Wow. From what you say, the family and church you grew up in were a bunch of one-dimensional, hypocritical losers. That would explain your cynicism, but I don't know that it excuses it.

The pro-life ("anti-abortion") people I have known through the years have always shown the most concern and compassion for the women whose lives have been devastated by abortion. In fact, the most powerfully outspoken and involved ones are often women who have themselves had an abortion. They are also generally passionately involved in other social concerns, and strongly committed to a dynamic walk with the Lord. However, they do not skew left on social issues (the anti-capital punishment and pacifism you mention), so if that is what you are looking for, then I guess rescue mission work, biblical counseling, etc., do not count.

So I think your perspective has been skewed by the horrible circumstances of your upbringing. I would argue that pro life (anti-abortion) activists tend to be among the choicest of God's servants.

I would have to agree with Richard C Klueg - this is a very odd article. Of course, Out Of Ur doesn't seem to have anything to say except to lambast everyone in the church who isn't them.

We stand firm in the sanctity of life, even though I may qualify it as "innocent life' that we want to protect. Capital punishment for those on death row and killing enemies in war is a different theological subject, which I may address if questioned. For this discussion, we need to realize that women who abort usually feel unrelenting guilt, from which self-destructive behaviors follow. We need to extend to the one who aborts God's grace, emphasizing that reconciliation, transformation, and healing flow only out of confession, an admission of sin. This also means an unwavering stance on what life is, on what abortion really does, and the lie that this procedure solves all problems. It also means supporting adoption, caring for women who have aborted and want help, and education on abortion, marriage, decision-making, modesty, etc.

I have never thought of pro-life in the ways you have described it. I do agree that most people these days view pro-life as "anti-abortion." I think if more people were to adopt this way of thinking--loving them and giving them a place to turn--there could be more pregnancies carried out. As Christians, this is exactly what we are commanded to do. We are to love our neighbors. Whether that means that our neighbors are considering an abortion or not, we are to love them. And in that way, for those that are considering getting an abortion, we need to love on them even more. We need to show them there is somewhere they can run to and feel safe and cared for. And for those that felt led, letting a pregnant woman know that her baby will have a home if she carries to term, is a great way to show the love of God.

Elegance, if "Out Of Ur doesn't seem to have anything to say except to lambast everyone in the church who isn't them," then why read this blog? Aren't there more conservative blogs out there that may go more in line with your beliefs and values?

Scott, you wrote: "We stand firm in the sanctity of life, even though I may qualify it as 'innocent life' that we want to protect."

The problem is that once you start "qualifying" you start to get into some tricky questions such as, What exactly are the qualifications? Who determines those qualifications? What does "innocent" mean and how do we know for sure whether or not someone is innocent? We start getting into matters which no one knows except God.

"Capital punishment for those on death row and killing enemies in war is a different theological subject."

Well, let's consider those two issues for a moment, beginning with war. The problem with "killing enemies in war" is two-fold. First, you talked about protecting innocent life. But surely there are countless innocent people who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US military, people who are not terrorists, people who could not possibly be considered enemies of the US in any reasonable way, people whose only crime is being a citizen of a country that the US deems as a threat, and who had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the right time.

These are innocent lives. So, if we are really going to be "pro-life," not simply "anit-abortion," shouldn't the Christian church be as equally vocal and adamant about protecting innocent Iraqi and Afghan lives?

Or should we further qualify that what we want to protect is "innocent" "American" life? And here we see the problems with trying to qualify the position--once we start, where do we stop?

As for capital punishment, I am aware the God made provision for it in the Old Testament. What many fail to do, however, is consider the larger context--God intended for Israel to be a theocracy. God was to be the king, and as king he would vindicate the innocent. Therefore the idea is that that when capital punishment was executed, there was the certainty that the person was indeed guilty and that the punishment was justified. Obviously, that is not what ended up happening. But that was the original intent.

But there is no passage of Scripture where provision for capital punishment is made for secular government. There is the passage in Romans 13, where Paul talks about secular governments bearing the sword and being servants of God. But this is not the same thing as the provision that God made for Israel in the OT, since we see that governments throughout history have turned that sword on God's people. What Paul is saying there is, more likely, that governments bear the sword anyway, and God can use them for his purposes, even if they don't realize it.

