothes, and even financial help.

The prophetic arm

Abortion needs to be exposed for the injustice that it is. The prophetic arm is responsible for bringing this message to our society, so that the choice becomes unthinkable. Education is critical because a large majority of Canadians support legalized abortion even though they refuse to consider what abortion really is. That explains how about 90% of Canadians wrongly think that there are some restrictions already in place. As the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical reform states:

The political arm cannot change the law until the prophetic arm changes the minds of voters. The pastoral arm cannot reach all abortion-minded women until the prophetic arm helps these women understand that abortion is an unthinkable choice.”

Examples of the prophetic arm include billboards, marches, LifeChain, bumper stickers, the Genocide Awareness Project, TV ads, and word-of-mouth.

The political arm

After decades of work by the prophetic and pastoral arms, as well as the inescapable impact of abortion on the health and lives of millions of Canadians, the reality is that a significant majority of Canadians disagree with the status quo – the lack of any restrictions on abortion – even if many may consider themselves pro-choice. The Canadian public want either a complete ban, or at least some restrictions on abortion. This should not surprise us. Canada is the only country in the Western world without any legal restrictions on abortion.

Our Supreme Court has made it clear that it is looking to Parliament to change that. This has to be done by our Parliament and Legislatures and it is the political arm of the pro-life movement that needs to work towards this goal. Examples of laws that could be proposed include gestational limits (e.g. a ban on abortion after 12 weeks) and requiring the informed consent of the mother. In the US, Americans United for Life produces a large book every year detailing the many different pro-life laws enacted in each state.

Canada’s pro-life movement has for the most part avoided this realm. Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) identifies itself as the political arm of the movement in Canada, though the reality is that most of its efforts fall within the prophetic arm (its annual March for Life in Ottawa, its national pro-life newspaper Interim, etc). Although it speaks about many political issues, it does so from the sidelines rather than assisting MPs, MPPs, and MLAs with actual legislative efforts.

The same is true for most pro-life organizations in Canada. They follow political developments, but the reality is that very little effort is directed towards advancing laws. Their work has value, but it has to be understood as fulfilling the role of a prophet more than a king.

Although there are pockets of political activity happening in various parts of the country (e.g. defunding campaigns in some provinces) most of what is done comes from the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, made up of MPs and Senators, who meet monthly with this goal. But their work is limited by time and resources. They have busy lives doing the work of an MP and can’t organize a grassroots campaign to support a bill. On the provincial level, even less is being done in the political arm. Most provincial pro-life organizations are geared towards education and coordination, not advancing pro-life legislation.

The bottom line is that Canadians would be shocked at how few people there are working in the genuinely political realm. There is very little strategy or long-term vision.

#2 – Understanding the different roles

It is crucial that while these arms share a common heart to defend life from conception to natural death they each have different roles, strategies, and players. For example, with good reason we don’t put graphic pictures of aborted babies on the walls of a pregnancy care centre. In that context they would most likely hurt, rather than help, the effort to counsel a woman to not have an abortion, or to heal after having one. And yet an educational group – the prophetic arm – might use these same images on a university campus, to prompt debate.

But just because the pastoral arm – the pregnancy care center – uses a different method than the prophetic arm, it does not mean it is “compromising” the pro-life stance. The arms have to know their respective audiences, opportunities, and limits.

The focus of this article is the political realm. What is the role of the political arm and how should it function? Pro-lifers with a biblical foundation recognize from Romans 13 that our government officials have been put there by God, with the purpose of promoting order and the common good and restraining evil. But note carefully that the Bible does not say that the state has the task of eradicating evil. There is the assumption that it is impossible for the state to do this. Human nature is such that we are sin-filled people. That can’t be changed – in Psalm 51:5 David goes so far as to say that he was even conceived in sin. The state is not God (though it is more and more lifted up as a god). It cannot get rid of all evil in society. But it has been commanded by God to restrain it and has been given the authority to do so.

Abortion is yet another expression of our fallen humanity. As long as we live on this earth, no government is going to be able to end abortion, even if it was outlawed. The point is that government can only do what it is able to do. And in a sin-filled world, that means limiting evil.

So one reason why the political arm of the pro-life movement in Canada is so sparse is because Christians don’t like to work in a realm where evil can only be limited. Politics takes on a dirty connotation because it necessarily involves doing only what is possible. As intimidating as it can be to participate in a pro-life demonstration, holding up a graphic picture of what abortion does, many Christians would rather participate in these activities than direct their efforts to pass laws that would “merely” limit the number of abortions.

