1988 Issue 12 - An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers About Rescue Operations - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1988 Issue 12 - An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers About Rescue Operations - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/5

An Open Letter to Pro Lifers AboutRescue Operations

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,After attending a planrting

meeting for a rescue in my area, . Ithought it appropriate to write and explain why I cannot in good conscience .participate in such a rescue. I have discussed this subject with sotne pastors

.. ~ ~-~ ~ y t n ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-P O l ~ Y e D : : < : > ~ ejust seems to be "tossed to and fro ." Idid some serious thirlking and pr a yingafter that meeting and have come to theconclusion that I cannot do a rescue "infaith." I may be wrong, but I believethat such an avenue of action is not Bib- tical or prudent. Proverbs 24 notwithstanding. In an effort to help you thinkthrough the theological and practicalquestions relating to the current rescuerage, I am offering my thoughts on thesubject

Let me assure you that I amnot waffling on the abortion question.I am just as hard-nosed as ever. I believe that abortion is a foul, unprovoked murder. I also b e l i ~ v ethat themaximum penalty for abortionistsought to be the death penalty (Gen . 9:6;Ex. 2 1 : 2 3 ~ 2 5). I believe that Christians ought to do everything and a n y ~thing l awful to put an end to abortionand rescue the unborn, including preaching ; teaching, picketing, marching, lobbying, and much more. I even believe that violent, deadl y force ought ~ o beused to stop abortion. This power.however, does not belong to private citi

ze ns or organizations. I think it wouldbe lawful and just for lower courts andlocal governments to bring this kind ofpower to bear upon the . situation. Thecivil government has been given the

Jeffrey J. Meyers is Assistant Pastorat the Westrmnster PresbyterianChurch (PCA) n Huntsville;Alabama.

from Jeffrey J. Meyers

pOWer Of the SWOrd to "terrorize" evildoers, such as executors of the unborn .Now that would be radical. But I don 'tbelieve that anarchistic meaSures likerescues will help restore God's order insociety . Let me try to explain my position. There are a number of reasonsWQY.l gQrt t think ~ ~ s c u ~ Sme. ib.licalQJprudent

Fi st, the impatience of manypro-life activists is not a valid mOtiva-tion for excessive and dtarnatic behavior. I c n sympathize with their disappointment But their frustration withthe progress of the pro-life movement ,their impatience and desire for results ,does not justify the use of more andmore radical means to attain the goal ofstopping abortions . This kind of frustration and impatience is growing.There is . n ' iricreasing and unhealthythirst for immediate results among prolife activists. The reaso ning is thatsince we don't see results thensomething must be wrong, somethingmore must be done, something thatwill give us immediate, visible resultS.But this a symptom of the modern mentality of immediate gratification, ratherthan God's ideal of patient faith. Wemay ha ve to wait generations. We arecalled to "dig in" and continue to usethe Goo-ordained methods (preaching,teaching , .evangelism, pr aye r, etc.) andwait for God 's timing. We are JlQcalled, as individuals who do not .hold

public office, to take matters into ourown hands, Because of tl' .e sensationalism :ofpopular Christianity ndthe often dramatic and flamboyant texwre ofAmerican Christianity, we have a majorproblem understanding and exercisingp atien t faith. It's too dull. We thinkonly of the here and now , only of 1bisgeneration and the accomplishments

that ,we can "see ." The Bible has a lotto say about patience and waiting. Iwould suggest Jim Jordan's exceilentarticle, "Rebellion, Tyranny, andDominion in the Book of Genesis" inChristianity nd Civilization 3: heTactics o Christian Resistance GaryNorth, ed . Tyler, Te x as: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983), 38-80.

Second, rescues may save

afew lives, but tbey wiil not restoreGod's ot


2/5

and Poverty traced most of the presenttroubles in the black community backto the mentality they "learned" from thecivil rights movement. I think the parallels are obvious and ominous. I fearthe same problems for evangelicals inour present situation. Even Reconstructionists know better than think that political action is the answer to our problems. The real action js not in thepolitical arena Our main problem inAmerica is not political but religious.We cannot use the humanists strategiesand methods, simply because they seemto give results, and then hope that Godwill bless our efforts. This is revolutionary, not reformational. It is following the lead of "liberation theology,"not reformation theology. It is a verybig mistake. t is a mistake thatRandall Terry and the rescuers havemade.

