Unbelievable abortion counsel from Calvary Chapel’s Chuck Smith.

Chuck Smith’s advice: God will be with you while you kill your child and He won’t condemn you for it.

Voddie Baucham’s reaction to this ungodly counsel (from Facebook):

I must admit that this one made me ANGRY! I’m on the road preaching at a pro-life banquet and someone sent me this YouTube video of Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) giving abortion advice that made me want to throw something (or someone). This woman is agonizing right now over this decision, and a pastor just told her Jesus would be alright with her killing her children. Please pray for her.

Here is a video for Nikki to help encourage her to do the right thing in her decision; and this same video is for Chuck Smith to encourage him to repent and retract his worldly, unbiblical position:

A video for Nikki

 

 

38 thoughts on “Unbelievable abortion counsel from Calvary Chapel’s Chuck Smith.

  1. 072591 says:

    The situation is not as cut-and-dry as many perceive it to be. I listened to the video (I minimized the screen because, frankly, the verses were a distraction from what I was trying to do, which was ascertain how a pastor could advocate abortion. It seemed like a childish heckler who screams when someone is speaking, so that they can’t talk.)

    What stood out to me was that, for one, the baby would most likely not survive. More importantly, carrying on with the pregnancy was a threat to the mother’s life. Not might be, WAS a threat. This is where the issue gets a little tricky. Does she have the moral obligation to end her life so that someone else might – but probably won’t – live? Would there be a difference between this and telling her that if the older daughter needed a liver transplant, the mother has a moral obligation to give hers up?

    Understand, I am not pro-abortion, nor pro-choice; when Tiller the abortionist was killed, my Facebook status was, “I praise God, the avenger of the innocent, for Tiller’s execution!” But I find it very scary – as “loaded gun in my face” scary – that a fellow Christian would suggest that someone else has the moral obligation to die.

  2. Do we love our lives so much that we are afraid to lose them for the sake of doing what is right? This counsel was ANTICHRIST in nature and against the biblical mandate “thou shalt not kill (murder)”

  3. In fact, carrying those babies is NOT a threat to the mother’s life – but that is a false argument to begin with. Human beings do not have the right to take a life for the sake of convenience. If these babies were to threaten the mother’s life, then the decision would be faced – but carrying babies is a threat to the mother less frequently than Joel Osteen is theologically correct.

    Chuck Smith began and ended with an attempt to dehumanize the babies, calling them “the fetus” and focusing on the grace of God rather than the sin of murder. He sounded more like a worldly medical impostor than a pastor – but he’s been more and more of the world and less and less of the Word of God for several years now.

  4. Bob says:

    Chuck has made alot of money over the years and considers himself to be such a great church leader maybe he needs to get off his assets and study ” The Word Of God ” before he gives any more damable advice !

  5. Like Voddie said, this video made me very upset. Sadly, the trolls are already showing up here to take a stand with Chuck Smith and somehow condone his “counsel” or to say he has only made “one mistake” so we should get off of his case!

    Let’s make this VERY clear – GOD and GOD ALONE is the author of life. He ALONE has the authority to take life. To say that abortion is acceptable in any case for any reason is to make the futile attempt to take God off of His throne which cannot happen. To agree with abortion is to say, “Ooops, God, You made a mistake on this one and I don’t believe You are in control. Therefore, I choose to get rid of this blob or tissue or medical waste!”

    Chuck is wrong doctrinally in several areas, but particularly in this case, he has sinned against God, he has sinned against his church, he has sinned against this woman and her husband and the babies who have yet to be born!

    The answer is simple. There must be a clear rebuttal from him and a seeking of forgiveness for his stand, otherwise he no longer has the right to speak as a minister of the gospel. Don’t bother coming on here and flaunting Matthew 7 about “judge not” or about approaching your brother privately. Neither of those passages apply here! He sinned openly before the listening world and must seek forgiveness in the same manner.

    Another item to mention, – don’t bother stopping to comment if you are in favor of murdering babies! Your comments will be deleted automatically!

    Lastly, this woman and her family need a lot of prayer that the Lord will grant them wisdom and grace to do what is right. My sister had a similar situation where it was considered dangerous to carry to term and the baby wouldn’t make it to the delivery, blah-blah-blah! She did carry against her doctor’s advice to abort. The baby made it to full-term, she delivered, and my brother-in-law was able to hold the baby in her arms for 25 minutes until she died. A waste?? Not a chance. My little niece is more alive today than she ever was down here!