Given that politics is the art of what is possible, it means that politicians have to work with the sad reality that our society will not ban abortion today. At least two thirds of Canadians would oppose a ban on abortion, and some polls have the figure much higher than that. The political will to address the issue is even weaker than the public will. However, polls do show that at least 60% of Canadians would support some legal protection for the unborn (increasing protection with longer gestation). Given this reality, and given also the fact that every other country in the Western world has been able to pass abortion laws and restrictions, there is room for our Parliament to get rid of the gap between what Canadians would support and the status quo (no legal protection for unborn children).

When pro-life politicians in this country have tried to do what is possible by advancing legislation, they are given very little support by the key organizations representing the political arm of the pro-life movement. These politicians are often singled out as “compromisers.” With immense opposition from pro-abortion activists, the media, and even their own party, is it any wonder that after 20 years of this, most MPs, even pro-life MPs, are hesitant to touch the issue?

The pro-abortion camp is thrilled with this. Joyce Arthur, from the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, has shared Canada’s story with the rest of the world, encouraging them to learn from us. She explains:

“Because we have virtually no restrictions against abortion, we’ve been able to spend our time working on access and funding issues, instead of fighting oppressive laws, which is what our American friends must do. Restrictions such as consent laws, waiting periods, and the like are simply cruel and unnecessary obstacles that impede a woman’s ability to get a safe, early abortion. There is no question that the absence of restrictive laws against abortion places the struggle for abortion rights on the fast track to success” [emphasis added].

#3 – Understanding the controversy within the political arm of the pro-life movement

Ever since Canada’s abortion laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1988 there has been a strong division within the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement. On the one side of the divide are those who argue that we ought to work to end abortion by enacting laws that restrict it as much as possible. If we can restrict access and increase awareness of what abortion really is then the number of abortions will drop and society will be more aware of just how evil it is. For example, if society is willing to criminalize abortion after 12 weeks gestation then we should work towards a law that does that. If it is successful, we move on to the next step and restrict it even further. Though gestational limits were not previously considered an option in the United States (because of their constitution), they have successfully applied this strategy to the point that over 80 laws restricting abortion in one way or another have already been passed this year alone.
On the other side are those who oppose many of these efforts because they view them as compromising the pro-life position and as an assault on the principle that all innocent human life is sacred. For example, Campaign Life Coalition defines “compromise legislation” as:

“any type of legislation that would explicitly or implicitly accept or admit that killing any category or class of unborn children is lawful, or that unborn children may be lawfully killed in any specified circumstances, whether or not the existing law already permits abortion in these cases.”

As one pro-life leader told me, “We can’t decide who will live and who will die. That’s what you do when you advocate for a gestational (abortion) law. We decree that all human life up to x weeks may be killed.”

It must be noted that those in this camp are clear that they welcome laws that would chip away at abortion, as long as they meet the requirement noted above. But it isn’t just gestational limits that fail the test. As has been evident from recent attempts to introduce pro-life legislation in Parliament, logical consistency means many more pro-life bills become unethical. Does supporting informed consent legislation (where a mother has to be told about the level of development of her child, or what is involved with the abortion procedure before she can have an abortion) mean that we are supporting the abortions that occur once a woman has been informed and still decides to kill her child? Doesn’t that implicitly accept the killing of unborn children? Does banning coerced abortion (as MP Rod Bruinooge attempted to do with Roxanne’s Law last year) mean that we are implicitly tolerating abortions that have not been coerced?

On the one hand they state that they are in favour of incremental legislation. Yet the reality is that over the past twenty years they have done very little to support the private member’s bills introduced by brave MPs. In some circumstances they have outright opposed them. Both options are a far cry from proactively advancing and building public support for abortion legislation.

As a side note, although many who oppose a step-by-step approach to limiting abortion come from the Roman Catholic faith, by no means is that the rule. Some time ago ARPA Canada received a formal letter from a committee of a Reformed church urging us to rethink our political efforts on abortion. They wrote

“We understand the thought process behind this [step-by-step] approach but we cannot endorse or support it because it leads inevitably to an unbiblical compromise of God’s command: ‘Thou shalt not kill.'”

