(this is my first shot at this, so I hope there is no misunderstanding)
There is a large group of people in our society, who would consider themselves Christians and/or Republicans. I’m going to try and articulate some of their beliefs, as I understand them. Point out if I’m misrepresenting.
- They believe war/violence is acceptable at times when the threat is severe enough (Iraq, Afghanistan, amongst others).
- They believe in Capital Punishment; that some crimes warrant that person being killed.
- They believe abortion is murder and is the cause of death of thousands of innocent lives every year. They describe it even as a genocide or a holocaust.
Am I on track so far? I hope I have not misconstrued anyones perspective, this is, to my understanding, what a lot of people believe. There is one last point that I have heard articulated from this same group.
- They take great efforts to separate themselves from the “radicals” and “extremist” that have bombed abortion clinics or tried to kill abortion doctors in the past. In other words they make efforts not to be affiliated with those people or those crimes.
My question, to this group, is why do the people above get written off as “radical”? If you support violence for severe situations, wouldn’t infanticide clearly warrant violence, even a war against the perpetrators (abortion doctors and clinics) to stop the evil from taking place? Wouldn’t this be the same appropriate action as war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Iran? Wouldn’t this meet the same criteria? It would seem that these group members aren’t “radicals” at all, they are simply following a consistent ethic of their beliefs.
This isn’t meant to be an attack, simply an area that I have a hard time understanding where this group stands and why. Please, someone, Enlighten me.
I’ve had this same thought, and led a pro-life friend down the same logical path, and she didn’t like where it was going. It’s not comforting to think that Eric Rudolph is the logical one…
A pro-choice friend of mine posted on the same conundrum a couple weeks ago.
The difference between two situations, in my mind, is that one is done by a government and the other by someone who chooses to act outside of the law.
The argument is that in the first part of Romans 13 you can see that God ordains the “governing authorities” to act on His behalf for justice in the world as God’s servants. Therefore the government has the right (and some would say the responsibility) to use force when absolutely necessary. “Radicals” have not been given those rights or responsibilities by God or even by man, therefore what they are doing is against the will of both.
Interesting question…
In the case of war, whether you agree with the particular war or not, it is something undertaken, as Richard says, under the power of the “governing authorities”.
In the case of capital punishment, that is 1) again, under the power of the governing authorities, and 2) if done correctly, only done after careful adjudication of the guilt of the person to be put to death. I’ll acknowledge, without going in to, the concerns over cases of unjust convictions. [I’ll still object to kudos to Workman, by the way.]
In the case of abortion clinic bombers or abortion doc murders, these are cases of vigilatism, undertaken entirely outside the “governing authorities”. I am aware of many places in Scripture where war or execution undertaken by the governing authorities is mandated and approved, but I am not aware of any place where vigilantism is mandated or approved.
Those Christians whom you describe in your example – the ones who are not pacifists, and who see a place for capital punishment, and see abortion as murder, but who do not condone anti-abortion related violence – do not condone, for example, killing murderers or taking actions against America’s enemies on as vigilantes either. They only condone such things when undertaken by the governing authorities.
In response to Richard and Aaron:
I hear you on the governing authorities piece, but we don’t apply this consistently either. Are the Christians in Iraq who took up arms against the United States also acting appropriately? In other words, if we use that as our ethical standard then Christian in Iraq and the US where acting properly in fighting for their own side. Christians in Germany during the holocaust could condone it since it was be government authorities and not vigilantes. In fact, Bonhoeffer was in the wrong when he acted against the governing authorities in plotting Hitler’s assassination (I’m not stating my opinion, just what I think can be concluded by that ethical standard).
I think though we can all agree that Romans 13 points to the governing authorities as being God’s servants, but we can also agree that there are times we should act outside of that authority, which is when it goes against our convictions according to Scripture as well.
I guess my assumption was that addressing this “holocaust” of abortion would be a time like that, the same way this group insist on defiantly praying in schools or preaching in support of a political candidate from the pulpit.
It still just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
I am sure there is someone who has thought it all through better than me. I’ll post if I find it.
Here’s a really thought-provoking take on Romans 13, taken from the book “Jesus for President” by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. It makes sense to my brain and clicks in my spirit. It’s rather long, but a very worthwhile read, in my opinion. Hope this gives you something more to chew on:
http://www.jesusforpresident.org/download/Web_Appendix_3.pdf
Peace,
Jamie
Like you said, this ehical view is very inconsistent. If you believe all government is serving God, than you have to believe that Hitler or Hussein were serving Him as well….so anyone who rises up against that governmental authority is going against God’s order of things? Think about slavery …and segregation…the oppression of women…this all happened in our country not too long ago. Did these things serve our God??? It just doesn’t add up for me. It’s a double standard.
