Our inconvenient truth
The question came up tonight: what are Christians to do with George Tiller, partial-birth abortion profiteer?
It came on the heels of a friend’s account of meeting a member in Tiller’s church, who was struck by what seemed to her the unchristian behavior of abortion protesters who came into the sanctuary during a Sunday service, chanting slogans and snapping pictures of parishioners. What should we tell this woman? That these protesters were indeed unchristian? That they were misguided, but had good cause? That they didn’t go far enough?
It’s an interesting question, though seemingly straightforward. We know Tiller is an unrepentant mass murderer, and so our Bible makes clear that he should be handed over to the Devil, as Paul might say, via excommunication. The problem, of course, is that we Protestants (he goes to a Lutheran church in Wichita) haven’t a Church from which to excommunicate Tiller, only a collection of churches, most of which recognize neither the authority nor the doctrine of the others. Thus Tiller, having finally been tossed out of his previous church, crossed town to another church just as easily as any of us finds a restaurant.
So what are we to do? Perhaps all the Bible-believing pastors and elders in the city could meet with Tiller’s pastor, and once they have her on record, they could go to the governing body above her, and so on, until they formally establish that this entire branch of Lutheranism is rotten. Then perhaps they could formally, ecumenically, excommunicate the whole lot of them. We are, after all, believers in one holy, apostolic, catholic Church, aren’t we?
Ah, but so is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which Tiller’s Church, Reformation Lutheran (oh, the irony!), is a member. Very well then, but the ELCA statement on abortion, amidst tortured language that in effect admits the church elders have no dogmatic guidance to provide, offers this reasonably clear statement: “This church opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology.”
But that is Tiller’s specialty, executing healthy infants while the tops of their heads remain in the birth canal, justified by the cavernous loophole known as the mother’s “mental well-being.” So it would seem the pastors and elders opposed to this monstrosity in their city might have a clear-cut case to make with the governing body of the ELCA: remove your pastor, for she is offering communion to this unrepentant murderer and violator of your own policy on abortion.
Or we could wait for old age to do Tiller in, and suffer less frustration. Because many pastors and elders want nothing to do with abortion politics, except insofar as they can sideswipe it from the safety of their pulpits when the mood hits. So the ELCA will feel no pressure to remove its heretical pastor, who in turn will feel no pressure to remove the murderer from the midst of her congregation. Not that a visitation from 500 Wichita pastors would be anything to the leadership of the ELCA but a badge of honor. Look at how we stand up for humanity in the face of intolerance. See how we suffer for Christ.
So what are Christians to do? Picket the church service? Distribute pictures of aborted babies, so other people’s children can have nightmares? Pray and wait?
Consider this thought experiment: Suppose 10,000 Christian men stood around Tiller’s clinic, for as long as it took, saying simply: Enough. What would the police do? Would the governor call in the National Guard? And what if another 50,000 joined them? We can get 100,000 men to come blubber all over one another at a Promise Keepers convention, so the logistics aren’t impossible. What would happen then? And what if this band of brothers, after shutting down the city of Wichita until its putatively Christian leaders took action and Tiller was bankrupted, moved on to the next killing field, and the next after that?
Perhaps the federal government would be forced to aggressively combat this peaceful resistance. Perhaps many of us would suffer. Perhaps it would divide political parties, and churches, and even families. Sound familiar?
And just maybe it would make abortion an issue we can’t avoid. For we are, most of us, waiting on someone else to do something, primarily because we are terrified of standing alone. So perhaps the question isn’t: what are Christians to do?, but rather: When will we stand up together and do it?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top55 Comments to “Our inconvenient truth”
Reformation Lutheran, ELCA, on Wichita’s east, wealthy side of the city, is a stunningly beautiful building
Report comment to moderator
This comes awfully close to encouraging mob action.
Report comment to moderator
Some provocative thoughts! Let me be clear that while the ELCA claims to be Lutheran and Christian they have adopted higher criticism and in some cases left the faith, the Bible, and Christ far behind. There are those among them that desire to be faithful but with not real authority in scripture they have no place to stand and fight.
Which brings me to the thought I had when reading this article. What would we have done with Saul? We do need to remember that we struggle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces. We need to make sure we employ spiritual weapons. While they will not listen we are called to use the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. We need to make the bold and clear confession that Christ died for these unwanted Children and He gave them life and He has said that it is dangerous to hinder one of these little ones. If we can keep that clear even if we try other political moves we can trust that the battle truly is the Lords. He is the only One Who can change hearts and bring them through the cross to Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Why are all the proposed solutions centered around compulsion? Force the man to conform, whether through excommunication, or picketing, or peaceful protest or what have you.
The man is in church, something I didn’t know and wouldn’t have guessed. The opportunities are plentiful for persuasion. And if the pastor isn’t doing it, the laity can try.
And if he won’t be persuaded, and if your beliefs are right, he’ll face a final judge with no excuse.
If you force him out of business, he’ll just go set up shop somewhere else. If you persuade him that what he’s doing is seriously wrong, he would stop altogether.
Report comment to moderator
It is best to pray for those mothers who decide to become murderers of their own children and to pray for those that help them in the genocidal killing the most innocent among us – including Tiller and the church member of this ELCA Reformation Church.
But, there is nothing wrong in pointing out, in person, the sin while loving the sinner at their work, at their home or where the sinner attends church so long as no laws made by man are broken.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I do like reading what you write, but this piece with no paragraphs or breaks makes it too time consuming. I read so much during the day with research projects it’s too time consuming.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think the ELCA cares. For a short period in the early 90’s my husband and I were members of an ELCA church. Compared to others of that denomination it was a good church. The pastors were founded in scripture and there was an active chapter of Lutherans for Life. Because we were members, we were automatic subscribers of “The Lutheran” magazine. We were absolutely appalled when they published a favorable article (including interview) of Tiller as a model Lutheran. This from the official publication of the ELCA.
