Stanek Sunday quote: Jesus the pragmatist
Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. They sent some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to meet with him.
“Teacher,” they said, “we know how honest you are. You teach the way of God truthfully. You are impartial and don’t play favorites. Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus knew their evil motives. “You hypocrites!” he said. “Why are you trying to trap me? Here, show me the coin used for the tax.” When they handed him a Roman coin, he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
“Well, then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
His reply amazed them, and they went away.
~ Matthew 22:15-22, quoted by Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham last night in a debate against Abolish Human Abortion’s T. Russell Hunter, “Incrementalism vs Immediatism,” as an example of Jesus’ pragmatism. The Pharisees expected Jesus to oppose the tax, and rightfully so – Jesus owed no one anything, particularly a subservient ruler, nor did the Jews, as chosen children of the true King. But Jesus determined the time was not yet right to exert His authority and trigger the revolution, demonstrating shrewdness, which Cunningham indicated could be applied to the pro-life movement via incrementalism and pragmatic public speech.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Not sure I see the relevance to the Incrementalism vs. Immediatism debate. I’ve always understood Christ’s point here as the government is God’s created institution and since governing officials are “God’s ministers” (Rom. 13:4), it is lawful to pay taxes to the government.
The biggest problem with incrementalism is that they’ve adopted the liberal line of thinking which is “if it saves one life it’s worth it.” That logic is flatly false. Banning guns would save lives, but that doesn’t mean we should ban guns. So appealing to some incremental bill that purportedly saved lives is not even an argument. Whether or not lives were saved is not the standard by which a strategy is justified. The only standard we have to measure our actions is God. Would God approve of our actions? Would God bless our actions? Would God do what we’re doing? And I can’t see God ever approving of a bill which draws an arbitrary law in the sand as to which babies can be killed and which deserve protection.
This quote has nothing to do with incrementalism vs. immediatism. It’s not saying anything remotely like bide your time until later. It’s also not saying that we must obey the government as “God’s ministers” even when they trample the law of God.
Most people totally miss the point here. They miss that the Pharisees were giving Jesus another “damned if you do / damned if you don’t” question. If Jesus had said yes, then He wasn’t a holy man of God and certainly not the Messiah. If He had said no, they could have had Him arrested for sedition. They miss that the coin itself had an idolatrous image of Augustus Caesar on it claiming that he was divine. To even own such a coin was considered sinful by the Jews. So Jesus in saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but render to God what is God’s” is saying it is fitting to pay back Rome with it’s own filthy idolatrous money, but it’s more important to give God your whole life!
This is so sad that you guys have resorted to a full blown adoption of worldly pragmatism and are now twisting scripture (and the words of Christ at that!) to justify your faithlessness.
Please have faith in God and stand on His word and in His power. The bride of Christ can bring about the abolition of human abortion and will do so even if you oppose her. But it would be better if you just joined us in the work.
Russell
Oh, good grief, T Russell Hunter! YOU LOST THE DEBATE! Quit running around whining like a tweener boy, and give it up! Nothing you can say will change the fact that Gregg won.
That debate was much more about losers and winners. I think looking at it that misses great opportunities for both camps.
What I never understand from AHAers though is the whole hyperbole about how it’s only some magic law that will complete the worldwide task of abortion banning and everything else is a lack of faith.
Russell, how is a complete ban on abortion in the USA not an incremental approach when there is abortion happening elsewhere in the world?
It’s never clear to me what you are advocating for other than how righteous you think of yourself and how everyone else is a compromiser. What is the point of that? To draw more men into the AHA we-are-the-righteous-ones camp? Why not just focus on ending abortion. Don’t get it.
BTW, the main way I know of judging a “winner” or “loser” in a debate is to measure CHANGED MINDS, something that probably didn’t happen too much. I can hope it did but one has to wonder.
I hope Gregg left some good thoughts in AHAers — maybe some might consider going full time. Doesn’t Don Cooper? Is it against their philosophy?
I really appreciate the sliver of clarity I get from Russell Hunter in that Christians should be calling the nation to 100% outlaw child sacrifice. I think in all the “debate” noise we miss this call which is something that should be renewed, and proclaimed regularly.
(But I get so lost with AHA’s message when they somehow construe that any ban on abortion that isn’t a 100% ban is somehow an implicit endorsement of the acts that aren’t prohibited. In other words, it’s as if they don’t believe we should have any murder laws on the books because the ones that are there don’t cover abortion. Their logic just doesn’t make sense to me.)
Watch the debate again. I wasn’t claiming to be righteous and holier than anyone. I was saying that we need to stand on God’s word and in His power and work together under the Lordship of Christ and focus on abolishing abortion as murder instead of banning abortion methods or protecting human beings from destruction as a result of their age or stage of development.
If the US abolished abortion by recognizing it as murder and bring all human beings under the protection of law that would not be incrementalism. You need to watch the debate again or at least go study immediatism on your own until you get it. Its not about doing everything that is possible all at once. Its about doing what you ought to do and calling for the end of an evil in and of itself instead of compromising and regulating that evil and seeking its gradual abolition.
Please Sir, I beg you. Have an open mind and study these things well. You don’t just have to hold on to your views because you have long held them. You don’t have to be perfect and defend all your work and prove that you are righteous and not in any way wrong about this. You can change your mind and start doing what is right and just and work with people who are also trying to figure out the best steps to take in calling for the abolition of human abortion.
I don’t know if this is helpful to mention this here. But it seems to me is what we have is two sides talking past each other and over each other.
No one defintively wins or loses a debate. If people had their minds changed or learned something new, then the debate served its purpose.
Russell is right when he says that few have really taken the time to understand what immediatism means. In fact, immediatism results in some incremental change, but the focus on immediatism never includes changing unjust laws with a law that is the lesser of two evils. In other words, there is no way to do good by doing less evil.
At the same time, even though immediatism is mischaracterized by people who don’t understand it, if it is so hard for them to understand, then possibly the fault lies with those trying to explain it. What I’ve seen is a tendency toward frustration and lashing out at detractors rather than a patient, gentle approach.
For instance, I have spent a lot of time looking at this and discussing it, and I still don’t know if there are in fact any anti-abortion laws that AHA would support. Could there possibly be an incremental law that is not evil? That should be spelled out more succinctly and clearly.
Gregg Cunningham made some good points about the lashing out in the debate even as Russell Hunter dis a fairly good job in defending the straw man attacks against immediatism.