Old and New Testament: God's Plan is the Same

 

I don’t think I cracked open much of the Old Testament, except for Psalm and Proverbs, as a kid.

Now I understand how important it is to see the nature of God through his people in the context of both covenants. The Bible is a story with God as the central figure. He creates and builds and causes us to flourish. We in turn get to tell of His character and redemption; we are fruitful and we multiply.

There is a tendency to see the Bible as two separate stories with different histories and different ideas about human nature. I had a professor once describe the Old Testament attitude of God versus the New Testament attitude. Clearly he thought the God of the Hebrews was a vindictive, petulant deity who was never satisfied. The New Testament God (in the person of Jesus) is a lovely creature, gentle and warm who goes around doing good.

 Even if I can understand the confusion, reading the Bible clears up the fogginess as some discover much later in life.

Admittedly I’ve learned much about the Old Testament from ministers who took time to explain how the covenant worked. God make a covenant with Abraham and much of the symbolic sacrifices point to a savior. Not to mention the prophecies that point to specific details in the life of Christ. I needed someone to show me, but hearing it caused me to seek out more detail about the Old Testament. The Law of Moses in Deuteronomy describes the Lord’s purpose for His children. None of it is frivolous or impossible. All serves a larger purpose for righteousness or good health or good order.

Prophesies about Jesus are the thread that connects Abraham’s promise to the savior of the world. 

The Jews didn’t see it then and many still don’t, but it’s human nature to not get the big picture. We don’t often see what God is doing because our perception is limited by culture and personal ability, even geopolitical realities of the day. I have to stop myself sometimes and ask “What are You doing in my life that I’m unaware of Lord?” But in order to ask that, we need to remove as much of our preconceived notions about life as we can. That’s tough to do.

The Jews thought the savior would be a political figure who would cast off the Roman government and return Israel to its greatness. In the same way we in America are hoping for the same thing, a return to political greatness and relative stability. I don’t think America’s best days are behind her, but we won’t recover anything without acknowledging the Creator of order and commerce and justice. That’s where we’ve missed it and I don’t think that’s even controversial anymore. But maybe God wants to do something different and better for the world than just making America the jewel in the crown (it has been no doubt).

America makes the world safe for democracy even now.

But maybe God wants a flourishing of a different kind. Instead of markets for commerce how about markets for ideas? Instead of another real estate bonanza where Target, Home Depot and Starbucks get to gobble up more space, how about one where locals trade goods and services? Maybe we’ll see a return to doctors doing house calls and caring for patients instead of writing scripts for every ailment.

I think we’ve all traded a little personal responsibility for comfort in some way.

I’m totally spit balling here. No one hates department stores or restaurants or hardware chains. It’s a model that’s worked well for a long time but so much is corrupted that’s it’s time for something new. Greed skews our perception about what money is for. Nearly all of the big companies in the world are owned by 2 or 3 conglomerates. We live with the illusion of choice. Those conglomerates buy each other’s stock and have a real interest in keeping the whole thing afloat. The dollar gets more worthless with every QE (Quantitative Easing) buying program the Fed goes on.

We will break free but not without some financial pain. Slave labor makes the products that fund corrupt governments and corrupt business leaders. I’m not just talking about China but everywhere. They’re in league together and they despise the God of the universe. You can tell by the music, movies and literature they promote. There is countless suffering that we aren’t even aware of because it’s hidden. I believe exposure is coming on a massive scale and it’s going to reset a lot of our priorities, both individual priorities and national ones.

The most important part of life right now is to humble ourselves and let God realign our priorities. We can’t know exactly how the next few years will unfold but I believe God’s people will become the leaders for a new age. It’s easy to see how globalism has failed and assume the opposite kind of reality will dominate the next few years. Instead of the flatness of globalism we get the peaks and valleys of small businesses—a return to a simpler time where producers lived next to consumers. But maybe not, God gave people creativity to design and build and flourish.

We might see a hybrid model of development that reduces barriers like globalism but retains a unique local character. Again, just spit balling.