Report comment to moderator
An article in First Things some years ago posited the question: If one were to observe a man walking down an aisle of basinets in a nursery, systematically killing the infants with a machete, what would be the appropriate response? Of course, to neutralize the murderer immediately, before the next stroke fell, with deadly force if necessary. It then asked, if abortion is morally equivalent to this, why do we not act as we would in the nursery? Is it societal pressure? Doubt about the rightness of our position? Hesitation in the face of a morally complex decision? No. None of those things would enter our mind in the nursery, so the answer must be simpler. It is fear. Fear of retribution and punishment. We know that society holds power over our lives, and society does not agree with us. So we shrink from what we think is morally right. Quite simply, we do not have the guts to do anything remotely like what Tony is suggesting. We could never martyr ourselves by linking arms and marching confidently into the fusillades of the police. We don’t teach that kind of sacrifice, and we don’t live it.
Report comment to moderator
I had no idea Tiller attended church either, and I’m breathless at the thought. We attend a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and without repentence, Tiller would not be admitted.
Does anyone hear the gospel at that church? What a total condemnation of his pastor. Did Hitler have a pastor?
I think we know where to start praying . . . but still, I’m shocked.
Report comment to moderator
After the local Wichita paper run articles on abortion the comments by men are particularly disturbing. They are happy with abortion on demand. They don’t care if the abortions taking place follow the law, they consider it their right to keep abortion as usual.
Report comment to moderator
There are a handful in my family who are Lutheran, they are very liberal – When I first became aware of the situation I was shocked, but not anymore.
We can read this passage of Scripture, and glean insight no matter how distressing, no matter how much we wish it were not true.
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Matthew 7
Report comment to moderator
Michelle asks: “Did Hitler have a pastor?”
Don’t know about Hitler, but I do know that Nazis went to church and were married by ministers. I’ve seen pictures, some of a wedding. Can’t say I know what their exact ranks were, but the uniforms were definitely not those of the basic footsoldier. From what I understand, provided a church didn’t engage in political talk (anti-Nazi talk), it could hold services, but in time, most Christian churches were under suspicion and many went underground, especially smaller ones. As I recall, Hitler’s goal was to eliminate the church, too, in the long run. He was only getting started….
Report comment to moderator
But I do think there is another principle involved: is it right to interrupt the service as the protesters evidently did?
Would it be right for say gays to interrupt a service because they did not like the church’s stance? What about interfering with a mosque? A synagogue?
This is a very dangerous principle. the moment you lay down principle because of some “greater good” then you open the door for mischief. Lots of mischief.
Report comment to moderator
If the woman asked me what about these protestors disrupting their services, I would have to say that I find their actions distasteful but have trouble getting unduly upset about them in light of her church’s failure to excercise even the most minimal discipline as to the mass-murderer in their midst.
Church discipline seems to have fallen out of favor, but properly practiced it is a necessary component of a healthy church.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle
“Does anyone hear the gospel at that church? What a total condemnation of his pastor. Did Hitler have a pastor?”
Hitler was enthralled with Martin Luther. Martin Luther hated the Jews and made no secret of the fact, its documented. Many people are not aware of this fact.
One of the sad things is, people lose themselves in their hatred, they turn from what the Bible says. Jesus was born within a Jewish family, the 12 Tribes of Israel are Jews, lest anyone forget just who the Jews are.
We see this today in many forms, not just against Jews, but white, black, brown or any race or color, rather than praying on our knees to LOVE ONE ANOTHER, to PRAY for each other.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I would like to read the original source document for the Martin Luther quote on the Jews. Thanks for the information.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Here is one website that will give you enough information to research more in depth.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
Report comment to moderator
I believe we need to study GOD’s Word in depth, pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to lead us to a Church which preaches ONLY the Gospel, not a form, but the TRUTH, and not a ‘TRADITION’ which is not in the Bible, but is man’s concoction.
Next we must study as we listen to MAKE SURE that what we are LEARNING from the pulpit is honestly in the Bible, and that would include books which men and women write regarding the LORD and HIS Word.
I believe very strongly that as Believers we need to look to our LORD Jesus Christ, man will disappoint us, but HE will never leave us or forsake us.
Report comment to moderator
And just maybe it would make abortion an issue we can’t avoid.
Tony, I think that many Christians are against abortion but it is not on the forefront of their thoughts, prayers and actions as it should be.
I have only stood outside Tiller’s clinic once in prayer. My thirteen year old son was in tears because he knew babies were loosing their lives inside. Some of my youngest children didn’t know why we were there, except that it was a sad place.
Report comment to moderator
I have to admit that I wouldn’t want to shake Tiller’s hand. I would avoid him at all costs, and I think I would start to wonder about attending a church that didn’t call him to account. I’d leave that church.
Report comment to moderator
I like Tony’s train of thought. Many years ago, American conservatives pushed the idea that eco-terrorists and greens in general were fascists who took the law into their own hands. So it’s wonderful to see conservatives yearning to take the law into their own hands in order to breath clean air!
Tony has gotten to the crux of the choice. Advocates of criminalization need constitutional amendments at the federal and/or state level. Failing that, they must take the law into their own hands. Boy, do I ever hope they do!
Here’s the rationale for violence. Nothing in the Bible forbids what we call vigilantism and lynching. The only restrictions Jehovah sets against these healthy moral outlets are the designated cities of refuge. So warn Dr. Tiller that if he doesn’t flee to one of those ancient cities, there’s no telling what Tony might do in response to the silent screams of fetuses rising up from the Wichita sewer system and filling his brain.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Did you realize there’s a New Testament in the Bible too?
