---
title: "“Reasonable Christians can disagree on strategy; calling pro-life incrementalism 'sin' is uncharitable and divisive. It is prudence, not disobedience.”"
description: "Reasonable Christians can disagree on strategy; calling pro-life incrementalism 'sin' is uncharitable and divisive. It is prudence, not disobedience."
type: "argument"
id: "def-incrementalism-not-sin"
category: "Religious"
mode: "Defensive"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/arguments/def-incrementalism-not-sin.html"
---

# “Reasonable Christians can disagree on strategy; calling pro-life incrementalism 'sin' is uncharitable and divisive. It is prudence, not disobedience.”

**Category:** Religious · **Mode:** Defensive · responds to an objection

## The objection

**The claim:**

> "Reasonable Christians can disagree on strategy; calling pro-life incrementalism 'sin' is uncharitable and divisive. It is prudence, not disobedience."

_A pro-life incrementalist argument._

### The strongest version of this argument

Many godly, sincere believers pursue incremental protections out of genuine love for the unborn and a desire to save lives. Wisdom and prudence are biblical virtues, and treating a strategic disagreement as sin risks pride, division, and slander against faithful brothers and sisters.

## The response

The talk's argument is not that every incrementalist is insincere, but that authoring or endorsing laws which license some killing is disobedience regardless of motive. Scripture defines sin to include knowing the right and not doing it (Jas. 4:17) and any action not proceeding from faith (Rom. 14:23); the abolitionist claim is that incrementalism proceeds from fear of man (Prov. 29:25) and a lack of faith that obedience 'will work,' and that consensus-driven partial obedience is what God called rebellion in Saul (1 Sam. 15). Charity toward persons is compatible with naming the policy as sin — indeed love requires warning brothers away from what invites God's judgment. (Abolitionists should still guard against pride and slander, holding the argument, not contempt for people.)

## Discussion questions

1. Can an action be sin even when the person doing it is sincere and well-meaning?
2. Does 'whatever is not from faith is sin' (Rom. 14:23) bear on a strategy driven by 'the culture isn't ready'?
3. How do we name a policy as sin without contempt for the people who hold it?

## Source transcript

Drawn from The Sin of Pro-Life Incrementalism (T. Russell Hunter) — The central thesis: 'the sin of pro-life incrementalism' — responding to those who said calling it sin goes too far..

## References

_The case here rests on the cited scriptures; see Related below._

## Related

**Related scriptures:**

- [James 4:17](../scripture/james-4-17.md)
- [Romans 14:23](../scripture/romans-14-23.md)
- [Proverbs 29:25](../scripture/proverbs-29-25.md)
- [1 Samuel 15:22-23](../scripture/1-samuel-15-22-23.md)
- [Micah 6:8](../scripture/micah-6-8.md)

**Related arguments:**

- [Immediatism — dealing with sin fully and now — is the biblical pattern; gradual toleration is not](arg-immediatism-biblical.md)
- [Obeying God is the most pragmatic path — disobedience 'to get results' does not work](arg-obedience-pragmatic.md)
- [“Public opinion won't support total, immediate abolition (especially criminalization), so…”](def-culture-not-ready.md)