Jordan Peterson Is Sick

 

Please take note of this:

Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned clinical psychologist. He was at the top of his game for a long time, and a sought-after public speaker on a host of issues. I believe he was trained at Harvard. He was famous for years as the head of the manosphere.

He has been utterly destroyed by psychiatric medicine, that was prescribed by a psychiatrist, which is an offshoot of the practice of psychology. He has been broken by his own field. (Never take advice from those who take drugs).

Those who know my views on Peterson know I am not a fan of him. But this story is important, because at the heart of it is a daughter and family devastated by the kinds of drugs that are prescribed in mass numbers in our society. That people incorrectly see as safe.

These drugs are dangerous. You think you are under responsible supervision? But you are not a world renowned clinical psychologist with close peers who are psychiatrists, at the top of their fields.

I genuinely believe that future medical historians will look upon current psychiatric and psychological practice as a terrifying dark age that unleashed chaos on society. I am planning to write some research papers on how antidepressants are likely causing countless sexless marriages. More to come on that. But it is just one example of the carnage that this profession is responsible for in society.

Peterson’s own story highlights the danger of these professions.

Also, yes I know the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. One field is considered a form of advanced counselling or social science, the other is considered more of a medicine. But both come from the same dark root: Chaldean magic practice.

The Chaldeans or Magi were a class of magic practitioners and so-called wise men that held incredible prominence in ancient Babylon. They had their analogues in many other societies as well. They claimed to be able to interpret dreams, and to be able to commune with the divine and the principles behind the Spiritual world. Today we call this class of people psychologists and psychiatrists. You might think that this is just the claim of a radical Baptist preacher that holds no weight, so to dispel you of that notion here is a quote from Sigmund Freud and another quote from a PhD thesis republished by Oxford University Press.

Freud,

“In what we may term "prescientific days" people were in no uncertainty about the interpretation of dreams. When they were recalled after awakening they were regarded as either the friendly or hostile manifestation of some higher powers, demoniacal and Divine. With the rise of scientific thought the whole of this expressive mythology was transferred to psychology; to-day there is but a small minority among educated persons who doubt that the dream is the dreamer's own psychical act.”[1]

Freud explicitly claims that psychology, which originally was a broad term covering what we today call psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis, has inherited “this whole expressive mythology.” In other words, he explicitly claimed that psychology stood in the same place as those ancient Chaldeans, especially with regard to dream interpretation. Note that Freud was a neurologist who developed psychoanalysis. Hence, he was a psychologist in the broader sense of the term, meaning someone who explored the human psyche, but not in the narrow sense in which we use it today, which means something closer to counsellor.

But what about psychiatry, isn’t that a more objective field focused on medicine? No, it comes from the same rotten tree. I do not say this lightly. Here is an extended quote demonstrating this,

“HYSTERICAL WITCHES AND MEDICAL CONCEPTIONS OF WOMAN AS MYSTERIOUS AND DEMONIC

Not only historians took an interest in witches. Representatives of the burgeoning discipline of psychiatry also found them fascinating and polemically useful. As I will demonstrate, writing on the topic coming from this direction indirectly created a conflation of witches, feminists, and hysterics that coloured the understanding of the witch in most non-religious discourses of the time. Like Michelet, psychiatrists employed research on witches as a tool to attack the church. It was in this context that witches came to be closely linked to the diagnosis of hysteria.

The relationship between psychiatry and the church had long been problematic in France. The clergy were the traditional healers of the soul, and nuns were time-honoured caretakers of the insane. Psychiatry now swallowed up their market shares in the caretaking business. The new and completely materialistic explanations of what ailed the mentally ill provided by neurologists like Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893), head of the Salpêtrière clinic in Paris, also threatened the church on an ontological level. What was worse, many medical men relished this fact and did their best to turn the knife in the wound. The usefulness of an enquiry into the nature of hysteria as anticlerical propaganda may even to some extent have determined this choice of topic for some of those involved. Since the “laws” of hysteria were supposedly universal, they could also be applied to historical phenomena. Demonic possession and mystical ecstasies became a main focus for this retrospective medicine, since a pathologization of these things would powerfully undermine the authority of Catholicism. What priests had seen as symptoms of possession simply constituted the second phase of a hysterical attack, the grands mouvements where arms and legs would flail, the tongue hang out of the mouth, the pupils of the eyes dart in all directions, and so on (figure 6.2).

