Satan, Victimhood, Culpability, and Abortion

I'm at Big Bend National Park this week, but finally today I have a free 90 minutes in the vicinity of Wi-Fi. It seems a good time to rebut (again) misconstruals (again) and bad theology (again) demonstrated in the Twitter feeds of various people affiliated with the "Abortion Abolition" movement (in quotes because all Pro-Life Southern Baptists are in favor of the abolition of abortion and are working toward that end).

You may find it helpful throughout this essay to have a working knowledge of this essay, "Working Toward the End of Abortion," which is the fullest statement of my beliefs as a Pro-Life Southern Baptist (contrasted with those who are a part of the self-styled "abortion abolition" movement."

Why I Interact with the "Abortion Abolition" movement

Generally speaking, everything I've written or said about the "abortion abolition" movement fits into three buckets. In bucket one, there are occasions when I've just tried to articulate Southern Baptist Pro-Life theology. The Pro-Life view of the SBC has been consistently held and expressed in more than 20 resolutions over the course of 40 years. I believe what Southern Baptists have believed for all of my adult life. When I write Pro-Life articles, some abortion abolitionists will get angry and interact online, whether I mention that movement or not.

In bucket two, occasionally those affiliated with that movement will bring resolutions or other business items to Baptist meetings or to state legislatures. If the occasion arises when it will be helpful for me to do so, I tend to find a microphone and speak.

It doesn't take much to draw the ire of some of the Twitter personalities I have mentioned. For example, at the 2022 meeting of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, I went to a microphone and asked, essentially, this question (I don't have a verbatim transcript): "You're seeking to amend this resolution to add language about 'equal protection under the law.' Sometimes online I've seen people use that phrase to mean that they want laws adopted to prosecute criminally any women who seek an abortion. Is that what you mean by this amendment?" So, all I did was ask a question for clarification, so that the messengers would know what they were voting on. That was taken as an inappropriate opposition against the resolution and their movement. Once the messengers knew what was the real agenda of the amendment, by the way, it failed.

Simple efforts to help you to see the whole story can make some of the folks in this group really angry.

In bucket three, sometimes I see "abortion abolition" Twitter accounts harrassing other people, and I've found that if I engage those accounts, they pick on me and leave everyone else alone. Occasionally, I like to give others the gift of a day or two of peace from these gadflies.

To be sure, they're very strategic about whom they tag with their Twitter broadsides. They never mention Richard Land, for example, although he is a Pro-Life Southern Baptist who opposes their movement. Why? Richard Land was a soldier in the Convervative Resurgence, and it's really difficult for them to argue dishonestly that Richard Land is a liberal. No one will believe them.

They never tag Ronnie Rogers, although he has labored in opposition to their movement in Oklahoma since it first began in Oklahoma. Why? Ronnie Rogers is a member of the Conservative Baptist Network. It's really difficult for them to argue dishonestly that Ronnie Rogers is a liberal.

In fact, the vast preponderance of Southern Baptists are Pro-Life and not a member of their group, but they are very selective about the targets that they choose. Dishonestly suggesting that someone is a liberal is the modus operandi here, and they select people for whom they think they have some chance of success.

So, they pick on Brent Leatherwood and the ERLC. Why? Because they think that they CAN get away with convincing you (falsely) that Brent is a liberal. They think Brent is the slow gazelle in the back of the herd (he isn't). It's just cyber-bullying, because they don't have the courage to engage the harder targets online that I've mentioned above. Cyber-bullying ticks me off, and since I know that by engaging I can totally capture their attention away from everyone else, sometimes I engage them. I never bother to interact when they only tag me.

The Latest Pattern of Posts

In recent days, one common category of these "abortion abolition" posts goes like this: They find an egregiously pro-abortion woman—part of the "Shout Your Abortion" crowd—they link to an image, video, or post from her, and then they say, "Brent Leatherwood, Bart Barber, and the ERLC think this woman is a victim." What they are implying, of course, is more than this. The implied message is, "They think she is a victim, which is ridiculous, and therefore they think that she is not culpable for her abortion, and that's the reason why they don't promote our efforts to change anti-abortion laws so that they put women in prison for seeking abortions."

It doesn't take much research to see that they aren't telling you the whole story.

The position I outlined in the article I mentioned above is that women who seek abortions are BOTH victims AND culpable. They never tell you the last part, but it's right there in the article in black-and-white. I have never denied a woman's culpability in seeking an abortion if she is seeking one.

An Orthodox Theology of Satan

I replied to one such post recently. Here's how that interaction unfolded.

1. They posted: "Leatherwood, Barber, et al, think that this woman is a victim."
2. I replied simply by asking a question: "Are you saying that you don't think she is a victim in any sense?"
3. They replied saying that, as it pertains to her getting an abortion, no, they don't think that she is a victim in any sense. The "in any sense" part is important.
4. I replied by citing 2 Corinthians 4:4 ("In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.")
5. The entire "abolitionist" Twitter horde responded by suggesting that I was saying that 2 Corinthians 4:4 means that women who seek abortions are not culpable for their abortions. In fact (see above again), I wasn't denying that they were culpable; I was simply affirming that they are victims. Remember, my position is that women BOTH are victims AND are culpable.

2 Corinthians 4:4 teaches us about the activity of Satan vis-à-vis lost people. He blinds them. Is that an adversarial act? Of course it is. Are they victims of that adversarial action? Of course they are. They are victims.

Are they culpable for that? Of course they are. They'll be condemned to eternal torment in Hell for it. Yes, they are culpable.

