"Christians can't just go around killing people! We must do this legally!" That's the mantra, or something like it. They seem to think the more violent element within the anti-abortion movement are poorly thought out and rest on nothing more than blood-thirst and anger.
Think about it for a minute: If abortion is murder, and we are killing over 1 million babies a year...then we are talking about legalized mass murder...we're talking more deaths than previous genocides. This isn't at all like killing when authorities tell you not to preach the gospel. In those cases, it's clear: you preach the gospel and trust God.
But what do you do when you see a man ruthlessly beating another to death? What is our duty when it comes to protecting our neighbor? Is God please with the faith of Cain which says "Am I my brother's keeper?" This is the point those in favor of using force argue...it's not terrorism. It's actually principled in some cases. Take Paul Hill for example. Hill took the life of abortionist John Britton in 1994. He did not consider himself a vigilante. In fact, he wrote about his reasoning in "Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn". You can read the full text online. Here's a snippet of his reasoning:
Not only does the Moral Law require the means necessary for defending the innocent, this duty comes directly from God, and cannot be removed by any human government. The duty to defend your own or your neighbor's child, thus, is inalienable. When the government forbids this defense, the people “. . .must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). The Scriptures teach that when the government requires a sin of omission (as it has by forbidding the defense of our unborn children), we must obey God rather than the government. As aDoes this sound stark-ravingly mad?
consequence, you do not need the state's permission before defending your unborn child. No man-made law can remove the individual's duty to defend his own or his neighbor's child.
Now consider the irony of immediately judging a man accused (not actually convicted) of murder on the basis of said individual "taking the law into his own hands" and acting lawlessly. Remember, we don't know much of anything other than that Tiller is dead..seems a bit inconsistent, doesn't it?
4 comments:
We don't read in history about the early Christians who avenged the deaths of the exposed babies of the roman world. (or the abortionists at that time as I believe that the procedure existed even then).
Were you thinking I was advocating killing abortionists?
I kind of thought you were, but if your point is just that these weren't crazed irrational lunes, I guess not necessarily.
I'm not sure that I understood your last paragraph either.
I'm not advocating killing abortionists...but I am pointing out that the pro-lifers trying to "save face" rarely understand the reasoning advocates of force use (like Paul Hill).
Leaders in the pro-life movement get on their pedestal, offer a self-righteous tirade with the end of self-preservation in mind. They use arguments against abortion that seem to call for violent action...then they blush and distance themselves from it when it happens.
My final paragraph was pointing out the inconsistency of people to start condemning men before they've had their day in court...the irony is that pro-lifers opposed to violence are opposed on the faulty notion that those who use force are "taking the law into their own hands"...meanwhile, "peaceful" pro-lifers are functioning on the very principle they think they're opposing...they act as if they are jury and judge.
Post a Comment