Beyond that, your statement that Nothing in the Bible forbids what we call vigilantism and lynching. is patently false.
Report comment to moderator
What’s patently false is calling Tiller a “profiteer.”
[ intrans ] make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, esp. illegally or in a black market
[ trans ] a person who profiteers : a war profiteer.
Not even Tony can think Tiller practices abortion for the economic incentive. False accusations are “false witness” regardless of whether different accusations are true.
In this case, the accusation of murder isn’t true either, because it doesn’t conform to our common understanding of the elements of murder (such as universal revulsion).
Report comment to moderator
Tony — thank you for fixing the Title post – I have read it now in more depth. The small quote below is thought provoking, but more than that, you just might have stirred the minds of man to consider your “thought” — this is one great piece you have written Tony, GOD bless you.
Report comment to moderator
We as a nation must ask ourselves, do we hate the unborn as much as Hitler hated the Jews? What kind of Hitler is hidden in the heart of man who would consider the fate of an innocent child to order their murder, is there any difference? — can man make an excuse for evil which lurks within the heart and call it reasonable?
What can we do in a peaceful way which will effectively send a message to each person who is blind to murder of infants, that it is equally as sinful to kill an infant as it was to kill Jews during WW 2 –
We as a country were against the killings that Hitler promoted but yet thousands of people, law makers find nothing in their hearts to pierce their conscience when taking a knife to a small helpless infant which once found safety in its mothers womb.
Report comment to moderator
15-17 ?’s about Hitler and Luther. The two most famous Lutheran Pastors from Germany in the day of Hitler are Dietric Bonhoeffer and Herman Sasse. Both of them opposed the unionistict attempts of Hitler to use the church for political purposes. While many where lost in apathy many others migrated to America, Australia, and Africa.
Not to sound like Obamma, but Luther’s statements about the Jews need to be taken in the context of Luther’s love for the Gospel and His disdain for those who would pervert the Gospel. Read some of his sermons and see how colorful he is in describing the depravity of all sinners. Did Hitler abuse Luther to advance his ideas. Yes. Did Stalin abuse Luther to advance his ideas. Yes. Did Satan in the Garden abuse God’s words to advance his agenda. Yes.
One thing Ben Stiens movie “Expelled” showed was that the Natzi approach was not primarily hate the Jews it was a systematic grab for power which spawned abortion on demand in America and the current near bankruptcy of American Education.
FYI Luther is also thought to be instrumental in the establishment of public schools so that the people could learn to read the Bible for themselves. Which is also connected with the fact that Luther was huge on vocation. The Christian saved by the Gospel is now free to serve his neighbor in love. So you can also say Luther helped establish free market thinking. Bottom line Luther was huge. There are volumes of the conversations he had at dinner recorded. So you need to be a bit more earnest than sound bite theology to understand what Luther says.
Report comment to moderator
Ajones
IF, Luther actually knew the Gospel, understanding that Jesus Christ was a Jew, born of a Jewish mother, who chose Disciples also Jewish, — Luther most certainly PURPOSED in his writings to spew hate against the Jewish people.
One doesn’t need to make excuses for Luther, Luther doesn’t make excuses for his dispicable statements made against the Jewish people. Nothing is taken out of context, that is an old argument which doesn’t hold water.
Hitler was impressed by Luther, only because it fit within his ideas and hatred of the Jews. To say otherwise is not honest, but is a COVER-UP for Luther’s hatred of the Jewish people.
The piece above makes it clear that Luther if he could, would have written for another 2,000 years against the Jews. That in itself, is PROOF that Luther was boiling with hatred for the Jewish people,</b. just as Hitler – and Hitler admired Luther -
Report comment to moderator
Ajones
How can one love the Gospels and hate the Jews?
People have done it for a long time, and yet profess to being Believers in the LORD Jesus Christ –
Did Jesus teach hate? Did Jesus tell anyone to hate the Jews? Luther was a hateful man, who couldn’t reconcile his hatred for the Jewish, but believed the Gospel? — was the Gospel in his heart, did he miss the words that Christ spoke about loving our neighbor? —
You can talk about all the great sermons that have ever been preached, but if the preacher/teacher hates people, and in this case the Jews, what does it profit, without LOVE?
What did Jesus say to those at the foot of the Cross?
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Luke 23:34
These Ajones were not believers whom Jesus was speaking of, but unbelievers.
Luther was a believer, but yet spoke of;
Report comment to moderator
Scroop (23),
I don’t think Tiller’s lust for blood, desire for notoriety, twisted worldview, and greed are incompatible motivations. So to suggest that he isn’t in it for the money, because there is some other cause for his actions, is illogical and naive. Do you really think he’s charging cost-plus in that massive facility, and that his substantial donations to political candidates come from nickels he finds on the street?
As for your curious definition of “murder,” I think you’ve made errors of logic and fact. First, the fact that a majority of voters in Mississippi once thought it acceptable to beat one’s slave to death didn’t make it any less murder, or any less revolting. Second, a majority of Americans, when you inform them what it consists of, oppose partial-birth abortion. This is precisely why mainstream news media go out of their way to avoid explaining the procedure, because it is, in fact, revolting to all but those who are so ideologically wedded to the notion of a right to kill the unborn that they refuse to consider what people like Tiller are actually doing.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
You are also operating with a self-made definition of murder. There is no Biblical basis for saying that abortion is murder or infanticide, although Scripture appears to counsel against abortion. Catholics can reason that it’s murder only because they place faith in extra-Biblical sources.
Protestant ethics had never equated abortion with murder until the religious right started doing so 20 years ago. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention praised Roe v. Wade when the decision issued in 1973.
Richard Hays makes a compelling argument against abortion in his book on New Testament ethics. It is compelling because it is grounded in Scripture, and not in modernist notions of individual rights.
Evangelicals claim to be people of the the Book. Yet when they speak out on ethical issues, they rarely proffer arguments that reflect the categories provided by Scripture or Reformed orthodoxy. Sometimes I fear that evangelicals are more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in speaking the truth in love. Even if we believe that Dr. Tiller’s conduct is sinful, we too sin if we condemn his actions more harshly than Scripture does.
This incident again demonstrates how many evangelicals are more interested in achieving certain ends than in employing proper means. Nevertheless, the life of faith is all about employing proper means. For we already know the end: Good’s triumph over evil was secured on Cross outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. Why, then, do evangelicals so often act as though evil might actually win the day? Why all of the demagoguery and alarmism and urgent calls to action? Or is our alleged concern for justice really nothing more than faithless hand-wringing?
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
I don’t know about Protestants, but I don’t believe early Christians, worshipping in churches established by the Apostolic fathers, ever believed abortion was acceptable. What’s more, there are many things the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn or condone, yet about which one can reasonably reach Biblical (i.e., consistent with the knowledge of God gleaned from Scriptures) conclusions. Slavery, for instance, isn’t condemned by the Bible.
And even if we can’t agree about first- and second-trimester abortions, surely you don’t think that partial-birth abortion, in which a nearly full-term infant is delivered almost completely, and then executed with scissors or scalpel once the base of his neck is exposed, is anything but murder, do you?
I agree with you about the rest, about Evangelicals (indeed, we Christians of all stripes) too often placing politics ahead of principle, and not adequately grounding our politics in Biblical knowledge. I disagree, however, with the subtle contention I think I detect, which is that we have no obligations to act in this world, because the old things will pass away, all things will be made new again, etc. I think that leads to Gnosticism, and fails to recognize how we are called to join with God in creation and redemption — not because he needs our help, of course, but because we are fashioned in his image and likeness, and called to do good works which he has prepared beforehand.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi
I can’t speak for Southern Baptist, but I certainly can speak for other Evangelical denominations. I remember the discussion, the disgust when the law was made effect in 1973, that isn’t just twenty years ago as you claim, but in fact thirty five (35) years ago. There was shock which traveled through churches all over California. Many people had not been aware of the impending law that was to be passed, it was not widely known.
I was young when this took place, but when I heard only days before it was to be passed we all went into action, calling every single person we could, who was in a position to urge those who would legislate such a demonic law to do what they could.
When you say twenty (20) years you are WRONG, very WRONG. This law was not widely known before it was passed.
I remember a friend of mine who was young, had just recieved a degree in medicine. I called her, and discussed the impending law, and my DISGUST and SHOCK over it, (she knew I was affiliated with a strong Evangelical Church, she was not a Believer) this is what she said;
“I hope you aren’t going to call everyone you know to stop this bill, please don’t do anything so that this law will not be passed”
I was a very involved person against abortion. Everyone knew it, and I was shocked that even at my age I had no knowledge of this law that was to be passed. I was on the phone with church leaders, anyone who could help, anyone who would call Washington.
It was TOO LATE, and look what we have, thousands of children who are dead, killed because the sins of their parents and the responsibility they had to bring these dear children into the world was thwarted, due to a selfish ambition to live their lives without responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
Before all of the books of the New Testament were completed (and certainly centuries before the Church even made an attempt to define which books were “in” and which were “out”), a little “pamphlet” known as The Didache was circulating and being read in the apostolically-founded churches throughout Christendom. This was the first attempt by Christians to establish basic teachings (as opposed to simply writing notes of encouragement and/or correction to churches or individuals).
Here’s a little taste of the Didache for you:
“The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:
1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.
2 Now, this is the way of life:…
The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; DO NOT MURDER A CHILD BY ABORTION OR KILL A NEWBORN INFANT. “Do not covet your neighbor’s property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness”; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is “a deadly snare.” Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.”
I think the caps go a long way toward demonstrating that Tony isn’t exactly creating a fresh definition of murder. Seeing as all Christianity had its birth in the churches the Apostles founded, I’m not too sure I really care whether or not the Southern Baptists or Luther approved of abortion a couple of years ago, but it’s pretty darn clear that the Early Church always treated it as very serious sin!
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Given that Dr. Tiller constantly received threats of violence and death threats from the anti-choice folk, I find it irresponsible for Tony to be advocating “vigilantism”. Given the past history of violence and murder of the anti-choice side, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Dr. Tiller to fear for his safety and life.
There are two additional problems with Tony’s call for mob action:
1. A woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
2. Federal law protects clinics and their workers and a woman’s right to access those services.
We’ve seen this call many times over the years for mob action to shut down Dr. Tiller. Tony’s latest call will fail just as the previous attempts have failed. The rule of law must be upheld, even for anti-choicers.
And those who are advocating barging into churches and disrupting their services had better be careful what they wish for.
Report comment to moderator
And here we have the obligatory assault de rigueur – all trumped up, nothing close to the truth, but said with all the pomp and circumstance to ignite fire under all who appose abortion.
What else can we expect from those who take a thread and blow pink butter dust at the truth?
Was that a ‘door slaming’ I just heard?
Report comment to moderator
Tony — regarding cost-plus and profiteering, I’m thinking of a recent experience, which you’ve possibly shared if you’re over 40. The day before you’re proctoscoped, you can’t eat or drink, and you flush and flush. What you don’t know about this process is that it leaves you totally at the mercy of the shock and awe that awaits you the next morning. I’m not talking about the procedure. I’m talking about the doctor’s clinic. From the landscaped parking, you enter an atrium like a Hayat Hotel. Shortly after 8 a.m. you find yourself in one of many operatories, waiting. Waiting. The doctor’s staff spends all morning apologizing to half a dozen bare-assed patients that he’s tied up at the hospital. Finally, close to 3 p.m. the doctor tells you to go home, you’re OK. I’m not complaining, considering some of the alternatives. But all he does is look for color-dyed spots on a monitor. For a couple of hourse of his time, he makes $6,000.
