How to Stay Relevant with an Irrelevant Message

Getting deeper, farther, and yes, into more complex theology will
be more helpful than diving to the bottom of all the troubles of
the average high schooler.

The quest for relevance consumes us all. Nobody wants to be the one out of the loop on what everyone's talking about. At a party sports-haters learn enough about the playoffs so they can name drop like they just checked TSN, the IMDB reminds of that actress who was just in that movie, and in the church we love to analyze the 'issues of today' before we address our listeners. Sit down with a youth pastor and talk about the New Reformed movement or dispensationalism, and you've lost him, but starting talking about dealing with depressions, and he's right with you, remembering that phrase he's been repeating to his youth over the last year, 'breathe deep, smile and keep dancing.' If you were to make a list of everything you thought teens were struggling with today – pornography, cutting, depression...you'll have just made the sermon topic list for the last month at the average city church youth meeting. And who can blame them? No one wants to put their audience to sleep.

This is a far-cry difference from the fiery baptist preachers we remember from fifty years ago who strode into the pulpit with a big Bible, booming voice and an opinionated stance on deep theological issues that caused arguments, church divisions and a host of bitter feelings. But perhaps it is this 'deeper theology' and not the work to be relevant that is going to help us address our issues. All the psychologists and counselors in the world might have great advice but for all their years of experience, they have nothing to compare to Scripture, which is, “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

This means that even the most well targeted talks to the most relevant of issues will never be as profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, or for training in righteousness as some old-fashioned Biblical theology. You want to give your young people something that meets them right where they're at? Give them something real. Give them something living. Give them something sharper than a two edged sword that pierces to the division of joint and marrow. Getting deeper, farther, and, yes, into more complex theology will be more helpful than diving to the bottom of all that troubles the average high schooler. Discipleship means bringing them further in, not coming out to where they are.

I think of the words of Charles Spurgeon,

“I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love.”

It's a weighty encouragement written in layman's terms, but rooted in theology. Working with someone trapped in depression, self-loathing or looking for love? Here's a Calvinistic exegesis of Ephesians 1 that answers their questions. He's writing on the doctrine of election with an understanding of human depravity. It's all those daunting subjects you looked at in seminary but never thought of teaching your teens. It's the kind of Biblical theology they need.

So the next time someone starts talking Hollywood and you have to google that actor, don't worry, we're all irrelevant on some subject. But when your young people wander up to you with scars three feet deep, wrapped in baggage and shame. Don't start talking about scars, baggage or shame. Reach for your Bible. Talk about what God says about God. Talk about what God says about us. Talk about how exactly the cross works and why. When depression hits, 'He predestined us for adoption' (Eph 1:5) will be a far better rock to stand on than 'breathe deep, smile and keep dancing.'

Interested in more?

Several months ago on this blog we wrote about the correct way to deal with self-esteem issues.

You can check that out here.

How to Live In Peace With Others

For most people 'turning the other cheek' would be easier for a physical attack than an emotional or verbal one. It is a natural human instinct to retaliate, to defend ourselves, to justify our decisions. Unity is a necessity - we are to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit” (Eph 4:3). Yet when someone brings an accusation against us that strikes too close to home – they accuse our personal work, our ministry, our families – we leap to arms to defend our decisions.

We just celebrated Easter, and I see something fascinating in Jesus' actions before he went to the cross. As He is accused He is 'silent' (Mark 14:61). As He is beaten, He says not a word. As He is mocked, He gives no response. I think there is something for us to learn in all of this.

I'm sure you can well picture the tense and awkward moment in the church service as an elder carefully explains to the congregation why they chose to excommunicate a member. Someone in the third row leaps to their feet, shouting about grace and love and wanting anyone who wanders in off the street to feel accepted. The elder turns red and begins to stammer an explanation and thumb quickly for Corinthians to defend his position. In the same spot, we would doubtless all do the same – try to explain, to reason, to justify to correct – most quickly when we know the accuser is incorrect.

But this isn't what Jesus did. He bowed his head, He listened, and “he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed” (Mat 27:14). Why? Because Jesus is the 'Prince of Peace' (Isa 9:6) and conflict requires two sides. If we were to open His mouth, He would have started a war. Now, Jesus was no stranger to conflict (overturning tables), and I certainly don't stand for ministers allowing their doctrine to be trampled. There's a time to fight, but here's the bottom line – the easiest way to avoid conflict is usually to shut your mouth. To give no response. To listen.

