Rev Paul Hill a Presbyterian minister, On March 10th, 1993,
shot and killed Dr. David Gunn, an abortionist, as he was about
to enter an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Subsequently
Mr Hill was condemned to death. While on death row he wrote
the following defence of his action. We publish this defence
here that you may consider the tremendous passions aroused by
the abomination called abortion which in reality is the massacre
of the most vulnerable and defenceless portion of our society.
on this matter will be largely determined by where your true sympathies
lie, with the doctor or with the pre-born children. If next to Dr.
Gunn's dead body were to be spread the gruesome remains of the thousands
he killed, the mere space needed would be staggering. Most equations
that condemn using force to defend our children do not duly consider
the children in question. Many distort the true situation by focusing
on the force used to stop a "legal act."
it is just to protect the innocent from a bloody death at the hands
of a paid killer. Anyone who denies that the pre-born are human
beings would have no basis upon which to defend them with force.
If the pre-born are in fact human we owe them the same protection
we would render any other defenseless human. If we believe the pre-born
are living human beings, how can we justify defending them with
force only after they are born?
BIBLICAL BASIS FOR DEFENSIVE ACTION
In order to determine if we may use force to protect the unborn
we must ask and resolve two questions. The first question is, "What
responsibility does the individual have toward his neighbor if his
neighbor's life is about to be taken by force?" The
answer to the question is, "You must take all action
necessary to protect innocent life."
The Bible clearly
teaches that we may protect our own lives from unjust harm with
deadly force if necessary, "If the thief is caught while
breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood
guiltiness on his account," Exodus 22:2.
also clearly teach that as we should defend our own lives with force,
we should also do so for our neighbor. The second great commandment
is to love "your neighbor as yourself,"
Luke 10:27. Surely Rahab protected the innocent lives of her neighbors
when she hid the Israelite spies, Joshua 2:1-24. The Hebrew midwives
also defended the lives of the Hebrew boys, Exodus 1:15-22. The
disciples protected the innocent life of Paul from imminent death
in Acts 9:23-25. They helped him escape Damascus by lowering him
in a basket through an opening in the wall. In each of the situations
referred to above, whatever action was necessary to protect life
In Exodus 22:2
deadly force is justified when used in defense of the innocent.
In the case of the midwives, deadly force was not necessary. Therefore,
the Scriptures clearly teach that we should take whatever action
is necessary to protect innocent life. The second question that
must be asked is, "May we use force to protect unborn
children from imminent death even if the government forbids us to
do so?" The answer to this question is found in Acts
5:29b. When the State or any other authority requires one to do
what is contrary to God's law, the child of God "must
obey God rather than men." This was clearly the opinion
and practice of Peter and the Apostles. The Hebrew midwives were
greatly blessed by God for defending innocent life though the civil
authorities forbade them to do so.
illegally used deadly force to defend the innocent, "and
when he saw one of them being treated unjustly, he defended him
and took vengeance for the oppressed by striking down the Egyptian,"
Acts 7:24. He did so even though no one had appointed him a ruler
or judge, Acts 7:27.
In this context
Stephen clearly extols Moses for delivering the oppressed Hebrew
from the Egyptian. His point is to condemn the Jews for rejecting
the deliverance of Moses and Christ. Hebrews 11:25-26 clearly refers
to the act of Moses as an act of self-denial. Acts 9:23-25 and II
Cor. 11:32-33 tell us the Jews joined with local civil authorities
in seeking the death of Paul in Damascus. The disciples certainly
broke common local laws forbidding individuals to breach the walls
of a city when they let Paul down in a basket. Clearly such laws
forbidding the breach of the walls were designed to prevent robbery
and murder. In breaking these laws Paul and his disciples were actually
protecting innocent life from imminent death. Thus, laws designed
to protect life may be violated if the violation does in fact protect
innocent life. Individuals may, therefore, use force to deter a
mass murderer who wantonly begins to kill innocent school children.
