An open letter to my friends who are still at FBC

There's a watershed letter that's recently been put out by the senior pastor regarding the name change process. I've pasted it below (and underlined the most interesting parts).

Where do we go from here with the Name Change Process?
Back in April, a clear majority of voting members (64%) cast ballots in favor of a name change proposal. This represented good progress toward our name change goal. However, we needed at least a 75% membership affirmation vote in order to effect this change. We learned two big lessons from this process.

1. We did not present a compelling enough reason to change our name.
Some who voted "no," looked at the current growth we are experiencing and thought, "Why change the name?" Others were concerned about maintaining the Baptist heritage or community position of our church. Some thought that a name change might perhaps lead to compromising our commitment to biblical standards. Some just didn't like the new name we were proposing. During the process, we also discovered that a number of people did not fully understand the mission and purpose of our church.

Numerous reasons were given as to why the Elder Board of FBC believes it is time for us to change our church's name, but in the final analysis this initiative has everything to do with why we exist as a church. In Luke 19:10 we read that Jesus Christ was sent to earth "to seek and to save the lost." God lovingly went the extra mile to reach people who had drifted far from His ways and His heart. He adapted His methodology in order to accomplish His mission to reach lost people when He sent His Son to earth. This same approach is exactly what we continue to recommend to our church family.

The growth we are currently experiencing at FBC is primarily from believers coming from other churches. While this can be good, it does not truly represent kingdom growth but rather confirms that our current community image is more attractive to existing believers than unbelievers.

Change is never easy. But we are essentially asking you to vote about the future of our church and its ability to reach those nearby who are separated from God. Our commitment to biblical purity and our North American Baptist roots remains steadfast. But we know demographically that the Elk Grove of today is fairly young, full of families, ethnically diverse, and more unchurched than the national average. We also know that a significant percentage of unchurched people living in our community are turned off by denominational titles and/or have misconceptions about words like "Baptist." While not intending to do so, we are actually pushing away a significant percentage of people around us that don't yet know God because of the name we carry. This is both unfortunate and unnecessary. It is time for us remove this man-made obstacle as we pursue our mission to reach those around us with the gospel.

As we have stated before, we do not believe that changing our name alone will double our impact in this community. That is why we are pursuing a multi-faceted strategy. Rather than assume a defensive posture in our community, we want to follow our Lord's command to go on the offense (Matthew 28:18-20; also see Matthew 16:18). As we pay off our debts, create more "one another community" (LifeGroups), improve our approach to Sunday morning hospitality, raise the evangelistic temperature, and make facility upgrades to accommodate growth and new worship services, we also believe this is the perfect time to reposition ourselves regarding our church's name and identity in the community. We sense the Lord leading us into a whole new chapter of ministry expansion which may very well include better utilizing technology to create numerous new worship services and eventually go multi-site in our strategy to reach the unchurched.

2. Our congregation wanted additional input in the process of name selection.

Though we created a thorough process for vetting over 300 possible names for our church that many of you submitted for consideration, we still discovered that a lot of people in our church family wanted to have a greater voice in choosing between a few name options rather than simply voting on one name option. As you can probably imagine, it would be fairly difficult to bring 1,800 church members in on a discussion about 300 possible name suggestions. But we think we have found a solution that still allows for greater involvement on your part. In the near future (August 23), we plan to take a survey during our worship services which will offer everyone present an opportunity to indicate your preferences among the top four possible name suggestions.

As you prepare to give us this input, please keep the following things in mind:
We need a name that communicates we are a church.
We need a name that is forward leaning.
We need a name that can potentially be used in multiple locations.
We need a name that is not used by another Christian church in the area.

One big discovery we have made since February is that it is impossible to encapsulate everything about our identity with a name involving only two or three words. That is why many great evangelical churches in America have selected "neutral names" (such as Bayside Church, Saddleback Church, Sun Grove Community Church, etc.) that would not work against their mission to reach the lost.

Admittedly there is a risk to this process because offering multiple name options could make it difficult for 75% of our members to agree on one name. That is why we are asking you to hold your preferences lightly in this process. Once we receive this survey input from you, the Elder Board will prayerfully evaluate what we are hearing from both you and the Lord.

It is clear that this name change process stirs up a lot of memories, concerns, emotions and conversations. Let's agree to walk together and live out the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) during this time. That includes asking the Lord of the Church to unite us and guide us toward a name that will lead to a better future as we seek to live out our mission of making disciples and seeking to join God in reaching the lost for Christ.

There's no easy way to say this, so I'll just come right out with it: if you are in any way bothered by this letter, you need to find a new church now. You may have hoped this issue wasn't going to surface again so soon, but you were given fair warning when the first name change was defeated and Scott promised to regroup and try again. You remember that day right? It was your high water mark. You had everything in your favor for that vote--the pastor was new, the leadership hid all the other name choices from you, they made back room decisions for you like gangsters, they picked a horrible name in LifeBridge, and they still got 64% of the vote. The conditions could not be more in your favor and yet you were 11% away from losing outright. Do you think that will improve given that the core 400 or 500 people who made up the church have for some time been leaving, being replaced by new people who are more eager to demonstrate love for the Pastor than they are to hold on to the previous way of life they knew nothing of?

Sorry.

It's time to accept that although you want the train to go North, they want South, and they're in control of the Locomotive. And it's at this point that I want to give you the foul tasting grape flavored medicine which is the opposite of Ezekiel's scroll--it's going to be horrible in your mouth but it will make your stomach feel better.
That medicine is this truth: your senior Pastor is committing a sin in writing you this letter, and if you stay under his leadership you will become further desensitized to it when it happens again. You will become sleepy with the weight of it until you can no longer see it, until it no longer bothers you, and you close your eyes in slumber upon the raft while the current sweeps you away.
What sin is that? He's breaking the third commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who misuses His name." The rule prohibits men from stating their personal opinions as if they were Gods will. It means men don't get to speak for God, nor are they permitted to hide their ambitions under the cloak of His approval. But that's what this letter does. It politely, but openly, accuses you hold-outs of sinful rebellion against God if you don't plan on voting the name to something nature sounding, like Valley Fjord. Look at the last paragraph, it could not be more clear, it's a call to lay down your preference and do what they say or be found in opposition to the Lord. 

Consider the gravity of the situation for a moment. You're currently being led by an administration committed to ruling through the use of sin. The modus operandi of the senior pastor is to openly break the third commandment. If you're not convinced this is really a problem then ask yourself how you would feel if he got up and publicly, proudly, committed adultery, and advocated everyone support it. What if the sin was murder instead? What about theft? But this is worse because while God doesn't promise specific punishment for those, He does promise it for breaking the third commandment. They were given in order of importance after all, which means keeping the third is even more important than keeping six, seven, or eight. 

More could be said of course. I could tell you that they're remaking the church into Willow Creek, even though that place is barely Christian anymore. Or that Sun Grove and Bayside, two examples of which they praised, are much more like giant weekly Tony Robbins seminars and collective self help sessions than they are the Bride of Christ. There's more of psychology in there than there is the good news of the crucifixion.
Or I could hazard a guess that they've learned a thing or two since last time, and this time around the old name won't be on the ballot for vote. That I suspect they'll find some way of bringing you sheep along with one trick or another.
Or I could tell you that this kind of authoritative staff driven model isn't Biblical and recently drove Mark Driscoll into collapse.
But I won't. 
Instead I'll just tell you that I get it. I know. The thought of leaving hurts, it really really hurts. And it feels like laying down arms and quitting in the face of a winnable struggle is the wrong course of action. But my advice is to do what the song says and let it go. Find hope elsewhere. God is Sovereign, Christ will see to His church, and there is life outside of FBC. Speaking personally, leaving has been a generally positive experience for my family. Our new church is a lot more traditional, less likely to change with the times or make snap decisions, much less programmatic, and more serious about living the Christian life. No, it's not perfect. At the new church I feel the overwhelming love of God less, but the real pain of sin more. I feel more acutely the limitedness of the people around me, as well as my own limitations and propensities to sin, being more acutely aware of it in general, which makes it more real here. 