Political action falls in the"little help" category. This is Daniel'sprophetic evaluation of the Maccabeanpolitical revolt in Daniel 11:34, 35History does not move in terms of political action . This is a modem fallacy.More accurately, this is a l2'ffi fallacyfor which modem culture has fallen.Ancient pagan cultures, like modemstates, were primarily interested inpower. The maintenance of force andthe seizure of money are of primary

interest to the state today . f we thinkthese are the most important things,then we are thinking like pagans. f wereally think that political act ion"social upheaval'' as Terry puts t in hispamphlet-will transform society andmake it a righteous society, then we arethinking like pagans. This is the number one problem with the conservativeright-wing as well as the liberal left:they both believe tltat politics andpolitical action will effect positive,lasting change in our culture. They

have swallowed and digested the paganworld-view.God's order in our society will

be restored when He is ready and whenwe, his church, are faithful to His law.Abortion is a curse-God s curse-onour ungodly society. Most people fearGod's judgment in the future as a result

f the widespread practice of abortion in

our land. This is a mistake. Abortionis the judgment f this is true, and Ithink it is inescapable (see Deut 28),then no matter how hard we try toremove the curse, no matter what radical political methods we use to attemptto stay tlte judgment of abortion, theywill all fail. The QQl problem will remain: America's apostasy, both ecclesiastically and culturally. That mustchange first, tlten abortion will stop.Besides, practically speaking, we willnever be able to convince tlte pagans ofAmerica to stop sacrificing their children until they convert to Christianityand see the practice for what it really is:a violation of God's law and an attack

bearers.

Joe Morecraft has made thesepertinent observations in his sermon"How To Stop Abortion in America":"Jeremiah also had the occasion toaddress tlte subject of civil rebellionagainst an anti-God state and culture.He told some of tlte Zealots whowanted to stage an armed resistanceagainst the invading Babylonian armies,that as long as the church was impenitent, any form of civil rebellion orarmed resistance against tlte invaderswould make things worse. For theirown well-being, Jeremiah told tltem torepent or surrender, and wait for God's

redemptive judgment (Jer. 27:5-8, 12;29:7). The same is true today in America, as long as the church is impenitent,all attenwts to rebel against the state soas to force it to outlaw abortion willfail. The church must repent first, ifAmerica is to be saved from divine judgment and if America is going to stopkilling babies."

This leads me to a third question. Do we really hope to rid this pagan, secularized country of abortion bypolitical action of any kind? PeterLeithart conunents on the frequent appeals to the so-called success of modempolitical movements by rescuers: "Thecivil rights movement succeeded because it resonated in the larger culture;the civil rights leaders were 'speakingthe same language' as many of thosewith the power to change the laws. Canwe believe that anti-abortion protestswill resonate tluough the culture theway civil rights protests did? The question can be rephrased this way: Isabortion a contradiction n the system,or is it a logical outcome of the basicassumptions of the culture? If t is thelatter, which I believe it is, the protestsare not likely to gain sympathy withthose who make and enforce the laws"(Peter Leithart, "Operation Rescue: Proand Con," The Biblical Worldview amnnlhly Newsletter by American Vision, Atlanta, GA., Vol. 4, No. 9, p.8.). This again highlights the centralprob em. The problem is the religiousfoundations of our society, no t the outward practices. The problem is that ourcountry and rulers have rejected Christas King and his laws as the only perfectstandard of justice. Unt il this changes,we are not likely to get any results

from radical political actions, no matterhow dramatic or sensational. Mostpeople in our country are pagans, whohave no desire to see abortion outlawed.They would rather see Christianity outlawed and us thrown to the lions thanto give up their child sacrifices. Theaverage citizen waxes eloquent in moraloutrage when he hears of radical prolifers who picket abortion clinics, butwill not even think twice about sendinghis pregnant wife to a doctor who dismembers unborn babies with a steel

curette on the side for a little ext ra cash.Such is the nature of our American culture. t needs heart surgery, not a facelift.

Then there's the fourth question of the right of any individual totake the law into his own hands to tryto effect change. Notice I did D Q1 say

(Continued on page 25)

The Counsel of Cha l cedon , December, 1988 P a ~ 2 1


3/5

Rescue Operations- MeyersContinued from page 21

"the right of an individual to break thelaw when he is commanded or requiredby the civil authorities to do somethingwhich he in conscience cannot do." Anindividual, under nonnal circumstances,

does not have the right to break the lawin order to effect some cban2e in socie- no matter how important "the

cause" may seem to him. I'm notagainst resistance. Nor am I againstcivil disobedience. But I am against private citizens or organizations claimingthe right to selectively rebel against thelocal governments in order to accomplish some social 2ood This is notbiblical, notwithstanding Terry's appealto the Bible. In every biblical instancethat Terry refers to in his pamphlet

. those that disobeyed the civil authorities did so because they were being com

manded or required to do somethingwhich God's law strictly forbid Themidwives were commanded to kill thebabies. They had t refuse. Moses parents were commanded to kill their child.They had to disobey. Rahab was personally commanded to reveal the whereabouts of God's spies . She rightfullydeceived the soldiers. Daniel was told

, not to pray. In obedience t God hewent on praying. The Magi disobeyedHerod, because he was requiring themto reveal Christ's location. All of thesedo not prove Terry's point They onlyprove that it is right to disobey thecivil rulers when they command orrequire l S. to do something that isunbiblical. They do notjustify the useof .civil disobedience by individuals Q.further a cause (which is. the ultimategoal of Operation Rescue by the way).

