Abortion: Abolition or Pro-Life?

 

I need to think through this issue in more detail. To that end I will be delaying my examination of Galatians 4 by another week (sorry for those waiting for it) so I can interview Elijah Harris, who is on the board of Abolish Abortion Australia. Harris is a young Christian man, a Presbyterian, who is passionate about seeing abortion criminalized. You can watch the livestream of this interview tonight at 8pm AEST on my YouTube channel Based Christian History. Hopefully this interview will help inform you about this debate, but also how you can get more involved in brining abortion to an end in Australia.

I used to be pro-abortion, when I was younger, before I had really thought about it. Not because of an ideological commitment, but simply because I just assumed it wasn’t wrong. I saw it as a medical issue. I grew up in Australia, going to church and Christian schools, but I was not a committed believer at that point, and no one had ever really explained abortion to me.

My first encounter with strong anti-abortion opinions happened a few years before I became a believer myself. Both encounters happened at work and they were with unbelievers. One was a guy who grew up in Catholic school, who explained to me his perspective was that if you were going to have sex, you should commit to having any children that come about. Abortion should not be an option. He was not a believer himself, as I noted. The other was a young woman who told me she had supported abortion until she saw what they actually did to the baby. She described to me the process. I went and investigated, and saw that she was right. I was convinced from that point on that it was wrong but did not give it much more thought. I don’t know why no one had ever explained it to me before then. I became a Christian a few years after this.

From the moment that I realized what abortion was and became committed to Christ, I became a strong supporter of the abolition of abortion. It is murder, not two ways about it. It is just that simple. It is taking a life. It is child sacrifice as well. How? Well, abortion is the taking of one life to improve the life of another. This was the exact motivation and reason behind child sacrifice in ancient cultures. The exchange of an innocent’s child life for perceived or received blessings for the one who gave that life. That is child sacrifice.

Some Australians might find this language excessive. They might ask why you need to put it so strongly. But if we cannot name an evil, then we cannot truly address it appropriately. This is why we calls slavery what it is, slavery. We do not call it discount labour, or free labour, because this would obscure what is really taking place, naming an evil is necessary for engaging with it effectively.

I have long opposed abortion, and have preached about it, written about it, and supported efforts to limit abortions. I have mourned with other Australian Christians about the licentious and libertine abortion policies that have grown excessively worse in our nation over recent years. I have warned people that God will not shine his favour on nations that engage in such open bloodshed, and proud bloodshed. I have argued that the Church helps perpetuate this problem by using ineffective rhetoric and by completely misunderstanding that this issue is an issue of women’s empowerment, not victimhood. But despite all of this, it was only recently that I found out that there is a significant divide in the Christian anti-abortion movement between the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement.

In the Australian abortion debate, the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement both oppose abortion on the grounds that it ends a human life, but they differ significantly in strategy, goals, tactics, and underlying philosophy. The distinction mirrors broader international patterns but plays out in Australia's unique context, where abortion laws are regulated at the state/territory level (not federally) and have been largely decriminalised in most jurisdictions, allowing access on request up to varying gestational limits (often 22–24 weeks, with broader exceptions thereafter).

 

The Pro-Life Movement in Australia

This is the broader, more established anti-abortion movement. It includes organisations such as Right to Life Australia, Pro-Life Health Professionals Australia, the Australian Christian Lobby, Cherish Life, and prominent activists who use social media and other means to try and educate people about what abortion is and why it is bad.

The Pro-Life Movement seeks legal protections for the unborn through incremental restrictions—for example, reducing gestational limits, banning late-term abortions, prohibiting sex-selective abortions, requiring informed consent or counselling, or ensuring equal care for newborns who survive abortions. Politically, it often supports bills that roll back "extreme" laws (e.g., abortion up to birth in some states) while acknowledging political realities. I know some people who are active in the movement, and they would like to see abortion abolished, but they also believe it is best to do what you can if you cannot achieve that.

 

Many pro-life groups run or promote crisis pregnancy centres, adoption services, and practical help for women facing unplanned pregnancies. They generally view women seeking abortions as victims of coercion, pressure, or circumstances rather than primary perpetrators.

• Tactics: Lobbying politicians, public marches (e.g., Marches for Life), education campaigns, and working within parliaments and churches. It is often non-denominational or multi-faith but draws heavily from Christian communities.
• Goal: Reduce abortions as much as possible through law, culture, and support services, with the ultimate aim of making abortion "unthinkable" or heavily restricted (though full nationwide abolition is rarely pursued as an immediate demand due to the state-based legal system).

