The World Can Use Some Apologists

Posts Categorized / Society

And the Church Said Nothing…

Not a topic about apologetics this week. Something else got my attention.

Last week I was reading the news items concerning my home country, the Netherlands. One article triggered my attention. It was an interview with a doctor about all the measures the government took and is still taking to prevent people from getting Corona. This doctor is as far as I know not a Christian, but I might be wrong. She was pretty clear in her opinion. The measures take a bigger toll on people’s health and society in general than Corona does.

Many rights are taken away. People need to show a OR code to be able to go to restaurants and what not. The minister of health actually started to repeat the words uttered by other leaders by saying that this is now the pandemic of the un-vaccinated.

I wish I could recall where I read the article, but I can’t. Anyway, the doctor said that she was astonished with the fact that hardly any doctor spoke out against this policy. No doctors, no psychiatrists, no mainstream news outlet. And then she said it! “Even the church is quiet!” That last statement really hit hard.

Why would a secular doctor say something like that? Why didn’t she just stop at the normal secular authorities? I think I know why! It is because this doctor knows a thing or two about history. In the past—and I am not talking about the last 70 years, but rather hundreds of years—the church was always there when things got out of hand.

Last year, I already discussed the whole issue around the corona measures. In my first message I argued that the Church can’t permit being scared. Let me quote myself:i

… since when do we consider it normal to deny people social contact in the last phase of their lives? And when they die we still think it is normal denying visitors to come? Where, then, are the Christians who oppose this? Was it not the Lord Jesus Himself who touched the lepers, He who was called friend of sinners.

Later, I’ve made another video in which I openly discuss the credibility of the church and with that the message the churches ought to preach. Again, I will quote a little:ii

I believe we will do the same in ten years from now. Not much sooner, because next year the feelings and emotions about this epidemic are still too fresh. No, after about ten years we probably wonder what happened. Our answer might be one of surprise and bewilderedness. “But we’ve had lovely and professional live streams, and we encouraged each other with Zoom meetings. Yes, we actually drank tea and coffee with each other during these great Zoom meetings!”

Yes, but despite all this, the message is clear. We do not believe our own words when we preach that, in Christ there is no fear. In Christ, we stand tall. ‘For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.’ (2 Timothy 1:7).

I’ll put the link to these videos in the description below.

So, now we have arrived at that point in which people actually start to wonder why the Church is silent about all the developments around the discriminatory QR code. Last week we as a family, listened to a sermon given by David Pawson. Brother Pawson has already gone to heaven, but his message is still downloadable. He talked about the role of the Church in the second world-war. At one moment he said, and I will paraphrase him:

In the past century the Church spoke out when shouldn’t have, and we have seen the Church being silent when it had to speak.

Is this what’s happening right now? Is the Church silent while it should speak out against discrimination? Is that really the inheritance we want to leave for our children? A weak Gospel which is afraid of going against the ruling parties?

I remember when we still lived in Holland. This is years ago already. Sometimes I preached as well. A few things could not be discussed from the pulpit: Israel; Evolution/Creation; Abortion; the Occult and the Biblical view on raising children. It made the people in church feel uncomfortable. It caused to many discussions. No, rather not talk about these issues. These were things that we might discuss on the Monday evening during the Bible study. Except, we never discussed it there either. I have been in trouble several times for choosing these subjects. Well, maybe also because I wasn’t mild as well. I admit, I wasn’t paying much attention to feelings. But still, nobody else preached on these subjects. Can we now also add Corona and the QR society to the list?

And I know that there are churches who do speak out! They do no allow others to silence them. That’s wonderful! That’s what we read in the Bible. Jesus wasn’t silenced. But these churches are few, and they are frowned upon but other churches and individuals.

This is what Marcus Pittmaniii, the CEO of LOOR.tv said:

For the past 200 years, Christians have believed that things are going to get worse and worse. This faithlessness stunted the entrepreneurial spirit of American Christians. For centuries it was the faith of Christians that expected the world to last, and expected God’s blessings to be generational, that made this nation, and western civilization into the kind of place that would be able to afford to send missionaries to the rest of the world.

Christians no longer build hospitals, we don’t pioneer technological innovations, we don’t build businesses that can be used to bless our great, great, great grandchildren. We look askance when Kanye West said, “This for my kid, kid, kid, for when my kid, kid, kids have kids.”