What do the Old and New testaments and the story of Christ have to do with all of this trade talk? The common thread is God’s plan for humans remains to be fruitful and multiply. That hasn’t changed because when we follow that instruction we spread out the knowledge of the Creator like a fragrance and it goes on forever. God made a way to redemption for all time. Adam’s fall set in motion the coming of Christ to ‘fix’ that brokenness and restore us to the Creator.

The New Plan for Taiwan

 

An effort is underway to shore up support for the island Republic of Taiwan. The democratic West wants to make China realize that an attack would be costly. How much it would cost is up for debate.

 Last month some senators from France made an official visit, this month the European parliament did the same. Just yesterday some Republican lawmakers make the trip as well. They took a military aircraft from Manilla. In response to this 'disrespect' the Chinese navy sent a readiness patrol near the straits. It’s a show of force, an overwhelming demonstration of might.

China's been doing this with some regularity since 2020. In October of this year they flew 196 sorties around the island, a significant uptick since Trump left office. They flew a total of 320 sorties for all of last year. Military experts call this tactic “gray zone”. By flying close enough to Taiwan’s airspace but not engaging, they are playing a psychological game.

When this happens every day you either get used to it or lose your mind.

This uptick in sorties increases the chance of an incident from both sides. China might appreciate the chance to attack the island with everything they have. Maybe they’re hoping for an incident. In this swirling conflict just waiting to kick off, what does the US and Europe do? How do they gently apply pressure on the CCP while not letting Xi Jinping (Chairman of China) believe war with the US and Europe is imminent?

I think they’re doing it by flaunting China’s decrees and visiting Taiwan anyway.  

The one thing Beijing insists on is absolute authority over Taiwan. It’s why any country that has official relations with Taiwan is cut off diplomatically from Beijing. In the CCP’s opinion, it’s just another province that’s gone rogue not a separate country with an ambassador, an embassy and a flag. Only a handful of countries actually recognize Taiwan and most are small nations themselves like Belize and Haiti.

By risking Beijing’s ire and visiting the island they hope to send a signal to the CCP that they stand with Taiwan. They probably hope to make the Chinese think that they will be giving up a lot in the form of markets with an attack.

I have no idea if this will work but it’s worth a try. It’s similar to standing up to a bully by showing up in support of the weakling. It’s much better to find a larger bully and enlist him on your side. But that isn’t an option. So you do what you can with gestures.

 You aren’t sending transport planes full of soldiers. That would be more overt and dangerous. You are matching Beijing’s bravado with bravado and reminding them that Taiwan has friends.

Don’t think Xi Jinping hasn’t considered the cost of a full scale invasion. But what is the cost? The CCP would love to get their hands on the Taiwan’s leaders and imprison them for their ‘rebellion’. Until now that equation had to take into account the might of the United States and her expansive navy. The navy is of course still there but in the last 10 years the Chinese have strengthened their position in the South China Sea. They’ve drudged up sand bars and built make shift military bases in strategic spots.

It’s given them positions from which to patrol and attack enemies. It was much easier for the US to guard the oceans with battleships and cruisers when no one else had them. It’s a different calculus when the enemy has a respectable navy.

Expect to see more ‘unofficial’ visits from foreign dignitaries in the upcoming months.

 The idea is to get Beijing to reconsider an attack by showing how much they stand to lose. I don’t imagine any western power goes to war over Taiwan. But an incident in which Beijing could claim to be the victim would give democratic countries an excuse to ignore the whole problem. Imagine Taiwan’s air defense fires off a rocket at a passing bomber sparking a war. China could claim they were attacked. It’s weak I know, but it might be enough for western powers (like the US) to stay out of it.

The best situation for Taiwan is to keep a steady stream of visitors from the West. The only leverage they really have is making China believe an attack would force a break with the West. That would be devastating economically.

 

Reason for Optimism? Durham's Plan

 

This John Durham thing is really picking up steam. I’ll miss some of the details here but this is a complicated story. Worst of all it plays out over the course of 5 years, from 2016 to 2021, an insanely long time to wait. John Durham is the special prosecutor assigned by Trump AG Bill Barr in 2019. The purpose of which was to investigate the origins of the Trump Russian collusion hoax. By this point most regular Americans at least suspected the collusion was kind of bullshit.

