Anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously will acknowledge (and I trust boldly and joyfully) that God is pro-life. That statement almost seems lame as one considers that apart from God there is no life.

God spoke the entire world into existence, He “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gen 2:7). I love that phrase: God “breathed into his nostrils.” That is very personal.

In all the previous acts of creation God spoke a word and, as theologians say, things appeared ex-nihilo. But when it came to human life, the pinnacle of creation (cf. Psalm 8), God “formed man” with his hands (so to speak) and then “breathed into his nostrils.” At the risk of sounding sentimental, God kissed humanity. Such an intimate act by the Creator should answer all questions about whether human life is more special than all other life forms.

In our text in this study we see another evidence of God’s value on life—even animal life. And from this general observation of animal life I want us to focus on a particular application to human life. In other words, in keeping with much of biblical revelation, we will argue from the lesser to the greater.

The Textual Connection

This particular stipulation is recorded three times in the law: here as well as in Exodus 24:24 and Deuteronomy 14:21. In each case it is found in the context of God’s overall prescription that His people be holy and separate from the nations in whose midst they would be dwelling. In each case the context is that of God’s people corporately feasting before the Lord in their yearly celebrations of worship.

You may remember that three times a year God’s people were required to come to the place He appointed for the regular feasts. They were required to bring sacrifices to the Lord. We see especially in the Exodus passages that it is within this context of feasting before the Lord that this stipulation is found. In the Deuteronomy passage the context does not exclude this but it specifically focuses on the dietary expectations. God’s people were to train their appetites to be different than the surrounding nations. But why this law? What is the reason behind this somewhat strange prescription?

First, this law was a revelation of the compassion of God. John Calvin ably stated, “God would not admit a monstrous thing in His sacrifices, that the flesh of the young should be cooked in its mother’s milk, and thus, as it were, in its own blood.”¹

His people were to be on guard that in the midst of their celebration to respect life.

Being carnivorous was one thing (and allowable) but this did not give carte blanche to be callous. It was certainly allowable for them to eat the young goat, but to cook it in the milk from which it would otherwise be nourished was another matter.

Second, and related to the first observation, that which was meant to nourish life was not to become a means of death. Clearly this is a pro-life verse, a pro-life principle. God’s people were being taught that just because you have dominion over another does not give you the right to treat it with contempt. Life is to be respected. We could also see it this way: The mother was never to be the means of the death of her offspring. It is just not normal, it is just not right—even in the animal kingdom. And if it is not right there, why would we think that it is acceptable for humans?

Third, those who were not covenantally related to God might assume that such a calloused approach to life was acceptable, but God’s people were never to accept such a worldview. In fact their lifestyle was to be manifestly different. The way they behaved when it came to such life issues was to be remarkably, noticeably different.

Remember in all of this that God’s people were being prepared to enter a land that they were to conquer for the advancement of the gospel and for the glory of God. In other words, God was revealing to those who were advancing the kingdom that He is pro-life. They were expected to show the surrounding nations this pro-life position. They were to show the surrounding nations that the true and living God cares about life because He is the One who controls life. In other words, He is the One who makes up the rules for how life is to be treated because He is the source of all life. He created life, He curtails it and thus He commands regarding it.

Fourth, and related to the above, God’s people were being warned that they were not to approach the issue of fertility with the same worldview as unbelievers. “Maimonides, the mediaeval Jewish scholar, informs us that the rite [of boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk] was connected with fertility-magic.”²

The Canaanites were known to boil a young animal in its mother’s milk; they would then let the milk dry and would sprinkle it upon a representative portion of their field as well as on the belly of a woman. This was supposed to influence the gods to make the womb and the fields fruitful. In other words, this ritualistic practice was a denial of God as the giver (the source), the sustainer and the taker of life. This fertility rite was an attack on God’s pro-life revelation.

John Currid notes concerning this prohibition that “its basis is a polemic against a Canaanite ceremony connected with a fertility cult. . . . The Hebrews were not to celebrate fertility in the same way as the pagans.”³ That is, their worldview was to be very different. They were to recognize God as the source of all life and thus they were to trust Him for issues of life and death. They were to leave such issues in His hands. As Rushdoony notes, the children of Israel were being commanded to “avoid anything hinting of fertility cult practices was thus a way of witnessing to God’s sovereign power to feed and sustain them.”⁴

The children of Israel were to so live that their pagan neighbours would know that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, and that the name of the Lord was to be blessed. The surrounding culture was to learn from the practical worldview of the children of Israel that God is pro-life; and that all are ultimately accountable to Him as the Creator. This pro-life commandment was for the purpose of confronting both church and society with the knowledge of God.

Of course there were also many other pro-life issues. The Sixth Commandment makes this plain, as do many of the case laws recorded in Exodus 21-23. The testimony of God’s pro-life position as legislated and lived out in community was to be a means of the old covenant people of God impacting the nations (Deuteronomy 4:1-9). And as I will seek to persuade you from God’s Word, pro-life issues today are also intimately connected to the Great Commission given to the new covenant church. But before addressing this let me pause to make a very relevant connection between this text and today’s abortion mindset.

Just as boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk was related to fertility rites of an ancient people, so is today’s practice of aborting (read, killing) a young child in the womb of its mother. It all has to do with one’s worldview as to who is responsible for the giving and taking of life. Today’s emphasis on fertility rights is often little different than the fertility rites of the Canaanites.

Many do not realise that Marie Stopes was actually opposed to abortion but her worldview paved the way for the modern-day mission of Marie Stopes Clinics with their priority being the provision of “safe abortions.”

Stopes was a tireless proponent for contraceptives and spent her life seeking to reduce the birth rate of the world. But her rationale was not noble: It was racist and aristocratic. She was concerned that, if poor people kept having children, the wealthier classes (like hers) would increasingly shoulder the burden. She feared that taxes would increase with the result that she would not be able to selfishly pursue her own agendas. She was also a eugenicist. That is, she sought to introduce birth control largely because she wanted to reduce the “disabled, diseased and degenerate” from reproducing after their own kind. She once accosted a deaf man when she found out that he had fathered four deaf and mute children. After all, how dare he fill the world with such unproductive people? In short, birth control (as she saw it) was precisely that: control. She even disowned her one and only son because his wife was nearsighted. She wrote to her husband seeking his help in ending the engagement of their son Harry to this woman with these words, “Marriage to Mary would constitute a Eugenic crime against the nation, the family and his children. By marrying Mary, Harry would make a mock of our lives work for Eugenic breeding and the Race.” Self-righteously Marie Stopes argued that she “would not condone the cruelty of burdening children with ‘defective sight and the handicap of goggles.’” Nice!

And so even though she was personally opposed to abortion (for the simple reason that she feared it would make it harder for women who have had an abortion to again conceive—and here she had some medical insight) nonetheless her worldview opened the door for abortion to become acceptable at first in the West, and now pretty much worldwide. Yes, ideas have consequences—some very deadly.

My point is that abortion is the latest in the long line of “fertility rites” in which the innocent unborn are sacrificed “in their mothers’ milk” in defiance of the God who alone has sovereign right over life and death. When a people suppress the truth of the knowledge of the true and living God, life eventually becomes cheap, familial love grows increasingly cold and compassion is replaced with callous cruelty.

The church is called to think differently, to believe differently and to behave differently. Let us not miss the point of this verse. The new covenant people of God are to be as pro-life (more so!) as were the old covenant people of God. As we go into all the world to disciple the nations we too must make pro-life issues known. The church is to inculcate a culture of life as it makes disciples of all the nations.

Pope John II coined the term “culture of life” in 1993 when he spoke to reporters at a Denver, Colorado airport. He denounced abortion and euthanasia, stating that “The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God’s work of creation. In a special way, it means respect for human life from the first moment of conception until its natural end.” Though there is a whole lot over which we and the late Pope would intensely disagree, we can certainly say amen to that!

Sadly, our society seems to be characterised more by the “culture of death” than the “culture of life.” That is, human life is under threat of death from conception to what is often an unnatural end. In a world that has increasingly assumed a moral autonomy (as the result of suppressing the knowledge of God) society is confused about the most basic of facts; namely, when does life begin? And because there is confusion over this, it is small wonder that human life is not protected in the womb. After all, if it is not human, why worry about it? Let me illustrate.

This past week I read the comments of Laila Abbas, spokesperson for Marie Stopes Clinics in South Africa. Speaking to the issue of illegal and thus (in her words) “unsafe” abortions in South Africa, she said “Any abortion is dangerous if not performed accurately.” Abbas went on to explain that some practitioners offer a particular abortion-inducing tablet which is only effective for half of the termination process. “This pill does not allow the product of conception to detach from the lining nor is it terminated.” She further stated, “Many abortions are also carried out using primitive surgical methods: injecting poisonous solutions into the womb or inserting objects intended to dislodge the product of conception.” Besides the word replacements of “termination” and “dislodge” for “intentional killing,” note her description of the baby which is aborted: “the product of conception.” You see, if you call the new life a “product” rather than a person then I guess it is easier to boil it in its mother’s milk.

Of course it is not only abortion which points to this culture of death. We are inculcated by a society where death threatens us on every hand. Rather than life being valued and therefore protected, we see life increasingly devalued and under threat. Homicide, suicide, fratricide, patricide, matricide, infanticide, euthanasia and the like seems to be increasing in our society. The journey from the womb to the tomb is a lot quicker than it should be for a whole lot of people. But nowhere is this truer than when it comes to abortion.

Since 1 February 1997 an estimated one million babies have been killed in South Africa with the complete legal protection of the government. Two hundred human beings are killed each day in our country with full legal sanction. That is, every day 200 babies are boiled in their mothers’ milk with complete constitutional approval. The law of God is spurned in favour of the law of man.

South Africa’s ex-president, Nelson Mandela, was admitted this week to the Milpark Hospital because of health concerns. Doctors and nurses tended to his physical needs; they were concerned about his life. A hungry press waited outside the hospital in a feverish vigil for word on the health of this highly esteemed man. I would guess that every major news network around the world was waiting with bated breath to hear of the condition of the life of this famous man. The welfare of his life is of paramount importance to multitudes. This is understandable. But it is also hypocritical, for our ex-president endorsed the Termination of Pregnancy Act, the very legislation which has given legal support to a holocaust of a million babies—one million infants boiled in their mothers’ milk.

I find it a sad and telling irony that while medical personnel were doing what they could to preserve the life of Mr. Mandela (and rightfully so), somewhere in the same hospital there may well have been some doctor advising a woman to abort her baby. Think about it: a great concern for the life of one who put his signature to legislation which contributes to the culture of death. He has thus far had 92 years of life—what a gift. And yet there are thousands of children each year in wombs who will not be given the opportunity to live beyond 92 days—their lives ended with presidential approval.

Let me put it another way, when Mr Mandela fell ill, he was immediately airlifted to what is esteemed as one of the best hospitals in our country. The preservation of his life was of such paramount concern that he was sent to the safest most reliable place. And yet the womb, which should be the safest place for a child, has become for many a death chamber—by choice of the mother. That which is to be the means of life is not to become the means of death. Does all of this sound inconsistent? It should. More so, it should sound intolerable and morally and logically incoherent.

The arguments for abortion are morally inconsistent and ethically groundless. They are based completely on human, self-centred reasoning—the same kind of reasoning which led to the barbaric butchering of millions under Stalin and the eugenically motivated slaughter of millions under Hitler.

When a worldview jettisons God, then a culture of death is exactly what society should expect. This is clearly what we have in South Africa. We live in a heartless culture where life is seen as worthless. And the reason is simple: We live in a God–less culture. A society which has suppressed the knowledge of God has (surprise!) become obsessed with self-preservation. When individuals in a society can no longer see beyond their own selfish desires a culture of death will follow. And we must recognise that the blame does not lie solely with the government under Mr Mandela’s presidency. It can be traced back to decades of government policies which treated certain groups as less than human. The fruit of the culture of death that we are eating today was planted a long, long time ago. And sadly it was planted wile invoking the name of God and baptised by a whole lot of “Christian” ministers.

I read recently that, according to pollsters, some nine out of ten South Africans are opposed to abortion. But I have to ask, what in the world does that mean? If 90% of our population is opposed to abortion then how come 200 babies are deliberately killed in the womb every day? If there is so much opposition to abortion then why do you have to search hard to find a political party which is opposed to abortion? Why are there Marie Stopes Clinics in every major part of our country?

I suspect that one reason is that the stat is not a true reflection of reality.

For instance, how many of those 90% who say they are opposed to abortion would also add an exception clause: “except of course in the case of rape”; or “except in the case of incest”; or “except in the case of emotional and/or psychological distress”? I wonder how many of these people would say that they were personally opposed to abortion but that they were politically pro-choice. “After all,” many would argue, “what right do I have to force my beliefs on others?” As one church put it in an advert that ran in their local paper, “Personally I am pro-life, but politically I am pro-choice. Signed, Pontius Pilate.”

Again, I wonder how many of those 90% would say that they were opposed to abortion but on the pragmatic grounds that abortion was dangerous for the mother and because it may negatively affect her from being able to conceive in the future when she wanted a child.

Now this point needs to be made. If your reason(s) for being opposed to abortion are merely pragmatic then you will be somewhat desensitised to the horror of abortion. And so, in spite of answering the pollsters that you are “opposed to abortion,” in reality you are not. This, as I see it, is the reason for the prevalence of abortion in South Africa—even though the majority say they are opposed to it. You see, a pragmatic, because God-less worldview, has produced a climate of tolerance for the intolerable; it has laid the (im)moral foundation for a culture of death. When a society suppresses the knowledge of God, it will eventually be abandoned to live without God. And when this is the case it will become increasingly acceptable to boil the young in its mother’s milk. This precisely where we are today.

The Great Commission Connection

So is there any hope for us? Well, I am glad that you asked! Yes there is. And the hope lies in the mandate that the church was given regarding its message and its mission: to make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ of all peoples. The Great Commission is essential in this battle for a society-wide recognition of the sanctity of life. Let me put it this way: By the power of the gospel we can hope to see lives transformed to such a degree that the idea of boiling one’s young in its mother’s milk will be seen for what it is: “monstrous” (Calvin). A culture of life will eventually overtake a culture of death. After all, if a nation is glad in the Lord (Psalm 67) then it won’t be murdering its citizens.

I want to use the time I have left to address the very important question of whether pro-life issues are a distraction from the Great Commission or a part of it. That is a vitally important question for any Christian to answer, for any local church to address—and especially for BBC.

Without apology the Great Commission is what drives BBC. As I said to a group of men recently, if we ever lose the Great Commission ethos then we are sunk.

No Distraction

Over the past year there has been a growing emphasis in our church on sanctify of life issues; a growing passion for being pro-life with a corresponding zeal to be actively anti-abortion. God willing, this year will see the official launch of a crisis pregnancy ministry. And as always we must ask, is such a ministry biblically justifiable? But we must also assess it under another question: Is such a ministry a part of, or a distraction from, our mandate to make disciples of the Lord Jesus?

Several of our church members, based on a recent poll, are of the opinion that pro-life issues are a distraction from the Great Commission, and that they do not form a part of it. I want to persuade you in this study that the Bible teaches that indeed, properly approached, pro-life issues are not a distraction but rather more positively, they are legitimately connected to the Great Commission.

Let me put it this way: In our quest to conquer Canaan with the gospel, is there any connection with the stipulation to not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk? I believe there is.

We must begin by biblically defining the Great Commission. Quite simply we can summarise the Great Commission as “making disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ of all the nations.” There are definite steps that must be followed in accomplishing this task. First, the nations must be evangelised. Second, those who faithfully respond to the Evangel must be baptised. Third, we must teach the faithful what faithfulness looks like (i.e. obedience to all the Lord’s commands).

The result of this of course will be a fundamental shift in the disciple’s worldview. A transformed worldview is the major goal of the Great Commission. By virtue of being born again the convert progressively takes on the worldview of the Lord.

In the light of this let me now attempt to show you how pro-life issues are part of rather than distractions from this Commission.

A Pro-Life Commission

Pro-life issues are not a distraction from the Great Commission for the simple reason that the Great Commission is by its nature pro-life. One can say that the Great Commission is pro-life in both its root and its fruit.

First, think of it this way: The offer of the gospel is the offer of life eternal. “I am come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly,” said Jesus (John 10:10). Speaking of Jesus, John wrote that “in Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). In response to the blindly and blithely confused Sadducees Jesus responded that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:32). John tells us that he wrote his Gospel so that “ you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Jesus told His disciples unequivocally, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The gospel is about imparting spiritual life to the spiritually dead that they might make the most of life for the glory of God and the good of others. The Gospel is for real life and thus it is a pro-life issue. Consider this sampling from the 186 times that the New Testament speaks of “life” with connection to the Lord Jesus Christ:

• John 3:15-17—“That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
• John 6:48—“I am the bread of life.”
• Acts 3:15—“And killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.”
• Romans 5:17—“For if by the one man’s offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)”
• Romans 6:4—“ Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
• Romans 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
• Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.
• 2 Peter 1:3—“As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue.”
• 1 John 1:1—“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.”
• Revelation 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
• Revelation 21:6—“And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.”
• Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

What does this all prove? That the Great Commission is rooted in life. To argue that we should not make any connection between pro-life issues and the Great Commission is to be needlessly nearsighted, for the gospel is the most pro-life message in the universe!

