Divide or Discuss?

Article adapted from episode content.

Typically, I focus on equipping you to engage the pro-life argument persuasively with those who disagree with our mission. However, today, I want to take a slightly different turn. There’s a troubling trend I’ve observed growing within the pro-life movement itself, a tendency to foster internal divisions rather than productive, unified discussions. So, today’s central question isn’t about “how to win fights” against the abortion industry, but rather, when is it appropriate to draw a hard line and divide, and when is it imperative to seek unity and discussion, even amidst significant disagreements?

The inspiration for this crucial discussion came from an unexpected place this past weekend: the memorial service of Dr. John MacArthur, the great preaching pastor at Grace Community Church. The service itself was excellent from top to bottom—spectacular hymn singing, a 120-voice choir, and moving tributes from figures like Johnny Ericson Tada. But my biggest takeaway wasn’t the worship, as outstanding as it was. It was the presence and the tributes from a couple of speakers who I knew had theological disagreements with John MacArthur on certain points: Alistair Begg, the recently retired great preacher from Cleveland, and John Piper, who runs Desiring God Ministries. These men, despite their known debates with MacArthur on various issues, remained committed friends and colleagues.

Unity in Core Mission: A Lesson from Leadership

The profound lesson from Dr. John MacArthur’s memorial service was the enduring friendship and shared commitment to a primary goal despite differing on what I’d call “secondary issues”. Alistair Begg and John Piper, both prominent figures, had engaged in debates with MacArthur on specific theological points. Yet, they were “absolutely united in their effort to see Christ glorified, to see the gospel preached and see people come to a saving faith in Christ”. Their ability to offer tribute and remain united in purpose, even with genuine disagreements, served as a truly refreshing and powerful example.

This observation prompts a critical reflection for us as prolifers: “Too often, I think there’s this tendency to force a strident division point when there doesn’t have to be one”. It makes me think of a book I have titled “How to Win Fights,” and it’s interesting because the very first strategy it advances is incredibly simple, yet profound: “Avoid the fight. Don’t have it. Avoid it. That’s a win”. I genuinely believe that many internal conflicts we’re having within the pro-life movement are entirely unnecessary. Instead, what tends to happen is that we prolifers sometimes fall into “little tribes”. Within these tribes, we become convinced that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is not merely mistaken; they’re “downright evil”. We start to believe they “want children to die” and are even “finding a way to profit by being involved in pro-life activism”. This tendency to attribute “the worst possible motives” to those with whom one disagrees is, in my view, “just a bad way to poison the well” and it’s a practice we absolutely need to overcome. We need to do better in how we engage with our fellow advocates, focusing on our shared objective rather than creating divisions where none need exist.

Divide: Resisting Mission Drift and Protecting the Prolife Mission

While unity and avoiding unnecessary internal fights are undeniably crucial for the strength of our movement, there are indeed times when clear lines must be drawn. As prolifers, I believe we “absolutely must draw a line in the sand” against those who advocate for what I call “mission drift”. This refers specifically to the argument, often coming from what I’ve observed as the “political evangelical and Catholic left,” that one cannot be “legitimately pro-life” unless they embrace a “whole life” ethic.

The “whole life” argument typically suggests that merely opposing the intentional killing of unborn human beings is insufficient. Instead, one must also support a wide array of other “life issues,” such as refugee and immigrant rights (regardless of legal status), open borders, higher taxes for the poor, and opposition to war or capital punishment. The core premise, often hidden, undefended, and, frankly, ridiculous, is that “to oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being, you have to fix everything wrong with society”. That’s just an “unfair, ridiculous claim to make,” and I’m saddened that too many prolifers are buying into it.

Let’s consider this from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. This mission creep is profoundly detrimental to our cause. Most pro-life organizations, as I’m sure many of you know, operate on “shoestring budgets” with “very limited resources”. I don’t know many pro-life organizations “rolling in the dough,” do you? To demand that these organizations divert their meager resources to a multitude of other causes is not just “ridiculous”; it’s entirely unsustainable. I’ve used this analogy before, but imagine someone telling the American Cancer Society that they are not a “legitimate medical organization” because they only fight cancer and not other diseases like heart disease, diabetes, lupus, or Crohn’s disease. Such an argument would be absurd, yet we prolifers face a strikingly similar demand constantly.