#4 – Refuting the misunderstandings & errors

The key issue of debate between the two sides hovers around whether it is immoral or unbiblical to promote legislation that would have the effect of saving some, but not all unborn children. To put it another way, is it compromising to support a law that would ban abortion after 20 weeks? As one pro-life leader stated to me “Abortion is evil and if you say it’s ok that we allow some evil (abortion) in order to save some of the children then you are going against the moral order.” Those who hold to this view have admirable intentions, but they have flawed conclusions. And these conclusions are costly. Dispelling the flawed conclusions will reveal that we can, in good conscience and in harmony with our faith, limit the evil of abortion in the political realm.

Argument 1 – This logic ignores the reality of our sin-filled society, which currently allows the killing of all unborn children, at all stages, for all reasons, and at taxpayer’s expense.

There is a huge moral difference between advancing an abortion law when there is, and when there isn’t already an abortion ban in place. If the current law was a complete ban on abortion and a majority in society wanted to change that to a ban after 12 weeks or 20 weeks gestation, it would be immoral for government to pass this legislation. All human life should be protected and it is government’s responsibility to ensure that. The effect would be to increase the amount of evil, a direct assault on the role of government. However, if the current law allowed for the killing of all unborn children (as it does in Canada today), then a new law that would ban abortion after 12 or 20 weeks would reduce the evil.

There is a substantial difference. That difference is called context. Reformed believers should be the first to understand the importance of applying our belief about human nature to our daily work.

A classic philosophical dilemma that is posed to university students goes like this: “A trolley (i.e. a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?” Some would argue that those who advance incremental strategies against abortion are trying to demand a similar answer. However, the scenario does not reflect the reality of what is going on with abortion in Canada. The more accurate scenario goes this way:

“A train is running out of control down a track. 100,000 + children are tied to that track by their mothers and fathers. You can untie as many children as you possibly can, or you can stand on the sideline and hurl accusations of compromise against those who are untying the children, for saving some and not others; for making a value judgement about one over another.”

We may not like the out of control train, and we may disagree with the thousands of parents who tie their children to the track, and we might only be able to save a selection of the babies, but that does not mean that we should not do what we can to save some.

Argument 2 – Supporting incremental legislation is not condoning the death of the children who are not protected by the new law. Society is condoning abortion – government must try to limit the evil.

By supporting incremental legislation, we are not in any way compromising. We are working to abolish all abortion by taking the steps humanly possible in this sin-filled and limited world. By promoting a law that bans abortion after 18 weeks, for example, we are not in any way condoning abortion up till 18 weeks. The pro-life leader quoted earlier who opposed gestational limits wrongly believes that such a law would mean we are allowing some evil to save some children. But we aren’t allowing the evil. Our society has chosen the evil. The train is hurtling down the tracks whether we like it or not. Our sin-filled human hearts have chosen the evil. Our government has the responsibility to limit that evil as much as possible. If a ban on abortion is not humanly possible in such an evil society but restrictions on abortion are possible, it is the moral duty of government to enact those restrictions, to begin to engage the brakes on the train. We may not be able to stop the train dead in its tracks, but we should begin to apply the brake.

This does not stop after a law is put in place. The restrictions have to keep increasing, as we see in the United States. Abortion clinics are closing their doors south of the border, not because all abortion is illegal, but because there are so many restrictions they can no longer justify operating. The Lord willing, some day we may get to the point where there is a complete ban on abortion.

Argument 3 – Arguing against incremental legislation flies in the face of how we understand politics and the role of government on every other issue.

Those who are convinced by the “compromise” arguments have to answer some questions themselves. For starters, how can we justify such a different standard when it comes to every other political issue that we engage with? With their logic, anyone who supports a bill that would increase the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 is condoning or supporting all sexual activity after age 16. The reality is that the government has virtually no control on sexual activity, but it can try to prevent the exploitation of youth. Increasing the age of consent is a very important step towards accomplishing this. By no means does it mean that they are compromising on sexual purity.

To take this a step further, every piece of legislation that crosses Parliament’s floor has problematic elements. But it would be much more problematic if MPs were unable to pass any laws, leaving society in a state of anarchy. For a society to function, our politicians have to tolerate things that we as Christians may not tolerate. But tolerate does not mean condone. It is easy for people to point at politicians from the sidelines and accuse them of being unjust. But it is the reality of working in a sin-filled world that has limits on what is possible. We can’t force people to be moral. But we can do our best to restrain evil. Perhaps this explains why the Canadian pro-life community has almost abandoned the political realm. We simply don’t like working in such a nasty, but real, world.

