Exodus 23:30
By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.
Smashmouth Incrementalism differs from Abolition in strategy not in span. It advocates a different tactic, not a different target. Both aim at the ultimate abolition of all abortion. In this, they differ with much of the Pro Life industry which depends on the existence of abortion for it to exist and would rather "fight" than win.
Smashmouth Incrementalism advocates a slow march through the institutions style strategy that has been successfully employed by the Gramscian branch of socialism. It never forgets the end goal, but doesn't insist on having the end in order to move the means to get there. In other words, it was willing to forego instant gratification for the sake of making gains where it could.
Smashmouth Incrementalism has a running game. It never takes its eyes off of the end zone, but it doesn't throw shade on a four-yard gain. Every play has the end zone in mind even when the ball isn't thrown into it. The Abolitionist strategy insists that a ball thrown anywhere other than the end zone is a concession. It condemns running plays as putting points on the board for the other team. It is short-sighted though big-hearted. It wants every play to be a Hail Mary, but ends up more often than not going out on downs by doing so. They keep pushing and the bad guys keep getting the ball back and running up the score. I appreciate the push and passion of those who want abortion ended this very second. I do to and would gladly welcome its dissolution this very second. But in the meantime, I will cheer on small steps towards that end as they come in the form of four-yard runs.
To decry a heartbeat bill because it still allows some babies to be aborted is to say you'd prefer that every baby be subject to abortion until none of them are. But the Abolitionists often accuse Incrementalists of being complacent and party to the death of those the law doesn't protect. However, a difference in tactic does not necessitate a difference in target. Those employing a ground game and getting first downs are not inherently opposed to scoring touchdowns. In fact, they may be so committed to putting points on the board that they're willing to wait to do so. For them, running for five yards isn't a failure, but a step towards victory.
To be fair, some actually like running the ball because it slows the game down and becomes more about field position instead of winning. The difference is highlighted when someone gets an unexpected break away: do they run for the end zone or run out of bounds?
Zechariah 4:10
For who hath despised the day of small things?
The land is blessed when brothers dwell in unity. I love the Abolitionists and hope they succeed. So much so in fact, that I endorse Smashmouth Incrementalism to that end. If we win, they win, but if they waste their efforts fighting us, they hamper our ability and theirs. I have not run into any smashmouth advocates who spend any of their efforts fighting abolitionists. I have encountered many abolitionists who spend most of their time fighting incrementalists. This clearly doesn't help us work toward the common goal of the complete eradication of abortion, but I don't believe in the long run the Abolitionist's all or nothing approach would work either. That is why I am an incrementalist. I want to end abortion and I don't think abolition can abolish it. I know it wants to and I believe it. But tactically it cannot accomplish its goal. Its stated principle is in the right place, but its approach is not. It cannot get things to the point of dissolution. It is the final resolve required to put the nail in the coffin, but cannot kill the Giant Abortion and place him in one.
David was not wrong or unBiblical to hit Goliath with a rock before he could cut his head clean off. The stone gave him access to the sword. The sword made it possible to cleave the head. The stunning prepared the way for the slaying. You cannot insist on the sword while refusing David the use of a stone.
Neither was Joshua wrong to take one side of the Jordan before taking the other. You cannot insist that it’s either Jericho or nothing when the prior battles are what pave the way to Jericho.
All that to say, incrementalism is a Biblically permissible and incredibly useful tactic for addressing sins of all kinds in all types of places. Personal sanctification, for example, is incremental in tactic and abolitionist in target.
Leaven works slowly, but surely. If one insists that leaven must make leaps, then one must reject leaven altogether. In other words, rejecting a leaven like trajectory is like throwing all babies out with the bathwater since by that logic none should be saved unless and until all can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment