Darth Swallow-Prior Strikes Again - Part 4

Alright, well let's see if we can finish this thing up. I don't know if we'll be able to do it, we've got 20 minutes left, but, you know, a man can dream, I guess. Last time, if you remember, I was very impressed with Scott Klusendorf, and I wasn't just saying that, I really was.

His answers to Jim's questions, in my opinion, were a very winsome way to basically say, dude, you're crazy, what are you talking about? But, you know, on the flip side of that, though, Jim and Karen Pryor, you know, it's just, look, these people want you to believe that to be winsome, you've got to hold back what you really want to say.

Winsomeness, Debates, and Bart Barber

And nothing could be further from the truth. That's not winsome, that's not a good faith debate, that's not anything good, it's subversive is what it is, it's subversive. By the way, speaking of holding back on what you really want to say, if you haven't already, and this is terrible YouTube marketing for me, but if you haven't already, stop watching this video and go watch John Harris' video about Bart Barber and some of the positions that he takes on issues.

I knew that Barber was a bit of a doofus, but I did not know he was so weaselly. He is, like, a consummate weasel, and from what I understand, he didn't always used to be that way, that's something that he's done more recently, and lo and behold, he's rewarded with a position of authority and power in the SBC, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yeah, he seems like just a real, he's like the worst case scenario, like, someone who doesn't actually ever want to tell you where they stand, they say, well, on this side, and some people say this, and some, I think this is reasonable, but then you, you know, I don't know, apply it over here, it's like, it's just a bunch, it's just, yeah, watch that video, maybe don't stop watching this video, maybe watch it afterwards.

It's John Harris' Conversations That Matter podcast on Bart Barber. I just, I could not believe some of the stuff he was reading. In any case, let's jump right into this today. If you remember, Karen Swallow Pryor is about to get another question.

I'm sure it's gold, so let's go.

Barron, one of the arguments that Scott made, he said that changing pro-life to whole life, which he takes to be your position, appeals to a false sense of moral equivalency. Do you agree with that statement and why?

Okay, I'm done, I think, for now, maybe.

Means more in our philosophy, our principles, our posture, our rhetoric. And I do agree with Scott that there is a danger of a moral equivalency that we do need to avoid, because when we are talking about some sort of act that will take away a person's physical human life, if that is a more dire and pressing need than something that affects the quality of their life in an ongoing way.

Now, those things can't be completely separated. I do think that we've bred a whole culture that is anti-life and that quality of life or quality of a death culture, if you want to call it that, leads to more abortion.

So they can't be completely separated, but I do think that we have to draw moral distinctions and not make those false moral equivalencies.

Well, I don't think that pro-life organizations need to be devoted to every issue. And it's like, right, I don't think very many people think that. I think this is more on an individual level that people get levied this charge.

And it's about voting, it's about politics. How could you not support the Democratic Party when the Republicans want to take away welfare from poor women? And it's like, well, again, it's about politics, right?

And I think the other thing that people need to understand about Christians is that Christians that are against welfare and they're against gun reform—that's another one, gun reform is a big one, I keep missing that one—free health care, free housing, stuff like that.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't have a house, right? But what I don't want is that—I don't think that providing charity, health care, housing, and stuff like that, it doesn't justify stealing. So the government is not responsible for those things.

That's not what the government's for. So when the government does it, they do it, and they have to do it by stealing because the government doesn't have any money of its own. And so if you're poor and you don't have enough money to feed yourself or your kids or whatever, someone—you should still get assistance if you're willing to work and you meet the qualifications biblically of getting that assistance because some people don't meet those qualifications.

But if you do, the churches should help you, and they would help you. People in the church are very generous, very generous. There are whole systems set up for people to get help paying for their health care expenses that don't have insurance or don't want insurance.

There's whole systems that are set up where you say, hey, my son needed to go to the hospital for this reason. It costs $1 ,500. I don't have $1 ,500. And people send you checks because they're Christians.

This stuff happens already, and there could be other systems set up for this kind of thing as well. And I'm so sick and tired of people talking about how hypocritical Christians are because we don't want the government to steal from people in order to give to others when Christians—not only do we get taxed and our money stolen from us as it is by the government, but even on top of that, even after we've been shaken down for all of this stuff, we still give money to the poor.

We still do all this stuff for health care. We still devote our time, money, prayers, all kinds of stuff to the poor and to the disadvantaged. We still do that, and yet witches like her will still tell us how hypocritical we are because we all voted for Trump.