This pressure for mission drift extends even to pregnancy center ministries, where groups suggest that “being pro-life isn’t enough,” and one must be “pro-abundant life”. This translates into an expectation to take on tasks like discipling believers, building strong families, fatherhood initiatives, and religious liberty causes. Such an expansive and vague mandate creates a “backbreaking job description that will not only bankrupt their ministries, but burn out people in the field at a rate that none of us can afford to see happen”. Therefore, I firmly conclude that a “very hard line in the sand” must be drawn against those who promote such mission drift. I deem it “unjust to the core” and strongly advise against listening to them. We “must divide from them” on this point because it fundamentally undermines our core mission.

Prolife: Cultivating Unity Amidst Tactical and Denominational Differences

In stark contrast to the absolute necessity of dividing over mission drift, many disagreements within the pro-life movement are, in my view, secondary issues. These should not lead to division. Instead, they should be arenas for discussion, respectful debate, and what I call “co-belligerence”.

One common example is the debate over tactics for abortion opposition, specifically the use of graphic images of abortion. For my part, I believe that using such pictures can be “the most loving and persuasive thing we can do”. However, I am entirely willing to work with those who disagree on this strategic approach. I maintain my conviction that they are wrong on this point—that the pictures are effective and necessary—but I also emphasize, “We don’t need to have a division fight over this. We don’t need to divide and say, ‘Well, you’re not legitimately pro-life because you disagree with me on the pictures'”. Our shared goal outweighs this tactical difference.

Another significant source of internal division often revolves around denominational differences, particularly between Protestants and Catholics. Let’s be upfront: we don’t agree on everything. There are genuine theological disparities on core doctrines like justification and authority, making “co-confession” impossible. I get that. But it absolutely does not follow that I shouldn’t work with Catholics to stop abortion. In fact, my stance is clear: “I’m willing to work with anyone to stop abortion if I don’t have to give up my own core convictions to do it”. And in my experience, no Catholic has ever asked me to affirm their unique doctrines, such as the sacred place of honor of the Virgin Mary or the nature of the Eucharist, in order to cooperate.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree on fundamental principles that underpin the pro-life stance. We concur on a “biblically grounded view of human value,” the Imago Dei, and the intrinsic value of human beings, rejecting a performance-based view of human worth. We both agree that our value doesn’t come from immediately exercisable functions like cognitive development or the ability to interact with our environments. This shared understanding forms a strong basis for working together on legislation that protects the unborn and in outreach to those at risk for abortion. Yet, some individuals mistakenly attempt to inject theological divisions where they are not necessary for our shared mission.

I’ve even encountered situations where I or others were banned from speaking at pro-life events due to disagreements on entirely unrelated theological issues, such as contraception or the age of the earth. While event organizers are certainly free to choose their speakers, I think it’s “suspect” when they book an expert, convinced he or she is the best person for a particular subject, but then demand a “statement of faith” on an issue “largely unrelated to the subject the speaker is going to address”. Such actions unnecessarily divide people into “tribes” and prevent us from learning from specialists. As a self-identified “Protestant evangelical” and “five-pointer when it comes to Calvinism” – I absolutely believe in Reformed theology – I can tell you that I have “benefited greatly” from Catholic moral theologians like Francis J. Beckwith, Peter Kreeft, Hadley Arkes, Robert George, and Pat Lee. Their “outstanding pro-life arguments” are incredibly helpful for teaching apologetics, and I can use them without compromising my Protestant distinctives. I think it’s a “very small-minded” person who refuses to learn from anyone who doesn’t agree “right down the line on every issue”. This kind of thinking hinders our collective growth and effectiveness.