And sometimes, and this is the hardest part – you'll have to issue an apology for something that you weren't in the wrong for. And why is that so hard? Because humility is hard. But every good leader will find at some point or another that being a good leader means taking the flack and backlash not only for their own decisions, but for those that they are leading. Which means shutting our mouths, biting our tongues, listening and humbly accepting blame that shouldn't be ours. And isn't that exactly what Jesus did?

Shutting our mouths, biting our tongues
listening and humbly accepting blame...
Isn't that exactly what Jesus did?

We look to our Savior the one of whom it was written, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth” (Isa 53:7). The accusations against Jesus were false, unjustified and from men whose wicked hearts He could clearly see.

So often a pastor must look to the Prince of Peace as he hears a list of unjustified criticisms towards his church. The worship leader must follow the Lamb's example as he hears all the problems with his music style. The congregation member must mimic to the Son of God before Pilate in order to maintain unity among brothers. The Christian in the work force must remember Jesus stripped and beaten as he listens to the mocking laugh of his coworkers.

Silent, cheek turned, the Christian experiences perhaps the most practical example of having a crucified self as He looks to His Savior's model of humility.

The Cross is All that Matters

Twisted and mangled corpses hung, lining the road on either side as Paul entered the city, pen in hand. Crosses stretched in every direction along Rome's famous roadways, reminding people not to lie, steal or murder lest they suffer the same.

Paul sat down and began to pen the words of his letter, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing,” (1 Cor 1:18) we must remember how familiar (and disgusted) his readers were with crucifixion. Historical accounts suggest many roads were lined with thousands of crucifixions. Men were beaten beyond recognition, often with tongues cut out, hanging above piles of their own waste as they took days to die. For all the crucifixions that took place, very little is actually written about crosses – it seems to be too vulgar, too repulsive a subject for good citizens to pay any regard to. No one wanted to hear about it.

It's no surprise then, that Paul says, “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). I don't understand much about literature, but I know that this is not how you want to present your hero – identified with criminals, ridiculed by the masses and then hung naked to die. Yet Paul sees no other message of equal importance but “decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). He was “not ashamed” (Rom 1:16), but “the gospel I preached to you” which was “of first importance” was that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1-3) and “we have now been justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9). Paul had no issue with talking about the offence of the cross, but he came to preach it simply (1 Cor 1:17), without removing its offence (Gal 5:11) and boasted only in the cross (Gal 6:14).

Why then, would we have the right to preach on anything else? There is no gospel without a cross. There is no salvation without the propitiating penal substitution of the man on the tree. I do not know how many times I have heard a message in a church that did not include a description of the cross and seen people invited to 'accept the gospel of Jesus.' Dear friends, a gospel without a cross is no gospel at all.

The cross is at the centre of our message, regardless of what people want to hear. You can preach on love, forgiveness, self-esteem, freedom from cutting, pornography, depression, anxiety, God's work in cultural transformation, social justice, or the end times, but if the cross is not at the centre of your message, you have presented no gospel at all. As Greg Gilbert once put it,

“If you preach a sermon, or write a chapter on the good news of the kingdom, but neglect to talk about the cross, you've not preached good news at all. You've just shown people a wonderful thing that they have no right to be a part of because they are sinners.”¹

It's like this – you see a man step into a church for the first time harbouring a lot of resentment, so much so that his life is being consumed, his health wavers, his hair is falling out. So you stand up and Sunday and preach about the freedom of forgiving others - about letting go of bitterness. Just stop and consider – why do we forgive others? “Forgiving one another, as Christ in God forgave you” (Eph 4:32). What enables us to forgive? “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience...those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh” (Gal 5:24). Why do we forgive? Because he forgave us. How do we forgive? By identifying with his death. You see? You preach to an unsaved man about forgiveness but do not mention the cross, you have invited him to be a part of something he has no part in.

The cross is the only way into the kingdom. We happen to live in a day when people do not want to hear about a wrath-absorbing substitution on a tree. That doesn't mean we look for other ways to entice people further into church culture or Christian living. The cross remains as the only way into the kingdom. Preach it proudly – it offended Paul's listeners too.

“But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Gal 6:12)

1. Don't Call it a Comeback. DeYoung, Kevin p. 78

Why Your Church Should Keep its Name

When an evangelism minded Arminian
can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why
should he stop in?

