A dangerous argument (excuse, rather) for rejecting immediatism has sprung up, lead by none other than Doug Wilson. The argument is that there is a biblical category for "going in the right direction" when it comes to abolishing abortion. God's commands against partiality are right and true, so the argument goes, but engaging in partiality towards the end goal of abolition is permissible.

If I were governor of such a state, I would sign any bill going in the right direction, including an abolitionist bill.

— Douglas Wilson (@douglaswils) March 12, 2024

To this argument, abolitionist Matthew Weisser responds:

“Going in the right direction” is not a biblical category for governments.

Establishing justice is a biblical category.

“And then David said to the Israelites, ‘you’re pagan gods must no longer be made of gold. Only bronze and iron! Now we’re heading in the right direction!’”

— ᗰ𝓪𝕥𝓉𝕙Ⓔ𝕎 𝕨€丨𝓢s𝓔𝕣 (@matthewweisser) March 12, 2024

Wilson then responds:

Except that it is a biblical category. “But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.” (1 Kings 15:14). He was going in the right direction, but not far enough.

— Douglas Wilson (@douglaswils) March 12, 2024

It may be that the Bible recognizes that progress is being made in a certain area, and it may be that it recognizes that the heart of that person is good in doing so, but Wilson is asking this passage to endorse way more than it does in reality.

Wilson is asking that this passage endorse:

1. Partiality in the fight against abortion all along the march towards abolition.
2. Partial repentance of national sins for the time being.
3. The Church using its prophetic voice to grant permission to the kings that they establish something less than justice.
   

First of all, Asa does not practice partiality in his march against idolatry according to 1 Kings 15.

And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from [being] queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt [it] by the brook Kidron.

1Ki 15:12-13 KJV

Remember what Wilson is asking that we accept: He is asking that we accept and support bills that allow the murder of younger babies while prohibiting the murder of older babies. Remember, Wilson wholeheartedly supports heartbeat bills, which are bills that purportedly ban abortion at the moment a heartbeat can be detected. He knows that the image of God is present in humans who are not yet old enough to have heartbeats, however.

(Sidenote: These bills don't actually ban abortion after a detectible heartbeat anyways, because in every state there exists mother-immunity exceptions which bar mothers from being charged with prenatal murder, allowing it up to the point of birth from a legal perspective. This is true of every modern pro-life law, including Idaho's. Idaho Code §18-622(5) says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to subject a pregnant woman on whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.")

In reality, however, Asa removed the idols where he did. He did not say, "You may sacrifice this way, but not this way". He took away the sodomites from the land. He did not regulate their practice. He removed his mother's idols, he did not tell her she could only practice idolatry on the weekends. Remember, Wilson is asking us to take these verses and use them as an endorsement of the idea that it is okay to accept the idea that we can treat a certain class of humans better than other classes of humans on our progress towards abolition.

He knows that partiality in judgement is against God's Law, but he believes that it's okay that we can do/accept/sign/endorse that evil for the time being because of the good that may come of it later. (See: Romans 3:8.)

Saying that Asa removing the idols completely here but failing to do so over there is an endorsement of incrementalism is similar to the idea that abolitionists aren't actually immediatists because they support the idea of abolishing abortion state-by-state instead of all at once as the only option. That's essentially the argument he's making.

Removing an idol and failing to remove a different idol does not then mean that it is okay to regulate an idol on your way to removing that idol, especially if it means that you must violate God's Law on partiality while you do it. Asa removing certain idols (totally and immediately, as far as we can tell) and failing to remove others would be more similar to completely abolishing abortion, but failing to abolish no-fault divorce. If we fully abolished abortion, the high places would still exist in America. That doesn't then mean that we can abolish abortion incrementally. To say these things are the same would be a category error.

Another way to look at it is that while Wilson is trying to compare the regulation of abortion with the partial removal of idols by Asa, the regulation of abortion isn't the removal of that idol at all, it's more like moving the idol into a backroom where it's less visible to the public, but still able to be sacrificed to. That's no victory. (Hat tip to James Silberman for the analogy)

Second, he wants us to read into this text that partial repentance is still good, even if it's less good than full repentance.

Here's the problem: while God may use partial national repentance to His glory, we are certainly warned against doing so by scripture!

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:29 KJV

In the words of T. Russell Hunter, "We shouldn't trim the nails on the hand we're commanded to cut off" (paraphrased)

Are we commanded to tell someone to sin less, along the path towards repentance? Wilson, as someone who no doubt has counseled hundreds of people struggling with pet sins, knows the only answer is immediate and total repentance! Should an adulterer only cheat on the weekends? Should he limit his adultery to kissing? It's progress, right?