Tony, is any specialist not a profiteer?
Report comment to moderator
Tony: You distort my words. I agree that Scripture counsels against abortion. I corrected your statements because I believe that you condemned Dr. Tiller’s conduct more harshly than Scripture does. Nowhere did I suggest, however, that Scripture condones his conduct. Further, I nowhere advise inaction by Christians on such issues. Rather, I advise sane action that relies on reasoned discourse and not on alarmism, exaggeration, and demagoguery. In general, many evangelicals are too quick to adopt arguments that possess rhetorical flair, and are too quick to dismiss nuanced arguments that are more theologically rigorous. But if we prefer flashy arguments over Scriptural arguments, we run the risk of offering the world nothing other than a Christless moralism.
Jonny: The statement in the Didache refers to the killing of a full-term or near-full-term fetus — a practice that was commonly carried out at that time. The Didache’s description does not include any form of legal abortion practiced in the US.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Your doctor’s bills are a function of a system that doesn’t require most users to pay anything approaching the full cost. That, plus bureaucracy, is a primary driver of the high bill. So perhaps your doctor is a profiteer, though most of his fee is either bargained down by your insurer, or eaten up by red tape.
Tiller’s activities aren’t covered by insurance, nor does he have a large, integrated health care system with many moving parts. He has a fairly simple operation, as far as medical specialties go, funded entirely by checks and credit cards offered up by scared young women. It throws off enough cash to have funded the facility’s considerable enlargement over the years, as well as Tiller’s substantial political activities.
But to wrap this up, since you’ll want a more ironclad defense of the word, why don’t we resort to economics. Profiteers emerge when a good or service is scarce. Partial-birth abortion is, thankfully, scarce, such that women come from all over the midwest to have Tiller execute their nearly full-term infants. He has no competition, and he charges hundreds of dollars per execution, at prices artificially inflated by his lack of competition. If you like, you can make a speculative case that he does a lot of pro bono work, but the reports of survivors suggest otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
I certainly don’t intend to distort your words. I think you state your point well in #37, to wit, that you believe I have condemned Tiller more harshly than Scripture. The disagreement I offered in 31 still holds, namely, that we distort Scripture when we use it as proof-text without regard to its holistic richness.
You seem to believe that we can only rightly call Tiller a murderer if the Bible explicitly calls abortion murder, but surely you see the rabbit hole that sort of logic draws one into. The Bible doesn’t call viewing online pornography a sin either, but reasonable people conclude that coveting thy neighbor’s wife and giving oneself over to lust includes looking at images of naked women. The Bible doesn’t forbid suicide, but again, reasonable exegesis of the passages where people committed suicide indicates that it is an act of despair, or self-will, or revenge, all of which are sins, suggesting that suicide is itself a sin. I could go on, but you get the point — we denude the Scriptures when we demand from them explicitness while closing our eyes to their holistic message as well as their logical extensions.
What’s more, you must grapple with this reality: people living when these Scriptures were spoken and written understood abortion to be murder. Cultures around them did not, of course, which is why it’s all the more telling that early Christians did. If the people who worshipped with and were taught by the Apostles and their students all confirmed that abortion is murder, it’s fanciful to insist that Christ believes otherwise.
You might argue for the neutral position, that absent explicit words from Christ on this, we must err on the side of assuming he had no strong opinion. (Note that this assumes a philosophy that the teachings and practices of the early Church aren’t themselves insights into how to interpret Christ’s teachings — a point of view many scholars consider short-sighted.) But given that what’s at stake are the lives of unborn infants, that position seems, while perhaps intellectually safe, morally quite dangerous.
I appreciate your point of view, that once we depart from explicit direction of Scripture, we run the risk of nitwits thumping their Bibles and proclaiming that we must do this or not do that. But we run that risk regardless, wouldn’t you say? And so we reduce this risk not an ounce, but at the same time we deflate the abortion debate of the moral language which must be a part of it, because our side is in opposition to a utilitarian vision which includes people, and not just their implements, in its calculation. This evil cannot be confronted with a utilitarian argument, but with a moral one, and the only moral argument on which to hang one’s opposition to it is that it is murder, the unjust taking of innocent life.
Report comment to moderator
TONY – I’m sorry for taking this discussion away from the emotion of your post, but the angle helps me understand you. I can understand why George Washington lamented that the States had not hunted down profiteers “as the pests of society, and the greatest Enemys we have [!] to the happiness of America.” He wanted them hanged. But I can’t understand why “profiteering” is relevant to the thinking of a free marketeer like you, and I can’t understand why “profiteering” is relevant to your moral argument. You seem to betray anxiety that your moral argument is insufficient so you have to attack the character of the abortionist. I know nothing about Tiller. He’s fees seem modest compared with colonoscopy. But would you change your mind about abortion if you discovered a practitioner as worthy as Chaucer’s plowman?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Dr. Martin Luther was a professor of Old Testament Hebrew. He was well read and often quoted Jewish scholars. According to my software in the American Edition of Luther’s works, which may be about half of his works, Luther makes 6065 references to the Jews while there are 7963 reference to love. I have not read all of them. You however show your profound hate for Luther by insisting that his words are accurately reflected in the ideas of Hitler. Luther did believe that he was called to speak and write against the errors of the Jew, the Pope, and our own sinful nature. While to modern ears sometimes his language against those who promote false teaching may seem hateful Luther consider his labor a labor of love. He taught a separation between the kingdom of the word and the kingdom of the sword. Luther was a man of violent words at times but not a man of violent action. Violent action was the kingdom of the sword.
