Search this blog

scottToday, I am interviewing Scott Klusendorf, founder of Life Training Institute and author of the new book, The Case for Life. We will be talking about some recent developments in the USA that influence the abortion debate (including the murder of George Tiller, the recent polls showing pro-life gains, and President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame).

Trevin Wax: Some people who advocate abortion rights are blaming the death of Dr. Tiller on anyone who is pro-life. How should pro-life Christians respond to this development?

Scott Klusendorf: While pro-lifers should condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller, they must not shrink back from proclaiming their fundamental message—namely, that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.

Of course, our critics will say that by calling abortion killing, we are inciting violence against abortionists. This is nonsense.

As Andrew Coyne points out, suppose I’m an animal rights activist opposed to the sale of fur. If a deranged environmentalist firebombs a local clothing store, am I responsible?

Seriously, if people like Frank Schaeffer truly think that pro-life speech incites people to violence, they should step up and lead a campaign to ban all pro-life speech. Moreover, it does not follow that because a lone extremist kills an abortionist, the pro-life cause itself is unjust.

Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, used strong language to condemn the evil of racism during the 1960s. In response to his peaceful but confrontational tactics, racists unjustly blamed him for the violent unrest that sometimes followed his public demonstrations.

Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago argued that if Dr. King would stop exposing racial injustice, black people would be less likely to riot. The Mayor’s remarks were an outrage.

Are we to believe that a handful of rioters made Dr. King’s crusade for civil rights entirely unjust? In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, King rebuts this dishonest attempt to change the subject:

“In your statement you asserted that our actions, though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence….[I]t is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain…basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence….Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community…is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can be no longer ignored.”

Finally, if it’s extreme to call elective abortion killing, then abortion-choice advocates bear partial responsibility for the stabbing of Dr. Tiller.

The fact is that pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who call abortion killing. Abortionists and their supporters have been saying so themselves for years.

For example, late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of the book Abortion Practice, stated in a 1978 conference:

“We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally a supporter of abortion-rights, describes dismemberment abortion this way:

“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb. . . . The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. . . . Dr. [Leroy] Carhart [the abortionist who challenged Nebraska’s partial-birth ban] has observed fetal heartbeat . . . with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” . . . and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” . . . At the conclusion of a D&E abortion . . . the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.”

Trevin Wax: Recent polls show that, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans claim the label “pro-life.” What does this mean for the pro-life movement? How do you interpret these statistics?

Scott Klusendorf: First, the bad news: I’m skeptical that there’s been much real movement toward the pro-life view. In fact, if you look at a summary of polling data over the last 30 years, the numbers really haven’t changed that much. I think pro-lifers like to pick and choose the polls they site.

True, support for late-term abortion has dropped thanks largely to the debate over partial-birth abortion, but a majority of Americans still support first-trimester abortion.

Now for the good news: Based on my experience in the field (not on any empirical data I’ve compiled), people are more willing to give us a hearing. Fifteen years ago, crowds on college campuses were more hostile, even nasty at times, but not so much now. In fact, my recent debates with Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU from the mid-1980s until last Fall) solicited insightful questions from those attending, but never nasty remarks.

Of course, you still get your occasional abortion crusader bent on shutting-up pro-lifers (rather than refuting their arguments), but they are fewer in number than they were during the late 80s and early 90s.

Thus, the objective for pro-life advocates is clear: We must become very skilled at making a gracious, yet persuasive, case for life in the public square. That is not all we must do, but it’s certainly essential if we are to win. That’s precisely why wrote my book The Case for Life.

obama-speech-Notre-Dame-20090517200353Trevin Wax: President Obama recently made remarks at Notre Dame about abortion. What were your impressions of his speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Rhetorically, it was excellent. I also appreciated his observation that finding middle ground on abortion is difficult. He’s right about that.

Look, either you believe that each and every human being in virtue of his humanity has an equal right to life or you don’t. Sadly, the President does not believe that, as evidenced by his refusal to protect not only unborn humans, but those born alive as well.

However, what surprised me most was his complete refusal to present any argument whatsoever justifying his pro-abortion choice views. There’s not one mention of his preference for tax-funded abortions both here and abroad, his votes to keep partial-birth abortion legal, and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo virtually all limits on abortion. Indeed, many of his statements were question-begging regarding the status of the unborn.

Speaking of the abortion controversy, he used the nouns “we” and “our” when referencing our duty to understand our fellow humans but never once said whether “we” and “our” also included “them,” meaning the unborn. On embryonic stem-cell research, the President said that “those who speak out against research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardship can be relieved.”

