We finally have an honest dialogue going between Christian abolitionists and Christian incrementalists. And that’s a good thing. All we can pray for is a God-centered like-mindedness and unity will be the result.
There is much to be grateful for American Vision, Joel McDurmon, and John Reasnor for their contribution to a biblical worldview and theonomy, even if they are wrong on abolitionism. And it should be welcomed that they have chosen to honestly engage with Douglas Wilson in this much-needed debate in our common fight for cultural reformation and repentance.
Now, as we already know, I’m in favor of “smashmouth incrementalism,” not the unprincipled incrementalism that doesn’t really want the injustice of abortion to be abolished. So I agree with most of Douglas Wilson’s third installment and second response on Smashmouth Incrementalism.
Doug is wrong on one point though (I hope he doesn’t mind me calling him by his first name). He weakens the case for Gospel gradualism. He seems to believe that judicial supremacy is a false notion. And this is either a patently false denial of reality. Or it just blithely ignores the reality of the reigning view that judicial edicts, from the lower courts to the Supremes, are the supreme law of the land. This supremacy of the courts and their high and almighty opinions requires a “smashmouth incrementalism” through comprehensive judicial reform, not a draconian abolitionism.
Judicial supremacists, on the left and the right, do believe Roe is settled law, even though they usurped their constitutional authority to legislate based on bad science. On this, Doug and I are of one mind and one faith. But it is the unprincipled abolitionists and unprincipled incrementalists (compromisers) who either try to impose their own draconian supremacy, or try “to chip away at that settlement.”
The unprincipled abolitionists advocate for their own supremacy that abolishes injustice, but includes extra-biblical draconian rules, contrary to biblical theonomy. The unprincipled compromisers don’t actually want the abolition of abortion, but they will “chip away,” as Doug says, “only in ways that the Supreme Court might possibly uphold.” That’s code for, “Our judicial overlords have spoken, we can’t change anything, barring a tweak here or there.”
What both groups don’t seem to realize, and I’m afraid Doug doesn’t either, is that the judicial supremacists have virtually complete control over the judiciary, the conservative legal movement, and the law schools. If Congress, or even state legislatures, were to be abolitionist and ban abortion outright, the Courts will rule it unconstitutional and the Suits in the DC swamp will accept their ruling as the “law of the land.” Despite the fact that it was the Courts’ ruling that violated the Constitution, not the abortion bans.
The abolitionists accept judicial supremacy by demanding their own form of draconian supremacy, while the compromisers accept the neo-Marxist supremacy in their surrender. Neither way is valid, much less biblical.
The smashmouth incrementalists desire for the state legislatures, Governors, Congress, and the White House to grow a spine and incrementally reform the federal judiciary in bold ways. We want people who will have the courage to deny activist judges the unconstitutional supremacy they have given to themselves. America can achieve this by impeaching activist judges, eliminating irremediably broken lower courts, or legislatively redefining the judiciary’s jurisdiction to not include political and social matters.
Better judges won’t fix the balance of the federal judiciary, and outright abolitionist bans won’t stop out-of-control Courts from ruling those bans unconstitutional. The federal judiciary is irremediably broken to the philosophical core with the cancer of judicial supremacy. It needs to be radically and incrementally radiated legislatively. And accepting the reality of this supremacy that permeates throughout the entire judiciary is the key to understanding the need for “smashmouth incrementalism.”