IS THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE "OPERATION RESCUE PHENOMENON" AN ETHICALLY OR THEOLOGICALLY LEGITIMATE EVANGELICAL OPTION? by Joseph B. Whitchurch B.A., Trinity College, 1976 A THESIS Submitted to the Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Christian Thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Deerfield, Illinois June 1990 ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to defend the legitimacy of the civil disobedience that characterizes the operation rescue movement. I am not defending the organization "Operation Rescue" per se, but am defending those evangelical christians who are engaging in civil disobedience at abortion clinics around the United States. I interact with a couple of key evangelical scholars who feel this movement is unbiblical, and a couple who feel it is biblical. In so doing, I attempt to examine the ethical problems associated with civil disobedience, "indirect" civil disobedience, as well as examine the manner in which both groups of scholars utilize Scripture in their respective arguments, and I add my insight to a Biblical case also. Throughout the thesis I interact with the viewpoint of the various scholars. It is important to note that each of these scholars holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, and believes the unborn child is a human being from conception. I give evidence from my research, participation in the planning and implementation of a rescue, and interviews with rescuers, that this movement is better understood as "soft direct" civil disobedience, rather than mere "indirect" civil disobedience. I trace the history of civil disobedience in Scripture, and discover several examples of what I would call "soft direct" civil disobedience in Scripture. This work also looks at the difficulties associated with attributing "sins of omission" to another person, and the difficulties associated with utilizing Old Testament passages and theocratic contexts in ethics today. Further, I form a matrix of prudent questions, for the evangelical who is considering involvement in a rescue. While firmly believing that the rescue movement is exegetically and ethically permissible and even helpful in the pro-life movement, it is not my position that all christians are morally obligated to involve themselves in the civil disobedience of a rescue. It is my position that all christians should be involved in the rescue of the unborn in some capacity but the process of working through the issues will vary, as will the question of which methodology to employ. In short I have defended the ethical, theological, and prudential legitimacy of rescues as a useful vehicle for evangelical protest of abortion on demand over against the position that this form of protest is unbiblical, or that the rescue event itself is prudentially suspect. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION OF THE THESIS . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Presuppositions Method and introduction The significance of the project 2. DEFINING TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Operation rescue phenomenon Civil Disobedience 3. TWO EVANGELICAL CHALLENGERS OF OPERATION RESCUE . 7 Rushdoony's argument Geisler's argument Other responses 4. IS IT A PURELY PRUDENTIAL ISSUE? . . . . . . . . 13 5. OPERATION RESCUE DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Brown's argument Terry's argument, presented by Foreman in debate Other responses 6. ASSESSMENT OF KEY SCRIPTURAL ISSUES . . . . . . . 28 Usage of the key passages by both groups Concerning the use of Old Testament passages. The ethical difficulty of assessing sins of omission. How significant biblically is the distinction between direct and indirect civil disobedience in ethical discernment. 7. ETHICAL QUESTIONS FOR WEIGHING A PRUDENTIAL INVOLVEMENT . . . . . 47 Prioritizing criteria The overall "fit" of operation rescue 8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION OF THE THESIS Presuppositions This thesis intends to evaluate the ethical and theological positions of several evangelical scholars regarding their understanding of the legitimacy of "Operation Rescue" phenomenon. The scholars I consider all believe the pre-born child is a human being, and further believe the scriptures are inerrant as defined in the Chicago Statement. Method and Introduction My task is to look at the problems associated with civil disobedience as it is expressed in operation rescue, and to defend the legitimacy of the rescues ethically and theologically. I will interacting with the theological and ethical dilemmas associated with the problem, in the context of the forementioned presuppositions. Also I will reflect on the phenomenon as an insider, by participating in the planning and implementation of a rescue, and will look at some length at how opposing sides utilize scripture. Lastly, I'll attempt to prioritize prudential (not necessarily amoral) criteria for those considering participation in a rescue, utilizing the data collected. The Significance of the Thesis Because rescues, in the ethical arena of abortion, were proliferating (12,000 arrests in the last half of 1988, and 55,000 risking arrest in 1989), the need for this discussion is somewhat urgent. The perceived slowing of the rescue movement could be due to the softening of the Supreme Court on the application of Roe v Wade, but more likely because of ambiguities concerning the use of racketeering litigation against those involved in nonviolent civil disobedience at abortion clinics. In any event, rescues will present some ethical difficulty for the Christian. An evangelical understanding of civil disobedience as it is occurring at abortion "clinics" is hoped for, but a consensus is certainly not likely. Beyond the 55,000 risking arrest are the families and churches where these activists attend, and the questions with which they grapple. Over 215 cities have had rescues and 110 "rescue communities" have been formed.3 Most of the rescuers and the founder of the operation rescue movement are evangelical Christians. It would seem appropriate for evangelicals to interact and think deeply about the ethic, theology and propriety of operation rescue. CHAPTER 2 DEFINING TERMS Operation Rescue Phenomenon Operation Rescue has been defined as, The rescue of women, and the babies they are carrying, from the horrors of abortion by physically placing protesters between the abortionist and his victims, risking arrest in response to higher law.4 This is how operation rescue advocates speak of it. While "horrors" and "victims" can be called emotive language by some, within the presuppositions of this work they are a shared assessment of abortion. I speak of the language, not the methodology. Rescues are nonviolent as nobody touches the women or the abortionist. Neither do rescuers resist arrest (most often for trespassing) but they "go limp," showing an unwillingness to allow the practice of abortion to continue. Civil Disobedience Phillip Meade has made careful historical inquiry into working definitions of civil disobedience from the early 1950s through the mid 1980s. His definition is an excellent one particularly as it was reached while observing the issue as it related to the possibility of significant evangelical involvement in civil disobedience on this same issue, abortion. My interaction with this definition, especially selected phrases, will follow. Civil disobedience is a deliberate violation, by commission or omission, of a government law or act, done in obedience to a higher moral authority. It is usually done publicly with a view toward stimulating the consciences of onlookers and changing the government policy (whether in law or the failure to have a law) in question. It may be either direct or indirect and will usually be nonviolent including the acceptance of whatever penalty may be imposed.5 First, this definition applies to the rescues because the rescuers violate trespassing laws deliberately. Second, a key word in Meade's definition is "usually". I mention this because the key motivation ("view") of the rescuers is the saving of a human life that will be destroyed that very day if not rescued. Also, showing the fruit of repentance is a motivator for rescuers. They are physically showing their repentance for allowing this practice to occur for 17 plus years. Stimulating government conscience is a part of the picture, but these other criteria are significantly weightier in the minds of the rescuers, and in rescue literature. Third, the rescues are nonviolent. There have been cases of extreme force used by civil authorities upon the rescuers (Los Angeles police use of nunchakas being one of several) yet rescuers have remained nonviolent and limp. In all the rescues I have seen, helped to organize, or have investigated, the rescues followed principles of nonviolence and required the signing of an agreement to that effect as a condition for involvement. The question of whether rescues must be nonviolent is outside the scope of this project, and depends on one's view of pacifism, "just war" theories, and the like. For the non-pacifist, it does not seem that refraining from the use of force is a necessary condition of the argument in favor of abortion-related activism. As a matter of prudence, one would likely try other alternatives before resorting to violent protest. Challengers of rescues have raised the question of escalation repeatedly, though it only seems to hold a kind of "slippery slope" emotive value in debates. Fourth, while rescuers accept the penalties, they do have defense rights which they exercise, and they can utilize the pressure of their numbers to lower fines and reduce (or limit) jail terms, because of the strain their numbers place upon the legal, civil, and correctional systems. This is especially true if each protester requests a trial by jury, or if all rescuers at a given rescue were jailed together (eg.overcrowding), refused to give their names, or give their names as "Baby Doe", etc. These post-arrest techniques raise other prudential issues. Peripheral actions of this kind are varied and are therefore kept outside the scope of our immediate concern; the rescue event itself. Given these qualifiers, Meade's definition provides a significant common ground for what we mean by civil disobedience in the present context of rescues. CHAPTER 3 TWO EVANGELICAL CHALLENGERS OF OPERATION RESCUE Dr. Rushdoony's Argument Not all evangelicals