Podcast | Back to Main Page | Email Us   


Left Behind and Pro-Abortion Propaganda

I am posting this article to help you understand why I have written God's Wrath on Left Behind. God has commanded me to expose the ungodly values and unbiblical doctrines that are being fed to the masses through the vehicle of fiction, and in the name of truth. 

God's word is clear that we must let no man deceive us through vain words: 

for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them.  Eph. 5:6,7 

Followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to reprove (expose) the works of darkness. The Bible does not teach us to be fearful of offending men, but instead to fear him who can cast body and soul into hell.  Jesus said to marvel not if the world hates us.  He said the world hated him first, and this is because Jesus testified to the world that its deeds were evil. Christians are commanded to testify to the world that its deeds are evil too--so people will see their need to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

But what should be done if a famous "Christian" book series is promoting evil? The Christian is commanded to reprove darkness wherever it is found without respect of persons or their pocketbooks.

Let us look at some examples of pro-abortion propaganda in the Left Behind Series:

(Rayford is speaking to Hattie) "I'll even buy the argument that perhaps you regret the idea of having a child at all and would not be the best mother for it. I don't think you can shirk responsibility for it the way a rape or incest victim might be justified in doing." (Nicolae p. 296)

A rape or incest victim might be justified in having an abortion?! "Shirking responsibility" is the euphemism for abortion in the context of this story. Do you see how this value was placed in the story in such a way that it does not stand out obviously? 

"But even in those cases, the solution isn't to kill the innocent party, is it? Something is wrong, really wrong, and so people defend their right to choose." (Nicolae p. 296)

The "right to choose" is a given in this sentence. Rayford used a pro-abortion catch-phrase and it escapes the reader's notice because the "something is wrong, really wrong" phrase precedes it.  After all, something really is wrong, isn't it? This preliminary phrase makes the following part of the sentence easier to accept and the reader does not stop and notice that the "right to choose" is treated as a fact, a given, in that sentence. This is pro-abortion propaganda!

"What they choose, of course, is not just the end of a pregnancy, not just an abortion, it's the death of a person."  But which person? One of the people who made a mistake? One of the people who committed a rape or incest? Or one of the people who got pregnant out of wedlock? No, the solution is always to kill the most innocent party of all." (Nicolae p. 296)

A Christian is going too far if he tells a pregnant woman seriously considering abortion that she would be killing a person? The authors used a Christian character to convey this value to the reader:

Rayford had been angry with himself. Why couldn't he learn? How could he sit there spouting all that? (Nicolae p. 297)

Earnestly trying to help a woman understand that abortion means the death of a person is "spouting all that"? Rayford is angry with himself for forthrightly telling Hattie that abortion means death?  Do you see the implication?

We also see the pro-abortion rhetoric surfacing through Rayford's thoughts. Rayford knew that Hattie could reject it out of hand simply because he was a man. Of course this has nothing to do with Hattie being able to reject the fact that abortion causes death, but it is another way the reader is seeing the pro-abortion arguments being used by a Christian character -- in his thoughts and words.

Rayford apologized to Hattie because she was weeping and obviously quite offended by his forthrightness:

"I want you to forgive me for anything I said that hurt you personally or insulted you. I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I would not do that intentionally." (Nicolae p. 297-98)

Rayford made no insulting statements, and he was not unkind. The authors used his conversation with Hattie to give the impression that standing firm against abortion and explaining clearly that it results in the death of a child is insulting. It could be perceived as an insult but it is not an insult; it is a statement of absolute truth. There is a difference. Rayford asked for forgiveness for insulting Hattie! The idea presented here is that you could be insulting someone if you are straightforward about the fact that abortion means killing. This is what pro-choice people say when Christians tell them abortion is killing a baby.

To not try to talk someone out of this tragic decision is a serious sin on the behalf of the silent, "not wanting to offend" Christian! In fact, to keep quiet when your words are needed to help save a life (the baby and the mother) is to be an accomplice in abortion!  The fear of man bringeth a snare, and this example in Nicolae is to have the fear of man and not speak truthfully out against what abortion really is because your zeal to do what is right might be offensive to someone. 

Rayford was angry with himself. (Nicolae p. 298)

There is that same sentence the second time. Why would a Christian be "angry with himself" for seeking to obey God and try to explain what abortion really is to a distraught woman who is ready to do something that will take an innocent life and damage her own soul?  

His motives were pure, and he believed his logic was right. But maybe he had counted too much on his own personality and style and not enough on God himself to work in Hattie's heart. (Nicolae p. 298)

Maybe Rayford should have not made any judgment calls by stating abortion is the death of a person? 

He may not have handled it the best way, but he knew trying to fix it now would accomplish nothing. (Nicolae p. 299)

What did Rayford do wrong in handling this? (Besides telling Hattie rape and incest victims might be able to shirk their responsibility?) The implication is that Rayford should not have been direct, and that his directness about abortion causing death to a person is offensive. How could Rayford fix it? Should he tell Hattie that he had no right to say that abortion is the death of a person?  There is no way he could fix it, but the reader is led to believe that he could fix the faulty way he dealt with Hattie.  The only way to "fix" it would be to compromise, and compromise is not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ, although it is the norm in the Left Behind series.

The book, God's Wrath on Left Behind contains much more proof that the authors of the Left Behind series used the storyline to subtly promote abortion rather than to present God's absolute, uncompromising Word on the matter. Also cited are the ways the authors used the Christian characters to teach the secular humanist way (relativism) to "minister" to a woman desiring an abortion.

Satan considers each baby killed through abortion to be a sacrifice to him. It is no wonder that God's wrath is on a "Christian" book series that promotes abortion in any way.


Sex and the Left Behind Series: Listen to Audio or SUBSCRIBE to the Liberty To The Captives Podcast

Return to: Exposing False Doctrines in the Left Behind Series

 Back to Main Page | Email Us    

Liberty To The Captives Established in June 2001