• Biblical Activism
  • Biblical Activism

Secular or Biblical Activism?

The abolitionist movement, historically and today, attempts to overturn evils through biblical activism, in contrast to secular counterparts that often rise in response to the same evils. For example, the American Colonization Society was an organization and movement dedicated to the ending of slavery through deportation of slaves back to Africa. In contrast to this, the abolitionists rose to challenge the colonizationists by presenting biblical activism as the only true cure of the national sin of chattel slavery. To put it simply, one group sought a secular remedy to slavery, whereas the other sought a biblical remedy. The abolitionist constitution shows this dynamic well.

Whereas the Most High God “hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” and hath commanded them to love their neighbors as themselves; and whereas, our National Existence is based upon this principle, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, “that all mankind are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”… and whereas, we believe it the duty and interest of the masters immediately to emancipate their slaves, and that no scheme of expatriation, either voluntary or by compulsion, can remove this great and increasing evil; and whereas, we believe that it is practicable, by appeals to the consciences, hearts, and interests of the people, to awaken a public sentiment throughout the nation that will be opposed to the continuance of Slavery in any part of the Republic… we do hereby agree, with a prayerful reliance on the Divine aid, to form ourselves into a society, to be governed by the following Constitution.

— Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, emphasis mine

While the colonizationists would invoke the blessings of God, and use scripture to show the wrongness of chattel slavery, the foundation of their movement was pragmatic human effort that ignored biblical teaching on how to deal with sin. The problem was, if masters were tempted to sin by purchasing stolen humans, could that sin be effectively addressed by removing all humans of a particular ethnic group to another geographical region? This was considered a practical measure in the eyes of many, but was it a biblical remedy to sin? The abolitionists claimed that it was not, and enacted biblical activism that fought not only slavery, but the colonizationists who pursued national repentance through human effort.

This is relevant to our day because abolitionists of abortion now claim that the pro-life movement is grounded in Secular Humansism rather than Biblical Christianity, and will therefore fail in its efforts against sin. While pro-lifers may invoke God’s blessing for their work, and quote Bible verses about the wrongness of abortion etc., the ways in which they pursue the ending of abortion are grounded in pragmatic human effort rather than a biblical view of sin and redemption. Like what happened with the colonization society, many sincere, Bible-believing Christians give money to pro-life organizations, support their legislative efforts, and actively work in ministries of cultural transformation and compassion. But they do so without understanding that they’ve stepped off of the foundation of scripture, and onto the foundation of humanism. This in turn affects the quality and long-term success of their efforts.

Many of course will object to such claims. The purpose of this article series is to establish the particular ways in which the pro-life movement as a whole will ignore and oppose biblical activism and strategies. Within the pro-life movement, there are Christians who do engage in biblical activism with some consistency, such as in gospel-centered street ministry and post-abortive care. But they are usually partnering with and supporting people and organizations whose Secular Humanist worldview ultimately works against what they’re trying to accomplish. The abolitionist’s goal is to draw Christians out of the secular pro-life movement, to unite under the common banner of Christ, because only Jesus is able to abolish sin from an individual or nation.

Biblical Activism vs. Another Gospel

Establishing the humanistic nature of pro-life activism is the subject of other articles, so for now we’ll assume that there are substantive differences between pro-life and abolitionist ideologies in their biblical quality and application. But even if they are different in ideology and strategy, why is it that biblical activism has to fight against secular activism, before it can achieve its goals? And why does the pro-life movement fight against abolitionists? Historically and today, the secular and biblical movements always clash with each-other, viewing the other as a substantial threat to its own success. Why can’t two movements against the same evil just get along, and pursue its end according to their differing philosophies and strategies?

The problem is that each kind of movement is grounded on a different gospel, one centered on human effort, and the other on God’s work to redeem mankind through Jesus. One could just as easily ask why Paul could not get along with the Judaizers who presented a different gospel to the Galatians (Gal 1:6-9). Or why could the Christian God not get along with the pantheon of other deities in Roman culture? The problem is that there is a real line that is drawn in the world between two different kinds of people with two different kinds of fruit (results) coming from their different worldviews. This line is not drawn between those who support abortion and those who oppose it. It is drawn between those who submit to the lordship of God in Christ, and those who oppose it. Then what flows out of those two competing worldviews is life and death, respectively.

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:20-23)

Because social evils are a form of sin, people who oppose a particular evil while denying the gospel of Jesus Christ are denying the true cure for that evil, and necessarily present a different gospel (solution) to that sin. Different gospels are not neutral with regard to each-other, as if

Understanding Abolition

The pro-life movement is not a biblical movement, and their leaders often work against the ending of abortion. Tap into the principles below to learn the difference between abolitionist and pro-life efforts against abortion.

Abolition Is:

The great theme of the Bible is God’s work to abolish evil and its effects from the human condition and environment. As Christians who believe that the Bible is true and divinely inspired, abolitionists participate in God’s work by establishing our movement on the word of God, and using its principles to effect positive change in the world.

In contrast, the pro-life movement incorporates Christians and non-Christians together in a Secular work to oppose abortion in various ways. While Christian pro-lifers will quote Bible verses against abortion in superficial ways, the movement itself defines its goals and methods according to principles that fundamentally oppose biblical teaching on how to remove evil and bring genuine healing.