believe the rescues are a legitimate expression of protest. One of these opponents surprisingly is Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony of the reconstructionist movement. In a position paper from the "Chalcedon Report"6 Dr. Rushdoony rightly begins by pointing out the fundamental truth that man's problem is ultimately not in something outside himself, but rather the problem is in man himself. He also recognizes the tendencies within "liberation theology" to twist the gospel from "the power of God unto salvation," into "the power of revolution unto salvation." It appears that Dr. Rushdoony lumps the rescue movement into the liberation theology camp. He questions whether any unborn babies have had their lives spared by the demonstrators, and further states that if lawless blockage of access is allowed for the rescues, then we must also justify the possibility of pro-choice advocates blocking access to church assemblies. He states that advocates impugn the reputations of their critics, and likens the rescues to violent men, and mob action. He argues that the logic of a pro-rescue position carries one forward to the destruction of property and ultimately to the murdering of abortionists. He correctly points out the strong stands of the early church against abortion saying that they did so "without ever suggesting violence". Then he makes a prioritizing criticism implying that rescuers have placed saving babies above obedience to God. He further implies that rescuers have resorted to violence as a first resort. And lastly, he says the rescuers assume that everything depends on their action, and thus they deny God. Apart from his arguments ad hominem (they impugn character), fallacies of extension (church blocking, bombing, and murder), and inappropriate emotive language (violence), there is very little left in Dr. Rushdoony's case. The issue of impugning another's character is a problem, but it does not address the issue and therefore is a red herring. Blocking a church entrance is a potential ideological protest, but does not fit our analogy nicely, as it is not for the purpose of saving a human life. Further, nothing within our description of the operation rescue movement fits the definition of violence. The difficult issue is whether or not the methodology of rescue action comes from thought sources foreign to Scripture.7 It would be easy to just say this is a case of utilizing guilt by association (eg. linking rescues to theologies of liberation), and to note that it is unfair of Dr. Rushdoony to say that "the closest thing to a text to justify them is Acts 5:29."8 Yet his question concerning the thought source of the rescue movement is important. We shall consider how advocates and opponents utilize scripture in a later section. One thing is clear: Neither position rests on a single text of Scripture. Dr. Geisler's Argument Another outspoken foe of the rescue methodology is Dr. Norman Geisler. Dr. Geisler's pro-life views and his commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture are well known. In his book "Operation Unbiblical" he links the writings of Dr. Francis Schaeffer with a "promulgation view" concerning when it is permissible for a Christian to disobey government. Dr. Geisler's view is called the "compulsion view". The difference is that in the former view, government can be disobeyed when it commands moral evil, AND when it permits moral evil (like abortion). Geisler's view is that the former may be disobeyed, and not the latter.9 He lists the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 2, Daniel's refusal to abstain from prayer, the apostle's refusal to abstain from preaching, and others as examples of the former, and not the latter (eg. we are commanded to pray, to witness, and not to murder). Dr. Geisler, in making his case look strong, takes Dr. Schaeffer's weakest example, the government's refusal to permit the teaching of creation science in public schools as tyrannical, to illustrate a weakness in the rescue ethical system. Those involved in the rescues, he states, would also be obligated to engage in civil disobedience against this law of the land as well. It should be pointed out that while Dr. Schaeffer did picket against abortion, he never publically acted out the public protest (about creation science) that Dr. Geisler says he had, and was obligated to act out. Basically when all the stretched analogies get reduced to their core, Dr. Geisler believes that civil disobedience is permissible only in cases of what may be called direct civil disobedience. The rescues are indirect civil disobedience and therefore illegitimate. Nobody is commanding the Christian to get an abortion. That would be a case where one should disobey. The state is only allowing others to chose to have an abortion, a decision for which the person getting the abortion is morally responsible. The law being broken by rescuers is not the same law that is being considered morally wrong, therefore the protest is indirect and illegitimate for the biblical Christian, according to Geisler. He further says that when the Christian must disobey a direct "compulsory" command of the state (eg. when it forces one directly to violate God's law), he must (1) refuse to obey it, (2) resist it non-violently, (3) attempt to flee if possible, (4) accept the punishment of the governing power.10 It is interesting that operation rescue advocates have been in harmony with these guidelines. The exception of course is (3) which would apply most clearly to compulsory contexts. Only the alleged indirect context of the rescue event should be greeted with Dr. Geisler's label of 'unbiblical'. Nevertheless, Dr. Geisler states that "to be consistent with their own logic "operation rescue" type efforts should be bombing abortion clinics and even assassinating doctors and nurses performing abortion!"11 He, like Dr. Rushdoony before him, is responding to extreme examples given by Randall Terry and others who utilize illustrations to show the importance of the saving of a human life. This only muddies the water with another ethical question (eg. the just war theories), and has only an emotive role in discussions concerning this subject. It is a fact that in terms of the "how" question (as opposed to the "when"), Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, and most of its advocates, agree in writing with Dr. Geisler's guidelines. Other Responses The real thorny issue is whether or not operation rescue is clearly a strong case of merely indirect civil disobedience. Further, we need to see whether or not Scripture, utilized as Dr. Geisler has done with the Hebrew midwives and Daniel, can be shown to be clearly prohibitive of indirect disobedience with a wider scope of these and other "indirect" situations. Those questions will be considered in a latter section of this thesis. While some will disagree with the legitimacy of operation rescue on purely prudential grounds, for Dr. Geisler, Dr. Rushdoony and others, the question of whether it is unbiblical is really the significant one, which they repeatedly raise. This is the big issue for Dr. Charles Stanley and other opponents of the rescue methodology of protest. For most therefore the largest issue is the fact that the rescues are indirect and unbiblical, similar to liberation theology and unbiblical, reconstructionistic and inappropriately applying texts from theocratic contexts and unbiblical, etc. It is not simply a prudential issue for these outspoken scholars. CHAPTER 4 IS IT PURELY A PRUDENTIAL ISSUE? At this juncture it is necessary to ask whether or not purely pragmatic or purely prudential objections to operation rescue are able to avoid the category of being "unbiblical." Of course in matters of "meat offered to idols" (Romans 14) and the like, prudential decisions have moral implications. These will be influenced by the motive of the participant, the participant's awareness of his influence on the perceptions of others, and the moral and religious strength of conviction of his own commitment, and that of those who observe the action. If one claims to object to the rescues on "purely" prudential grounds, or "purely" pragmatic grounds, then it would be reasonable either to relegate the discussion to the realm of conscience (where christians can legitimately disagree), or to say more honestly that the pragmatic or prudential concerns about operation rescue are NOT the sole concern. In short, this position must make its case if not purely from conscience (with all it's vulnerabilities and subjectivity) then on the merit of the rescues violation of some biblical truth or principle. There seems to be an unwillingness to do this or it will place the critic in the same realm of Geisler, et al. My conclusion is that it is either a matter of conscience (and thus in a realm where christians may legitimately agree to disagree) or else it is unbiblical. I have sought to represent the strongest cases where operation rescue could well be considered unbiblical rather than dwelling on matters of conscience. Considerations of conscience and prudence will be considered at the last section of this thesis. I do this because I believe prudential concerns (as opposed to "purely prudential concerns") are not always amoral in their implications. CHAPTER 5 OPERATION RESCUE DEFENSE Dr. Brown's Argument At this venture we shall consider some of the scholars who accept the rescues as a legitimate evangelical option. Dr. Harold O.J. Brown is one who while questioning some prudential aspects of the rescue movement in some circumstances, does not view it (in principle) as illegitimate for an evangelical Christian's participation. In an uncorrected copy of a paper "Civil" Disobedience (Operation Rescue as a Case in Point), he writes, "Lest there be any doubt where I am headed in this presentation, let me assure my hearers that I respect and approve the motivation of the Operation Rescue movement, and consider it biblically justifiable (Pg.7)." He goes on to mention that he has no conviction that he himself is called to participate in it, and mentions questions about its long term effectiveness, and some prudential considerations. This is a strong statement when you consider that Dr. Brown's position with the Christian Action Council dictates a modicum of objectability, as they oversee over four hundred crisis pregnancy counseling centers across the nation. His involvement personally in a rescue could well impede the reputation