In fact last Sunday I wasn't particularly excited to go. It's not that I was dreading going you understand, it's just that I just felt... merely like it's something we do. I get up and have breakfast every day, I put on pajamas before falling asleep for the night, and I go to church morning and evening on Sundays. There is a bit of the "daily bread" about it. And it came to me that that's not just okay, it's great. Life is ordinary. Even a superheros life quickly becomes routine and ordinary, doing the same things over and over. God intended for it to happen that way, and when church becomes an ingrained ordinary part of your life you're walking a good path. You go and feed, because that's what you do. You walk after Christ, and sometimes walking is ordinary.
That never happened at First Baptist Church and I think the reason why is that they strove to make things fresh and cool, big and fun. New! Celebrate! They didn't need an evening service because you walk away satisfied from your extraordinary morning service. Now I feel a more acute thirst for Christ, a more ingrained, dependable, mature Christianity about me, and I think that's better.

Don't hear me saying something I'm not. I'm not saying that it's wrong to stay. I'm not saying the pastors are better elsewhere, or that the current FBC pastors are worse than others. I'm not saying a church that dims the lights for their third service is wrong. Or that there's not a time to have big programs that are fun. Nothing of the sort. But I am saying that breaking the third commandment to get your way is wrong. Really wrong. And unless there's repentance instead of a habitual embracing of that wrongdoing at FBC, you're going to be worse off in the long run. So if you're bothered by the letter Scott sent out, then you're only going to suffer further moving forward. For your sake, take my advice and do not fight the leadership.

The Argument From the Purchase of Salvation

“Christ's atoning work cannot be extended to all people without also extending the new covenant benefits and privileges to them, which minimally includes regeneration, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Spirit, and so on. General atonement views must either redefine the nature of the new covenant or argue that Christ dies as the covenantal head of another covenant, whatever that is.”

Kingdom Through Covenant (p680)

In less succinct language, the argument is that the saving work of Christ does more than just pay for the sins of men, it also purchases everything necessary for their salvation. This includes regeneration, sanctification, adoption, indwelling of the Spirit, faith—everything necessary is purchased by Christ on the cross as an exclusive gift for His covenant people. In the words of Romans 8:32, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”
In its barest form the argument looks like this:

P1:  Christ’s atonement purchases all things necessary for salvation.
P2: Only the elect receive the gifts necessary for salvation.
C: Therefore, not all men were atoned for.

ANSWER 

Although this argument looks formidable, there are two big problems with it.

The first is that, like Owens Trilemma, it over proves the point. If all things are purchased by Christ then He must necessarily purchase the hearing of the gospel and everything related to it, including the ordinary-every-day graces of being able to waking up in the morning, listen, understand, and think clearly. But for strict limited atonement to be true it cannot be the case that the non-elect receive any of these gifts of salvation which belong to the elect alone, and that’s a problem because the non-elect clearly do receive them. They receive the benefit of hearing the gospel (John 6:32-36, Matt. 22:4-5). They receive the common graces of God (Matt 5:45-46), the facilities and blessings needed to understand the plain message of salvation. Asaph complains in Ps 73 that the wicked had so many earthly blessings that he positively envied them (v2-14). Judas was one of the twelve closest to Jesus and was given the power to drive out demons as he proclaimed the gospel, yet for all of His time near Jesus was still lost (John 17:12). Therefore if the first premise is true (Christ purchases everything needed for salvation from the cross) then the second premise (only the elect receive gifts necessary for salvation) must be false. 

