The Myth of Incrementalism
A man who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day and cuts back to one hasn’t quit smoking. He hasn’t “partially quit.” He is simply a man who smokes one pack a day. The reduction may feel like progress, but it is not the same thing as quitting.
This is the problem with incrementalism. It claims to be a cautious pathway toward obedience, but in reality, every act is immediate. You cannot “partially” do a thing — you can only do it, or not do it. Incrementalism, therefore, is not “slow obedience.” It is immediatism pointed at the wrong object.
All Action Is Immediate
Human beings never act incrementally in the moment. Every action we take is full and immediate. You speak a word; you don’t “partially” speak it. You take a step; you don’t “sort of” walk. You sign a law; you don’t “kind of” sign it.
The illusion of incrementalism comes after the fact, when we describe a series of immediate actions as though they were fractions of the whole. But each one was complete in itself. Cutting down smoking is not a “fraction of quitting” — it is its own complete action: smoking less.
The Category Error of Incrementalism
Incrementalism depends on a category mistake. It pretends that doing something else is a partial form of the commanded act. But regulating is not abolishing. Reducing is not ceasing. Delaying is not obeying.
When a state passes a law to regulate abortion, that law is an immediate act. But it is not abolition. It is a different act altogether: an act of regulation and compromise. To call it “a step toward” abolition is to disguise its true nature and prop up delusion.
Immediate, But Wrong
Here is the heart of the matter: incrementalism is not non-action. It is action — immediate, decisive, concrete. But it is action in the wrong direction.
Every incremental measure is immediatism, but immediatism of disobedience. It takes the energy that should be directed toward doing right and directs it instead toward doing something else. It substitutes, delays, and redefines. And then it cloaks itself with the illusion of progress.
Immediatism Isn’t Overnightism
When the terms “incrementalism” and “immediatism” are used in debates about abolition, people often assume they describe a matter of timing. Incrementalism sounds like “slow and steady,” while immediatism sounds like “instant results.” That framing misses the point entirely. The difference is not about how quickly change occurs but about the end toward which each approach moves. Immediatism does not claim that a great evil will vanish overnight. It recognizes the reality of decades-long struggle, political resistance, and cultural inertia. What it insists on is this: justice is always binding, and therefore must always be demanded in full.
An immediatist posture says, “This is wrong, and it must end—not tomorrow, not in stages, but now.” That demand may take decades to achieve in practice. But the goal never changes, and the demand never wavers. Incrementalism, by contrast, does more than recognize time. It alters the end itself—because every incremental step is an immediate and complete act, an immediate act of disobedience. Instead of declaring that abortion (or slavery, or any other injustice) is inherently and totally wrong, it proposes partial goals—steps that may even entrench injustice under the guise of progress. Where immediatism marches toward a fixed telos, incrementalism redefines the destination to appear more “achievable.” The issue is not speed but faithfulness.
God Does Not Accept Substitutes
Throughout Scripture, God makes clear that He does not accept “partial obedience.”
Consider Saul in 1 Samuel 15. The command was unmistakable:
“Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
— 1 Samuel 15:3, NKJV
Instead, Saul spared King Agag and kept the best of the livestock, claiming it was for sacrifice. When Samuel confronted him, Saul insisted, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me” (v.20). But Samuel replied:
“Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He also has rejected you from being king.”
— 1 Samuel 15:22–23, NKJV
What Saul called obedience, God called rebellion. His “partial obedience” was, in fact, immediate disobedience.
Israel fell into the same trap during the conquest of Canaan. God had commanded them to drive out the inhabitants of the land completely (Deuteronomy 7:1–2). But Judges records:
“However, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages… nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; so the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. Nor did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron… nor did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Acco… nor did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh…”
— Judges 1:27–33, NKJV
The tribes settled for compromise, allowing the nations to remain. Judges 2 explains the result:
“Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: ‘I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, “I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.” But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this?’”
— Judges 2:1–2, NKJV
What the people considered “enough,” God condemned as disobedience. Their delay and compromise became thorns in their side for generations (Judges 2:3).
God’s commands imply immediacy, because you either obey them or you don’t. He does not honor delay disguised as strategy, or substitutes baptized as progress. He does not recognize “steps toward” obedience when those steps are themselves contrary acts.
Application to Abolition
The command “You shall not murder” is immediate. Abolition is immediate. There is no such thing as partial abolition.
An “incremental bill” that regulates murder is not a fraction of abolition. It is abolition’s opposite. It is an immediate act of compromise, dressed up as progress. Incrementalism is therefore not merely unhelpful — it is rebellion. It is immediatism applied to the wrong thing.
Choose Your Immediacy
All action is immediate. The question is never whether we will be immediate, but what we will be immediate about.
Incrementalism is a myth because it pretends to be partial obedience when it is, in fact, immediate disobedience. It is not half a step toward righteousness, but a full step toward compromise.
We are left with only two choices: to be immediately obedient, or to be immediately disobedient. There is no third category. Which will you choose today, obedience or disobedience?