 The worst part about being a younger sibling is inheriting someone else' reputation. Other youngest children will relate to this – walking into high school and the teacher saying, “Oh you're a Deane? I expect you to get an A in this class.” It's the shadow-drowning shoe-filling everyone dreads – being compared, for better or worse, to someone else. Churches are no different, and there has been an upswing in recent years of churches removing 'Baptist,' 'Methodist,' or other affiliations from their name. It's the same simple logic - 'don't want to ride the bad reputation of Bible-thumpers in days gone by.' For better or for worse, no one wants to be judged by their name.

Here we will examine the three most common reasons for becoming non-denominational – reputation in the community, a history of fighting over doctrinal differences, and disunity between churches - and defend denominationalism.

'The denominational name affects our reputation.'

“My neighbour doesn't want to come to church with me, he says he was badly treated once at a Baptist church.” We can all appreciate the logic of this thought, but does removing 'Baptist' from your name solve the problem? As long as you have 'church' in your name you'll encounter the same problem. Remove 'church' from your name and you'll lose all the people who love church and are searching for a home.

And what about people with theological convictions? Men and women who know their Bibles and know exactly where they stand – these are the kind of people you want in your church. When an evangelism minded Arminian can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why should he stop in?

If you want to have a church that's worth attending, you're going to offend people. And if you don't do it with the sign on your front lawn, you'll certainly do it with all the things the sign stands for.

'Holding to a denomination means owning a history of petty doctrinal fights.'

This is a common reason for a name switch, and with good reason. No one wants to be labelled as Bible thumpers just because their grandparents were. But just because theological issues cause debate and heated feelings doesn't mean they aren't important. Being 'one body' (1 Cor 12:12) that is to 'all be one' (John 17:21) means to 'work out salvation' (Php 2:12) together. Since working out salvation means discussing (for example) what role God plays in the process, and the last 500 years hasn't found consensus on the issue, disagreement among God's people should be expected.

Do you see the value of the Luther's Reformation? Do you see the value of the fundamentalist fight in the 1900s to reestablish the Bible as God's inspired word? Then you see the value of holding convictions. All it means to have a denominational name on your front lawn is to tell the world what your churches convictions are. Saying 'we are the Neighbourhood Christian and Missionary Alliance' is like saying, 'we are evangelical and value sanctification and the work of the Spirit, world missions and servanthood.' While saying 'Neighbourhood Church' is like saying 'we might still be Catholic, you never know.' To be denominationless is to be (in appearance) convictionless.

Depending on your church, it's likely that men and women died to hold a belief you now see as petty. Read your church history and unless your Pentecostal or Lutheran, you'll probably find Anabaptist roots. The Anabaptists were slaughtered in droves. Why? They baptized adults. They aren't the only martyrs and it's not the only issue. Historical disunity among denominations has almost never been over something petty – it's usually an issue someone gave their life for. Throwing away a denomination means throwing away the blood-stained work of God-fearing intelligent and convicted men before you.

'Being of a certain school of thought affects the unity of our church.'

Individuals need to explore theology at a deeper lever, form opinions, and present their opinions – not to tear down other thought but to edify the church. If you are so grace driven you don't see the value of repentance, and I am so works driven I don't see the value of faith, then in the proper format, we would do well learning from each other. If individuals need it, why not churches? Arguing is of no benefit, but neither is entrenching behind walls of opinion. Open discussion is very valuable among evangelicals who agree on the fundamental issues (authority of Scripture, grace through faith, etc.).

As Jeremiah Burroughs once taught, it is unrealistic to expect that issues that have been debated for two thousand years will be able to be sorted out now. Furthermore, it is unwise to dismiss these 'secondary issues' as unimportant. People must continue to hold opinions on matters that do not pertain to salvation (politics, eschatology, etc.) because to be forced to believe otherwise on these issues would be to violate one's conscience. No single church structure can represent the true body of Christ, but rather, independent churches ought to be striving together to fully live out the Word of God. This means denominations working together toward a common goal, while being open to one another's critiques of their means. When there is open dialogue about the means a church uses to pursue the common goal, there is the greatest opportunity for unity among diverse people.

A better solution is not to remove from the churches the name which offends, but use the differing opinions as a starting point for edifying theological insight. If the left-wing churches could create compromising debate with the right-wing churches we would be less likely to become extremists. I'm not talking about universalism, I'm talking about profitable clergy meetings among evangelical leaders.