The second problem is that this syllogism leads to irrationality. If true, it would mean that Jesus purchased the saving disposition of the Father to send Himself to Earth, from the Father at His death, in order that He may give it to the Father in eternity past. Christ purchases the desire to create the universe from the Father at His death, in order to give it back to the Father before the universe began, to enable Him to create for His glory. Christ purchases predestination at His death from the Father, then gives it back to the Father. The Father’s nature, actions, and freedoms are constrained by the work of the cross; He cannot dispense a blessing of any kind until the transaction has been made in time. Similar to how Chuck Norris was born into a log cabin that he himself made. 

To accept this model means the destruction of the truth that there was a time before Jesus was a man, but never a time before He was God. Instead Jesus, eternally man and God, is always being crucified in eternity past so as to enable the Father to act in accordance with His desires, for without Him He isn’t free. This is, incidentally, is substantially similar to the Roman Catholic argument for their sacrament of mass.
So the first premise falls by its own weight. 

It’s at this point that the advocate for strict limited atonement may try to salvage the argument by asserting that Christ purchases faith exclusively for the elect, while purchasing a myriad of common graces for all men. Something like this:

P1:  Christ’s death purchases the gift of faith necessary for salvation. 

P2: Only the elect receive the gift of faith necessary for salvation.  

 C: Therefore, not all men were atoned for.

But aside from the fact that conceding Christ purchasing gifts for all men is hardly a compelling argument for strict limited atonement, this new form suffers from the same problem that the original one does, plus the additional effect of making it more obvious that the scheme needlessly reduces everything to a crass commercial transaction. If Christ really purchased faith for men from the cross then faith is no longer an open hand offered toward God but a singular object given by God. It’s no longer an organic byproduct of a man’s affections, or an inclination to trust that comes from within the man, but a concrete item bought at the divine marketplace. It means that the Scriptures which speak of faithfulness being rewarded on the last day are senseless (Heb 10:35, Luke 19:17), along with those that some men having a greater amount of it than others (1 Cor 12:9), and those where unbelievers are urged to believe and live (Acts 16:31, Rom 10:9, Mark 16:16). This must be so, because there’s no place for those things in the case where faith isn’t something earned or exercised within a person, but is instead a good acquired on their behalf. As Chambers said,

Talk of 'purchase' could well be seen as having a distorting effect on the biblical idea of faith, by reifying it, making it a thing or object or commodity, instead of a relational response. The phrase 'purchase of faith' is a category confusion, for trust, like love, can only be given by the subject, not bought, and arises in the subject. While, of course, it is bought for us, and not from us, even that suggests a passivity that is not a feature of the New Testament's portrayal. While the trusting attitude itself can be conceptualized as passive and receptive in relation to the reception of righteousness, we are not passive but active in that trusting, we are those who believe. 

Making a final stand to preserve the argument, the strict limited atonement advocate might agree there’s no mention of Christ purchasing faith in the Bible and modify their position to Jesus purchasing the right to give men faith. “God cannot give the gift of faith apart from the priestly work of Christ, and because of the death of Christ God gives men faith directly”, they might say. But given that the demons believe (James 2:19), even though they received no atonement (Heb 2:16), this too must be discarded as unworkable. Jesus doesn’t need to buy the right to give faith—God is already the Sovereign King of the universe. What Jesus needs to do is provide a way consistent with God’s justice to forgive sinners. As Baxter says,  

“Never did Christ desire at his Fathers hands, that all whom he satisfied for, should be infallibly and irresistibly brought to believe; nor did God ever grant or promise any such thing. Jesus Christ as a Ransom died for all, and as Rector per Leges, or Legislator. He hath conveyed the Fruits of his death to all; that is, those Fruits which it appertained to him as Legislator to convey, which is right to what his New Law or Covenant doth promise. But those Mercies which he gives as Domimus Absolutus, arbitrarily besides or above his engagement, he neither gives nor ever intended to give to all that he died for; no nor to all his Elect doth he give all those fruits of his death, nor for ought I know to any in the same degree; for these are but remotely the Fruits of Christ’s death, and not constant nor inseparable Fruits. Peruse the foresaid Table of the Fruits of Christ’s death, and it will shew you which the mercies be that Christ gives by Law, and which arbitrarily, as besides his engagement.”

