Stopping by the Woods on a Screaming Evening

I was recently asked the question, “How do you get someone involved in the pro-life cause when they do not see any reason to get involved?” Don’t think I did too great a job answering at the time, but, on reflection and with much thought, here is the answer I now have for that question.

First of all, this was asked in the context of pro-life training based on the outstanding DVD training material, Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion, authored by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) and Scott Klusendorf (Life Training Institute). Mastering this material gives you both the scientific and the philosophical legs to stand against the pro-abortion position. One of the things it teaches is to simplify and focus the issue to the question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is just a blob of tissue then no reason at all is needed to kill it, BUT if it is a human being, then no reason for killing it is justifiable (with the exception where it is a clear medical choice between mother and baby dying or only aborting the baby will save the mother’s life).

One of my favorite tactics is to paint a word picture. Get the other person involved intellectually and emotionally. Get them to see the issue in their mind’s eye. You know the ending of the story – it must lead to the central issue, “What is the unborn?” and it must arrive there with both emotional and intellectual impact. So, this is an exercise of working backwards from the conclusion.

Here is my story. It is not the only one. You can construct your own.


You’re walking on a path through the woods when you are startled to hear what sounds like human screams. Instinctively, you turn to the direction of the screams, but you cannot see anything through the dense foliage. The screams continue.

What should you do? Investigate or just continue your casual walk admiring the beauty all around while ignoring the continuing screams?  Wait for an answer here.

So, you softly make your way to the sound, until parting some leaves you see an adult brutally abusing a small toddler.

What do you do now? Try to intervene, call for help on your cell phone, run for help, or refuse to get involved?  Again, wait for an answer.

What would you think of a person who simply said, “I don’t want to get involved,” turned back to the path, and continued their pleasant stroll through the beautiful woods – all the while ignoring the screams?

Is not some form of action to help the human response to this situation? Don’t we have a natural revulsion for the moral integrity of the person who does nothing?

That is the picture of the abortion holocaust happening in this country and around the world.

I’m not sure there’s much more to do for the person whose response remains, “I don’t want to get involved.” But, if the story seems to hit home, and they try to make a point of the difference between the toddler being abused and a fetus being killed in abortion, then, you’ve got your opening to say, “but that’s the real issue isn’t it? What is the unborn?”

That’s where the training kicks in. You now have the open door for the scientific and the moral case ready. And, you’re ready for the other common objections.

Legalizing Wrong as Right Sends More to Hell

Pain has a purpose - to let us know something is wrong and give us a chance to do something about it. 

The social pain of disapproval serves the same purpose. When social disapproval is inline with God's Word, that pain has a greater possibility of leading people to examine their contrary beliefs/behavior and turn back to the right path - repent. 

Giving the legal permission to do what is wrong salves over the conscience and allows the lost a greater comfort in their wrong doing. Whether it is legalization of abortion, sexual deviancy, or any other of a myriad of things the Bible is abundantly clear is wrong, legalization has the effect of sending more people to hell. Or, at the very least, prolonging their self-deception until they finally come to the end of themselves and reach out for God but still suffer the natural consequences of the much deeper hole they are in because of the comfort of legalization. 

 This is not a trivial matter - it is grave, immediate, and important. We should be saying to those we've elected, "How dare you vote contrary to God's Word!"

Compromising on Rudy

There was a reported meeting of pro-life leaders, including Dr, James Dobson, where the leaders expressed their willingness to vote for a third party candidate rather than support a so-called compromise anti-life/anti traditional family candidate who would promise to do some pro-life/pro-family things - i.e. nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, etc. In the pro-life community, there is debate among honest and sincere people as to whether this is a reasonable Christ-honoring course of action. 

The debate basically breaks down along 2 paths. One group supports Dr. Dobson et al's approach which is in effect a shot across the Republican Party's bow to try to force them to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. The other group, it seems to me, basically argues that fewer unborn babies would die under a compromise candidate who presumably could win against Hillary. To me, this is a lesser evil approach.

Below is something I posted to the blog at Stand to Reason on this subject. This is certainly not an exhaustive treatise on the above options - that may come in time.

One thing I would add is that if the Republican Party nominates a compromise candidate for president, I will immediately change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.

In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. 

I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues. A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. 

The promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate. 

 Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation. 

I don't care which party it is, but we currently have only one party with planks that support our positions. 

The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections. If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.

Only God knows if Hillary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckabee (just using him as an example). I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. 

We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late. I expect moral leadership on these foundations from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that. 

 God help us.

Has LA Sen. David Vitter Undermined His Moral Authority?

Of course, the recent admission by Louisiana Senator David Vitter that he had used prostitutes in the past was like dripping blood to a sea of sharks. 

The media feast on this traditional pro-family advocate is in words and phrases like, sanctimonious, hypocrisy, lost his moral authority, etc - as usual, stink'n think'n is rampant in discussions of this situation. 