Conclusion

If no one had convictions, no one could debate. If we weren't allowed to take sides on issues that have been the centre of hot discussion for thousands of years, we wouldn't be able to explore the character of God, the meaning of the cross, the process of salvation – everything important would be unoffensive, convictionless and bland. Theological issues need to have sides – and open conversations between those sides. Hiding which side you're on only makes your church attractive until someone walks through your door.

The Problem of Pro-Life (pt. 3 - The Solution)

After yesterday's post we were left with the conclusion that provocative pro-life propaganda  promotes much anger but little change. But does making people mad and producing few results mean that something is wrong? The Bible speaks of many men whose preaching never produced many results – Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Christ Himself. Paul speaks in many places about offending

people by preaching the truth (Galatians 4:16). It is not ethically wrong to offend people with the truth. The issue with the pro-life movement is that people are not being offended by the truth, but by the style of presentation. From a Biblical ethical standpoint, it should be the mandate of pro-lifers to conduct themselves in such a manner that the truth of their preaching is the only offence of their ministry. When non-believers look at pro-life Christians they should see Christ, and His love for the unborn – not hypocritical, unloving slogans.

I. The Hypocrisy of pro-lifers

Why is pro-life propaganda received with such anger and disgust? Primarily because pro-lifers are not known for practicing what they preach, and this is noticed by unbelievers. The church must be consistent on all levels of its doctrine. Sister Joan Chittister, a nun, once said,

“I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.”¹

It is true that many Christians are simply seeking the birth of the baby and not its health and care. A popular pro-life slogan is 'adoption, not abortion,' yet many Christians who preach this message have never adopted. “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27). The Canadian equivalent of an orphan is a foster child or child in need of adoption. If believers are not adopting, fostering, or supporting those that do, it is hypocritical for them to be proclaiming to women that adoption is a viable option. The average pregnant mother actually feels as though adoption is worse than abortion because they have fears of many things such as child abuse.² Pro-lifers must first prove to the world that adoption is the best option for both the mother and child. And this must be done in practice, not in speech. Preaching 'adoption not abortion' is of little value when it comes from the mouth of those who have done nothing to make sure adoption a worthwhile option.

II. Love and truth – the mandates of the New Testament

Pro-lifers speak about the importance of 'shocking visuals' ³ and their ads are often described as 'offensive' and 'upsetting.'⁴ However, the Bible never speaks about shocking people into a right way of living. The Bible talks about “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Shocking pro-life ads are often not preaching the truth in love, but simply throwing grisly facts about unborn children, rather than addressing the woman with a difficult decision to make.⁵ The New Testament model of spreading 'good news' – whether the good news of the gospel or the good news of the value of life – is to speak the truth in love. John Piper once wrote, “instruction is not the goal, love is. Instruction is the means. It is subordinate. Truth serves love...Love aims at truth...There is an unloving way to speak the truth. That kind of truth-speaking we should repudiate. But there is a way to speak the truth in love, and that we should seek.”⁶ The goal of Christian pro-lifer is not to shock people or to fruitlessly throw facts in their face. It is not enough to merely educate people on pro-life values. The goal of the Christian is to speak the truth – that abortion is wrong – in love.

III. Love

It must be first of all within the heart of a pro-lifer to love those they are ministering to. It is not right to merely hate abortion, but one must also love those whose minds they desire to change. “If I have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1). It has often been the mindset of pro-lifers that if they can prove that the fetus is a baby, the public's natural conclusion will be that killing babies is wrong. However, one of the national leaders in research, an organization that has worked for companies such as General Motors and Coca-Cola, has conducted studies that disagree. The study suggests that unplanned motherhood represents a threat so great, it is almost perceived as a death of self. Most young women's identity is so wrapped around getting a degree or having a good job that they feel a baby would end their life. An average pregnant mother does not, therefore, look at abortion as 'endure an embarrassing pregnancy' versus 'getting an abortion.' Rather they view it at as the 'death of the baby' versus 'the death of me.'⁷ Loving these women, therefore, does not begin with preaching to them about the death of fetuses. It begins with teaching that their is more to life than having a degree and getting a job. Loving a pregnant mother means showing them how they can live life with a child. Randy Alcorn feels one of the most important roles a pro-lifer can play is to open their home to a pregnant mother, or for foster care and adoption.⁸ It is imperative that we love the mothers we are ministering to more than the truth we are preaching. Pro-lifers must understand who their audience is, how they think, what is most beneficial to them, and communicate the pro-life cause with a love that speaks to people where they are at. “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5). It is the moral imperative of the church to love those to whom they preach.