The Abolitionist Movement in Australia

This is a smaller, more recent, and explicitly radical subset. It is primarily represented by Abolish Abortion Australia (AAA) and affiliated state groups (e.g., Abolish Abortion Victoria). They describe themselves as "gospel-centered, uncompromising, [and] church-driven."

 

• Core approach: They demand the total and immediate abolition of all abortion in Australia from fertilisation onward, with no exceptions (not even for rape, incest, fetal abnormality, or maternal health in the broad sense used by pro-life bills). They reject any incremental legislation outright.
• "Equal justice" principle: A defining feature is their call for equal protection under the law for the unborn and equal justice for everyone involved—meaning abortion providers, mothers, fathers, and medical staff should all face criminal penalties (treating abortion as murder). They argue that mainstream pro-life laws that only target providers while treating the mother as a victim perpetuate injustice. They critique this on the basis of the principle of partiality, laws that save some, not others are committing, in their view, the sin of partiality. Choosing between different victims is seen as unjust.
• Tactics: Abolitionists use grassroots methods of activism. Things like street evangelism, campus activism (sometimes with graphic imagery), public proclamations of the gospel, and direct criticism of pro-life organisations. They actively urge politicians to vote against incremental pro-life bills (e.g., late-term bans or newborn care protections), labelling such measures "iniquitous decrees" or moral compromises.

 

• Philosophy: They frame abortion as a national sin equivalent to slavery and reject "pro-life" incrementalism as compromising with evil (analogous to regulating slavery rather than abolishing it). They promote the "Five Tenets of Abolitionism" and emphasise church-led repentance and justice.

As you will have gathered from my opening, I broadly align more closely with the abolitionist movement myself, though I am not sure it is always the best approach in every situation. However, it is useful to understand these distinctions, so that you can learn where to engage your focus on this issue.

Here are some key differences summarized:

HeHre

-        Strategy: Pro-life groups pursue incrementalism (step-by-step legal restrictions and support services) as a practical way to save lives now. Abolitionists reject this as compromise; they insist on immediate, total abolition or nothing.

-        Exceptions and scope: Pro-life efforts often include targeted bans or limits with some exceptions. Abolitionists allow none and demand nationwide criminalisation with equal accountability for mothers.

-        View of women: Pro-life typically emphasises support and sees women as victims needing alternatives. Abolitionists insist on moral and legal accountability for mothers as well.

-        Tone and framing: Pro-life is often framed in terms of human rights, science (life begins at conception), and compassion. Abolitionism is explicitly theological ("to the glory of God"), uncompromising, and critical of the broader pro-life movement itself. To be fair, the pro-life movement would also say that they are seeking to pursue the glory of God, they are simply seeking to do it through the given mechanisms in the political process, like many other lobby groups do.

-        Size and influence: The pro-life movement is larger and more established in lobbying and public life. The abolitionist movement is smaller, fringe in mainstream politics, but vocal (e.g., campus protests and public debates with pro-life figures).

 

US influence on the Australian abolitionist movement is also directly relevant and significant. While Australia's broader anti-abortion movement has received strategic guidance from the US since the 1970s, the specific "abolitionist" framework—terminology, rejection of incrementalism, emphasis on prosecuting mothers, and gospel-centred activism—is heavily shaped by US abolitionist groups. Abolish Abortion Australia partners with US-based Abolitionists Rising (which has sent activists to Australia), hosts joint conferences, and draws on the same "Five Tenets of Abolitionism" that emerged in the US post-Roe v. Wade context.

 

In short, in Australia the pro-life movement works to restrict and reduce abortion through pragmatic, incremental means, while the abolitionist movement (via groups like AAA) demands immediate, total criminal abolition with no compromises—and explicitly distances itself from pro-life incrementalism. The two overlap in opposing abortion but often clash over tactics and principles.

From my initial critiques of both sides of this movement, I see some weaknesses in both approaches. Firstly, it should be noted that in Australia both movements have failed to have any significant success overall, though both movements will have saved lives through convincing individual women not to have abortions. At the end of the day individual Christians can only do so much. This leads me to a critique of the abolitionist movement. Arguing that supporting policies that limit abortion is the same as the committing the sin of partiality does not sit well with me.

James 2 shows very clearly that partiality is a sin that includes playing favourites with the intention to gain favour or benefits,

“1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. 2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” 4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” (Jam. 2:1-6, NKJV).