I was an avid Rush Limbaugh listener since about 2004. He was on this since day 1. Looking back at everything that’s come out about the Steele Dossier recently I can see how right he was. I never doubted of course but it’s nice when it’s confirmed.

In 2017 the assistant AG Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller (former FBI director) to investigate the supposed collusion. Naturally they took close to 2 years to and found nothing really. Officially they found no collusion and didn’t charge Trump with obstruction, which they think probably happened. The details were so thin though. Don McGahn, a trump advisor, talked Trump out of firing Mueller during the investigation. That always gets pointed to as ‘evidence’ that Trump was obstructing justice. But nothing came of it. McGahn ignored Trump and treated it like a tantrum.

Mueller and his team knew there was no collusion pretty early on in the case but kept investigating anyway. The FBI led by James Comey was looking into allegations against the president from a dossier filled with embarrassing stuff. This was right after the election. Comey briefed Trump on the dossier, supposedly to let him know what kind of stuff was out there. He also ensured Trump that the FBI wasn’t investigating him over any of it. A lie as it turns out. Trump fired Comey which prompted the Mueller team to take over, looking into the same stuff.

The stuff from the dossier was opposition research for Hilary Clinton’s team. They put together a packet with salacious rumors from supposed insiders about Trump’s behavior in Russia. Christopher Steele compiled it from ‘former spies’ and intel types, another lie. The most damaging rumor was about Trump hiring prostitutes to pee on a Moscow bed that Obama had slept in. This story sounded designed to attract the attention of the public. Nothing gets attentions like titillating accounts. Then team Clinton peddled this nonsense to the FBI as legitimate intel.

The FBI used the dossier to get a FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) warrant and spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. There is more here to say about the spying on the campaign. But the bottom line is the Clinton campaign tried to set Trump up from the beginning and the deep state helped. I think the Obama White House helped too but that’s just speculation right now.

Now it looks like Durham might actually be putting a lot of this sordid affair right. I’ll refrain from being too excitable. Not because I’m a cynic but because too many of these wasteful investigations result in fines. When other Feds are charged with wrongdoing it takes years to inspect, millions of dollars to fund and they get a slap on the wrist. Agencies protect each other. But I won’t spoil the food while it’s still cooking though.  

John Durham arrested a fake Russian source hired by Christopher Steele just this last week. He indicted a lawyer (Sussman) who went to the FBI with information on Trump and Russia. They asked him if he was working on behalf of a campaign, he said no. That was a lie since his law firm was hired by Clinton.

There is a third recent one but I don’t remember who. Trump allies in Congress like Devin Nunes had tried telling the American people this collusion stuff was bogus. He was censured for it, or at least threatened to be censured. For two years the press ran with lie after lie about the dossier, collusion, obstruction of justice. Trump’s team were assaulted on all sides and need vindication in the worst way. So I’m hopeful that Durham gets some justice and lays down some serious punishment. But I’ve been here before. I was sure Trump would be reelected. He was actually. But the same people who lied about his Russia dealings stole it from him.

I say the same people meaning the deep state. I used to talk about them like they were separate entities, the press, the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department and so on. But it’s really one big incestuous family that helps each other out. I hope Durham is different, but like the Who says, We Won’t Get Fooled Again.

Review--Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Election

 

The Election of 2020 was Stolen and Everyone Knows It.

Mollie Hemingway is fearless.

 Her directness is refreshing in an industry that rewards spin. Officially she writes for the Federalist, but is a frequent guest on Fox News as an expert journalist. She’s a conservative reporter who doesn’t mind being labeled one. Probably because her work speaks for itself. Even the left wing Guardian took shots at her partisanship but said nothing of her sources or logic.  

The book contains almost 100 pages of endnotes, many with commentary. This was no small undertaking. Rigged shows how tech money and Democrat activists stole an election, and suppressed any mention of it. She retells much of the 2020 Covid lockdown year and the effort to remake voting along ‘safer’ lines. By throwing out, or just ignoring, restrictions on voter verification the fix was in.

