Woke Preacher On Roe v. Wade - The DISASTER Continues!

Roe v. Wade, Prayer, and the Moral Meaning of the Overturning

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to the channel where we bring you Christian commentary about the things that matter. As ever, please know, this video isn't a sinful attack, but rather a Biblical critique.

In today's video, we're going to be talking again about woke pastor Mike Thomas' sermon in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. If you haven't seen our first video on this, go ahead and hit the link in the description in order to watch it.

In that particular video, Mike suggests that God is both, quote, pro-life and pro-choice, and he even tries to use the Bible, taken out of context, to demonstrate this. In this video, though, this part two, I wanted to respond Biblically to some of Mike's other statements, his lesser-known statements, which slipped under the radar for the most part.

Watch this first clip. I don't know about you, but my heart is praying for all the women of America today. Unless you're under a rock, you are fully aware of the overturning by the Supreme Court of Roe versus Wade.

Again, I say my prayers are for the women of America today.

So the first thing he says here is that he's, quote, praying for the women of America today. And he even says that he's specifically praying for them in light of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That's obvious.

He said it himself. Roe was the legal precedent that allowed women to legally murder their unborn children for decades in the United States at the federal level. And on the surface, this comment seems really sweet and kind and Christ-like and winsome and all the nice words you can think of.

But the implications behind it are actually shockingly unbiblical. So why exactly? Here's the question. Why do the women of America need prayer after Roe v. Wade was overturned? Why do we need to pray in our hearts for them specifically?

Well, given Mike Thomas's other comments in the video about God being pro-choice, we can deduce that he's not praying a prayer of rejoicing on behalf of these women. He's not happy, or at least he doesn't seem to be praying on behalf of them that he's happy about the ruling.

Nor is he praying for some unrelated hardship that they are experiencing that has really nothing to do with the ruling or is just adjacent to it in some indirect way. No, it is clear that he is praying because of this ruling and the effect it's having on them.

In fact, he sounds like he's lamenting for the women of America. The immediate context of the clip makes that clear, and you can watch the whole thing by hitting the link in the description. But the question still needs to be asked.

Why is he lamenting in any way for the women of this country? Well, that's easy. Usually, you lament for people when something bad happens to them. When someone's family member dies, or they lose their job, or they lose their house.

We say something like, I'm so sorry, I'm praying for you. We say things like this when something bad happens to someone else. We all know this, and we've all done this. But let me submit to you that nothing bad happened to the women of America when Roe v. Wade was overturned.

We should not lament for these women with regard to the ruling or their feelings about the ruling, because there is absolutely no biblical reason to. In fact, if you are lamenting in any way because these women do not have access to the ability to murder their baby, or they're upset because they don't have that access, you are sinning, and you need to stop immediately.

In Psalm 139, verse 13, David says to God, You knitted me together in my mother's womb, I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Unborn babies, you see, are human beings made in God's image, and killing them is a sin.

Specifically, it is the sin of murder. And Exodus 20, verse 13 says, You shall not murder. The law of God prohibits the immoral killing of unborn human beings. So when Roe v. Wade was overturned, that allowed many states here in the U .S. to better reflect the law of God in their own legislation.

Many areas, many states, will have more moral and upright justice systems as a result of this ruling. In fact, thousands of unborn lives could be saved as a result of this decision. The only catch, of course, is that these women have now lost their so-called right to murder their babies in some areas.

Nothing bad happened to these women. They were not wronged in any way by this ruling. In fact, they were the ones often trying to attempt to wrong others by killing them in the womb. And in response to this, Mike Thomas soberly says, My heart is praying for the women of America today, as if they've all been hurt by something.

What a ridiculous comment to make, and I mean that honestly. Now let me make this clear. I'm not saying that we shouldn't pray for these women in any regard. In fact, I think we should. Rather, I'm saying that we shouldn't pray a prayer of sympathy for them because they lost the right to kill babies.

There's nothing sympathetic about that in the Christian worldview. Isaiah 520 says this,. This ruling from the Supreme Court was a step in the right direction. It was a good biblical thing. It's a good start.