IV. Offense By Truth Alone

Loving people is not the end of ministry, nor does loving people mean hesitating to preach a message that people don't want to hear. Piper writes, “[Love] is not always a soft way to speak, or Jesus would have to be accused of a lack of love in dealing with some folks in the Gospels. But it does ask about what is the most helpful thing to say when everything is considered.”⁹ Love does not mean holding back the truth, but rejoices when truth is given (1 Corinthians 13:6). The Biblical mandate is to present truth. In the pro-life case, it is the Biblical mandate to stand up for the oppressed and those without a voice. “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9). The truth about abortion must be made known among the public. However, it is the truth, and not the style of presentation that must be what offends people.

Paul understood this. “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3). Paul has made it clear throughout his other epistles that he is very opposed to circumcision. But for the sake of Timothy's reputation among the Greeks, he had him circumcised. Paul is already in danger of being thrown out of synagogues. If he is going to be thrown out, he wants to be thrown out because of the gospel, and not because of an easily resolved issue. Circumcision will not be what offends people about Timothy – the cross will be. This is Paul's approach to presenting truth, and this should be the approach of the pro-lifers as well.

If people are turned away from pro-life material by the picture on the front of the pamphlet or the style of presentation, they will never hear the truth. They are like Jews offended by Timothy's Greek father before they even hear his message. We can not be ashamed of the truth, even though we know truth will cause people to stumble (1 Corinthians 1:23). However, it must be the truth, and not our presentation of the truth that offends people. When Paul and Timothy came to the Jews, all that angered them was the gospel, and this must be how the pro-life position is.

V. Is it the Church's Job to Preach Pro-Life?

Many Christians do not want to mention abortion, for fear it will distract them from the Great Commission.¹⁰ Christians are meant to be going and making disciples – is the pro-life cause part of the Great Commission or a distraction from it? First of all it must be understood that looking after the marginalized is not the chief mission of the church – the chief mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel. As was previously mentioned, it is Biblically commanded to “defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 38:9). We can not either undersell or oversell the Biblical importance of looking after the marginalized. A church must not ignore the pro-life issue, but neither must it have social justice as its only focus. One example often looked to is William Carey. “Carey went to India to win people to Christ and to disciple them, not just by sharing the gospel, but by living it – which included intervening to save lives and labouring to change public opinion and evil laws.”¹¹ Carey fought to end the burning of widows in India, and the church of Canada ought to be working towards the end of the injustices within its own proximity. That being said, if the pro-life efforts of a church is calling its members to will require fifty hours in a day and more money than one man can earn, they are calling their members to more than the Bible does.¹² Does the pro-life cause distract from the Great Commission? No, it is a part of it. But only a part – not an all consuming task. Great men of God in the past have always been concerned about the welfare of those that are not able to protect themselves.

“John Wesley actively opposed slavery. Charles Finney had a major role in the illegal Underground Railroad, saving the lives of many slaves, while being criticized by fellow Christians because of his civil disobedience. D.L. Moody opened homes for underprivileged girls, rescuing them from exploitation. Charles Spurgeon built homes to care for elderly women and to rescue orphans from the streets of London. Amy Carmichael intervened for the sexually exploited girls of India, rescuing them from temple prostitution. She built homes, a school and a hospital.”¹³

Yet for each of these people, no one would argue that their main goal was the gospel, and their chief role was as a disciple-maker. This is to be the position of the church. The church's chief aim is to spread the gospel. Speaking for aborted babies, loving pregnant women and seeking healing for those who have gone through with abortions should all fall into line with this chief aim. The great commission will be fulfilled as people are loved.

1Ellsworth (2012), on-line document.

2Swope (1998), on-line document.

3O'Connor, on-line document.

4Hounsel (2013), on-line document.

5Swope (1998), on-line document.

6Piper (2000), on-line document.

7Swope (1998), on-line document.

8Alcorn (2004), p. 116.

9Piper (2000), on-line document.

10Alcorn (2004), p. 108.

11Alcorn (2004), p. 110.

12DeYoung/Gilbert (2011), p. 192.

13Alcorn (2004), p. 110 - 111.

The Problem of Pro-Life (pt. 2 - Does It Work?)

