But: I'll go you one better -- maybe 2 better: I'll utterly concede that the parable of the wheats a

I'm going to comment on some of Frank Turk's large gift box recent statements about Abolish Human Abortion. Keep in mind that I'm not a member of AHA. And I don't have an in-depth knowledge of AHA. I don't have a fully formed opinion of AHA. 
For example, since 1982, the number of abortion providers has fallen by 37% .  That didn't happen because the pro-life movement large gift box is merely a statement of opinion -- and for anyone to say otherwise is, frankly, sly at best.  The advance of partial-birth abortion laws in this country is a function of pro-life activism; the advance of limiting abortion to prior to the 20th week is a function of pro-life activism. large gift box The problem, of course, is that none of these actions are seen by the folks at AHA as advances: they are seen as some kind of ethical syncretism is which some losses are acceptable for minor gains.  it's not wrong to pass a law to stop immoral acts even though it cannot be enforced 100% and some will still be victims of crime.  Murder is already illegal in our nation - yet people are murdered every day. That doesn't make us immoral people for supporting the laws we already have. So my first complaint against AHA is this: it is utterly unfair toward those who, frankly, share their ultimate goals but see the social  and political methods to achieving the goals as a longer process which takes back the law in steps.  It is unfair to their past accomplishments, and unwise in assessing the moral victories of the pro-life movement.
But I think there is a more-human, more-analogous example in the Bible which the AHA statements overlook: the body of the church.  The church is a holy thing for God (for the sake of the purists, see Eph 5:27 ), but it is also a mixture of wheats and weeds until the end of the final judgment (purists: Mat 13).  In God's view of it, something salvifically-necessary can be, from a human perspective, a mixed bag and still achieve what it is meant to do in this world. So the objection large gift box from concerned citizens in and around AHA is this: The parable in Mat 13 is not about the church, but about the world -- so I am off the reservation.  My objection is nullified.  "WORLD!" OK - first of all, the standard reading of that passage is that Jesus is talking about the church in the world.  If large gift box my reading is flawed, so is the reading of a boat-load of reliable and faithful men from almost every age in church history.
i) If Frank cited the parable of the wheat and tares to prooftext large gift box his objection, and his appeal is exegetically mistaken, then, yes, that does nullify his objection–on his own terms, for that's how he framed his objection.
ii) I'm puzzled by his confident appeal to the history of interpretation. Glancing at my commentaries on Matthew, every commentator I checked (e.g. Craig Blomberg, D. A. Carson, Knox Chamblin, C. A. Evans, R. T. France, Donald Hagner, Craig Keener, Leon Morris, John Nolland, Grant Osborne, Herman Ridderbos, David Turner, Davies/Allison) denies the identification of the "world" with the church in Christ's parable. 
iii) Frank's interpretation is counterintuitive large gift box in another respect. I believe Frank is a Baptist. From what I've read, Baptists typically deny the ecclesiastical interpretation large gift box of this parable. Baptists typically think the visible church ought to approximate the invisible church. The visible church ought to be composed of born-again Christians. A credible profession of faith ought to be a condition of membership. Baptists typically think the ecclesiastical interpretation ("the field"=the church) is used to excuse lax standards of church membership and church discipline.
But: I'll go you one better -- maybe 2 better: I'll utterly concede that the parable of the wheats and tares is a parable about the whole WORLD !  If the whole WORLD is a mixed bag of wheats and tares until the end of the world, and the point of the parable is that God is doing what he's doing and allows there to be a mixed bag, how can God be doing what he means to do in this WORLD ! except by some kind of incremental change?
That said, over the last two days I have been, due to some odd interactions I have had over the last week or so, examining the organization which calls itself "Abolish Human Abortion," or "AHA."  We have covered their version of absolutism , and also their view of being "biblical" about their endeavor , and I find myself left with one other complaint that seems glaringly-obvious to me but maybe not so much to them.
I find that puzzling. If AHA is not as "absolutist" as Frank initially alleged, then that concession weakens his original argument. Far from being "so what," that would be germane to the state of the argument. 
I don't know what that's large gift box supposed to mean? Doesn't the Gospel have authority large gift box in its own right? Independent large gift box authority. Authority because it is true? Authority because Christ mandated the Gospe