In my state at least, the Abortion Abolitionists aim primarily at policy and policy makers in Austin. Apparently, others protest at church worship services of those they somehow deem to be unfaithful in objecting to abortion. Yesterday, there was an online debate between Elijah Thompson (Heritage Restored) and Matthew Wiersema (independent content creator, street preacher, and filmmaker) regarding this "church interruption movement." As of this morning, it is now archived at the link below . I haven’t seen it yet. Shortly afterward, Elijah Thompson issued a call to repentance to those pursuing such interruption of worship serviceson his Facebook account. With his permission, I post it below. Having not seen the video as it was unavailable at the time, I explored possible reasoning for opposing these kinds of protests with Google AI, which I post below the call to repentance. For Thompson’s case, see the now operating video at the end of this post. My hope is that this is not common but given that there was a debate about it, I guess that it is happening. Feel free to comment or add thoughts.
[Statement from Elijah Thompson]
"First and foremost, I want Matthew and the others involved in the church interrupt movement to repent of their interruption of the worship of God, to repent of their forsaking of the assembly of God and to put themselves under a shepherd who can help guide them through life.
My concern is with those that they are leading astray. Real young men and women that think that they cannot associate with a church unless it meets standards (even sometimes beyond abolitionism) that would disqualify the majority of churches Paul wrote to. These people actually need the people of God. And the people of God need them. But without humility and patience on both sides often times change is missed because people run away, fulfilling the judgment of God: 'I will cut you off from among your people'.
Abolitionists love to talk about the judgment of God of him turning his face against us, but the cutting off is in the same passage and we aren't helping things if some refuse to live peaceable and submissive lives.
We can be bulwarks against the insanity without rejecting reasonable consequence of orderly worship. We can recognize nearly every premise of Matthew's without accepting the conclusion because we recognize that the worship of God should be orderly and if people protest outside the church they are not a part of that order."
Topic explored with AI in support of Thompson’s call to repentance; or What is the Reformed basis for opposing such church interruptions using this call to repentance as a springboard or how would one shore up such a call with biblical support?
1. The Sin of Self-Appointment (Running Without Being Sent)
Confessional Standards on Lawful Church Order
To show that this is the universal, immutable stance of the historic, confessional Reformation across our various traditions:
"First and foremost, I want Matthew and the others involved in the church interrupt movement to repent of their interruption of the worship of God, to repent of their forsaking of the assembly of God and to put themselves under a shepherd who can help guide them through life.
My concern is with those that they are leading astray. Real young men and women that think that they cannot associate with a church unless it meets standards (even sometimes beyond abolitionism) that would disqualify the majority of churches Paul wrote to. These people actually need the people of God. And the people of God need them. But without humility and patience on both sides often times change is missed because people run away, fulfilling the judgment of God: 'I will cut you off from among your people'.
Abolitionists love to talk about the judgment of God of him turning his face against us, but the cutting off is in the same passage and we aren't helping things if some refuse to live peaceable and submissive lives.
We can be bulwarks against the insanity without rejecting reasonable consequence of orderly worship. We can recognize nearly every premise of Matthew's without accepting the conclusion because we recognize that the worship of God should be orderly and if people protest outside the church they are not a part of that order."
1. The Sin of Self-Appointment (Running Without Being Sent)
- Primary Scriptural Prooftexts: Jeremiah 14:14, 23:21, 23:32. God explicitly warns: “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.” In the New Testament, Romans 10:15 echoes this absolute necessity: “And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” Furthermore, Hebrews 5:4 states, “And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God.”
- The Warning of Korah’s Rebellion (Jude 1:11, Numbers 16): Jude explicitly warns the church against those who perish in the rebellion of Korah. Korah’s fatal error was utilizing the language of radical, populist holiness ("all the congregation are holy") to usurp the structured, ordained authority God had established.