Over the past 15 years we have seen smoking dramatically decrease in Canada. How was this accomplished? A wise strategy was employed. Education was a component, but government also enacted many laws and policies, such as health warnings on cigarette packages, increased taxes, banning advertising of public functions, and even hiding tobacco products behind curtains. The combination of the educational and political arm has reduced smoking to the lowest level ever, even among teens. What would have happened if our government tried to ban smoking 15 years ago? Or, to follow the logic used by some pro-life leaders, does making a law that requires these dangers to be shown on tobacco packages etc, mean that we implicitly condone tobacco use? It is well known that those behind the law are working towards a much bigger goal. The same applies to abortion. We should never stop with one bill that limits it or exposes the evil nature of it – we have to work toward a total ban. But that does not mean that we can’t try to get what is possible currently and work towards a ban one step at a time.

The argument is made that the difference between abortion and other issues is that human life is at stake. Again, although that sounds noble, it is misled. Many other political issues also have lives at stake. The Canadian government does not devote 100% of its efforts to fighting starvation in Somalia because it recognizes that even its best efforts would have limited impact. Further, doing so would come at the cost of the many other issues and people that need attention. Once again, it comes down to recognizing that the role and power of government is limited. It can only do so much. The question we have to answer is, will we do what we can, or will we walk away?

Argument 4 – Limiting evil is not the same as “playing God.”

This talk of saving lives can turn us off. As one person who wrote me said “We can’t play God as lay people or as politicians.  We can’t decide who will live and who will die.” But does supporting incremental legislation mean that we are “playing God?” God has made it clear that he gives the responsibility to our governments to exercise authority. They have a moral responsibility, from God, to limit evil. They are called to represent God’s standard on earth. Although “playing God” is not the proper way to describe it, it is correct in reminding us of their (and our) God-given responsibility to “do justice.”

The “playing God” argument is a convenient means for us to avoid the responsibilities that God has given us. In a country like Canada, God uses citizens to govern. He calls us to make difficult, but important, decisions about how we will live. Because we are in a democracy, Romans 13 applies to each of us because we all have a hand in governing this nation. We can’t absolve ourselves of all blame. There is a reason why pro-life MPs are hesitant to put forward pro-life laws – almost nobody is standing behind them. That proves that citizens have a direct effect on our leaders and on the civil government’s responsibility to apply God’s truths to earth. If we did stand behind them, they would be much more likely to do something. We may not like the responsibility that comes with democracy, but by no means may we shy away from it.

Argument 5 – Acknowledging the status quo does not mean we are condoning it.

Last year some key pro-life leaders refused to support Member of Parliament Rod Bruinooge’s bill (Roxanne’s Law), which would have made it a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion. Section 4 of that bill stated that it did not apply to physicians who tried to convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion if the abortion is necessary to “prevent serious threat to the female person’s physical health.” These pro-life leaders argued that the bill condoned the evil of abortion for the sake of the mother’s health.

However, the reality is that abortion is already legal for any and every reason, including for the protection of the life of the mother. This bill simply acknowledged it because Bruinooge thought that was what was necessary to have the bill passed. Even if that was a poor decision or completely unnecessary, it does not negate the point that it reflected what the law already states. The process of chipping away at abortion will mean that we have to continually remind Canadians just how wide-open the laws currently are.

Argument 6 – The fact that there are some options that most pro-lifers can agree on does not mean that they are the only options we should pursue.

Just because part of the pro-life community does not support many pro-life laws does not mean that we should avoid those laws and concentrate on those they do support. Although it sounds considerate, we end up trying to be nice rather than do what is really best for the unborn. Prudence requires the right law at a specific time and in a specific context. We have to be wise in those situations and boldly advance abortion legislation that would be effective in limiting evil. With lives at stake we can’t devote all of our time to talking to ourselves. There are some foundational differences within the pro-life community (our view of human nature, the role of government, the end times, etc) that we will debate as long as we live. That debate should happen, but we can’t put aside our political responsibility while doing so.