 So every variation of the arguments for purchase is ultimately proven to be unworkable.

Classic Calvinism

PART I - ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF CALVINISM 

The TULIP & an Introduction
The Sovereignty of God 
Total Depravity
Regeneration
Unconditional Election
Perseverance of the Saints

PART II - A BRIEF HISTORY OF CLASSIC CALVINISM

PART III - COMMON CALVINISM

Predestination
Lapsarianism
Moral/Natural Inability

PART IV - VERSES FOR LIMITED SATISFACTION  ADDRESSED

PART V - VERSES FOR UNLIMITED SATISFACTION 

PART VI - LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR UNLIMITED SATISFACTION

PART VII - LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR LIMITED SATISFACTION ADDRESSED

Introductory Remarks 
Owens Trilemma
Argument from the Purchase of Salvation
The Double Payment Argument
...
Negative Inference Argument
Expiation-Intercession Argument
...

Introductory Remarks to Part VI

There are two kinds of arguments for strict limited atonement: the arguments from intention, and the arguments from effect. Both appear to come from Scripture when it says things like “He will see the travail of His soul and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:11), but both are actually categorical deductions that fall out from an underlying philosophy, and both trade on a deficient understanding of the atonement.

The mistake of the first class of arguments (Jesus didn’t die to save all men because God didn’t elect all men to salvation) lies in trying to copy the properties of other doctrines and paste them over the atonement. It reduces the satisfaction of wrath to an elect-specific event, and in so doing places it alongside the other elect particular blessings which are not shared by all mankind in general, such as regeneration, or final perseverance. The argument from the Covenant of Redemption, the Negative Inference argument, or the Intercession-Expiation arguments are good examples of this. In trying to grapple with the final outcome of the atonement it’s easy to become convinced that the design of the atonement was no wider than the salvation of the elect, but this isn’t so, since the doctrines of election and atonement are not identical things. As Spring says,

“It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the Elect…Though there would have been no atonement but for God’s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of atonement and election are two distinct things.”

The second class of arguments for strict limited atonement reason that because Jesus made an effectual payment to the Father, and only the elect were saved, then it must be that only the elect were paid for. Owen’s Trilemma, the argument from the purchase of faith, and the double payment argument are examples of this.
The mistake lies in assuming the debt of sin works like a debt of money—once paid the guilty are liberated. The problem is either a modern conception of purchase, or an over reliance on the framework of it, to the exclusion of other analogies of salvation.
The first happens because our culture isn’t the same as the first century near east. We think of paying a debt as handing a credit card to the restaurant cashier, or inserting paper money into a vending machine. The whole process is casual, impersonal, transactional. In every case what the creditor is entitled to is the money itself, and if a generous person steps in to make a payment on our behalf then the matter is settled as soon as the money changes hands. But the Bible has something more along the lines of a wealthy patron redeeming his servant from the slave market as a model for salvation than it does an online bill payment. The transaction in that case is personal, equal parts settling a debt through sacrifice and acquiring a person.
 
The second way to fall into the payment trap is to allow it to become the principle analogy of salvation. When the language of purchase gets too much prominence it begins to distort the concept salvation by pushing out the other crucial analogies (like a criminal before the judge, or a lamb is brought before a priest). The debt of our sin is not a credit deficiency, but also a judicial infraction, what we sinners owe is not just the price of our sins, but our very selves to God. As Hodge says,

“Augustinians teach, it is urged, that the work of Christ is a satisfaction to divine justice... From this it is inferred that the satisfaction or righteousness of Christ, if the ground on which a sinner may be forgiven, is the ground on which he must be forgiven... If the atonement be limited in design it must be limited in its nature, and if limited in its nature it must be limited in its offer.  