In the book Les Démoniaques dans l’art (‘The Possessed in Art’, 1887), Charcot and his disciple Paul Richer (1849–1933) analyse old paintings, engravings, and other artworks depicting demonic possession and claim the postures portrayed prove these individuals were in fact hysterics. Charcot’s former assistant Paul Regnard published the book Les Maladies épidémiques de l’esprit: Sorcellerie, magnétisme, morphinisme, délire des grandeurs (‘Epidemic Maladies of the Spirit: Witchcraft, Magnetism, Morphinism, Megalomania’, 1887), where it is asserted that witches suffered seizures just like those of hysterics. For example, they would, Regnard says, assume the characteristic hysteric position with an arched back. He underscores that the witch of the past is identical to the hysteric of today. As H. C. Erik Midelfort points out, the works produced in this anticlerical medical milieu conflate the conditions of the possessed with those of witches. Historically, the two were quite distinct and possession was not a crime.

Charcot’s talent for showmanship was an important factor in the success his theories enjoyed. On Tuesdays, he held open lectures where he astonished his audience—in a huge amphitheatre packed to the brim—by displaying the extravagant antics of his hysterical female patients. An attack was triggered by use of hypnosis or the pressing of a ‘hysterogenic point’, and Charcot then narrated the stages the patient went through. A cataleptic patient could be pierced by needles and pins, a lethargic woman “petrified” into strange postures defying the laws of gravity. In short, the show rivalled those of stage magicians or the startling tricks Spiritist mediums could treat their clients to. Authors and journalists, actors and actresses, demimondaines—all came to see Charcot’s presentations. They were so popular that they even made the Salpêtrière a tourist attraction listed in official travel guides to Paris. Hysterics were at times also the subjects of experiments with so-called dermographism, where letters or symbols were gently traced onto their skin by doctors and left curiously raised marks that remained clearly visible for an abnormally long duration. The demonic (for instance, the word SATAN) was a favourite subject when choosing what to trace, no doubt reflecting the close connection believed to exist between witchcraft and hysteria. These experiments were presented in heavily illustrated books that fascinated the public (figure 6.3).

FIGURE 6.3 The word SATAN appearing on the back of a hysterical patient. Hysterics were at times the subjects of experiments with so-called dermographism, where letters or symbols were traced onto their skin by doctors and left raised marks. The demonic was a favourite subject when choosing what to trace, no doubt reflecting the close connection believed to exist between witchcraft and hysteria. Photo from T. Barthélémy, Etude sur le dermographisme (1893).

Asti Hustvedt stresses that Charcot’s discourse on hysteria is ‘permeated by an atmosphere of the occult and supernatural’ and ‘borrows heavily from the vocabularies of religion and demonology’. Thus, he ‘ultimately appropriates the very demonology he is debunking, and thereby reintroduces Satan into hysteria’. Charcot’s personal aesthetic preferences no doubt played a part in this. His office, all its walls and furnishings, were painted black, and engravings of scenes of demonic possession were displayed on the walls. Further, there are several examples of how Charcot’s rhetoric of rationalism and science at times gave way to a love of melodramatic performance, which opened the gates to a more ‘occult’ understanding of the pathological phenomena at hand. A favourite experiment of his during the public lectures was suggesting to a hysteric patient chosen for this purpose that a card from a completely blank deck had a specific image on it. He proceeded to mark the card on the back, reshuffled the deck and the patient would then amazingly be capable of identifying this very card even though nothing distinguished it from the others.

Being a positivist and rationalist, he, of course, did not formally classify things like this as “occult”, but some of the women participating in activities of this type started claiming actual powers of extrasensory perception—seeing themselves as a sort of latter-day “witches” with supernatural powers, as it were. Some spectators probably also had a hard time understanding experiments of this sort as non-supernatural. Further, the process of identifying a hysteric could be startlingly similar to methods used for recognizing a witch in early modern times. Both involved the “suspect” being stripped naked and pricked with pins, in order to find spots insensitive to pain. According to Hustvedt, the combined effect of all these things was that Charcot’s ‘science of hysteria breathed new life into age-old ideas of feminine mystery and demonism’. The pathologizing view of witches taken by Charcot and his cohorts strongly influenced the writings of medical men in other countries as well. Simultaneously, the air of mystery and the demonic he bestowed upon woman also became part of the medical discourse across Europe.”[2]

It is very clear that evil men were seeking to mock the church through these demonstrations. Their explicit intention was to undermine the Church and its charitable institutions.