There are some laws that most pro-life groups should be able to agree to. We thought that was the case with Roxanne’s Law, but we were sad to see some prominent leaders in the pro-life community opposing that as well. Even if we can agree to a bill, it does not mean that it is the appropriate bill for our Parliament today. In Canada it has become easy for MPs to write off pro-life bills with very weak arguments. Rather than acknowledging that no woman should ever be coerced to have an abortion (even though Roxanne’s Law really was a pro-woman bill that every MP could support), they stated that there are already laws dealing with coercion so this bill was redundant. Although the argument could be disproved in two sentences, they get away with it because neither the politicians nor the media have any appetite to acknowledge the truth. [As an aside, it became even easier for them to vote against the bill when they were informed that even pro-life leaders opposed it.]

But if they have to vote on a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, for example, they are forced to address the issue head on and can’t skirt the issue. Even Henry Morgentaler opposed abortion after 24 weeks. He has stated, “We don’t abort babies, we want to abort foetuses before they become babies… Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing [late-term abortions].” It would be hard for many MPs to defend it. And there is no way that they can argue that the bill is redundant, or that no abortions happen after 20 weeks anyways. A bill like that would make sense and could actually accomplish something, even if it did not pass the first time. Let’s not forfeit these options because we are trying to be nice.

Argument 7 – This issue is not minor. Hundreds, even thousands of lives can be saved.

In the face of controversy we can be tempted to just walk away. Indeed, that is what many of us have done. We don’t like to argue among fellow pro-lifers so we leave the political realm and move on to a different arm or a different cause. But the issue is not just another squabble. If we did boldly advance abortion legislation that is in keeping with public opinion today, well over 500 lives could be saved every year. Abortion takes the life of over 100,000 children every year (the specific numbers are unknown because many abortion providers don’t report what they are doing). In 2008, of the 24,087 abortions that were actually reported with gestational details to the Canadian Institute of Health Information, 1,028 occurred from 17-20 weeks gestation and 556 occurred 21 weeks and later. That does not include all of the abortions where no details were provided (let alone gestation), nor does it include the numerous abortions that are not reported at all. A law against abortion after 20 weeks saves real lives every year.

Americans United for Life has been working with similar goals for a long time in that country. One example they provide of the success of working in the political arm is in Mississippi.

“Over the past 15 years, Mississippi has adopted 15 pro-life laws. As a result, abortions in the state have decreased by nearly 60% and six out of seven abortion clinics have closed – leaving only one embattled abortion clinic in the entire state.”

There are many other benefits to introducing laws like these. First, the debate in Parliament and the media will open the eyes of Canadians to the ongoing reality of abortion. The less abortion remains hidden, the less it can be justified. Second, if a law like this were to pass it would have many spin-off consequences. For example, although many abortion-providers don’t keep statistics (even though it is tax-funded and deemed “medically necessary”) a ban on abortion after a specific age should force them to reveal the age of the child.

It would also be a huge blessing to the disabled community. After all, many of the late-term abortions are done to kill children who have a disability.

Finally, think of the impact this would have on the huge adoption wait-list! There are so many homes waiting for the gift of a child to adopt into their family.

Argument 8 – Canada is the exception, not the norm.

European nations that are as secular as Canada, if not more so, all have laws against abortion. Where it is available on demand, most countries limit it to a maximum of 12 weeks gestation. In other countries, including Spain, Portugal, and Poland, abortion is only allowed for specific reasons, such as the health of the mother, even if the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks gestation. In Holland abortion is allowed on demand up until 13 weeks, but a 5-day waiting period is required. In Greece abortion is illegal after 12 weeks gestation (24 weeks for cases of fetal abnormality). Abortion is illegal in Ireland, though about 7,000 women travel to Great Britain each year to get an abortion. In that country it is allowed until 24 weeks. And in Sweden, a country often held up as an example of progressivism, abortion is illegal after 18 weeks except to save the life or physical health of the mother.

Canada is the one country in the West where this evil act is completely unrestricted. The only way to change that will be by boldly, and publicly, declaring the truth about abortion while at the same time introducing laws that would limit it.

Argument 9 – If you don’t make a concession, you don’t compromise.

After reading all of these arguments, some will still want to label this proposal for advancing abortion legislation a type of compromise. But that is wrong. Compromise involves a mutual concession to reach an agreement. Nowhere in this argument am I proposing that we should concede anything. To put it even stronger, from a legal and political perspective it would be hard to make the case that we could even concede anything because we have nothing to concede – unborn children have no legal protection. We can fight to change that without making concessions. (In the sidebar accompanying this article, “When it is compromise,” I warn against conceding our foundation, by avoiding any language that suggests that some children are more worthy of legal protection.) Let’s not put stumbling blocks on our own path.