We all vote Republican. Therefore, you're a hypocrite because the Republicans hate poor people. It's just ridiculous. And so Karen Pryor here has done a decent job exploiting what I consider a weakness in Cluesendorf's presentation.

It's not really about the organizations. It's about the charge that gets leveled to individuals every single freaking day because of who we vote for and who we don't vote for. We don't support Biden, so therefore we must hate black people.

That's how it goes in everyday life, and so here's this debate being just as worthless as all of the other debates because it's not about anything real, and there's so much agreement because it's not about anything real.

The only reason Karen Pryor agrees with Cluesendorf on this stuff is because this is actually not the debate. This is not the helpful debate. It's not good faith. It's not helpful. It's none of that because it sidesteps what's actually being heard by people in the pew.

If you're so out of touch with reality that you've never heard an individual get called to account for not being whole life because they haven't voted Democrat, then you don't have any business debating this topic because you have no freaking clue what's going on.

But the thing is, these guys do have a clue what's going on. They just decided not to talk about that because that doesn't serve their leftist purposes.

The Church, Abortion, and Human Dignity

Scott, you make the argument that a holistic approach to life places unfair demands on battle-weary pro-lifers. If that's the case, what can the church do to come alongside and help that that would not be a problem?

Yeah, I think our churches need to do four things on abortion. Number one, they need to preach a biblical view of human value. In other words, human beings have intrinsic dignity in virtue of the kind of thing they are.

They don't have attributed dignity based on their accomplishments or age. They need to preach that biblical view. Secondly, they need to preach that abortion is a sin, that it intentionally takes the life of an image bearer.

And we see this taught. Exodus 23 teaches it in the Old Covenant. We see it in Matthew 5 in the New. These are clear scriptural principles. Number three, and this is huge, we have got to equip our people how to make a case for the pro-life view in the public square.

I teach at Summit Ministries, which is a Christian worldview conference every summer. I'm getting ready to head there soon. I love it. You know, I'm the old guy. I'm 62 and I go out there and I teach these kids pro-life apologetics.

You know what I hear? I hear overwhelmingly from these students, we have never heard a pro-life apologetics presentation. Now, these kids are coming from the best churches in America. I mean, large churches with pastors I know who faithfully preach the word.

But when we survey the kids, which we've been doing now for five years, less than 2 .5 of the kids have ever heard a pro-life presentation about how to make a case for life with friends who don't go to church.

And we wonder why we're losing. Our problem isn't that we're not whole life enough. Our problem is nobody's hearing a pro-life presentation. They don't know what abortion is. They don't know the arguments.

And when they hear it, the light bulb goes off. Our team, we speak in Catholic high schools all the time, large Catholic high schools filled with secular kids. And over and over again, they're like, we've never heard this.

It blows their minds. So our churches need to do that. Fourth thing, and this is crucial. We have got to minister to the precious men and women who've been wounded by abortion, who have ruled themselves out of any God-glorifying ministry because they got a ghost of a dead child in their background.

And we need to come along and say, we want you to know that the Christian gospel speaks to your situation, that Jesus came and bore in full the judgment of God you deserved so that you could be adopted into his family as a dearly loved child.

And if you believe in Jesus, even if you've had an abortion, God the father is no longer your judge. He's your heavenly father and you get adopted into his family. But you know what our churches are doing?

Because they want to spare women and men who've been involved with abortion guilt, they want to spare them the guilt trip. They don't say anything about it. They're not sparing those men and women guilt.

They're sparing them healing because unconfessed sin is keeping them out of full fellowship with Christ. So I think those four things are what we need to be focused on and helping people come to terms with what a pro-life church should look like.

Well I really appreciate your response.

Of course you do, because it doesn't actually push forward at all. Because the first two things that he said, and I'm not mad at Scott, these are all good things that you can do, but the first two things are clearly already done.

Obviously this is done very well. The third thing he claims is not really done. You know, he probably knows better than me, I don't know. And then the fourth thing he claims also is not done, but I know is done.

I mean, some churches avoid the issue, and that's true, but in conservative churches that's not an issue that's avoided. I thought that was so weird. These are the four big things we've got to do, and we'll continue to get our teeth kicked in as we've been for the last number of decades.

And of course the middle ground winsome gospel coalition nuance bro is like, totally, like totally, because that's actually not that mean. No, what we have to do is we have to insist, insist that our civil governing authorities start doing their job and treating this as a murder, treating this as a murder and a murder for hire, complete with the penalties that must be given to people who decide to take other image bearers lives for no reason, and people who hire others to take image bearers lives for no reason.