- The Case of King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16–21): King Uzziah acted with great civil and moral zeal, but his heart became proud. He assumed his righteous intentions justified him crossing structural boundaries to burn incense in the temple—an office strictly reserved for the ordained priesthood. God immediately struck him with leprosy, cutting him off from the house of the Lord.
- The Ecclesiological Reality: Personal passion or a righteous cause (such as the vital fight against abortion) never gives an individual permission to self-appoint themselves as a public preacher, reformer, or judge over Christ's flock. A "ministry" operating outside of a lawful call is structurally illegitimate.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: 1 Corinthians 14:33 & 14:40. Paul commands, "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace," and dictates, "But all things should be done decently and in order."
- The Ecclesiological Reality: To intentionally inject chaos, shouting, megaphones, or political performance art into a corporate worship service is an assault on the peace Christ established for His bride. God determines how He is to be worshipped; it is not a venue for human theater.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: Hebrews 10:25 ("not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some") and Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls...").
- The Ecclesiological Reality: These lone-wolf activists operate on a hyper-individualistic plane, functioning as their own supreme ecclesiastical courts. To reject pastoral oversight and live without a local church and ordained elders is to live in open defiance of Christ’s design for the Christian life.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: 1 Corinthians 1:2 & Galatians 1:2. Paul addresses regional congregations plagued by horrific failures—including incest, theological legalism, lawsuits, and chaotic Communion tables—yet he still acknowledges them as valid expressions of the "church of God."
- The Ecclesiological Reality: Demanding that a church match a hyper-specific, modern political checklist before it is worthy of fellowship is an ancient error. It mistakes a pure church for a true church. No local church is perfect this side of heaven.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: Romans 16:17–18. Paul warns believers to "watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites..."
- The Ecclesiological Reality: Activists may bypass the established patterns of conflict resolution by claiming their actions follow the precedent of Galatians 2:11–14, where Paul publicly rebuked Peter. This represents a severe false equivalence. Paul was an ordained Apostle possessing extraordinary ecclesiastical authority, and Peter had committed an explicit, public act of hypocrisy that compromised the Gospel of grace. A local church session quietly ministering through the Word and Sacraments is not guilty of a notorious, public heresy. By executing unauthorized, disruptive actions inside the house of God, the activists themselves are condemned in Romans 16:17 for their fracturing church unity and creating obstacles contrary to historic Reformed doctrine.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftexts: Matthew 18:15–17, Proverbs 18:13 ("If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame"), and Matthew 7:1–2 (the prohibition against rash, hypocritical judgment).
- The Ecclesiological Reality: Christ provides a strict, mandatory legal framework for conflict resolution and addressing sin within the visible church in Matthew 18:15–17. This process requires private confrontation, the gathering of verifiable facts by two or three witnesses, and ultimately submitting the matter to the ordained eldership ("tell it to the church"). While this framework is straightforward when confronting an explicit, documented sin of commission (1 Timothy 5:20), these activists completely bypass it to publicly rebuke local sessions for an assumed sin of omission—namely, a perceived lack of corporate political activism.
- To execute a Matthew 18 process or a public rebuke lawfully over a sin of omission, an outside observer must possess exhaustive, omniscient knowledge regarding the private charity, counseling, civil voting, legal advocacy, and local service of every officer and member within that congregation. Because outside activists cannot possibly discern the quiet, faithful obedience of a local body (Matthew 6:3–4), their circumvention of Matthew 18 constitutes the sin of rash judgment and slander, rebuking a phantom assumption rather than a documented theological departure.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: Leviticus 17:10, 20:3, and 1 Thessalonians 4:11. The scriptural warning of being "cut off from among his people" refers to the divine covenant penalty of separation. Conversely, the New Testament praises those who "aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs."
- The Ecclesiological Reality: The supreme irony of this movement is that while activists threaten lukewarm churches with the judgment of God, they actively bring down the covenant curse upon their own heads. By abandoning the assembly, refusing to live "peaceably and submissively," and tearing down local congregations, they effectively execute their own self-excommunication from the visible body of Christ.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftext: 1 Corinthians 14:32. "The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets."
