Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Being Pro-Choice is a Biblical Concept

News Division

There is a lot of debate about abortion in evangelical circles today. Seemingly, some are for it; others against it. However, being “pro-choice” is a biblical concept.

Hear us out. The Bible gives us all kinds of choices.

Consider Matthew 7:13-14, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Or consider Joshua 24:15, “And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Or, consider Deuteronomy 30:19, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live…”

Therefore we can definitively say that God is pro-choice. Whether a Calvinist or Arminian, we should all agree that God has given people a measure of will, whether or not it is in bondage to their nature, that allows the capacity for making choices.

Therefore, we should not be against using the term “pro-choice” and should readily use that term to describe God’s position on abortion.


No. No, that’s not right. That’s asinine. Abortion is a murderous and abominable act, and God hates it.

QUESTION: But why would it be unfruitful to say that being “pro-choice is a biblical concept?”

ANSWER: Because the term has a cultural origin and original meaning that specifically refers to a specific ideology and is not designed for general use. Using the term to refer to something other than its original meaning is academically dishonest and intellectually unstable.


The Akin family is an incredible example of how it’s possible to be highly functioning autotrons in a bureaucratic or institutional ecosystem, yet lack any capacity for original thought or genuine intelligence. Only in a pay-for-play institutional system run on the currency of sycophancy can someone with the limited mental capabilities of the Akin family flourish.

Jonathan Akin, who is the director of a stupid, made-up, worthless bureaucratic position at the North American Mission Board called the Director of Young Leader Engagement, tweeted a deeply philosophical idea (sarcasm implied) regurgitating the ideas that he’s been force-fed by people who use his last name as a soapbox to stand upon.

Akin then went on to claim that we should define the term “Social Justice” how the Bible does.

Akin thinks the term “Social Justice” comes from the Bible. Of course, it does not.

Jonathan Akin

Akin is engaged in fallacious thinking. The idea is suitable for a child who cannot grasp abstract thought, but it is embarrassing for someone who’s been on the denominational payroll since they sucked from their mother’s breast. His thought is, “the Bible is for justice…and for being social…therefore Social Justice is Biblical.”

We could, of course, make the same argument about being “pro-choice” (as we did above). One could argue that God is not against choice, and therefore we could tweet out, “Being pro-choice is a Biblical concept.” It would be no less fallacious than what Akin and other simple-minded Social Justice snowflakes do with the term Social Justice.

As Joe Carter pointed out at The Social Gospel Coalition, the term, Social Justice, was invented by a contemporary of Karl Marx, a Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio who made up the term in the 1840s.

Ergo, the term has a definition. It has an originator. It has an origin. None of those were created or found in the Bible; they were found in the teachings a Socialist-minded Jesuit priest.

Later in the 19th Century, progressive and liberal legal scholars began using the term to describe the redistribution of wealth, like particularly Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound. International bodies began to use the term in the 20th Century to refer to Marxist social programs.

In 2006, the United Nations defined Social Justice in full Marxist flavor, “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth…”

In religious circles, the term Social Justice was co-opted by mainstream liberals, Liberation Theologians, and Roman Catholics heavily influenced by Jesuits after the Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization.

People who argue that “Social Justice is a Biblical concept” because the Bible uses these two words, irrespective of what the term’s definers, creators, and users mean by it, are at best useful idiots. At worst, they’re dangerous ideologues.