As a Baptist myself, I hate the fact that I have to share the denominational nomenclature with those who profess to be Baptists–and even Christians–but who are actually neither. One of the most heated issues in society today is abortion. Abortion is murder–there is no other way to describe this heinous act. It is the clearest example of the taking of innocent life that exists in this world today. Aside from Christ himself, who is more innocent than an unborn baby who has never seen light or taken a breath?
Despite this, those who call themselves “Baptists” over at Baptist News Global are calling on male clergy to stand with women on the “right” to have an abortion and then claim that their faith demands they do so.
Worried that the Supreme Court may overturn the decades-old Roe v. Wade ruling–which wrongly found a Constitutional right to abortion–Michael Woolf writes:
In some ways, it makes sense that the faith-based voices at the forefront of the rights to make abortion safe and accessible are women’s, but reproductive justice is not just a women’s issue — it is a human rights issue. More than that, it’s a faith issue. Male clergy ought to join their female colleagues in advocating for reproductive rights.
It’s unclear where Woolf finds this so-called “right”–who gives him that right. It is certainly not a right found in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures clearly state the opposite, that God hates abortion (Proverbs 6:16-17). And to describe the issue as a “faith issue” is far-fetched–that is, unless your faith is in Molech.
The imposition of a theological position on our nation strikes at the heart of my religious beliefs. As an ordained American Baptist minister, one of the fundamental tenets of my faith is the separation of church and state. The government has no business imposing a theological position on a diverse nation.
Clearly, Woolf doesn’t understand the separation of Church and State–it is designed to protect the Church, not the State. Further, his logic, that imposing theological positions on our nation is a bad idea, fails when worked out to its logical conclusion. One cannot rationally argue that murdering children inside the womb is acceptable while murdering someone outside of the womb is not–and that is clearly where the world’s morality is heading.
If our nation’s laws can’t be grounded in the moral code of God, then exactly what can it be grounded in? The ever-changing human consensus? It was human consensus in Germany that said the holocaust was “good.” It was human consensus that said kidnapping and beating slaves in America was “good.” What makes something “good” or “evil”? It was the Christian faith grounded in the morality of God that spoke to the conscience of society that ultimately brought these things to an end.
Woolf knows that abortion is evil, and he knows that God hates it. His problem isn’t with the separation of Church and state–his problem is with obedience to God. Woolf doesn’t work as a clergyman in a Baptist church so he can serve God and His people. Woolf masquerades as a shepherd so that he can attempt to turn the Church away from a morality rooted in God’s nature.
I guess you could call him a “Woolf in sheep’s clothing.”