Second, we must consider the consequence of the Great Commission: a culture of pro-life which will replace a culture of death.

As living individuals experience life through the gospel they will become increasingly conscientious about the sanctity of life. Over time the penetrating gospel-produced, ethical, pro-life salt will eat away at the corruption of the culture of death. Such pro-life fruit from the root of the gospel will become an increasingly brighter light that will dispel the damning darkness of the slaughterhouses of death.

The Need for a Saviour

Pro-life issues are relevant to the Great Commission because they are a means of helping sinners to see their need for the Saviour.

A starting point with evangelism is the bad news that we are sinners. Until a person comes to confess their nature they will never see their need. We must therefore help people to understand what sin is. It is rebellion against God. It is rebellion against what God has revealed. And the Ten Commandments contain this revelation.

Since the Bible reveals that life is given by God and that He prohibits the unlawful taking of life, the Sixth Commandment is vital—especially in our culture of death—to help society to be aware that abortion is murder. The church is responsible to be both salt and light. The message of anti-abortion should, like salt, burn deep into the open sore of this society-wide sin. Like light, the message of the anti-abortionists must penetrate the darkness and expose that which is evil (Ephesians 5:8-11).

We can thus consider the anti-abortion, biblically pro-life message to be a key ingredient towards the evangelising and discipling of a people.

Let me put it this way: It is vital to the Great Commission that we speak to pro-life issues because society—peoples—need a lawful framework as a schoolmaster if they will be brought to Christ (see Galatians 3:19-25).

Paul’s argument in Galatians 3 is that the whole schemata of the law was designed by God to help the children of Israel to see that they were sinners who needed the Saviour whom God had promised to send. The ceremonies and sacrifices and feasts and all judicial laws were designed by God to teach His authority, their inherent rebellion and guilt so that they would recognise their only hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. But a culture of death works against such self-realisation. Such a society will not see its need for the Saviour. However, the declaration of pro-life issues confronts society with transcendent claims and eventual judicial accountability: All will stand before God. Such awareness and subsequent conviction is necessary if a people will ever come to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus. In this way pro-life issues serve as did John the Baptist in preparing the way of the Lord. Such issues (like John) help sinners come to the point of repentance because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Christ-centred pro-life issues are necessary schoolmasters for a society that has no idea of how to define the sin from which it needs to be saved. And this is nothing new in the history of the Great Commission.

One thinks, for instance, of William Carey’s very pro-life crusade against the burning of widows in India, of Mary Slessor’s crusade against the killing of twins in Nigeria, and of Amy Carmichael’s ministry of rescuing young girls from the ritual prostitution attached to Hindu temples. In each case societal sins were being confronted with the transcendent claims of Yahweh and the result was an increasing awareness that such actions were wicked and were under the judgement of God. None of those missionaries saw these issues as a distraction from the Great Commission but rather they saw them as intimately connected. It was the gospel that would make the difference, but it was also the gospel which would show the difference—a new appreciation for the sanctity of life.

In summary, the biblically Christ-centred pro-life position is a duty of the Great Commission, not a distraction.

A Pro-Life Worldview

Again, the Great Commission is actually a pro-life worldview. The pro-life position, and therefore pro-life efforts, is consistent with the mandate of the Great Commission for the simple reason that the Great Commission is about life. If we are concerned about spiritual life, why would we not at the same time also be concerned about biological life? We must beware and of and reject any false dualism which sees the spiritual as important and the physical as irrelevant. After all, the body is so important to God that He has promised to raise it (see 1 Corinthians 15).

Since the Great Commission is about saving souls, and since souls inhabit bodies, saving a life should not be seen as somehow disconnected with saving souls. After all, how can you win someone to Christ if they are dead?

I confess that this is probably the weakest argument, for a couple of reasons.

First, no one for whom Christ died will be finally lost. All of His chosen will be saved. Thus my argument is somewhat a non-argument.

Second, this is a somewhat weak argument because I believe that all babies who are aborted go to heaven.

I have no biblical reason to believe that any of them go to hell and of course these are the only two options. You see, an unborn baby is a human being. The unborn child therefore has a soul; a soul which will live forever. Why do I believe that an aborted infant will go to heaven?

It is not because I believe that they are innocent. In fact they are sinful by nature: “In sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). But though they have a sin nature, they have not openly rebelled against the Lord’s revealed standard of righteousness. Therefore they cannot be judged before God according to their “works.” And this seems to be the standard by which God judges biblically.