Remember the modern hospital system comes directly out of the Church charity. While there is precedent in non-Christian cultures for versions of hospices, the wide public charitable institutions dedicated to healing, we call hospitals, are a Christian invention. Psychiatry and psychology are correctly seen as efforts from anti-Christians to bring pagan elements in to the healing spaces to replace the Church. They did this explicitly, and it is documented. Understanding where these professions come from is vital.

List of References

---

[1] Sigmund Freud. Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners (Kindle Locations 96-99). Kindle Edition.

[2] Faxneld, Per. Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture (Oxford Studies in Western Esotericism) (pp. 208-211). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Galatians Study # 4 Slave or Free

You can watch the video of this Bible study tonight at 8pm AEST on my YouTube channel: Based Christiain History Here.

Galatians Chapter 4 Passage: English Standard Version

Sons and Heirs

“1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul's Concern for the Galatians

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18 It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Example of Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
    break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
    than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.”

Introduction to Galatians 4

The fourth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians stands as a passionate plea for believers to embrace their identity in Christ and reject a return to legalistic bondage.  Paul wrote this to a church flirting with Judaizing influences. False teachers were insisting to the Galatians that Gentile Christians must adhere to Jewish law, particularly circumcision, to be full members of God’s people. Paul argues fervently for the superiority of grace and the new covenant established through Jesus.

Paul opens with an analogy from the ancient world: an heir, while still a minor, is under guardians and stewards, no better than a slave, though he owns everything. Similarly, before Christ, humanity was under the “elementary principles” (or elemental spiritual forces) of the world, in a state of spiritual immaturity and bondage. But in “the fullness of time,” God sent His Son, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons. This is Paul’s core focus in chapter 4, a shift from slavery to sonship, from law to family, he wants the Galatians to know their identity in Christ. The proof of this adoption is the Holy Spirit, sent into our hearts, crying “Abba, Father!” We are no longer slaves, but heirs of God through Christ! Live in this light of this.

Paul then turns pastoral, expressing deep concern and even perplexity. In fact, he shows that he has taken their apostasy personally, it grieves him. The Galatians, who once received him as an angel, are now observing “days and months and seasons and years”, they have returned to ritualistic calendars. This signifies a retreat into law-based religion, the specialty of this world. He pleads with them to remember their freedom and not turn back to “weak and worthless” elementary principles.

The chapter culminates in a powerful allegorical interpretation of the story of Hagar and Sarah. Paul contrasts the two covenants: Hagar represents Mount Sinai (the law) and earthly Jerusalem, bearing children for slavery; Sarah represents the covenant of promise and the heavenly Jerusalem, which is free and is the mother of all believers. Paul identifies the Galatians, and all who live by faith, as children of the free woman, heirs of the promise, not of slavery.

Galatians 4 is a masterful blend of deep theology and heartfelt pastoral appeal. It celebrates the believer’s liberated identity as a beloved child of God, warns against the subtle slavery of religious performance, and anchors Christian freedom in the very story of Abraham. It calls every reader to live in the reality of the Spirit’s cry within: “Abba, Father.”

This passage has deep and powerful connection to controversies of today as well. Paul was persecuted by his Jewish opponents precisely because he sought to constantly remind them that one is only made a child of God through faith, never through the flesh. He was adamant that any Gentile who had faith was as much a member of the people of God as any Jewish person who had faith. This stood in opposition to the beliefs of the Pharisees and Sadducees as they saw themselves as the inheritance of Abraham through the flesh, and as the keepers of God’s covenants, therefore granting them a unique status in the world. Paul’s argument here is that this is not only not the case it is an inversion of the Biblical reality. You can only become part of God’s people through faith.  

Questions for Bible Study

1.     According to Galatians 4:1–3, how is an heir who is still a child similar to a slave? What does this teach about the condition of people before Christ came?

 

2.     In verses 4–5, what does “the fullness of time” mean? Why was it necessary for Jesus to be “born under the law”?

 

3.     What does it mean that God sent “the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (v. 6)? How does the Spirit confirm our adoption?

 

4.     In verse 9, Paul says the Galatians are turning back to “weak and worthless elementary principles.” What specific practices does he mention in verse 10? Why are these a problem?

 

5.     Paul contrasts slavery with sonship. In what ways do Christians today risk living like “slaves” rather than like “sons and heirs”?

 

6.     What are the “weak and worthless” elementary principles of the world” that Paul is warning them about?

 

7.     The Galatians had once received Paul with great love (vv. 13–15). But now they have turned on him, treating him much like an enemy. Why did they turn on him?

 

8.     Paul says false teachers “make much of you, but for no good purpose” (v. 17). How can we recognize when someone’s attention or praise is manipulative rather than godly?