Luther had a pastoral heart as he longed to help the people. Even as early as the 95 Theses Luther argued against the peasants spending money on indulgences rather than providing for their families and others in need. He considered this a great sin. Read these more famous words of Luther:
“Out of love and zeal for truth and the desire to bring it to light … 43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.”
In 1523 Luther produced a tract favorable for the Jews, “That Christ was born a Jew.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
If you want to know a bit more about what Luther’s opinion was of the Jews read these quotes.
This is the opinion of the Jews. I quote it because it does not seem to be at variance with the truth. (Luther’s Works American Edition Vol 1 page 313)
the fact that the Jews crucified the Son of God is a mistake and irrefutable ignorance on their part, as Paul testifies in 1 Cor. 2:8 (LWae 5:203)
Even though both Jews and Turks laugh at us because we are convinced that there is one God and that there are three Persons, nevertheless, unless they are brazen enough to deny the authority of Scripture, they are compelled by this passage and also by those quoted above to adopt our conviction. They may scoff at these ideas, as the Jews zealously do; but meanwhile there remains in their hearts that little sting: “Why should He say ‘Let Us make’?” Likewise: “Why should Moses employ the plural noun (LWae 1: 59)
The promise of the Gospel has been divinely revealed; furthermore, it has been preserved among so many tyrants and awful tortures. Because the Jews obstinately oppose it and do not want to believe, they must be left to their own devices. But we shall now concern ourselves with those who believe and who obey the Gospel. ( LWae 1:218)
if the heathen had been willing to walk in the footsteps of the Jews, they would never have sunk to those monstrous practices. Nor would the Jews ever have had anything to do with those blasphemous rites if they had given heed to the Word. If we ourselves had appreciated Baptism and the holy Eucharist as we should, we would not have become monks, and nothing would have been taught in the church about purgatory, about the sacrifice of the Mass, and about other wicked things. But alter the light of the Word had been put out by wicked popes, it was easy to force these abominations upon men.(LWae 1:249)
Thus in Malachi we read concerning the coming of Christ: “He will sit as a Refiner and Purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver” (3:3). Therefore the prophet adds: “Who can endure the day of His coming?” (3:2.) Accordingly, God is playing a fatherly game with us when He sends plague, famine, diseases, sadness of spirit, misfortune to a son, and all kinds of evils in this whole life for the purpose of melting and purging. But who will bear this? Such a Messiah the Jews were not expecting. No, they were waiting for one who would set them up as kings and lords of the whole world. They will be disappointed, says Malachi (LWae 7:231)
Report comment to moderator
Ajones, CHECK the DATES –
Dr. Martin Luther – 1483-1546
1517 October 21 – Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Palace All Saints’ Church.
1523 – “That Christ was born a Jew” Martin Luther wrote this 6 years after nailing his Ninety five thesis
1543 book, “On the Jews and their lies” Luther wrote this 26 years after his Ninety five thesis
1546 February 18 – Martin Luther died
NOTE: November 10, 1938 – Luther’s birthday, the synagogues burning in Germany
Report comment to moderator
Ajones
Your “1523 – “That Christ was born a Jew” Martin Luther
You fail to realize that when Martin Luther wrote, “On the Jews and their lies” it was in 1543, that’s a long time after his writing in 1523
THINK ABOUT IT!
Report comment to moderator
Hiyoshi,
It would sure be nice to have some proof or references for the conclusory statements you make, such as “abortion” didn’t really mean abortion, just late term abortion. While you’re digging around for them, consider also that the phrase I translated as sorcery is probably better translated “do not use potions.” The term for potions was “pharmakeia,” which is often linked in Scripture to sexual sins. Scholars (check out John Noonan’s massive tome “Contraception” for more than enough corroboration) believe that the term pharmakeia refers to contraception, understanding that the Fathers made no distinction between true contraception (such as barrier devices) and “abortifacient contraception” (such as today’s oral contraceptions and IUDs) but simply lumped them all into the same sinful basket. Oh– but then, again, the Southern Baptists have since popped both varieties of contraception out of that basket and into the “approved for action” basket, so I’m guessing that makes it all OK now.
Folks– Let’s stay out of the “Luther was an anti-Semite” argument and stay focused on Tony’s point that we all sound pretty tough when we make anti-abortion statements but are all pretty weak when it comes actually to doing something about it.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny
We all have reasons for making comparisons between abortion and Hitler, and that would include many of the writings of Martin Luther and his voice against the Jews which is unbelievable. We as believers are not to EXAULT man but GOD Almighty. Martin Luther wasn’t exaulting GOD when he made remarks against the Jews, telling others to burn their synagogues, and hurt them physically, — so why should man EXAULT Martin Luther?
Have you ever seen the pictures of little Jewish boys and girls, their genitals removed, I HAVE. Hitler admired Martin Luther, that is widely known.
What have YOU done do stop abortion? Before you make a statement such as “but are all pretty weak when it comes actually to doing something about it.” I would highly suggest Jonny you speak for yourself regarding abortion and what YOU have done.
Report comment to moderator
Hitler abused anyone he thought might advance his cause. Hitler abused Luther’s writings. By 1543 Luther said things that were more over the top out of his frustration that the Jews did not turn to Christ after hearing the Gospel. If you study Luther at all you know that he does not advocate vigilantism. He for a moment overstates the case for what he would do if instead of being called to use the word he should direct the office of the sword to protect the peace of the people. Following the publication of the book no Jews were molested by the people. In fact as Luther closes the treaty he prays that God would yet bring the Jews to Salvation and the truth of the Gospel. Nowhere does Luther say he hates the Jews or advocate hate for the Jews. That simply is a malicious reading of Luther. Luther’s most widely acclaimed work that he held as a valuable work up to his death is his small catechism. Here he says this to explain the commandment you shall not kill.
