It’s easier to attack the Bible’s defenders than the Bible

It must have something to do with the article I posted: “Numbers USA’s Bible study doesn’t quote the Bible”. Number’s USA’s article had claimed the Bible is on the side of restricting legal immigration. It quoted an “evangelical leader” whose website on the subject likewise didn’t quote a single verse on the subject.

I imagine Krikorian found it fairly hard to attack God’s authority to speak on a subject for which His support is alleged, so Krikorian picked the much more vulnerable target: me.

By Dave Leach – reposted April 29, 2018. Originally posted January 4, 2014 at

I, likewise, find myself on much shakier ground defending myself, than defending God, so I would like to get the focus back on God. It certainly isn’t contributing to national understanding of our immigration chaos, to divert attention from the merits of my argument that God’s credentials are strong enough to merit national attention, to the merits of my credentials.

Tweet screenshot::

Mark Krikorian, who heads NumbersUSA, argues that Dave Leach is not spiritually qualified to notice that Mark didn’t quote a single Bible verse in support of his claim that God agrees with him.

It took some study to figure out he was talking about me, by referring to a “Bible expert”, but a later tweet named me. And not any ordinary “Bible expert”, but the resident “Bible expert” of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. I hadn’t been told I had that title, until I heard it from Krikorian. I don’t care if Krikorian was being sarcastic: I’m going to frame it and hang it with my diplomas. I lot of people know a lot more about the Bible than I do, but few are as willing to talk about in verboten forums as I am.

Even after I realized he was talking about me, I still didn’t know if he meant to trash my credentials as a Bible expert by exposing my prolife extremism, or to trash my credentials as a prolife extremist by exposing my Bible expertise.

Krikorian’s tweet was immediate! He must have an alarm that goes off when CafeConLecheRepublicans posts an article, and a fireman’s pole to jump on and slide down to his twitter keyboard. I don’t see a date on the twitter image, but this is only the second day after I posted the article he blasts.

Krikorian didn’t respond to any of the Scriptures missing from his claim that God agrees with his immigration agenda; not with even one verse. And not even with any reasoning at all that attacks anything I said.

He answered with a tweet! A 140-character tweet! (Twitter expanded to 280 in 2017.) What can you do in 140 characters?

You can do a “personal attack”. Krikorian said in effect that because newspapers have trashed my reputation over legal briefs that I have written for prolifers, nothing I say about the Bible on any subject can be worth listening to! 

The two tweets rely on a Wikipedia article about me to document how trashed my reputation is. The Bible says it is scandalous to judge a man without first listening to his defense, which is precisely what Wikipedia does with its policy that I am not allowed to correct the article about me, with a limited and discouraged exception [which I don’t believe was available in 2014].

Proverbs 18:13  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Not allowing me to respond fully to mischaracterizations of my positions is what Wikipedia calls balanced. If I were allowed to respond then the article would be “autobiographical”. Wikipedia wants articles to be “objective”. What Wikipedia calls “objective”, God calls “folly and shame”.

Well, getting back to the Bible, which I see we must do over Krikorian’s vehement objection: is that a Biblical reason not to listen to somebody?  What would that reasoning do to the Great Commission – “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel…” Mark 16:15? God wants stinking humans to represent Him!  The best of us lowly humans has a lousy reputation next to God’s! 

Does any other religion reveal God as willing to risk His reputation by associating with mere humans? Does any other religion claim that God is exalted when He is introduced by mere men?

Col 3:17  And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
Psa 22:3  But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Nothing thrills me more than the opportunity to share with someone the treasure God offers us in His fellowship and in His Word.

But if God were thinking about His own reputation he wouldn’t allow, much less command, me, or any other human, to tell people about Him. He would do it Himself to make sure His story was told right.

Especially me! I don’t exactly have the kind of credentials that will make those who listen to me think “Wow! If God is anything like Dave, I’m impressed!”

And yet God even chooses losers like me to represent Him!

James 2:5  Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Didn’t God choose poor people in the world to become rich in faith and to receive the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? (GW)

1 Corinthians 1:21  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching [by humans!] to save them that believe. 22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24  But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26  For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29  That no flesh should glory in his presence.

God did several things to make crystal clear that there is no one unworthy of our attention.

When He came to us, He didn’t come as an expert, an authority, a king, or even a priest, but as the dregs of society who couldn’t even afford a bed to be born on, and right away as a fugitive from “the law” in Israel and a refugee in Egypt.

The most righteous king in Israel’s history (2 Kings 23:25) died (2 Chronicles 35:24) because he did not obey the Word of the Lord  through perhaps God’s least likely spokesperson, (2 Chronicles 35:22) Pharaoh-Necho of Egypt.