Lockdowns Become the Excuse

Covid became the perfect chance to change laws en masse and push through sweeping election reforms. States like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan saw the largest changes. There isn’t enough space here to detail each state’s reckless disregard for using proper legal channels. The biggest steals were in vote by mail, signature verification, poll watching and a general loosening of standards.

 Mark Zuckerberg spread out over 400 million dollars through various non-profits to ‘aid’ in election safety. Dubbed Zuck Bucks, they funded a cottage industry of election shenanigans. 

The stated reason for the infusion of cash was to make sure elections “done in accordance with prevailing public health requirements”. The vast majority of money went to fund attorney fees for open record requests, salaries, laptops and other local hires for elections. Left wing groups like Power the Polls helped hire ballot curers. Curing is determining the intent of a voter on a disputed ballot. These are normally thrown out when in dispute. It’s an area ripe with fraud for good reason.

The problem with this outside money is it can overwhelm the normal, legal, function of election workers and election laws. That’s of course the point. Overwhelm the system and takeover the operation where possible. Private money isn’t necessarily new or unethical, but the scale and deployment points to why so much was spent on an election Democrats knew they’d likely lose.

Blame the Legal Team

In the second half, Hemingway blames Rudy Giuliani and his team of lawyers tasked with contesting the results in various states. If there is a weak point of the book it’s here.

 He focused on making public all the wrong items when other perfectly good strategies existed. Pennsylvania was the death knell for effective litigation of the election. According to Hemingway, there was an exceptionally good case for voters being denied equal protection. Mail in votes were being counted well after the statue strictly forbid it.

In challenge to this, the Pittsburg lawyers wanted to pursue the equal protection violation but Giuliani and crew focused on more sensational parts of the election. One particular poll watcher was denied entry, true but not as meaty. Rudy did a presser about it that rubbed some the wrong way. Some of the original Pittsburg lawyers were scared off the case by death threats. On top of that, the rest couldn’t agree with Rudy and his team and how the case should go. They asked to be dismissed from the case.

Uphill Battle

Hemmingway’s criticism is unfair here. I don’t remember the Trump team getting a lot of help in too many states. In fact most wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe Giuliani was abrasive and maybe they liked the sensational stuff because it meant the press would have to notice. Maybe they were sloppy and too concerned with optics. I’m not a lawyer but of all the cases anyone connected to Trump brought to court, how many were winners? As of February of this year, the times when it would have mattered, zero.

Am I supposed to believe this is all just Rudy and his bumbling legal team? No way. What about the Texas case to challenge Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court? SCOTUS wouldn't even hear the case because of "standing".

There has been very little courage from judges, elections commissions, and anyone tied to the voting process. Arizona has gone the farthest with its audit of Maricopa County. There is some evidence that Wisconsin might follow this same path. But I’m cynical. I think all this sudden ‘bravery’ is to shore up the suckers, the ones who haven’t said F*@K national elections.

It’s a way of saying “Hey guys, Republican official here. Gosh we’d love to do something about those pesky democrats and what they did in 2020. So vote for us and we’ll do what we can.” They’re dangling audit language like a string to a kitten and hoping we’ll chase it around. How do I know this? We’ve got an election coming up next year. You think they want to waste time with audits, recounts, litigation. Hell no. It’s time to raise money!

Don’t fall for it. You fix the fence then bring in the horses that escaped. They’re asking us to bring in the horses in while they work on the fence.  

Without real consequences for election theft, ballot tampering or any voter fraud we lose the ability to stop it. Justice Alito told Pennsylvania election officials to separate late arriving ballots after 8:00 on November 3^rd (election day). They didn’t. They counted them anyway. What’s been done about it? Nothing.

Conclusion

Pick any swing state you like from last year. Most of the same problems are there in bunches, no oversight, out of date voter rolls, election laws ignored, double counting, signature verification problems.

Rigged is a fascinating deep dive into election fraud, mismanagement and plan by the tech companies and the deep state to steal the election. If you’re skeptical about the claims of among right wing nuts like me, just read it. Her research and summary of events are impeccable.  

"Tulsa Run" and Done

 

I ran my first Tulsa Run today.

It’s a 15k that’s the city has held every year since 1978, minus one year. You know of course which year that was, 2020 the one where we collectively lost our minds. The race is popular with Tulsans because it’s just short of a half marathon but longer than a 5K. Why is that important? The 5K isn’t really a serious run. It’s the starting point for anyone who wants to start getting in shape. Most people can do a 5K even if it pushes them to their limits. If you can’t run the whole way then walk, it’s only 3.1 miles.

But a 15K requires at least some training. It’s 9.32 miles which isn’t nothing. Without at least some regular running this one would be tough. I didn’t think the distance would be a problem for me but I was concerned that I couldn’t keep a regular pace. I did slow up in the last half but I only lost 20 seconds or so per minute. The last half was hilly so that’s my excuse. I came in at 1:23:10 or roughly 8:55 per mile.

My regular runs are in the 9:45 per minute neighborhood so I was impressed. I do think my Fitbit is off by quite a lot though. Although I imagine racing a quicker pace than I practice, I don’t think I jumped up nearly a whole minute better. Adrenaline kicks in when others run near you. There is a comradery with others that motivates everyone to give a little more. Until regular blocks of joggers start passing you, that is, and you get mad. But yeah. . . I need a new Fitbit.

The weather was chilly but great for racing. My phone said 39 degrees just before I left. I stuck with shorts and a long sleeve Tee even though I knew it would be a cold wait. The alternative is to wear something you’ll wish you didn’t though, like gloves and pants. After a few miles you’ll want to discard them. I noticed runners ahead of me doing just that. They pitched long sleeves shirts along the route as they warmed up. The sun came out and they realized their ability to work up a sweat.

Another reason to love this run is the ideal view of the business district downtown.  We started at Boston and 3^rd right in front of the Performing Arts Center and turned left 2 blocks west at Boulder. From Boulder the route spilled onto Riverside and South toward 41^st. This means we got to run past the Gathering Place at 31^st and come back along the bike path. The bike path along Riverside, at any point, is a familiar route for most Tulsa runners. All the running groups use it and individual walkers, bikers and even fisherman frequent it.

And it makes for great pictures for the newspaper.

We followed the bike path toward 11^th and turned around to get back to Boulder. It got hilly right there at the end and I saw a few who were ahead of me start walking. I nearly did myself. I’m no stranger to steep hills though. I try to get in hills at least once every two weeks. I tried to pace off this guy near the end. He ran faster than me but then would stop and walk. I passed him up and 30 seconds later he zoomed past me. He began walking again and I passed him. He flew past me again, almost spitefully. That cycle repeated itself a few times and I thought about grabbing him. For whatever reason it really irritated me. I’m laughing about it now because that irritation led to an aggressive push toward the finish.

 I determined to pass him up for good and I did.

Next time I’d like to run with a team. I did know at least 2 people there. One I saw at the finish line. He came in a minute after me. Him and his wife were both good customers at my store for years. When their kids were younger and in sports, they spend a lot of money with us. The other was a woman I used to run with at Runner’s World. She led the 1:25 pace group. That’s where I started but managed to stay just slightly ahead of them.

I’ve got enough time to sign up for the Route 66 Half Marathon in a month. I might just have to do it.

A Servant's Heart: A Discerning Mind

 The gospels are full of leading questions from the Pharisees to Jesus. Hoping to trip him like a good lawyer, they examined 'one offs' and exceptions to the rules.  "Is is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor" or "How is it he eats and drinks with sinners?" or "Can a man divorce his wife for any reason?"

It’s tough to always know the right thing to do for others. Some scenarios are tricky and lack a straightforward this or that answer.

Taking on another’s struggle challenges the part of us that doesn’t want to get too close. It’s uncomfortable to know where the boundary lines are. How far should we go in our efforts to reach the lost?