Christians built the printing press, but instead of furthering that technology, we used the internet to build online book stores for small Christian audiences while we allowed Bezos to build Amazon. Instead of trying to take over Hollywood and use its resources to serve our neighbors and propagate the Christian worldview, we made cheesy movies that warned people to keep their eyes on the skies because the end of the world will be happening at any moment. Instead of using capital to invest in business and industry, we buried our capital in the back yard and called it stewardship.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe that Jesus will return one day. All Christians do. But I do not believe He will return to a powerless church, hiding like Gideon in the winepresses. I believe He will return victorious, having defeated every enemy (Marxists included) from the right hand of God by the power of the gospel going forth in the power of the Spirit. I believe that when Christ returns, the gospel will have reached every corner of the earth, and so with it the blessings of the gospel that always follow on its train.

Pittman wondered why we invest millions of dollars into nations that are considered to be the poorest in the world. Why we spend so much money on mission somewhere else, but at the same time very few Christians actually decide to spend their money and time in building big companies. Most all monstrous companies are in the hands of secular power hungry people. The kind of people who give donations to poor black people who are starving and then use this to propagate their own agenda.

Don’t get me wrong! I work as missionary, and I depend on gifts for my whole income. So, keep on giving. But! There is nothing wrong with being influential. Nothing wrong with having a position in which you can actually push your ideals. The secular world is doing it and the Church is just quietly doing her thing! Not to loud because we might disturb our secular neighbour in his sleep. Not to loud because our church members might start to feel anxious.

I am making this video in both the English and Dutch language. I am not going to make it into a Bible study. No, I am not going to explain God’s word to you and how this fits in with a pro-active church. You do your homework! Question the pastor and elders in your church. Where are you standing in history? What is your church going to communicate to the world? Are the words of the doctor I started with applicable to you? Or are you speaking out against unjust, discriminatory rules. Are you and your church still credible and relevant to the world around you?

What I have seen in the last year isn’t very ensuring. But as I said! I have also seen some remarkable courage among Christians and churches. I am looking forward to Jesus’ return. Until then, I hope we can work together and really build His kingdom in a world that is rapidly running away from it. It’s time to remember we are not called to put our trust in governments and big industries. Governments and industries that all ran away from Christ and mostly serve themselves, and in doing so, creating a life-destroying world. No we need to remember that we serve a victorious King. A king who called us to be the light of the world.

We need a faith that believes that Christ saves you from sin and hell, but also believes that salvation inspires you to transform the world now.”iv


i J. Hofmann, (30-07-2020), Christians Dealing with the Corona Crisis, [Online video] https://odysee.com/@apologeet:3/christians-dealing-with-the-corona:5 [accessed 02-11-2021].

ii J. Hofmann, (27-09-2020), Is the Church Losing Her Credibility? [Online video] https://odysee.com/@apologeet:3/christians-dealing-with-the-corona:5 [accessed 02-11-2021].

iii M. Pittman, (28-10-2021), An Eschatology of Victory, [internet] https://news.gab.com/2021/10/28/an-eschatology-of-victory/ [accessed 02-11-2021].

iv Ibid.

The two previous videos I’ve made about this topic:

Christians dealing with Corona (Video)

Christians dealing with Corona (Page)

Is the Church Losing Her credibility? (Video)

Is the Church Losing Her credibility? (Page)

Recommende playlist



The Church of Surinam


Eight Reasons why people won’t accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ

One question that keeps popping up is that of why people won’t accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.So, what than are the reasons people don’t accept the Gospel? The reasons can be all sorts of things such as religious traditions, peer pressure within the family or within friendships, the work of Satan, or even doubting of God’s Word. These are all legitimate reasons, but I will not tackle these in particular. I came across an eighteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian church leader, theologian and philosopher, named Thomas Boston. Boston said in one of his sermons that people reject the gospel because of actual sinful vulnerabilities.