 

9.     In verse 19, Paul describes his ministry as “anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.” What does it mean for Christ to be “formed” in a believer? How does this happen?

 

10.  What is the difference between being born “according to the flesh” (Ishmael) and being born “through promise” (Isaac)? How does this apply to two different ways of relating to God?

 

11.  In the allegory, Hagar represents Mount Sinai and “the present Jerusalem” (v. 25). What does this say about trying to earn righteousness through the law? 

 

12.  What does “the Jerusalem above” (v. 26) represent? Why is she called “our mother”?

 

13.  Verse 30 quotes Genesis 21:10, “Cast out the slave woman and her son.” How should believers “cast out” the mindset of slavery in their own lives today? What practical steps can you take to live as a child of the free woman?

 

Happy Wife, Happy Life?

Conventional wisdom: Happy wife, happy life.

This is both true and false in really important ways. If your wife is a naturally happy person, and you steward this well, you will have a happier life. But if you believe you are called to serve your wife for the intent of making her happy, then you will fall into the trap many Aussie men have fallen into, where they fear their wives and become subservient to them. 

The Bible gives better advice, seek to please each other, "33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife…34 But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband” (1 Cor. 7:33-34). 

Men do not exist to please their wives in a vacuum. Husbands and wives will both be better off if they seek to please each other. 

But even this advice is incomplete, because a man is also called to lead, and sometimes righteous leadership meets with rebellion. If you only ever try to make your wife happy, you will find yourself enabling rebellion. 

It might not rhyme, but happy home, happy life is better wisdom. You won't have a happy home if you do everything to please your wife including enabling sin.

A False Dichotomy?

 

One of the more common critiques I have gotten from my interview with Elijah from AAA, is that there is no real difference between the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement, as they both have the same goal. It is a 'tautology' or a 'false dichotomy', some have claimed.

This kind of analysis is based on a logical error. For example, saying there is no difference between free will Baptists and Westminster confession Presbyterians because they have the same goal, is clearly false. It is an error of understanding and distinction. Taking a different approach to the same goal is by its very definition a difference. That's without even noting that the visceral reaction some people in these movements have to each other shows they clearly see and feel the differences.

But the more I investigate it, and examine the issue, for me the real difference comes down to strategy, and I think this difference might be more significant than some people realize. How we approach an issue of advocacy makes sense.

Let's just be brutally honest: the pro-life lobby in Australia has had zero success outside of individual anecdotes. Even claimed legislative victories look more like the political equivalent of controlled retreats, because overall access to abortion has sky-rocketed in this country. That's not the fault of the pro-life lobby, of course. It is just reality.

Naturally, someone or a group of people, were going to be prompted by this failure to take a vastly different approach. This is only rational. Correct? In fact, its irrational to say otherwise.

One of the biggest differences, for me, is the abolitionists stance on women who kill their children. Pro-life people tend to see such women as victims of bad fathers, boyfriends, husbands, the system, etc, etc. They may admit that yes these women are guilty of murder, or manslaughter, but they downplay this in public advocacy. They present themselves, in general, as rescuers of women.

Abolitionists see the accountability of abortion doctors and mothers as equally culpable and they major on it. Unapologetically. So much so that they are seen as too harsh by many. Yet, this is a necessary and vital change. It is almost impossible to bring conviction of sin if you downplay someone's sin, or if you don't correctly address it. How can someone be brought under proper contrition if they think what they have done is not that big a deal? In the vast majority of abortions the woman is the most guilty party. I am not just saying this intuitively, even though it is intuitively true. After all, what greater betrayal is there than a mother betraying the ward in her womb.? What greater disparity of power exists? I am making this statement after seriously examining the data, and you can read my findings here. It was necessary to do this, because I have seen pro-lifers who resist this reality until they see the data.

Pro-life rhetoric falls flat for the vast majority of women. Because most women who have abortions know they were not the victim in their abortion, they know, in the vast majority of cases, they chose to sacrifice the child for their own benefit. They know that it was a life they ended. Abolitionist rhetoric hits this nail on the head, as it recognises the importance of emphasizing this.

Let me illustrate how an unequal accounting of sin affects people on this issue:

-        If a woman gets up and shares how she killed one, two, three kids, in the womb but now regrets it and has repented, you will hear visible sounds of sympathy from mainstream pro-life advocates. I've seen it, often.

-        If a man gets up and shares how he abused his wife or kids by beating them, but now regrets it and has repented, he will get visible sounds of disgust and will be marked as someone to be avoided and never promoted in Christian circles. Even if his apology is accepted.