Because that's what's required by a just judge, and we ought to be as Christians advocating for our judge to recognize that he doesn't get to decide whatever he decides is the right thing to do at any given time.

No, he is in fact a servant of God, a deacon is what the scripture calls the civil governing authorities, a deacon of God, and he's there to execute justice upon the evildoer. And God didn't give us the ridiculous situation where he gives us these servants, these servants of God as a civil governing authorities to execute justice, execute vengeance upon the evildoer, and then he said, oh, you know, but you guys get to decide what evil is, and you guys get to decide what vengeance looks like in that situation too.

So God didn't do that. That would be ridiculous if he gave us these rulers and then he said, but you guys figure out how to do it. I mean, who knows what evil is anyway? No. In the book, he gives us details on what evil is and what crimes are and what certain sins are crimes and certain other sins are not crimes, but the civil governing authority is supposed to execute justice and vengeance upon the evildoer for those that are crimes that have penalties attached to them.

And then those penalties, we need to look at the law of God and figure out how do we apply those penalties in various situations, because obviously the law of God's not totally exhaustive. It doesn't cover every kind of murder that could happen.

It doesn't say, well, you know, if you stab them this way, that's a certain penalty, but if you shoot them in the head, that's a different penalty. If you bludgeon them to death, that's a certain penalty.

No, no. It doesn't give us every single detail, right? But it does tell us about what murder is and it tells us about what involuntary murder is or just negligent murders or homicides and things like that.

And so we got to look at those and carefully apply them to each situation. Could possibly there be a situation where a woman is coerced at the threat of bodily harm or something in order to allow herself to get an abortion procedure done on her baby?

Yeah, I could see that. So it's not like there's no—we don't have to think about these things. Of course, we have to think about these things and how to apply them, but it's in the book, right? And so that's the number one thing that isn't done, because all the things that Klusendorf said, the four things that need to get done, they're all done to certain degrees or another.

Like I said, number three, I don't know. I haven't taken the data, so I'm sure he knows. I'll give him a pass on number three. But number one, two, and four that he talked about just there are all done.

What's absent of that is saying, look, we need to insist, insist that the law of God is the ultimate standard for every person, including our civil governing authorities. We need to insist on justice, not just justice when it's popular, not just justice that we can all agree on.

No, justice as defined by the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He's up there, and he's sitting up there on his throne, and Christ is at the right hand of the Father, and he insists that the civil governing authorities do what he commands.

That's our job. That's the Great Commission, right? We're supposed to be making disciples of all nations and then teaching them to observe everything Christ commanded. Christ commanded very specifically how to handle murderers, and we need to insist that our civil governing authorities do so.

Of course, that's not winsome, so Jim would be like, whoa, whoa, what are you, some kind of a Christian fundamentalist?

Criminal Justice, the Law of God, and the Great Commission

With your fourth point there, it makes me think of some of the most fruitful and effective people in the pro-life movement are people who have been a part of an abortion and seen the grace of God in their life and found a purpose to help other people see that same grace and save other people the same pain.

And Scott Klusendorf here said, and again, I'm not trying to beat up on Scott here, but a few minutes ago, he said that every crisis pregnancy center does that exact thing where they work with people after they've gotten an abortion, and they give them the gospel after they've gotten an abortion, and they come alongside after.

And then now, the four top things that we don't do, one of them is that. It's like, what? What are you talking about? I mean, maybe, listen, maybe not all crisis pregnancy centers are the same. I mean, mine was, the one that I was on the board of, we were adamant about sharing the gospel with people, regardless of the situation.

That's something that we always did, and we weren't one of these ones that we want to offend people or anything like that. Who cares if you're offended? The gospel can save your soul for eternity, right?

So maybe Klusendorf was, I don't know. I don't know. I'm not going to venture into Klusendorf's mind here. But yeah, I mean, again, I just have to point out how contrived a lot of this debate is. It's like, of course we all agree because we're not actually debating the issues.

We're pretending to debate the issues without actually doing it. And that's, it's intentional. Let me just say that. Gospel Coalition did this intentionally. They pretended to debate the issues while sidestepping the issues, at least in the two debates that I've watched.

And it's intentional to distract you and to keep you childlike, to keep you on milk, to keep you out of the game. Shame on Gospel Coalition, man. Honestly, when I say that I want Gospel Coalition to be completely destroyed from top to bottom, I want it to be a byword.