• Romans 2:6—“[God] ‘will render to each one according to his deeds.’”
• 2 Corinthians 5:10—“For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”
• 2 Corinthians 11:15—“Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
• 2 Timothy 4:14—“Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works.”
• 1 Peter 1:17—“And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear.”
• Revelation 2:23—“I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”
• Revelation 20:12-13—“And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”

Since there are no works for which the unborn can be judged I conclude that the aborted children go to be with the Lord in glory. But please understand that they can only enter heaven—into the reconciled and thus safe presence of God—by being clothed with the righteousness of Christ. Thus they must be regenerated—just like you and me. We have an example of this with regard to John the Baptist, who was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb.

Now if this be true then we can take comfort in the fact that the aborted children are in heaven. This may explain why the biblical revelation of heaven pictures it as a place with an innumerable host of believers. Abortion may be God’s means—at the present time—of adding millions each year to the heavenly church. But this means that pro-life issues are intimately connected with the Great Commission because this Commission is the focus of the church—whether on earth or in heaven. As the scene in Revelation 6:10 depicts, God’s martyred saints cry out in heaven, “How long O Lord?”Aborted infants are murdered saints who desire to be vindicated. More so, they desire the success of the Great Commission for  the glory of God and the good of the church. Yes, the pro-life position is consistent with our Commission because abortion is an attack upon the progress of the gospel.

Abortion is a Satanic attack upon God’s purpose of glorifying Himself in all the nations. Satan seeks to keep people from entering the world whom will live to maturity and serve Christ. The abortion methodology (“murderology”) of the devil is as old as Cain’s murder of Abel, as calculating as Pharaoh’s attempt to destroy the seed of the woman, and as politically motivated by the god of this age as was Herod’s slaughter of the infants.

The workforce of the church is being reduced as many of its unborn members are murdered. As someone at BBC commented on their survey, “Perhaps through abortion other Hudson Taylors are being murdered.” A thoughtful response!

Abortion is an attack on the Great Commission and thus to be actively opposed to abortion is not a distraction, rather it is a duty.

Motivated by Love

Pro-life issues are also not a distraction from the Great Commission because the Great Commission is motivated by the Great Commandment. That is, we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. And therefore we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. How can we do the latter and not speak for those neighbours who cannot speak for themselves?

• Proverbs 24:11-12—“Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?”
• Proverbs 31:8-9—“Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”

A Matter of Authority

Pro-life issues are not a distraction from the Great Commission because of the nature of the Great Commission. That is, the Great Commission is about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is about His authority. Since He is Lord of all , He is Lord over the unborn. The Great Commission is about the authority of Christ. After all, salvation is an authority issue.

It should be noted that Jesus Christ commands the church to teach all that He commands. Since He is God, Since He is the greatest in the kingdom, He expects for us to teach His expectation that His followers obey the commandments of God (Matthew 5:17-20). Since the Sixth Commandment falls under this obligation, we are actually duty bound to speak the pro-life issue if we will be faithful to Christ.

Further, the Lordship of Christ is at the centre of the pro-life issue because He is God and only God has the right to the control over life and death.

The controversial issue of birth control is the very issue of control. There is no teaching in the Bible (of which I am aware) that condemns the use of birth control. What it does condemn is self-centredness and autonomy. And this is at the heart of much which passes for “family planning.” Abortion is the ultimate act of self-centred and autonomous “family planning.” At its root it comes down to who is lord (or Lord) of life? The pro-choice worldview says that the mother is and thus she can play God; the biblical pro-life worldview says that there is only one God. And He has spoken authoritatively to this issue: “You shall not murder.”

The Need for Forgiveness

Pro-life issues are a part of the Great Commission rather than a distraction because 200 women each day in South Africa experience the need for God’s forgiveness. Those who have abortions, those who advise abortions and those who perform abortions desperately need the Saviour.

Some allege that a believer in Jesus Christ would never intentionally have an abortion. I am not so sure. I believe that the culture of death has so pervaded our society that many believers are ignorant concerning what God says about abortion. With all due respect, many of our own congregation stated on the survey that they are opposed to abortion “except in the case of rape or incest.” That is an unbiblical position. Rape is a horrible sin and incest is an inexplicable evil yet God legislated against killing a child for the sins of the father (Deuteronomy 24:16).

I believe that an uninformed and/or terribly confused believer could choose to sin and have an abortion. And some no doubt have and they need to experience forgiveness and restoration.

