Tony Miano and Abolish Human Abortion

[t_thornton83]

I am curious as to whether anyone on the board is familiar with the controversy that has been taking place between Tony Miano, Marcus Pittman, Jon Speed (among others) and a group known as Abolish Human Abortion? AHA is a grassroots movement which, as the name might imply, seeks to abolish abortion. AHA is a Christian organization (despite protests that they are not an organization) that is rather explicit about its motivation for seeing abortion abolished; and that is the gospel. However, AHA has initiated a project entitled "Church Repent," which consists largely of picketing churches that are not active enough (according to AHA) in the fight against abortion. To make a long story short; Miano and others have openly rebuked AHA for picketing churches that are gospel-centered and true to God's Word. Furthermore, the founders of AHA apparently split from a church and are currently under no church authority; save their own. And finally, there is some concern that AHA may be placing fervent opposition to abortion on par with saving faith; as evidenced by some open-air preaching that was bereft of the gospel but full of the moral imperative to "love thy unborn neighbor". I have personally engaged one of the founders of AHA and he vehemently denies the accusations that AHA may be bordering on the heresy of the Judaizers; while at the same time justifying law-only open-air preaching by referencing the Sermon on the Mount as well as some other discourses of Christ. Of course, I engaged in a lengthy discussion of exegesis on this topic; though no real agreement was reached. In any case; I'd like to read the opinions of the board on this matter if any are familiar with the issue. Thanks.

 

[mccaffertyb7]

Hey Taylor,

I am familiar with the controversy. To be honest, I'm a bit tired of the back and forth. I kind of wish that both groups would just stop and be quiet. That said, I tend to be on Miano's side on the issue. I think AHA has definite ecclesiastical problems, though I am unsure how extreme it is. I was under the impression that most of the members were involved in local churches. I am friends with a number of AHA supporters in Ohio, and to my knowledge, they are all involved in local churches. Now, I am unsure about men like Russell Hunter and whether or not he is a member of a church or not. In general, however, I think that church involvement is encouraged, but I could be wrong. However, the entire way their organization is structured seems to prioritize involvement in a local AHA abolitionist society over involvement in a local church. In my opinion, they also seem to over-emphasize the necessity of church members to be involved in anti-abortion work. Yes, fighting against abortion is important, but I'm not sold on the idea that it is the #1 most important issue that every church needs to be involved in. If a church is working tirelessly to end sex-trafficking, I don't think they should be called to repentance because they don't have an extensive anti-abortion ministry. Different people and different churches are called to be involved in different ministries, and it is rather absurd, in my opinion, to require all true Christian churches to have an active anti-abortion ministry. I'm not saying it's unimportant to fight against abortion, but I think other issues are also important, and a church is more than free to spend time addressing those issues, especially if that is what they have been called to. Is a church in the middle of Wyoming in sin if they don't have an anti-abortion ministry, although there are not abortion clinics within hundreds of miles? I don't think so. I also share Miano's concerns about whether they are truly Gospel-centered. I tend to think not, but as you have noted, they will all vehemently deny any accusation of that sort. Honestly, though, I don't care what they say; I look at what they do. And it seems to me that many of their messages lack a true Gospel proclamation. They seem, at times, to be more intent on recruiting workers to abolitionism than on converting souls to Christianity. That is a problem. With that acknowledged, I am nonetheless very thankful for AHA. They opened my eyes to a lot of truths about abortion, and were influential in my decision over a year ago to become involved in sidewalk counseling, whenever I have the time. But I still have serious reservations about partnering with them, and supporting their work, because of the issues I listed above. Hope that was somewhat helpful.

 

[earl40]

And finally, there is some concern that AHA may be placing fervent opposition to abortion on par with saving faith; as evidenced by some open-air preaching that was bereft of the gospel but full of the moral imperative to "love thy unborn neighbor".

The fervent opposition to abortion is one of degree. The question could be: If one does not oppose abortion in any degree does one have any faith?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am curious as to whether anyone on the board is familiar with the controversy that has been taking place between Tony Miano, Marcus Pittman, Jon Speed (among others) and a group known as Abolish Human Abortion?

Controversy? Between who?

This is one of the reasons I stay on the PB. Only here do I get exposure to people and "controversies" about which I'd otherwise remain completely oblivious.

 

[Edward]

Abolish Human Abortion

The name suggests that they favor abortion of non-human species.

Since I had not previously heard of this group, their publicity campaign appears to have been at least in part successful. Given their tactics, perhaps they should consider linking up with the Westboro folks.