I had a conversation with my neighbor Cathy the other night. Her dog Gracie disappeared from the front yard a few days earlier. She panicked, naturally. She asked her friend who lives down the road to pray with her to have her dog returned safely. Her next door neighbor has a camera that records images from the street. They looked at footage from that day and recognized the thief as he walked by. Turns out it was a kid that Cathy had given money to the previous day, some homeless kid. She assumed he was homeless at least.

So the stranger she helped, believing she was doing God’s work, stole her dog. Two days later the kid came walking back with Gracie and pretended he found her wandering around. Like a good Samaritan he strolls up with his girlfriend hoping for a reward. By this point Cathy knows that he is the thief but the kid doesn’t know that. She tells him I knew you stole Gracie. “I saw you on the video”. He makes up a lame excuse about never having such a wonderful dog. He’s also has a meth problem. That’s what he admitted to at least. I didn’t see what he looked like, but I’ll bet it wasn’t exactly a surprise.

I was reminded first about God’s goodness in bringing her dog back. He is a rewarder of those that seek Him. Despite the difficult couple of days she endured wondering if Gracie was ok, the heavenly Father delivered. Secondly though, was her decision to give this kid some money a wise choice or a foolish one? I scolded her a bit for it. Only softly though, I could never get upset with such a generous person.

“Cathy. . . Don’t give them money, ever”. I must have sounded like a teacher who’s tired of repeating himself to stubborn pupils. You’d be tempted to say giving the kid any money was a bad idea. But if he was going to steal the dog anyway would they have gotten it back, if he didn’t expect a reward? I don’t know if he expected a reward but the way it played out, him coming back like he just found the dog, I assume he did.

In other words, was the money what ultimately ensured the dog would come back or did the money lead him to take the dog in the first place? My heart breaks when I hear stories like this from people I respect. It’s their generosity and heart that provides a way for scoundrels to take advantage. It enrages me. I think the Lord kept me from knowing anything about it until the incident until it was all over. I’m not violent but I won’t permit vagrants in the neighborhood taking advantage of the elderly.

 I’m no stranger to praying with the homeless and providing food for them. I seek them out when I jog through the city. Sometimes I’ll just talk to them and offer an encouraging word. But I keep boundaries from them. I don’t give money and I don’t offer them rides. I won’t approach groups of homeless unless I’m in a group myself. I rarely approach women unless I’m in a busy area where they feel safe.

 At some point in our Christian walk, we’ll have to get out of our comfort zone in the cause for Christ. “We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves, Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.” (Romans 15: 1-2)

For some of us, selflessness is easy. It’s learning to be discerning that trips us up. Most of us, raises hand, struggle with opening up our lives to the uncomfortable messiness of others. I don’t mean people that walk by on the street either. There are countless opportunities to do help out in small ways. How many people need rides for groceries or help with yardwork? Consistent generosity shows the heart of God to others.

Those efforts lead to deeper friendships and chances to take on their emotional, financial and spiritual burdens. The heavenly Father doesn’t dump those on us so we can stagger around with the same heaviness our neighbor feels. Our role is to offer be a rock in the storm. We’re confident in our authority in Christ because of what He did in us and for us.

That’s an awesome responsibility but it won’t happen if you aren’t ready. I think my neighbor makes mistakes by being too open, even at the expense of getting hurt. I think I make mistakes by holding back when I could help, at the expense of getting hurt.

This from Mathew 5:42 “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” I normally take that to mean goods and not money, but it’s the openness that counts. If it feels like God is encourage you to stretch a little, take a chance. There is blessing on the other side of obedience, for us and the ones we serve. 

It will make you smile like a husky that's just been returned.

The Right Way Forward on Abortion

 

Abolition or Incrementalism? Pro-lifers need each other because the goal is the same, an end to legalized murder.

 The SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) released a resolution over the summer decrying incrementalism on abortion legislation. What does that mean? Incrementalism is the idea that pro-lifers need to work to end abortion in stages. They vote for restrictions and limits, they try to defund programs that give money to clinics. They support politicians that introduce bills to limit its use.

