It's Sunday, September 15, 2024.

Today’s late (fashionably late?) edition covers last week’s historic debate—no, not that one, but a different one! Plus, more news, the role of Richard Rolle, and what the Bible says about that rope around the high priest’s ankle.

“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)

Of Christian Concern

LAST WEEK’S OTHER DEBATE: AN HISTORIC PUBLIC SHOWDOWN BETWEEN SMASHMOUTH INCREMENTALISM AND ABORTION ABOLITIONISM

Much has been said and written, as should be, about the Trump-Harris debate this past Tuesday. But the presidential debate was not this past week’s only debate of interest for socially engaged Christians. Thursday saw a YouTube debate between Pastor Doug Wilson and activist T. Russell Hunter over the proper Christian approach to fighting abortion. These two popular figures, both reputed for their hard-hitting hot takes and wit, are leading representatives of their respective views: Wilson’s “smashmouth incrementalism” and Hunter’s abortion abolitionism.

Opening Statements

Hosted by Bibledingers, the discussion began with Hunter’s opening statement, in which he characterized abolitionism as pushing for repentance from the “national sin” of abortion by “establishing justice and justice alone” via “criminal sanctions” for anyone involved in an abortion—and nothing less than that. He underscored that abolitionists, in contrast to “incrementalists,” do not try “to save the most babies, the most quickly,” but instead to “seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God” by establishing justice (biblically defined) “in law and policy.”

Wilson, on the other hand, described his a particular brand of incrementalism (a tactic of fighting abortion by increments rather than immediately pushing for full abolition). While Wilson agreed that “the only consistent goal of any anti-abortion activist has to be the complete eradication of all human abortion,” he said he would sign bills that did not achieve that goal if he believed they would save some lives. He explained that his “smashmouth incrementalism” is distinguished by its emphasis on including, alongside any incremental pro-life law, a “signing statement” that (1) identifies how the law in question is deficient and (2) promises to return the following year to gain more ground towards abolition.

Faithful to Scripture?

Over the course of the debate, Hunter repeatedly challenged Wilson on whether he was being faithful to Scripture, which condemns writing “iniquitous decrees” (Isaiah 10:1-2) and forbids “pervert[ing] justice” or “show[ing] partiality” in legal matters (Deuteronomy 16:19), which both interlocutors agreed incremental laws do. Instead, God commands we follow “justice, and only justice” (16:20). That is, we should “put to death” anyone who sacrifices his child (Leviticus 20:1). Hunter argued, referring to Ecclesiastes 8:11, that any law other than a law of abolition “tutor[s] the culture” to believe that murder is morally acceptable. He also pointed to Isaiah 30:1-3, in which the LORD condemns “carry[ing] out a plan” that is “not mine” and “mak[ing] an alliance” that is “not of my Spirit”; to do so is to “add sin to sin.”

Wilson maintained that, despite supporting such bills and despite the tutoring role of the law, the inclusion of a signing statement would ensure he is not guilty of compromise: “if you keep the telos, the goal, that we're after always in front of you and you're clearly and manifestly going for that, I don't see any compromise.”

At one point, Hunter quipped, “It doesn't make it OK to do evil if, while you're doing evil, you add a blog post saying, ‘But I don't want to do evil in the future.’ Like, that just undermines it.”

A Page From the Progressive Playbook

Elsewhere during the interaction, Wilson likened his approach to what leftists in Idaho do: “[When] they say, ‘We want 10 million acres to be set aside for wilderness,’ everybody within the sound of their voice knows they're gonna ask for more. They're going to be back next year asking for 10 million more. …So…it's not just what you say in the text of the law. It’s how you frame the whole thing and what you say when you pass it, how far you’re willing to push.” Wilson referred to this approach as “borrow[ing] a page from the progressive left playbook.”

Hunter’s reply: “I will give you all the pages of all the books of all the progressive left, but I just want this one page—I just want this one, this one little page from Deuteronomy, where it's like, ‘Don't pervert justice’ [Deuteronomy 16:19].” He continued:

If I can make the whole debate just about, like, ‘Can we pervert justice in the pursuit of justice?’ I would say, ‘Oh, we can, and we do, but it's wrong. Let's stop doing that. If we stop doing that, I think we will have the blessings of God.’ Like, I actually don't think that any of the evil that's going on in the world is going on purely because of the power of the progressive left. I think that the evil that we see in our world comes as a judgment of God.

Wilson agreed, and Hunter added, “So, I fear God and God alone. I don't fear the progressive left. When I look at crossdressers reading stories to kids at the library, I think, ‘You know what brought that about? People signing laws that Doug Wilson says he will sign.’”

Wilson chuckled uncomfortably and said, “But not the way. But not the way he says he would sign them.” Hunter suggested that was a “technical” example of “speaking out of both sides of your mouth.” Wilson, of course, disagreed.