Wilson, as a theonomist, knows that this is an absurdity. The formula for personal repentance is the same formula for national repentance. We serve a God who can bring this about, but we must give a prophetic call for it.

On that note, and lastly, Doug is asking us to join him in his prophetic call to the magistrates for something less than repentance. This, too, goes against the example of heroes of the faith laid out in Scripture. John the Baptist told Herod to repent immediately. Jonah told Ninevah to repent immediately. Moses refused to engage in incrementalism with Pharoah, telling him to let his people go totally and immediately. He even, mind you, did so while the evil was continuing in the negotiation! Given his argument for Smashmouth Incrementalism, Wilson would say to Moses today, "Brother, why are you not taking the good that you can for the moment, and then coming back for the total freedom of your people? Why not free as many Israelites as possible? You're allowing the evil to continue!" This couldn't be further from the truth. Moses wasn't allowing the evil to continue, Pharoah was. Ultimately, God was sovereign over it, and Moses was faithful. Moses wasn't trying to be pragmatic.

No, it is of the utmost importance that the prophetic voice of the Church be completely uncompromising in this regard. Wilson may not know of this, but his failure to do so is actively harming legislative efforts to abolish abortion in many states.

Although I won't cite them, there are many online who see our arguments against Doug Wilson as unnecessarily divisive. These people, Wilson included, simply don't understand fully the power of the prophetic voice of the Church, and the danger of using it incorrectly. These fights must be fought, for the immediate good of our nation and our preborn neighbors.

I called Jacob Miller, an abolitionist in Texas who routinely lobbies for abolition, and asked him about his experience with legislators citing Doug Wilson as a reason to oppose abolition. Our call reads as follows:

Me: "You said in a tweet recently that you were talking to a legislator and Doug came up, and he used Doug as a reason not to support the abolition bill. Is that correct?"

Jacob: "That's correct."

Me: "Okay, so what happened there? Could you tell me some specifics?"

Jacob: "Yes. I mean, it's not crazy uncommon. I mean, it's not like it happens with every legislator but maybe if I talk to like 40 of them or so there might be one who brings up this [incrementalism] argument and they'll just say things akin to 'Um, you know, these are the reasons why and I've heard strong Christians like Doug Wilson [support them]. This is the Christian way, this is an acceptable Christian way to do this. I've heard Doug Wilson defend this, and blah, blah blah...' So I mean, people are not ignorant of the [immediate] abolitionist position and the abolitionists' [prophetic] call, and the only defenses that they're getting from this is from Doug Wilson or from their political lobby groups and partners."

Jacob: "There's one specific one, that I can recall by name specifically, and it was the lobbyist from Texas Right to Life, John Seago. [...] He has a conversation with somebody else, as well as [Students for Life] lobbyists who are pretty high up and oppose abolition. They'll quote Doug Wilson quite a bit in their opposition, which I mean, they're bringing a lot of the bills to oppose that people are choosing rather than abolition."

Me: "And Doug Wilson's position is that you should support the abolition bills and the incremental bills, but these people will then go on and oppose the abolition bills, correct?"

Jacob: "Correct. That's correct. Yeah, and it's not that they're necessarily holding exactly his position, but he's creating a culture of opposition that's been taken on by all the people... they're taking his arguments."

We don't want to keep opposing Doug Wilson. We want him to be on our side. He's a brother in Christ with a massive blind spot, and let's be honest here: many people are slow to abolition or the fight because they look to him first for leadership and are very trepidatious when it comes to moving beyond those whom they see as a hero of the faith and a leader in the culture war. How many solid Christians would be with us at this point if Wilson had been on our side for the last five or so years? He says his main purpose in opposing us is because he sees the greatest danger being the fracturing of the Christian, anti-abortion movement. He doesn't yet see that the Pro-Life Movement is the greatest obstacle towards abolition, even in his state of Idaho.

In fact, one major reason why I decided to write this blog post is because I now see lots of people arguing with us using the same exact arguments Doug is using, and it's just a terrible argument. He's a leader in this space, and he needs to use that terrible weight of responsibility in a righteous manner. As it is, he's slowing the progress of abolition.

We want him to see his error and repent. The fact of the matter is that if his best argument against doing so is Asa's descriptive, not prescriptive, treatment of the high places, he's going to need to get back to the Scripture and find something a lot more serious to support his position.

Note: Photo by Francesco Alberti on Unsplash

Note: Scripture references are in KJV for Wilson's preferential sake