Therefore, secular governments have no "God-given" mandate to execute capital punishment, the way OT Israel did. The differences in context does not allow for that interpretation. After all, God also commanded OT Israel to commit genocide, and no one would think to argue that the US has that same mandate as well!

I forgot to mention the other problem with "killing enemies in war." It's that it is a double-edged sword: "They" are not just our enemies, "We" are their enemies as well! Who is "innocent" and who is the "aggressor" can change depending on the point of view!

Richard, being a pacifist and against capital punishment is not about "skewing left!" It's simply a matter of taking the biblical text seriously, and not interpreting the text through ideological lenses.

Of course rescue mission work, biblical counseling, etc., count. But so do those two issues that you dismiss.

As far as I know, killing the innocent inside the womb was not a Jewish law and the right to do the killing certainly wasn't given to women whose purpose was to bear the next generation. Women and the unborn died in childbirth more than being killed for whatever reason the woman thought of. The killing of a convicted killer by a jury of it's piers is not the same as the killing of the innocent who has not committed a crime or been convicted by a jury of it's piers and condemned to death by a jury or a judge. So the posted arguements comparing convicted killers and the unborn on an equal playing field so far have nothing to do with half the population legally having the right to kill the unborn while half of the population does not. Fathers of the unborn have not been given the right to force the mother to abort, not yet any way. The problem is, is that the act of murdering the unborn through burning to death or sucking out their brains is torture and murder that should not be legal, the gov't should not be in the business of promoting murder of any one, just the opposite, it should be promoting life and providing a proper killing procedure after a murderer has been convicted. (you know, no revenge, murderer has a right to a lawyer and trial). The mother has a right to close her legs, go to adoption or keep the baby, not murder. In rape, the sins of the father should not be visited upon his children. In this age when most people live a lot longer than in O.T. days, nine mths to save two lives, the babys and the mother (mental health-no guilt trip to carry to the day she dies) is a small time in ones life. Actions have consequences, after all. And judging from so many couples going to other countries for adoption, there are plenty of people out there waiting for a baby a little closer to home.

Several comments: anonymous-- why are you not willing to post your name? It takes away from your credibility.

Killing by individuals and killing by the "state" ARE, in fact, two very different issues! Even after Israel rejected God as their King, God made provision for the "King" to be His agent. That applies whether we recognize the king as God's agent or not. It applies whether the king sees that he is God's agent or not....take a look at Nebudchudnezzar (sp?)

Someone asked how we "qualify" the differences. The answer is that WE do not! Only God can and that is the point. The state has a very limited range of retribution and that is defined quite well in Scripture. Our legal code was originally written almost word for word from Scripture, which is one of several reasons I believe America has been so abundantly blessed over the last 200+ years. But now too many Americans and especially those in leadership ( even inside the church!) have cast off the authority of Scripture, leaving only their flawed human nature to guide them. That will ALWAYS result in only pursuing what only benefits them ( the leaders) and in much increased violence.....all sorts of violence. The gross and sickening violence of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and abuse of the powers of war are only some of that increase.

I post as anonymous because I've been a victim of identity theft, and since then I'm very careful about how much of my personal information I place in public. If my comments have no credibility with you because of that, so be it. That's a small price to pay compared to what I had to go through. It's just a combination of letters, after all. There's no reason why the letters J-O should give you more credibility than the letters A-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S. And I noticed that you only called me out on that, and not someone like, say, elegance. I doubt that's her real name, as well. Considering the fact that many of us probably do not use our real names, I suggest we evaluate the arguments on their own merits, rather than what combination of letters one chooses to post underneath those arguments.

As to capital punishment, obviously I am against it personally. I think that any risk of putting someone innocent to death, no matter how small that risk, is too much of a risk. Life in prison, although perhaps more expensive for the state, is a better option, in my opinion.

And yes, God does work through kings and governments. Nebuchadnezzar is a good example. Another is Cyrus. That does not, however, justify everything that Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus did; and the fact that God used those kings and others to execute his judgement does not mean that everything they did executed God's judgement. Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus harmed many innocent people as well. Is it possible that when a secular government uses capital punishment to execute someone, God may be using them to execute his judgment? Perhaps. Certainly, I can't say it's NOT possible. But it's also possible that a state can execute some whom God does NOT wish to judge. That possibility must be taken seriously.

