The Fourth of July revisited...

(Tim) Just before Dad died, we had dinner together at a restaurant. The occasion was later in the evening after Dad had defended the anti-abortion position (he preferred "anti-abortion" to "pro-life") at a forum on abortion held on the campus of Wheaton College. Some woman whose name escapes me did the pro-baby-slaughter thing--as a Christian, of course. As I recall, Dad was invited after they couldn't find anyone on campus who was willing to take the biblical position.

Dad did an admirable job and I was proud to be his son as we ate together later that night, father and son.

During the meal, I asked Dad what he thought about armed rebellion to end abortion?

He said he didn't think it was right.

I asked, "Why? We celebrate the Fourth of July, which means we endorse armed rebellion to end financial oppression. Wasn't the battle cry of the Revolutionary War, 'No taxation without representation?' Maybe, as Christians, we shouldn't support the Revolutionary War or a war to end abortion. That position would have some consistency. But to celebrate the Fourth of July and oppose armed rebellion to end the slaughter of millions of little babies? I don't get it."

Dad said he didn't agree with me. And that, dear friends, was that.

Comments

[Sam Steinmann]

My father's response was similar.

"Read 'Crime and Punishment' and then I'll explain why."

But I have never managed to read Crime and Punishment, and given my Christian commitments it's a theoretical issue. (No, NO--I do NOT think abortion is OK; I think Christians can't rightly participate in government, the traditional Anabaptist position.)

[Dan Phillips]

FWIW and very tangentially, I just wanted to tell you boys I remember Gooley flying, and the Gospel Blimp. But my favorite was the one after which you've named your blog.

Now you boys and I are in an elite fraternity, aren't we? Thank God for fathers we can be burstingly proud of; may we give our sons that gift.

[Chris Roberts]

One thought.

The Revolutionary War was about people fighting to have a say in government. People now have a say in government, and one thing that we've done with it is create a nation where abortion is legal.

We have what the Revolutionary War sought but amongst all the good things we've done with this country we've done plenty of bad, abortion being pretty high on the list if not at the top.

So why not a revolution now? Because what would we do with it? Put in place another democracy? The majority already support abortion, we would simply go down the same road again. Put a dictatorship of sorts in place? That brings its own host of evils. So in the end, put not your trust in princes. Or in armed rebellion. As we have seen, even rebels with the best of governments in mind will create something that ultimately will bring about a lot of sin. It doesn't matter if Christians set it up or if non-Christians set it up. If humans are involved, it will degenerate.

Not that we should do nothing, just throwing out one thought as to why something like the Revolutionary War might validate a war over abortion.

[Tim Bayly]

>So why not a revolution now? Because what would we do with it? Put in place another democracy? The majority already support abortion, we would simply go down the same road again.

Excellent, Chris. Really helpful.

[RBerman]

As I read "Fair Sunshine," a collection of anecdotes of the Scottish Covenanters who were persecuted (as in tortured and executed) by the British government in the 17th Century, it seemed that their worst moments were those when they took up arms against their oppressors, and their best moments were had by those went to meet their Lord with a prayer for the forgiveness of those who were doing them wrong.

I know that abortion as an example of defending the weak is not exactly in the same boat, but Chris' Scriptural reminder to "put not your trust in princes" remains excellent advice. Perhaps I'm not alone in being convicted how little I pray for the end of abortion.

[Andrew Henry]

Chris and RBerman,
I completely agree with you that we should pray diligently for God to judge our national sin and bring about repentance, but at the same time, I couldn't disagree with you more about what else we should do.

Job says [29:17] "I broke the fangs of the wicked and snatched the victims from their teeth." Job's obedience included him actively fighting against the wicked men around him.

God calls us to do work--real work, and we're also expected to suffer for it.

We can endlessly justify our own inaction by simply pointing to the depravity of man and saying "What's the point... we're just going to sin and mess it all up again."

Why did the reformers bother breaking away from Rome? Why do we bother calling people to repent? Don't we realize that men will always keep sinning? Shouldn't we just ask God to do it all for us?

Trusting in a politician to "end abortion" for us is indeed foolishness. However, I don't think that we should rule out the possibility of an actual armed conflict as being ungodly or unnecessary.

[Ross]

Well, does the history of your country's civil rights movement, and how they went about securing change, provide any insight? (genuinely interested).