Question: Would the President argue this way if the proposal on the table was killing two-year olds to relieve the suffering of five-year olds? Never in a million years. Only by assuming the embryos in question were not human could he argue this way.But that is precisely the point he refused to address in his speech.

If I were a thoughtful defender of abortion, Obama’s speech would leave me worried that my side had truly run out of arguments. And that, rather than inconsistent polling data, is what gives me the most hope for the future.

Trevin Wax: How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

Trevin Wax: You’ve said before there are “fascist” themes that sometimes come out in the way liberals address abortion. Did you detect any such themes in the President’s speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Possibly. I define fascism in this case as an attempt by government to shut down legitimate debate on important public policy matters.

Consider Obama’s call for a “sensible conscience clause” policy for doctors opposed to abortion. The key word, of course, is “sensible.”

We already have policies leftover from the Bush Administration that protect doctors from performing or referring for abortion procedures. All indications are that Obama does not want to revise these policies; he want to revoke them, forcing pro-life doctors to either participate in abortion or go out of business. What else is that but an attempt to silence legitimate debate on abortion?

Trevin Wax: What do you hope to accomplish with your book The Case for Life?

Scott Klusendorf: In a sentence, I hope to give pro-life Christians the tools of thought needed to make a gracious and persuasive case for their views in the marketplace of ideas.

As I state in the introduction to the book, I do not pretend to have written an exhaustive defense of the pro-life view. That’s been done already by selected authors I cite throughout the text.

My purpose is different. This book will take those sophisticated pro-life defenses and put them in a form that hopefully equips and inspires lay Christians (with or without academic sophistication) to engage the debate with friends, coworkers, and fellow believers.

Admittedly, a book about pro-life apologetics may not appeal to some lay Christians. It seems many believers would rather focus on end times rather than these times. That’s a mistake. Humans who ignore questions about truth and human value may soon learn what it really means to be left behind.

For more information about Scott Klusendorf, check out his book, The Case for Life (reviewed here) and his website.

View Comments


27 thoughts on “The Current State of the Pro-Life Movement: Interview with Scott Klusendorf”

  1. Kevin says:

    Absolutely GREAT interview. Thoughtful questions…great responses. Thanks for this service.

  2. Chuck says:

    This is very good!!

    I wish the pro-life / abortion debate could stay on the rational and logical level.

    This book needs to be distributed to many people, groups, ministries, politicians, and so on!!

  3. Seth Drayer says:

    Ends with my favorite quote!

  4. For a polite, clear-headed, rational argument on abortion, check out AICH TEE TEE PEA://

  5. Janice says:

    Dr. Tiller has been compared to Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer. His murderer (Mr. Roeder) has been compared to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I share Mr. Klusendorf’s desire to distinguish these cases (after all, are we really so certain that Bonhoeffer deserves our condemnation for his attempt to assassinate Hitler?). One argument that’s been floating around promises to supply the necessary distinction. Though it falls short of justifying abortion, the argument does show that abortion is in the unborn baby’s interest. I’d love to hear Mr. Klusendorf’s assessment of the argument, the steps of which are conveniently numbered for reference:

    (1) Unborn babies do not deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

    (2) God does not condemn people to worse than they deserve.

    (3) Hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.

    (4) Therefore, God does not condemn unborn babies to hell.

    (5) Hundreds of millions of unborn babies have been aborted.

    (6) Had they not been aborted, some of these would have survived to adulthood.

    (7) It is not the case that each of these survivors would have come to faith in Christ (it is unreasonable to think otherwise)

    (8) Adults who do not come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.

    (9) Therefore, if some had not been aborted, they’d have gone to hell.

    (10) Therefore, abortion has saved some from hell.

    (11) We can correspondingly conclude that abortion saves an unborn baby from the risk of hell.

    (12) Hell involves eternal suffering and separation from God.

    (13) There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal separation from God.

    (14) Therefore, abortion is in the unborn baby’s interest.

    (15) Therefore, abortion is importantly different from other forms of homicide, which tend not to be in the interests of their victims.