People are victims of Satan and of satanic schemes that are at work in the world. They are also culpable for what they do in response to those schemes.

A similar idea is also true of believers, although in a different way. Satan lays "snares" for believers, which pastors must help believers to avoid (2 Timothy 2:24-26). This is of great importance because Satan is like a lion stalking prey when he is at work tempting believers, who must resist him (1 Peter 5:8-9). Christians can be victims of Satan's snares and prowling. We are nonetheless culpable for how we respond.

We are all victims of Satan and his schemes. We are all responsible for how we respond to those schemes—culpable for any failures to respond righteously. This combination of victim-yet-culpable is an indispensible part of any biblical theology of Satan, demons, and their work. Satan can tempt us. Satan cannot force us to sin. We are victims of his efforst to trip us up. We are culpable for any choices we may make to sin.

We see this play out in Genesis 3. Eve is held responsible for her sin—she is culpable. But she was also deceived (1 Timothy 2:14)—she is a victim.

Perhaps you also have been deceived? Have you seen things on Twitter suggesting that I was denying the culpability of women who seek abortions? Now that you've read the article I linked above and have learned that I am 100% affirming the culpability of women who seek abortions, do you feel like the aim of those tweets was to give you a full understanding of my view?

One thing some people missed in that article that I linked above is this: When I spoke of women who seek abortions as victims, I quoted a very prominent Southern Baptist "abortion abolitionist." My statements about the victimhood of women in that article lined up very closely with those of Bill Ascol. Why? Because Bill is a good enough theologian to understand what Jesus taught us about the role of Satan in trying to deceive, ensnare, and destroy people. To be sure, Bill was affirming culpability while he was affirming victimhood. So am I.

So, the very beliefs that "abolitionists" lampoon in me are beliefs shared by their own leadership. As those beliefs should be shared by anyone who believes the Bible.

Note: It is perhaps not surprising that this is an area of misunderstanding and confusion. Polling suggests that we may not be preaching and teaching enough on this subject matter to help our church members understand what Jesus taught us about Satan.

Modern Abuses of "Victimhood"

Intriguingly, these tweets from the "abortion abolition" movement seem to have imbibed deeply from the modern progressive use of the idea of victimhood rather than from the biblical idea. In the Bible (as demonstrated above), being a victim does not automatically remove one's culpability for bad actions. In the eyes of many people in our society, if they can claim the status of a victim, that makes them innocent of any bad things that they may have done and ipso facto transfers culpability to whoever oppressed them.

But these people on Twitter assume (contrary to what I have written and what they have read) that I am absolving women of all culpability in abortion when I call them victims. That assumption lines up with this Progressive idea of victimhood-means-no-culpability, not the biblical ideal of victimhood-with-culpability. I find that ironic.

What about Criminal Prosecution?

So, the actual disagreement here should not be whether these women are victims (good, biblical theology will lead anyone to affirm that they are victims of Satan's schemes), nor should it be whether these women are culpable for their sin in seeking an abortion (good, biblical theology will lead anyone to affirm that they are indeed culpable). The difference is over the question of whether we should be pushing for the enactment of anti-abortion laws that explicitly provide for the imprisonment (execution?) of women who seek abortions.

In the article I linked above, I do make a case against seeking criminal prosecution against women who seek abortions. Eliminate the supply and you'll protect the lives of just as many babies as if you fill our prisons (or our death chambers) with tens of thousands of women.

In that article, you'll find a series of numbered questions that I answer. Under questions 4 and 5 appears an explanation of why I do not favor the criminal prosecution of these women. You're welcome to read the whole thing, but for our present purposes, that is not necessary. Instead, I just ask you to do this: see whether that case is dependent upon whether the woman seeking an abortion is or is not a victim? That's just not the case that I have laid out. I offer other reasons why I believe that the laws being promoted by this small group are unjust, unnecessary, and unwise. I point out the abortionists role as the person killing the baby (in a surgical abortion). I point out that in some cases the woman may be neither the one who kills the baby nor the one paying for the abortion nor even always the person who sought out the abortion. She may not even reasonably have consented to it. I also make the case that it is fiscally irresponsible to fill our prisons with tens of thousands of women when abortion can be halted just as effectively by prosecuting abortionists (or people who manufacture, distribute, prescribe, or sell abortifacient pharmaceuticals). I make a lot of arguments against prosecution. "These women aren't culpable because they are victims" just isn't found anywhere among them. I affirm their culpability.

In a quick tweet, they just want to imply that I'm turning a blind eye to the culpability of these women, and that's the only reason why I'm not a gung-ho "abolitionist." But they're not telling you the whole story (nor even a true story) about why I do not support their legal efforts.

Conclusion

Remember the implied message I stated above? "[Leatherwood, Barber, et al] think [the woman seeking an abortion] is a victim, which is ridiculous, and therefore they think that she is not culpable for her abortion, and that's the reason why they don't promote our efforts to change anti-abortion laws so that they put women in prison for seeking abortions."

"They think she is a victim…"

True.

"…which is ridiculous…"

False. Actually, it's biblical.

"…and therefore they think that she is not culpable for her abortion…"

False. Actually, I do believe that she is culpable for her abortion…

"…and that's the reason why they don't promote our efforts to change anti-abortion laws so that they put women in prison for seeking abortions.

False. Actually, I have made a different case against prosecuting these women, and that case does not rise or fall on the culpability of the women. Indeed, it is made by someone who assumes that they are culpable.

And THAT'S the whole story.