  6. I am not surprised with Chuck Smith’s ungodly counsel. This is the same guy who has stated that Rick Warren (who is a seeker-sensitive pragmatic heretic) is his good friend and have him lead one of the previous harvest crusades in prayer! Chuck Smith and Don Stewart are compromisers and they gave that woman wicked counsel and God will hold them accountable for their idle words. That is why the Calvary Chapel Churches have problems, look who they have as a founder.

    But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36).

  7. 072591 says:

    First of all, DP, I don’t envy you right now. You have to moderate this board and I’m sure there are a LOT of Planned Parenthood’s professional trolls flooding here right now. Good luck.

    Manfred: You said,

    In fact, carrying those babies is NOT a threat to the mother’s life – but that is a false argument to begin with. Human beings do not have the right to take a life for the sake of convenience. If these babies were to threaten the mother’s life, then the decision would be faced

    Well, based on what was said on the call, the babies WERE a threat to the mother’s life. Yes, it is very rare for a pregnancy to put the mother’s life in danger(less than 1%), but that is exactly what is happening in this case, so convenience is not really an issue, unless she thinks she is turning into a ghost; it could be an argument of survival, and this is a variant of the “no room on a lifeboat” scenario.

    The scenario is this: the lifeboat is at maximum capacity. There is one person in the water who will die, and you cannot fit another person on the boat. It’s barely staying afloat now. Do you have a moral obligation to give up your spot on the boat – ensuring that you will die – so that the person in the water can live?

    This is an ugly case, very atypical, no matter how much the pro-aborts claim otherwise. It still scares me that people feel the only godly advice to give this woman was “Die.” How far removed from this is the idea that you should die if someone else needs your heart for a transplant? It sounds extreme, but I am looking at this slope and it’s terrifying!

    Of course, we could all be praying for the babies’ healing so everyone gets to live, because that is probably the most ideal outcome.

  8. Okie Preacher says:

    My heart is broken by what I heard. I sat under Chuck’s ministry for 7 years. I have always admired his teaching ministry and his council. This, however, is heartbreaking. I do not believe in abortion for any reason. Period. Perhaps that makes me harsh or uncaring, whatever the world cares to label me. But I have a great difficulity when a Christian considers abortion an acceptable alternative.

  9. I too find Chuck Smith’s advice troubling since it appears he is placing his trust more in doctors than in God. Just because “the doctors say” something will happen doesn’t mean it will always happen, right? And even if it does, doesn’t it make more sense to carry the twins to full term, assuming they make it, than to “play God” and kill them in the womb? If they die right after birth, at least the parents will be able to hold their heads high because they put their babies in God’s hands and He decided to take them. They’ll be able to give them a burial worthy of any human being. And what if they survive the doctors’ predictions and end up getting an operation to save at least one later? I find it disturbing that a respected Christian leader would recommend that that couple have anything to do with abortion! What message is he sending? There are exceptions to God’s laws? God can’t be fully trusted to do the right thing? Oh man!

  10. Please excuse the interruption here – but at what point during the broadcast did the woman ever say that her life was in any kind of danger?? She made it clear that the issue was the complications with the babies up to and including their birth. She even stated that the doctors made it clear that the maximum life expectancy would be 1 day.

    This is part of the lame excuses that we hear in regards to abortion being acceptable. Pick any reason and then slap on the additive “the woman’s life may, might, could possibly, etc, etc, etc. be in danger” and that makes God’s Word unacceptable.

    No, this was a clear major Biblical fail from Smith & Calvary Chapel!