“We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need” I can not believe that anyone who has studied Luther can truly align him with Hitler. That is hateful and missguided.
Report comment to moderator
Ajones
You can dismiss what Martin Luther wrote, his intense hatred for the Jews, the fact that on November 10, 1938, Luther’s birthday, the synagogues were burning in Germany – COINCIDENCE ? You can dismiss the fact that Hitler admired Luther and his stand against the Jews. But I will not dismiss it, nor will I condone anything Martin Luther wrote against the Jewish people.
It has long been noted the massive EXCUSES and JUSTIFICATIONS even those which you Ajones have posted, which have been written and spoken on behalf of Luther, the endless contrived statements giving those who support Martin Luther a pulpit – But no one can deny that Hitler admired Luther, and 6 MILLION Jews were murdered, during the holocaust — or that their synagogues were burned in Germany on Martin Luther’s Birthday in 1938 – This burning of the synagogues on this particular date isn’t lost on those who have read or know how anti-Semitic Martin Luther wrote against the Jews.
If Martin Luther had truly studied the Bible he would have understood that no one kills another person, or burns down their synagogue because they don’t believe the way you do. Luther missed most of what the LORD said in the Gospels. Luther had his own gospel, and made sure everyone understood it just a few years before he died.
What is also troubling, is the EXALTATION which people give Martin Luther today, knowing the truth about how anti-Semitic his writing reveal.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 1938 is about 400 years after 1530. I would say Luther had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact if I believed there were people on my land holding demonic rituals I think I would try to have them removed. What is more. Everyone that lives on my land is required to attend church with me. Luther lived in the days of Feudal lords. Even in the words that you love to quote from Luther he does not say that you should kill every Jew. He says you should not listen to their false teaching or participate in their worship services. Maybe you should read it yourself before you say that Luther hated the Jews. Your abuse of Luther is what is scary about hate speech legislation. If I say I believe that the Bible says gossip is a sin that does not mean that I hate all gossipers and think they should be exterminated.
Report comment to moderator
Ajones
People today read the words of those they admire written hundreds of years ago, your comparison of 400 years holds no water at all, in fact its a weak argument for Martin Luther and Hitler’s admiration for his anti-Semitic rhetoric — which fit in perfectly with his deep seated hatred for the Jews — interesting that hundreds of synagogues were burned to the ground, house’s rampaged on Martin Luther’s birthday in 1938, that wasn’t lost on anyone.
Martin Luther would not have needed to write such an evil book if he hadn’t hated the Jews. And yes Ajones I read it, and I believe that Luther meant what he wrote which was vile and ugly.
Because I don’t agree with you, I would not advocate burning down whatever church you attend, but that is exactly what Martin Luther advocated if those around him (Jews) didn’t agree and believe as he did.
YOU WRITE:…..
“Even in the words that you love to quote from Luther he does not say that you should kill every Jew.”
No he doesn’t Ajones, and I didn’t either so what is your POINT? – except to insinuate that I have said it? – if not there would be no reason for you to have made the statement above.
Jesus said:
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. Luke 9:5
Martin Luther didn’t study, if he had he wouldn’t have missed the passage above , and he certainly would not have decided to give advice as to how to rid themselves of the Jews:
And this coming from a man who claimed to know the Word of God?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I chuckle to find myself cast somehow as a defender of Luther. Further, as I stated in claiming the “we” for weakness, I have done nothing worthy of boast in this battle Satan wages against God by destroying those He loves– I’m simply a useless windbag in this war. I stand convicted by Tony’s words and would urge those in this conversation to use it to advance an answer to the question “What can we do?” rather than the red-herring “Was Luther an anti-Semite and the source of all Nazi atrocities?”
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
You can chuckle as long as you like as a so called defender of Luther.
It’s not a matter of “What can we do?” — it is a matter of what have you done, or what are you going to do. Those of us who have been in this fight for the life of the unborn will continue to do what we are doing. You can answer for yourself and your commitment.
As far as Luther being an anti-Semite — it is clear in my mind that he was —
Can you see the LORD Jesus Christ or any of HIS disciples making statements to burn down synagogues? — OF COURSE YOU CANNOT, that is the difference.
Those who have advocated harsh treatment of Jews who profess to be Believers have, instead stood as strange Believers, as the LORD did not preach or teach this doctrine. Anti-Semitism isn’t a belief which has died, but in fact ignites with a passion against the Jewish people when those who profess to be Believers, who stand in a position as Martin Luther did, but exposing hatred against those who were HIS chosen people —– and then others hear, listen to the words of Luther only to find out that he of all people was hateful to Jews because they didn’t agree with him (Luther) –
To bring “red-herring” as memorable point regarding Nazi atrocities, — Yes Luther was a beacon in the Lutheran Church within Germany, he was the beginning and head of the Lutheran Church, so there would be no “red-herring, but a person who had made clear his intentions for the Jewish people if they didn’t believe, agree to what he, (Martin Luther) had laid down as truth. Yes to be Born Again is to accept Jesus Christ as Savior, but many ignore this, be they Gentile or Jew, but we don’t burn their places of worship or threaten them as Luther did to running them out of our town.
Anti-Semitism and abortion come together because it is mans way of diminishing his sin, and then couple that together with the holocaust and you have NO “red-herring” but a case against mankind of hatred — Abortion doesn’t draw attention away from the holocaust, but instead indelably marks death for those who are least able to care for themselves, and those who GOD loves, —- as worthless, being worthy of death, either in the womb or in another way. Nazi atrocities were no different than the atrocity we see today with abortion, the child ripped from the comfortable womb of the mother, just like the child ripped away from the Jewish mother in the camps, to be taken and mutilated, its genitals removed to un-man the small boy in excruciating pain. This Jonny is no “red herring” but a picture of mans hatred, no different than taking the SAME KNIFE and killing a child within the womb.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I appreciate your response. Nevertheless, I point to two aspects of the response that explains why evangelicals often fail in persuading others of their viewpoints.
First, you refer to “our side.” My experience is that evangelicals can often better define themselves by who they’re not than by who they are. This has led to a lot of unnecessary boundary policing, whereby anyone who is not one of “us” is one of “them.” It has always been unclear to me why evangelicals are so obsessed with “sides” and “boundaries.” I can understand it on core theological issues. But it extends to social practices as well. On abortion, evangelicals will not generally partner with those who merely believe that abortion is a moral ill. Rather, they will only partner with those who agree that criminal sanctions are the only acceptable remedy for this moral ill.
Second, I would caution you against reducing policy issues to moral issues. Even if we agree that abortion is a moral ill, moral language is simply not that useful for creating and implementing effective policy levers for countering moral ills. I don’t see any opposition between moral thinking and legal pragmatism. (In fact, that’s the point of most forms of natural law theory.) Because we believe in general revelation and common grace, we should expect pragmatic solutions to be generally consistent with morally upright solutions.
Conclusion: We are more divided by language than by our actual positions on the issues. Evangelicals are more comfortable addressing policy issues through the use of a particular moral vernacular that emerged in the early 1800s. Few non-evangelicals use such language. For example, we may refer to “brokenness” while evangelicals say “the consequences of man’s sin.” One can speak of moral issues without adopting the language of American Protestant revivalism.
My mother was an administrator at an evangelical college, even though we were conservative mainliners. Therefore, I’ve spent my whole life around evangelicals. In that sense, I feel like an MK who grew up abroad. I can speak “evangelicalese,” even though I am not an evangelical. But that’s not true of too much of the population, especially of those who work inside of the Beltway. If evangelicals want to have a greater impact on society, they need to learn to frame their arguments in language that is intelligible to others.
Lastly, I think that evangelicals need to become less agitated by the dissonance that results from living between the already and the not yet. We live in a fallen world where any change will be incremental and will fall short of the heavenly ideal. Christ’s victory over sin and death have been secured. Therefore, we can plow in hope, trusting that the Lord will use our labors even when no good appears to come of them. Much of evangelicals’ overcharged moral language may largely be an indication of impatience (and frustration with providence) than with conviction.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi
No Kyoshi, its not by we are not. but by WHO WE ARE — we are Believers first — whoever is not a Believer is not saved by grace –
“SIDES” — Salvation in the LORD Jesus Christ isn’t a side it’s a belief in our Savior.
Abortion is a moral sin, it’s not an ill -
Sin is now called a moral ill? Sin isn’t an illness it is defiance against GOD.
Victoria,
Your response perfectly illustrates the problems to which I referred.
First, evangelical boundary policing extends beyond drawing lines between believers and non-believers. Evangelicalism is one expression of orthodox Christianity. I applaud American evangelicals for maintaining a commitment to orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, being an evangelical also involves submitting to particular cultural and social expressions of that orthodoxy. I am not an evangelical. My position, though, has nothing to do with disagreements about orthodoxy. Rather, I am not an evangelical because I reject the influences of revivalism and the pietistic movement. One need not be a pietist or a revivalist to be a Christian, but one does need to be a pietist or a revivalist to be an evangelical. Nevertheless, I frequently run across evangelicals, like you, who make efforts to equate evangelicalism and orthodoxy. Thus, it indeed seems to matter more to evangelicals whether someone is on “our side” than if someone is a Christian.
Second, I refer to “moral ills” because the word “sin” is not appropriate in that context. Sin refers to conduct that brings condemnation from a holy God. I use “moral ill” to refer to conduct that the state should discourage. But these two categories are not co-extensive. For example, the state should discourage fast driving, but I doubt that fast driving is a sin per se. On the other hand, gossip is a sin, but the state only discourages certain egregious forms of gossip. I’d suggest that abortion is both a sin and a moral ill. But unless you’re a theocrat, the state addresses the issue of abortion because it is a moral ill and not because it is a sin. I have no problem with the state making moral judgments, but I submit that the state makes moral judgments for reasons that are altogether different from those that guide the church in making its moral judgments. Many accuse evangelicals of being theocrats because they often use “sin” in referring to the type of conduct which the state should discourage. I’d disagree. I think that few evangelicals are theocrats. Instead, evangelicals use exclusively religious language to describe these issues because they have not trained themselves to describe these issues using non-sectarian language.
Much of what evangelicals want to achieve in the political arena is not too radical. In fact, the majority of Americans may indeed share their ambitions. Nevertheless, evangelicals have difficulty joining into any such coalition because they have little facility at discussing moral issues without lapsing into evangelicalese.
An analogy: In many countries around the world (e.g., Japan), every region has its own dialect. When people speak in their regional dialect, only about 30-50% of what they say is understood by those from other regions of the country. At the same time, there is an official version of the language that is taught in school and used in all professional communications. Educated people can often speak both dialects fluently, and know when and where to use each. Those who fail to grasp these nuances are targets of ridicule.
I’d liken evangelicalese to a dialect. It’s spoken by about 20% of the American population, and is useful for embodying their shared experiences in a pietistic, revivalistic Christian community. The rest of us, though, would prefer that evangelicals eschew evangelicalese when interacting with those of us who are outside of your community. In fact, much of evangelicals’ public complaining can be characterized as little more than murmurings about the fact that evangelicalese is not the nation’s standard dialect. Well, your plight is shared by the people of Osaka, Shanghai, Munich, etc., whose local dialects failed to emerge as the standard dialect.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!