Eight Reasons why people won’t accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Introduction I’ve been making 20 videos in which I tried to give simple answers on regular critical questions. I called this series the ‘silly Christian series’. Some, especially my kids, were wondering why I did that. One of them said that it is kind of offending to her. And she is quit right. I am […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 1 – ‘No Due Sense of Spiritual want.’ So here we go, this is part one of eight reasons why people won’t accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The first reason: ‘No due sense of spiritual want.’ And I do apologize for the noise in the background it started to rain here and you […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 2 – ‘Men have no true sight and sense of their own sinfulness.’ Intro Okay! We’re on a roll here! This is the second reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’ve been pretty busy in the week after the introductory video about this series. I didn’t say much about […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 3 – They have no idea about ‘the clouds of wrath which are hanging over their heads’ Intro The third reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They have no idea about ‘the clouds of wrath which are hanging over their heads’. Boston said: Their eyes are veiled, so that they see not […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 4 – ‘They are strangers to their utter inability to help themselves’ Intro The fourth reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They are strangers to their utter inability to help themselves Boston said: They are like Samson, in another case, who knew not that his strength was departed from him. We may […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 5 – They do not feel their need of Christ Intro The fifth reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They do not feel their need of Christ Boston said: Revelation 3:17 “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 6 – They see not their own unworthiness of a Saviour’s help Intro The sixth reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They see not their own unworthiness of a Saviours help Boston said: They come to the market of grace with their money in their hand. They look on themselves as worthy […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 7 – They have no anxiety for the supply of their soul-wants Intro The seventh reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They have no anxiety for the supply of their soul-wants Boston said: They have no anxiety for the supply of their soul-wants. They want grace and holiness, but they can be […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Reason 8 – They are not content with Christ but on terms of their own making Intro The eight reason of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They are not content with Christ but on terms of their own making Boston said: They are not content with Christ but on terms of their own making. […]

Eight Reasons Why People Won’t Accept The Gospel

Conclusion – They have proven Boston’s points Intro The conclusion of why people won’t accept the Gospel: They have proven Boston’s points Introductory video The first video was an introduction to this series. And yes! Right away I made a mistake. Not a huge one, but I did misrepresent Calvinism by stating that Calvinism says […]

Not a Virus, but a Weakened Immune System, is the Greatest Threat to Public Health

This article comes from: (https://www.hpdetijd.nl)
dr. Carla Peeters (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/auteurs/dr-carla-peeters/)
Translated by Jurgen Hofmann, 21-09-2021

Several scientific studies have now shown that immunity after a natural infection gives a better protection than immunity after Covid-19-vaccination. Natural immunity may well be necessary to build up full protection in the population, writes immunologist dr. Carla Peeters.

By now, the vulnerable and at-risk groups in most western countries have been vaccinated with one of the four ‘Under Emergency Admission’ (EUA) licensed Covid-19 vaccines. Remarkably, in the countries with the highest vaccination coverage (Israel1, Iceland2 and England3) high numbers of positive tests (also called ‘infections’,4) are detected. It also appears, contrary to expectations, that people, who have been vaccinated twice, can be tested positive, can carry a high viral load. The can also possibly transmit the virus5 and end up in hospital6 themselves. The Israeli doctor Kobi Havi indicates on Channel 13 News that 85 to 90 % of seriously ill people in hospital are fully vaccinated. The effectiveness of vaccinations appears to be declining or disappearing. The ‘one size fits all’ approach can become a dead-end when the current one-sided strategy on one virus is anxiously continued.

In England, several immunologists are speaking out about the danger of a weakened immune system in the population, increasing the risk of infections and chronic diseases7. As a result of the lockdowns and the measures—such as keeping one and a half metre8 and the wearing of masks9—the immune system may have become less effective than before the pandemic. Children and adults have had less contact with other viruses and bacteria, so the immune system is less challenged and therefore less trained. In addition, factors such as altered diet and lifestyle, exposure to toxic substances through the frequent use of disinfectants and masks, and the increase in stress, play an important role. The use of medication has also increased during the corona pandemic. In the Netherlands, the CBS reports that the mental health is the lowest since the last 20 years during the first quarter of 2021. Nivel reports10 that the use of psychopharmaceuticals among young people, aged 15 to 24, increased in the first quarter in 2021. This was previously seen in England and the United States. From the psychoneuro-immunology it is known that, mental health plays an important role in a correct functioning immune system. The long duration of the measures can weaken the innate and adaptive immune system. (See box at the bottom of this page for explanation).

Well-functioning immune system crucial for health

The ability of the total immune system to function effectively and efficiently is crucial when the body is confronted with foreign substances, pathogens or, for example, cancer cells. It is equally important for a successful responds with a good immunity (protection) after vaccination.

