Evangelism or Saving Babies? Which will it be?

Recently in a discussion about abortion with some fellow brothers, a statement was reapeated over and over and it went like this: "Evangelism must always come first. That is the way it has always been. Then everything else comes after that." Of course in the context of this discussion, "everything else" is referring to pro-life activism. That is, the activity of defending pre-born babies. This statement has several problems.

1. It assumes that doing one means you can't do the other. Why is it that defending babies from being tortured to death is somehow prohbitive of sharing the good news of forgiveness and freedom from sin through Jesus Christ? I reject that at its face and you should too. Or at least, someone is going to have to prove that statement to me. It is a false dilemma. The two are not exclusive of the other and in fact, I would argue, the two are in harmony. What do I mean by that?....

2. The missionary heroes of faith, those we might tout as being in the evangelism hall of fame, are filled with examples of saints who minister first and spent most of their time ministering to physical needs of those they were with. The list is long and just off the top of my head here are but a few:

• Hudson Taylor - missionary to China who cared for the needs of unwanted chinese children
  
• William Carry-missionary to India. Was instrumental in bringing an end to "Sati" the practice of burning widows after their husbands died.
  
• Amy Carmichael-missionary to India. Known for rescuing young girls from being enslaved as Hindu temple prostitutes.
  
• Gladys Aylward-missionary to China. Rescued hundreds of orphans. Helped stop the practice of foot binding.
  
• Corrie Ten Boom-devoted Christian and along with her sister and father, were part of the Dutch resistance to the Nazis and rescued Jews from slaughter.
  
• George Mueller-Evangelist and coordinated orphanages in Bristol, England.
• Mother Theresa-Roman Catholic Nun who ministered to the sick, poor and dying for decades.
  

I know the list could go on but you get the idea. Let's not also forget that the historians record that the early Christian church was known for caring for the sick and needy. And they were also known for caring for abandoned babies. Something that the Roman culture practiced and despite the legal prohibitions by the Roman government to intervene for these babies, the Christians cared for them anyway under great persecution.

3. And thirdly, since when does "evangelism" trump the commandments of Jesus? Jesus and the apostles clearly commanded Christians to care for the physical needs of the "least of these" (Matthew 25:40) and to care for "widows and orphans" (James 2). We see through out the Old Testament that God repeatedly demands justice for the helpless and needy.

I don't understand this logic. But really I should. Why is that? What is it that is different about the helpless people that the above listed saints cared for and the unborn children being killed by abortion? The difference here is that most people do not see the pre-born babies as the same as the victims of the above injustices. The pre-born is an abstraction and abortion is merely a lesser of evils but not a great evil. At least not nearly an evil comparable to the genocides listed above.

I see this all the time. The smartest people and what you might say are the most godly people completely miss that there is a holocaust happening in their own backyard.

So you see there is no contradiction between Christian evangelism and pro-life activism. That is unless the unborn are really not human beings and are not our "neighbor" who we should love as ourselves.

Don Cooper

"If those who claim the name of Christ are not willing to stand up against something as evil as killing a baby, then the world has the right to ask if Christ is real." -Francis Schaeffer