 This article is not a comprehensive treatment of the issue. I just want to work out (by writing and hopefully getting some feedback) some thoughts on the stink'n think'n, and, hopefully, help others see the same. 

The first issue to deal with is the moral authority issue. That's the unseen subterranean mole-works undermining the whole foundation. What is the authority behind Sen. Vitter's moral pronouncements? If the authority is David Vitter, then, yes, he has certainly tarnished his authority to speak of his personal subjective beliefs. If his beliefs are universally and objectively true, however, then how has he undermined that moral authority? Isn't it the moral obligation of all to speak these truths regardless of how poorly we may exemplify them? 

Notice that those who raise this issue are telling you something about themselves - they are the "true for you but not for me" moral relativist crowd who do not believe in universal objective truths - besides the universal objective truth that there are no universal objective truths. People with this viewpoint never have the authority to suggest their personal morality as "oughts" for anyone else. 

The next important and related point is that the messenger does not determine the truthfulness of the message. The presence of law-breakers does not invalidate the law. Most murderers and liars know there is both a written law and a higher moral law they have broken. The law is no less true when spoken from the mouth of the sinner than the saint; however, the character of the messenger does determine the credibility with which the message is received -- especially when the message is unpopular (unpolitic). 

Sen. Vitter is a hypocrite living in a universe of hypocrites, if you take the simple minded definition of hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another. We have all lied, cheated, and stolen, yet we tell our children to not lie, cheat, and steal. So, we are all hypocrites by this simple definition. 

Calling someone a hypocrite, using this definition, is like saying, "Welcome to the human race." 

Perhaps a more useful definition of hypocrisy would be advocating for something you know to be untrue. If I taught first graders that 1 + 1 = 1, but used 1 + 1 = 2 when dealing with my bank, then I am a hypocrite. It is in this sense that saying one thing and doing another is true. 

Is behavior contrary to stated belief always a demonstration of hypocrisy (by this definition)?  In Vitter's case, "What do David Vitter's actions prove about what he believes about the sanctity of marriage?" 

On just a little reflection, we all know of times when we do things in violation of what we really believe, and later, we may be sorry that we did them. Unfortunately, we do not know and cannot know with certainty what Sen. Vitter actually believes, but, given the totality of his walk and talk, it is still more reasonable to believe he is expressing his true beliefs in upholding the sanctity of marriage -- even with a substantial moral failure such as this. And, even in the recovery from this failure, he and his wife have exemplified dimensions of that sanctitiy in pursuing the routes of confession and forgiveness. As usual, a person's view of Sen. Vitter will be driven by their philosophy.

Foolish Public Education

Submitted to local papers for publication: 

 “The God who is totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored is not God.” 

This is the subtle, but effective, indoctrination our children receive through 12 years of so-called “religiously neutral” public education. 

IF there is a God, then all meaning, morality, and all Truth are rooted there. Teaching anyone contrary to this fundamental and basic foundation is teaching a lie and seeking their harm. 

Teaching our children religious neutrality “… doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson.) 

Wouldn’t teaching the existence of God and his basic characteristics – justice, love, mercy, etc – in public education be indoctrination?

Yes, but no more so than the current “religiously neutral” approach! 

But someone will be offended. Teachers can deal with incivility and hatefulness, but Truth always offends liars! 

But it’s illegal. Not by the founding fathers or the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not there. 

 Belief in God, disbelief, and ignorance are all religious positions. Pick one! But, but, but …. Come on. We can send men to the moon and can’t figure out how to do this? 

We haven’t tried. We twiddle our thumbs and argue about prayer at graduation while generations of our children get foundationless educations. 

No wonder we keep getting more and more foolish with the passing years.

"Professing to be wise, they have become fools"

The below 250 word article was submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Former atheist, C.S.Lewis, was a “reluctant” convert to Christianity being dragged “kicking and screaming” into the fold through the unrelenting process of revelation and reason. He wrote an allegorical account of this process called “The Pilgrim’s Regress.” Where John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress” describes Pilgrim’s climb up the mountain toward faith, Lewis’ book goes back down the mountain using his newfound perspective to analyze why John, the main character, rejected other paths.

One chapter has John in jail. Daily, the jailor brings their food providing commentary on it while they eat. If the meal were meat, he would tell them they were just eating carcasses and discuss details of the slaughtering. Milk was just one of the secretions of a cow. Eggs were just …

These comments bothered John until, in a flash of insight, he realized the jailor was talking nonsense. He was trying to make unlike things alike – that milk was like sweat or dung. “Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?”

Gay marriage, abortion, hate-filled politics, child molestation – what should you expect when the only firm foundation for telling right from wrong, God, is banned from the public square and public education? Generations have now been taught God does not exist or, at best, is irrelevant. To gain this mirage of freedom, we’ve sacrificed truth. Professing to be wise, we’ve become fools – our own jailors.