[Chris Roberts]

Andrew,

From my comment:

"Not that we should do nothing, just throwing out one thought as to why something like the Revolutionary War might validate a war over abortion."

I said nothing about doing nothing. I believe we should be doing something. My point is that armed revolution is not what we should be doing.

[Mark Chambers]

It doesn't matter if Christians set it up or if non-Christians set it up. If humans are involved, it will degenerate.

Really? Hmm. Are we left then with nothing more than sanctified depravity? What exactly does the transforming power of the Gospel transform? Is Christianity only an internalized experience with no cultural out workings? How does one justify saddling the church with a defeatist and pessimistic eschatology?

I believe we should be doing something.

What? I'm curious.

[Chris Roberts]

Mark,

The only good and lasting things people can do is build the kingdom of God. Grow his church by spreading the gospel and help other believers grow closer to him. All of this is within the context of church. And I don't mean the local church building, I mean the Church, the body of Christ which Christ himself built and which nothing can ever overcome.

I'm a huge supporter of the local church but I realize every local manifestation of the body of Christ is started by humans and as history has shown every church has its problems and failings, periods of faithfulness and of straying. The only thing that lasts is that which God has done and that which God is doing. The only transformation that "sticks" is when God transforms a life.

As for what we need to be doing about abortion? I'd suggest a few things. One of them RBerman mentioned: Pray. Pray for political leaders, pray for women considering abortion, pray for our own children, pray for the unborn.
We can also educate. I know this is the liberal mantra, but I don't mean quite the same thing. Teach our young people the value and sanctity of all life, even the unborn. Teach them abstinence. Teach them about alternatives to abortion. Teach them just how horrible abortion really is.
We can also provide those alternatives. Fund crisis pregnancy centers. Find ways to put pregnant women together with couples that want children. Provide support for women who decide not to have an abortion.
We can also demonstrate. I'm not as fond of this option but I'm not sure that it is a bad one. I know my own hero, John Piper, has spent time in jail for demonstrating at abortion clinics.

I am sure many other good suggestions could be added to this list but that is what comes to mind.

[Tim Bayly]

What I found helpful about the comment Chris made was his question, what sort of government would we set up if there was a change in government? I believe in taking everything captive to our Lord, but that leaves his question, doesn't it?

What sort of government would dereconstructionists want?

Further, I've always believed the real problem isn't that believers aren't active in cultural reform, although we're pathetic in it and certainly one of the chief liabilities in that work among reformed men is the equivalent to evangelical pietism known as the spirituality of the church, but the refusal of pastors to preach to the sins of our congregations, specifically.

We're more likely to preach against the sins "out there" than to let judgment begin in the House of God.

[Mark Chambers]

I'm a huge supporter of the local church but I realize every local manifestation of the body of Christ is started by humans and as history has shown every church has its problems and failings, periods of faithfulness and of straying. The only thing that lasts is that which God has done and that which God is doing. The only transformation that "sticks" is when God transforms a life.

I’m trying to wrap my arms around what you’re saying. God transforms lives and that transformation sticks. Indeed. And I understand what you’re saying when you say that every local body of Christ is started by humans but I’m not at all sure I can agree with that, at least without some qualification. The church is certainly comprised of humans but it is not a human institution. That aside, any local body of Christ is a community of transformed lives and to the extent that they are obedient they are the arms and legs and mouth of Christ in this world. Christ is present in this world through the church. Can transformed lives, those who take every though captive to the obedience of Christ, fail to transform everything they touch if for no other reason than that they are themselves transformed? It seems to me that you’ve limited the transforming work of the Gospel, at least insofar as what the church may effect, to personal transformation by suggesting that every thing else it does degenerates and that necessarily. I don’t understand that type of compartmentalization. The redemptive work of Christ is comprehensive. He is the Savior of the world. Through Christ God has reconciled all things to Himself. 1Cor 1:20 and 2Cor 5:18,19. The only thing that keeps the church from once again changing the face of the planet is the idea that we can’t.

Oh yes we can and so we should.

[Mark Chambers]

What sort of government would dereconstructionists want?

I don't know what a de-reconstructionist is. Is that a typo?