So somebody, when they say, oh, I heard it from Gospel Coalition. It's just as stupid as if someone said, oh, I saw it on, I don't know, Vox or Vice News or something like that, where it's just instantly dismissed because obviously those people are insane.

I want people to think of Gospel Coalition the same way they think of Cenk Uygur. He's like a joke.

And per your third point, I can remember being in my 20s and hearing apologetic debates the first time. And one in particular was, it's my body. I can do what I want to do with it. And somebody said, no, you can't.

You can't sell your organs. You can't prostitute. There's lots of things you can't do with your body. And so I appreciate that you're working to that end to give people the apologetics that they need and the information to be able to equip the next generation.

Karen Scott asked what exactly it means when whole life advocates.

Whole-Life Rhetoric and the Charge of Political Hypocrisy

Yeah, I mean, I bet I'm sure he's doing a good job with that. I bet there's probably not a lot of law of God in there and there needs to be. There needs to be because the law is a tutor. Right. And if we're discipling the nations, if we're accomplishing the Great Commission and we're teaching them to observe everything Christ commands, you better be actually doing that.

And not just the feel good, itchy, squishy, you know, God save you for all eternity. But he makes no demands upon you, that kind of thing. Like it better not be that kind of stuff. It better be actually going to the book that he's given us and saying, look, there's stuff here that we can use today.

This is not old school law that is totally useless to us today. No, no. This is law that he gave to his people and he wanted it to be useful for all time. It doesn't apply in the exact same way as it did for Israel.

But there's a general equity there. And a lot of times people want to want to pretend like that general equity, those general principles are way more vague than they are. They're not. They're specific and they're very helpful.

Tell the pro-life movement to broaden their operational objectives and express concerns that that could overextend and even bankrupt the movement. What would you say that it means and do you share the same concerns?

The first time that I had a conversation with Scott, he told me about this pressure that at least one pro-life organization has to change so drastically in the way that it's organized and its mission is fulfilled and its money is allotted.

And I really wasn't aware that this whole pro-life is whole life rhetoric was having more than a rhetorical and policy effect on an organization. I do wonder, to be honest, if it's a bit of a straw man argument, because I don't think that the people who are well founded in their criticism of the pro-life movement, pro-life politicians or even pro-life individuals are basing that criticism on the way we spend our time and money.

I do think it is more, again, our posture, our heart attitude, our rhetoric toward other issues that involve not just quality of life, but actual literal lives that are in danger, whether it's refugees, whether it's black lives, whether it's anyone who's oppressed.

I think that is the heart of it.

It's about how you vote, just say it. It's about your politics.

It's about how you vote. What's so hard about just saying what you mean to say? I just don't understand this. I do understand it, though. It's all intentional. I think that people just want to know that we care about all human lives and believe that we do, not based on how we spend our money, but actually how we speak of other people and how we live our lives.

Scott, do you want to respond to that? This is just so insane. And again, unfortunately, she's able to use Scott's misstep. Scott, this was a misstep to talk only about these poor organizations, all this pressure.

That's not what this is all about. This debate is not about pro-life organizations or the movement. It's about the demand that so many progressive and liberal Christians have on Christians, on real Christians, that they not vote Republican because Republicans hate blacks and the poor and immigrants and all that kind of stuff, even though clearly they don't.

It's just they don't vote for unbiblical policies in their politics. Now, of course, that's ideally what they would do, but sometimes they do. Sometimes they do, right? But the kinds of things, gun control, yeah, you've got to vote for gun control unless you're holistically pro-life.

It's like, well, why? Why do I have to do that morally, ethically, biblically, in any sense? Why? Oh, yeah, you've got to vote for more funding for green energy if you really are holistically pro-life.

Well, why do I have to do that biblically, morally, ethically, in any sense? Oh, yeah, you've got to fund more funding. We need free health care and free child care as well and free housing. Well, why do I have to do that?

Why do I have to do that? And the thing is Republicans already do this to their shame. They already support funding this. Seriously, liberal Christians, make this argument. You're not holistically pro-life because we've already spent this much money on these things, and we won't spend this much money on those things.

We're already spending a massive pile of treasure on all of this stuff that we stole from other people. But because we're not doing more, we're not stealing double what we're stealing from people. We don't have a value-added tax yet.

Then we must hate poor people. That's what this debate is actually about. But because Scott focused on these organizations, Karen's been able to sort of bob and weave a little bit and be as vague as she wants to be.

And nobody's calling on her to be specific because, again, once you get specific well, I mean gun control or I mean this control. I mean red flag laws, whatever it is. I don't know what she's going to say because she's been so vague that I have to just assume what she means.