But Terry seems to think thathis cause is biblical just because hequotes Proverbs 24:11, "Rescue those

that are being led away to death," and

then "rescue" as physically intervening to save a persons life. Usingthis logic Terry demands that we haveari obligation to physically intervene tosave everybody that is being innocentlyput to death, This is very poor exegesis and casuistry. Where did Terry get the idea that "rescue" or "deliver" i nProverbs 24: 11 means "physically

intervening on behalf of the one indanger"? The word in the original islxn , and a glance at any Hebrewlexicon will reveal that this may have any number of nuances depending onthe context. It does not, however,

refer to physical deliverance. It.

very seldom refers to "physically inter- 'vening" in anothers behalf.Proverbs 24:11 does not tell us

how to deliver those being led away todeath. The are not identified It.

inform us of our general duty.Just because we call sit-ins at abortion clinics "rescues" does not give us' theright to draw a one-to-one applicationfrom Prov. 24: 11. I agree that we mustattempt to rescue them. I have been doing that for years. I attempt to rescue them by picketing, and many womenhave read our signs and decided not toabort. We rescued the child I rescueby preaching. I rescue by teaching.Some rescue by crisis pregnancy work.None of this is "physically inter- :vening," but it is still rescuing Proverbs 24 does not tell us hm L to rescue,but it tells us hat we are t rescue. Wemust look to the rest of the Bible to inform us of the godly means of delivering the unborn. If we really wantto rescue, i we really want to "physically intervene" to save the children,surely the most efficient ways would beto poison all the abortionists doctors inthe country, to bomb the clinics, or tkidnap the girls who attempt to go inthe clinics. What i I put an organization together that was called "Project Rescue" dedicated to kidnapping girls ..before they can have abortions in order

Proverbs are occasional and don't applyto everybody in every situation. Thedanger every teacher must avoid with the Proverbs is the tendency t "overextend" the proverb in application. The book of Proverbs is wisdom literature.not a list of legal stipulations like Exo

dus 21-23. Second, the Proverbs cannot be separated from Christ and the covenantal community. They are notmoralistic rules, but Christo-centric wisdom for God's covenantal communit)i.Psalm 82, the parallel passage to Pro-verbs 24, establishes the fact that lh..e "rescues" baye primary application with- in the covenant community. I wonderwhether this proverb was meant tb.imply that every Israelite in the landwas obligated to physically rescue all the pagan children sacrificed in thenations surrounding Israel. I doubt i tThe primary application was to be madewithin the covenant community. More

. about this later. The third observationI'd like to make about Proverbs 24 isthat, according to the larger context ofthe book of Proverbs, the primaryresponsibility for rescuing belongs tothe civil rulers, the king and the judges. It is certainly significant the the book.of Proverbs was written by the king tofunction as a manual of conduct for hisson . It was designed to help the sonlearn how to rule. The king's son.needed to know these things in order to

succeed his father as a just and prudentruler. The context of Ps. 82 is similar.

to keep them hidden till they gavebirth? It is. a rescue, isn't it? It's even"pysically intervening." Can I claimProverbs 24:11 as justification for thiskind of activity? Hardly. What I amtrying to illustrate is that Terry's argu- .

ments do not prove his point. They do . not prove that it is legitimate and bib- :

Thus, one biblical way of "rescuing" would be for the "lesser magistrates" or local governments to resistthe higher magistrates out of obedienceto the law of God. This is preciselywhat our founding fathers did. Thei r way was not a revolution, like the French Revolution, but a war for independence by the local and lesser magis-trates of the American Colonies against

the tyranny of King George . I could gointo this in more detail, but I won t

Heal to rescue the uribom in the way he has su2gested.