I think it all boils down to an erroneous view of Romans 13. These scriptures are so widely misunderstood and misinterpreted…taken completely out of context…causing all kinds of problems in our thought patterns and world views.
@jamie: There’s a difference between being a servant and actually serving. I consider myself a servant of God, but sadly I also have to admit that I don’t always serve him.
@Ariah: Stepping away from the hypothetical and into my personal point of view. I’m still wrestling with this, and where I am right now is that I think that while a government waging war to secure justice may sometimes be a right thing, it’s never a good thing. As far as when the time comes to resist the powers, my line is drawn between protecting the weak and injuring the strong. An example with slavery, I would support the people who set up underground railroads and hid runaway slaves, I would not support folks like Nat Turner who believed that his resistance to slavery was to kill his oppressors.
That being said, my views are still a work in progress on this, so I’m interested in what people have to say.
I understand where you’re coming from, Richard. Personally, though, I believe as followers of Jesus our views have to be different from the views of the world. If something isn’t “good” by kingdom principles than it cannot be considered “right.” Period. I think that’s where we differ. Like with waging war to protect ourselves, for example. It’s just not an option in my eyes. Not for those of us following Jesus.
Am I making any sense here??
You’re definitely making sense to me, and I do think that’s where we differ. It’s part of why I kept mentioning justice when talking about a government waging war.
For myself, taking the slavery example, I would hope that if I were a slave and the choice was to be in slavery or to kill my master, I would choose to remain in slavery. In making the decision for myself, I will choose to deny myself justice (social or otherwise) in order to do what is both good and right.
But when it comes to things like the possibility of having sent soldiers in to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or when faced with things like the Holocaust, I’m not sure there is any “good” options left for the ruling authority. I think there are some injustices that simply need to be stopped, and a “ruling authority” either by it’s action or inaction is going to have blood on it’s hands.
Which is all a very long winded way for me to say that it’s much more of a gray area for me when we are talking about “ruling authorities” and the issue of injustices perpetrated against our neighbors. One of the reasons why I would never be a policeman and would never seek government office (or be a judge or whatever) is that I would never be able to make that decision.
Richard, I see what you’re getting at, and I totally respect your viewpoint and your honesty…but why does it have to be an either/ or kind of solution? Genocide or war? Slavery or murder? Isn’t there always another option somewhere in the middle there…a third way???
Not to avoid the great conversation Jamie and Richard are having, but I’d like to hear further thoughts on the initial questions, which relate to that overall group at large. Which, Richard, I’m not sure your views line up with (which in my opinion is probably a good thing).
I’m still feeling like there are some obvious inconsistencies in the viewpoints I expounded on above. Aaron’s looking for answers, I am too.
Wars against other countries are (supposed to be, at least) declared by our country’s leaders after lengthy debate and votes, checks and balances. There is a system in place in government to discern whether it’s the right thing for us to do.
The death penalty is only given as a sentence after a person has had his/her day in court, before a jury of peers, and all evidence is presented to convict beyond all reasonable doubt. Often there is a lengthy appeals process, and the person who committed the crime doesn’t die until 10 or 20 years later. There is a system in place (and we trust that it works) to ensure that justice is served and that no one is wrongfully convicted.
The distinction between those instances and the people who bomb abortion clinics is that the radicals are working outside the system. The same Christians who support war and capital punishment also (usually) believe in submitting to one’s government as a submission to God, and trusting that the system, the government, is wisdom. However, if you were to ask someone who had acted violently against an abortion doctor or clinic, he or she would likely say that God asks us to submit to our government until it no long honors God. It’s a fine distinction, and both sides of the debate can me argued at length.
Here is my take on some of the rationales that help form and maintain the Christian Republican, “non-radical” viewpoint that you described.
1. Of the three issues, abortion is by far the closest to home. While most people have never been to war or known a death-penalty inmate, we have all held a baby and, especially the conservatives, seen pictures and heard stories of what actually happens in abortions, and this particular juxtaposition of the innocent with the grotesque strikes a resounding chord in the hearts of this people group and inspires a unique passion. It’s hard to drum up this kind of passion from the cold hard logic of a critique on inconsistent ethics when they know babies are dying.
2. An abortion doctor and/or his staff did not sign up to be soldiers. In their own minds, they are not committing an aggressive, life extinguishing act, but rather supporting a freedom of a woman over her own body. While foreign soldiers, I’m sure, also believe that they are in the right, the Republican Pro-Lifers would most likely say that there is an inherent risk in joining any army which is, by nature, a killing force. Therefore, killing in war against an aggressive force (especially one that commits genocide) would not be considered murder whereas bombing an abortion clinic would.