- The Ecclesiological Reality: Protesters standing on a public sidewalk are using civil real estate under civil laws (free speech), but they have zero ecclesiastical authority. Because they do not hold a valid call, ordination, or structural office within the visible church order, their "prophetic rebukes" carry exactly zero spiritual weight within the courts of Christ's house.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftexts: Acts 15:37–40, 2 Timothy 4:11, Colossians 4:10, and Philemon 1:24.
- The Ecclesiological Reality: When faced with the strict requirements of Matthew 18, activists will argue that tactical differences regarding political methodology constitute a "notorious public sin" that invalidates the local church. However, the New Testament provides a direct paradigm for how believers are to handle deep, unresolved disagreements regarding ministry methodology. In Acts 15, a sharp, bitter disagreement arose between the Apostle Paul and Barnabas over a matter of missionary strategy: whether or not to take John Mark, who had previously deserted them.
- This was a profound conflict regarding wisdom, prudence, and tactics in ministry. Yet, the New Testament record shows a convicting boundary: Paul and Barnabas did not publicly deride each other, nor did they send factions to disrupt each other's gathered ministries or declare the other "Laodicean." Instead, they recognized a division of labor, separated peaceably, and went about their respective missionary outreaches. Over time, through patience and the fruit of the Spirit, reconciliation prevailed, leading Paul eventually to write that Mark was "very useful to me for ministry" (2 Tim 4:11).
- The Application: Even if one were to erroneously concede the activists' premise that local sessions are "insufficiently active" on a specific political front, this remains entirely a debate over tactical wisdom and stewardship, not an issue of explicit heresy. By transforming a strategic disagreement into a justification for public assault on Christ’s bride, activists exhibit a spirit entirely alien to Apostolic charity. They choose public denunciation over patient, parallel labor, revealing that their goal is the subversion of order rather than the advancement of Christ's kingdom.
- Primary Scriptural Prooftexts: Matthew 5:10–12, Matthew 25:40–45, and Acts 9:4. In the Beatitudes, Christ comforts His Church by stating, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account" (Matt 5:11). Later, in Matthew 25, He establishes an terrifying identity between Himself and His visible church, warning that to mistreat, neglect, or assault the least of His brethren is to do it directly to Him. This is echoed in Acts 9:4, where Christ halts Saul on the road to Damascus with the piercing question: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
- The Ecclesiological Reality: The ultimate tragedy of this radical movement is the spiritual inversion of its participants. Cloaking themselves in the language of righteousness, they cross church property lines to revile faithful elders, yell at corporate worshippers, and falsely accuse faithful sessions of being complicit in murder. By turning their wrath inward against the visible Body of Christ, they cease to function as defenders of life and instead occupy the biblical office of the persecutor.
- The Application: Activists frequently comfort themselves by filming the anger or legal resistance their presence generates, twisting it to claim they are "suffering for righteousness." But Christ’s promise applies only when evil is uttered against His people falsely. When these groups face resistance from local sessions, they are experiencing the righteous defense of church order, not religious persecution. In truth, it is the activists who are actively reviling Christ's bride, unaware that the Lord Jesus takes every megaphone yelled at a local congregation as an assault directed squarely at Himself.
To show that this is the universal, immutable stance of the historic, confessional Reformation across our various traditions:
- The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 27.4 & 25.2): Restricts the public handling of the Word and sacraments strictly to those who are "lawfully called and ordained thereunto," noting that outside of Christ's visible kingdom, there is "no ordinary possibility of salvation."
- The Belgic Confession (Article 31): "We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their offices by a lawful election by the Church... Therefore everyone must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means..."
- The 1689 London Baptist Confession (Chapter 26, Paragraph 8): "The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person... unto the office of an elder or deacon in a church, is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership..."