 Violent, graphic images are considered the norm of pro-life material. Very little is said in news articles or on social media sites about any other form of pro-life literature. It seems that the graphic images leave the most lasting impression on the public. But are they ethically right? Is this the loving and Biblical way to promote the pro-life agenda? Many would argue that it does not matter that these images offend, as long as they save lives. Randy Alcorn writes,

“Animal rights advocates argue that in order to make their case they must show terrible photographs, such as baby seals being clubbed to death. If there's a place to look at such pictures, isn't there a place to look at pictures of abortions? And if abortion isn't killing babies...then why are these images so disturbing? Was the solution to the Holocaust to ban the disgusting pictures? Or was the solution to end the killing? Is the solution to abortion getting rid of pictures of dead babies? Or is it getting rid of what's making the babies dead?”¹

This statement expresses the feelings of most who would distribute similar violent pro-life material. If this is the fact of abortion, why not distribute it? As one author writes, “To many pro-choice advocates, the imagery is revolting propaganda...While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts.”² Their argument is built on the assumption that presenting pictures of biological facts will change the minds or open the eyes of people who would otherwise get an abortion.

If, in fact graphic posters brought an end, or even a significant change to the number of abortions in the area they were distributed, then one would be forced to conclude that this is is an effective way to promote the pro-life agenda. But if, in fact, it is found that shocking and offensive pro-life ads do not alter the number of abortions performed in an area, then one must conclude that they are needlessly angering individuals.

II. Does propaganda work?

How effective is propaganda? Will eye-catching pro-life ads actually serve to change the mind of the public? Propaganda posters played a huge role in World War II, affecting people's emotions and how they viewed the war. Posters in the countries of both the axis and the allies made war look glamourous, and hard work necessary.³ Pictures were used, because pictures are known to be more effective than words. People might forget a newspaper article they read, but most will remember a picture.⁴ The catholic church spends millions each year on printed material with a pro-life message, because they believe it is a way of assuring that the pro-life position is not buried in the middle of a newspaper.⁵

But research suggests that graphic pro-life posters, unlike WWII propaganda, are not being effective. This is primarily because American women of child-bearing age do not typically view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as pro-life activists.

“Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework, and we have presented our arguments accordingly. This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause.”⁶

Gallup polls indicate that since 1994, the public's opinion on abortion has hardly changed at all, despite the increase in pro-life advertising.⁷ Pro-life protesters are operating on the assumption that people prone to get abortions will see and feel what they see and feel when they look at a certain picture. Randy Alcorn feels that all that is needed to defeat the pro-choice argument is a picture of what inside the womb – even an ultrasound will do. “All arguments vaporize in the face of the unborn child.”⁸ Yet even he acknowledges that “denial remains surprisingly strong,” and writes of how many refuse to believe they are looking at real photographs.⁹ As was noted in my last post, many news articles from across the country report shock and outrage from families receiving pro-life material. It is clear that the most prominent ways of communicating the pro-life cause have angered and not converted the public, because they appeal to the moral framework of the wrong people. In conclusion, pro-life propaganda at first seems like an effective way to spread the word, but in practice proves to be almost entirely fruitless.

Therefore, most pro-life material is unethical. It is fruitless, and only serves to anger those it reaches. It does not love the pregnant mother who it speaks to or protect the child in her womb, but gives a needlessly foul reputation to all pro-lifers. Much like the preacher on the corner of a street with a 'repent or go to hell' sign, pro-life material blinds the eyes of the masses in an attempt to catch the eye of one or two in a million. It is unethical for pro-lifers to attempt to shock an incredibly small percentage of women out of an abortion when they could have used their time and effort to show a true love to a larger percentage of the masses.

1Alcorn (2004), p. 47.

2Wolf (1995), on-line document.

3Hoyt (2008), on-line document.

4Helfland (2012), on-line document.

5O'Connor, on-line document.

6Swope (1998), on-line document.

7Saad (2002), on-line document.

8Alcorn (2004), p. 42.

9Alcorn (2004), p. 43.

The Problem of Pro-Life (The Perception)

There is almost no topic in North America that stirs up more controversy than abortion. The pro-life movement has gathered supporters and enemies both in the church and outside of the church. Gallup polls indicate %55 of Americans hold a very strong opinion, one way or the other, on the issue.¹ It is the responsibility of the church to preach truth and to be a voice for the oppressed. Many pro-life organizations have distributed and displayed graphic and offensive propaganda in an attempt to raise awareness on the issue. This pro-life promotion has received angry and negative responses from the public.