of these centers in the minds of a broad constituency of conservatives who are generally unversed in the theological and ethical nuances of civil disobedience. Dr. Brown expresses frustration with how the church seems allowed to express public criticism, only when its criticisms, protests and acts of civil disobedience coincide with what he calls the current media orthodoxy. Dr. Brown offers a sociological perspective on what makes the rescues such a hotbed of Christian activism. He traces the churches' feeling of frustration with systems that force her into roles where she can express, but only in socially impotent arenas. When forced by legislation out of governmental influence (in the name of "the wall of separation"), or out of the media (in the name of pluralism), and when you combine this with the relative moral strength of evangelicalism in an environment of moral decline, what other options or outlets are open to the socially aware Christian? He talks about the refined ways our society muzzles evangelicals drawing illustrations from the nearly vain protests of Christians against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" and how only the death threats by the Ayatollah created a parallel.12 While agreeing with much of his societal interpretation, one does wonder whether we can take the moral strength of evangelicals for granted. It would seem that unless this moral strength is of the privately engaging but socially irrelevant kind, we are seeing little of it operative, and are simultaneously receiving large doses of evangelical moral failure placarded before us regularly, both on a local and national level. Dr. Brown's likely response would be that this too is part of the media agenda (eg. making these high profile stories). He has also said that the pro-life movement has been largely ignored, and publically stifled, and smothered into violence.13 While his empathy is commendable, the scenario is not flattering to rescuers, if this is the group he has in mind concerning the choice of the word "violence." For Dr. Brown, the prudential case against the rescues is the toughest case, though in conversation I did not sense he felt it by any means insurmountable. He has concerns about media hostility, detraction of attention away from legal initiatives, and even the possibility that rescues may provoke more antagonism than partnership with the wider pro-life community.14 This has a historical parallel with the abolitionist movement. It is true that his paper was published shortly after the Supreme Court's alleged softening of Roe v Wade's interpretation, as applied on a state level. This is the common portrait of that decision but I am aware of no successful litigation against an abortionist, or for the unborn regarding the practice of abortion on demand, if the woman and her doctor consented. One wonders how those who identify with Dr. Brown's position would respond after so many brilliant state level initiatives met with gubernatorial vetoes, and even pro-life governors like the one in Idaho were cowed into compliance by the hard hitting tactics of abortion advocates. Nevertheless, apart from what he terms the "eccentric tactics" of some rescuers, he feels the movement is justified adding that it violates no commands of God, nor principles of natural law, nor the central criminal statues of the state.15 He seemed to hope we will find something to implement effectually that is better than civil disobedience, but seems uncertain that we will. He is understandably impatient at the close of his paper, and states, "Yet there comes a time when caution is cowardice and inaction is wrong action." Truly civil civil disobedience must be allowed, says Dr. Brown, and those who chose this avenue and do so with civility must also be respected in the Christian community.16 Joseph Foreman's Argument Another advocate of the legitimacy of operation rescue is Joseph Foreman, Operation Rescue's National Field Director. In a taped debate between Foreman and Geisler, distributed by Quest Productions (Dr. Geisler's organization), Foreman does succeed in getting Dr. Geisler to state that he respects those Christians who are wrongly doing rescues, more than those who are doing nothing to end the practice of abortion.17 In response to Dr. Geisler's argument that rescue logic leads to violence, Foreman states that the church is not given the "avenging sword" of authority, but he argues that death is final, and by illustration states that yes, we sometimes must take the keys of the auto from the hands of the drunk. He argues that it is not necessary to shoot someone to prevent child killing, and that the methodology of nonviolence is chosen because it imitates Christ's humility and often it also imitates His suffering. In some respects Mr. Foreman views the suffering of the rescuers as a part of divine judgment that must first come upon the house of God. Geisler had pressed the illustration of self defense by asking, If it is permissible for the non-pacifist to kill in self defense or the defense of one's wife from an attacking intruder, then what prevents the use of violence in the rescue movement's ethic? This is an example of the emotive nature of some of the discussions. Joseph Foreman's interesting response is that unlike the attempted wife attacker scenario, he views himself personally and the church at large responsible for the acceptance of abortion on demand in this country. He views himself as part of the cause of the injustice, and part of the reason for its continued existence.18 This is the case because he sincerely believes the church could put an end to abortion on demand very quickly if it had a will to do so. Further he believes that the church (like himself) needs to repent of inaction, and the inconsistency between our belief (abortion destroys a human life) and our action (private pietism, aloof letter writing and the like).19 Responding to the debate I found myself wondering why Foreman did not turn the question of alleged logical consequences of ethical consistency on Geisler himself. He could always ask whether or not one could use force (so frequently referred to as "violence") to resist someone who was forcing you or another person to commit immorality or idolatry? He did manage to get one telling emotive question into Dr. Geisler's lap that was intriguing. He set a context of the possible legalization of the destruction of children, up to the age of four, stating that serious voices in the "pro-choice" movement are calling for freedom of the mother's choice up to six months after the birth of the child. Dr. Geisler was understandably uneasy about the use of the term "murder" to describe abortion for legally permissible reasons. Yet in this proposed legal situation, Foreman asked him whether he would approve of peaceful civil disobedience to prevent the mother of the four year old from killing the child. Dr. Geisler's admirably consistent, and horribly dissatisfying answer was that if it were legal, then this kind of civil disobedience would continue to be inappropriate.20 Dr. Geisler utilized an illustration stating that the big difference between what the Nazis did to the Jewish people, and what the State allows mothers to do to their unborn child, is that the State is only allowing the mothers who are willing, to chose this option. In the former case, the Jewish people were unwilling.21 The conspicuously absent party in the Geisler's illustration is the question of the willingness of the unborn child (in the present situation), or the willingness of the four- year-old in Joseph Foreman's scenario. The creation of hypothetical cases is helpful in showing consistency of an ethical system, if the situations are identical ("indirect civil disobedience", the saving of a human life, etc). Often analogies are deficient at involving the various aspects of the dilemma. Unquestionably the weightier issue is how the opponents and proponents of the rescue protest option integrate and utilize Scripture in their respective cases. This is also crucial in understanding whether or not the thought sources for the rescue movement are sufficiently integrative of a biblical world and life view. Other Responses It is noteworthy that not all in the reconstructionist matrix are opposed to operation rescue like Dr. Rushdoony. Gary North has written a book "Trespassing for Dear Life" which takes an extremely STRONG pro-rescue position. Other nonreconstructionists like Dr. James Kennedy, Dr. James Dobson, and Dr. Jerry Fallwell (whose Liberty University employs Dr. Geisler) all have taken a pro-rescue stand while none of them to date have participated in a rescue themselves personally. Of the rescuers I have interviewed and spoken with informally, none questions the integrity of their evangelical brethren who believe their action unbiblical. Yet there is a sense of disappointment that much that was written earlier on, did not carefully examine the rescue movement nor seriously consider the possibility of it having merit. In short, there is the feeling that conservative evangelicals have been guilty of quickly jumping to "guilt by association" fallacies with the association being with American civil disobedient groups that were lawless, like the S.D.S, the Weathermen, etc. As one who has participated in the small group steering committee for the planning and implementation of a rescue, I must confess to being predisposed toward believing it was an overdue action. My prudential concerns were ones concerning chiefly myself, and my reputation. Concern for the unborn and obedience to the will of God were secondary. A more significant disturbing issue for me was one of a different sort. I had been involved in the founding of a crisis pregnancy center years earlier, and done counselor training, yet this had been interrupted by a three year term of university student ministry in a developing nation - A nation where convenience, disposability, and TIME were not nearly as important as they are to most Americans. The significant concern was whether or not engagement in rescue type protest was a sign of impatience so typical of time oriented American society where so often we are characterized as gunhappy cowboys with a triumphalistic spirit. I had seen how this appears to friends in Zambia, and had grown to loathe the tendency in myself and others. Was 16 years of abortion on demand, 24 million lost children, really an urgent matter? Could it not be that some breakthrough