  11. Cathal,

    Your previous comment was a direct support for Chuck Smith. In that comment, you make it clear that he only “misspoke” when the evidence is to the contrary. Secondly, you leveled several accusations:

    1) Quickly writing off ministers who misspeak
    2) Getting a “rush” from over-reacting
    3) Straining at gnats and swallowing camels
    4) Making the statements we have as being “unfair and ungodly”
    5) leveling personal attacks
    6) character assassinating Chuck
    7) immature response on our part

    For as long as DefCon has been online, we have tried to stand for the truth. When we do, people come out of the woodwork to defend their favorite entity instead of doing their own research and seeing where the error has occurred. People come here to defend Ravi Zacharias, Billy Graham, “Mother” Teresa, the Pope (current and past), Chuck Smith, Ray Boltz, etc, etc, etc. They forget that while we are human, we are also sinners. When we defend what is in contradiction to the Scriptures, we are in sin. Chuck sinned openly to the world and has chosen not to correct his error. This is NOT the only area where Chuck is off doctrinally, but this was definitely an area that could not be overlooked when he is giving outright advice that goes against the clear commands of Scripture. Ministers are held to a much higher standard and when they choose to speak in contradiction to the Scriptures, they disqualify themselves from ministry. I hope that clarifies.

  12. 072591 says:

    Upon seeing DP’s comment, I relistened. It appears that my comments were based on a mishearing. I thought she said that the doctors were saying she would probably die. Realizing that’s not what they are saying changes things. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

    Yup, Smith is wrong here to not condemn abortion. Now, if her life was endangered, I would stand by my comments – which were more of a question than anything. But since that does not appear to be the issue, abortion is not an acceptable answer.

  13. Cathal says:

    Sooo, if someone “supports” someone that you don’t agree with, you don’t post their comments??? I guess you’re not a big fan of Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” If you won’t even allow a discussion about what occurred, how can your audience come to a informed conclusion. Don’t you want to hear both sides?

    I also find it interesting that you chose to take my “accusations” personally. I don’t think i ever said anything about you, unless of course you are all the people commenting on your post. If i am remembering what i wrote correctly (unfortunately i can’t review my comment because it wasn’t posted), i’m pretty sure that the 7 point list were different observations i had gathered from the reactionary style of the comments i had read.

    And how does the evidence point the contrary (that he misspoke) exactly? Can you show me one other statement that Chuck has ever made, in any recording or transcript, where he supports abortion? Don’t you bear burden of proof on this issue? Because if Chuck has always spoken out against abortion and in this one sound-bite he says something that sounds contrary to his position, why wouldn’t we give him the benefit of the doubt and say he “misspoke” or that he “misunderstood” the situation?

    It also is interesting that you give no rebuttal to any of my “accusations” while at same time making an accusation of your own, namely, that i have not done my research. How do you know that? I can say i have most definitely done my “research” and I have found that what Chuck said is inconsistent with what he has always said. So, I give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was addressing what he thought was a life or death situation for the married mother of a two year old child. Like you, i want him to clarify and explain this further but unlike you i’m not going to make statements like “Ministers are held to a much higher standard and when they choose to speak in contradiction to the Scriptures, they disqualify themselves from ministry” about Chuck, prematurely.

    Oh and one last observation, it seems like whenever men who have been mightily used by God make mistakes, people come out of the woodwork to attack them. People on blogs attack their own without even trying to be fair or objective. What they forget is that these leaders are only human who make mistakes. When they attack men who have given their whole lives to preaching and teaching the gospel, they are in sin. Sound familiar?

  14. I called and plead with both Pastor Chuck’s secretary and Pastor brian’s secretary to please give our number out on the radio. We know a specialist in fetal abnormalities from USC medical center and he was standing by to talk to Nikki. They hung up on us and told us we were harrassing poor Pastor Chuck. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply asked them to do a “shout out” to Nikki in Riverside to please call back, we have a specialist to talk to you. But to no avail. So we drove down with our college team to KWAVE to plead with Pastor Brian to speak to us while there was still time. They refused and threatened us with arrest if we did not stop praying in the studio and get out. We left and prayed outside.

    After the show Pastor Brian came out and after a cordial conversation ageed to do the shout out on the Monday show. Pray he keeps his word. Maybe we can save these babies still

  15. Way to go, Jeff! I appreciate how you not only stand up for life but also do something about it. Poor Nikki is stressed and confused and said herself she doesn’t want an abortion. She could use some solid counsel.

    A life (or two) is certainly a life, no matter how long it lives. And it is certainly not in our hands to take life because we somehow think it’s best. If Nikki was diagnosed with cancer and called in contemplating suicide, would she have been told to go ahead?