[RBerman]

Well, dis-establishmentarians were those who thought the government should stop funding("establishing") the Anglican church and choosing its leaders, and anti-disestablishmentarians (one of the longest words in the English language) were those who were against that idea. So I suppose de-Reconstructionists are those who take substantial issue with some aspect of the Reconstructionist outlook and agenda. Alas, that doesn't make an unusually long word, though it would be a little longer if we went with "Anti-Reconstructionarianism."

[Sue McKeown]

Some comments from the distaff side...

(1) IMHO, some of Chris's suggestions are right on, especially since my husband and I watched Amazing Grace (the story of William Wilberforce) last night. He became willing to give it his all to abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire after what I assume was his nominal Christianity was transformed into an encounter with the living God. Most of his fellow travelers in the movie were also devout Christians and they did a lot to win hearts and minds of the British islanders, (including members of the British House of Commons) by educating Britons about the horror of slavery, the inhumane journey (and high death rate) slaves took from Africa to their ultimate destination and much more. It took them many years, but they finally prevailed.

(2) I see no problem with picketing at abortion clinics as long as local laws are followed and women entering the clinic are treated with compassion instead of disgust. And as a former pastor of mine said, how many picketers pay attention to the women who leave the clinic after their abortion ... most are probably grieving but trying hard not to show it. (He wasn't casting aspersions on the great aftercare programs that many crisis pregnancy centers offer, but just saying that approaching a woman right after her abortion meant that pro-life people cared for her as much after the abortion as before and had a window of opportunity to make contact with her that may not ever be available again.)

(3) Armed rebellion seems too extreme to me in our present condition, but there has to be more than just picketing if laws change to force abortions on women, such as those who aren't able to support their babies (like my pregnant niece who just finished her sophomore year of high school, those who carry babies with birth defects that are compatible with life(e.g., Down syndrome), or those who are over the age when a pregnancy would be risky).

Much more than my .02,

Sue

[Tim Bayly]

>So I suppose de-Reconstructionists are those who take substantial issue with some aspect of the Reconstructionist outlook and agenda

Actually, that's the opposite of what I meant. Maybe I should have written redecontructionists. Or more simply, those who a return to the cultural mandate, repairing the ruins left by the anabaptist/spirituality of the church consortium.

[Craig French]

This post reminded me of my old OPC church. We had a different sort of Sunday school a few years back...on the occassion of the execution of Paul Hill, my pastor relayed the story and opened the class up for discussion...person after person said how wicked Paul Hill had been for killing those abortionists.

After listening to a few people, my mind changed...I'm not sure I'd classify his actions as murder as he was preventing premeditated murder...

When my turn came (I was last to speak), I said I can't condemn Paul Hill's actions...I can no longer ask "Why did he feel he was justified?"...I now have to ask myself, "Why not?"

[David Gray]

>I can no longer ask "Why did he feel he was justified?"...I now have to ask myself, "Why not?"

Because he took authority upon himself that God did not give him.

[Craig French]

Because he took authority upon himself that God did not give him.

That's what I tell myself...but it's a hard time convincing.

If abortion is premeditated murder, then how would you describe the person who puts himself between the attacker and the victim?

A person who places himself in the seat of judge, jury and executioner is usurping God ordained authority...but if he is neither the judge, nor an executor, but a protector...then we're really looking at a different picture.

I hear you, though...really, I do.

[David L.]

David Gray,

Do you say the same thing about Bonhoeffer?

[Rachel Pierson]

Sue,

Thank you for those challenging comments. We (who stand at Planned Parenthood on Thursdays in Bloomington) have been contemplating how to get SOMEBODY to be there when the women come out. I was off the hook because I go on my break. I only have an hour, and I feel so inadequate. I don't know what I would say.

But we knew that someone should go.

After reading your comment this morning, I thought of all of this.

I realized that my breaktime is flexible. I also remembered the tremendous inadequacy I felt when I started going down there. I still feel that way, especially when I am leaning on my own words, and depending on the visible results.

If God calls us to act, He will enable us. This week, I will go when I usually do. Next week Glen and I will be on vacation. The following Thursday, with Glen's permission, I will spend the day there. We will be back in town, and I will be able to see what sort of activity there is at different times of the day. After that, I can adjust my break time with my boss's consent.

Again, I appreciate the admonition.

Together with you all, in His service,
Rachel

[Keith LaMothe]

Tim,

Thank you for your boldness to post such a thing in an era where much less could get you blacklisted by some rather well-funded federal agencies with guns. This is one question where the answer is probably the less-controversial one but nonetheless needs to be discussed. It's not obvious. When 25% (*) of each generation is being murdered, not much IS obvious.

(*) - statistic inferred from other statistics, therefore probably inaccurate; does anyone know the real % in the US? How about various countries in Europe/elsewhere?

Let me ask you this: You're in a hospital room and the person who just walked in is here to perform an abortion, what do you do? Do you use physical restraint and (if necessary) violence to prevent the murder? Why/why not?

Blessings,
Keith

[Michael McMillan]

> Because he [Paul Hill] took authority upon himself that God did not give him.

Exactly what the American revolutionaries did! They killed people (and were killed) over taxes and their "rights." I see no biblical justification for the Revolution, despite all the patriotic hype, even in churches. If there was justification to rebel against the king then, then there is even more justification for revolt now. They didn't have the government forcing sodomy on them, trying to remove God from public life, abortion, trying to criminalize homeschooling, etc.

Secession would be the best thing, if it were possible. States should be able to choose to keep sodomy, abortion (and other things) illegal without federal tyranny. But secession was tried peacefully before...

Anyway, I'm sure the Roman government and society was very depraved and murderous, and we don't hear any admonitions in Scripture to resort to violence against them. Little good it would have done them -- same as today. As someone has implied, the majority of society has already been won over to the pagan position. We are a despised minority again.

> armed rebellion to end abortion

Who exactly would we fight, and how? We don't have any B-1 bombers or tanks, so it would be a bit pointless. Something that would hurt local abortionists economically would do more than taking on the government which guarantees this "right."

[Tim Bayly]

>Let me ask you this: You're in a hospital room and the person who just walked in is here to perform an abortion, what do you do? Do you use physical restraint and (if necessary) violence to prevent the murder? Why/why not?

Once, I was visiting an ICU for babies, most of whom were smaller and younger than you could even imagine, and I asked one of the nurses caring for these children this question: "If you saw a man pointing a gun at one of these babies, you knew he was about to kill him, and you had a gun yourself, would you shoot him to protect the baby?"

"Yes," she said.

Likely the lab technicians would, too. And the doctors and the housekeepers and the hospital administrators and chaplains and the security officers... And if there were time and the nurse called 911, I'll bet the police officers would. Maybe even the state senators and governor. If a pastor was there visiting and he was PCA, maybe he would dare to do violence to save a life.

I hope I would. Maybe it would do to shoot him in the leg, taking the opportunity to wrest the gun from his hand?

* * *

By the way, a philosopher posted a link to this comment reporting this by way of introduction:

>Presbyterian pastor says he would shoot abortion doctors if he was in a hospital where they were performing abortions. (”Maybe it would do to shoot him in the leg, taking the opportunity to wrest the gun from his hand?”)

Two points. First, I have never said I would use violence to stop abortion. I may be wrong in this, but it's a simple statement of fact. Second, even here in the recounting of a matter involving newborns babies and an intended murder, I have not said I would shoot the one intending murder, but rather that I *hope* I would. There's a difference.

Words have meanings, or ought to--particularly to philosophers.

[Clint Mahoney]

I have thought about the armed rebellion thing. I think it's sad that we never even consider standing up such a way but despite my libertarian leanings I think we can't become Christian Humanists who side with atheists in thinking government will solve our problems. We have to act but never let our work be done without trusting God in constant prayer.

I have grounded friend who's a big fan of Rushdoony who votes straight libertarian yet thinks the states should be theocracies which would take care of issues such as abortion. I can't see it ever working but he's also post-millenial so I guess that's why we disagree.

Personally, I do wish for and work to bring us back to a constitutional government then I would move to a state where abortion had been outlawed and it would truly be a different place. Also a place without seatbelt laws and the infinite other laws which pressure people to keep their families small.

Though the change will have to come from Christians who truly live their faith.

Paul Hill is a difficult topic for me, I have stood outside of Planned Parenthood and wanted to attack the abortionists. I recently saw a movie called Lake of Fire which I think didn't represent either side well but it did make me remember how the world views the anti-abortion movement. I don't think Hill's the way to go but I know how Hill felt, I know it far too well. I'll be leaving here in a little while to speak to couples considering abortion at PP, sometimes I can't stand it, I get so angry at the staff there that I have to leave (like this past Thursday). I get so tired of stony hearts, I often just close my mouth and pray.

