Introduction

This is a brief response to a blog that Pastor Toby Sumpter recently titled “We’re all Incrementalists.” The article contains several encouraging points. Toby affirms Moscow’s support of equal protection and expresses his appreciation for the exposure of the Pro-Life Establishment’s repeated efforts to stand against equal rights for the preborn in recent years. We do not question Pastor Toby’s commitments to uphold and proclaim the sanctity of human life. However, we do believe he is wrong on this issue as it relates to the strategy and tactics we employ in the political realm to outlaw the practice of child sacrifice. There is much to agree on with Pastor Toby in his article. This response is limited to the subject of righteous laws and Christian participation in the political process.

The Heart of the Matter   

Before beginning, Pastor Toby’s article was addressed in full on a recent episode of Apologia Radio. As was said there, we believe the dispute on this topic is better served by steering away from the terms immediatism and incrementalism. All of us acknowledge taking steps to reach our goal of ending legal abortion. The questions are, what steps has God, in His Word, allowed us to take and which steps does he prohibit? ”In his article, Pastor Toby reiterates that Smashmouth Incrementalism is “happy to cheer on all lawful attempts to end legal abortion in our land.” Things like heartbeat bills and 20 week bans are posited as “body shots” that are just as important to the fight against abortion as “knockout punches” like equal protection. Bills like these are categorized as biblically permissible attempts to outlaw abortion that fall short of full justice. 

Our contention would be that God does not allow us to vote for a bill that shows partiality as it is unlawful to do so (Deuteronomy 1:17). As such, these would fall within the category of bills that explicitly do what God forbids in contrast to a bill that falls short of full justice. An example of a bill in the category that Toby provides would be equal protection. Equal protection defines abortion as homicide and includes unborn children under the same provisions that deal with the killing of born people. This is a righteous step we are allowed to take, even if it leaves certain things undone.

All of us acknowledge that limitations exist within the legal system. We cannot propose a bill that addresses every injustice at every level. It would be virtually impossible to write a bill that defines the crime of abortion AND perfectly coordinates the state’s penal sanctions against murder according to Scripture at the same time. Anyone who knows and loves God’s law understands that justice for the crime of murder requires whole categories that lead up to the sentence of capital punishment (2-3 witnesses, evidence, etc). In the meantime, Christians can work within the category of defining this crime in a way that is righteous and pleasing to God, before returning at a different time to align our penology with God’s judicial standards. There are in fact steps we can take to establish justice that don’t include doing things God has forbidden us from doing.

To summarize, it would be sinful to vote for a bill that codifies into law a practice God says that he hates. Virtually all Pro-Life legislation does this by ripping the blindfold off of Lady Justice and discriminating against babies in the womb. However, It would not be a sin to vote for a bill that is consistent and just but leaves certain aspects of establishing proper legal procedure undone. Abolitionists argue that winning on equal protection would effectively criminalize abortion because it would make it illegal for anyone to murder an unborn child, no exceptions. Toby goes on to say that he supports a strategy where Christians may support laws of partiality if they gain a hearing for us to testify to the sanctity of human life. But is this consistent?

Not Lying To Defend the Truth

Saying you will accept legislative efforts that are inherently unjust but will get you a platform to argue for the sanctity of human life undermines the integrity of your position. We do not eliminate injustice by committing injustice. We are not permitted to do evil that good may come, however noble our intentions may be (Romans 3:8). If we write a law that contradicts God’s Word about when life (and therefore protection) begins, then gain our hearing and argue Scripturally, why should our opposition believe us? What we’ve written in our law contradicts what we say we believe.

If we want to have integrity in the public square, we need to be saying the true thing the whole way. This can’t happen if we’re attempting to legislate one thing, then testifying in committee that we actually believe something else. “Great. Why didn’t your law say that?” 

“We want equal protection for all humans.” 

–Why does your bill say to show favoritism to mothers?

“Life begins at conception.”

–Why does your bill say only protect humans with detectable heartbeats?

This is how we got Roe V Wade in the first place.

“If an unborn child is human, why does your state law have a different penalty protecting them?”

“If a fetus is really a person, why is this party exempt from prosecution for taking their life?”