  16. piperlori says:

    A good friend of mine works with a close relative of Chuck Smith. Like others, I was very upset at Chuck’s careless remarks and hastily shot off an email to him expressing my outrage. I even went so far as to say this:

    “You might as well have being standing there at the top of that notorious ‘slippery slope’ —pushing millions of women down it, and doing so as a highly influential representative of the American Church. No wonder the Church has been so passive about abortion with that kind of moral ambiguity lurking underneath the surface of one of its leading pastors. “

    Ouch. In retrospect, I could have tempered my anger in consideration of the fact that he is, after all, a brother in Christ and while clearly deserving of a rebuke, was certainly deserving also of having the “truth spoken in love.” Were it any of us in that situation– straying from the path of righteousness (as we all invariably do from time to time), I think most of us would respond more positively to a conciliatory vs. divisive approach.

    In other words, I don’t regret what I said, just the way I said it. Also, not to in any way excuse the man for being so careless with his responses, but I don’t think most people are aware (or maybe they are and I was the one in the dark) that Pastor Chuck recently suffered a major stroke that has severely impaired his mental clarity. Apparently he is not out of the woods by a long stretch. I just found out this out after the fact, else I most certainly would have tempered my rhetoric (and should have done so anyway.)

    Having said that, I am incredulous that knowing his own fragile mental state (one would hope that he is cognizant of it), he would even allow himself to continue being on the radio! Is it hubris or is he really that self-deceived about his clarity of thought and speech? Does he not have even one “No Man” (vs. “Yes Men”) in his life to give him that reality check that he clearly needs? (Pat Robertson certainly doesn’t and given his advanced age and the foolish things that have come out of his mouth over the past few years, he certainly could use one.)

    As the saying goes, “It’s not so much what you say, as how you say it.” (Although in Pastor Chuck’s case, it really was “what” he said that disturbed so many people, and rightly so.)

    I think this whole issue brings up another issue of the so-called value of call-in radio talk shows in general, and Christian call-in shows in particular. I’m okay with people calling in with general theological questions the answer to which may spark lively debate but result in far less emotional and spiritual fallout–perhaps even innocent lives being taken–as this recent incident has clearly done.

    In other words, speaking personally, I think it’s time we shelf the whole idea of Christian radio call-in talk shows. Here’s why:

    (1) There is absolutely no way that anyone’s personal problems or issues can be solved in two to five minutes. And to think a host can do so–no matter how impressive his credentials–is pure hubris at best, and outright dangerous at worse.

    (2) You are never hearing the whole story when a person calls in because people being what they are, are very reluctant to give a completely honest and objective view of their situation. (Not to mention which how do we know that this was a “real” caller? Certain organizations are notorious for using such venues to entrap highly visible leaders who they would love to “snare by the words of their mouth.”)

    (3) Anyone listening to a person laying out their particular situation and the host’s suggested solution to said problem, is invariably bound to “run with it.” By that I mean, he or she is often likely to apply what is being offered as a solution to a caller’s unique situation, to their own situation … especially if they are ALREADY INCLINED to do so for reasons only they know.

    In other words, if a listener is on the verge of making what could be a life or death decision about a similar situation they are facing, what he or she hears on the radio by a radio host generally regarded as an expert in his chosen field, could just be the extra push they need to veer of unto a path he ought not to travel on.

    (4) This one is obvious but bears repeating. Words have weight, and the “weightier” the person dispensing those words, the greater the splash in the sea of a largely Biblically ignorant, emotion-fueled & non-critical thinking society. In other words, the ripple effect of “America’s pastor” giving permission for just one person to play God and end the life of her unborn CHILDREN (Smith in his ignorance of the science of conjoined twins would have you believe this is ONE disabled fetus vs. TWO separate people) can never be measured but is certain to have a disastrous effect on not just the woman calling in, but hundreds– perhaps thousands–of other woman (and men) facing a similar situation.

    This is especially true in the case of emotionally and politically charged issues such as abortion. It is precisely because of this reason, that Chuck should have instantly recognized four realities at play here:

    (1) The fragile state the woman he was “counseling” was in and therefore immediately suggest she seek counsel of her pastor (who knows her) and/or a pro-life organization. Both (with some exceptions int he latter category) are generally regarded as compassionate sources that are not just motivated by the “rightness” of a cause, but the very real anguish a woman in such situation faces.