She must mean welfare. She must mean health care. She must mean some kind of common sense gun laws or something like that. I don't know. I mean who knows? Who knows? But nobody but Jim is just over here saying, oh, that's so helpful.

It's like what was helpful? What did she even say? And this is par for the course for Big Eva.

Naming False Teachers and the Battle for the SBC

Yeah. I mean I go back to that pro-life leader I referenced in my opening. This is a leader of a major pro-life organization, perhaps the largest. And he said that pro-life groups as a whole, not just pregnancy centers, but pro-life groups as a whole must programmatically address family issues, discipleship issues, marriages, fatherhood issues.

That is specifically saying organizational resources need to go there. I'll give you another example.

In 2017 I'm sure that this is actually happening. Don't hear me saying that I don't believe Scott Klusendorf that this is actually happening. I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is. But when most people hear the argument because he said that this is not something that's leveled to individuals.

That's not true. That's not true. And so Karen's over here saying, it's a straw man argument. But it's obviously not. But it's not the main point. So she can use that, I think, misstep to sort of sidestep the real issue.

So Christians just aren't rhetorically they don't care about blacks. Well, how do you know? Well, because they don't think that we should donate certain funds to cities. Who knows what it is? She hasn't been specific.

So you don't even know. You don't even know. And because this is not a real debate, Jim is just like, oh, yes, you're totally, totally so helpful. I'm so appreciative of you. What do you mean, Karen?

You haven't actually said anything. Right here in D .C., I attended a major evangelical pro-life conference. One of the keynote speakers there, who I will not name You should name him.

He was the keynote speaker. By the way, by the way, this we will not name, I'm going to do a video about if you're going to stay in the SBC, how to change your tactics to hopefully win. I think this is a lost cause.

I think it's a fool's errand. I think it's a waste of time, money, energy, resources to try to save the SBC. But if you're going to insist on doing it, there's some things that need to change. And this whole false piety, where it's like, I won't name the person.

But you've got to get over that. You've got to start naming names, and you've got to call them what they are. Bart Barber is dangerous because he's a liar. Bart Barber is dangerous because he's duplicitous.

Bart Barber is dangerous because he thinks that being winsome is to be so vague that both sides think you're on their side, when the scripture is never like that. The scripture is never middle ground.

If you're not a Christian radical, what is wrong with you? It's not winsome to be like, well, you know, maybe the scripture isn't quite clear on that. Maybe female pastors might. It's just a good faith interpretation of the Baptist faith and message.

If you don't start calling these people false teachers, dangerous, people that are just duplicitous. They're duplicitous. If you don't start naming them and saying exactly what they're doing, you're going to get your clocks cleaned again and again.

Now, last year, some people started down this path. And I think that Tom Askel started down this path. But unfortunately, it just wasn't enough. And it's not going to ever be enough until you stop this false game of, I will not name him.

Because it's like, why? Let him own his word. Let him own it. Let him feel some of the shame. Let him feel like he has to change. Because the more you protect these people, the further into their apostasy and their liberalization they go.

Because they'll always be protected by conservatives. You've got to stop, man.

We're in a war. And you've got to realize that. Pro-lifers, that they needed to rewrite their job descriptions. They needed to be wombed to the tomb. And if they weren't giving equal focus to these other issues, they were destroying their Christian witness.

Now, here's what's really ironic about this. The man who was speaking made a pitch that we need to protect all image bearers, except when he doesn't want to protect one group, the unborn. The guy wasn't even pro-life.

He's pro-choice. He believes we should leave abortion legal because it's too expensive to end it. Now, imagine the horrificness of the statement. Say to a minority suffering discrimination. You've got to name him.

You've got to call him a devil. You know what I mean? You read the Bible.

We were just in Sunday school the other day. I don't even remember the context. But we were talking about when Jesus said to Peter, get behind me, Satan. Get thee behind me, Satan. And there's just so many examples of John the Baptist.

You brood of vipers. Who warned you to escape the wrath that's to come? And it's like, was that winsome of Jesus to say that? Or was it helpful? Was it helpful to the people that needed to hear it? Was it helpful to Peter to be like, Peter, he could have easily just sat down with Peter and said, Peter, look, what's the most important thing is God's will.

Not what you think is the right move, pragmatically what you should do. And, you know, listen, you just want to save my life. I get it. But like God's will is for me to go to the cross and for you to try to convince me to not do it.