Using the same logic, we may also use force against mass murderers
who wantonly kill preschool and pre-born children.
do so even if some horribly unjust law presumes to declare
it to be wrong to do so. If we should defend born children,
we should also defend unborn children. If we should defend
born and unborn children from harm, we should also do so if
our government forbids us to do so.
Moses, the Hebrew midwives and Paul all broke the law to do
whatever was necessary to protect innocent life, so may we.
titled the picture, "Hand of Hope."
The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny
hand of 21-week-old foetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges
from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph
Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life."
There is no
question that deadly force should be used to protect innocent life.
The question is, whose life is innocent - those who kill our children
or the children who are being killed? The government believes those
who kill our children should be protected. We believe the unborn
should be protected. The question then for us is, should we protect
innocent life from harm if the government forbids us to do so? The
Golden Rule clearly and irrefutably answers the question in this
way; "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you,
do so for them; for this is the Law and the Prophets,"
was about to tear your limbs from your body, what would you do?
If you could defend yourself with force, would you? If you couldn't
defend yourself with effective force, would you want someone else
to? If so, Christ teaches that you should treat others similarly.
If you dispute this clear teaching of the Bible you will have assumed
the unbearable burden of having to prove the justice of using force
to protect the born, but not the unborn. You can no more deny your
responsibility to defend the unborn with force than you can deny
the good Samaritan's responsibility to aid the wounded and dying
traveler. The priest and the Levite must have tried to justify their
neglect of the dying traveler. Has human nature changed so drastically
that we are no longer in danger of justifying our neglect of our
BASIS FOR DEFENSIVE ACTION
In addition to defending the innocent from a brutal death there
are other reasons for using force in the abortion controversy. One
of these reasons is found in Numbers 35:33, "So you shall
not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land
and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is
shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it."
makes a similar point through the example of Phinehas. Phinehas
violently took the life of two immoral persons in order to turn
God's wrath away from the people. Numbers 25 tells us that the Israelites
were playing the harlot with Moabite women. God's wrath in the form
of a plague, therefore, turned against the people. As a result of
the sins committed, Moses and the Judges were weeping before the
tabernacle. As Moses and the leaders looked on, Zimri, the son of
Salu, brazenly brought a Moabite woman named Cozbi by the weeping
leaders. He led her past them and into a tent for immoral purposes.
When Phinehas realized what was happening he was filled with zealous
jealousy. He then followed them to the tent and checked the plague
by driving a spear through them both. The startling truth is that
this violent act was not done by a civil leader or after due legal
process. Yet, this violently zealous act by an individual "made
atonement for the sons of Israel."
had fanned God's righteous anger to a searing blaze, the shedding
of guilty blood had cooled the flame and saved the people from destruction.
The commentators essentially agree on the factors necessary in order
for zeal such as Phinehas' to be ethically just. Such an act must
first arise from a pure motive. It must also be according to the
legal standard found in the Bible and summarized in the Ten Commandments.
Lastly, all such actions must ultimately seek the glory of God in
order to be ethically justifiable. All true defensive action, therefore,
must arise from the motive of love for God and our little neighbors.
It must also be according to the objective law of God and seek the
ultimate glory of God. The zeal of Phinehas by which he "made
atonement" was, after this incident, taken up by the people
as a whole, verse 16, "Then the Lord spoke to Moses,
saying, 'Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them," Least someone object to the individual or corporate vengeance that
led to such violence, consider Calvin's comment on this passage: "Inasmuch as God constantly forbids His people to take
vengeance, it is surprising that the people of Israel should now
be instigated to do so; as if they were not already more than enough
disposed to it. We must bear in mind, however, that since God, who
is the just avenger of all wickedness, often makes use of men's
instrumentality, and constitutes them the lawful ministers for the
exercise of His vengeance, it must not be altogether condemned without
exception, but only such vengeance as men themselves are impelled
to by carnal passions. If any one is injured, straightway he is
carried away to the desire of vengeance by the stimulus of his own
private injury; and this is manifestly wrong: but if a person is
led to inflict punishment by a just and well-regulated zeal toward
God, it is not his own cause, but that of God which he undertakes."
thing about the violent zeal of Phinehas is that it arguably received
as much or more emphatic approval from God than any other act in
the Old Testament. God's approval of violent zeal is also seen in
the New Testament example of Christ cleansing the temple of moneychangers.