Over the next few days, I will be releasing a series of posts examining the ethical way to promote the pro-life movement. This series is written on the assumption that abortion is ethically wrong and contrary to God's Will – it will not address the abortion debate. We will examine why there is such anger towards pro-lifers, whether scare tactics and shocking pictures are the ethical way to promote a cause, how the church can ethically promote the pro-life cause, and if this is a distraction from the Great Commission.

To Start Off -  How the Pro-Life movement is being perceived

A sampling of Pro-Choice propoganda

A quick search of social media sites reveals the hatred and anger felt towards those pushing pro-life beliefs. A simple search of terms such as 'abortion' or 'pro-life' on popular social media sites reveals a host of pictures, slogans and advertisements filled with hateful backlash being directed towards pro-³ Many others are directed right at pastors and churches, portraying them as ignorant, uneducated and obnoxious. For example, a picture of Noah's ark has the caption “God killed every pregnant woman and baby on earth. Abortion is bad though.”⁴ In fact, it would seem that pro-choice backlash against pro-lifers is aimed predominantly at Christians. Many include quotes from pastors or Bible verses. One cartoon sports a man who can not find a verse in the Bible against killing babies, but has another man quoting “their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up” (Hosea 13:16).⁵ One does not have to search far to discover that there is much hatred and anger against those who promote the pro-life case. Most of this hatred is directed specifically at politicians and Christians.

Responses to anti-abortion protests range
cynical to offensive. He is a sample of the
tamer backlash directed at the church.

lifers. Responses to anti-abortion protests range from cynical to downright offensive. Many contain language that reveals the deep hatred felt towards pro-lifers. In fact, very few comments directed at pro-lifers contain language that is entirely 'tasteful.' A large number of people express hatred towards the government, particularly the Republican Party, and its attempts to be involved in the debate. Many social media users have posted cynical or parodied quotes such as, “Don't use birth control. Don't have an abortion. But if you have a baby you can't afford, don't expect any help from us, you sl**. XOXO, - The GOP.”

The pro-life campaign has upset even some who are against abortion. In September 2013, CBC ran a news article about a woman in Hamilton, Ontario, who was left fuming after a citywide distribution of anti-abortion pamphlets. Pamphlets were delivered to her door containing pictures of mutilated fetuses, and these graphic images were only a part of the citywide campaign. Banners hung on highways, and trucks drove around sporting similar images. The article reads:

“'A child shouldn’t have to see pictures like that,' Cabral told CBC Hamilton. 'If I want to discuss that with my daughter I will – when it’s time.' Cabral says that she thinks many of the group’s methods – like demonstrating outside Hamilton schools – are just wrong.

'And I don’t believe in abortion,' she said. 'But I don’t think that has anything to do with it.

I know that a gun kills people, but you don’t have to fire a bullet at me for me to know that.'”⁶

And this woman isn't the only one – news articles from all over the country detail the shock and outrage of people receiving pro-life propaganda at their doorstep.⁷ Many people are offended by the pro-life campaigns, and specifically the graphic images they spread. The comments on these online news article reveal the a response from the public filled with the same hatred and anger towards pro-lifers that the social media websites revealed.⁸ People everywhere are outraged by the public display of pro-life propaganda. Whether in anger against intolerance, or anger against receiving pictures of dead babies at their door, many people, both pro-choice and pro-life feel that pro-life propaganda is wrong. This casts a dark light on the pro-life cause.

1Alcorn (2004), p. 16. Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers.USA, EPM Publishing, 2004.

2Randy Prine (2013), Tweet.

3The Daily Edge (2013), Tweet.

4Mrs. V. (2013), Tweet.

5Fuzzy Atheist (2013), Tweet.

6Carter (2013), on-line document. Anti-Abortion campaign has Hamilton mother fuming. September 27, 2013. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/anti-abortion-campaign- has-hamilton-mother-fuming-1.1870622 (accessed November 18, 2013).

7Woodward (2013), on-line document. “CTV British Columbia.” Anti-abortion postcard campaign over the edge? November 16, 2013. Available from: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/anti-abortion-postcard-campaign-over-the-edge- 1.1546766 (accessed November 19, 2013).

8Carter (2013), on-line document. (see 6)