Considering God Himself is not too “high and mighty” to listen to our ideas, and even alter His plans to accommodate our prayers, (Exodus 32:9-14, Matthew 15:22-28) how dare we consider ourselves too much better than another man to bother listening to him?

My hope, in writing about restrictionists who allege Bible support without quoting a single verse, is to draw attention to God, not to myself. Although I am encouraged that my critics think they have to lie about me to make me look bad – apparently they are afraid that if they told the truth about me they would make me look good – I know enough truth about myself to find much more fulfillment in looking to God. I wholeheartedly believe it is looking to God that will make America strong and happy again, and heal her festering cancers.

I grieve, for America’s sake, that it should be a call to treat the Bible as a source of pure wisdom instead of as an automatic imprimatur of anyone willing to name it, that would trigger a “shoot the messenger” campaign. Although for my sake, I rejoice that if I must be the target of hostile attention, it is for honoring God.

No doubt Krikorian does not think he targeted me for honoring God. He thinks he targeted me for dishonoring God by associating myself with an outlandish position on abortion while also identifying myself as a believer of the Bible. What he may not know is that most of the news reports about my position on abortion were deliberate perversions of what I told reporters.

Of course he could have easily found out. You might think from reading news stories that all I know is a few crazy sentences. But I have a comprehensive explanation at  (See video .) My own website  has a section on abortion. It includes an overview  of the legal green light for a state legislature to outlaw abortion, and of my own legal credentials. It includes a “Trial by Jury” hilarious explanation  of how courts have given prolifers only the appearance of their right to trial by jury.

At my Youtube channel  I have a 3-part explanation. Part 1  summary: “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 legally recognized all unborn babies “at all stages of development” as human beings. Roe v. Wade said babies who are “legally recognizable” as humans are “persons” whose right to life must be protected by states. Since 2004, the case that can trigger Roe’s “collapse” clause got a lot less controversial.” Part 2 summary: “The Necessity Defense invites a jury to weigh whether the harm prevented (abortion) by the defendant outweighs whatever harm was necessary to prevent it. The problem was that someone has to interrupt abortion in order to argue the defense in court, and a foolish Congress in 1992 made shooting the least violent way to interrupt abortion.” Part 3  summary: “Why state supreme court rulings were irrational, that applying the Necessity Defense to stopping abortion was irrational.”

Endorsements of my legal abilities are from criminal trial author Stephen Singular, Personhood USA board member Chet Gallagher, and regarding immigration law, immigration attorney Michael Said. (His endorsement concludes my hour long radio interview with him. It is at 53 minutes and 25 seconds, and lasts 30 seconds.)  You can watch my interview with Judge Roy Moore, with my analysis.

My statements have not been about what I wanted to happen, or about what I encouraged, or “advocated”, that anyone do. I have never encouraged anyone, publicly or personally, to take violent action to prevent abortion. I have explained the defenses in law that should be available to those who do. I analyzed, publicly, defenses in American law.

Lawyers do that all the time and are not accused of advocating murder for describing a defense available to a murderer. But that is what they accuse me of, perhaps because I have also quoted Scriptures that support those American legal defenses – in fact, the Scriptures upon which those legal defenses were undoubtedly based. My goal has been to press courts and lawmakers to acknowledge these defenses, and act on their implications, ending abortion without the need of any more bloodshed of either the unborn or the born.

What Krikorian does know is that his “shoot the messenger” campaign was his response to my appeal to treat the Bible as an authority instead of as a loyal, uncritical dog. His response was not on the merits. He did not respond “well, here are several specific verses in support of restrictionism”. He did not respond “Good point. Let’s have a serious debate on what the Bible really does say.” He responded in effect “you aren’t worthy to quote the Bible in public.”

Talk about glass houses! Does Krikorian, whose audience is conservatives who are mostly prolife Bible believers, really want any more attention on the contrast between a committed prolifer like me, and himself, who heads an organization founded by a Planned Barrenhood executive?

To seriously address Krikorian’s facetious accusation: No, I don’t want abortionists killed; I don’t want unborn babies killed; I don’t want immigration restrictionists killed, whether prolife or like himself; and I don’t want any more immigrants killed by the cruel and shooting-yourself-in-the-foot policies of restrictionists like himself.

Also, I don’t want America to fail. I want to spare America the terrible economic consequences of slaughtering 60 million future young taxpayers. That is how many we need to wipe out our national deficit, and that is how many are willing to come help us, if our hearts will soften enough to allow them. That can save America, in the short term. Repealing abortion can save us, in the long term.

2 Replies to “It’s easier to attack the Bible’s defenders than the Bible”

Leave a Reply