Christians do not have the luxury of acting against the standard they proclaim. If the law is a teacher, we must proclaim the truth in what we teach. Assuming one position to get our foot in the door that we may win converts to our real perspective is akin to arguing for the existence of God with an unbeliever by seeing “where the evidence leads.” Even if we win him, we will be charged that we were not up front with our intentions from the start. In short, if Jesus Christ really is the Lord of life, then the premises used to reach that conclusion have to match, even in the legal realm.

On God Regulating Immorality

Toby points out that there are Biblical laws which regulate sinful practices in Scripture and that these examples can inform the kind of public policy Christians may support in the area of abortion. But it is crucial to point out that whether the practice was slavery, polygamy or divorce, God instituted provisions that protected the victims of these acts. He did not regulate any of these practices to protect the perpetrators. This is a primary reason abolitionists contend that the regulation of child sacrifice, which is nowhere found in the Bible, is a comparison of two things that are not parallel. 

Virtually every Pro-Life law does the opposite of what God did in these situations. All of them contain various exceptions that protect the perpetrator of the crime and make the innocent victim a prey (Isaiah 10:1-2). Pro-Life laws explicitly state that mothers who murder their babies must be given civil and criminal immunity for their actions. They may never face due process, even if they knowingly and intentionally take the life of their own child. As a matter of fact, some states will prosecute any who try to hold them accountable. It is for this reason that these laws are inherently unjust.

Divine wisdom warns us that condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty is something that God hates (Proverbs 17:15). To write such things into law is a miscarriage of justice. As Christians, it is not a sin to support legislation that, in the pursuit of achieving Biblical justice, leaves certain aspects undone. However, it is a sin to support legislation that inherently codifies injustice, even if our motivations and intentions are in the right place. Believers are not permitted to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at the enemy of abortion in the hope that something sticks. 

We may not fight the bureaucratic red tape Toby is alluding to in his article by deploying bureaucratic red tape of our own in the form of laws that permit abortion as long as certain conditions are met by both women and abortionists. The Word of God is our limiting principle, our plumb line for all the laws that we support. This is not to discourage the use of cultural means to regulate the practice of child sacrifice. The Moscow folks have set a marvelous example of what this looks like in a covenantal framework as they have emphasized loving their families, raising godly children, building Christian community, and disciplining the sin in their own camp.

Equal Protection in Idaho?

Toby tries to make the case that abolitionists who propose a bill of abolition and seek to see it through the entire legislative process are doing what he is doing when he argues that we should support a heartbeat bill or a 12 week ban because both of us are doing what’s needed to get the bill passed. To Toby, it is no more wrong to support this than it is to engage in a corrupt system. We would simply not go so far as to say that the system is “designed to defend bloodshed.” The Constitutional system we inherited, when operating according to its intended framework, is a blessing. The problem we would likely agree on is that we are no longer a nation of “moral and religious people.” He concludes this line of argumentation: “no one is saying, and then you can kill the baby.” Regarding SB8, a heartbeat act in Texas which Toby supported, The Texas State Law Library reads:

“Under Sections 171.203 and 171.204 of this law, physicians must test for a “fetal heartbeat” before performing or inducing an abortion. If they detect one or fail to test for one, they cannot proceed with performing or inducing the abortion.

A physician may proceed with performing an abortion once a “fetal heartbeat” is detected only if they believe a medical emergency exists. Section 171.205 requires the physician to document the emergency in both the patient’s and the physician’s medical records.”

So, once certain conditions are met under this law, a physician can, in fact, kill the baby. This is an example of virtually every Pro-Life law that has been proposed in recent history. They are bills of permission. Toby might not want these bills to mean this, but it cannot be disputed that the bills allow for just that. 

The Lord has graciously allowed End Abortion Now to have a front row seat to witnessing the kind of corruption and Pro-Life compromise to which he points in his blog. It is our hope that Moscow engages more fully on this issue in their own legislature, so that it will become even clearer to them that those who want equal protection for all humans at the state level do not have the support of the mainstream Pro-Life lobby and its affiliates. Nevertheless, we look forward to the day we can stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and fight to establish justice in their neck of the woods. Until then, we pray that our Lord brings us to a more consistent place of unity on this vitally important issue.