3. I would also guess that, due to the nature of political polarization, many in this group would shy away from any foreign policy that smells in any way “liberal” because most “liberal” people are also pro-choice. In their minds, to support a “liberal” policy is somehow a tacit agreement to support abortion. In my opinion, this is the saddest and most foolish reason for holding the Republican Christian viewpoint that I will address in this post, yet I think, subconsciously, it is very widespread. However, foolish as it may be when used to form opinions, there is some truth in the fact that when you support a particular politician, you are implicitly giving support to policies that you disagree with. No matter who I vote for, I plan to ask forgiveness the moment I cast my ballot.
4. It’s a matter of priority. Even among many younger Pro-Lifers who may question the actions of our military, the question of legitimacy may take precedent. The idea is that while we may be committing atrocities abroad, do we even have the right to address holes in our foreign policy when we are committing a sort of selective genocide within our own borders that is both endorsed and funded by the government? In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of babies and children to idols within one’s own borders is strongly connected to a certain national depravity for which God has a particular hatred. When this insidious brand of evil is able to blind a country into killing it’s own, it seems to permeate the country’s very identity. We may not worship the same idols, but abortion still gives us the means to sacrifice our children on the altars of hopelessness, convenience, fear, and social pressure. Perhaps if we could take off our blinders and not let our nation endorse and fund this act, we would see more clearly in order to address issues abroad.
-Scotty
@Emily, I definitely agree with your explanation above. However, I still find it inconsistent, especially when you consider the intensity about which the abortion issue is singled out.
When you mention “the radicals are working outside the system” a few radicals come to mind: Egyptian midwifes going against the Pharoh’s orders to murder newborn boys, thus allowing Moses to escape and go on to lead his people out of Egypt; German’s like Oskar Schindler; Jesus; Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement.
I just find there to be an inconsistency between what is said and the action that is taken (not that I’m advocating violent action under any circumstances, I believe in non-violence and that’s what I recommend.).
@Scott, Super glad you joined in the conversation. I deeply respect you and your views, so thanks for being willing to dialog with me on this. Here’s some what of a response, point by point.
1. Agreed “this particular juxtaposition of the innocent with the grotesque strikes a resounding chord in the hearts of this people group and inspires a unique passion”. My only question would be what you mean by “close to home.” I think one of my main disappointments with the pro-life group is the entire issue doesn’t seem “close to home” at all, rather an arms length political vehement attack. We say (in the church) we are welcome to single mothers and children born out of wedlock, but you and I both know that’s not true. There have been efforts at establishing pregnancy support centers and I applaud and encourage and support those efforts, but by and large most of this is done at arms length (or farther). Do you find that to be true amongst the pro-lifers you know? (maybe it’s just my skewed perception).
2. first side note: I don’t know that many in other countries or some in our own, see joining the military as a choice, the way you and I might. Many males in poverty see it as one of the only options toward paying for college and getting out of poverty, people with criminal records are often given a military or jail time choice. And in other countries (say Israel) serving in the military is a requirement.
Now to your second point and statement:
“killing in war against an aggressive force would not be considered murder”
I’m wondering if a similar string of reasoning would suggest that abortion not be considered murder either. That given the circumstances, the uniqueness of the situation, the choice and moral convictions of the persons involved, it too might be concluded like you have regarding war, as not murder. Could that be possible?
3. Agreed, it is unlikely that any politician will line up complete with our moral convictions and values. Thus by your argument, we will implicitly support policies we disagree with. So I understand your concern and plan to seek forgiveness. However, since this is true no matter which party or perspective you come from, I don’t see why it is used as an argument to simply write off all other policies and thoughts and be a single issue voter (which is what I hear this argument used for).
4. I find your last point extremely interesting, and I wonder how many other pro-lifers hold to it. There’s an interesting conclusion when you look at a map about abortion laws throughout the world, and follow your point:
“In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of babies and children to idols within one’s own borders is strongly connected to a certain national depravity for which God has a particular hatred.”
Take a look at the map and notice who outlaws abortion and who doesn’t:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png
It’s the USA and our allies who are the nationally depraved and our enemies, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the rest of the “Middle East” who have stood against abortion. Maybe it is they who “see more clearly in order to address issues abroad.”
Those are my thoughts.
Good points, Ariah. Very good points.
Ariah,
Thank you for your response. You are approaching this issue with some serious depth. I plan to respond to your points, but I need some time to mull over the the things you brought up and I’m really tired right now. In the meantime I have a question for you. You brought up the phrase “single issue voter.” My question is this: What would make you a single issue voter? Is there any policy that a politician could support that would make you refuse to vote for her even if you agreed on most every other point?
-Scotty
Scott,
Stopped back here after hearing the news today about Dr. Tiller and read through the comments. Hoping you've had some time to think through this stuff, and would love a response if you have the time.
As to the single issue question: At this point there is not a single issue that would make me refuse to vote for anyone. Really, I can't think of one. And if I ever found this hypothetical politician that I "agreed on most every other point" I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
One of the things that boggle my brain with these issues we’re discussing is that it seems most Christians who support war and the death penalty, believe wholeheartedly in our government’s ability to make sound judgements and trust the system of checks and balances at play that help make those decisions to take lives. YET, when it comes to abortion (which is a LEGAL form of taking lives in this country and therefore government supported, very much the same as war or capital punishment) it suddenly takes on a new meaning and these Christians are completely willing to stand up and say the government’s judgement is way off kilter and completely going against the will of God and the sanctity of life.
So…What gives???
@ Ariah – Sometimes I think the only answer to inconsistencies in human thought is that human beings are… inconsistent. People all over the world stand up for one “right” thing then deny another, condemn one sin but promote a similar one. And Christians are not exempt from that. Many of the puzzles of life are not easily explained by the Bible. We may find clues, but not everyone interprets those clues in the same way, and so people debate endlessly on things that many of us think “ought” to be easily understood. Some mysteries we will not be able to comprehend until the answers are revealed to us on the other side of death.
@ Jamie – I have had it explained to me this way: an unborn child is an innocent life, without sin. A person who has committed murder and is therefore on death row, or who is a terrorist and has ordered the genocide of thousands of people – he or she deserves to die because of his or her sins. The sticky part of THAT reasoning is that we are handing out the ultimate punishment of life or death, and that seems to me like we’re playing God. Also, if we understand the doctrine of original sin – that each of us are born with the sin nature and can NOT remain sinless – then one could argue that the unborn child isn’t truly innocent. Lastly, what about the civilians who are casualties of war? They are not an “aggressive force” so their death IS murder. Who is responsible for their murder – our government, who declared war? The commanders in the military who planned the attack? Or the young men & women who carried out the plans?
@Emily,
While I appreciate your response, and heartily agree with the second half, that there are mysteries we won’t agree on or know the full answer to this side of death, I’m not sure about your first part. Of course as humans we have inconsistencies, but that never has nor ever should stop us from attempting to be consistent, and for Christians particularly, we should be challenged and sharpened by one another to live out our convictions and morals ethically and consistently. To simply right it off as inconsistent is a cop out in my opinion. Not that you are, just that your reasoning, if it was ever used by someone to explain their position, is a cop out. Your reasoning, as an attempt to set my mind at ease somewhat, is more then welcome. Thank you. But, I’d still like an answer from those whose views I was addressing.
I guess I am one whose views you are addressing.
I believe that any reasonable person can see the difference between the killing of a child or the execution of a murderer or casualties of war. I honestly view any attempt to try and equate a child and a murderer as the games played by freshman philosophy majors attempting to show their professor how "modern" they are. I think your specific question, how can you condemn abortion as well as the person who would kill an abortion doctor, is a little more complicated to explain but is completely rational.
The answer revolves around the legitimacy of the government. In the most basic terms, our government derives its power from the people and therefore the citizens of the government have the ability to affect the policies of the government. In this way, in accordance to the rule of law, we can debate the subject of whether abortion constitutes murder and use the power of government to create statutes and policy based upon the outcome of those debates.
The killing of Dr. Tiller occurred outside of this established process and contrary to the laws of our nation. As such, we can condemn abortion and work within our civic structure to end the practice yet still also condemn someone for acting outside of the law though we may agree with their reasons for doing so.
Now if you want to get into talking about the legitimacy of government or the legitimacy of its actions, that is a much longer and more complicated debate.
So, if I understand your reasoning correctly your saying that since we have a legitimate government, deriving it's power from the people, then it's not appropriate to act outside of this established process under any circumstances?
Therefore, it's acceptable to support murder in the form of war as inacted by our government (including the killing of women and children), and it's acceptable to do the actual killing in those circumstances (soldiers), but it is not acceptable outside of that (in the example of the killing of Dr. Tiller). Am I following you correctly?
In a very simplified manner of explaining it, yes. Obviously each individual situation is different, but the general moral philosophy that has guided western culture is that individuals do not have the right to kill each other based upon differences of opinion. This does not mean that killing is always wrong or that it always constitutes murder.
I've written and re-written a response several times; this is an incredibly complicated moral and philosophical issue. The right to life is certainly an inalienable one (as is liberty and property). However, there are circumstances where that right is forfeited…usually in war, but sometimes because of one's own actions.
It is forfeited in war either through participation in it (being a soldier) or by actions or inaction that support the country or faction (a civilian). While the casualties of war should be limited as much as possible (avoiding civilian areas, proper treatment of prisoners) the objective of war is to bring to bear as much force as possible so as to push the enemy into submission. The loss of life, while tragic, is not murder.
In a civil society, I fall back on my previous statement and maintain that it is important to differentiate between killing and murder.