In Christ's example the act was not only violent, but also an act
of civil disobedience. Who could say whether his cleansing the temple
helped stay God's hand of judgment on Jerusalem for a few more years?
Are there any
heinous sins being committed today that could again fan the flames
of God's righteous anger to the scorching point? Is there any need
in today's world for men of the stamp of Phinehas? Could the bold
daring of Cozbi and Zimri in parading before Moses as he wept over
sin have any modern parallels? The righteous zeal of Phinehas did
not permit him to stay his hand long enough to even ask Moses or
the church leaders of the wisdom of his action. If any similar zeal
be found among us today, occasion to exercise it will not be lacking.
BASIS FOR DEFENSIVE ACTION
Biblical Christianity affirms both the individuals' and their leaders'
responsibility to protect the innocent from unjust harm. The responsibility
to protect innocent life is not given directly to government leaders
from God. This responsibility is first given to the people who delegate
some of this responsibility to their appointed civil servants. If
our civil servants neglect their responsibility to protect our children,
the responsibility falls even more heavily upon us as individuals
to do so.
We would be naive to think that we are the first to deal with issues
such as these. Ecclesiastes rightly affirms that "there
is nothing new under the sun." Taking defensive action
in the face of oppressive civil governments is nothing new. The
common sense principles asserted in this pamphlet have been held
by untold numbers of Christian theologians. Franklin Sanders also
makes this point in an article in the "Herald of the Covenant"
dated April 15, 1989: "The real question is, Can any
civil government make a law which is... (against the law of God)?
As to the Scriptures, there is no question that this is impossible.
As to the commentators, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin,
Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, George Buchanan, & Samuel Rutherford,
to list only a few, all agree with our position: such a law is no
law at all. As to the civil law, we have already shown that constitutionally
and legally, no such law as "legalized abortion" can be
established. Is John Calvin ambiguous against such a presumption
when he writes (Comm. Daniel, Lecture XXX, on Dan. 6:22),
"For earthly princes lay aside their power when they
rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number
of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit on their heads than to obey
them." Stout talk, even for the mild John Calvin..."
John Knox also
understood the Scriptures to require individuals to protect innocent
life in spite of government opposition. Francis A. Schaeffer's 'A
Christian Manifesto', makes this point on page 97. In referring
to John Knox, he says, "He maintained that the common
people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state
officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be
rebellion against God."
In a meeting
John Knox had with Queen Mary, she questioned him about his views
which legitimized subjects resisting their princes, "If
their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, it is no doubt that they
may be resisted even by power," said Knox. When Mary
protested that the Apostles had not resisted their persecutors by
force, Knox replied that the reason was solely the lack of funds
(Roland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Beacon
Press, 1952, p. 241).
also defended the right of the individual citizen to protect innocent
life on page 188 of his well-known Lex Rex: "But because
I cannot return to all these opinions particularly, I see no reason
but the civil law of a kingdom doth oblige any citizen to help an
innocent man against a murdering robber, and that he may be judicially
accused as a murderer, who faileth in his duty, and that Solon said
well...It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an
injury done against a brother, as an injury done against himself.
As the Egyptians had a good law, by which he was accused upon his
head who helped not one that suffered wrong; and if he was not able
to help, he was held to accuse the injurer, if not, his punishment
was whips or three days' hunger; it may be upon this ground it was
that Moses slew the Egyptian. Ambrose commended him for so doing."
Later on the
same page Rutherford adds: "Ambrose (Lib.
1, office. c. 36) citeth this same text, and commendeth Moses
who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man. To deliver is
an act of charity, and so to be done, though the judge forbid it,
when the innocent is unjustly put to death." He further
proves his point on page 189: "The law of God, commanding
that we love our neighbor as ourselves, obligeth us to the same,
except we think God can be pleased with lip-love in word only, which
the Spirit of God condemdeth (1 John ii. 9,10; iii. 16).
And the sum of law and prophets is, that as we would not men should
refuse to help us when we are unjustly oppressed, so neither would
we so serve our afflicted brethren..."
advocated in this pamphlet are, therefore, not only true but commonly
accepted truths of the historic Christian church.
WAS THE REAL AGGRESSOR?
Before considering common objections to this historic position let
us pause to consider a helpful distinction made by Barry Sindlinger
in his paper "Is It Just...?" The distinction
is made by identifying the aggressor and the defender in this case.
Rather than accepting the common portrayal of a gentle hardworking
doctor being chased down and shot in the back by a murderous lunatic,
consider the facts. A brutal paid killer of hundreds upon hundreds
of innocent unborn children was deterred by an act of deadly force
as he approached his latest victims. The man who killed Dr. Gunn
took the defensive posture and with apparent self-sacrifice killed
the guilty to defend the innocent from a horrid death. The fact
that the government describes what Dr. Gunn was about to do as abortion
does not change the fact that it was the bloody slaughter of people
made in God's image. The fact that Dr. Gunn killed the innocent
in the white garb of the doctor with government approval does not
justify his killing. His killing was no more justified than a man
entering a school and personally killing school age children. Dr.
Gunn was the violent aggressor. The man who killed him was defending
your neighbor's children at great personal cost.
Having given many clear and certain proofs of the truth that we
may take all action necessary to protect innocent life, let us proceed
to consider ten common objections to this biblical truth.
1: Isn't A Government Leader Required For Forceful Civil Disobedience?
To respond to
this objection, one must consider an important distinction. The
distinction is between a private citizen defending his neighbors
from another private citizen who is seeking to kill them, and a
group of men taking up arms against the established government.
In the first instance, a magistrate would not be required; in the
second instance, a magistrate ordinarily would be. Biblical proof
has already been presented to substantiate the validity of a private
citizen taking all just action necessary to protect innocent life.
death was the result of one individual trying to stop another individual
from taking innocent life. This action does not require the authority
of a civil leader. Many who affirm that a government official is
necessary for forceful civil disobedience also assert that a government
official is not necessary for nonviolent civil disobedience. There
is no biblical evidence for this distinction. It should not be considered
valid until proven. The biblical evidence used to support nonviolent
civil disobedience also logically supports violent civil disobedience.
If we say that one may justly trespass upon clinic property, upon
what consistent biblical principle may we say that destroying clinic
property requires a civil official?
2: Only Peaceful Civil Disobedience Is Justified.
object to the use of force to protect life and point to the "peaceful"
civil disobedience of Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi. Limiting
civil disobedience to pacifism does not reflect consistent Christianity.
Pure pacifism more closely reflects the teachings of the Hindu religion
than those of Christianity. The Bible does not endorse militarism
in which deadly force is used regardless of whether a cause is just
or not. Nor does the Bible advocate pacifism in which all violence
(even in a just cause) is considered to be wrong.
The Bible does
teach, however, that just force may be used to protect innocent
life. Our undying gratitude is due to all who have and continue
to use peaceful civil disobedience. Such persons should also consider
the justice of taking all action necessary to protect innocent life.
If we consistently neglect the truth, the soldiers of an oppressive
government could come into every home in its domain to rape, kill
and steal. They could do this without fear of anyone using deadly
force to protect innocent life as long as no lower opposing civil
ruler were properly constituted. If you do not believe it to be
our responsibility to take all just actions necessary (including
deadly force) to protect the lives of the unborn, please ask
yourself a question. At what point do you think it would be just
to use force to protect innocent life? How old does a helpless child
have to be before we defend him with force?
3: Use of Deadly Force.
question the use of deadly force in protecting innocent life by
suggesting that merely wounding the oppressor would be just, but
killing him would not. In some circumstances this is true, but not
in this one. The principles considered earlier in this paper under
"Ethical Basis For Defensive Action" clearly speak
to this question. In addition to these principles, experts in self-defense
hold that in life and death situations you often need to seek to
use deadly force in defending yourself or another. If you seek to
simply wound the one seeking to harm the innocent you may not harm
him at all. Even if you do wound him, he may still succeed in killing
his victim or you, the one protecting his intended victim.
where the government is just, merely wounding an unjust aggressor
might be sufficient as he would be arrested and prevented from doing
further harm. It might not be wise to merely wound an unjust aggressor
if you had reason to believe that he would return to kill the ones
you were protecting. Mistaken sympathy for an aggressive killer
could result in the death of the ones who should have our ultimate
4: The Example of Christ and Christian Piety.
object and say, "Christ is to be our example and He did
not resist the government that put him to death." Christ
had a direct command from God that he should offer His life as an
atoning sacrifice. His case was unique. We have no such command.
We have the God-given responsibility to take defensive action to
protect life. Many people will say, "Rather than taking
such decisive and possibly violent action, should we not prefer
the more "spiritual" approach of prayer and fasting?"
Christian will soon see the biblical inconsistency of this objection.
True faith shows itself by good works. Common sense clearly condemns
the "piety" that would respond to the mugging of a helpless
victim with prayer without taking defensive action.
5: Defensive Action Is Not Loving.
object that the action suggested in this paper isn't loving. The
truth is that if we love Him we will keep His commands to defend
innocent life. Another might say this isn't in the Christian spirit
of meekness and gentleness. In order for an action to be right,
it must proceed from the right motive and the just biblical standard.
These objections focus on the motive of the one taking an action.
It is true that all action to protect life must be from a humble
heart of self-denial and zealous love for our neighbors. Yet from
this motive we must act by God's objective standard to protect life
as summarized in the Sixth Commandment.
has always held in highest esteem the true Christian soldier. The
Christian soldier (while preferring the joys of domestic tranquillity)
is willing to temporarily lay them aside to self-sacrificially respond
to the call of duty to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. The Christian soldier may, therefore, with love and humility,
take guilty life to defend innocent life from unjust harm.
6: What If Church Leaders Oppose Defensive Action?
objection is, "My church leaders oppose taking all just
action necessary to protect innocent life." When lawfully
constituted authority in family, church or state opposes an individual,
that individual must weigh the issues involved seriously and humbly.
The Bible summarizes its teachings on an individual's responsibility
to authority in the Fifth Commandment. The Westminster Shorter Catechism
tells us what duties are required in the Fifth Commandment: "The
Fifth Commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing
the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations,
as superiors, inferiors, or equals." Therefore, it
is the individual's responsibility to both preserve the honor of
his superiors and to perform the various duties he owes to them.
If he finds it his duty to oppose those in authority over him, he
must do so in a way that preserves the honor of the one in authority.
That an individual should, under some circumstances, disobey authority
has been previously proven from Acts 5:29.
position is that we are never permitted to sin even though someone
in authority over us requires us to. If an individual's authority
is merely in error but not forcing that person to sin, he may use
constitutional means to seek to rectify the error. If an individual's
authority requires him to sin, he must resist it utterly and at
once. Apart from these principles, those in authority could rule
wickedly with little or no fear of contradiction. Church leaders
must, however, do much more than merely allow their members to defend
the unborn. They must do what leaders are supposed to do and lead
the people. They must do so even if they lose some followers. This
calls for men who love the truth and are willing to swim against
the tide. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew 10:38, "And
he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy
of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost
his life for My sake shall find it."
We should not
be surprised to encounter opposition to these truths from the church.
Before World War II the church in Germany also shrank from resisting
the evils of an unjust, oppressive government. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
is an example of a church leader who, as an individual, sought to
protect innocent life by plotting the death of Hitler. He is now
considered a hero and his Ethics is used as a college text. A holocaust
was going on and no civil leaders arose (they are hard to find
under totalitarian rule).
Few people today,
looking back, would say that the active civil disobedience of that
time should have been restrained. We can be certain that the counsel
of restraint today will be regretted by those who look back on it
in the future.
7: Everyone Can't Take Defensive Action.
person may ask, "Should everyone take the most drastic
defensive action?" The answer is "No."
One of the rules for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments
in the Westminster Larger Catechism is as follows, "That
what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is
always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done
at all times." Although we have the duty to protect
innocent life, there are many valid ways we may do so. We also have
other important duties summarized in the Ten Commandments. We must
use wisdom to know which duty is to be done at what time and in
what way. One of the major functions of wisdom is to direct us as
to when and how we are to carry out our various duties.
maxim of wisdom, "One may at times postpone a good deed
to pursue a better one." We may deduce from this maxim
that there are many duties we may justly postpone in order to come
to the aid of our innocent children who are daily being killed in
staggering numbers. For lesser duties than stopping abortion men
have left their families and occupations to fight and die in World
War II and the Civil War.
8: Judge and Jury Are Necessary For Defensive Action.
Some may object
and assert that a judge and jury are necessary before someone may
be killed justly. Others object that the killing of Dr. Gunn was
premeditated and not spontaneous self-defense. These and similar
objections have excellent answers if one compares the killing of
Dr. Gunn to the theoretical killing of the notorious Dr. Mengele
who practiced at Auschwitz. We are told that Dr. Gunn was a hardworking
man who traveled widely so as to kill as many of the unborn in a
given week as could be reasonably expected. Who knows how many of
the 30 million unborn killed in America were literally torn limb
from limb at his hands?
is considered to have been responsible for the death of 400,000
Jews. He conducted every type of inhuman torturous "experiment"
to determine how long people could survive under various torturous
conditions, mutilations and injections of chemical substances. The
flick of his finger indicated to guards which newcomer to Auschwitz
would be gassed and which would be spared for such ghastly experimentation.
The reader can resolve the objections raised above and many others
through the use of this and similar analogies.
9: Many People Oppose Defensive Action.
and duties outlined in this pamphlet are so entirely contrary to
popular opinion and practice that opposition is to be expected.
Many who will eventually take defensive action may be slow to adopt
the concept at first. Our reaction to opposition must be one of
understanding and patience. We must respond to severe criticism
and searching questions with solid answers and winning persuasion.
As people grasp at any straw of an objection to deny these truths
we must recognize what they are doing and be patient.
10: This is Religious Fanaticism.
Many will scoff
at the principles asserted here as "religious fanaticism."
It is true that all men are religious and have accepted by faith
either the validity or invalidity of the Word of God. By faith,
Christians accept God's Word to be true and may deduce from His
Word the principles in this paper. People who assert their faith
that God's Word isn't true no longer have an objective standard
from God by which to determine what is ultimately right or wrong.
When those who reject the truth of the Scriptures mock those who
accept them, we may ask, "By what absolute moral standard
do you ridicule the truths of God's Word?" They have
none. For those who reject God's Word, there is no consistent higher
ethic from which they can conclude that the killing of Dr. Gunn
was unjust. Their mockings are ultimately directed at God. Their
hatred of their Creator reaches its most blasphemous height when
they kill the unborn made in His image and vilify us for protecting
THE DUTY OF DEFENSIVE WAR
next question to be raised and answered is "What relationship
does the previously proven duty of the individual have to the duty
of government leaders to wage war upon just occasions?"
The answer to this question is clear. Both the individuals and the
civil leaders that represent those individuals have a God-given
responsibility to take all just action necessary to protect innocent
life. We have established the fact that individuals should protect
innocent life according to their stations in life as citizens. It
is a natural extension of this truth to assert that men who have
been given the responsibility of acting as civil magistrates should
protect innocent life as civil magistrates. All the evidence previously
produced to show the individual's responsibility to protect life
also applies to civil leaders with equal or greater force. The case
of Phinehas in Numbers 25 clearly demonstrates that just individual
action often immediately precedes a just war. The current civil
government will not admit that the Bible and the American constitution
are entirely and fundamentally opposed to the murder of unborn children.
defends with the sword the killing of approximately 4,100 innocent
people every day. Yet, the most fundamental responsibility of the
civil government is to protect innocent life from harm. Government
leaders, therefore, have the God-given responsibility to resist
our civil government that we may escape the wrath of God due to
our country. The question, therefore, naturally arises as to what
individuals and leaders should do in the present circumstances.
treatment of just war principles is found in Samuel Rutherford's
Lex Rex. He outlines several options given to those required to
protect innocent life from unjust harm. The first option is to protest.