would come in an unexpected way? In short, were we rushing the hand of God? If it were not for my steadying conclusion that we are in what Chuck Colson has called the new "dark ages", and that they are getting darker, that witchcraft, new age thought, and occultism, while on the decline in English-speaking Africa, and on the increase in enlightened America is a present reality, I likely would have concluded that rescues were accelerating protest a bit too quickly. A sense of urgency, and a sort of reverse culture shock, mixed with a kind of future shock at just how accustomed my evangelical student friends were becoming to abortion, further motivated me. My mind staggers however, when I think of the quantitative toll of human life, and I cannot find a historical parallel to this atrocity, once the supposition of the full humanity of the developing unborn child is grasped. To imagine this occurring in a nation with such a significant number of evangelicals, and still seeing the above trends, is almost beyond belief. On the day of the rescue, which I had helped plan, recruited for, etc, I was phoned at 4am with an urgent appeal to take my father to the hospital. He had terminal, inoperable cancer of the lung, and his rapidly progressing, recently discovered illness was the reason why our tenure in Zambia was cut a few weeks shy of our three year contract. So like Dr. Kennedy, Dobson and others, while I have picketted at a rescue site I have not been arrested as of this date. In one way I could be considered more "suspect" than they, as I organized for a rescue, then did not fully participate. However with the threat of RICO violations, it is the organizers who have more at risk than the average trespasser. This development (RICO intimidation suits) will be considered more in a later section. It is not unusual to hear another objection to the "rescues" though this objection is not heard very frequently. Basically it is an expression of doubt as to whether or not the rescues have ever really been responsible for the saving of an unborn child's life. Part of the reason for the low profile may be linked with how the issue of an actual human life delivered from physically violent death, frames the whole question in a manner favorable to those who promote the legitimacy of rescues. What price is too high to pay for the saving of the physical life of a human being? Nevertheless I have sought to provide testimonials behind the life saving of the rescues. It is one thing to hear the statistics of a pro-rescue organization. It is another to hear the claim of a mother who firmly believes her choice not to abort her unborn child was directly a result of the activity, commitment, and love for life demonstrated by rescuers the day she was scheduled to abort, and on the site of the rescue itself. Some may question the validity of testimonials of this nature, rightly pointing out the difficulty of proving a causal relationship between the rescue and the woman's decision. Cases like this are easier to raise in an era of skepticism as to the casual relationship between any two events affecting human psychology. After hearing such testimonials, it is difficult to not be persuaded of the profound affect of the rescue event upon these formerly committed women who were ready and prepared to abort. Perhaps a direct causal link is too much to confidently assert absolutely. At least we must conclude, the rescue event was a catalyst which influenced these women to chose not to destroy but rather to save life. For those who may find this too much to conclude, perhaps we can say the woman "thinks" the rescue contributed significantly to her life saving choice. Unless one is prepared to question the integrity of every woman considered, this would be a minimal reasonable conclusion. At this point I argue that if the event even contributed to one "thinking" it changed her mind, and a life was saved, that is reason enough to refer to the rescue as a rescue. But let's say a life is not in fact rescued at a rescue event. What then are we to conclude? Not all who jump into rivers and streams to rescue drowning victims are successful. We may say the rescue attempt failed, but we do not question that a rescue was attempted. We further do not say that a firefighter is not a firefighter because at several fires, the flames were not extinguished due to the firefighter's efforts. At times, we know firefighters fight to "contain" a fire, and allow the fire to burn itself out. These are still firefighters, and rescuers are still rescuers. Both find varying degrees of success at various times. Faithfulness is an issue, especially when there remains a possibility of lifesaving, both in fires and abortions. Rescue literature evidences belief that 20 percent of the women who are prevented from keeping their appointment to obtain an abortion, will not make a second appointment. This theory was formerly attributed to research of the Alan Guttmacher Institute which has now (since the rescues) disavowed it.22 This same piece of literature states that 450 unborn children have actually been confirmed as rescued. Regardless of anyone's conviction, just how are rescue opponents and proponents influenced by Scripture. And how do they utilize Scripture in their respective cases. This discussion will be considered next, and is important if we are to appraise Dr. Rushdoony's accusation that the rescue methodology comes from thought sources that are not informed by a biblical world and life view. CHAPTER 6 KEY ASSESSMENT OF SCRIPTURAL ISSUES Usage of Key Passages Probably the most commonly quoted and most commonly abused passages of Scripture, not surprisingly utilized by opponents of the rescues, are Romans 13:1-8 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Depending on whom you read among rescue opponents, Peter and Paul are contending for either 1) The unconditional obedience to the State, as unto God, or 2) The relatively unconditional obedience to the State as unto God, except in cases where the State directly requires the Christian to do something directly against God's explicit will. Many would find the second point reasonable enough. But here is where interpretation gets difficult, especially when applied to Mead's inclusion of "indirect" civil disobedience. We saw this particularly in Dr. Geisler's argument against the legitimacy of evangelicals participating in rescues. Critical analysis of these texts are seen by some as threats to biblical integrity. Yet the seeming "inconsistency" can be cleared up if we are willing to go beyond the path of cliche'. They require a closer examination. The Apostle Paul made appeal to Ceasar in Acts 25. Paul was not required to make such an appeal. He certainly was not directly morally required to make such an appeal that would necessitate his prolonged imprisonment. Both Festus and Agrippa are frustrated by Paul's indirect legal intervention (Acts 25:25-27 and 26:30-32). Festus at one point seems to want something to write to Rome to explain why Paul is coming, and grasps at the possibility of Paul's insanity. Agrippa seems to blame Paul for making the appeal, saying that he should, and could have been released had he not "appealed to Ceasar". Paul was a Roman citizen and likely the threat to his life among the Jews could have been thwarted by Roman intervention, as in fact it had been just one chapter earlier. He chose to remain considered a lawbreaker in order to get gospel audience in Rome. It is this same Apostle Paul who addressed himself in Romans 13 to the church in Rome, before these events in Acts 25. This is the apparent internal inconsistency of Scripture. If we take the application of the rescue opponents concerning only the allowance of direct disobedience, then Paul would never remain unnecessarily arrested unless he felt he was directly, morally convinced he should do so. What was Paul commanded to do that was evil, necessitating his choice to stay under arrest, burdening the Roman judicial system? Was his appeal directly, morally necessary? That would appear difficult to argue. Peter's exhortation is not without its problems also. Granting Petrine authorship to 1 Peter (the less debated of the two books bearing his name), how are we to explain Peter's exhortations about rulers in chapter 2, with his behavior in Acts 4:19 and again in Acts 5:29? He was clearly told by delegated governmental authority not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. He tellsthem in effect that he will anyway, and does so. In Acts 5:28 the authorities remember their prohibition only being against "teaching in Jesus' name". Peter and the apostles could have been significantly more low key, having house fellowships all over Jerusalem, and thousands of believers to quietly teach, but evidently they had inquiries among those in Judaism who went to the temple, and they themselves went there for prayer (they WERE Jewish) and sharing the good news. How does Acts 5 fit into the rescue critics' understanding of 1 Peter 2? If the only question called is one of consistency, then minimally Peter's action in the Temple raises prudential concerns. I have raised the question only to show that 1 Peter 2 requires qualification beyond the realm of most conservative theological interpretations of the interaction of politic and theology. Of course the work of John Howard Yoder gave thorough attention to these matters23 but his most applicable work pre-dates the rescue movement, and unfortunately he would not be likely to agree with our presupposition for the scholars considered (eg. agreement with the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture as expressed in the Chicago statement). The "inconsistencies" make more sense if one allows for some cases of civil disobedience. The "prohibitive" passages themselves seem to require a closer look, even if no "exception clause" is explicit in them. They are inspired summary statements not intended to be a full treaties on the subject. Some have attempted to understand them as a warning against antisocial zealot activity which some of the Jewish believers might be inclined toward. Others have qualified them by emphasizing the government's role as God's servant, and not binding when government is serving itself. Some differentiate between the office of government and it's specific decrees. The Romans 13 text (the most explicit and difficult) is sandwiched between chapter 12 with its emphasis on "overcoming evil with good," and "not being conformed to this world", and chapter 14, which deals with matters of conscience! It is likely these contexts should affect the interpretation of chapter 13. Even chapter 13 ends with "owing no man anything but love". The debt of love (mentioned in Romans 13:8) being applied to pre-born children and their often desperate mothers is not an absurd application of the Scriptural principle in chapter 13. Others have emphasized the exousia as an eschatological reflection of "principalities and powers", contrasting the passage with Revelation 13, and Christ's supremacy over this demonic realm, mentioned in Colossians 2. Some of these arguments are weaker than others, but two points emerge: (1) these texts require the reformed hermeneutic of Scripture interpreting Scripture, and (2) there appears to be evidence for implicit qualification within the texts themselves. We will require some criterion to help us here, for civil disobedience must not be entered into recklessly, both because of the weight of these sober passages, and because of the potential consequences on the witness of Christ in the world. Passages like those in Acts 4 and 5 must also be considered soberly. Jesus is King over His people, and will be over all creation eschatologically. Even 1 Peter 2:17 says, while we must "honor the king", it is God we must fear! We do render unto Ceasar that which is his (Mt 22:21), but human life does not belong to anyone but God alone. Under Roman law we see apostolic civil disobedience in contexts that do not seem to be a hard and fast direct compulsory situations. Both instances are described without hint of reflective moral criticism. One thing is clear, the governmental systems in New Testament times were far less open to civil disobedience than is the democratic republic of the United States. Any risks the apostles took in opposition to injustice, serve to amplify the relatively complacent state of the mainstream evangelical Church in the United States, underscoring the failure of her spokesmen to boldly articulate and courageously stand against this significant injustice. A detailed comparison of political systems will not flatter the Church in the United States, and would only serve to improve the appearance of inactive evangelicals in Nazi Germany by comparison. Most recognize they lived under oppressive totalitarianism, and we do not? The next passage observes life under God as King in Old Testament theocracy. Leviticus 20:2-5 is a strong passage which rescue advocates use in support of their activity. The text prohibits child sacrifice (likened to abortion by rescue proponents), and it prohibits allowing even aliens from other religions who dwell among Israel to practice child sacrifice! Yahweh limits the scope of pluralism. Perhaps most intriguing is that God tells His people not only will He "cut off" the ones involved in such a practice, but He will cut off those who know that such a practice is taking place and do not actually stop it from happening! No doubt rescuers take such texts seriously. Not wanting to face the severity of God for what they consider past apathetic nonresistance, they attempt to stop abortion from happening, nonviolently. Concerning the Use of Old Testament Passages At this point rescue opponents will remind us of the theocracy context of the passage. I think the passage has significant impact, because it reveals the mind of God, and His hatred of the spilling of innocent blood. Rescue foes may soften the perhaps implicit aspects of this text, yet this genre of Scripture receives a low expositional profile in many evangelical circles, and this text does not stand alone. One item of pragmatic concern is that so few among those churchmen who believe both testaments are inspired, are aware of such passages, and the mind of God concerning (if not the rescues) the spilling of innocent blood. On the heels of this text and in the same genre, come two other passages from the more commonly utilized wisdom literature. Nonreconstructionists, like myself, need to see the consistency of Old Testament ethics and theology if we hope to apply the whole counsel of God to the issue of rescues. Dr. Walter Kaiser of Trinity has struggled with the implications of utilizing the Old Testament in ethics. His book "Toward an Old Testament Ethic" finds unity of theology between the testaments around the theology of "promise".24 Kaiser's insight will be interesting regarding our next text, especially because of his reputation in Hebrew, Old Testament theology, and ethics. Proverbs 24:10-12 echoes the sentiments of Leviticus saying; "If you falter in times of trouble, how small is your strength! Rescue those being led away (unjustly) to death;" This last phrase is clearly imperative. The question that arises is whether it means that participation in the rescue phenomenon in the United States is a moral obligation. I question that it necessarily would, as long as we admit that there may be many different ways to rescue those being led away to death. Proverbs 24 continues at verse 11 saying "hold back those staggering toward slaughter." This phrase strengthens the command through Hebrew poetic parallelism. Dr. Geisler feels the application of this principle to the rescues is exegetically and hermeneutically suspect. He believes the context of the passage, followed two paragraphs later (in verse 21) by an injunction to "fear the LORD and the king", overrules such an application.25 Further he finds it difficult to believe that Solomon would have intended such an application writing as he was, as the present king of Israel.26 My point in mentioning these texts is simply this, we must pay attention to the words of the text itself. What does it say! Difficulties in Assessing "Sins of Omission" Verses 11-12 do however sound much like Leviticus; ""If you say ""But we didn't know about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"" Dr. Walter Kaiser has stated that Operation Rescue's use of this text to justify it's civil disobedience related indirectly to the abortion issue, is exegetically permissible.27 To "hold back" or not to obey the command to "hold back" the slaughter of the innocents, that is the question framed by the rescue advocates. When we consider the use of this biblical idea both in the Pentateuch, in the book of Proverbs, and later we will see it further repeated in one of the Psalms, it is not difficult to see how perhaps Solomon was writing with a concern for injustices, even as a king. Certainly a man of his wisdom would not be unfamiliar with the kinds of schemings possible for shrewd and unjust magistrates. The failure to "hold back" when there is full knowledge and opportunity could constitute (according to these texts) a very serious sin of omission which Yahweh will address quite sternly, even severely. Sins of omission are difficult to discern in others. At any given moment one can be criticized by another human being for not doing some act other than what one is doing presently. If praying, why aren't you evangelizing, if evangelizing, why aren't you praying, etc. Only the Lord knows what our heart of hearts knows. To ignore this aspect of moral guidance is not an attempt to avoid the difficulties, but rather to admit that the personal God does interact with us. At this point we are wise when we do not judge others regarding sins of omission unless there is clear neglect. Not a few pro-lifers have been polarized from the rescues because of either unresolved moral guilt, or psychological guilt due to zealous, activistic overstatement by rescue advocates. The same kind of overstatement is utilized by rescue foes utilizing Romans 13 as a proof text, without attempting to integrate the entire counsel of God. Another text that mentions "rescuing the needy...and fatherless..out of the hand of the wicked" is Psalm 82:3-4. Like Leviticus and Proverbs, it includes a strong word of rebuke for those who passively accept the "persons of the wicked." A key text for civil disobedience in a context of physical life saving (of another human being, not just one's own life) is in Exodus 1:15f. It involves the Hebrew midwives' noncompliance with Pharoah's order to commit infanticide. Note that they were not living under theocracy. I have wondered why they didn't just get another job, or walk off the job. The answer is somewhat obvious. Walking off the job would also be an act of civil disobedience. Therefore to flee (one of Geisler's accepted means of protest) would be indirect disobedience and disallowed in this case. Perhaps we might also ask why didn't Daniel (who knew of David's writings and that God "searches the heart") pray in secret on the day of the kings command (Dan 6:7f). He surely wasn't living under theocracy in Babylon! Those who would cry foul over theocratic contexts are not helped here. Dr. Geisler would utilize the Hebrew midwives and Daniel as examples of direct civil disobedience, yet it is their other options (praying in secret or attempting to flee the situation) that make my use of these two examples intriguing. Just how directly disobedient were they really required to be. But let us carefully deal with the "indirect" problem directly, by considering two very clear passages. The Gulf between Direct and "Indirect" Two postexilic examples of indirect civil disobedience will follow, both in the context of totalitarian rule. The examples of Nehemiah, and Esther are shown by the authors as generally praiseworthy. In Nehemiah chapters 1 and 2, we see this cupbearer breaking civil law (being in the King's presence with downcast countenance) for the sake of gaining an audience (otherwise impossible) concerning an immense injustice. It is an active faith-step seen in Scripture as the appropriate response to heart-rending prayer (Ch 1) by a person of integrity. Regardless of the silliness of the law as we perceive it today, it was the law of the Medes and the Persians, and to transgress carried the penalty of death. Again, this occurs outside the context of theocracy. Nehemiah is not being compelled directly to break one of the Ten Commandments. His bravery is not done in the context of a generally open, democratic republic. Where is the hint of rebuke for Nehemiah? It does not exist. What does exist in the passage is the clear understanding that his action was consistent with his belief and his prayer. The author sees the whole affair in the light of a person who is living courageously and consistently in the will