Why do people show favourtism to the rich? So that they may gain the attention of those with privilege, or the support of those with wealth. The poor man can offer nothing, whereas the rich man can offer much, or so people think at least. The reason I would not apply this to abortion is very simple: no class of unborn child can show you favourtism, hence supporting policies that might make one class of children safer, while not doing the same for another is not really favourtism, it is simply seeking to save some. Every fireman or police officer is faced with this same dilemma at some point in their career. Choosing to save who you can, is not the sin of partiality.

This then leads me to critique some on the pro-life side who accuse the abolitionist of refusing to save any to stay morally pure. Romans 14 is clear that some people's consciences see sin in what others do not,

“1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:1-4).

The Bible does not give direct advice on how to handle every bit of legislation brought forth in a pagan land. It gives principles of justice and forces us at times to use discernment and wisdom. Hence, I will admit that I myself would struggle to support legislation that opened up a class of unborn children to abortion but not others. The reason I would struggle with this is because I am not a magistrate and so by not getting involved I have not, in my mind, aided the process. Whereas, another person’s conscience may say that by advocating for such laws they are limiting the process. Is this not then a matter for conscience, rather than condemnation, because at the end of day, people in both positions are sitting outside the actual process of the application of abortion, and are seeking to do their best to oppose it?

I need to think through this issue in more detail. To that end I will be delaying my examination of Galatians 4 by another week (sorry for those waiting for it) so I can interview Elijah Harris, who is on the board of Abolish Abortion Australia. Harris is a young Christian man, a Presbyterian, who is passionate about seeing abortion criminalized. You can watch the livestream of this interview tonight at 8pm AEST on my YouTube channel Based Christian History. Hopefully this interview will help inform you about this debate, but also how you can get more involved in brining abortion to an end in Australia.

 

Fallen Soldiers

 

I have no idea about what Ben Roberts-Smith has or has not done. 

I think our politicians are more culpable for any war crimes that may have been committed than any soldier sent under their policies, as the war was inherently unjust to begin with. Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc, etc, were never in a position to be at war with us. Hence they cannot be called a defensive wars. 

I also believe that soldiers need to do things, lawfully and morally, that most civilians would find distasteful. That's the nature of war. 

That all being said, don't assume that just because someone is a soldier this means that they are morally superior to the average Australian, as a starting point. This is not the case. The army selects from a cross section of Australian society, and it is not seeking those with elite morality. I was in the army reserves, and I've never seen a more morally representative selection of Australian society, than I saw in the military. And Australia is not a moral nation, we all know that. Vice is a common issue. 

There was also an attitude among some guys who just wanted to go to war to fight, against people they did not know. In fact, this is why the army, and infantry in particular, selects men as young as possible, they are the least hesitant to avoid fighting, the most keen, and are tempered to fight, and often over eagre. They are careful not to select imbalanced people, and soldiers are trained well, but their training is pragmatic, not moral. 

War also hardens people, and the more they serve the more it hardens them. Don't underestimate how much this can affect a man on the battlefield. 

Also it must be acknowledged that Australian governments have sent Australian soldiers into unjust wars continually for decades. Not since WW2 have we been defending our shores, all the rest since then are wars of aggression and choice. Saying it was to support an ally does not change this reality. This has a moral effect on society as a whole. The Afghanis we went to war with never had any means of attacking our nation, except if they were to emigrate here, and that again is in control of government policy in the first place. 

Yes the Bible speaks highly of soldiers, David and the Centurion in Matthew 8, are standouts. But it also acknowledges that soldiers can be corrupt. 

Luke 3:14, "14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

Many people in many countries experience this regularly. Especially in countries where the military serves a dual purpose as a police force. 

None of this post is meant to reflect on BRS. It is simply a note to challenge the naive attitude that soldiers are a morally superior class of human being. This attitude is reflected among people, especially conservatives, for whatever reason. Nor are they uniquely bad, as the left often acts like they are, its not like they are politicians right? They are often the representative moral average of their particular nation. 

A country like Australia that believes it is justified in invading far away places at will, or at the behest of aggressive allies, probably is in position for a moral reckoning. We have a false view of ourselves as a people of justice, yet too quickly we have supported injustice, both on the left and right. This moral corruption impacts every part of our society.