This option has most certainly been put to use in the years since
abortion was legalized. Nor may we justly be content to wait for
four years and six million human souls to pass before we try the
poll box option of protest again. If any other viable options exist,
we have a responsibility to pursue them. The second option is to
flee. If citizens were to flee from their present circumstances
it would be from the responsibility to protect those in the womb
who cannot flee. The third option is to take up arms in a defensive
war under a lower magistrate.
the pressing urgency of our cause and the lack of any other justifiable
course of action our duty is to pursue a defensive war if possible.
Defensive wars have been waged even when there was no apparent hope
for victory. Such wars have shown the righteous indignation of those
oppressed. Just wars are, however, usually considered unwise until
there are enough men and resources available to offer a reasonable
hope that the effort to overthrow the existing government will be
successful. In order to obtain such resources people must be won
to the cause.
NECESSITY OF PROCLAMATION
To this end the full and free proclamation of the justice and necessity
of the cause is essential. One of the most fundamental responsibilities
each of us has is not only to believe the truth, but to pour our
energies and resources into propagating the truth. The first amendment
to the constitution was drafted to protect and promote the responsibility
of heralding just such a cause. If we may not speak of protecting
the unborn, neither should we be able to speak of protecting any
other group of humans who are being violently put to death. Some
may object that we should not promote these truths, as some pro-abortionists
would like for us to do so.
tells us to, "Seek justice, reprove the ruthless."
This objection asks us not to do what God has required us to do.
We must, however, proclaim the whole counsel of God. We have a special
responsibility to proclaim truths that could result in the saving
of millions of human lives. As strange as it may seem to us, obeying
God is often the wisest thing to do. What is right is also what
works best. All citizens, therefore, have the responsibility to
hold and freely stand for defending the innocent.
DEFENSIVE USE OF ARMS
Americans also have the responsibility to defend the defenseless
and the American constitution. We should do so with force of arms
if given the opportunity. The second amendment to the constitution
upholds this right, "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." One
of the reasons we have the responsibility to keep and bear arms
is so we may individually and corporately take all just action necessary
to protect innocent life.
CALL TO SPECIFIC ACTION
You may ask, "What special duties do righteous politicians,
governors, mayors, police, military men and other civil leaders
have in the present circumstances?" Surely civil leaders
should feel a special responsibility to protect the unborn. Righteous
men, therefore, in positions of civil authority should stand ready
to use their authority to cast down those who oppose God's authority.
They should be willing to do so if given the opportunity. The wisest
course of action is for civil leaders to maintain their positions
of authority, if they may in good conscience do so without sinning
means and actions people pursue in defensive action must be left
up to the individual's skill, cunning and wisdom. Surely individuals
should continue to protest and pursue political remedies. In addition,
we may justly use legal and illegal direct action. Picketing, sidewalk
counseling and trespassing are all to be used with zeal and vigor.
The possible legal and illegal activities that could be considered
may be found in numerous books and other sources. As we put our
convictions into concrete actions, the millions who are indifferent
to abortion or accepting it as expedient will be forced to reconsider.
Our proclamation of the justice and necessity of our cause combined
with our consistent action will certainly persuade the vast majority.
Some have suggested
that during the Civil War, the South lost some of its will to fight
due to the realization that some of its slaves were being mistreated.
If this is true, how much more will the pro-abortionists lose heart
when they see our faces set like flint in defense of the defenseless.