of God. The same case can be made with Esther. In this case however we see that the law opposed (indirectly again) was similar to the rescues in the United States. This injustice was against a minority group that had no political voice (similar to the pre-born children). Esther did not risk her life by illegally interrupting the King's business with her unannounced presence because she was being asked to do something unethical or immoral. Thus her civil disobedience is only indirectly linked to only a potential howbeit imminent injustice. One can ask the question reflectively in hindsight, "Would Esther have committed a sin of omission if she had refused this act of civil disobedience?" Perhaps if she had prayed more intensely, the king would have requested her presence, and she would not have had to disobey the law by coming to him unrequested. Some conservative pietists have taken such a "chain of command"28 view of Scripture. It will not serve us in this context as Esther did fast and pray (excluding even drinking water) for as long as would be medically advisable. Scripture is not as good at telling us what "might have been" as are some situational ethicists. Esther 4:13-14 does implicitly state that it is likely by refusing to engage in this indirect civil disobedience, Esther would not succeed in saving her honor (so much for this potential prudential concern) or her own life in the end. Second, clearly God could raise up a Deliverer from another quarter (the how and when is not spelled out), who will similarly be risking honor and physical life to save others. And lastly, the text has a ring of urgency though not one drop of innocent blood had yet been spilled. The appeal to a theocratic context or the use of civil disobedience in "direct only" situations, borders on special pleading in such contexts. Esther's law breaking is clearly indirect both because she was not being required to commit sin, and because no crime had yet been committed. Are we to conclude that the entire older testament is theocracy, or that Nehemiah and Esther's entire ministry is rooted in their sinful behavior? In both cases their actions follow extended times of prayer. Given the theology of the writer(s) of these books, this latter position would be terribly difficult to conclude. There are those in theology who will remind us of the helpful hermeneutic of not forcing mere descriptive passages of scripture into a prescriptive role.29 I will concede that these do not necessarily make rescues obligatory, but I will not downgrade the phenomenon these texts uncritically describe. Further, I will say the writers hold the male and female postexilic personages hereto mentioned as people of godly courage and character without hint of reservations. Back to the New Testament I ask, why didn't the Apostles just get into informal "friendship evangelism". I am embarrassed by their courageous manifestations of faith's obedience. My rationalizations sound hollow, and I am humbled. Some have said that God REALLY was King of Israel in the Old Testament. Some may say God really was King in the New Testament history. Is He not the Church's King in His inaugurated eschatological kingdom now? Without being a reconstructionist, but only one committed to living under the Kingship (Lordship) of Jesus now, I find such a question obvious. He is to be Lord in the evangelical believers' total life now. Other than Acts 4 and 5 and the Apostles' example, what else does the New Testament teach? It clearly teaches that God believes in indirect civil disobedience. After looking at the above Scriptures one can see why I question whether the rescues are invalid because they are "indirect". Beside (1) the sound tradition of "indirect" civil disobedience in Scripture from the Torah to the wisdom literature, developed further in postexilic examples, and beside (2) the possibility of committing "sins of omission" on such a significant moral issue affecting the death of tens of millions in a free society presently, the difference between direct and indirect civil disobedience is further a moot point in American jurisprudence if the "necessity defense" is applied fairly. With our shared presupposition of the full humanity of the pre-born child, this is an unavoidably fair conclusion. The necessity defense allows one to ignore an otherwise valid statute (such as a law against trespassing), if it can be established that the reason for doing so was to save a human life (e.g. the neighbor's child was drowning in the pool and the "trespasser" came over the fence to attempt to rescue the child). Under such conditions, the law is set aside out of necessity, and the "intrusion" does not constitute trespassing. This line of reasoning would render Geisler's objection null and void. Operation Rescue is sometimes referred to as indirect civil disobedience because the State is not requiring rescuers to get abortions. Thus, when a rescuer breaks a trespass law, it is not (allegedly) because the rescuer is being required to do something evil. Therefore the rescuer's disobedience is not directly linked to the act of abortion, but is indirectly linked to it. My illustration of the necessity defense is relatively straightforward as it involves a negative command "thou shall not murder." The difficulty is when God's law requires positive action, like preaching the gospel (for Peter in Acts), or praying (for Daniel), or rescuing the defenseless like in Leviticus 20, Psalms 82, Proverbs 24, Esther's actions, and other required actions like Acts 25,26, and Acts 4,5 mentioned earlier. Is there any role for the prayerful conviction that God is directing the Christian like the response of Nehemiah or Esther, concerning the "when" of disobedience? Certainly not when this potentially subjective prayerful conviction contradicts God's clear revelation. And this is precisely what Dr. Geisler, Dr. Stanley, and Dr. Rushdoony say the rescue movement does. This thesis clearly disagrees with that assessment. Clear exhortations about specific sins of omission in both Old and New Testaments lead me to believe the rescues are better called "soft" direct, as opposed to indirect civil disobedience. But how does the New Testament teach that God believes in indirect or "soft direct" civil disobedience? The New Testament reveals that the church age begins with civil disobedience (Acts 4 and 5). It has a beginning role in the birth of Christ Himself. And what incredible irony that it also (like the Hebrew midwives) involved the destruction of infants. In Matthew 2:8, King Herod (whose word was law) told the Magi to bring back word to him (Herod) when they found the Christ-child, so that Herod could worship the lad also. Certainly bringing a report to a king is not breaking any moral law directly. Even if the Magi knew Herod was lying, they were obligated to keep a natural, necessary and helpful moral law; e.g. reporting to the king. Not to cooperate with the king could lead to anarchy, as some have said about trespassing. It was a normally helpful law for society. Kings need to know what is happening so they can keep their realms running smoothly. And if we do not do that it is as though we are "stealing" from the king because it causes inefficiency. Another article from the Chalcedon Report has written from this kind of perspective on "stealing", applying it to the rescue movement's affect on the income of the abortionist!30 What did God say? Matthew 2:12 tells us that God warned the magi in a dream that they should not return to Herod. They were told not to obey the King's edict to "come back to me when you find the child" but were warned of God NOT to obey this lesser law for the purpose of a higher law, saving a life. It is ironic that in Dr. Geisler's heirarchtical ethic that this instance, like the rescues, couldn't be interpreted as a "higher good." This is indirect civil disobedience at the command of God! I do not believe God to be condoning a situational ethic because these ordinances (trespassing, reports, choice, privacy, etc) are not moral law, but laws of propriety. In the face of murderous action they are as Dr. Brown has pointed out, not morally binding. The last passage I'll mention is James 1:27, from the half brother of our Lord Jesus, in one of the earliest books written in the New Testament. James says that true religion and undefiled is to assist the fatherless and widow, and keep oneself unspotted from the world. The Greek word for "visit" (KJV) and "assist" (NIV) means to "assist however they have need."31 Certainly the child abandonment in the 1st century made many orphans, and the church was involved in their rescue. But is any child more orphaned than one whose mother, father, society, and the church are allowing (at best), assisting (at worst) in their demise? Is any woman more widowed than the unmarried mother whose lover, and family are pressuring her to do an act that is truly "unloving" (without natural affection)? Can we obey the Scriptures without a rescue phenomenon? I am sure we could but I'm not entirely sure how. The desperate who knock at the door of a crisis pregnancy center are the tip of an iceberg of need. How will our children understand 17 plus years of letter writing, in the face of so monstrous a crime (25 million intentional deaths)? How will Jesus view it? If the rescuers are motivated to save lives, have righteous anger at injustice, repentance for their past complacency, and are propelled by Christ's compelling love, then let no man despise their prophetic stance. If this operation rescue phenomenon is not a case of biblical civil disobedience, how could we ever find a contemporary case that could qualify? Whether it is the wisest option in any given circumstance prudentially, is the major question still unanswered. CHAPTER 7 ETHICAL QUESTIONS FOR WEIGHING A PRUDENTIAL INVOLVEMENT This section will focus on guidelines for a prudential decision. Much of my thinking is influenced by Lynn Buzzard's discussion of criteria for civil disobedience.32 Next I will compare the rescues with this criteria. In so doing, I hope to contribute to a prudential case for the legitimacy of evangelical involvement in rescues. Buzzard is an evangelical Christian lawyer and former chairman of the Christian Legal Society. His book "HolyDisobedience" was written before the current rescue phenomenon began. What follows then is my interpretive summary of Lynn Buzzard's criteria for civil disobedience, and the testing of operation rescue by these interpretive guidelines. The guidelines will take the form of the following matrix of hard questions: 1. How directly does the matter contradict clear biblical teaching? 