Friends, welcome. Today, I feel compelled to address a deeply troubling matter – the manipulation of scripture to justify what is unequivocally wrong. I recently encountered what I can only describe as the worst sermon I have ever heard. It is a sermon that not only misinterprets biblical teachings but actively works to undermine the sanctity of human life in the womb. This sermon, delivered by a pastor named Howard John Wesley of Alfred Street Baptist Church, is a stark example of the wolves among the sheep that we as Christians committed to orthodoxy must be vigilant against. These are individuals who “purport to speak for God, but are actually pedalling either a false gospel or they’re twisting scripture in in a very clever way that fools a lot of people except those that are grounded biblically”.
The very title of this sermon sent immediate red flags: “I’m with her”. While seemingly innocuous, in the context of contemporary discourse, this phrase is heavily associated with support for a particular political stance on abortion rights. This should immediately cause us to question whether the sermon’s aim is to align with earthly ideologies or with the eternal truths of God. As I listened further, my concerns only deepened.
Pastor Wesley, in his opening remarks (which I won’t play in their entirety for brevity), claimed that what he was about to share was a word from the Lord, something that God had “put on his heart”. My friends, this should always raise a critical eye. While God certainly speaks to and through individuals, the claim of direct divine mandate, especially when it contradicts clear biblical principles, warrants careful scrutiny. He further stated that he had prayed and searched the scriptures in defense of his position, which was to justify abortion. This is a disturbing premise – to approach scripture not to discover its inherent truth but to find justifications for a pre-determined and morally questionable stance.
The pastor then moved to his more specific purpose: to suggest that Christians can support the pro-choice position and disagree with the Dobbs decision, even asserting that doing so might be “more biblical”. This assertion flies in the face of centuries of Christian teaching on the value of human life.
One of the most concerning aspects of Pastor Wesley’s approach was his insistence that “the question is not what the Bible teaches, but what Jesus would do”. This is a common tactic employed by progressive pastors who seek to deconstruct biblical orthodoxy. They often argue that the Pharisees knew the Bible yet were wrong, implying that scriptural knowledge alone is insufficient. They then proceed to selectively appeal to passages showcasing Jesus’ compassion, completely disregarding the scriptures that highlight his justice and his demand for adherence to truth. This approach conveniently allows them to sidestep clear biblical condemnations of certain behaviors by focusing solely on a perceived sentiment of compassion.
Given Pastor Wesley’s claim of divine guidance and scriptural support for his pro-choice stance, one would expect him to demonstrate from scripture that the unborn are not human and that intentionally killing them is not the shedding of innocent blood. However, as we shall see, he does neither. Instead, he resorts to a series of fallacious arguments.
The first of these fallacies is the appeal to the alleged silence of scripture to justify abortion. Pastor Wesley states that “abortion as we know it as we experience it as we see it in 2022 is not to be found anywhere in scripture”. He acknowledges passages concerning miscarriages but argues that the modern practice of abortion is absent from the biblical text. He even goes so far as to call anyone who claims otherwise “contextually lazy“.
However, this argument is profoundly flawed and, ironically, demonstrates a significant lack of contextual understanding. Just because scripture does not explicitly use the word “abortion” in the way we understand it today does not mean it offers no guidance on the issue. As I have said before, is there a passage that says, “thou shalt not use your neighbor for shark bait?“. Of course not. But would any theologically sound person argue that this absence implies such behavior is permissible? Absolutely not. The fact that scripture doesn’t specifically mention every conceivable modern evil does not grant those evils moral legitimacy.
Furthermore, to suggest that the absence of a direct command against abortion means it is permissible is a dangerous and illogical proposition. Are we to believe that whatever the Bible does not expressly mention or condemn, it allows?. Does scripture directly condemn racial bigotry or “gay bashing”? No, not in those specific terms. Yet, would Pastor Wesley argue that these actions are therefore permissible? I highly doubt it. This line of reasoning is, frankly, foolish.
The core issue here is not the specific terminology used in scripture but the underlying principles it teaches. Scripture clearly states that all humans have value because they bear the image of God. Genesis 1 and James 3 affirm this foundational truth. Moreover, the shedding of innocent blood is unequivocally condemned throughout scripture. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists “hands that shed innocent blood” as one of the things the Lord hates. Psalm 106:37-41 describes the horrific practice of sacrificing children and the “innocent blood” that polluted the land. Isaiah 1:15-16 speaks of hands “full of blood” that prevent God from hearing prayers. Isaiah 59:7 depicts God’s people as being “swift to shed innocent blood”.
The crucial question, then, is this: Is abortion the shedding of innocent blood?. Prolifers do not arrive at their position through mere rigidity or a “black and white” worldview. They argue, based on science – specifically, every embryology textbook in the world – that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. If this is indeed the case, then the biblical commands against shedding innocent blood apply to the unborn with the same force as they apply to any other human being. Pastor Wesley utterly fails to engage with this central question – whether biblically or scientifically. He simply dismisses the pro-life stance as overly simplistic.
