Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Abortion and the Doubled Minded "Christian Left"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Rev. Adam Russell Taylor, the new president of Sojourners and successor to founder Rev. Jim Wallis, is explaining this week how the apparent decision the Supreme Court has made regarding Roe v Wade is "deeply flawed and alarming" because "As a Christian,  I believe we must protect the rights of women and pregnant people to make their own reproductive health decisions."


F. LaGard Smith, a retired law professor from Pepperdine University, author, and an old friend asks, "How can it be that, if a mother wants her baby, then it is a person, and the law will protect it against the world; but if a mother doesn’t want the baby, then it’s not a person, and the mother can do with it as she pleases?"

A confused public.

A Rasmussen Survey published yesterday reflects the confusion in our culture over "a woman's right to choose."

Be informed, not misled.

A Rasmussen Survey published yesterday found that more voters describe themselves as pro-choice than pro-life, but a significant majority support state laws that limit how late in a pregnancy an abortion can be performed.

About 67% of likely US voters believe abortion should not be legal past the first three months. That includes 24% who think all abortions should be illegal, 13% who believe it should be legal up to the first 6 months of pregnancy, and 13% who believe it should be legal until the moment of birth.

Why is an unborn child disposable at three months, but not beyond three months?

This is a serious matter that states will be putting before the citizens soon after the Supreme Court formally announces the decision on the issue---if they don't change their minds due to pressure from the Left. Including the misled "Christian Left."

Sojourners: "As a Christian, I want to reduce abortion, not overturn it."

The Bible says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. The Bible often instructs believers to "choose you this day"---"this is the day of salvation"---"now is the appointed time," etc.

The message of the Bible is not ambiguous. Particularly regarding the sanctity of life.

With that in mind, the following was published last week by Jim Wallis' successor at Sojourners, the recognized  leader of the so-called "Christian Left," President, Rev Adam Russell Taylor:

If the final ruling mirrors this leaked draft, as many as 28 states are likely to outright ban or severely limit abortion rights. This decision would deeply impact women and pregnant people, especially low-income people and people of color who will be disproportionately harmed.

So, compassion is a greater virtue than life being sanctified?

"The decision will greatly impact women and 'pregnant people'?"

As a Christian, I believe we must protect the rights of women and pregnant people to make their own reproductive health decisions, a right that has been protected since 1973 by the Supreme Court as a fundamental liberty under the 14th Amendment. As a Christian, I also want to ensure there are fewer unwanted pregnancies by ensuring everyone has access to holistic health care and the economic support to care for their children. I wish these two sentences weren’t so controversial, but they are.

Indeed these two sentences are controversial because they are contradictory to God's Word, which the "Christian Left" claims to embrace.

This is a profile of what James is defining in chapter 1, verses 5-8: 

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

We'll take a closer look at the 14th Amendment in a moment.

To many on the Right, my support for women’s rights sounds like I’m dismissing concerns about the rights of an unborn child. To many on the Left, acknowledging that I want to decrease the number of abortions sounds like a slippery slope argument that will result in the erosion of the right to choose and will further stigmatize those who elect to have an abortion. But like many Americans, my views on abortion are complex, comprising a both/and perspective that’s been increasingly unable to find a home in our polarized politics.

No question his views are "complex"---they are also not biblical. This kind of thinking under the guise of Christianity should never "find a home in our polarized politics"---nor in the Christian Church.

The Bible is very clear about how God feels about "lukewarm" people and "lukewarm" beliefs. Beliefs that are sort of pro-life, and sort of pro-death. Very unstable, and unacceptable to biblical thinking.

A response to the "complex views" and "polarized politics" of the so-called "Christian Left's" confusion.

F. LaGard Smith wrote this: 

California isn't Mississippi, John Kerry isn't Mike Pence, and Justice Blackmun was no pro-lifer. So, what do they all have in common when it comes to the battle over abortion? Indirectly acknowledging that the crux of the debate is not “choice” or “privacy” or “viability” or “control over a woman’s body,” but the single issue of personhood. You can abort a fetus, terminate a pregnancy, even “evacuate a pregnancy,” but everybody knows you can’t just kill anyone you wish didn’t exist! Killing a person is homicide. So, is a fetus not a person…?

LaGard notes in his article that a case involving an enraged husband who kicked his pregnant wife in the abdomen when he saw her "bump" confirming the rumor that she was pregnant from her lover became a game-changer when the baby was stillborn.

That triggered an unsuccessful prosecution for murder, prompting an outcry and leading to a change in the wording of the murder statute. Not in Mississippi, but in California.

Statute 187 now defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

LaGard says, "So, what is my point? In both criminal and civil law, the personhood of the unborn is being legally recognized  and protected against everyone in the entire world...except the mother."

Then he quotes Justice Blackmun in Roe: 

"'If this suggestion of personhood is established…the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.' What a concession, given that this all-important fetal personhood has now been definitively established! Consider, most especially, the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (protecting the unborn from murder and assault in federal cases) which defines a 'child in utero' as 'a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb'.” 

Even far-Left, pro-abortion John Kerry has complained that he has serious concerns about this legislation because "the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate  her pregnancy."

LaGard concludes with is: 

"Roe’s vulnerability is in the blatant inconsistency of current law. How can it be that, if a mother wants her baby, then it is a person, and the law will protect it against the world; but if a mother doesn’t want the baby, then it’s not a person, and the mother can do with it as she pleases? With the legal contradiction now fully exposed, not even individual states can legalize abortion.  As Blackmun reminds us, personhood is constitutionally protected under the 14th.  Period! "


The secular Left is not confused over the issue of abortion. They want abortion on demand and want to change the laws to accommodate their desire. It is not a moral issue to the secular Left, it's a self-serving issue.

Pro-life Biblical Christians are not confused either. The Bible is very clear: "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 2:13).

It's the so-called Christian Left that is wallowing in confusion and instability regarding the Truth about life and God's sanctification of it.

In a number of Old Testament references, we find the people of God turning away from the Lord. In doing so they often would not forsake God, but simply embrace and introduce other gods into their lifestyle and beliefs. Then they would claim that they still worshipped the same God as their fathers, but not exclusively.

The same God who told us not to kill has also told us to have no other gods before Him.

As Joshua once said, it's decision time. "Choose you this day whom you will serve, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

That, Rev. Adam Russell Taylor, is neither complex nor complicated.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Engaged. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.