Having said that it is true that most who choose death over life do so because they are spiritually dead. They need to hear the gospel. They need to be regenerated. They need to be saved. They therefore need to cross the path of those who are fuelled by the Great Commission and are therefore pro-life-informed.

Norma McCorvey (the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade) was the woman who was virtually single-handedly responsible for the legislation of aborton-on-demand in the United States. She supported abortion rights for many years, but was befriended by Pastor Flip Benham, who ministered at an Operation Rescue ministry across the street from the abortion clinic that McCorvey sponsored. Over time, Benham shared the gospel with McCorvey, who tells the eventual outcome in her biographical account, Won by Love.

I was sitting in [Operation Rescue’s] offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. “Norma,” I said to myself, “They’re right.” I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that’s a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realisation. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about “products of conception.” It wasn’t about “missed periods.” It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.

McCorvey was converted to Christ shortly after that realisation. And multitudes of women in similar positions need the saving grace of Christ.

Having said all of this, I want to make it clear that the Bible does not define the Great Commission in strictly “evangelistic” terms, even though evangelism is its greatest concern. Let me explain.

As we have seen, the Lord Jesus Christ expects for His people to submit to His Lordship in every area of life. The Great Commission is comprehensive in its scope. And thus, in the Great Commission, we seek the regeneration of a soul and then the complete renewal of the soul to walk in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake (Psalm 23:3). The result, of course, should be an increasing number of people who are the best citizens of that nation. Those who follow Christ place such a high premium on human life that they will be a blessing to any nation. “Righteousness exalts a nation” (Proverbs 14:34). And it should be pointed out that followers of Christ can be a blessing even at those times in which evangelism is not the priority. Let me illustrate.

Suppose you are walking down the street and you come across a man who has stopped his car and is in the process of kidnapping a child. What would be the most appropriate response? Should you give the man a tract and seek to win him to Christ? Would it be more appropriate to say to the child, “If you were to die today and stand before God, do you know that you would go to heaven?” Perhaps you might say to the child, “Don’t worry, this man will probably molest you and then kill you and throw you into a field to rot; but since you are only four years old, you will go to heaven when you die. Be warmed and filled!” Absurd? Heartless? Wicked? You are be absolutely correct! What you should do at that moment is to so love your neighbour as yourself that for the time being evangelism takes second place to your becoming a protector of physical life. The only righteous response at that moment would be to do what was necessary to rescue that child. And if in the process you injured the assailant, so be it! Injure him now; evangelise him later!

In this illustration we need to see that at no time is there a conflict with the Great Commission. Christ is being honoured as Lord in the right (and aggressive) response. But neither is evangelism out of the picture. Consider the potential of reaching that child and perhaps even the family for Christ as a result of your loving action.

And even in the case of the kidnapper, there may be opportunity for him to later be evangelised. I think you can see the parallel. Efforts at stopping abortion should be motivated by the comprehensive nature of the Great Commission. And in our efforts to rescue the victims from the murderers, we will doubtless be given opportunity to share the gospel with those who are (temporarily, at least) behaving in an evil way.

Listen to the following brief account of a woman who came to understand the truth behind abortion who repented of her involvement in it.

Abby Johnson’s new book unPlanned is the powerful story of the woman who made headlines a little over a year ago when she abruptly resigned her post as director of a Planned Parenthood center in Texas and joined a pro-life organization headquartered down the street.

Johnson ran a business that performed abortions, and had had two of her own. But when she assisted in one, she watched the ultrasound monitor in horror as a 13-week-old unborn child kicked and squirmed as though trying to get away from the cannula. After the abortionist lightheartedly directed one of his assistants to turn on the suction with the words, “Beam me up, Scotty,” the last thing Johnson remembers seeing was the “perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube.”

In that moment, Johnson saw abortion for what it is: the taking of human life. Within days, she quit her job and joined the pro-life forces who had been praying long and hard for her outside the fence of the Planned Parenthood location. She would soon learn that they had never given up on her. They had treated her with kindness, prayerfully hoping for her change of heart.

Having said all of the above, should you now dedicate yourself to exclusive task of spending all of your days walking the streets looking for other similar situations? That seems to be the fear of those who think that pro-life issues are a distraction from the gospel. I think that this can be a legitimate concern and so let us now point out the dangers of it being so. Though it is not intrinsically a distraction to our mission, pro-life issues most certainly can be.

Potential Distraction

Very briefly, let us consider how pro-life issues can potentially become a distraction to the Great Commission.