Let. me say a few more wordsabout Proverbs 24: 11. First, this passage is a proverb, not a universallybinding commandment Every Biblestudent worth his salt knows that the

For the logic behind my view I wouldsuggest that you review Calvin'sInstitutes, Bk. 4, chpt. 20. Also seeMicheal Gilstrap's article, "John Calvin's Theology of Resistance," inChristianity and Civilization 2 : he

heolo gy o f Christian Resistance (Ty-

The Counsel of Chalcedon, December, 1988 P a g e 5


4/5

ler, Texas: Geneva Divinity SchoolPress, 1983). Also, examine the difference between Knox and Calvin onthe question of the individual citizen'sright to rebel. Calvin. opposed Knox'sanarchistic methods of .resisting evilgovernments. He successfully demolished Knox's idea that any individualhad the right to rebel against th.e civilrulers. Ca.J.vin s political philosophycarried the day in 17th and;l8th centuryEngland and America.

Until we declare our rebellionagainst the powers that be, until thetime comes when it is necessary tQdeclare war on our civil government,until the time comes when it is neces:..sary to declare our total independence

-from - the USAr -until then, - we mustcontinue to operate in obedience to its

laws, in those areas where Y are notbeing required to break God's laws. four government decides to force ourwives to have abortions then that isanother story. The Bible is clear in thatcase, we must not submit. But no oneis being forced to abort their childrenyet

Fifthly, let me return to thequestion of motives. Now lets behonest with one another. I have frequently heard rescuers insist that theonly (or primary) goal of rescues is tosave babies from death. If that is true,why all the people? Why all the hypeabout crowds and numbers? Wby didthey give false names in Atlanta, if notto foul up the local police system andget publicity? Why is this being toutedas the best way to educate the nationand stop abortion? Honestly. I f ourgoal was just to rescue babies, if thatwas what was really motivating us,then .we would have been doing whatthe Direct Action League has beendoing in St. Louis for years. Theydon't need all the publicity. They don'tneed all the media coverage. They don'tneed big crowds. Three .or four of themgo down to the local clinic. every weekand keep girls from going in. Thenthey are put in jail .They get out and doit again . Their motivation is to savebabies, nqt change the world. I am notdefending the Di rect Action League, nordo I agree with their tactics, but as far

P a g e 2 6 ~ ~

true. I saw it happen when the theonQ-my/reconsttuctionist movement wasgetting under way in thelate 70's andearly SO s., There are certain parallelswith Operation Rescue that are striking.In Operation Rescue I see a lot ofsingle issue Christians, a lot of unbalanced Christians, a .lot of immatureChristians, and a lot of right-wingChristians, .who are pressuring peopleto get involved in what ; hink isthe ultimate answer. The same thinghappened with theonomy. They Writeoff everybody who does not immediately participate as comwomisers. Thesame thing happened with t h e o n oThey are impatient with people whowant to examine the Bible to see i t tindeed does just ify that k.ind'of activity;The same thing happened with theo

nomy. f you're not ,;saving babies,they say, : yo11 re not p r o ~ l i. -- that kind of stuff. The same thinghappened with theonomy. You're notWll.1x doing kingdom work unlessyou are involved in reforming economics, politics, and Christian. education.Now I 'm fundamentally a theonomist /but I don't buy these kinds of tactics.But that's what often happens in thesekinds of movements; the loudest, mosradical people are elevated to leadershipThey attract the worst element n hris-

tendom.And

worstof

all; when thesemovements are not radical enough fotthem, .they move on. Operation Rescueis not for me. I've learned my lesson.

Furthermore, l am not particularly attracted to Randall Terry s l e a dship style.- Mr . Terry's public behaviorhas been disturbing. I was partictilarlyappauled by his performance'' : onABC's, 2QL2Q. n O c ~ b e r .Prancingaround the rescue in Atlanta with acellular telephone and answering callswith Maxwell Smart was immatureand foolish. It made the whole affairseem like a big game, a big publicitystunt. What does this kind of behaviorreveal about - Mr. Terry's Christianmaturity? About his fitness for elevation to national leadership if . the prolife movement? Am I being tooharsh?

I have another tlieological question concerning the extent of our te-

The Couoscl of .Chalcedon, December, 1988


5/5

sponsibility to pagan women who sacrifice their children. A corollary issue isthat of our responsibility the unbornchildren of pagan women . Should Oliiwives and children be sacrificed (whenwe go to jail or worse) to savechildren? I think DOL