The second fallacious tactic employed by Pastor Wesley is the appeal to moral equivalency. He attempts to deflect from the issue of abortion by pointing to other societal ills, implying that those who focus on abortion are hypocritical for not equally addressing these other issues. He makes statements like, “Y’all got a whole lot to say about her, but you ain’t got nothing to say about him,” referencing a biblical account and attempting to shift blame. He then broadens his attack, asserting that “Pharisees love grabbing stuff out the bedroom and bring it to the temple…They don’t bring the mistreatment of widows to the temple. They don’t bring the mistreatment of immigrants to the temple. They don’t bring the poor to the temple“.
This is a standard tactic, often seen in Planned Parenthood rhetoric. But let us be clear: even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that prolifers do not care about other social issues (which is patently false), how does that in any way justify the intentional dismembering of innocent human beings in the womb?. This is a blatant ad hominem attack, attempting to discredit the pro-life position by attacking the supposed character or motivations of those who hold it. It has no basis in scripture or sound theology.
The pro-life argument, the syllogism, syllogism, syllogism as we consistently emphasize – premise one: it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; premise two: abortion does that; conclusion: therefore, abortion is wrong – stands or falls on its own merits, not on the perceived failings of those who advocate for it. Even if a pro-lifer fails to live out other biblical commands perfectly, it does not invalidate the argument against abortion. The truth remains the truth regardless of the imperfections of its messengers.
Furthermore, Pastor Wesley’s assertion that prolifers are obsessed with “bedrooms” and privacy is a deliberate mischaracterization. While the act that leads to conception may occur in private, abortion is a very public act. It takes place in clinics, involves medical professionals, and often utilizes public funds. This is not a matter of private morality; it is a public moral issue concerning the taking of a human life, and therefore, it is an issue on which Christians have a moral obligation to speak out.
The third fallacious argument Pastor Wesley employs is the attack on the motives of prolifers. He suggests that prolifers are merely “hiding your political agenda behind your theological jargon” and that their concern for the unborn is a guise to preserve their own power. He interprets the biblical account in John 8 (the woman caught in adultery) as being solely about political maneuvering, devoid of any concern for the woman herself or for God’s will.
Again, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the motives of every pro-lifer were as despicable as Pastor Wesley portrays them. How would that change the fundamental question of whether the unborn are human beings and whether intentionally killing them is wrong?. The validity of the pro-life position does not hinge on the purity of the hearts of those who advocate for it. To dismiss an argument based on the supposed bad motives of its proponents is another classic example of an ad hominem fallacy.
Moreover, Pastor Wesley distorts history. The pro-life movement was not initially a partisan endeavor. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans stood against abortion. To frame it solely as a tool for political gain is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the truth.
Finally, and perhaps most astonishingly, Pastor Wesley appeals to past court decisions, specifically Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, as a reason why Chief Justice Roberts acted wrongly in not upholding them. He argues that the court has a “moral obligation to always honor decisions the court made in the past“.
This argument is utterly untenable. If this logic were consistently applied, it would mean that the court should have never overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that upheld racial segregation. Legal precedent, while important, is not infallible and must be subject to moral and constitutional scrutiny. Furthermore, Pastor Wesley conveniently ignores the fact that Roe v. Wade itself overturned the laws of 50 states, thus violating existing legal precedent. His argument is self-refuting. To suggest that past legal decisions, particularly those as morally contentious as Roe v. Wade, should be perpetually honored regardless of their ethical implications is a dangerous proposition.
In conclusion, friends, Pastor Howard John Wesley’s sermon is a masterclass in the art of twisting scripture and employing fallacious arguments to arrive at a predetermined, unbiblical conclusion. He fails to provide any scriptural basis for the permissibility of abortion, makes no attempt to refute the scientific consensus on the humanity of the unborn, and instead resorts to appeals to silence, moral equivalency, attacks on motives, and a flawed understanding of legal precedent. His sole attempt to engage scripture directly involves an appeal to the passage of the woman caught in adultery in John 8, a passage whose authenticity is even questioned by many biblical scholars. He uses this dubious text to paint prolifers as Pharisees, missing the fundamental point that the issue of abortion concerns the life of an innocent human being, not merely moralistic judgment.
We must be discerning. We must be grounded in the clear teachings of scripture regarding the sanctity of human life and the condemnation of shedding innocent blood. We must not be swayed by emotional appeals or the twisting of biblical narratives to fit contemporary agendas. As I have warned before, there are wolves everywhere. They may come cloaked in religious garb, speaking with eloquent words, but their aim is to deceive and to lead astray. Beware of those who claim to speak for God while undermining his clear commands. The womb is not a place where wolves should be allowed to prey. It is a sanctuary of human life, deserving of our utmost protection.
I urge you to equip yourselves with the truth. Understand the pro-life argument. Know the scientific and philosophical basis for the humanity of the unborn. Learn to recognize and refute the fallacious arguments used to justify abortion. To that end, I want to offer you a free resource on engaging with progressive pastors on the issue of abortion. Simply email us at questionscottclusendorf.com. Additionally, I encourage you to explore our Prolife 101 course, which will further equip you to defend the truth and stand against those who distort it.
Thank you for joining me today. May we always be vigilant and stand firm in defense of the voiceless.