First, it can become a distraction if we refuse to use the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. In other words, our pro-life stance must be motivated by God-centredness. To be more specific, if our theology behind being pro-life is not biblically informed, then we run the danger of losing the plot, of losing the gospel.

We should never be ashamed to use the Sword or the Spirit on those who mock our weapon. Prove that it is sharp by unsheathing it! Truth is truth whether one recognises it or not. We are Christians, not rationalists or naturalists.

Second, it can become a distraction if we do not see that this issue—as important as it is—is not the only social issue which the Bible addresses. Tunnel vision is rarely a good thing in any endeavour.

Third, it can become a distraction if we place our trust more in politics than in the Potentate. Neither triumphalism nor cynicism is helpful.

Fourth, it can become a distraction if we lose sight of our responsibility to be Christlike in both our positions and in our disposition. A lack of graciousness is not helpful in discipling the nations. There is no place for self-righteousness and unbiblical judgmentalism in dealing with any sin issue. We are to be like Jesus who was known to be a friend of sinners.

Fifth, it can become a distraction if we fail to make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, in our pro-life efforts, are we at the same time actively making disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ? Another way to put this is to assess your own motivation behind your pro-life intensity. That is, are you driven by the desire to submit to the Lordship of Christ and to see others bow the knee to Him as well? This leads us to the next observation.

Sixth, it can become a distraction if we lose our focus on body-life in the local church. There is no substitute for this. One can become so obsessed with an issue that the regular things of church life can seem to be of so little importance. Since, at least at BBC, the focus is the Great Commission, we must beware of minimising what might seem mundane issues in our zeal for the activism of being pro-life. We must remember the principle that every member has a gift and the local church is multifaceted in its practical involvement in the work of the Great Commission. Let us beware of the temptation to judge others, and the local church as a whole, by our particular passion.

Seventh, it can become a distraction if the pro-life efforts and focus begins to self-justify doctrinal error.

When it comes to social justice believers often join hands with unbelievers or with believers who have serious doctrinal errors. The justification for this is the practice of “co-belligerence.” This term is used militarily when nations work together to defeat a common enemy. The formal definition is, “when a state or individual cooperates with , but is not bound by a formal alliance in waging war.” That is, there is a common enemy that they oppose but neither at the same time gives up their distinctive as a nation. When we apply this to the church working with unbelievers in pro-life issues we need to be careful to never surrender our distinctive beleifs regarding the gospel.

Though a biblical case can be made for co-belligerence (Joseph and Pharaoh; King Darius funding the rebuilding of the temple; etc.) we must be sure that in our pro-life efforts that we remain supremely committed to Christ and His gospel. It is all too tempting to join hands with errorists such as Mormons and Roman Catholics in this issue whilst minimising serious doctrinal deficiencies—even diabolical heresies.

Though on a political level there is no problem with working with such individuals, we must be careful of this issue looming larger than the eternal destiny of those whom we are working with. If an unbeliever saves a life, that is wonderful. But it is tragic to win the world and yet lose one’s own soul! To refuse to seek to win your unsaved pro-life comrade to Christ could in fact be as calloused as supporting abortion!

In summary, the pro-life position can indeed become a distraction from the Great Commission if we do not continually assess our motivation for what we are doing as well as the message we are seeking to convey.

Conclusion

It is time to bring the proverbial plan in to land. With what helpful and hopeful word can we conclude this study?

Going back to our text in Exodus, let me encourage us as local churches that, when the children of Israel entered Canaan, they too were facing a culture of death. The various “-ites” who lived there had little respect for life. Amongst other evils, they practiced child sacrifice. They certainly had no qualms about boiling the young in its mother’s milk. And yet by God’s grace—over the decades and even centuries—it became a land characterised by a culture of life. And this happened through the promises and the power of God.

So let us continue to discover what God’s Word says about life, and let us continue to develop and display and declare pro-life issues as revealed by God.

Let us so live that we demonstrate God’s concern for life. Let us live and speak that the world around us knows that it is unnatural for that which is to be a source of life becoming the means of death. Let us demonstrate that we trust the Lord for life and that the population of the world is His concern more than it is ours. Let us speak for the defenceless. And in keeping with the Great Commission let us disciple others to do likewise.

Yes, let us make it clear that God is pro-life and that if others want a share in His life, then they must be pro-life as well. And this begins with experiencing eternal life through the sacrificial and substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us be like our pro-life Father in heaven and seek to be a blessing for life.