As tough as his positionsounds to our modem liberalized ears, Ihave to agree with Joe Morecraft again.He urges us to break through our emotions in order to examine carefully ourmotives and strategies in pro-life activities . Let me preface the following remarks with these words : I hate to seeunborn babies killed. It breaks myheart and enrages me at the same time.The subject of abortion is a highly emotional subject to me. But our emotional involvement must not hinder us from

analyzing things biblically. The DirectAction groups have redefined the goalof the pro-life agenda from stQpj>in2abortions to savin2 babies . This I believe, is more than semantics. On thebasis of this redefinition of goals, thisgroup lays upon Christians their dutyto actually and physically save babiesfrom abortion in front of abortionclinics, going so far as to say that weare sinning i f we do not indiscriminately rescue unborn babies from abortion.My concern is this: we need to examine very carefully and biblically whether itis in fact true, that we are sinning i f weare not, physically and indiscriminately,trying to save unborn babies from abortion . At this point, it is the 'indiscriminrue li that I am concerned about inlight of such passages as Ps 137:8-9,which says, 0 daughter of Babylon,you devastated one, how blessed will bethe one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us.How blessed will be the one who seizesand dashes your little ones against therocks. See also Hosea 13:16. I am

not suggesting anything . But I amasking the question, what are theimplications of the soUdarity of antiChri stian families, and the judgment ofGod upon the parents and unborn babiesof anti-Christians alike , as in Noah'sflood, which drowned unborn babies ,and Sodom and Gomorrha , in whichunborn babies were burned up by

God what are the implication of thesefacts for our indiscriminate attempts tosave babies? We must have the integrity and humility to find an answer tothese kinds of questions . I agree withMorecraft. The anti-abortion movement is often more sentimental than

biblical. I must state categorically thateven stopping the practice of abortionis D Qt our primary concern. I would addNumbers 16: 27-33 to Morecraft's verses as an example of God executing thelittle ones belonging to Korah,

Dathan and Abiram. We are covenantal in our theology. God deals not justwith individuals but with families inblessing and in curse. God deals withhouseholds. f the pagans are determined to kill their children, are we

really obliged to put ourselves and ourfamilies at risk to rescue them? t isour business to witness against abortion as murder. God's glory is at stake.His image is being attacked in the murder of the unborn. It is our business toexpose the deceptions and the grislycruelties that are abortion. It is ourduty to preach and teach against theseviolations of God's law . But as farputting my wife and children at risk inorder to keep a pagan woman fromsacrificing her child, I believe that'sgoing too far. Galatians 6:10 says dogood to all men, but especially to thehousehold of faith. Our picketing andpreaching and teaching and writingletters and crisis pregn ancy work andpolitical lobbying all these legalavenues of redress and m n s t r y ~

we are doing good to all menB1 1t we are not required to go h eyQndthat with the pagans. With our brothers and sisters in Christ, yes. Withpagans , no. God condemned child sacrifice in the Old Testament God 'sprophets boldly condemned i t But he

didn't ask the Israelites to do rescues inthe pagan temples of the surroundingnations.

Let me say this in conclusion.The really radical activities are notpolitical in nature . II Cor . 10:3-5makes this abundantly clear . Paulwarns us : For though we live in theworld, we do not wage war as the world

does. The weapons we fight with arenot the weapons of the world . On thecontrary, they have Divine power todemolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that setsitself up against the knowledge of God,and we take captive every thought to

make it obedient to Christ. . . . You arelooking only on the surface of things.We need to be reminded that the

really effective means are not those thatthe world would point to as effective.The really radical stuff goes on in thechurch . Our ultimate goals are not political. Our ultimate goal is not a constitutional amendment. We have fallenfor the humanistic doctrine of politicalsalvation . Furthermore , we have fallenfor the humanistic doctrine of salvationby knowledge and education. We don't

believe that multi-media presentationsand massive educational programs willcause non-Christians to fight for whatis right . That's garbage. We don't believe that the main problem is politicalor even epistemological. Pagans ls; niDythat abortion is murder (Rom . 1:32),they just refuse to admit i t The problem is not education . We believe thatthe main problem is relig ious and ethical, internal and not environmental.

We believe that the Spirit of God,using biblical means such as preaching,worship, evangelism, etc, will affect arevival and reformation in this land.This will happen when the church repents and God sovereignl y works in thehearts and minds of men and women inthis country. Why not do some reallyradi cal stuff like 40 days of fasting? twhy not have whole services dedicatedto praying for God's wrath to descendupon the abortionists ? Why not prayer? Why not corporate formal prayeragainst the abortionists in our country?This is how history moves, accordingto the book of Revelation, not by politi

cal action. In chapters 6 and 9 particularly, we see the church praying andGod responding with judgment and deliverance in history.

I have gone on too long al-ready , but I wanted to be as complete aspossible . Please take the opportunityto prayerfully consider my critique.

The Counsel of Chalcedon, December, 1988 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page27

Documents

1988 Issue 12 - An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers About Rescue Operations - Counsel of Chalcedon