You're not doing the Lord's work. He could have easily done that. But instead, he rhetorically slapped him in the face and said, get behind me, Satan. And he probably didn't say it like this. Get thee behind me, Satan.

Oh, I'm fearful that you've kind of become Satan. No, he probably shouted it to him like a man because Jesus was a man and he didn't do it because he hated Peter. He did it to wake him up from his stupor.

It's not your will that's important. It's not mine. It's the it's the father. I do what the father tells me to do. We got to get past this, guys. We got to get past this. This guy, you got to name him and you got to call him exactly what he's being a demon.

You're a demon. You're taking these people's money because they think you're fighting for the unborn, you demon. You don't even want to stop them. You don't even want to make it illegal. You got to stop protecting these people, conservatives.

You have to. And if you're not comfortable, you know, on the front lines, then get back in the back lines. Because there's a bunch of people that are comfortable being on the front lines and will do and say what needs to get done and said.

And if that's not you, you got to move to the you could you could you could still be in the fight. But you can't be the front and let front hand front hand guys, the front line guys. You can't because you don't have the stomach for it.

And look, everyone's built differently. Everyone's built differently. I don't like controversy. I don't like being controversial. It's not fun for me. It makes me feel weird in the stomach sometimes when I get in and I get slander in the media.

People lie about me and stuff like that. I don't like it, but I'm willing to do it. And and I know that I'm just wired sort of differently than a lot of people. I get it. You got to name him, Scott. You got to call.

You got to say exactly what he's doing. Yes, you will lose your seat at his table. But so be it. Why do you want to be at that table anyway?

We'll protect you as long as it doesn't cost us too much. We'll work to reduce racial discrimination, but we're not going to make it illegal. I mean, that would just be horrific to any of us to hear this today.

And rightfully so. So we had a speaker, a keynote speaker at a court.

But you see, even in his example, it's like racial discrimination. It's a grievous sin. I mean, if I had someone in my church that was doing racial discrimination, showing partiality to people according to ethnicity and race, I would talk to them.

I would confront them. I'd bring it to the elders and let them do the steps of church discipline. And my elders would. My elders would take them through the steps of church discipline. Unless they repented, they would be kicked out of the church for their racial discrimination.

It's a sin against God. But it's not. It shouldn't be illegal. It's not a crime. You can't go to the scriptures and tell me that racial discrimination should be illegal. You're disqualified from being a Christian.

But you can't say it's illegal. So in his example, he's taking one that shouldn't be illegal and saying, I'd be horrific. And then he's like, but abortion should be legal. It's like they're totally different things.

Of course, it's not the same thing at all. But you see, he's betraying that. Honestly, there's just not a whole lot of law of God that's being considered when we're deciding what should be a crime and what the punishment should be.

And this is the thing. People keep telling me he is an abolitionist. Adam, he is. And like, okay, I don't know. Listen, I don't know all that much about Scott Klusendorf. But what I do know is that he's not for punishing the women who hire someone to murder their children.

And he wrote an article very briefly after Trump had said maybe we should do that. And people were freaking out. Oh, Trump's this evil dictator. He wants to punish women as murderers. And it's like, yeah, you're right, he does.

And Trump doesn't know what the scripture says. Of course, he doesn't. But he had that one right, and so you got to support that as a Christian. Klusendorf's like, nope, nope, nope, nope. So, yeah, so maybe he wants to make it illegal, but he doesn't want any teeth on those laws.

There's no teeth on those laws if women can still do it. Yeah, they couldn't go to a licensed clinic to get their baby killed, but they could still kill it themselves, and it's totally fine. That's not, that's not, okay, maybe that's, if you consider that abolition, that's fine.

It's not enough biblically. It's not, that's not, the government would not be doing its job biblically if that was the position. So I don't care what you call it. I don't care what you call yourself. What I care about is if you're following the scripture and you're teaching those that you disciple, make disciples of the nations, teaching them to observe everything Christ commanded.

I'll let Scott finish, and then we'll be done.

Abortion Abolition, Church Discipline, and the SBC

Evangelical conference telling pro-lifers to rewrite their job description, and he's not even one of us. So this is a real problem within people that ought to know better, who think they're our friends, and they're not.

And again, I'm not talking here about Karen. Karen is absolutely pro-life. This woman has been arrested five times. I do not question her pro-life credentials here, okay? Let's be real clear about this.

What we're having here is a discussion about who's going to get control of the operational side of our movement. And there is a real threat. And actually, I've been cataloging a lot of this, and I've included it all in the new edition of The Case for Life that will be coming out next year.