    That raises the obvious question of why hadn’t the woman, who was clearly a Christ follower, discuss this issue with her pastor? The only explanation for this was (a) she was not in fellowship and therefore didn’t have a pastor in which case she was already in a weakened spiritual state and most certainly should not have been counseled!; (b) she had counseled with her pastor but wasn’t persuaded by what he said and therefore wanted another “opinion” because she was subtly looking for a way out of her very real and emotionally agonizing situation or (c) she already knew the right thing to do, but was simply hurting, scared & therefore simply wanted the COMFORT of a pastoral leader vs. advice from him as to what to do (the latter of which I can tell you as a woman men are often prone to do.)

    (2) The obvious inherent limitations of a radio talk show medium to give personal “counsel.” Now right there is the problem because as I have already stated, no one can possibly “counsel” anyone within the very limited confines of a radio talk show nor should they even attempt to try.

    (3) ) His own fragile mental, physical and emotional state given his recent brush with death and current poor health. ( I hope I am not letting the cat out of the bag by sharing this information but perhaps– given that I have yet to see a retraction on his web site–I need to.)

    (4) His own propensity as a naturally compassionate person (hence what made choose the office of pastor in the first place) who is sometimes ruled by emotion (which is a conduit of our God-given compassion) to cloud his judgment in the light of Biblical truth. This is not unlike the emotional conflict Christian parents might face after having their child just announced he or she had “come out of the closet.” Does this parent throw out the proverbial baby (the truth of God’s Word) with the bath water (his own child’s personal, and clearly sinful, lifestyle) or does he continue to love his child, extend grace to that child, yet in no way either ignore, condone or even urge him to continue with that lifestyle?

    I don’t think I need to beat this horse any further (lest I kill it off by the sheer volume of my words) but hopefully I’ve given a needed perspective in all this, while also opening up some other related issues that I believe need to be addressed in terms of the murky, tenacious and often dangerous world of Christian media.

  17. Philagape says:

    If the woman had come to Jesus before she committed adultery, would Jesus have counseled her to go ahead and commit the sin, for God would forgive her? If Pastor Smith is going to apply that story to this situation, then do it correctly.

  18. Cathal,

    If you take a look through our website, you will find that many have disagreed with us. However, many people forget that it is called a personal blog for a reason. We can and do choose what we will allow to be filtered through to our readers. Some comments are not helpful in any way.

    The problem is in the way that a person chooses to interact. Sadly, many of the people who come here and comment never do so on the missions posts or on the sermon posts, they only do so when their “favorite preacher” has been “taken to task”. When that happens, it normally becomes mayhem which is why we choose to screen all comments particularly on certain posts.

    I did not take your accusations personally, but merely noted with a 7 point list of what you threw out on our board.

    In regards to showing you one other statement Chuck has ever made on supporting abortion, this is NOT the issue. The fact is that on two separate occasions, first in his off-the-cuff response to a woman who was hurting, he supported her getting an abortion. The next day, after what would have been more than enough time to come to his senses or to realize what he said, he chose to get back on the air and equivocate on the matter of abortion. While opposing he, he then interjects with “BUT I THINK”. Very dangerous. This was not a mere slip of the tongue two days in a row.

    For the record, the prophets of the Old Testament had to be correct 100% of the time. They could not be right just 99.999999% of the time. If they were not 100% accurate in all they proclaimed or if they spoke for God when God did not speak, the punishment was judgment from God, and the people were commanded to stone them. I fully realize that today is different and we are not under the Mosaic law when it comes to stoning prophets. However, the Bible makes it very clear in the New Testament that we are to judge according to righteous judgment AND that ministers must give account. They ARE held to a higher standard and when they deign to speak “on behalf” of God and do so in a way that is completely contrary to what God’s word has to say, then YES, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that individual has sinned. They are no longer above reproach. As I mentioned previously, Chuck sinned and his only recourse at this point is to seek forgiveness from all those whom he wronged — his listening audience, Nikki & her family, the unborn babies, those who tried (like Jeff) to correct the grievous error and were told that “if they did not stop, the police would be called”, and more importantly, God the Creator of heaven and earth.