All of this is, of course, my own personal opinion, for whatever it's worth. As a society, we have a process by which we determine issues such as whether or not to allow capital punishment. And American society has decided contrary to my own opinion. Society has determined that the risk of executing someone innocent is small enough. Fine, so be it. I will continue to express my voice publicly in whatever forum I can and hope that if enough people who agree with me do likewise, some day we can turn public opinion and change laws.

But my primary point in all of this is two-fold:

1. Capital punishment by a secular state is not a right granted in the Bible. That doesn't mean there is no justification for capital punishment. It just means there is no Biblical justification for capital punishment. A society that accepts capital punishment ultimately does so on grounds other than Biblical grounds.

And by the way, society has the right to do so, because I believe in the separation of Church and State. "Our legal code was originally written almost word for word from Scripture." Well, that's just silly. I don't know what legal code you're referring to, but that can't be true, because we have never executed children who were rebellious against their parents. We have never enforced Jewish Kosher food laws. We have never prohibited the charging of interests on loans. And we have never forgiven all debts every fifty years. Nor should we ever have done so. Again, we cannot use the OT theocratic nation of Israel as a template for contemporary, secular governments.

2. The term "Pro-life" must not be reduced to merely "Anti-abortion." Anyone who claims to be pro-life must take seriously what happens to a person's life AFTER birth, as much as what happens before birth.

"She wasn't evil…"
By your own ignorant analysis? Anyone can do horribly evil things even though they appear nice on the outside. All the evil comes from the inside of each of us.

"She didn't hate God (she was a Christian)."
Many pro-abortion folks do. Who ever said all of them do?

"She wasn't trying to “destroy the nation.”
So this does not apply to her. Is she now ok to do what's right in her own eyes?

"She hadn’t known what to do."
Sure she did.

"She was afraid."
Isn't that what Adam and Eve said in the garden? She was guilty and felt it. She had excuses to cover her sin. Wanting to cover our sin is basic even in the most loving and relational environment - even if it's just you and God - like Adam and Eve.

Yes, the household of faith has serious multiple problems with how to respond to this holocaust problem. Matt points to none of them and offers no spiritual solutions.

Perhaps the only fair question raised by this post is: how many protesters have adopted a child?

I think the pro-life movement has been misguided in so many ways, but this charicature of them is really mean-spirited. It seems we've exchanged judging those abortion-seeking women for judging the protesters.

The obvious difference between abortion and capital punishment or war, is that the right to abortion asserts and individual's right to take another (if you believe the human fetus is a life), whereas capital punishment and war assert the right of the state to take life.

If you want to make the case against the right of the state to take life, by all means, do that. But it's not the same issue as abortion. Conflating them merely weakens ones argument.

I think it should be the death penalty for anyone who aborts a baby - except in cases of rape or incest of coarse. (this in tongue-in-cheek for those of you who can't tell)

I"ve always throught the anti-abortion thing was weak.

[Deut 30:19 NIV] This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

God is pro-choice - and God is pro-life - but.... the choice is yours. You can choose death - it will hurt you - it will take a major blessing away from you if you abort it - but it is your choice. I hope and pray you choose life - but the choice is yours.

Nate, I've never said they are the same issue. But you can't honestly believe they are completely unrelated, either! The larger issue we are discussing here is, how does one define the term "pro-life." The operative word here is LIFE. So, sure, it does make a difference whether we are talking about an individual or a state taking that life. But that is a side question. The main question is, what does it mean to protect life?

In the case of capital punishment, are we as a society willing to take the risk, however small it may be, of putting an innocent victim to death by the death penalty? In the case of war, are we as a society willing to risk putting to death innocent victims who pose no threat to this country and whose only crime is that they live in the same country as those who DO pose a threat?

These are serious questions, and they deal with the issue of LIFE? What does it mean to protect life? How far are we willing to go to protect life? Unless one is willing to at least wrestle with these questions, I don't know how one could honestly consider themselves as "pro-life" in any meaningful sense!

Now, if you want to compartmentalize these issues and deal with them separately, you are free to do so. But then, just be honest about it. Don't call yourself pro-life. Call yourself anti-abortion. And pro-war and pro-capital punishment. But not pro-life!

Pro-life is clearly an abortion issue term. To suggest it must apply to war and capital punishment or even killing animals for food or be inconsistent is a red herring logical fallacy. It is shallow minded argumentation.