Until this difference is corrected, anti-abortion efforts in this nation will fail. Guaranteed. Because they don’t properly account for what is taking place. Pro-life advocates that I know will agree about the evil of the situation. They will acknowledge that abolition is the ultimate goal. But their presentation as white knights for the women who have had abortions, causes them to take an ineffective approach.

My hope is that some of the abolitionist’s critiques could be accepted by the mainstream pro-life community and they could adjust some of the strategies to more accurately reflect what is happening.

However, as the Proverbs say, one case seems certain till another presents their case, to this end in a couple of weeks I will be interviewing a prominent pro-life advocate so that I can give that perspective a full and detailed hearing. I think some of their arguments have merit, and they are often tireless in their advocacy for the unborn. So, I am looking forward to that. More to come soon.

In the meantime check out my interview with Elijah Harris, the future is bright in this nation, because young men are rising up in the Church with a heart for justice. You can watch the interview by clicking here. 

Project Hail Mary Review

 

Project Hail Mary is proof that Hollywood did not forget how to make good movies, they simply refused to make many good ones for years. For reasons like pushing gender ideology, and other narratives, they made stuff people just became less and less interested in. I had become so dis-interested in the movies being made by 2019 I decided that I was not going to go to the cinemas anymore. I say this as someone who loves movies. I really enjoy them, and there are heaps that are really well done and powerful.

Some people will argue that a good book always beats a good movie. I disagree. I love books and I read all the time. But there is a time for a book and a time for movie, they are different art forms that create pleasure, enjoyment and wonder in different ways. Yea, usually the book behind any given movie is better, for sure. But then there is the Lord of the Rings soundtrack. You don’t get that without the movies being made. That soundtrack is a work of art of the highest quality in its own right.

Yet Hollywood had gotten so bad at this process by 2019, that I saw no point in engaging with their products. This movie shows that they are seeking to correct that error. I hope the correction continues, because classic adventure tales like this movie are fun experiences.  

Project Hail Mary, is therefore, a real return to form: a classic tale of heroism, wrapped in barely obscured biblical themes, and great characters all the way around. Biblical themes work, because they transcend culture and appeal to the inborn image of God in all of us.

Sometimes people read too deeply into movies to find very specific biblical themes. But this movie makes them much more explicit. A movie about a man called Dr Grace, who is sent out to save the world through a ship called the Hail Mary, which is a direct reference to prayer. The fact that he is sent by a government bureaucrat that explicitly says she believes in God. And the fact that Dr Grace saves the world with a rock, who is crowned in victory as the savour of the universe. You can't get any more obvious than that. I am not saying the author of the book or movie wanted to tell the gospel story, I am only noting that they drew heavily on these biblical themes, because these themes work. That is a big part of what this movie does well.

Another reason it is doing so well is the lead actor. I have always found Ryan Gosling to be a so-so actor. Not bad, not great. Just ok. I have enjoyed him in things like Blade Runner 2049, and even though I have not seen him as Ken in the Barbie movie I know many people thought he stole the show in that film. But this movie shows he has real star power. Probably his career was hampered by coming to his peak in a phase where Hollywood was trying to move away from the straight white male hero. I guess losing hundreds of millions on movie after movie finally broke their desire to push narratives.

I do hope he is now given the kinds of roles where he can give more performances like this one. He carries the movie on his own shoulders for the vast majority of it, and not every actor can do that.

The supporting cast is good. You come to care about the characters. Even the alien in the movie is just done so well. I don’t think an alien has been so endearing in a movie for some time. Some might bring up E.T. as a classic example, but I find that movie a bit creepy. This alien is not creepy at all, but is funny, helpful, charming and an all round good supporting character.

The special effects are good. The story is good. The emotionless determination of the leader of the efforts to save the world is so accurate, some of her actions might leave you with mixed feelings about the movie. But I thought it added to the realism of the storyline, which is necessary in a science fiction movie, because movies like this ask you to suspend your belief about many other things. The characters have to feel real to compensate for that. 

This is easily the best movie I have seen for a long time. Can't think of one that comes close in the last decade. I think this movie is as good as many people made me think Top Gun Maverick would be. Not that Maverick was a bad movie, it just did not reach the heights many claimed for it. I think this movie will become a beloved classic.

You can also take the teenagers to this movie and have no concerns. I think even some younger kids would love it, because the alien, Rocky, is so endearing. I think this one is worth seeing on the big screen.

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.