The pro-life movement regularly opposes legislation that would grant equal protection to pre-born humans by criminalizing abortion. In some cases, pro-life lobbyists and legislators are the primary reason that this legislation does not pass.

This is because the pro-life movement believes that the woman who willfully kills her child is a victim in the process, rather than a perpetrator. Therefore they turn to unjust forms of discriminatory legislation in an attempt to pragmatically, rather than ethically, reduce the amount of abortions performed.

While there is a great deal of false information propagated to support the universal victimhood of women, and such false information should be refuted, the biblical standard is clear regardless. Anyone who conspires to kill an innocent human being is guilty of murder, thus the homicide code should reflect that reality.

We do not grant mothers permission to murder their three-year-olds with impunity, even when the mothers are facing difficult situations. In the same way, we should not grant mothers permission to murder their pre-born children, even when the mothers are facing difficult situations. All human beings are created in the image of God, and are therefore equally valuable before God, regardless of their age.

We live in a culture that is filled with post-abortive fathers and mothers. From a merely practical standpoint, the only way to effect national repentance will be to share with our people the bad news of God’s judgement on sin, together with the good news that God forgives and redeems repentant murderers, when we are honest with him about our sin.

With that said, this personal message alone does not do justice to the whole gospel presented in scripture. It is true that Jesus came to redeem individual sinners from an eternity in Hell. But his work on the cross was done to redeem the whole of creation, and therefore has implications in the present day for any sinful aspect of human society. This means that it is appropriate to speak of gospel-centered politics, gospel-centered economics, and gospel-centered activism, etc., in contradiction to humanistic and other man-centered approaches to these disciplines.

Abolition is therefore a holistic gospel-centered movement in that it addresses the needs of individuals, and of nations, as we grapple with the impact of sin on our personal and corporate lives.

In the work to end slavery, two schools of thought competed for dominance in anti-slavery legislation. The colonizationists and their predecessors in Britain pursued various degrees of compromise with the slavers that would gradually reduce slavery until it was finally ended. The abolitionists instead sought legislation that would immediately bring an end to the practice without exception or compromise, and they were ultimately the group that succeeded. These two schools of thought became known as gradualism and immediatism respectively, and have been applied to various human rights conflicts since that time.

The pro-life movement is like the colonization society in that it pursues gradualist legislation that compromises with abortion, rather than seek its immediate end. it does this under the belief that compromising legislation is more practical than uncompromising legislation.

In many cases it is truly practical to compromise with opponents. However, when dealing with an issue of sin, compromise has the side effect of further embedding the sinful activity into one’s life or society. When a pornography addict compromises with his addiction, for example, his seeking to reduce consumption rather than completely and immediately cut it off will ultimately make him more complacent and enslaved to it.

Scripture teaches us to take a radical, no-compromise approach to the abolition of sin in our personal lives, and the same principles apply to legislation in our national life. As such, while the pro-life / gradualist approach may sound pragmatic, it is ultimately impractical and self-defeating, due to the nature of sin.

Abortion is sin, and the only answer to sin is the gospel. Because the Christian Church is the institution that was commissioned by Jesus to spread the gospel message, this means that she should be at the center of the war against abortion and other destructive evils in society.

Unfortunately, due to various bad theologies and general complacency, the Church has largely abandoned the fight against national evils like abortion. Abolitionist societies and other parachurch ministries have risen up to fill the gap and organize Christian responses to evil, but these fail to provide the holistic, unified community that Jesus designed to serve as salt and light in a dying culture. Parachurch ministries have a role to play in organizing local churches to particular tasks, but they should always be supplemental, with the institutional Church driving Christianity’s response to both personal and social evils.

Thus historic and modern abolition includes a message of repentance to Christians and to churches who fail to give a biblical, comprehensive response to the rise of sin in our dying culture. Individual Christians must repent of our failure to know and act upon the duties that God gives us to stand against evil. Churches need to repent of believing false and unbiblical ideas that reduce the gospel to only the personal salvation of souls, and their general failure to teach Christians what God expects of us in response to social evils like child sacrifice.

One of the unique features of Christianity is its reliance on the providence of God over the pragmatism of man to bring about its desired results. When Jesus went to the cross, this contradicted all of the worldly wisdom of his time on how to establish political power to advance one’s own agenda. Instead of compromise with the religious and political leaders of his day, Jesus rebuked them, held them accountable to the higher standard of God, and trusted that God would deliver him through the persecution they would bring upon his head.

More importantly, Jesus trusted that God would establish his kingdom through his faithful obedience rather than pragmatic compromise. Because God truly does rule over the world, the most practical, pragmatic thing a person can do is to align himself with God’s will, even when it contradicts the flawed logic of rebellious man. Thus abolitionists rely on the providence of God rather than the worldly wisdom of man, measuring our lives and our movement against his word, even when obedience to it seems counterintuitive.

Work in the pro-life movement is often separated into those who offer assistance to women in need, and those who agitate for public change. Abolitionism holds that Christians are required to participate in both kinds of activity, speaking the truth in love. Uniting these two modes in every abolitionist prevents love from devolving into a false, untruthful form, and truth from being delivered in a cold and arrogant way.

Abolitionists Bring: