Posted on 02/05/2010 1:47:12 PM PST by presidio9
This past Friday, Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison for last May’s shooting death of George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who performed partial-birth abortions. Tiller was a doctor only in the legal sense of the word. He was not a healer, but a killer—a callous monster who could hold a baby in his hands as the child emerged from the mother, puncture its skull, and suck its brains out. Tiller was a mass murderer, though the unjust laws that govern that practice in America sanctioned his butchery.
It does not follow, however, that Roeder was justified in what he did, as almost every Christian opponent of abortion would agree. Nonetheless, is there any opponent of abortion who has not asked himself, “If I truly believe this is murder and that these abortionists are mass murderers, why do I not put actions to words and physically stop them, even kill them, sacrificing myself for these helpless innocents?” But having explored that train of thought, we have all (but for a tiny handful) pulled back from it. Why? Is it just cowardice and hypocrisy? Or do we sense intuitively the ungodliness of that course?
I find that evangelicals, like most Americans, are divided within themselves on this question. Our political heritage is one of rebellion and self-assertion, and yet also one of law governance. At its heart, this is a question of authority, submission, and trusting God.
The reason for rejecting the final premise in the argument for assassinating abortionists is a theological one that is clearly stated in Scripture. It is found in Romans 13:1-5:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
In short, it is not the place of private individuals to execute justice. God has established governments, and He has entrusted that responsibility to them and to them only. You are no more justified in killing abortionists who practice their hideous trade under the cover of law than you are to gun down your daughter’s killer after a corrupt or incompetent legal system failed to convict him.
Each semester, I confront my students with this teaching, and invariably they bristle. Should a people not rebel against an unjust government, or even a murderous one? What about genocide? What about Hitler? I tell them that they are expressing utilitarian ethical views, not Christian ones. Never mind what God says. That’s so unclear, especially when we’re confronted with strong moral passions. Isn’t it clear enough that if there is evil happening, and the appropriate government is not stopping it (if there is an overseeing government), then anyone who is willing and able to step forward and get the job done should do so? As Scott Roeder said, “If someone did not stop [Tiller], these babies were going to continue to die.” Or I suggest that they are simply distrusting of God. What ought to be done is obvious. Kill Hitler or the abortionist before either of them kills again. If God will not act, I must push Him from his throne and do it myself.
If a private individual is justified in assassinating Hitler because Hitler is obviously evil and undeserving of the civil magistracy, then would that moral liberty have extended also to someone who was equally convinced that George W. Bush was a usurper of power and a war criminal? I suspect that those who would believe it their moral obligation to fire off a round at Hitler from a crowd, given the opportunity, would have recoiled at the notion of encouraging their angry left-wing neighbors to follow through on their moral convictions and attempt to fell President Bush by whatever violent means seemed most likely to succeed.
After Roeder was convicted, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Advocates for abortion rights praised the verdict.” Christians can and should (and many do) also praise the verdict as God’s just judgment faithfully pronounced. With uncompromising hatred for the evil of abortion, we can say boldly that God did not entrust the power of the sword into the hands of every individual for use when we are really, really sure and deeply appalled, but solely into the hands of the civil magistrate.
Well, during the Puritan revolution of 1640, they talked about a “world turned upside down.” I think we have the same problem today.
If you went into an abortion clinic to stop abortions from taking place, you would be arrested and jailed for trespassing. In fact some of the early clinic protestors did exactly that, but it didn’t work.
If you somehow were standing in the operating room, as I imagined earlier, and you saw Dr. Tiller about to stick a pair of scissors into a baby’s head, you might stop that killing by wrestling him to the ground and calling the police. But unlike the case where you wrestled a thief to the ground who was about to kill your neighbor, the police would come and arrest you for trespassing and assault.
The problem, of course, is that Roe v. Wade turned our world upside down. None of the usual rules apply. The best thing would be to reverse that decision, and pro-lifers have been working on that for decades. In some ways they are winning the battle of public opinion, and closing abortion clinics down as people grow disgusted with them. But they are not being helped by the law. They are being impeded and sometimes abused by the law.
Roe v. Wade is right at the heart of the ideological war that is tearing our country apart and making consensus between right and left virtually impossible. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, not long ago, that maybe Roe v. Wade was a mistake, because instead of settling the matter it has raised divisions that refuse to lie down and go away. Indeed, they will never go away while that is the law of our land.
What to do? Somehow, we have to reverse and vacate that decision, or our country cannot survive as it once was.
Good question. Lawlessness is not good anywhere. Tiller's killer acted in a lawless manner and according to our laws he is considered no better. But then again, the law that allows for aborting babies in the womb is child murder and is in itself lawless.
When the Constitution is not protected, it is essentially useless. When there is a law on the books supporting a woman's right to secure the murder of her baby, the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in grave danger, if not nullified.
So, it would be safe to assume that the USSC is in the process of being overthrown and the old laws are struggling to be recognized by competent authority.
What do we do with the Tiller's of the world if there is a great uprising? We still must look for the face of God and pray that our redemption is close. Unless the rules of a just war are followed, we are no better than Tiller the Killer.
The Mayflower Compact occurred in conditions where there was "no law" yet the individuals agreed to protect each other with their own law.
They didn't even have anyone in their number slaughtering the unborn, but they were prepared to deal with that problem.
In today's world we are no longer capable of handling the question ~ it becomes meaningless when you OUTLAW LAW!
This really bothered me:
If a private individual is justified in assassinating Hitler because Hitler is obviously evil and undeserving of the civil magistracy, then would that moral liberty have extended also to someone who was equally convinced that George W. Bush was a usurper of power and a war criminal? I suspect that those who would believe it their moral obligation to fire off a round at Hitler from a crowd, given the opportunity, would have recoiled at the notion of encouraging their angry left-wing neighbors to follow through on their moral convictions and attempt to fell President Bush by whatever violent means seemed most likely to succeed.
The author has a rather awful argument here. Hitler was evil, and an assassin would be acting objectively, based on that fact. OTOH, GWB is not evil, and an assassin would be acting based on his subjective assessment of the man. We could reason that there is moral justification for Hitler's assassination, and at the same time we can justifiably state that someone who would try to assassinate GWB would be either evil or mentally ill.
The whole article is full of bad arguments.
when the pubbies held power they went wild with spending and failed to push any of the conservative agenda.
Very disappointing.
Conservatives, not rino turds.
Sorry but I don’t believe in God or his promises. Abortionists and abortion advocates will be destroyed on sight. Anyone stupid enough to discuss abortion in my presence will immediately have their eyes gouged out. They will suffer the same fate as all other murderers, rapists, an genocidal vermin.
As long as I am forced to live in this horrible disgusting world, I will bring my vengeance and wrath upon them all.
Tiller once said “Abortion is worth going to hell for”. I agree with him 100%.
One of the great things about believing in Heaven and Hell is you get to wonder if Dr. Killer wishes he could change his mind right about now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.