The Hard Truth vs. The Soft Sell
The Hard Truth vs. The Soft Sell
As Rachel MacNair points out in the preceding article (see “Focusing on Hope,” from this issue) most people would rather ignore the abortion issue than face up to the moral judgement it implies on us as a nation. As she succinctly stated: “For nearly three decades the pro-life movement has tried to argue not only the case against abortion, but also the case for our society’s guilt.”
An example of pro-lifers arguing the case for our guilt is the strategy of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR), which recently began displaying huge pictures of aborted babies on trucks cruising our major city highways. CBR also takes its Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to college campuses, where 14-foot-tall pictures of aborted children are shown side by side with pictures from the Nazi Holocaust and Ku Klux Klan lynchings. Through GAP, college communities are challenged to look upon the “seamless garment” of death. Are the distinctions modern liberals make between human lives worth protecting and human lives subject to destruction really any different from the distinctions made by the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan?
Yes, our society is guilty. It has to be, since it is made up of sinners like you and me. We are all tainted with the original sin of Adam, our father. The view that “Americans are a good people,” if not a nationalistic fancy, is a primordial memory of what we should have been. Certainly Americans have been a very blessed people. Certainly, like all humankind, we also have inherent value and dignity because we are made in the image of God. But where is the evidence that we are inherently good, as in well-behaved? As one wit pointed out, the doctrine of original sin is the only doctrine that is proven in every daily newspaper.
Recognizing our guilt, both as individuals and as a nation, is essential to the task of conversion. But this task will not be finished until Christ comes again. We are all too adept at the psychological games of denial and rationalization.
This is why MacNair’s recommendations are useful. They are based on sound psychological principles. She has identified a soft-sell approach, geared toward gradually reorienting perspectives to bring about a change in attitudes, practices and beliefs. It is a practical strategy for influencing the way people think about abortion rather than how they think about themselves. This is both its strength and weakness. It is psychologically, but not spiritually, satisfying. It is directed toward the goal of ending abortion–something we may well see accomplished in our lifetimes–rather than the goal of converting the world, which is an unending task.
“Repent.” That one word summarized the entire message of John the Baptist as he prepared the way for Christ. Repentance must always precede Christ. Where there is no repentance, there is no conversion. John’s message is still relevant today. It applies to our nation and to each individual–including believers–who must repent and convert every day.
So which strategy should pro-lifers pursue? Guilt-provoking campaigns that use graphic pictures that bulldoze through denial? Or more subtle methods, like those proposed by MacNair, which allow people to maintain the illusion of America’s virtue in order to make pro-life messages less threatening?
In our opinion, both approaches have their place. At times, as seen in the accompanying article, “The Awakening of African-Americans,” both methods will even converge. Circumstances and audiences will dictate the best approach, or blend of approaches, we should take.
We would like to offer one caution, however. Our experience with post-abortive women and men suggests that great care must be taken when one takes the route of breaking denial. It is not enough to show people why they are guilty. That alone can be mere cruelty.
The goal of breaking denial must be to help others find forgiveness and healing. Our goal should be that of Christ, who came into the world not to condemn, but to save (John 3:17). Our efforts to break denial should always be coupled with an equal, perhaps even bolder, effort to offer understanding, compassion, and healing.
Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review, Vol. 9(3), July-Sept. 2001. Copyright 2001, Elliot Institute.