 

[t_thornton83]

And finally, there is some concern that AHA may be placing fervent opposition to abortion on par with saving faith; as evidenced by some open-air preaching that was bereft of the gospel but full of the moral imperative to "love thy unborn neighbor".

The fervent opposition to abortion is one of degree. The question could be: If one does not oppose abortion in any degree does one have any faith?

I would agree with this; a regenerate heart cannot possibly support the murder of the innocent under the guise of "choice". I would even go further and say that one cannot call themselves both a "Christian" and a "liberal;" and I will defer to Machen on why that is so. However, as was stated in the initial reply to my post, AHA tends to go beyond this claim in its insistence that churches adopt their particular tactics (e.g. pickets with pictures of aborted babies in front of churches, schools, etc.). To be honest, I do not necessarily disagree with these tactics per se; as the basic philosophy is that because this is what is actually taking place, people should be made aware of what is actually taking place. Fair enough. The question becomes: Should AHA be picketing God-glorifying churches (as Miano claims) because they are not participating in abolition to the extent that AHA does? The fact is, AHA consists largely of young, fervent evangelicals who are quite passionate about their cause; but one must ask whether such fervency should be balanced and tempered by the elders of a local church. And while many abolitionist societies are surely under local church authority; the founders of the movement in Norman, Oklahoma apparently are not. I also genuinely wrestle with the question of whether we as believers ought to identify ourselves with any particular movement that seeks to do away with any social ill; simply because I do not see the apostles doing this in the NT. Surely the early Church could have identified themselves with doing away with the perversion of pederasty, or the brutality of the games, or the practice of infanticide; but they didn't. Of course, this is not to say that they did not address these things; they did; but this was done primarily because hearts were regenerated by the preaching of the gospel. I suppose my question is: If your movement or organization is dedicated to the abolition of a particular sin (albeit a monstrous sin); does this not first identify you to the world as one who opposes abortion rather than one who is a herald of the gospel and a follower of Christ? When does a cause begin to subvert the only means by which God even grants the desire to be righteous? Again, I'm asking these questions in order to gain some wisdom from fellow believers; as while I do believe the Church must take a stand on a myriad of issues in a more proactive fashion; we must tread lightly in doing so as it is rather easy to fall into the ditch of moralizing to a whole lot of dead people. Furthermore, I personally know the members of a local AHA society and I have engaged them with many of the concerns I've mentioned here. I have no doubt that these folks are Christians, but they are also under the rather persuasive influence of the leadership in Oklahoma; I am simply trying to offer them a more balanced perspective.

 

[mccaffertyb7]

I suppose my question is: If your movement or organization is dedicated to the abolition of a particular sin (albeit a monstrous sin); does this not first identify you to the world as one who opposes abortion rather than one who is a herald of the gospel and a follower of Christ? When does a cause begin to subvert the only means by which God even grants the desire to be righteous? Again, I'm asking these questions in order to gain some wisdom from fellow believers; as while I do believe the Church must take a stand on a myriad of issues in a more proactive fashion; we must tread lightly in doing so as it is rather easy to fall into the ditch of moralizing to a whole lot of dead people.

Exactly. Taylor, I get the feeling that if I asked many of them about their identity, they would respond by saying 'Abolitionist' before they would respond by saying 'Christian.' Maybe I'm making unfair assumptions, but honestly, that's how I think that several of them would respond, based on interactions I've had with them. That's a huge problem; isn't that idolatry? Putting anything before Christ, even good things, is idolatry. Reading the Bible is a good thing, but you can idolize the Bible. Preaching the word is a good thing, but you can also idolize preaching. As Tim Keller would say, 'Good things becoming God things.' That's the essence of idolatry. And even though fighting abortion is a very good thing, it should never be the ultimate or primary thing. Sadly, for many members of AHA, it is the ultimate thing, and they find their identity in being abortion abolitionists. But our primary identity should be in Christ and Him alone. We are, before anything else, followers of Jesus Christ. I think you're thoughts regarding this issue are healthy and in the right direction.

 

[t_thornton83]

It seems as though we're on the same page as far as this issue is concerned, Brennan. I would agree that even on Facebook, for example, if I did not know some of the AHA folks personally, I would assume that their entire shtick (if you will) is that of abolition. Perhaps I would derive a general association with the Religious Right, but I would not first and foremost identify them as Christians. With that being said, I won't speculate as to how they would identify themselves; though I hope it would be first and foremost as Christians. In any event, you're certainly correct that "good" things can quickly become idols in our lives, which is why we must constantly return to our basic commitment to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The issue with AHA from my experience seems to be an unwillingness to be corrected by concerned brothers; as there seems to be a certain arrogance pervading the movement; dare I say a feeling of superiority for the work they are doing?