    By the way, when Billy Graham who supposedly has stood for the preaching of the gospel and has “given his whole life to preaching and teaching the gospel” made the “MISTAKE” of saying there was no literal hell and openly endorsed Roman Catholics as “brothers in Christ”, was it unfair and lacking in objectivity to hold him accountable for his words? Was he not in sin? Can we say that God has used the preaching of the Word at Billy Graham crusades for His honor and glory in the saving of souls? Yes, we can, but that NEVER excuses the messenger.

    Do we take somebody like Ted Haggard who had “given his whole life to preaching and teaching the gospel” but made the “MISTAKE” of getting involved in a drug-infested, homosexual relationship that is an abomination before God and say that it was only a mistake. He has said he is “sorry” but now thinks (even though he claims to be bi-sexual) that he is still somehow qualified to be the pastor of a new church plant in Colorado Springs.

    What have we missed here, Cathal? The sin of endorsing abortion or the sin of being and committing sins of homosexuality are no different in the eyes of God. They are both abominations. I am choosing to approve your last comment, and I look forward to hearing your response to my comment.

  19. Lisa says:

    I have just listened to this precious sister in Christ Jesus pour out her heart searching for counsel that she respects; I know from what the Bible says that Chuck Smith gave her an emotional world-view answer. Chuck repeatedly referred to the baby/babies that God Created as the world-named “fetus” instead of using the word baby. I have my degree in Biology and I recognize that Chuck Smith was trying, with purpose (noted by how he pauses as he uses the word fetus) to separate himself and encourage this precious sister in Christ Jesus to separate herself by minimizing the fact that this created baby is “just a fetus in the womb” not a fully formed baby/babies. Yes, the circumstances are hard, but when does God say in His Word that when the situation is hard we can “make up” the rules. NO, we always need to follow God’s Word and these babies are lives given by God and his Creation is not a life we can kill. God has given these babies to this family for His purpose, and I pray this Husband and Wife/Daddy and Mommy will NOT listen to Chuck Smith, but will be lead by God to carry these babies full term and will trust God with His perfect plan for your/their lives. God has given you these babies-these lives, allow God to do the rest, whatever His perfect plan is. I will be praying for you Nikki and your Husband and family to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Allow God to lead you. Lord I pray for this family – guide and direct them to see Your perfect plan for their lives; I pray this to You Father God in Jesus’ Name.

  20. Steve says:

    Here’s the issue at hand:

    1. Chuck never let her finish the question.
    2. Chuck gave the decision without understanding all the facts.
    3. Chuck later rearranged the facts in his memory, whether intentional or not I can’t say.

    The issue at hand is this. Abortion in genuine defense of the mother’s life, although exceedingly rare, is ethically defensible. Chuck probably knows this. Therefore, his rearrangement of the facts hides his misunderstanding of the situation at hand, caused no doubt by his crunch for radio time. Here’s the problem: he rushed into the situation with minimal information, and I assure you he had no time to pray and actually think it over. Such are the hazards of radio.

  21. Steve, I appreciate that you’re trying to give Chuck the benefit of the doubt, but having had a day to think about his comments and then come back and defend them the next day – on the radio – calls into question your assumptions, don’t you think? If Chuck is as “pro life” as he would want you to believe, I don’t see how he would have counseled that woman the way he did… and then defend his counsel after having 24 hours to mull it over.

    A pastor friend’s wife was pregnant twice with babies they knew would not survive 24 hours outside the womb. Did they abort? NO!! They brought them to full term, gave them names, said their goodbyes right after birth and had funerals for each after their short lives. Isn’t that the message Chuck should have sent? Instead, he reveals an unbiblical worldview, an abandonment of biblical values. I guess this is a wake-up call to all of us in ministry: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). Yes, the question at hand and the context are different, but as has been pointed out already, if you start down the “slippery slope” in this area, what else are you willing to compromise on?

  22. chrism says:

    i think before we jump to judge him i think we should take a few things into consideration:
    1. Everyone of us is looking at this situation in hind-sight; now that we have time to think on the situation, we are making our assessment based on calculated decision and we also have have someone else’s opinion (Chuck).
    2. Which of us would raise a child with two heads on one body?
    3. How many of us have made mistakes before, or misspoke,
    4. The same grace that has been extended to us must be extended to all – including Chuck.
    5. As far as we know, this man is not involved in any habitual sin that we should nail him to the cross; he misspoke and we have to trust the Lord to speak to his heart just as He has done to ours.