Studies on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine have already shown that older people cannot always respond effectively11 on the influenza vaccine. There is often an ageing immune system in older people. This is referred to as immunosenescence. This can result in that, despite vaccination, no good protection can be generated. A study, conducted in Norway, among one hundred deceased, frail, elderly shortly after a Covid-19 vaccination12 shows that the vaccine probably played a role in ten of the deceased and possibly in 26. In addition to old people, people with chronic diseases such as rheumatism, MS or those who had an organ transplantation may have a weakened immunity. A significant proportion of the people with chronic diseases, who participated in a Dutch research, turned out not to be able13, 14 to initiate a good antibody-response after two vaccinations, with one of the four Covid-19 vaccines. In the meantime a start has been made to offer this group a third vaccination. The results of this are not yet known. Because the immune system in this group does not function optimally and the same vaccine is used for this third injection, no great improvements are to be expected. The EMA and ECDC consider a third booster for healthy groups not to be urgently needed15.

A vaccination is not the same as good protection

Vaccination does not lead to good protection in every person. The majority of people who are currently vaccinated do not know whether they have built up antibodies and/or T-cell immunity This is not measured. It is also possible that a good immunity has already been built up without vaccination due to infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or an earlier infection (with a different Corona virus) that may or may not (asymptomatic) have been noticed16. A study, published in Nature, showed that, seventeen years after a natural infection with the SARS-CoV-1 virus, protective T-cell cross-reactivity for the SARS-CoV-2 virus could be demonstrated17. Fifteen scientific studies have now shown that immunity following natural infection gives a better protection18 than immunity after Covid-19-vaccination. An Israeli study showed a 27x less chance of reinfection and eight times less chance19 on hospitalisation compared to a vaccination.

Another recently published study20 also showed better immunity after natural infection. This may have to do with the fact that a natural infection trickers a broader immune response against a larger variety of viral coated proteins. A reduction in the efficacy of the innate and adaptive immune systems (see box) may also occur after an injection with one of the mRNA vaccines, which in turn leads to an increased risk of a more severe course of subsequent infections, as shown by a not yet peer-reviewed publication21 to which Dutch scientists also contributed.

Even before the Covid-19 vaccines were on the market, there was talk of a possible danger from Antibody Dependent Enhancement, a well-known phenomenon that was observed during the development of previous corona vaccines. This means that the body makes antibodies but is unable to neutralise the virus, whereby binding to the antibodies present in the cell, making it easier for the virus to replicate more easily. This is considered by various scientists as a possible explanation22 of the reinfections observed after vaccination. Research by the Mayo Clinic and Boston University shows that the efficacy decreased six months after the second injection with the Pfizer vaccine23 from 76% to 42% and with Moderna from 86% to 76%.

Although politicians around the world are talking about a third injection24 with the same vaccine, scientists in Iceland, England and the USA are reluctant to do so. Natural immunity may be needed to build up full protection in the population. The virus is now endemic and has a survival rate for people under 69 years of age25 99.410 % and in young people under 19 years of age more than 99,997 %. Moreover, there are no published scientific studies to show that a third vaccination actually adds value. Because of a shortage of vaccines, the WHO wants vaccines, released under the EUA, be made available for countries where hardly any vaccinations have been carried out so far

The antibodies induced by the vaccines appear to decrease after six months26. The fact that antibodies are not measurable does not always mean that people are no longer immune. It seems that after a natural infection, even though antibodies cannot be measured in the blood, antibody-producing B cells can still be detected in the bone marrow, which indicates the possibility of a rapid response reaction27 after reinfection. A survey among healthcare workers at the Cleveland clinic showed that vaccinating people who have already gone through a natural infection is nonsensical28.

Impending tsunami of hospital admissions is preventable

Some English immunologists have explained that the large increase in hospital admissions with RSV infections (common cold virus) in children in South Wales and Wales and Australia may be a result of lockdowns that have suppressed the normal function of the immune system. An increase of the RSV virus in children29 and people with fungus in their lungs in the ICU was reported in the Netherlands and Belgium30. These are infections that occur rarely and only in people with very weak immune systems. As the pressure increases through lockdowns, measures and large-scale vaccinations targeting a protein of the virus, the more likely it is that mutations will occur in the virus that could make it more dangerous for vulnerable groups. The immunity induced by the vaccine does not appear to be sufficiently effective to stop the mutant virus (Delta variant) in all people.

According to various experts, it is much better, now that a large part of society has already been vaccinated, like Denmark and Iceland, to lift all measures and let the virus wander. This would simultaneously build up natural immunity and strengthen the immune system. Vaccination-mandates with an experimental vaccine and accompanying passports cannot provide the broad protection for a strong immune system that is also effective against other viruses. Moreover, the knowledge about resilience of a natural immunity after an infection and/or through cross-reactivity with other (corona) viruses is undermined by a vaccination passport, certainly because it is now known from studies that have already shown that the risk of reinfection in vaccinated persons is greater. A focus on vaccinations with (in)direct obligations creates an unjustified and not scientifically account for the division in society. Above all, with the already shortage of healthcare staff, continuing along the same path is an invitation to an all-destroying tsunami. Not only by Covid-19, much more likely by other pathogens caused serious infections and sharp increase in cancer, cardiovascular disease and depression. The immune system is in fact also involved in the prevention of chronic diseases.

The government would do well to provide, at least children, the elderly, vulnerable groups of people on welfare, immigrants, and health care workers with a basic amount of vitamin D, which many scientific studies have shown that it strengthens the innate and adaptive immunity31. In this way, unnecessary illnesses and hospitalisations due to vitamin D deficiencies in healthcare can be prevented and better protection from infections or from vaccinations can be realised. It is always better to achieve a goal via multiple ways32.

Explanation innate and adaptive immune system

(Partly taken from an interview by Nieuws.nl33 with Dr. Carla Peeters).

The innate immune system is the first and not specific defence mechanism. It stops all potential pathogenic organisms. This system is formed by physical barriers, such as skin, saliva and mucous membranes. In many cases this is sufficient to stop a pathogen or foreign substance from entering the body. It is only switched over to the adaptive immune system when the pathogen is able to break through the first barrier. Cells from the innate immune system present the fragments of the pathogen or foreign substance to B cells and T cells of the adaptive immune system. The B cells ensure the release of antibodies. The antibodies formed move freely in the blood and can bind foreign pathogens. The pathogen-antibody complex is then broken down and eliminated by macrophages, among others. There are also T cells that directly aim on pathogens that have entered cells. They can help to destroy these infected cells and, on the other hand, reinforce the antibody response by B cells and at the same time keep them in check. The B and T cells can develop into memory cells and are activated much faster than with the first infection. The memory results in an increased response of antibodies, often with a stronger binding to a protein of the pathogen and a broader response against multiple fragments of the protein (epitope). This will increase the chance that the pathogen will be cleared effectively and quickly. You can see this in natural infections and also vaccinations. The chance that you will become ill by an infection decreases.


1. (https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination-israel-impact)
2. (https://www.covid.is/data)
3. (https://theexpose.uk/2021/07/29/87-percent-covid-deaths-are-vaccinated-people/)
4. (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-12-08/waarom-het-nieuwe-massatestbeleid-niet-deugt/)
5. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-infections-carry-same-virus-load-unvaccinated/)
6. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1)
7. (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1412658/Virus-fears-uk-winter-flu-immune-system-nhs)
8. (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-07-05/stop-met-anderhalve-meter-afstand-en-het-verplicht-dragen-van-mondkapjes/)
9. (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2021-06-13/waarom-de-mondkapjesplicht-per-direct-afgeschaft-moet-worden/)
10. (https://www.nivel.nl/nl/nieuws/toename-voorschrijven-psychofarmaca-aan-jongeren-tijdens-tweede-lockdown)
11. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061971/pdf/nihms250)
12. (https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372)
13. (https://amazingerasmusmc.com/infectie/onderzoek-naar-covid-19-vaccins-bijkwetsbare-patienten-van-start/)
14. (https://www.skipr.nl/nieuws/veel-patienten-met-verzwakte-afweer-onbeschermd-door-vaccins/)
15. (https://www.skipr.nl/nieuws/ema-beoordeelt-aanvullende-prik-met-pfizer-vaccin/)
16. (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563)
17. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z)
18. (https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-15-studies-that-indicate-natural-immunity-from-prior-infection-is-more-robust-than-the-covid-vaccines#toggl)
19. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1)
20. (https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital)
21. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1)
22. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351274/)
23. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdf)
24. (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm?s_cid=mm7034e3_w)
25. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/pdf/main.pdf)
26. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/pdf/main.pdf)
27. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4)
28. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2)
29. (https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20151127_01992372)
30. (https://www.fto.nu/nieuws/id220260-invasieve-schimmelinfecties-bij-influenza-en-covid-19.html)
31. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8052476/)
32. (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-08-11/9-manieren-om-corona-te-voorkomen/)
33. (https://nieuws.nl/lifestyle/20210429/het-versterken-van-het-immuunsysteem-is-veel-effectiever-in-het-voorkomen-van-infecties-dan-alle-maatregelen/)