Single-Issue Voting, the Lamb, and Christian Political Ethics

When Mike makes this comment here, he's making what is good sound as if it is evil. And this is obviously an inconsistent moral standard, because we wouldn't say this about any other sin. If it was previously legal, for instance, for a mother to kill her two-year-old child already born out of the womb, and then it was made illegal, none of these people would be saying, I'm praying for the women of America today.

If it was previously legal for thieves to break into your house and steal your stuff, and then it was made illegal, no one would say, I'm praying for the thieves of America today. They're having a really hard time.

When you treat the women who want to kill their babies as if they are somehow not at all morally culpable for this at all, you're using unequal weights and measures, which you know full well you would not apply to anything else.

You are following the secular culture, in other words, and not the Word of God. This is not loving. In fact, it is the opposite of biblical love, no matter how loving it may appear on the outside. Proverbs 11 says, a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight.

We must try, by God's grace, knowing we will fail and have to repent, to have just weights and just measures. And this isn't it. I wish I could say that the false teaching ends here, but it only gets worse.

Watch this second clip.

Um, I'm grateful to know that the God we serve is not a single-issue savior. Amen. The God we serve is not a single-issue savior. God is not a donkey. He's not an elephant. How many of y 'all know He is the lamb that was slain?

Amen.

So, here Mike says that he's thankful that God is not a, quote, single-issue savior. And the goal of a truly good sermon, this is good to remember, is to be as biblical as possible. But it seems that the goal in this sermon was to throw in as many political buzzwords as humanly possible in as many ways that don't make sense as possible.

But just so you know, single-issue voting is the common practice of voting primarily on one single issue. In our modern political climate here in the US, there is this popular idea, popular method among conservative Christians, that they will vote for whichever party out of the two that wants to remove as much access as possible to killing unborn babies.

And this is the sole issue that they're going to vote on right now. The practice of baby-killing has taken over 60 million lives. And that issue is so important to many Christians that they will vote for the Republican Party just for the opportunity of potentially seeing these babies protected in the future.

Now, regardless of how you feel about single-issue voting, I happen to think there's nothing wrong with it, but again, regardless of how you feel about it, I'm sure that all reasonable people can agree that using the argument of Jesus not being a, quote, single-issue savior does absolutely nothing to prove this man's point.

In fact, it's such a strange and nonsensical point, I'm not sure it proves anything at all. But after this, he says that, quote, God isn't a donkey or an elephant, he's the lamb that was slain. And this is a statement that is very popular among mostly woke pastors.

It's also known as the popular third-way method. The elephant is the historic symbol of the conservative Republican Party in the United States, and the donkey is, of course, the historic symbol of the liberal Democrat Party.

Many people, many teachers, want to popularize the notion that it is acceptable biblically to vote for either one of these parties because, after all, God is not fully on one side or the other. God is the lamb and not the donkey or the elephant, as they would say.

But this statement, while it may sound novel and clever and cool and catchy, it really does nothing to help Christians with their political ethics. After all, God is not a German, and God is not an Englishman.

Does that mean that Christians should not have opposed Germany in World War II? Does that mean that instead of fighting against Hitler, the Christians should have looked for a new third option instead?

Of course not. You see, it is true that both parties have certain biblical and unbiblical principles. Neither one is perfect. And it is also true that God's kingdom cannot be boiled down to a single earthly American political mission.

But the real question is this. Who should Christians vote for, and why should they vote for them? Should Christians vote Democrat? Republican? Not vote at all? Merely stating the fact that God is the lamb and not the elephant or the donkey is true, but it does nothing to answer the question.

When you actually look into the specifics of the situation with logic and reason and biblical ethics, instead of simply relying on slogans and mantras that you repeat, it's much easier to find the answer.

Both parties have faults. The fault of the donkey in the eyes of the elephant is that it wants to murder babies, and that's a pretty big one. The fault of the elephant in the eyes of the donkey is that the elephant doesn't support certain social programs with regard to education or immigration or welfare and so on.

To pretend that these two things are somehow similar is asinine. To make believe that both parties stand on the exact same ground morally is foolish and incorrect. Murdering babies is a sin, as we've said before.

And out of all the Democrats in the House of Congress, can you guess how many of them are reliably against baby killing? Only one or two at best. That is, at most, I kid you not, two Democrats out of the 220 in the House of Congress.

