Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 4

Richard pushed back on the argument “pro-choice people aren’t consistent, so why care about the elderly,” saying inconsistency elsewhere doesn’t give Christians freedom to neglect older neighbors; where do you see your own heart tempted to use someone else’s inconsistency as permission to lower the bar of obedience?

Another way to ask: Where are you tempted to say, “They aren’t consistent, so I don’t have to care either”? How does that excuse lower your obedience to Jesus, especially toward older people?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
Richard’s correction implies Christians must not excuse disobedience by pointing to others’ hypocrisy; someone else’s inconsistency is never a license to stop doing what is right. Applied personally, the temptation is to justify coldness, neglect, or harsh speech by saying, “they don’t live consistently either.”

Support from Transcript:

Richard mentions hearing the claim: it’s “not consistent” to care for elderly if someone is “pro-choice… promoting the death of… babies.”
He concedes, “yeah, that probably isn't consistent,” but rejects the conclusion.
Key line: “just because that's not consistent… doesn't give Christians the freedom to say… we're not really going to care about the elderly among us.”
He reports some friends argue to quarantine only nursing homes/elderly; his tone suggests resisting convenient arguments that reduce responsibility.
He warns the debate can escalate into “labeling each other as enemies,” hinting that moral shortcuts can poison relationships.

Discussion Follow-ups Where do you most often say, in effect, “since they’re hypocrites, I don’t have to try”? What would it look like to keep obeying Christ even when others clearly aren’t?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10