This article comes from: (https://www.hpdetijd.nl)
dr. Carla Peeters (https://www.hpdetijd.nl/auteurs/dr-carla-peeters/)
Translated by Jurgen Hofmann, 21-09-2021

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 4 — Compromise, Churches, and the Conclusion

Welcome to the last episode of this series about the Christian stance on abortion. In part three we have discussed two dilemmas that so now and then happen. We’ve seen that good arguments to keep the unborn alive are abound. Basically, there are no philosophical nor rational arguments for abortion that can withstand the test. That means that the emotional argument is the only one that is left, and we all know that our emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. In any case, let’s get to it, let’s talk about the options we have.


Living in a democracy, Christians are free to express their values on human life. Nevertheless, we cannot force our morality on other people. This is why we need to walk down the legal ways instead. One way to accomplish a change is through politics. Our Christian ideals are clear—a total abolishing of the practise of abortion. This, however, will not likely happen very fast, and that why I propose a compromised stance.

Before I continue, I need to clarify myself a little bit. I talk about this topic with mainly the Dutch society in mind. Our country has many different political parties. And with many I do mean: Many! As far as I know we have only two political parties who are against abortion. Both parties are Christian and do not receive many votes. As a consequence, they hardly receive enough votes to shift towards a ruling position. Normally they need to form coalitions with other parties. In such situation they cannot ‘push’ their ideals. This, of course, is very frustrating. It is this situation that triggered me to think further than the ideals. Note, however, that a compromised situation is not my preferred model, neither is it for those Christian parties. But for now, I think it is the best we can do.

Good, let’s talk about this, shall we? We can find an example of compromising the ideal in the Bible. In Genesis God sets the ideals for marriage (Genesis 2:24). Later Moses allowed the people to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). According to Jesus, Moses accepted divorce because of the hardness of the people (Matthew 19:1-9). Jesus implied that Moses compromised the ideal in such a way that at least the divorced woman could be married by another man. Likewise, Christian politicians should consider a compromised agenda. That is to say, they can try to change the conditions and time-scale for abortions—focussing on the politically feasible and not on the ideal. This way, they can change the abortion law in gradual reductions.1

I know that this requires a big change of thinking for many Christians. And understandably so, compromise on abortion can be seen as agreeing with a terrible sin. Still, we need to realise that we live in a fallen world. In a fallen world we are bound to encounter conflicting moral issues. In cases like this, Christians have to choose between two evil options—choosing the less evil and thus saving a few is better than saving none. This tactic, of restricting access to abortion through state laws (in the USA), and offering viable alternatives for women in need, has been described by a worried pro-choice columnist as ‘death by a thousand tiny cuts.’2


The tensions are high in the abortion debate. Still, we really need to maintain our best behaviour. Even though you might think of abortion as murder, on which I wouldn’t disagree, it is better to control your tongue (James 1:26). Normally women do not go through abortion lighthearted, many of them simply do not know what else to do. Most women are, just like the adulterous woman in John 8:1-12, totally aware of what they have done. You see, Jesus did not preach a sermon or told her how bad the woman in John 8 was. The woman probably knew just fine what Jesus’ ideal was, still Jesus showed compassion, grace and love. If we say that we are followers of Christ, we should do as our Master (1 John 2:6).

Pro-active Church

Women, who consider abortion, generally have no reasonable idea of the alternatives, or they are strongly influenced by their surroundings such as their family or friends. It would be good if local churches become known as active pro-life communities. The topic should be in every church’s agenda. Education is crucial to help Christians understand the dilemmas that some women go through.

Many of the human-right issues which we discuss in our churches are about foreign dilemmas. While this is of great worth, we should not, and we cannot close our eyes for the problems of our neighbours that are closest to us. Information centres can be of great use for women who feel they are stuck. We can even consider to take up arms with non-Christians in setting up such centres. Really, there are many non-Christians that are totally committed to the pro-life movement. This may be considered as another compromise, but can prove to be even more effective in reaching women because some may have not much affinity with Christians.

