Pro-Abortion Evangelicals

Have you ever noticed how much more complicated it is to cover up the truth rather than confess it?

For instance, God tells us: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished” (Genesis 1:31-2:1).

Yet rather than simply confess, as the Westminster Divines did, that “it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost … to create, or make of nothing, the world … in the space of six days,” a number of evangelicals have attempted to accommodate evolutionists’ need for a world that is billions of years old by coming up with this:

Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically.  In distinguishing simple description and poetic figure from what is definitively conceptual the only ultimate guide, here as always, is comparison with the rest of Scripture.

In other words, the distinctive feature of the Framework interpretation is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. Moses used the metaphor of a week to narrate God’s acts of creation.  Thus God’s supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical, but the exact timing is left unspecified.

Why the week then?  Moses intended to show Israel God’s call to Adam to imitate Him in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest.  God’s week is a model, analogous to Israel’s week.  The events are grouped in two triads of days.  Days 1-3 (creation’s kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation’s kings).  Adam is king of the earth and God is King of Creation.

Got that? Neither do I.

Then there is the one-hundred and forty-three page report produced out of the Missouri Presbytery’s (PCA) struggle to understand and “account[] for the controversial nature of Revoice and homosexuality:”

As the New Testament indicates, Christians, once converted, continue to struggle greatly with all manner of besetting sins, including sexual immorality. Why, then, has this specific form of sin (and this specific conference) been so controversial, even incendiary?

Well, maybe it is because of the shameful, dishonorable, unnatural nature of the sin itself?

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. – Romans 1:24-27.

Along with the fact that Revoice is doing everything it can to deny the truth about homosexual sin.

This brings us to pro-abortion evangelicals.

Of course, they don’t call themselves that. In fact, they would deny that they are pro-abortion. And likely take great offense at being labeled as such. And then go to great lengths trying to convince everyone that they are not.

For instance,

As pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end.

What does this “consistent ethic of life” look like?

Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.

In other words, as long as the candidate you vote for favors government welfare, government healthcare, government reparations for blacks, and government elimination of fossil fuels, you can ignore the fact that they support killing babies.

Cal Beisner explains the problem in greater detail:

this use of the term “pro-life” runs directly contrary to standard dictionary definitions, all which define “pro-life” as opposition to abortion—not opposition to hunger, not opposition to poverty, not opposition to practices that lead to poor health—opposition to abortion.

Far worse, the new statement demonstrates serious ethical failures: the failure to distinguish between intentional and accidental harm, and the failure to distinguish between life and death, on the one hand, and better and worse health, on the other.

By so doing, it obscures the meaning of “pro-life” and undermines the pro-life movement. In abortion, every “successful” procedure intentionally kills a human being.

Then here is “pro-life,” “conservative,” “evangelical” Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) rock star David French trying to cover up his pro-abortion support for Joe Biden:

The power of the president over abortion is profoundly limited. American abortion peaked in the 1980s and has gone down since then regardless of whether the president is pro-life or pro-choice. The federal judiciary has time and time again been a source of pain, anguish, and frustration.

Just as President Trump is finalizing what might be the first pro-life majority on the court in the last 50 years, French is trying to convince us it doesn’t matter. Just so he can ignore reality and vote for someone who is pro-baby killer:

What French ignores is that the pro-life laws he praises exist only at the sufferance of America’s imperial judiciary. If Hillary Clinton, rather than Donald Trump, were picking judges, pro-life laws would be universally struck down. As it is, pro-lifers have had some success, despite having to overcome the combination of leftist judges and GOP-appointed sellouts.

Some might be tempted to blame all this on Donald Trump–and the deplorable voters who elected him. But the pro-abortion wing of the evangelical church was prospering well before Never-Trumpism became a thing.

For instance, in 2008 racial reconciliation was the rationale for evangelicals voting for the radical, pro-abortion socialist Barak Obama. More recently, there was the vote for Beto! over Ted Cruz in 2018. The excuses–and their complexity–never stop.

All this brings us down to this point: if you have already voted for or are going to vote for Joe Biden, you are a pro-abortion voter. The ethics are inescapable:

Suppose you believe issue e is wicked, yet vote for Jack because you really care about a, b, c, and d. Still, you cannot discount what your vote does. It gives Jack agency to pursue a, b, c, d, and e, and you remain morally responsible for that. There’s no way to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the one thing you don’t like and to keep it for the four things you do like. Voting ballots are dumb. They cannot discern your motives. The moral chain of causation remains.

“Ok,” you say, “You’ve convinced me. I won’t vote for Biden because I don’t want to be pro-abortion. But I just can’t bring myself to vote for a man of such low character as Donald Trump.”

On one level, I can empathize with that. I did not vote for Trump in 2016. But while it had to do with character, it was not about character per se, but about what effects his character might have on his policies. Trump the candidate was saying a lot of the right things policy wise, but because of his character I did not trust him to do what he said.

But then an amazing thing happened. Over the past four years, Trump has pretty much done what he said he would do. He started building a wall. He appointed conservative judges and justices. He reduced regulations. He fought against the administrative state and the Washington establishment. He appears to have been faithful to his wife. Etc. In other words, Trump has kept his promises and been exhibiting character.

Let’s look at the question of character some more. Did you vote for George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton in 1992? Did not his lack of character, when he looked every American in the eye and lied to them, “Read my lips. No new taxes,” cause you to question that vote?

Or what about George W. Bush? Did you vote for him in 2004 against John Kerry? Even though he had already displayed a lack of character by 1) violating his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution by signing a bill he believed to be unconstitutional (McCain Feingold campaign finance reform) and 2) imposing tariffs on steel imports not for economic reasons but for political reasons (improving Republican electoral chances in Pennsylvania and West Virginia)?

Or, let’s look at Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He too swore to uphold the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. Which, among other things, prohibit the taking of property without compensation and declare that only the Texas Legislature can suspend or change laws. Yet he has suspended or changed just about every law he can get his hands on, often resulting in a significant loss of property to hundreds of thousands of Texans. What does this tell us about his character?

If you do not want to vote for Donald Trump, ok. But if you have voted for and/or supported these other men, you cannot credibly base withholding your vote from Trump on the grounds of character.

God is using Donald Trump to do some very good things for America. He may be using him to help save the lives of millions of babies. I encourage every Christian and every conservative to vote for Donald Trump for president. The alternative is to be a pro-abortion voter or–possibly–to enable those who are.