Tim, it is not enough simply to assert that my argument is shallow minded. I'd appreciate it if you could show me the respect of demonstrating exactly where my argument is wrong, or even just shallow; rather than being condescending and disrespectful simply because you happen to disagree with my positions. To begin with, you might want to answer the following question: why should the term "pro-LIFE" be limited exclusively to the issue of abortion, when the issues of war and capital punishment clearly deal with LIFE just as much as abortion does?

I welcome any substantive answer you may have in defense of your position. Otherwise, be quiet and stick to your hobby-horse rant against the "institutional church." At least when you talk about that, you have something meaningful to contribute.

I don't mean to endorse or echo everything Matt wrote here. But he he's right about one thing: many of us DID grow up with the approach to the abortion issue that he describes. My own upbringing showed little grace to the mothers who chose abortion and offered little help to the mothers who chose life. It's unfair to say that his view of these things is skewed by his experience; everyone's view of things is skewed by their experience. I didn't read this as vilifying anyone but as expressing his experience. That should be allowed. And then we can gracious broaden his perspective.

Anonymous
The article is about abortion and believers response to that, and nothing else. To drag in war and capital punishment is a complete distraction. To suggest that we include these in this discussion also begs that we bring in loss of life from car accidents, drowning, gangs, etc. All of these involve loss of life, but are very different and involve large distinctions in the situation. To ignore these distinctions and demand that because life is a connecting point we must make them all contiguous in the dialogue is not helpful or reasonable - thus it is wrong.

War and capital punishment both have Biblical arguments on both sides that have solid anchors in the truth. Abortion has no anchor. To push connecting all of it because life and death is involved is a severe barrier to solutions to the grossest killing in the greatest proportion, thus it is wrong. Shallow is a very mild term in this situation.

I question and doubt that many who push the anti-war and anti-capital punishment actually care at all about life. They are merely part of Satan's desire to confuse dialogue and delay solutions to real problems. Illustration: Remember when many crucified Bush for water boarding, rejecting habeas corpus for war participants, and attacking jihadists on there territory? When their progressive president continues it and increases killing them with drones with no habeas corpus, all of a sudden they are silent and unconcerned. Their motives and leader are exposed.

Key distinction: The Bible tells us that God has initiated man to be involved in both capital punishment and war, but he has never initiated an abortion, with or without man.

Thank you for your compliments on my concerns for the household of faith and it's meaningfulness. I take "hobby-horse rant" as a compliment, even though in your "respectfulness" you may not have intended it to be so.

I

Tim, I appreciate very much that you offered a much more substantive rebuttal the second time. Allow me to respond:

"The article is about abortion and believers response to that, and nothing else."

Perhaps when you read the article, you missed this statement by the author: "Being pro-life to me also means I'm anti-death penalty, and anti-war. The pro-life movement has lost its mojo because we have not advocated well enough for the life of the born."

So, I'm not the one who dragged in war and capital punishment. The author did so himself. The issues of war and capital punishment ARE part of what this article was about. I do not feel that my comments regarding those two issues, which happen to agree with the views of the author himself, were inappropriate or out of order.

"War and capital punishment both have Biblical arguments on both sides that have solid anchors in the truth. " I will grant you that; and for the record, I respect those who have reached the opposite conclusion than I have regarding these two issues. Having said that, it has been my experience, and from a life-long study of Scripture, that most "biblical arguments" in favor of war and capital punishment ignore context, either intentionally or unintentionally. God gave those commands to OT Israel, a theocracy. And if you ignore that fact, one can also find "biblical arguments" to support genocide. I'm sure you wouldn't want to go that far; but unfortunately, that is where your logic will take you, if you are consistent. And along this same line...

"Key distinction: The Bible tells us that God has initiated man to be involved in both capital punishment and war..."

Actually, an even MORE key distinction: The Bible tells us that God commanded OT ISRAEL to be involved in both capital punishment and war. Not everything that God commanded OT Israel is meant to be applicable to ALL people in EVERY time. Can you provide me with any NT texts where God specifically commands the NT church to be involved in capital punishment or war?

"I question and doubt that many who push the anti-war and anti-capital punishment actually care at all about life. They are merely part of Satan's desire to confuse dialogue and delay solutions to real problems."