In a society where one’s own choice is celebrated, Christians have a wonderful message. Part of the Christian message is the promotion of freedom of choice—freedom of speech and the freedom to choose any religion, school, healthcare centre you like—freedom should be one of the trademarks of Biblical Christianity as long as this freedom doesn’t harm others.


Okay, let’s wrap up this topic. We have seen that that Christians cannot accept legalised abortion. It is just absolutely immoral to say that the unborn cannot be seen as human. As I argued in the previous episodes, the unborn should be entitled for all basic human-rights. This is scientifically, morally, and legally undeniable. It is our duty to protect the unborn against any harm. Why? Simply because the unborn is a human-being. Human-Rights are there to protect, not only the strong, but in the first place to protects those who can’t protect themselves.

I also argued that doctors need to do their utmost to safe the unborn from harm in cases where a mother needs treatment for a life-threatening situation, such as cancer. It might happen though, that the medics unintentionally fail to save the unborn. If this happens, and it is really unintentionally I would not consider this as immoral or wrong. Especially in the early stage of the pregnancy the baby cannot survive outside the mother’s womb. This means that medics need to prioritise the life of the mother. No, that doesn’t mean they can terminate the unborn in that stage. Absolutely not! But again, if there’s a change in which the baby gets hurt while saving the mother, it isn’t immoral. The baby needs his or her mother.

It is such a blessing though, to see that the medical achievements are progressing rapidly. Last week I read about a baby, still a foetus of 21 weeks and three days, has been saved. It was born way the soon and the doctors gave the boy 0% change. Still, the parents wanted them to try and now the boy just had his first birthday! Glory to God, who gave us a brain to use! When we use our brains to the Glory of God we can achieve great things. In this last example, saving the life of a very young boy!


Anyway! This was the fourth and last episode on this topic. Now, I am very curious about your thoughts! What do you think about my rather controversial stance on compromising the ideals? Keep in mind: Saving a few is always better than saving none.

Maybe you have some good strategical ideas of your own? I mean, I come up with just another controversial idea of working together with non-Christians… Maybe, that is just too much for you, and you have some ideas of your own? You know, we do not live our lives in order to disagree and argue with everybody and every thing, while sitting safely behind our laptops. Nope, all major changes in the world came about because of pro-active people. We, Christians, shouldn’t be laid back! Jesus wasn’t silent, He actively obeyed God in every thing. We are to follow His example!

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add all relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… Your support will be used for making new videos and my work as missionary in the middle of nowhere on Madagascar.

Anyway, thank you very much for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other next time!


↑ 1 Cook, E. D., ‘Abortion,’ in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field (eds.), The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 131-133.

↑ 2 Harris-Perry, M., ‘On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, a Letter to one Fighting for Choice’, website (03 July 2021, http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/roe-v).

Christian Stance on Abortion

Part 3 — Dilemmas

You might have heard at least one of the ‘what ifs’. What if the girl gets pregnant after being raped, what if the girl is still studying, what if the lady is a bit old. Many ‘what ifs’, and today I am going to discuss two ‘what ifs’ that might actually occur.


We have already seen in the previous episodes that the unborn needs to be considered as human-being from conception. I have given three premises from which this conclusion needs to be drawn. These premises are so basic that most can understand it. Those who ignore these premises are either scientifically, morally or legally unknowing, that’s a fancy word for dumb.

Also, Christians who ignore God’s clear involvement with the unborn, can only do so when they actively change the meaning of the Bible. There is no way they can come to the same conclusion when they apply good hermeneutics, that is good interpretation of the Bible.

In any case, do watch the previous episodes if you want to understand the whole picture I am trying to set forth. You’ll find a link to the playlist in the description of this video.