  6. Janice, Thanks for your comment. This same logic could be used by non-Calvinists to justify killing Christians who, should they go on living, might lose their faith in Christ and thus end up in Hell. It would also justify killing newborns who are not yet self-aware. I also have problems with premise #1. Biblically understood, the entire human race is under the wrath of God for rebellion against its maker. That is to say, we not only do bad stuff, we ARE bad by nature (see Eph. 2: 1-5, Romans 5), meaning God would be just to send the entire group of us to Hell without comment. In short, unborn humans, like all humans, are not innocent. They come into being with a sin nature (thanks to Adam) and justly deserve Hell just like the rest of us. Unlike some pro-lifers, I am not convinced that each and every unborn child that dies before birth goes to heaven. Frankly, the Bible doesn’t speak directly to the question. I confess I simply don’t know and it will take a greater theological mind than my own to resolve that mystery.

  7. Janice says:


    Thanks for the reply. You say that “the same logic could be used to justify” killing Christians and newborns. But this is surely not true. As I noted at the intro, the argument I’ve given does not even justify killing the unborn. It only says that killing them is in their interests. (Now, the same is surely true of newborns, though it is not obviously true of any adult.) There are still many reasons why killing the unborn may be unjustifiable and immoral. All these reasons and others apply to the case against killing newborns and adults.

    I’d be interested to hear more about your rejection of premise #1. You really believe that unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment? Two further questions. First, if unborn babies deserve far worse than abortion, is it such a bad thing if they are aborted? Al Capone was guilty of far worse things than income tax evasion. Now if he was punished for less than he deserved, was it really a bad thing that he was punished to at least that extent?

    Secondly, if you think that unborn babies do deserve worse than bodily dismemberment, this apparently commits you to the idea that unborn babies deserve to be severely punished, but not for anything they’ve done, and not for anything that they could have avoided. Can you explain how that is just or fair? Are you familiar with any other cases in which a person deserves severe punishment and condemnation for things that he has neither done nor could have avoided?

  8. Janice, All humans deserve far worse than abortion or death by any other means. In light of our sinful condition, we are judicially guilty before God. (We can go through this exercise biblically if you wish.) Moreover, if God is holy, he must punish sin. And he did–by pouring our his wrath on a substitute, Jesus Christ the sinless one. So, outside of Christ, all humans deserve far worse than earthly death.

    As for it being in “their best interest” for the unborn to be killed so as to avoid Hell, that argument only works if you assume there can be a class of humans that aren’t already under the wrath of God, something Scripture teaches is not the case. (See, for example, John 3:15-19, 36). Indeed, the default position of all humans is that the wrath of God remains on all who do not believe the Son (Jesus). That’s why God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world (John 3: 17-18)–the world stood condemned already in virtue of Adam’s sin and our own ongoing rebellion. Thus, the unborn do not come into the world as neutral entities, but as rebels with a sin nature no different than you and me. True, they haven’t comitted wrongful acts that we can observe, but that doesn’t change their status as members of a rebel race.

  9. Margaret says:

    Janice’s questions seem to be swapping God’s sovereignty for man’s actions. God can and will do what He wants and He is the only righteous judge. Abortion- and in the supposed argument, dismemberment- are punishments executed by men, who are imperfect and in no position to judge the heart (or future) of another human being… Personally, I don’t think you can compare worldly/physical/temporal punishment with eternal judgment. It doesn’t seem like Scott meant that unborn babies deserve to be dismembered, but that they deserve to be judged by God.

  10. Margaret,
    Well stated. Thanks for clarifying my point.

  11. Janice says:


    You’ve somehow managed to reply without answering the follow-up questions I had put to you:

    First, if unborn babies deserve far worse than abortion, is it such a bad thing if they are aborted? Al Capone was guilty of far worse things than income tax evasion. Now if he was punished for less than he deserved, was it really a bad thing that he was punished to at least that extent?

    Secondly, if you think that unborn babies do deserve worse than bodily dismemberment, this apparently commits you to the idea that unborn babies deserve to be severely punished, but not for anything they’ve done, and not for anything that they could have avoided. Can you explain how that is just or fair [to severely punish someone, but not for anything they’ve done, and not for anything they could have avoided]? Are you familiar with any other cases in which a person deserves severe punishment and condemnation for things that he has neither done nor could have avoided?

    Margaret writes, “Personally, I don’t think you can compare worldly/physical/temporal punishment with eternal judgment.” Here’s a comparison of the sort Margaret denies: getting spanked is not as bad as getting condemned to eternal suffering in hell. Should we deny this, or should we deny Margaret’s claim that we can’t compare worldly/physical/temporal punishment with eternal judgment?

  12. Scott Klusendorf says:

    Janice, Margaret’s point is a good one. Just because humans stand judicially guilty before God (in virtue of their sin natures and their on-going rebellion) does not mean others can unjustly kill them. God alone will judge humans for their cosmic treason against him. On the point of fairness, again, I think you miss my point. Understood biblically, there are no innocent humans. True, there are humans innocent of doing certain acts, but that does not begin to address the real problem of the human heart. Indeed, the problem is not that I merely do bad things. The problem is that I am bad–by nature–and thus justly deserve God’s wrath. I am part of a rebel race and I inherited a sinful nature from Adam. Good news: Though all humans are federally guilty through Adam, those belonging to Christ are declared righteous through his merits not their own. Thus, through Christ, I don’t get what I deserve.

    I must confess that I still don’t get why you keep raising this question in light of what I’ve already said above. But perhaps I am missing something.

  13. Janice says:


    We should accept the distinction between what God is permitted to do and what people are permitted to do. We ordinarily recognize that only certain designated officials in our society carry the authority to execute justice. But all this is besides the point–since, from the beginning, I have explicitly denied that the argument justifies killing anyone.

    The idea is rather to suppose, for reductio ad absurdum perhaps, that premise #1 is false. In that case, unborn babies deserve far worse than abortion/bodily dismemberment. This naturally doesn’t license just anyone to abort/dismember unborn babies. What it does show, however, is that even if unborn babies are aborted, we can rest assured that they are not receiving anything worse than they deserved. We should view the situation as similar to the situation in which a murdering thug receives a minor wound, but not through the proper channels of the justice system. At the end of the day, the murdering thug in fact deserves far worse and we should not overly concern ourselves with the “tragedy” of his minor wound.

    As I said, you might take this conclusion as a reductio argument against your rejection of premise #1. If, on the other hand, you choose to accept this consequence, then you ought to regard the effort to save unborn babies from abortion as you might regard the effort to save murdering thugs from receiving minor injuries (less than they deserve) in their line of work.

    Moreover, in rejecting premise #1, you have also endorsed the idea that it is right to severely punish unborn babies for things that they haven’t done, and for things that they couldn’t have avoided. This is odd. Thus the question: Are you familiar with any other cases in which a person deserves severe punishment and condemnation for things that he has neither done nor could have avoided?

  14. Janice, From the start, I replied to your question theologically because you raised a theological question regarding Hell. When I say all humans judicially deserve much more than they typically receive here on earth, I am speaking theologically within the context of your original question. You, however, keep jumping to what humans deserve here on earth, which is outside the bounds of your question. Sorry, but that’s the best I can do. I’ll give you the last word.

  15. Janice says:

    Scott, it sounds like you want to draw a distinction between theological truths and non-theological truths. I don’t see why we should accept this. If something is true, theologically or non-theologically, then it is true simpliciter.

    You maintain that unborn babies deserve to suffer eternally for things that they did not do and could not avoid. This is rather striking, as I’ve tried to show. For the sake of consistency and truth, you ought to correct your fellow pro-lifers when they falsely characterize their cause as one of defending the innocent. To this end, you might consider endorsing the following bumper sticker:

    Unborn babies are an abomination to God–they deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment!


    Dr. Tiller was an instrument of God’s wrath upon unborn babies!

    (In case it’s not obvious: the statements in bold are not my views; they instead represent Scott Klusendorf’s position. I draw attention to them only in an attempt to awaken him to the absurdity of his rejection of premise #1.)

  16. Janice (Tony?), I think we’ve had this discussion before and you didn’t accurately express my points then and you aren’t now.

  17. Janice says:

    This is not Tony. If I’ve misrepresented anything, please let us hear what it is. You do believe each of the following, I take it:

    (a) The wrath of God is upon unborn babies.

    (b) Unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

    (c) Unborn babies deserve to suffer eternally for things they neither did nor could have avoided.

  18. Matt Caslow says:

    Janice, (tony),

    How do you know premise 1? What if an abortion is not by dismemberment? Can you substitute 10 year olds for “unborn babies” in premise 1? How about 15 year olds?
    If abortion is in the best interest of babies, is fine for a mother to wish she aborted her dead son since he rejected Jesus Christ and never believed when he got older?