    Everyone waits to see one of our spiritual leaders make a mistake then jump on it –
    Drop-it

  23. 072591 says:

    The Hensel family managed to raise two conjoined girls – same body, different heads, and different people. Recently, one of them got engaged – yes, just one.

    And chrism, the issue is not the misspeaking; I think we all understand how a person can say something wrong based on impulse. The issue is that he has had the chance to correct himself and has chosen not to.

  24. Matt says:

    In response to chrism:

    1. What part of abortion/murder requires a hindsight decision?
    2. Hopefully someone who loves God would, as I have seen pagans do so.
    3. ‘Everyone making mistakes’ does not excuse promotion of murder.
    4. Yes, he deserves grace, but not grace from being corrected due to his evil comment.
    5. You do not excuse sin just because “everyone does it”.

    There is a difference between forgiveness & condoning sin.

  25. Chrism, it would be nice to be able to drop it. However, comments like yours demand a response.

    1. You appear to be a pragmatist with point 2. In other words, you are saying that all of us would abort if we thought through the implications of having a two-headed child? C’mon!
    2. Then your “extend grace only” approach to Chuck would have been more than welcomed by the theologically unbiblical and have ushered a lot of heresy into the Church if applied centuries ago.
    3. “Misspoke?!” If he had only “misspoke,” why didn’t he correct his “misspeak” the following day?

  26. Me says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

    Look at the above link IMMEDIATELY!!! This is an emergency! What about the most famous conjoined twins of all? Abigail and Brittany Hensel! The same exact scenario…two headed girl. They are amazing together! They work together, they even drive together! Doctors conveniently say the most negative possibility to play on the parents’ emotions to make money on another abortion and to save their own skin!!! It’s all about them covering their OWN LIABILITY! This is why we have c-section. Can’t you see a miracle in the making for God Almighty to use to change the world? Look now at the info on Abigail and Brittany Hensel! What amazing young ladies!!! Perfect picture of all of us working together in unity! They are fabulous! Look at the videos! They have totally changed the world. Research the web and find these two amazing girls in a Christian family who are the most amazing miracle on the planet!!! I am appalled! How small is your God? It is a good thing I am not HE! You are the last person I expected to hear say such things! You blew it big on this one. By the grace of God…

  27. Sad sad day for you all says:

    This is why the world mocks and hates Christianity. We kill our own and attack each other. If the Lord were to look at all of us on this site I think He would be ashamed. Forgive us Lord for our stupidity I include myself for I’m joining as well. God have mercy on His church, its forgotten what it REALLY means to be a follower of CHrist.

  28. Dear “Sad sad day for you all”:

    So in other words (if I’ve understood the point of your comment correctly) . . .

    1) The “world” would stop mocking and hating Christianity (i.e. being at enmity with God) if the Christian community would simply shut up, sit down, and keep our hands over our mouth when the leader of one of the largest non-denominational denominations advocates (on live radio) the murder of a woman’s unborn children?

    2). You then said:

    “We kill our own and attack each other. If the Lord were to look at all of us on this site I think He would be ashamed.”

    Did you send the same comment you left on here to the headquarters of the Calvary Chapel franchise after Chuck Smith and other CC leaders used live radio to attack the Doctrines of Grace, attack God’s sovereignty, and attack other Christians when they equated Calvinists to cultists?

    http://defendingcontending.com/2010/06/09/chuck-smith-calvary-chapel-and-their-ignorance-fest-on-calvinism/

  29. Jay says:

    I don’t hear Chuck Smith telling or encouraging her to have an abortion. All he said it was an extreme case and that God would be with you and love you regardless. I personally would not in such a case, but it can be justified to protect the woman’s emotional health. Plus the child is not going to live anyway.

  30. E. says:

    1st of all, any counsel that stands is the one that come from the Word of God. Understanding God’s will is a direct result of knowing His character revealed to us from His Word. With that being said, anyone who has studied Scripture knows that God is the highest authority. Not man, not pastors, and certainly not doctors. Science, nor what is considered resonable

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s