Here in Bloomington we're soon going to start speaking to the women who come out of PP, we recently began speaking to the women and couples on Mondays before they make their appointments.

One thing we need a lot more of is people willing to stand up for the unborn. We had a 4th of July float for our pro-life group which represents seven local churches - hardly anyone showed up. Also, I feel more inadequate at PP than anyone because the issue hits way too close to home for me but we have got to go and realize the evil in this Nation, let God worry about the words and results. This past Thursday I ended up almost yelling at the cop who guards the abortionists from our horrible loving comments, "I don't care [that you won't listen] you're going to hear the truth as long as I'm here" I don't think my arrogance glorifies God but if I pray and speak truth it does - no matter how foolish I sound to the world. I'm the only one who ever gets angry there we never even begin to raise our voices but we're the crazy people who stand outside while they kill their children.

Even if people just come and pray and witness what's happening there it is so helpful. But people fear that place - I almost think it's because many people in our churches have had abortions and are hiding them and can't face it.

-Clint

[Mark Chambers]

Hi Clint,

There is a lot to agree with in your comments above, but there are some inconsistencies as well. I’ll touch on a couple of them.

I have grounded friend who's a big fan of Rushdoony who votes straight libertarian yet thinks the states should be theocracies which would take care of issues such as abortion. I can't see it ever working but he's also post-millenial so I guess that's why we disagree.

Well I don’t know your friend, but if he actually understands Rushdoony what he is advocating is a government that is Theonomic, not Theocratic. A government that is Theonomic is, quite simply, one that is based on God’s Law. There is a good deal more that could be said but I’ll leave it there.

Personally, I do wish for and work to bring us back to a constitutional government then I would move to a state where abortion had been outlawed and it would truly be a different place.

But aren't you wishing for what you concede you can't have? What guarantee is there that a libertarian government would outlaw abortion? A constitutional government is only as good as the law upon which it is based. And a libertarian is just as likely (perhaps even more likely) to find Randian objectivism the basis for a suitable ethic.

The only law that is righteous, and therefore the only law that is truly legitimate, is God’s law. There are only two choices here; Theonomy or autonomy. But Theonomy has been rejected out of hand (“I can’t see it ever working”) and so you're left hoping for some secular expression of law that honors God and man as his image. But that is something that can never happen. You are either for Me or against Me.

Though the change will have to come from Christians who truly live their faith.

Oh yes indeed it will at that.

Peace

[ck]

Rev. Bayly, I've updated the link per your request, so you can update your comment if you see fit.

And yes, words have meanings. I quoted yours verbatim in response to a question about whether you would shoot an abortion doctor if you thought it necessary. You were asked a question and rather than answer it directly ("Yes"/"No" then, why or why not), you gave a parallel situation.

If your intention was not to imply that you might hope to defend an innocent life by preventative violence, then why the story? As you say, "I have never said I would use violence to stop abortion" - have you ever said "I would never use violence to stop abortion"?

Words have meanings.

[Clint Mahoney]

Mark,

It's surely me who doesn't understand Rushdoony because though I'd like to, I've never read him. My comments about my friend were not to imply continuity I don't know if they are - I just know what my friend describes sounds like theocracy.

As far as I go, I don't have a lot of hope that things will change through politics but I think we're called to use all means at our disposal, by constitutional government I really just mean state's rights. I would happily move to a state that among other things was pro-life. I think God would bless such a state.

I'm not libertarian, I just think many of us have a common enemy in big government but there are too many libertarians that take their idolatry of the individual to horrifying lengths, some libertarians would support Armin Meiwes and other monsters in the name of property rights. Have you heard that Anjolina Jole is playing Taggart in Atlas Shrugged (2009)? And no, Objectivism is
not for me, it seems to be the opposite of biblical Christianity.

[Clint Mahoney]

BTW, apparently Armin Meiwes is for the Green Party and is now a vegetarian. That should mean that he would have the approval of Bloomington City Council. Go Nader 2008! I'm sure Meiwes doesn't smoke either - after all, second hand smoke hurts others. He's a good guy.