  19. Janice says:

    Hi Matt,

    There are several ways to answer you question about premise #1. You might consider it the case that, if we know anything, we know that an unborn baby does not deserve to be dismembered. (We also know that an unborn baby does not deserve a Nobel Prize.) From that you might infer that an unborn baby does not deserve worse than dismemberment. Alternatively, you might consider it a foundational fact about desert that a person does not deserve to be punished for something that he/she did not do and couldn’t have avoided. Or, you might assume the opposite and see the sorts of absurdities the falsehood of premise #1 implies (if the falsehood of premise #1 isn’t itself obviously absurd). You also might put yourself in the situation of such a unborn baby (this is like when we ask a middle schooler to put himself in the situation of the boy he just teased, so that he might understand why what he did was wrong or unfair):

    Here would be the sum total of your experience. At your own mother’s request, you are violently ripped from her womb, some of your limbs severed. Unwanted, you are then discarded and left to die in the hospital refuse, to be taken out with the hazardous waste. You die, but only to awake in the presence of God, who views you as an abomination. Being informed that you are worthy of eternal condemnation, you spend eternity suffering in hell. (Seriously, try to imagine this.)

    Now, as for you other questions, answered in order:

    If abortion is by some other means, just replace “dismemberment” with that other means, or simply with “abortion”. Nothing really hangs on that.

    The same argument presumably applies to infants, and with decreasing certainty to older children.

    I suppose it might be natural for a mother to wish this. Hell is a terrible place, and one can sympathize with her love. There are certainly worse things to wish. Still, one might conceivable say that she is thus wishing for something that would have conflicted with the revealed will of God–that she not murder. One might then that there is something sinful in such a wish. Still, it’d be understandable; perhaps even beyond blame (but these are trickier distinctions).

  20. Janice says:

    Btw, who is Tony? I’d like to meet him, if indeed we share similar views. Can anyone refer me to related discussions you’ve had with him?

  21. Jay Watts says:


    This will be my one and only comment here so take it for what it is worth and move on. It seems your point frames the discussion in the consequences of a real heaven and a real hell. So your list directly addresses only the Christian world view. But in that world view hell is not just a punishment to be avoided but everlasting life in relation to God is something to be cherished. In that light your list does not make the killing of unborn humans a unique scenario where it is ultimately in your words “in the interest of the victim.” No matter how good any day here in this life is it will pale in comparison to being in the presence of God. So killing any Christian is also in the interest of the victim as it releases them from this world allows them to be free of the struggles associated with this age. In fact, in the frame of beliefs that your list addresses I could conceive of a few instances where we could conceivably say that killing or murdering person A will be in their interest in some form or another. So the point becomes a little less specific and almost trivial. It proves too much.

    But however you calculate the ultimate full interest of any victim or potential victim, a consequentialist or utilitarian exercise that requires a far greater and more informed point of view than any human has the capacity to fully grasp, you acknowledge that it fails to justify the action by the killer or murderer in question. So again, your point seems less than devastating.

    God bless,
    Jay Watts

  22. Janice says:

    Hi Jay,

    One of the values of these threads is that they allow for conversation and interaction. For the learning experience of us all, I’d therefore encourage you post follow up comments.

    The point you make about the argument applying to Christians (adults, let’s say) has several flaws. First, one simply doesn’t know which professing Christians are in fact washed in the blood of the Lamb. Secondly, the case of adults is further complicated by their other interests they have developed. To snatch them midstream from their life projects and relationships may seriously conflict with serious interests of theirs. Now these interests may not override the interest they have in avoiding the risk of eternal suffering, but we’ve already seen why we can’t even be sure of the death of any adult ensuring that. Finally, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to admit the possibility of the unknowable fact that the sudden death of a person is in fact, in some circumstances, in her interest. (Assume, for example, the unknowable fact that, had she lived another day, she would have lost her faith in Christ.)

    As for the other considerations you raise, perhaps they would be clearer (or more clearly relevant) if you referenced the actual argument (which is numbered in order to facilitate such referencing).


  23. Janice says:

    So does anyone see any place in which I have misrepresented Scott Klusendorf’s points? I agree that it sounds like I must be misrepresenting him:

    Klusendorf believes that unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment–that they deserve to be punished and to suffer for all eternity.

    How does one respond to this? What would one say to a man who believes that infant children deserve to be tortured and mutilated? What does it say about the current state of the pro-life movement when one of its prominent leaders believes stuff like this?

  24. Matt Caslow says:


    Seems to me a gross misrepresentation.

  25. Janice says:

    Hi Matt. As I said, it also seems to me that it must be a misrepresentation. But, then, when you re-read the discussion, you find out that this is what Scott Klusendorf is actually saying. And he’s saying it quite explicitly! If you disagree, please pinpoint precisely what is a misrepresentation.

  26. This is the first time i have heard of Scott’s book. I am looking forward to having a read. It is nice to have a collection of pro-life “defence” for people who like to debate the issue.

  27. Anna says:

    great article. I am going to buy this book and equip myself better in pro Life reasoning

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books