Wars of Aggression Are Inherently Progressive

 

What is the goal of war? A war of defence is designed to defend the homeland and to punish the evil doer who would seek to take your lands, wealth and women. You could argue that the goal of a defensive war is to conserve or preserve the nation, its people and their way of life. A defensive war is an inherently just war, because self defense is a justified reason to use force against another nation.

A war of aggression on the other hand is about attacking and changing the status quo, or the way of the world, especially in the region or nation under attack. A war of aggression, therefore, is inherently transformative and therefore not conservative. It is also much less likely to be a just war, because one nation is not given inherent authority over another nation. Therefore, a war of aggression is both the antithesis of conservatism and very likely, you might even be able to argue inherently, unjust.

While I am not a conservative, this topic is interesting, because right now America is engaged in a war of aggression and many conservatives are publicly supporting it. In fact, the predominant support for this war is coming from the conservative camp. Which is just another reason why I don’t consider myself a conservative, it is really a meaningless posture rather than a coherent ideology or philosophy of life. What is the purpose in saying, “I am a conservative?” Why would you do that? There are things we should preserve or conserve, and there are things we should progress and change, and there are things we should transform and restore. Nailing yourself to only one of these options, ideologically, is irrational, and the significant amount of ways that conservatives often display they are not really seeking to conserve illustrates this.

This is important to understand, a war of aggression, which is what the US has engaged in, is inherently progressive or transformational. The type of change that is being sought is different depending on the war. For some it is regime change, for others it is outright subjugation, for others it is annihilation and chaos. But the goal of a war of aggression is to change, not to conserve. In this case, the justification for this war has changed from moment to moment. It was claimed at one point it was to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, at another it was claimed it was because Israel was going to attack so the US had to attack first to protect is assets in the region, and at another point is was claimed that Iran was about to attack and so the US got in first. So, the story has changed, as is often the case in these sorts of wars, but whatever the justification offered, this war was an act of aggression and the decapitation strikes show that the US wanted to change the Iranian regime.

Jereth Kok has some interesting things to say about this,

“Violently overthrowing the government of a foreign country has got to be one of the least conservative things that someone can do.

Let’s work this through. What does it mean to be “conservative”?

To be “conservative” means to prefer stability. To act with caution. To take things slowly. To be wary of quick fixes. To distrust shiny new objects. To reject radical change.

Russell Kirk (1918 – 1994) was a noted American conservative thinker who wrote a piece called Ten Conservative Principles. I think this is a pretty useful summary of what it means to be politically “conservative”.

Kirk argued that “conservatives are champions of custom, convention and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.” “The continuity, the lifeblood, of a society must not be interrupted.” If things must change in a society, this change “ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.”

In other words, don’t go upsetting the apple cart. A system may be flawed; it may even have very serious, deeply embedded injustices. But rushing in and trying to fix everything at once in a society is almost guaranteed to make things even worse. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know—a new devil that you will create in your grand attempt to kill the old devil. Flawed systems should be worked on gradually and with great care; it is reckless to dive in with a jackhammer and blowtorch.

Kirk criticises “liberals and radicals” as “imprudent” men who “dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away … Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.”

Social and political systems that serve millions of people aren’t created overnight; they cannot be created overnight. They are not like Ikea flatpack furniture that you can put together in an afternoon with an Allen key. According to Kirk, establishing working institutions is a process that is invariably “painful and slow”.

The polar opposite of conservatism is revolution. Revolution is the complete overthrow of a governing system, with the aim of replacing it with something wholly different. The problem with revolution is that it seeks to achieve the impossible—creating a healthy, functioning polity and society in an instant.[1]

In other words, Kok is correctly arguing that regime change is a form of revolution, and revolution is the bread and butter of the progressive worldview. He gives examples of progressive revolutions in his article that demonstrate this. Progressives believe in overturning and changing society. They want to transform and change, and if they can do so radically they will, no institution or element of society is safe from the transformative gaze. From marriage, to government, to the church, to education to every aspect of society you will observe that progressives are on an endless journey to change things as much as possible.

When you recognize this, then you can see that regime change is simply the progressive worldview applied to foreign policy. Regime change wars show this in every way: the goal is to replace one regime with another, the goal is to stir up the people to turn on their own government to bring change, often colour revolutions (that is revolutions equipped and aided by foreign agencies) are an integral part of the process, usually instability is fostered, and sanctions are used to break the economy and build in people a desire for change. In every way regime changes wars are a version of the progressive passion project. Which is fascinating, because this shows how conservatives have been overcome by progressive impulses, even if it is mainly in relation to foreign policy.