Serious Sick Mother

What if, for example, a lady gets serious complications during pregnancy and her life is at stake? Here we, as Christians, have a problem that cannot be solved without compromising and thus adopting a more liberal stance.1 Treatment of the mother is most important since the unborn is depending on her and will also die when she dies. Sometimes mothers are advised to get a ‘therapeutic’ abortion because treatments (e.g. chemotherapy) could potentially harm or kill the unborn and to improve the mother’s changes. Yet, recent studies showed that the risks are not as big as one would expect, also women who carried to term had more change to survive their disease.2 Medical treatment should aim at rescuing both lives, However, if this fails, and if the unborn dies, it is unintentionally and along these lines not morally wrong.3 Despite all this, abortion to save the mother’s life does probably not, strictly medically spoken, exist. Although it sounds ‘noble and pure’ to those who recommend abortion, in reality it is, to say it with the words of Sloan and Hartz, a ‘real stretch of our thinking.’4

Raped and Pregnant

Another dilemma could be that a young girl becomes pregnant after rape. In the UK, raped women can ask treatment in several forms—some of which include treatment to cut off a possible pregnancy.5 But when we say that the right to life is inalienable, we cannot agree with treatments that intentionally kills the embryo. Understandably so, the raped woman will have horrible emotions but emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. Bad does not become good when we feel like it. Geisler puts it like this: If morality ‘can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for everyone.’6


The basic content of these problems evolve around the most important question: Do we acknowledge the unborn as human or not. You see, even when the unborn will be harmed by treatments or is malformed in any other way, we cannot deny the unborn the basic human-right, which is life. So, when a certain treatment cannot wait and needs to be done, a doctor cannot just suggest terminating the pregnancy as a precaution. Doing so, is, as mentioned in part 2 of this series, scientifically, morally and legally wrong. Now, many may argue that that last premise doesn’t count. They might argue that abortion is legal in many countries and as such the doctor wouldn’t be handling illegal. Be that as it may, the mere fact that ungodly politicians say that something like abortion is okay, doesn’t make it okay! Even when earthly judges rule that it is fine, we as Christians, and thank God, with us many who have their brains switched on, cannot accept that law. For this I would like to point to my last video on Romans 13:1-7. You’ll find the link in the description.

Human life begins at fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.7


In the next episode I want to make a case for a rather controversial position in the debate, namely an approach that compromises on the ideals in the Christian world-view… Doesn’t that sound like a nice starter-upper for a discussion. But please hear me out first, before you start to shout at me.

Also, depending on the length of that episode, I would talk a little about our attitude in this debate. I know it is a matter of freedom to some, while others suggest we’re talking about murder. These discussions are bound to end up with cold hearts and heated heads. Anyway, let’s talk about a little more next time.

Don’t hesitate to write down your ideas, remarks or initiatives, in the comment section below. I am mostly active in my account on Odysee. Go ahead and make an account on Odysee and write your comments there. You’ll find an invitation to Odysee in the description below. When you accept my invitation we both receive some free LBC. Odysee is absolutely censorship free, unlike YouTube or other platform. On Odysee we can discuss this topic without having to be afraid of being banned. Isn’t that nice!

Do take a look in the description of this video. I always try to add relevant links. Also in that same description you’ll find ways to support me… Your support will be used for making new videos and my work as missionary in the middle of nowhere on Madagascar.

Anyway, thank you very much for watching.

God bless you, and we’ll see each-other in the next video!


↑ 6 Geisler, N. L., ‘Can Atheists Justify Being Good Without God?’, Articles by Dr. Geisler website (2 July 2021, http://normangeisler.com/can-atheists-justify-being-good-without-god/).

↑ 1 Geisler, N. L., Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 20.

↑ 2 Hoskins, W. J., Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology, 4th ed., Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Lipkins, 2005, pp. 166-167. SEE ALSO: Choi, D. X. and Morrow, M., ‘Breast Cancer: Treatments of Uncommon Diseases,’ in M. J. Dixxon (ed.), Breast Surgery: A Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice, 5th ed., Elsevier Limited, 2014.

↑ 3 ↑ 7 Prolifephysicians.org, ‘Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? Official position statement of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians’, The Association of Pro-Life Physicians website (2 July 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20131126103951/http://www.prolifephysicians.org/ rarecases.htm).
See also: (2 July 2021, https://sites.google.com/site/abortioninformationfororthodox/cases-involving-the-mother-s-life).

↑ 4 Sloan, D. and Hartz, P., Choice: A Doctor’s Experience with the Abortion Dilemma: A Dedicated Compassionate Physician’s Forty-year Odyssey in the Service of Women Facing their most Fateful Choice, New York: International Publishers, 2002, pp. 46-47.

↑ 5 Victim Support, ‘Rape or sexual assault: information for women’, Victim Support website (2 July 2021, https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P2063_06-Rape-and-sexual-assault_women-leaflet-PMS-268-12042021.pdf).