Well, I can't say that's NEVER the case. But if you are assuming that that's the case with me, you are sadly mistaken. I care so much about life, that I am not willing to risk executing even ONE innocent life who has been mistakenly found guilty of a capital crime. I care so much about life, that I grieve at the thousands and millions of innocent lives who have been become "casualties of war" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless other wars; lives whose only crime was that they happened to belong to the wrong nationality--why should THEIR lives be less worthy of our protection than those of Americans?? And I care so much about life that I am appalled at how prevalent abortion has become in our society, a society which idolizes the American dream of "pursuing happiness"--too often at the expense of the weak and defenseless-- rather than one that does justice, loves mercy, and walks humbly before our God.

And this is not partisan for me. Lest you assume that I am "progressive" or "liberal" or "leftist" or whatever other title you may choose to attach to me, I'll have you know that I am a registered Republican. I voted for Bush both times, and I voted for Romney last November. I strongly criticized Bush "for water boarding [and for] rejecting habeas corpus for war participants;" and I criticize Obama just as strongly for continuing the same policies.

"Thank you for your compliments on my concerns for the household of faith and it's meaningfulness."

I'm glad you DID take it as a compliment. And I apologize for the rudeness of that paragraph. I was offended by how disrespectful and condescending your initial comment to me was, and I responded in kind. I shouldn't have responded that way, and I am sorry. And I meant what I said: when you comment on that issue, you have many meaningful things to contribute; although, the condescending tone you tend to take, I feel, distracts from your contributions. Unfortunately, when you branch out into other areas, your contributions, ironically, tend to be more shaped by the "traditions of men," or at least by the traditions of political conservatism.

I have one final question for you; and I hope that if you respond to nothing else that I've written, you will at least respond to this. If I was with you in person in one of your house church gatherings, and I felt lead by the Lord to share my convictions concerning war and capital punishment with the group, providing Biblical evidence for my convictions, of course; would you have treated me with the same disrespect and condescension in person with which you have treated me on the internet?

Anon,
With the permission of the site-lead, may I offer a solution to your identity issue: Chose a nom de plume.

ergo, sheerahkahn is mine...it is what I used on the interwebs. including email, and family and friends know who I am.

Granted, it's not fully secure, but for issues of posting in threads it is a way of identifying yourself throughout the internet without giving out too much information about yourself.

You protect yourself, your identity, and more so, others recognize you as a legitimate individual and not a denizen of 4chan...of which I've ventured into once...and will not go back no matter what the incentives are.

Sheerahkahn, I appreciate the suggestion. In fact, sometimes I do comment on this site, and others, under various pen names. Especially if someone has already beat me to "anonymous"! :) On this occasion, no one had it yet, and what I normally do in that circumstance is simply write my comment and hit post, and the name Anonymous is added automatically.

I appreciate that it is easier for some to grant me "legitimacy" if I have some sort of name, even if it is a pen name. From a purely objective point of view, there's no reason that should be the case. Like I told Jo, it's all just an arrangement of letters!

Still, I can see how the name "anonymous" might have connotations of black holes of morality such as 4chan (I've been there once as well, with the same reaction as you!). So, with that in mind, I may just take up your suggestion in future threads. Thanks!

While I agree with the intent of this piece (to proactively love and serve those who are looking to abort), I think it misfires in one big way: it equates protesting a clinic with not loving a pregnant woman who is seeking help. Frankly, both happen, and often at the clinic where peaceful, prayerful protests occur. It's easy to point a finger at someone who is willing to go to the front lines and protest, especially when it doesn't go well all the time. But I would remind all of us that the front lines is where much of the initial love is shown; that's where many of the first conversations happen. Abby Johnson is just one of the proofs that peaceful, prayerful protests work (author of "Unplanned"). Sure, other ways of showing love are necessary as well. But we can't leave the very place where the killing occurs. IMO, the pro-life community is actually gaining mojo, at least in the city where I live. And it is partly due to one reason: a brighter, better presence in front of the clinic where the tragedies occur.

This piece is not only convicting, but full of compassion. Insread of fighting against the issue we should take that engery and use to invest in the lives of these hurting mother. We could easing their fears, not making them feel like outcast. We could be walking life with them, not walking with a sign in between us. We could be sharing Jesus, not showing them the story of the good saramitan as the priest. Every baby is a gift from God and we need to treasure the baby AND mother.