What it also shows though, is that the conservative worldview, at least as maintained by many of its proponents, is not a coherent and consistent perspective. They are conservatives in some ways, but they will throw those principles out the door when their favoured political leader decides to go to war with their preferred enemy. Trump, who I would argue is not a conservative and never was, is the head of the nominal conservative party in the US, and so many conservatives will reflexively support his efforts, and many progressives will reflectively oppose them. This is just the way of things.

Now, a sophisticated response that some might give to my piece here is that they know that this war is not meant to conserve anything, it is meant to bring change. In fact, I would agree with them. This war is an example of the process of creative destruction. Creative destruction is when systems are shaken by new events or new technology which forces rapid change, and which benefits those who are ready for that change. Whether or not this leads to a better world is a moot point, it will lead to a better world for some and not for others. And it will bring change overall.

Creative destruction is an economic term,

“Creative destruction is a concept introduced by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in the early 20th century. It refers to the process by which innovation and technological progress lead to the continual transformation of the economic structure, resulting in the destruction of old industries and the creation of new ones. This dynamic process is considered a key driver of economic growth and development.

Innovation serves as the spark that ignites change, whether through the introduction of cutting-edge technologies, the creation of novel products and services, or the daring initiatives of entrepreneurs challenging conventional norms. This constant pursuit of improvement and adaptation creates a competitive environment where the old must yield to the new, a phenomenon encapsulated by Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction.”[2]

In other words, the point of creative destruction is to shake things up so that you have an opportunity to bring some of the changes that you want to bring in any given system. In a stable system from which many benefit, the desire for change is relatively low, however, if you can create instability, you can create the motivation for change in many people in that system.

Therefore, I concur with those who are argue that President Trump is seeking to not conserve, but to actively bring change through this war. In fact, his real goals and the level of change he really wants, might not have even been publicly stated. That being said, this does not justify a war of aggression, nor does it mean that his choice was a wise one. When you unleash a war of this magnitude on the world, you risk creating a situation which you cannot control, that can escalate very quickly. I would argue we have already seen this happen. This would explain why the President has made many claims about the war ending quickly that have not come to pass, because even though he was intending to bring about change, that rate of change is now out of his hands, and hence the war is dragging on.

This is a useful opportunity to again observe that conservatism is not a coherent perspective. Nor really is being a progressive. Rather you need an objective marker for your reality, for instance, being a Christian that holds to the teachings of Jesus and the Church throughout history, and you need to evaluate things in society on a case by case basis to determine what should progress, what should be conserved, and what needs to be restored.

Hence, Kok is right that regime change wars are not conservative. However, we should not be surprised that conservatives are not holding their ideology coherently or consistently, because it is not a coherent or consistent ideology in the first place. This is why I do not call myself a conservative and have not for some time.  

List of References

---

[1] Jereth Kok, 2025, https://substack.com/home/post/p-192661407

[2] Stefan Mitzkus, 2024, https://digitalleadership.com/blog/creative-destruction/

God is at Work

 

My resurrection Sunday this past weekend included Preaching on Matthew 28, to conclude our several years long series on the gospel of Matthew. I actually preached through the entirety of chapters 26 and 27 on Good Friday, then the Great Commission on Sunday. I started this series in May or June in 2023, and did not plan to be at these chapters at this time of the year, but it lined up that way. That is just something that is cool.

Then after church I went to our church’s local homeless outreach, to spend time talking with various poor people about Jesus. A couple of ladies at the group committed to coming to church. Please pray that they do. People in their situation often have grand ideas about how they will improve their lives and situation, but the pressures of their situation can get on top of them, and so can their patterns of behaviour, so please pray that they stay the good course. We have already had people come from that outreach to church, and we know other churches are reaching out to the same people, as well, which is awesome.

After that I then I got to do some baptisms.

It was a massive day and I was very tired after that. But it was a good day.

I also saw that a church in western Australia did around 1000 baptisms at the beach on Easter Sunday. So cool.

God is at work people. In so many ways he is at work.

Prophecy Fulfilled

 

Today is Good Friday. One of the remarkable things about this event is how specifically it was prophesied in Psalm 22, among other passages in the Old Testament. Here is just one example,

“16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots” (Psalm 22:16-18).

This is an incredible Psalm, that recounts what Jesus would experience on the cross, and it was written around 1000 years before it occurred.

