Intellectual Honesty & Pro-life Killers

Below are some thoughts I put to paper following the trial and conviction of Scott Roeder, shooter of abortionist George Tiller. Due to the sensitive nature of the discussion I asked for some advice from Sam Crabtree, a wise friend as well as my pastor. The conversation that ensued is posted below.

______________________________________

From: jamin dick
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:15 PM
To: Crabtree, Sam; Piper, John;
Subject: Intellectual Honesty and Pro-life Killers

Dear Pastors,

I wrote the below this week as I followed the trial of abortion-doctor-killer Scott Roeder. As a leader of a small group and member of Bethlehem I ask for your honest opinion and guidance before I post it on my blog or share it with anyone.

Yours,

Jamin Dick

_____________________________

Intellectual Honesty and Pro-life Killers
01/30/2010

Less than a week after the 37th anniversary of Roe vs Wade the question of how to oppose abortion came into sharp relief in the conviction of Scott Roeder who approached abortionist George Tiller last May and shot him point blank in the head in the foyer of his church.

As I’ve followed this story I found it raising some unexpected thoughts for me. My first reflex was to join the many “reasonable” voices on the pro-life side condemning him as a horribly misguided soul who has done more harm than good to the pro-life movement. After all, it’s pretty hard to call yourself “pro-life” if you’re willing to shoot someone in cold blood at their church.

But something about this has been nagging at me. Namely, the logic that drove Roeder to shoot Tiller seems compelling if you take the pro-life view to its logical conclusion. What’s more he hasn’t done anything to avoid facing the legal consequences of his actions.

First, Roeder believes that abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life, that is, intentionally and for mere convenience. This is basically the pro-life position and while divisive, is not extreme or controversial by itself.
He testified that “the legal process has been exhausted” presumably referring to the fact that abortion has been the law of the land since 1973 and has withstood countless challenges in every branch of government for 37 years. By comparison, William Wilberforce was able to singlehandedly eradicate slavery in England, which was no less engrained there, in only 19 years. In short, abortion is here to stay in the same way that women’s suffrage and church/state separation is here to stay.

Roeder’s lawyer argued for a lesser manslaughter charge which depended on proving that he held “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” The judge rejected the argument. While one can understand the judge’s desire to not let him off easy it’s hard to understand the logic. Does he doubt that Roeder held his beliefs honestly? If so, why did he make no attempt to hide his premeditation but instead said his belief that “abortion is murder” drove him to plan the killing for years in advance? Or did the judge doubt that Tiller would return to his clinic on Monday morning and continue performing abortions as he has for the past two decades?

Actually, it seems certain that Roeder’s views were very honest and that he simply took them to their logical end. And it seems equally certain that many more abortions would be performed on Monday morning and every day following as long as George Tiller was alive.

So now I ask a difficult question. On what basis do pro-lifers condemn this killing? I don’t say this was the only right response but how do we distinguish this action from say Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s attempt to kill Adolf Hitler without being intellectually dishonest?

I can only conclude that it has more to do with the fear of the public outrage that would fall upon pro-lifers as a group and upon any individuals who were to admit that this is the logical conclusion when you believe abortion is murder, the legal process is exhausted and that it will continue tomorrow if no one intervenes.

Is there a pro-life movement today with the courage to bear this scorn or will we continue to be the “reasonable” opposition for another 40 years?

_______________________________________

On Feb 2, 2010, at 1:51 PM, “Crabtree, Sam” wrote:

Thanks for thinking hard, Jamin, for advocating for important things, and for pausing to run your arguments past others.

Allow me to bring one factor into your considerations that I have found to be a helpful one in trying to be biblically wise.

To illustrate: a few years ago I was walking about a half block behind a man when a car sped up to him, screeched to a halt, some men jumped out, bound the man, shoved him into their car, and drove off. I did not think it kidnapping and therefore I did not call the police. Why did I not think it to be kidnapping? Because it was the police. It was not kidnapping, but an arrest.

A parent may legitimately spank a child in a way that his sibling may not.

The key biblical principle to which I refer is jurisdiction. The police have jurisdiction to apprehend in ways you and I don’t (although there is explicit room in the law for citizens arrest, under limitations, including no deadly force – which is germane to your inquiry). A parent has jurisdiction that siblings don’t.

Similarly, the courts may execute Jeffrey Dahmer; I may not.

God has given the sword to the state, to civil authorities, in a way that he has not given it to ordinary citizens on the street (see Romans 13:4).

Though the issues are admittedly messy and complex, if through due process the state finds Tiller guilty of a capital offense and consequently puts him to death, it is a lawful execution. If an ordinary citizen takes matters into his own hands, it is unlawful murder.

I hope this is a hopeful and relevant piece of the discussion, and not a derailing or sidestepping of obedience to God rather than man.

Sam
_______________________________________

From: Jamin Dick
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:15 PM
To: Crabtree, Sam
Cc: Piper, John
Subject: Re: Intellectual Honesty and Pro-life Killers

Sam,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think jurisdiction is the strongest biblical argument against what Scott Roeder did and I can accept it. But it leaves me wondering if there’s ever a place for “private” deadly force then. Should I intervene in a robbery or protect my family from an intruder? And if that’s ok why are those threats more imminent than abortion?

Also I think Bonhoeffer’s plot to kill Hitler violates the jurisdiction principle even more than what this man did.

Anyway, I don’t see a middle way here but maybe I’m too black and white. I guess I’ll trust that “the judge of all the earth shall do what is just” when it comes to abortion.

Thanks for the guidance.

Jamin
________________________________________________

From: Crabtree, Sam
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:52 AM
To: Jamin Dick
Subject: RE: Intellectual Honesty and Pro-life Killers
Dear Jamin,

How I admire the courage of your conviction, and the intentionality of your thought processes.

I admit that these matters are messy and sticky. You are helping me think, and that is good. Thank you. Allow me to add a couple more thoughts.

First, I for one do not take for granted that Bonhoeffer was justified in plotting death any more than Jesus’ sidekick was justified in raising his sword against the Roman soldiers who arrested Jesus.

Second, resistance to wicked and unjust laws can be carried out as it was by Daniel, by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Namely, they would not do evil, though it was not their jurisdiction to use force to stop others from doing evil. Let me attempt this modern day silly example: If the government enacted a law that we must smoke cigarettes, I believe Christians of conscience could disobey that law and take the consequences of civil disobedience (lion’s dens or whatever). However, I do not think we have biblical warrant to go around and snatch cigarettes from the mouths of everyone on the street, even though they are killing someone. There is a difference between doing a crime and stopping everyone else who is doing a crime, even a deadly one. If that were permissible, individuals with various consciences would be justified in blowing up nuclear power plants, derailing coal trains, and setting fire to your automobile because they believe all of them are producing death.

Third, we already have laws (put in place by the civil authorities) called Good Samaritan laws, permitting us to tackle burglars in convenience stores, and shoot intruders in our domiciles (though usually not with deadly force – we must try to injure and arrest without killing). Unfortunately, in our context, the courts have specifically excluded abortion clinics from these laws. When the government is mistaken, we do not take matters into our own hands, but we appeal to the government as Esther did, as Nathan did. Moses responded to wicked government action a wrong way (murder) and a right way (making repeated appeals to the Pharaoh).

Toward clear consciences before God, and helpful responses toward man,

Sam

Advertisement