Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 3
The speaker contrasts outrage over historic slavery with modern acceptance of abortion and calls unborn children “nobody more vulnerable”; how does his comparison force a re-evaluation of what counts as “justice,” and how should Christians discern when a culture’s moral consensus deserves resistance rather than approval?
Another way to ask: How does comparing past slavery with today’s abortion change how we think about what “justice” means? How can Christians tell when to resist a culture’s values instead of going along with them?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
His comparison pushes Christians to see “justice” as protecting the truly vulnerable, not just condemning past sins that cost us nothing. He implies Christians should measure society’s moral consensus against Christ’s standard—“do unto others”—rather than assuming the latest consensus is automatically righteous.
- He affirms slavery as evil and says Christians should “feel terrible” about it, including both African and Turkish slavery.
- He criticizes modern critics who “promote abortion,” calling it the killing of “a million babies…every year” (as he understands it).
- He challenges the slogan “a voice for the people who don’t have a voice,” arguing “there is nobody more vulnerable…like an unborn baby.”
- He describes abortion as culturally normalized: “our generation said, ‘oh yeah, that’s fine and good.’”
- He frames Christian ethics by Jesus’ principle: “doing unto others what we would want done unto us.”