Let's just put that in perspective. To one degree or another, about 99 of House Democrats are reliably in favor of murdering babies legally. One might even call that a majority. By contrast, the Republican Party, for all of its many faults, has been historically against the murder of children.

At the very least, by and large, they're more against it than the other party by far. It's not even close. That alone should be enough to demonstrate the point here. One party's official position is pro-murder.

The other party, despite all of its faults, is officially anti-murder, for the most part. So when someone tells you that God is the lamb, and not the donkey or the elephant, so you can vote for whoever you want with impunity now, go ahead and respond.

And tell them lovingly that the lamb does not approve, in his word, of the donkey murdering children. And therefore, we should vote for the elephant instead, at least for now. And with all that said, let's turn to the third clip.

Watch this.

The Pro-Life Objection About Care After Birth

And you all, it's a perplexed issue. The reality is we cannot only be concerned about the unborn, and then not be concerned about their life after birth.

Can I talk to some real people? So here Mike Thomas says this, quote, we cannot be concerned for the unborn, and then be not concerned about their life after birth. This is a very popular argument used against the pro-life movement.

It has some well-known implications, and it has two serious issues. The first issue is that it's a red herring. It's a distraction from the actual issue at hand. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Here's an example. If a 40-year-old man was walking on the street, and another man puts a gun to his head and shoots him for no reason, justice requires that this action be illegal. But wait, says a super nuanced modern pastor, if you're going to be pro-life with regards to this particular man, then you have the responsibility to pay for the healthcare, education, and living expenses of every man in the country.

Do you see the fallacy here? Ethically, whether or not I give my money to this man, that has nothing to do with whether or not murdering him should be illegal, or whether or not I can oppose it. And this brings me to the second issue, with the popular implications of Mike's statement.

Most of the time, when people say that conservative Christians are pro-birth and not pro-life, what they mean is this. Conservatives want to make it illegal for you to kill an unborn baby. And yet somehow, once that baby is born, those same conservatives will refuse to give the baby free healthcare, or free schooling, or free college, or free social programs, etc.

And therefore, they must not care about the actual life of the baby. They just care that it's born. And after that, well, nobody wants it. Biblically and logically, this argument doesn't hold water at all.

Murder is sinful, and it ought to be illegal. That's a command. But the Bible nowhere commands that Christians must give, for instance, free education to all people. And we can't start using a bunch of vague arguments about loving your neighbor, because those don't prove anything about free education or social programs specifically.

So where does the Bible say that we must give free education from the government to everyone? Nowhere. Where does the Bible say, though, that we must insist that the government confiscate money from people so that we can use that money in order to pay everyone's medical bills?

Where? Again, it says that exactly zero times. Here's another question. Where does the Bible say that the ideal way to help poor people is the modern welfare state? Again, nowhere. So should we help the less fortunate with our time and our resources?

Of course we should. But we can do this through churches and charities, rather than through forced taxation and social programs. Hebrews 13, 16 says, Do not neglect to do good and share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

It is clear that Christian unity is sharing what you have. Leftist charity is sharing the tax money that others have. That's a big difference. The position of conservative Christians is not that we should never help people after they're born.

That's ridiculous. Nobody believes that. Rather, it is a disagreement on the exact method by which we help people. So if Mike Thomas is suggesting on the basis of these kinds of implications, these kinds of arguments, that we're just pro-birth and not pro-life, that is slanderous and absurd.

All of his statements are just popular talking points of progressive and woke Christians, and none of them work out biblically, none of them work out logically. We must know how to respond to these things, because they are deceiving our brothers and sisters in Christ under the guise of compassion.

So I pray this has been a blessing to you, and please know this. I do not offer any of this correction from a high and mighty position. I am nothing but a wretched sinner, saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.

So let's pray for Mike Thomas, that he would stop this false teaching, and by God's grace, that he would turn to the truth of God's Word. Thank you so much for watching that video. Please give us a like and subscribe so that you don't miss any content.

Also, don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel as well, just in case YouTube ever takes us down. The link is in the description. And before you go, take a look at this list here. These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support.

Today's highlighted channel supporter is David WB. If you also want to help and become part of the solution today, hit the link in the description. Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely here on the channel.

So I hope you'll consider joining the Truth Army today. And until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open. Thank you and God bless.