This objection again arises from confounding a pecuniary and a judicial satisfaction between which Augustinians are so careful to discriminate... There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed... Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins.”

One of these two errors underlies each particular argument for strict limited atonement, and while it would be enough to point out that any argument driven by a faulty model is wrong, the following chapters will focus instead on the additional mistakes the particular argument makes.

The Sociopathic Argument Against Abortion

When I was in college and first encountered Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument advocating for abortion I was greatly troubled. It was so sophisticated, and I so witless, that for even a long time after it remained beyond my ability to refute. “so what?” she said, “If the baby is a person? The victim here is the woman who has to put up with a pregnancy.” To which my inept reply was, “I’ll, uh, get back to you.”

Many years later I stumbled upon an article by Bnonn that clarified for me exactly what was wrong in a buzzfeed-esque title, “4 reasons the consent argument for abortion is sociopathic.” The main take away is this:

In all the analogies pro-abortionists give, the perpetrator is acting maliciously (sometimes by proxy, as in the violinist argument) toward a woman who did nothing to merit his actions against her... Yet in the vast majority of pregnancies, the “perp” is in fact acting helplessly toward a woman precisely because she caused him to do so. And moreover, she is not simply “a woman” and he is not simply “a perp”—rather, she is his mother and he is her child.

“Ah” says I in a vaguely pirate growl, “that be it entirely. Why didn’t I see it before?”
In an instant it became clear to me that Thomas’ callous stiff arm was the very weapon to be used against her. When she says, “A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die.” the proper response is, “You’re a sociopath, and have no place in our society.” When someone comes to you with the serious argument that they should have the right to dismember their child because they may get depressed at the thought of someone else raising it, the comeback is, “Get lost, psychopath.”

And the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that not only does the sociopathic argument prove to be outstanding against abortion advocates, but it also explains nearly everything surrounding abortion itself, from the suffering of women who undergo it to the limited number of doctors who perform it. Which is why we'll first look at using the observation as an argument, then as a behavioral tool.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds"

Let’s start by showing how well the argument works in general, and here I can do no better than to repackage what Bnonn argues when he urges his reader to imagine they are alone on an Antarctic research base when a baby shows up at their door. “Are you morally obligated to take care of this baby, or is it morally permissible to close the door and let it freeze?”
The answer is obvious: only a sociopath would let the baby die.
Now what if, instead of a random stranger, the baby shows up on the doorstep of his own mother? Is it reasonable for her to take a surgical knife and hack him to pieces? Should we be sympathetic to her if she were to use forceps to crush him to death? No. What are you anyway, psychotic?    

The argument is not just powerful however, it’s simple. All the user needs to do is point out that the “fetus” in the womb of a pregnant woman is her offspring. You don’t really need to mention the fact that “fetus” will automatically inherit her love of certain foods, personality traits, behaviors, and coloring, and will, if given enough time, express those traits and enjoy watching indie films with her on Chinese food night. There’s no need to muck around with definitions, DNA, or ask where life really begins, it’s enough to point out the thing in there is her offspring and that makes her a mother. And if it’s wrong to let some stranger die when you can easily prevent it, how much more sociopathic is it to knowingly murder your own son or daughter? In point of fact you can’t get more sociopathic than that.

It also works well as a counter argument, and to prove it I’ll just jump to the strongest, most visceral argument the pro-abortionist has. The dreaded, “but what about rape?” rejoinder. “What about the scared 14 year old girl who was raped by her brother?” The pro-sociopath confidently asserts. “Surely abortion is permissible in this case?”
The sonic screwdriver of abortion arguments delivers the perfect answer: “Do you really think that the wisest course of action is to ask what a sociopath would do, and then do likewise? Do you think the world needs more people who are driven only by bloodthirsty psychotic urges? Are you honestly trying to argue that the best way for the mother to heal from the rape is for her to dismember her child? What are you, some kind of sociopath?”