Abortion: Navigating the Abolitionist Divide with Prudence

A more recent and, frankly, more disturbing internal division, in my view, arises with a small group of people who oppose abortion called abolitionists. Even here, while I disagree with many of their concepts, I believe we ought to be open-minded and listen to what each other has to say. My concern with abolitionism isn’t just that they have different ideas; it’s how they approach the debate.

For those unfamiliar, abolitionists advocate for a “complete ban on abortion and a ban now that also punishes women for murder,” viewing any incremental steps to limit abortion as, “in principle compromised”. While I disagree with their assertion that incrementalism is compromise, I do want to have a “good faith debate about prudence and political strategy” without demonizing one another. The problem is that the vast majority of abolitionists I have dealt with are not willing to have this kind of nuanced debate. Rather, they immediately leap to accusations: “the only reason you won’t support our bill is a. you’re compromised and b. you want abortion to continue so you can continue to make money on it”. I’ve actually had abolitionists tell me that I’m “profiting off of abortion by going out and speaking on it”. Let me tell you something: if I wanted to make a lot of money in public speaking, I wouldn’t choose a topic like abortion, where most of the time I don’t get paid anything to speak, and when I do, it’s certainly not on the level of a corporate speaker. I chose this field because “I am in principle dedicated to saving children”.

The core disagreement with abolitionists lies in “prudence”. While I agree in principle that “all unborn humans should be protected in law,” the wisdom of leading with bills that seek to prosecute women for murder is highly questionable in today’s cultural climate. My question is, “in a culture that already thinks prolifers hate women and want them to die… is it wise to lead with bills that say we want women prosecuted for murder who have abortions?”. Such bills, I argue, have “no chance of passing” in today’s culture and only serve to alienate politicians and the public. This hinders the actual goal of saving lives. A bill that simply bans abortion, on the other hand, could actually save lives.

To illustrate the critical importance of prudence, I often invoke the historical example of William Wilberforce. Wilberforce, the renowned abolitionist, strategically “pulled back his abolitionist bills in the early 1800s” when the political climate was unfavorable. He understood that pushing them at the wrong time would only create “unneeded obstacles” to their future passage. This was not a compromise of his ultimate goal of ending slavery, but an act of wisdom and prudence. Similarly, I argue, being “careful about timing” and how bills are introduced “does not make you compromised. That makes you wise. That makes you prudent”.

I recently had a personal experience with this. I have a friend, Jason Storms, who is an abolitionist and has even been a guest on my show. A few months ago, here in Georgia, abolitionists were trying to put forward a bill that basically allowed women to be punished for homicide for abortion. While consistent in principle, I publicly opposed this bill due to my prudence concerns. Jason and his friends asked me to testify in support of it, but I declined. We disagreed, and they were likely disappointed, but here’s the deal: “We left not by yelling at each other, but by praying for one another and with embraces of friendship and talk about looking forward to the next time we can meet”. That, my friends, is the way we need to proceed as prolifers.

Conclusion: Unity Through Discussion for the Prolife Cause

The overarching message for the pro-life movement is clear: the culture intensely hates us. “Every major institution in the nation is against us”—academia, the media, popular culture, music, entertainment. In such a hostile environment, “We cannot afford to fight with each other”.

The key to our survival and success is to distinguish carefully between core principles where division is necessary—like resisting mission drift—and secondary issues—like tactical approaches, denominational differences, or prudential legislative strategies—where discussion, learning, and co-belligerence are vital. We must prioritize our shared mission of protecting unborn life.

Think of our movement as a vital ecosystem. It thrives on diverse contributions—different ideas, different approaches, different strengths. If every species insists on absolute uniformity, the ecosystem collapses. Instead, we must learn to coexist, to discuss our differences respectfully, to collaborate where our goals align, and to understand that varied methods can still contribute to the same ultimate outcome. Just as a strong building needs different materials to function effectively, our pro-life movement needs the strength of diverse individuals working together. “Let’s discuss rather than divide” to effectively pursue the common, urgent goal of saving children.