While the pro-life position is widely associated with Bible-believing Christians, there are actually professing Christians who identify as pro-choice. In fact, one of my pro-life colleagues was speaking at a church in Michigan when, to his shock, he learned that the pastor had recently taken up an offering to help one of the young ladies in the church get an abortion. How can this be?

A pro-life colleague in Charlotte, North Carolina told me that he knew an abortion doctor in the city who gave a tenth of her earnings to her local church. In her mind, she was doing God’s work.

In that same spirit, Breitbart reports that, “Several left-wing, pro-abortion activist groups led by so-called ‘clergy’ are ramping up their efforts to make sure women can abort their unborn children, including transporting them to states where abortionists are still operating.”

In the words of Katie Zeh, a pastor and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, “It’s so central to our faith to care for people, so it’s no surprise that clergy [prior to Roe v. Wade] were part of the group helping people get abortion care.”

When we look to the Scriptures, it is clear that the Bible describes the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is a child with potential life and destiny ahead, not a clump of cells. So, the pro-life position is easily deduced from the pages of the Bible.

But when we look to writings of the early Church leaders, their condemnation is even more direct and forceful. And remember: this was without the visual evidence of ultrasounds and without today’s massive improvements in fetal viability. Still, they recognized abortion for the evil that it is.

One of the earliest Church writings from outside the New Testament is the Didache, also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve,” as if going back directly to the twelve apostles.

It states, “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2).

Both abortion and infanticide were prohibited, regardless of what the rest of the culture practiced. Such was the counter-culture mentality of the Church, being transformed by the Word rather than conformed to the world (see Romans 12:1-2).

Another important source from the early Church is the Letter of Barnabas. It mirrors the Didache, stating, “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19). It’s a baby inside the womb and a baby outside the womb.

Writing towards the end of the second century, Tertullian said, “In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8).

Skipping ahead 200 more years, to the end of the fourth century, Jerome wrote, “Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13).

And this is just a sampling of the statements of these Church leaders, for whom abortion was a deeply sinful practice. In the words of John Chrysostom, also in the late fourth century, abortion is “murder before the birth.”

In fact, David Bercot, in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, listed more than 20 relevant quotes under the heading of Abortion/Infanticide, indicating how these Church leaders saw abortion and infanticide as two sides of the same coin. (Note that infanticide was widely practiced in the ancient world, with parents leaving unwanted infants outdoors to be killed by animals or nature.)

The amount of citations gathered by Bercot also points to the importance of the topic for these Christian leaders, the earliest of whom were the disciples of the apostles.

For those of you reading this article who have had abortions or participated in an abortion, it is understandable that these quotations sting deeply. At the same time, there is mercy and forgiveness and healing and restoration at the cross. And if you confess your sin to God and cry out for mercy and grace, the blood of Jesus will cleanse you – thoroughly, completely, and eternally. And this includes the sin of abortion.

And to every Christian leader who claims to find biblical support for your abortion-supporting position, I leave you with the words of Jesus: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

When those babies in the womb – the ultimate “little ones” – are being destroyed, their angels are looking right into the face of the heavenly Father. You will answer to Him on that final Day.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

In light of being accused of “intolerance” and “bigotry” on IFI’s Facebook page by purportedly tolerant and unbigoted “progressives,” I think some clarification of the meaning of tolerance and bigotry is in order. And while I’m at it, I’ll say a little sumpin’ sumpin’ about anger—again.

Save this. You may need it.

The first definition of “tolerance” in the Oxford English Dictionary is “the action or practice of enduring pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring.” Another definition is “the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “tolerate” as “to put up with.”

Note, that none of the definitions mentions approval, affirmation, or celebration. Nor do they  mention an obligation to refrain from expressing moral propositions with which someone else may disagree. If intolerance meant expressing moral views someone else doesn’t like, then wouldn’t “progressives” be equally guilty of intolerance?

Note too the qualifier “undue.” Someone who judges conduct to be immoral is not guilty of intolerance even if the judgment is severe. Only if it’s unduly severe is one guilty of intolerance. Leftists aren’t faulting conservatives for “undue severity” of judgment. They’re faulting conservatives for making any negative judgments about homosexual acts, cross-dressing, and other efforts to conceal one’s sex.

A “bigot” according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary refers to a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral.

In addition, the word “obstinacy” in the definition of “bigot” warrants some discussion. First, “obstinate,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary, connotes “unreasonable rigidity.” I would argue that conservative views on homosexuality are completely reasonable, and that conversely, liberal views are woefully unreasonable.

In order to determine whether a tenaciously held conviction reflects obstinacy requires an evaluation of the content of the belief and the justifications for that belief. For example, very few would characterize the act of consistently, tenaciously, unrelentingly, and enduringly, holding the belief that infantilism, pedophilia, polyamory, genocide, racism, or female genital mutilation is wrong to be a manifestation of obstinacy or bigotry. Rather, holding unwaveringly to the moral conclusions that these behaviors are wrong represents legitimate and essential moral judgment.

Moreover, “obstinate” cannot be severed from the other parts of the definition. Bigotry is the obstinate devotion to uninformed or unintentional inclinations, especially ones that result in hatred of members of a particular group.

As such, moral views, even negative views, informed by reading diverse resources and thoughtful deliberation do not constitute bigotry.

Further, a bigot not only holds uninformed opinions but “regards or treats the members of a group… with hatred and intolerance.” Certainly, there are those in society who demonstrate this kind of behavior—including homosexual and “trans” activists—but any who have truly submitted their lives to Christ, do not treat anyone with hatred.

I, like countless other theologically orthodox Christians, not only do not treat people who self-identify as homosexual or “trans” with hatred or intolerance, but I also do not feel any hatred for them. My beliefs about homosexual conduct in no way diminish the love I feel for those who self-identify as homosexual or “trans,” the respect I have for their admirable qualities, the pleasure I take in their company, or the recognition I have of their infinite worth.

I do, however, often feel anger that adults are promoting body- and soul-destroying lies as truth to children. And I thank God for this proper feeling toward such iniquity.

In an article in Touchstone Magazine on “the Integration of Anger into the Virtuous Life,”  Dr. Leon Podles argues that “Christians have a false understanding of the nature and role of anger. It is seen as something negative, something that a Christian should not feel.”

This false understanding infects the church and prevents it from being salt and light in a fallen, suffering world, and that renders the church complicit in the destruction of countless lives.

He expresses what should be obvious: we should “feel deep anger at evil, at the violation of the innocent, at the oppression of the weak.”

Podles describes the suppression of hatred and anger as “emotional deformation” and exhorts the church to remember that “growth in virtue,” which must include the integration of “all emotions, including anger and hate,” is the “goal of the Christian’s moral life.”

Dr. Podles quotes Catholic psychiatrist Conrad Baars who had been a prisoner under the Nazi regime:

‘[T]here is a difference between a person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed and the one who in addition also feels hate for the evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.’

How often do we hear in our churches anything akin to the idea expressed by early church father John Chrysostom:

‘He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.’

Wouldn’t the church and society look very different if they embodied Dr. Podles’ conviction that “sorrow at evil without anger at evil is a fault.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/eftists-Have-Intolerance-and-Bigotry-All-Wrong.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.