When this occurs, the time will have arrived for the lower civil
magistrate and those in positions of power to call the multitudes
to unified action. Until that time many men will respond to God's
call to give of themselves in direct action. Thousands died in violent
action during the Civil War for a lesser cause. Thousands more wasted
away in confinement. The odds are slim that many already born will
die in our cause. The modern jail system compares favorably with
that of the Civil War system. The prospect of suffering for doing
right is not easy, but never without parallel reward. Such unjustly
imprisoned men would surely give truthful lawyers an opportunity
to present the justice of their cause and persuade others of it.
a few good men unjustly arrested in protecting innocent life would
be required to move the multitudes to see the light of truth. Never
before will so few have the opportunity to accomplish so much for
OF ULTIMATE SUCCESS
You may ask, "May we dare to hope that our
cause will be successful in the end?" The answer is
an emphatic "Yes!" There are numerous and
compelling reasons for us to have abundant hope that defensive action
will bring abortion to an end. The reason abortion began and has
not ended yet is due to our inconsistent thinking and action. If
we think and act consistently we will force our opponents and the
undecided masses to do the same. Our position requires us to selflessly
take all just action to defend our children from mortal injury.
Their position requires them to selfishly do all they can to defend
the mass destruction of human life.
As the logical
consequences of these two positions are forced upon the multitudes
by our consistent action the majority will choose life. You need
not be an enlightened Christian to prefer protecting innocent children
to destroying them. There is an initial shock and horror that comes
from considering that the death of Dr. Gunn may have been justified.
Once this shock has passed, the truth and duties involved will have
an abiding effect. These truths will grip men's minds and not release
them from their duties. Men will be forced to admit their horrendous
neglect and will respond with zealous repentant hearts. Our zeal
will be from God Himself. He will cause us to "mount
up with wings like eagles." He will make us "run
and not get tired." By his strength we will "walk
and not become weary."
He will give
us strength and joy in defending the innocent that we have never
dreamed of before. The joy of laying down our lives and possessions
in such a cause will overwhelm thousands. We will, therefore, rise
above those who have nothing but fear, selfishness and inconsistency
to motivate them. God has given you the energy and resources you
now have for His service. Now is the time to use them in defense
of the defenseless. Many battles in the Old Testament were fought
and won when God's people rose in a just cause. In many instances
God's people virtually stood by and watched as God fought for them.
If we will but act in true repentance and faith God will bless our
zealous but feeble efforts with abundant success.
we must act in a decisive and timely manner. Every civilization
experiences the ebb and flow of peace and war in which lives and
resources are garnered and stored in peace and then expended in
war. The resources we have garnered since the Civil War have caused
us to become lazy and apathetic to the issues of freedom and justice
over which the Civil War was waged. This is the time for us once
again to expend our energies, resources and lives in defense of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not all can be on the
battle line. However, all able-bodied men who are men indeed should
rise to serve the cause in one form or another. Many rode into the
Civil War in full gallop without being forced to enlist. Surely
their families suffered as their resources were drained and as their
young men spent the vigor of their youth upon the bloody fields
of battle. But isn't sacrifice and suffering in doing our duty to
protect life the honorable way to serve our God?
of a just cause urged both sides into the conflict in the Civil
War. If their motives were mixed and their cause unclear, ours need
not be. Our motive is love to our unseen neighbor and our cause
is just. Should we not therefore with zeal fired to a steady white
glow, go forth to show forth God's righteous indignation upon those
who defile with gruesome death children made in His image and likeness?
Will you remain at home while your neighbors respond to the call
from the womb? Will you continue to build bigger barns while your
little neighbors are being abruptly decapitated? Will you be like
the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side on the way
to pursue their own interests? Or will you be like the good Samaritan
who gave of his time and property and risked his very life because
he realized that all his fellow men are his neighbors?
her cavernous mouth before you. Thousands upon thousands of children
are consumed by her every day. You have the ability to save some
from being tossed into her gaping mouth. As hundreds are being rushed
into eternity, other questions shrink in comparison to the weighty
question, "Should we defend our born and unborn children