 An incremental approach to anything is to chip away at it like ice on your windshield until it no longer exists. The hope is to make it so restrictive that it’s essentially outlawed. That’s the position favored by Scott Klusendorf of the TGC (The Gospel Coalition).

I’m not an expert on all the various state laws. I have noticed that some states like New York, loosened whatever restrictions did exist. Before 2019 the state outlawed abortion after 24 weeks unless the mother’s life was at risk.  After Cuomo’s bill there remains a fig leaf of a restriction. The baby can be aborted up to 24 weeks or more, but must be non-viable. But who decides viability? The language doesn’t define it, which makes it an easy law to abuse.

 Other states like Texas have all but outlawed the practice. Senate Bill 8 makes abortion after 6 weeks, roughly when a heartbeat is detected, illegal. Mississippi put a 15 week ban in place just this year. Red and blue states are going in different directions.  

The SBC thinks that making deals of any kind on abortion is (effectively) a sin. That’s unfair. If abortion were illegal and representatives signed legislation that allowed for it, that would be a different matter. They are also saying that their previous position of incrementalism, constituted sinful behavior. Ironically this resolution is issued after some big victories (in state like Mississippi and Texas) making their abolitionism a more comfortable position.

 They can thank incrementalism for the stronger hand. Small victories over the years provided the impetus to take a harder line.

The concern from the SBC is that politicians don’t hold the line on abortion. It’s a boutique issue that the ‘rubes’ insist on. They pretend to make deals when they’d rather fundraise or talk about tax breaks. That’s how I imagine the SBC sees it.

 In other words, it’s not an issue of morality for a lot of legislators even though they promise it is.

Here is the bottom line. The prolife movement needs hardliners like the SBC. They keep the squishy moderates honest by not letting them abandon the unborn to political expediency. But the hardliners need to realize how far the movement has come in restricting access. Some believe the easily available ultrasounds change the minds of women seeking abortions. Multiple states have laws that require a sonogram before making the decision to abort.

But Klusendorf believes abolitionists shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring the fallout if the Supreme Court upholds current federal laws.

Suppose that Roe and Casey survive challenge. Nevertheless, a state defies the federal courts and signs into law an abolitionist bill banning all abortions, without exceptions. What then? As more than one pro-life leader points out, a move like that is akin to secession. Don’t expect the federal government to look away. For millions of Americans, abortion is a sacrament that cannot be challenged. As happened with civil-rights integration in the 1950s and 1960s, troops will be sent in to enforce federal law. Abortion clinics will remain open. Then what?

Then What? I don’t think the SBC cares. Their statement is one of faith that God will sort it out. Do what’s right and the chips fall where they will, so to speak. I’m kind of with them on that.

Klusendorf thinks in strategic terms. He wants to move the ball 5 yards at a time.

The SBC doesn’t want to play anymore; especially since we aren’t playing the same game anymore. The Right likes consensus, and votes and specific language in their bills. The Left likes to throw 40 yard passes at a time. “Mandates for everyone, close the church doors it isn’t essential, pull your mask up! Immigration law… what’s that? Don’t like it, tough.”

Another big problem is how pro-lifers rank abortion. Almost all Republicans are pro-life but not all are PRO LIFE, you know? Anti-abortion efforts aren’t at the top of everyone’s list, making it more likely the issue will be with us for a while. There are other concerns of morality to fight for. Marriage is under attack, as is sex and gender confusion. Legal rights of parents to decide on medical treatments like mental health care and abortion are stripped certain states, like Washington, if the child is 13 or older.

Does anyone doubt that gender reassignment surgery for minors is next? I mean of course without parental permission.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to end abortion. Whether the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe v Wade is anyone’s guess. The court upheld the basic right to an abortion in Casey, while allowing for restrictions. That was 1992. I’m not optimistic on this.

Supreme Court rulings have a trickle down effect on state laws. Their decisions can determine the course of legislation for another 50 years. But the pro-life movement has seen success due to incrementalism in just the last decade. January 2011 to July 2019 accounted for 40% of the new restrictions on abortions from states. That’s just the last decade.

Pro-lifers need each other.