A path forward: taking steps together

All pro-life Canadians are committed to protecting life from conception to natural death. It is time to point our swords away from each other and direct them towards the evil of abortion. The three arms of the pro-life movement are each critical, and must work together to end abortion. Now, after more than 20 years of effective work by the pastoral and prophetic arms of the movement, Canada has become increasingly pro-life. It is time for the political arm of the pro-life movement to advance laws that reflect where Canada really is on the abortion issue. There is no need for us to fight within the pro-life community. If we are uncomfortable working in the political arm, we can move to the prophetic or pastoral arms and still be an effective voice. What matters is that we encourage each other with our respective roles. We can also hold each other accountable. It is good for those outside of the political arm to remind those in it to never allow compromise in their words or deeds.

By this point some might say, “But our leaders refuse to touch the issue. There is no way that we can advance anything.” Fortunately that is not true. Our Members of Parliament can introduce private member’s legislation (PMBs). Although such bills used to be rather ineffective, that is not the case today. All PMBs that are declared constitutional may advance to a vote. So if there is a courageous MP that is willing to put forward a bill that restricts abortion, it will likely come to a vote. But it takes more than one MP or Senator to introduce and pass a bill. A large base of grassroots and professional support is needed to carry it through Parliament and respond to the challenges of the pro-abortion activists who will fight tooth and nail against it. Each of us has a responsibility to help with this. We can:

• Pray for unity within the pro-life movement
• Pray that God raises up courageous leaders who take on this issue
• Encourage our MPs via phone, email, and in person to advance abortion legislation
• When an MP does put something forward, get behind it 100%
• Give continual encouragement to all who work in the pro-life movement. Satan is pushing hard from every direction and would love us to move away from the issue. Sadly, many churches and Christians have.
• At the same time, let’s challenge our pro-life community to make progress in the political realm. A new generation of leaders is emerging, many of whom are unfamiliar with the divide that has held us back for over 20 years. The Lord willing, we can look forward to some encouraging victories in the years ahead.

Mark Penninga is the executive director of ARPA Canada (www.ARPACanada.ca)

ACCOMPANYING SIDEBAR ARTICLE

WHEN IT IS COMPROMISE

When saving some is all we can do we should never pretend it’s all we hope to do

by Mark Penninga

Fighting abortion bit by bit, one legislative restriction after another doesn’t mean compromising on our conviction that all of the unborn are precious human beings. This step-by-step approach recognizes the reality that today, in our current political climate, we simply can’t save all these children, and that in these circumstances saving some is better than saving none.

But even as we acknowledge the status quo, and the limitations on what is possible politically, it is vital that we in no way suggest that we are happy with the way things are. It is very important that everyone in the pro-life community, including those in the political arm, be forthright that all abortions are wrong and be clear that our goal is to end the atrocity.

Unfortunately, a common mistake of those advocating limits on abortion is to suggest that a wrong would be made right if we adopted a specific law. The temptation is to try to sell a law by making arguments that would appeal to someone in the middle, but which actually undermine our core belief about the intrinsic value of all human life.

For example, the fact that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) defines viability at 20 weeks gestation and/or 500 grams is not the reason why we think a law restricting abortion to 20 weeks is necessary, even if it is an argument that would convince someone who does not believe that all human life is sacred.

If we use that argument as the reason for the bill, we undermine our foundation. The truth is we oppose abortion at 12 weeks, 8 weeks, and 18 days gestation and we may not mislead the public to think otherwise. We know that the fact that unborn children older than 20 weeks may feel pain does not mean that abortion before 20 weeks is OK. We have to state very clearly that all unborn children should be protected so a law that would ban abortion after 12 or 20 weeks would help limit the evil, but it is just one step towards the end we are looking for.

So how do we use appropriate language to defend these laws to a secular society? We can say boldly and firmly that we believe abortion is wrong and that we are proposing/defending/supporting this legislation because it is a step in the right direction. We can also say that our society may not agree with all our reasons, but they should be convinced by their own reasons, including the fact that the CMA would call these children viable and that the medical community agrees that they feel pain.

In other words, we must never obscure God’s Truth on this issue and must never talk or argue in a way that gives the impression some of the unborn aren’t precious human beings. We may only be able to save some right now, but we must always be clear that saving all is our end goal.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Reformed Perspective Magazine and has been reprinted with the permission of the author.“