From what I’ve seen the vast majority of people who support abortion are not really reasoning out the implications of it, but are instead trying to defend freedom to do as they please, to be unconstrained by the obligations and bonds of being a normal human in society. That’s why they use language like pro-choice, because it advances the idea of freedom. To this the response is, “Is the freest person in the world the teenager who kills his parents without remorse for the inheritance money, since he’s loosed all the natural bonds of obligations upon him? Are you prepared to defend the proposition that happiness is found in having no conscience, and then doing as you please? That normal adults should behave in real life like junior high boys playing Grand Theft Auto?”
The sociopath argument wakes them up by dashing cold water on their face, and arresting their self-aggrandizement. It makes it evident that the goal they’re pushing towards—freedom from relational imposition—is itself sociopathic. All you need to do is point that out.

"Having their conscience seared with a hot iron"

In addition to providing a snappy the argument, there's a secondary, related feature of the sociopathic observation that's worth mentioning: it functions as a great explanatory model. That abortion is a fundamentally psychotic act does very well to explain the behavior of those involved.

  
Consider for a moment why the people who work in the industry become inhumane, (or the inhumane are attracted to it). Having a normal person engage in sociopathic behavior has one of two possible outcomes: either they become hardened and make peace with the psychotic behavior and come to accept it as normal, or they flee for their life. That’s why the Planned Parenthood executive was able to casually discuss selling baby organs over wine and salad. In her case the proverb is literally true when it says, “She eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'” She’s a sociopath. Kermit Gosnell is a sociopath. Mary Gatter, senior medical director for Planned Parenthood is a sociopath. They are untroubled by aiding a mother in killer her child, or selling children’s body parts because their consciences have been seared thanks to so much bad behavior. They are past feeling now. The people who knowingly and openly lie on their behalf so that can get money from abortions, people like the legacy print media, are sociopaths.
If it came out that they were cooking the baby's flesh and feeding it to farm animals to "prevent it from going to waste" should we be surprised? No. Sociopaths.

This also explains why many women who abort their babies are traumatized by it and are regretful or miserable afterwards. They’re suffering because they’re normal people who just behaved like a blood-thirsty sociopath, and can’t very well reconcile the two courses of life. Of course it’s traumatic and takes time to get over. Of course that kind of thing can give you nightmares.

It's at this point that I turn the model over to you for some final considerations. Firstly, is it reasonable to extrapolate that institutions engaging in sociopathic behavior will have a negative impact on society? Is it reasonable to conclude that the impact of 55 million women murdering their children is larger than the loss of life to the children, but also extends to the deadening of our empathy generally? What happens if Minority Report is right when it says, “There's nothing more destructive to the metaphysical fabric that binds us than the untimely murder of one human being by another.” particularly a baby by its mother? What do you think happens to a community where more babies are aborted than born alive? When a people collectively decide it’s better to kill their children rather than see them born into this world, as if we were living in The Road by Cormac McCarthy? 

Don’t hear me overselling it or going into hysterics, and keep in mind sociopaths typically have good taste in music and a flair for culture. Acting like a psychopath isn’t identical to murdering everyone at the first opportunity. But please for a moment use the model to predict what the legalization of a murderous sociopathic urge would do to a society, and see if it doesn't explain at least a little of the moral unraveling of the last 50 years.

"The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth."

So there it is. The sociopathic argument may very well be the most powerful argument out there, for hitting at the ego, rather than the head (which is where the problem is), and as a related bonus the model proves an excellent framework for understanding the behavior of abortionists and the effect on the women who receive them.
Sociopathic. It’s simple to use and cuts right to the heart of the matter. There you go, it's all yours now. Use it wisely.