So, in this video I give a reading of this Psalm, and after that is a song I recently published (yes with AI) that is based on this Psalm.

This song is perfect for reflecting on Jesus' sacrifice on Good Friday and remembering what he did for us.

It also has an incredible guitar solo in it.

Here are some of the lyrics:

Verse 4

Poured out like water on the ground,

My bones are out, my strength unbound.

My tongue is dry, my heart like wax,

They pierce my hands, my garments tax.

They stare, they scoff, divide my robe—

Yet You, O Lord, my hope and globe.

Bridge

Deliver me from sword and flame,

From lions' mouths and bulls untame.

I’ll sing Your praise before the crowd,

Declare Your name both clear and loud.

All ends of earth shall bow and say:

"The Lord is King! His reign holds sway!"

Why Are There No Good Men?

 

Why are there so few good men around, able to lead and take their place of authority in society?? The answer to this is multifaceted, but there is one large foundation for this phenomenon which we see in a Bible passage that is often misunderstood and misapplied. That passage is Proverbs 31. In fact, this passage explains this phenomenon very well, at least a significant part of it.

This is a famous passage, and if you go to any Christian bookstore you will find all sorts of trinkets and items that husbands can by for their wives that describe her as the Proverbs 31 woman. Many have been taught today that Proverbs 31 shows that the Bible encourages women to work outside the home.

But that is not what the passage is describing, nor is it describing the average Christian woman. It is describing the kind of woman a leading man needs: he needs a woman so focused on the home, so focused on getting the best deals at the marketplace, and so focused on directing the household affairs, that he does not even have to worry about it.

The modern working woman is the opposite of this. She leaves her husband a list of chores and household duties every day, because she is too busy to manage the home. What time does he have to lead in society in a significant way?

Hence, the dearth of Proverbs 31 women is directly connected to the male leadership crisis. Let’s go through the passage so I can show that this is what the Bible is teaching in Proverbs 31.

Firstly, we need to recognize the context. At the start of the chapter we see that a King called Lemuel is recounting an oracle that his mother taught. She warns him not to give his strength to women (v.3), not to give himself to win or strong drink (v.4), and not to allow justice to be perverted (vv.5-9). This chapter is giving advice to a powerful man about how he can be a leading man. So, immediately we should recognize that this passage is giving advice to the elite men about how they should live an elite life. 

Then in the context of this Lemuel’s mother gives him advice about the kind of women he needs so that he can rule properly. We know this, because it is advice recounted by a king from his mother, but also because of verse 23, “Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.” The rulers of cities in this era would sit at the gates among the elders to hear peoples cases of justice. This was the custom. So this passage is unequivocally about advice that a royal mother gave to her son, so that he would not be a foolish ruler but a wise and judicious ruler. The kind of ruler that will be honoured and respected by his people, because he does what is just, prudent and right. If he wants to do this well, he needs a woman who will rule his household well.

Firstly, she is trustworthy (vv.11-12). This is vital. A dishonest woman will bring down even a good ruler. She will engage in conspiracy, in slander, and will seek to direct her husband towards evil. Think Jezebel. He needs the antithesis of Jezebel. 

Secondly, she is a good steward of his finances,

“13 She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands. 14 She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar 15 She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and portions for her maidens. 16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard” (vv.13-16).

It is these verses and other similar ones that people like to use to argue that she has her own career. But this is simply not the case. She goes to the markets, as was the custom in that day, and she trades for good deals. She is not going out into the world to live under another man and seek to advance his business through her trade. That would be anathema to a leading man. No, she goes out into the market to make sure that her household is well looked after. She makes sure that her own husband's property is fruitful.

He can even trust her to spend his money well, because she will use it diligently, rather than foolishly. How frustrating would it be for a man to provide his income to his wife, and find out that she has gotten him into debt, or drained his savings on some unnecessary extravagance? This would be even worse for a ruler.  No, this woman is both wise enough to use his money well, and trustworthy enough that the husband does not need to micromanage how she stewards the home. He goes out to the gates and manages the affairs of the city, knowing he will come home to see his property and wealth multiplied by the wisdom of his excellent wife.

Thirdly, she is hard working, “17 She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong. 18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night. 19 She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle… 24 She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant” (vv.17-19, 24). She does not spend her day in idleness. She is able to take what she got from the market and turn some profit with it. She can make a dress, create a pot, grow excess food to be sold at the markets. She is industrious. The home is not her prison, nor does she live in a permanent vacation. She is making sure that her household is well managed and productive.

Fourthly, she is generous (v.20). This is the mark of a righteous woman. But she is not giving away her husbands wealth against his will. She is giving out of the excess that she has brought to table. She is such a productive woman that his wealth is increased by her stewardship. Therefore, what she gives is truly his and hers, in every meaning of the word. Both the husband and the wife have brought their best to the table, and because he can trust her, he knows that she will give out of her excess, because she makes sure that there is clothing for her family, even fine clothing (v. 21-22) and that there is food for the entire household prepared and ready to go (v.15).

She is a woman of wisdom and diligence, “26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. 27 She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness” (vv. 26-27). She knows what to say and when to say it, and who to say it too. Her husband and her children consider themselves to be blessed because of the quality of this woman, “28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women have done excellently; but you surpass them all.” (vv.28-29).

Don’t miss what Lemuel said in verse 27 either, “she looks well to the ways of her household…” This woman’s focus is not career centric, her family home is not a port of call where she passes her diminished and working husband like passing ships in the night. She is focused on her household, and all her industriousness is focused on increasing the home's status, wealth, comfort and productivity. A beautiful woman might be nice to look at, however beauty fades, “but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised…” (v.30).

Those who twist this passage to say that women should work out of the home, are actually missing the whole point of this passage. The point is men if you want to lead, your wife needs to be focused on the home. She needs to make it so that you do not have to worry about how it is being run. This is especially true for a king, whose home would be a place of controversy and intrigue if he had a wicked wife.

This is one of the important reasons why there are less and less leading men in our world today in every sector of life. Women go to work, just like their husbands, and then they split the home duties. This diminishes the man’s ability to “sit at the gate” and be a leading man. If he has to worry about picking up the kids, getting the shopping, doing errands, on a regular basis, then he is going to have little time for the self-improvement necessary to help him stand out amongst other men, and he is going to have little time for contributing beyond his work and the home. This is the bind modern society is in today. Women want leading men, but they don’t realize how they are contributing to the dearth of leading men.

But men, this is where I challenge you. I must ask, are you asking too much of your wife? Peter warns us not to do this, “7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). This passage is well known, but it is often reduced down to a warning to men not to abuse their wives. Of course, it does apply to this, but it applies much more broadly too. You see your wife will likely be incredibly intelligent, incredibly capable, willing to work hard, willing to contribute financially and more, and you might fall into the trap of asking her to do too much, and then wear her down.

There would be more Proverbs 31 women if less men were asking too much from their wives. I see a growing trend in society of older women leaving their husbands. My observation is that many of these women were at one point stay-at-home wives who went back into the work force to help pay the mortgage and the other bills. But men don’t realize that even though their wife is capable of doing this, that does not mean she was intended to do this, and they run the risk of this woman over-extending herself, and if she does that, you will likely be the one she comes to resent. Aussie men are known for asking too much of their wives. Some do it because they have been taught an incorrect reading of this passage in Proverbs.

In short:

A man cannot be the leader in the home, church or wider society that he is called to be, if he is forced to manage the home as well.

A woman is the weaker vessel, and therefore when she is asked to do too much, you are running the risk of burning her out and this will come back to bite you.

God delineates male and female roles for a reason. Just one look at the state of society today should be enough to convince us that we are foolish to not listen to him.  

 

 

Often a Lie

 

Often the official story is a lie concocted by corrupt officials to cover up some kind of crime or evil on their part,

"11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matt. 28:11-15).

This is a major lesson in the Bible. The Bible is full of active conspiracies and the authors of the Bible go into a lot of detail describing the means and methods of conspirators. It is in fact, a central theme in Scriptures and how it talks about evil. It is also central to the narratives of both King David, and the Davidic King Jesus.

This is a major lesson in history. Any student of history knows this.

Yet this truth about our world is very much denied by many Christians. Even though our own Lord was killed in an evil conspiracy, and they attempted to deny his resurrection with an extension of that conspiracy. Still many people refuse to accept that this is a major part of our world.

This does not mean that any given conspiracy is true. But it does mean we live in a world of lies, and that often those in charge of anything from a business, an organization, a church, or even society up to the top levels of government, will lie to cover up their real intentions. We should not automatically trust.

Coincidentally, sociopaths are much more highly represented in leadership positions than general society. Just an interesting fact...

There is a chapter on this in my book Like a Roaring Lion, at Lockepress.com