Much More

Other significant moments included Wilson challenging Hunter on whether God’s gradual phasing out of polygamy set a precedent for dealing with societal sins incrementally, Hunter rejecting the suggestion that “geographical incrementalism” has any relevance to the discussion, and both agreeing that debate among Christians on this issue is necessary “for the purpose of getting unity on the Scriptures.”

Watch the full interaction here.

Also Noteworthy

→ Australian preacher Dave Pellowe was brought before a rights commission for not opening his Christian conferences with an Indigenous Aboriginal smoking ceremony, which he said would conflict with his religious belief: “You can’t mix Christianity, a true religion, with something that is made up.” Involving traditional Aboriginal people is now required in any “welcome to the country ceremony” according to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, reports International Christian Concern. When Pellowe opted to read from Psalm 24 instead, an attendee complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) and threatened legal action.

→ 630 Ukrainian churches have been “damaged or wholly destroyed” in the war with Russia according to new data published by The Institute for Religious Freedom, reports Kyiv Post.

→ Colorado parents will sue their daughter’s school district for allegedly grouping students by gender identity instead of biological sex for sleep accomodations during an overnight trip. The eleven-year-old girl was reportedly assigned to sleep in the same bed as a male student who identified as female. Other similar cases have been alleged, including a woman who identifies as transgender being assigned as chaperone to a group of middle school boys, “which reportedly included monitoring their showers,” Fox News reports.

→ Americans are becoming more progressive in their morality AND “increasingly wary of the country’s morality,” Lifeway Research reports. In a new Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans say abortion is morally acceptable, 22 percent say suicide is, and 23 percent say polygamy is—all increases from previous figures. At the same time, an overwhelming majority (81%) says “the state of moral values is getting worse.”

→ Pope Francis, in a recent address, denounced the claim that one religion is true over others, saying that

Church History Tidbit

The Role of Richard Rolle

Converted during his time as a student in Oxford, Richard Rolle De Hampole (c. 1300-1349) left the university and became a “hermit and mystic who was one of the most widely-read English writers of the late Middle Ages.” He moved from place to place but maintained contact with several religious communities, becoming a spiritual guide to a group of nuns at Hampole in South Yorkshire.

According to Britannica, “Rolle’s importance lies in the devotional prose he composed in the vernacular for women readers,” and his writings emphasize “a rapturous mystical union with God.” Author Steven Rozenski argues that Rolle’s work was a manifestation of a “common devotional culture” in his time, and a display at the Museum of the Bible notes, “Particularly popular were his English translation of the Psalms and commentary on the Song of Solomon.”

Thanks in part to Rolle’s chief disciple, an anchorite named Margaret Kirkby, who received most of his works, his influence spread even after his death—lasting at least until the Protestant Reformation.

The Bible, Briefly

The Rope Around the High Priest’s Ankle

Have you ever heard of how a rope was tied around the high priest’s ankle when he went in to the Holy of Holies to intercede for Israel on the Day of Atonement? The idea is that the priest was at risk of God striking him dead during his duty if he hadn’t properly sanctified himself, and, in that case, the other priests needed a way to pull his body out from behind the curtain without themselves violating the sacred space.

It’s a detail seemingly beloved among preachers. So, what exactly does the Bible say about that rope?

Nothing.

Burst some bubbles though it may, the rope isn’t biblical. The earliest known reference to the supposed practice is the Zohar, the thirteenth century text of Kabbalah, a Jewish mystery cult—not the most illustrious source.

“In fact,” author Todd Bolen of BiblePlaces.com writes, “wearing such a rope would probably be a violation of Leviticus 16:3-4, which gives clear directions on what the high priest is to wear on Yom Kippur [the Day of Atonement]”:

So, following in Aaron’s footsteps, a high priest was expected to enter the place behind the veil with specific items only, none of which included a rope around his ankle. But there was a real concern about the High Priest dying, as the same passage indicates one verse earlier:

So, the high priest couldn’t come whenever or however he wanted; he had to carefully follow God’s law. It’s ironic (isn’t it?) that a rope around the ankle for the potential incidence of his death could theoretically have been the cause of it!

But, again, there’s no good reason to think there was a rope.

For further reading on this topic, see Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky’s essay—but even in this source, remember to parse Jewish tradition from biblical fact.

What did you think of today’s briefing?

Have some feedback for me? Submit comments or suggestions here. I’d love to hear from you!

Why "18:15"? The name Project 18:15 is based on Proverbs 18:15: “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” The aim is for this weekly email—a Christian news briefing, a Bible study, and a Church history lesson rolled into one—to be one way you keep abreast of current events and acquire knowledge you might not acquire elsewhere.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.