2. What is the general counsel of the evangelical community concerning the issue? 3. To what extent have other legal protest processes been exhausted? 4. What harm will result from the civil disobedience, and how does it compare to the benefits? 5. Will the civil disobedience lend respect for principled law, or tend to foster anarchism? 6. To what extent will the witness of the civil disobedience be heard and understood by society? 7. To what extent are the actions motivated by principle, rather than by personal frustration, or anger? 8. Does the motivation come from thought sources alien to the Bible, or from a Biblical understanding and worldview? Prioritizing the Criteria My assessment of the rescue movement as it compares to these criterion will follow the enumeration 1 - 8 above. The protested practice of abortion quite clearly violates biblical teaching. Even Dr. Geisler, who did not hold to the full humanity of the fetus until 1978, concedes that abortion is the destruction of a human life, based on his corrected understanding of Exodus 21:22 (eg. that the delivery was of a viable, premature child, and "further harm" can apply to either mother or child.).33 More than America's Independence Day, civil rights victories, and other commonly celebrated effects brought about in large part through civil disobedience, the destruction of twenty-five million children is by far the clearest violation of biblical command. It violates directly the sixth Commandment, does so intentionally, and does so against the most vulnerable members of the human race, for profit! Second, the general counsel of the conservative evangelical community has agreed with (1) but has had no consensus about civil disobedience (eg. in our case, the rescues). Francis Schaeffer first opened serious consideration of the possibility of rescue type action in "A Christian Manifesto." Lately several scholars have endorsed rescue style soft direct civil disobedience, though few have participated in a rescue themselves. Others as mentioned before, have opposed rescues. While recognizing the legitimacy of "godly counsel", I question whether or not evangelical consensus could be considered a necessary part of a case for the legitimacy of the rescues. As part of a larger case it has value but is certainly not determinative. If it were decisive, the majority of evangelicals in Nazi Germany would have been a witness to the world of God's righteousness during the holocaust which of course they were not. Third, it is true that many evangelical individuals have done little about this issue. Applause for the Ten Boom family is logically inconsistent, when our own holocaust now numbers over 25 million. As a group, conservative evangelicals have taken significant action. The Christian Action Council's "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" offer truthful information to those seeking abortion, about abortion's less mentioned realities, and compassionately assist women in need. Melody Green presented former President Reagan with over 2 million signatures from primarily evangelical petitioners. Sidewalk counseling, letters to Congress, letters to editors, etc, have been utilized for 16 patient years. The list could go on at length. The result has been without significant effect in ending or moderating this practice. Only once has either house of Congress debated a human life amendment since Roe v Wade was introduced in 1972, to the chagrin of pro-life activists. It must be admitted however that this criterion is next to (1) perhaps the most important point for individuals who are considering involvement in a rescue, particularly if they are convinced of sins of omission. Repentance is the key spoken motivation for involvement given by rescue participants. It would seem that legal steps would be part of a proper progression of protest (the fruit of repentance), before rescues. Recent legislatively demoralizing threats by governors on a state level (to veto progressive pro-life legislation sailing through the State senate and house) in Indiana have raised serious questions about fair representative government and heightened frustration. The media perspective usually favors the governors. In some cases the misreading of media signals has led the pro-life movement to turn their frustrations on each other. Recently I spoke with the regional head of a christian nursing organization known to be strongly pro-life. I told her clearly of my frustration aboutthe governor of Idaho's veto of pro-life legislation there. She told me that she was more frustrated that the pro-lifers in Idaho were so dogmatic that the governor stated they did not allow him room at all for the troubling cases of rape victims who sought abortions. And of course this was the story carried on most of the wire services. She was very surprised when I showed her the provisions of the alleged dogmatic legislation. It did allow for some exception in the case of rape, incest, severe deformity, and the threat to the physical life of the mother!34 This kind of reporting on progressive legislation, and the coercive attempts of pressure groups that stand to lose a lot of abortion profits, make many question whether the continuum of "allowable" activism is no longer efficacious for ending abortion, being destroyed by fiat. It makes the concerns of Dr. Brown about the festering of a forceful or event-violent potential a concern that could have nearly prophetic significance. The fourth criterion mentions "Harm." On the most obvious level this would mean being arrested for a misdemeanor (ie. trespassing), for those in rescue-style prayerful, passive, resistance. Perhaps another harm would be negative press coverage. It seems some in the liberal press have more respect for the rescues than first anticipated. Some journalists are former Viet Nam war protesters themselves, and seem to respect the consistency of truth claim and behavior, seen in rescuers. One outspokenly pro-abortion journalist even belittled those pro-lifers who are not involved in rescues!35 Benefits have been: (1) saved human lives, by mothers who see a crowd of folks committed enough to risk arrest to save her baby, (2) deep repentance and prayer experienced by those involved, (3) renewed media attention that has been comparatively objective howbeit short lived, and recently blind to civil rights violations of rescuers and uninvestigated reports of police/political violence being deployed against the passively resistance rescuers. Of course this does not include the phenomenon of the upsurge of paid ads by abortion advocates., (4) Rescues show a model of godly activism to the church., (5) Prison conversions are not an unusual side benefit for those who hear of Jesus Christ through those who have been arrested. Other benefits are not as visible. It is hard to find a benefit as significant as a saved human life (Points 1 and 5 respectively)! Rescuers respect principled law and are not anarchists, though the rhetoric of opponents has sought to portray the latter. Rescuers do not resist arrest, and submit to the decisions of the court. Many are currently in jail. Some judges have insisted that fines be paid by rescuers to ideological groups (like Planned Parenthood) diametrically opposed by the rescuers. Where this has occurred, rescuers have not paid, and accepted jail terms instead. Arguments against rescues on the basis that rescuers are "lawbreakers", and about the potential "dangerousness" of the rescuers are certainly irrelevant appeals. Planned Parenthood's own policy endorses civil disobedience. Their protestations therefore qualify as internal inconsistencies at best, manipulative hypocrisy at worst. A fair hearing is difficult due to media biases. Under standing seems improved as rhetoric and charges of "baby killing" are matched by appropriate action, as mentioned earlier. This criterion seems to be on the same "helpfulness" scale as number two (above). Truth is certainly worth supporting, even when not understood (Eze. 1 and 2). Understandability is helpful only in the overall cumulative force of these principles. It is hard to rule out the role of anger and frustration as a motivating factor for those involved in rescues. It seems the driving force for rescues is the saving of lives, and repentance for not having done so earlier. The anger is certainly not manifested in violence. We will need a category for self controlled righteous anger, as anger in itself is not unethical, illegal, or sin.36 Buzzard's criterion here lends itself to question phrasing fallacies (eg. does it have to be motivated by principled law, or anger/frustration as the only choices?). The thought sources within the rescue movement are biblical as we noted earlier, though other examples are provided. The point of operation rescue material is to recruit evangelicals, and care is made to make a biblical case with historical evangelical precedents. Examples like America's Independence Day, the abolitionist's well-known "underground railroad", much in the civil rights movement, Amy Carmichael's actions leading to the abolition of temple "child prostitution" in India, the Ten Boom family, and others are cited, alongside some biblical examples. A question arises as to how biblical our present position of status quo has really been. We have tuncated belief from fruit, and pietism from constructive action. Yet the status quo is not being scrutinized here, only the prudence of the rescues. The Overall "Fit" The overall fit of the rescues within this model is quite good. Number (1) is the most weighty with rescues coming forth in almost unrivaled condition, comparable only to the most monstrous crimes of the past, and then both in magnitude and innocent blood, rather unique. Number (2) enforces (1), at least in admitting that (1) is necessarily true. It is admitted that if methodological unanimity occurred it would be quite unusual. Many think methodology is a more prudential and pragmatic issue. But it is not necessarily without moral implications both in its deeds and lack thereof. It is criterion (3) that keeps me from believing the rescues are morally obligatory. While individuals have done much, and been met with form letters, "sorry we haven't the space", ridicule, and no legal recourse (the Supreme Court is not answerable to an electorate and the American Bar Association has recently made being "pro-choice" a fraternal orthodoxy), there are many who have not even begun the quest for truth, or the process of protest. It seems all legal processes have been utilized significantly, but not to the point of exhaustion. But emotional exhaustion is not the criterion. This criterion provides a point for personal reflection by those challenged by the phenomenon. Some of the other criteria, though helpful, are not nearly as weighty. On point (4), the issue of "harm" could be applied to whether rescues will polarize the Supreme Court justices so that they do not further soften or reverse Roe v Wade. This kind of questioning has occurred throughout the history of the pro-life movement. It is basically an argument for polite diplomacy, or else we won't get what we want. For 17 years and 25 million deaths it has been tried and found wanting. It fails to recognize that the majority of legislators on capital hill are "political animals" following the party line, doing what is pragmatically necessary to maintain power and position. This was illustrated recently in Idaho, as was mentioned earlier. I am not supporting an anabaptist pessimism with respect to politics. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule. Evangelicals, unlike their fundamentalist brethren, are increasingly embarrassed by assertive behavior, and seem consumed by a desire to package things acceptably. In the arena of conflict management, with issues of this magnitude, rescuers are discovering that lawmakers are accustomed to having a case forcefully argued, without hint of compromise from the start. Where pro-life legislators have appeared uncertain, these legislators have frequently met with political defeat. CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The pro-life rescuers, with all their zeal and nonviolence, cannot hold a candle to their opponents, who lose all restraint when their huge profits are threatened along with their relativistic moral values base. To fret over the abrasiveness of the rescue phenomenon as it exits today, is to break the back and weaken the authenticity of the (life or death) case by leaning so piously over backwards. It is not a matter of "imposing a religion on a society." God's moral law will be the standard by which all peoples will be judged. "Thou shalt not murder" is as true for the Muslim as it is for the Hindu or Christian. An intimidating development perhaps responsible for the lessening of rescue numbers in recent days has been the use of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law suits to harrass rescue leaders. RICO was designed to prevent organized crime influenced groups from having extreme influence over businesses with whom they were disputing. In early 1990 the Senate Judiciary Committee reported on S.438, saying this bill amends the RICO statute to lessen its use in cases involving routine business disputes. During committee consideration, Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire successfully added an amendment to protect non-violent civil rights demonstrators (including Operation Rescue activists) from being the targets of these harrassing suits. The amendment received scant opposition. Senate floor action is likely this Spring (1990). This could give a new burst of energy to rescue advocates in the year ahead. We have attempted to demonstrated that it is impossible to condemn the rescues on the basis of the Old or New Testament. We have begun to set out a prudential case for those considering rescue involvement. We have discerned biblical precedents. What lies ahead? Will evangelicals learn to allow for diversity of conscience and accord each other respect as persons of integrity wherever they may stand on the continuum of activism against the atrocity of abortion on demand? We shall soon know whether this will happen. It is my hope that the scriptural arguments and the critical content of this thesis may contribute to a wiser reflection concerning the involvement of evangelicals in operation rescue styled activism. If it promotes a deeper understanding between opposing camps, that too will be encouraging. My conclusion is that if the operation rescue phenominon is NOT a case of biblically justifiable civil disobedience then such a case has never existed. END BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, 1973 ed. S.V. "Civil Disobedience," by John B. Anderson. Baker, Don. Beyond Choice: The Abortion Story No One is Telling. Portland, Ore.: Multnomah Press, 1985. Brown, Harold O.J. "Civil" Disobedience. (Operation Rescue as a Case in Point. Spring 1989. ________. Death before Birth. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. Buzzard, Lynn Robert, and Campbell, Paula. Holy Disobedience: When Christians Must Resist the State. Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1984. Connors, Joseph. Operation Rescue: A Catholic Appraisal. Binghamton: Operation Rescue Box 1180, 1989. Cunningham, Pat. "We all should admire those who got arrested." Pg.10a., Columnist: Rockford Register Star, Feb. 22, 1989. Foreman, Joseph, and Norman L. Geisler. Operation Rescue; A Debate. Lynchburg: Quest Productions, 1989. Garton, Jean Staker. Who Broke the Baby? Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1979. Geisler, Norman L. The Christian Ethic of Love. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. ________. Ethics: Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. ________. Operation Unbiblical. Should Christians Ever Break the Law? Lynchburg: Quest, 1989. Grant, George. Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1988. Hamack, Robert A. "A Magistrate's View." Vallecito, CA.:Chalcedon Report, January 1989. Journal and Courier. Lafayette, IN., Idaho governor vetoes abortion bill. Pg. 1., March 31, 1990. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Kreeft, Peter. The Unaborted Socrates: A Dynamic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983. MacDonald, David and Del Kenney and Jack Broughton, interview by author, 17 February, 1989, Notes. Rockford, Ill. Montgomery, J.W. Slaughter of the Innocents. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1985. Nathanson, Bernard N. Aborting America. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979. North, Gary. Trespassing for Dear Life: What About Operation Rescue? Ft.Worth, Tex.: Dominion Press, 1989. Powell, John. Abortion: The Silent Holocaust. Allen, Tex.: Argus Communications, 1981. Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984. Rushdoony, Dr. Rousas J. "Revolution or Regeneration" Vallecito, CA.: Chalcedon Report, January 1989. Schaeffer, Francis A. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1981. ________. How Should We Then Live? Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1976. Schaeffer, Francis A. and C. Everett Koop. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1979. Schaeffer, Franky. A Time for Anger: The Myth of Neutrality. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1982. Schiedler, Joseph. Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1985. Terry, Randall. Operation Rescue. Springdale, Pa.: Whitaker House, 1988. ________. Higher Laws. Binghamton, N.Y.: Project Life, Box 1180, 1989. ________. To Rescue the Children: A Manual for Christ Centered Pro-Life Activism. Binghamton, N.Y.: Project Life, Box 1180, 1989. Wauck, John. Operation Rescue. National Review, Contributing Editor, 41, April 7, 1989. Yoder, John. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1972. Young, Curt. The Least of These. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1984. END Bibliography End Notes 3 Repentance and Rescue: Atlanta Beginning December 15, 1989. Operation Rescue Atlanta, 2359 Windy Hill Rd. Suite 207D, Marietta, GA 30067. 4 Ibid. 5 Phillip Mead, "Civil Disobedience as a pro-life tactic: A consensus approach to it's justification and parameters as drawn from three contemporary evangelical thinkers" (M.A. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1988), 32-33. 6 Rousas John Rushdoony, "Revolution or Regeneration," Chalcedon Report, January 1989, 14-15. 7 Chalcedon Report. 15. 8 Ibid 14. 9 Norman Geisler, Operation Unbiblical, (Lynchburg: Quest, P.O. Box 4648, 1989), 5. 10 Operation Unbiblical, 13-15. 11 Operation Unbiblical, 13. 12 Harold Brown, "Civil" Disobedience (Operation Rescue as a Case in Point) (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1989), Uncorrected Paper. 13 Uncorrected Paper. 11. 14 Ibid., 13. 15 Ibid., 6. 16 Ibid., 13. 17 Geisler, Norman and Joseph Foreman Operation Rescue: Biblical or Unbiblical? Cassette Tape (Lynchburg: P.O. Box 4648) Quest Productions, 1989. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Operation Rescue: A Catholic Appraisal. by Fr. Joseph Connors,S.V.D.,Ph.D.,(November 1989) P.O. Box 1180 Binghamton, NY. 23 John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1972). 24 Class notes from Dr. Walter Kaiser. History and Theology of the Prophets. Spring 1989. Also Back toward the Future., and other works by Dr. Kaiser integrate this message in various ways. 25 Operation Unbiblical, 11. 26 Operation Unbiblical, 11. 27 Class notes from Spring 1989, Dr. Walter Kaiser, The History and Theology of the Prophets. From a question and answer session, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. 28 This is the commonly accepted view of the Bill Gothard seminars' "chain of command" which I have applied to Esther's situation in jest. 29 Dr. John Feinberg, The Christian and the Secular State, a paper for ST 715 Spring Quarter 1989, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Pg 3. 30 Robert Hamack, "A Magistrate's View," Chalcedon Report, "A Magistrates View," January 1989. 31 Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Kittle ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 2, trans Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. episkeptomai, by Gerhard Kittle. 32 Buzzard, Lynn and Paula Campbell Holy Disobedience: When Christians Must Resist the State (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1984), 205-235. 33 Harold Brown, Death Before Birth., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977). 124-126. 34 Journal and Courier, "Idaho Governor vetoes abortion bill," (Lafayette, IN.: March 31, 1990) 1. 35 Rockford Register Star columnist Pat Cunningham, We all should admire those who got arrested February 22, 1989, Pg 10A. 36 Ephesians 4:26.