Leaving Tiller to God
This past Friday, Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison for last May’s shooting death of George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who performed partial-birth abortions. Tiller was a doctor only in the legal sense of the word. He was not a healer, but a killer—a callous monster who could hold a baby in his hands as the child emerged from the mother, puncture its skull, and suck its brains out. Tiller was a mass murderer, though the unjust laws that govern that practice in America sanctioned his butchery.
It does not follow, however, that Roeder was justified in what he did, as almost every Christian opponent of abortion would agree. Nonetheless, is there any opponent of abortion who has not asked himself, “If I truly believe this is murder and that these abortionists are mass murderers, why do I not put actions to words and physically stop them, even kill them, sacrificing myself for these helpless innocents?” But having explored that train of thought, we have all (but for a tiny handful) pulled back from it. Why? Is it just cowardice and hypocrisy? Or do we sense intuitively the ungodliness of that course?
I find that evangelicals, like most Americans, are divided within themselves on this question. Our political heritage is one of rebellion and self-assertion, and yet also one of law governance. At its heart, this is a question of authority, submission, and trusting God.
The reason for rejecting the final premise in the argument for assassinating abortionists is a theological one that is clearly stated in Scripture. It is found in Romans 13:1-5:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
In short, it is not the place of private individuals to execute justice. God has established governments, and He has entrusted that responsibility to them and to them only. You are no more justified in killing abortionists who practice their hideous trade under the cover of law than you are to gun down your daughter’s killer after a corrupt or incompetent legal system failed to convict him.
Each semester, I confront my students with this teaching, and invariably they bristle. Should a people not rebel against an unjust government, or even a murderous one? What about genocide? What about Hitler? I tell them that they are expressing utilitarian ethical views, not Christian ones. Never mind what God says. That’s so unclear, especially when we’re confronted with strong moral passions. Isn’t it clear enough that if there is evil happening, and the appropriate government is not stopping it (if there is an overseeing government), then anyone who is willing and able to step forward and get the job done should do so? As Scott Roeder said, “If someone did not stop [Tiller], these babies were going to continue to die.” Or I suggest that they are simply distrusting of God. What ought to be done is obvious. Kill Hitler or the abortionist before either of them kills again. If God will not act, I must push Him from his throne and do it myself.
If a private individual is justified in assassinating Hitler because Hitler is obviously evil and undeserving of the civil magistracy, then would that moral liberty have extended also to someone who was equally convinced that George W. Bush was a usurper of power and a war criminal? I suspect that those who would believe it their moral obligation to fire off a round at Hitler from a crowd, given the opportunity, would have recoiled at the notion of encouraging their angry left-wing neighbors to follow through on their moral convictions and attempt to fell President Bush by whatever violent means seemed most likely to succeed.
After Roeder was convicted, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Advocates for abortion rights praised the verdict.” Christians can and should (and many do) also praise the verdict as God’s just judgment faithfully pronounced. With uncompromising hatred for the evil of abortion, we can say boldly that God did not entrust the power of the sword into the hands of every individual for use when we are really, really sure and deeply appalled, but solely into the hands of the civil magistrate.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top46 Comments to “Leaving Tiller to God”
What Roeder did was wrong. He should not have taken the life of Tiller. What Tiller did was also wrong. Both will answer to God and not me. Trusting that the LORD will indeed hand out justice is at the core of this debate. I for one trust that God and God alone will render each their due.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting… What about Civil Disobedience? What about the American Revolution? Should we have obeyed King George? What about war, should we defeat tyrants, dictators, etc? Does God not require us to act at times to right the wrongs ourselves, either as groups or as individuals?
Report comment to moderator
If Paul left out the statement that the government is not a terror to good people, but bad, we could use it as a blanket statement on everyone put into authority. Martin Lloyd-Jones did not interpret it that way and I agree with him.
I do not think this man should have stalked Tiller, at any rate. He was in a church, not in the midst of doing anything evil at that time and innocent people may have been hurt. Furthermore, it only gives fuel to the other side.
This man had to be convicted. He should have counted the cost and now he will pay it. Someone else will most likely take up with the other doctor left off. Not sure what was gained. Hearts and minds are harder to reach, but that is where I will keep working, along with the thousands who are also doing that.
Report comment to moderator
Civil disobedience doesn’t include murder. Basically, you accept the legal consequences of not paying your taxes or resisting the law in some other manner, but that doesn’t include premeditated murder — and that’s what Roeder did.
Revolution is another thing. It’s different. You’re literally trying to overturn the government, not one law. And you’d better win. I don’t recall the exact quote, but I think it was Franklin who said the signers of the Declaration of Independence had better succeed or they’d all hang together. The risk is greater and so are the consequences. I do think there is an argument to be made in favor of revolution. Can’t say that it would be a biblical argument, but I think people in general have a right to decide for themselves the government under which they will live.
But when it comes to Roeder, I think Jiller’s comment is the fairest one of all.
Report comment to moderator
What about “murderer” John Brown (before the Civil War)? There is a statue of him in Kansas, they are proud of him. How opinions and time can change minds and hearts. Yes John Brown suffered the consequences.
Civil disobedience means not obeying the government, can’t have it both ways. See Gandhi, Martin Luther King, George Washington, etc. Our heros.
Does, or has God ever condoned killing a corrupt person, leader, or overthrowing a government?
I am not defending the Tiller killer guy who is now in prison, just asking probing questions.It isn’t good to quickly see all things as either black or white, right or wrong, as we would like life to be sometimes.
Think, consider, ponder.
Report comment to moderator
Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Scott Roeder is the biggest baby killer that ever lived. His actions have done more to harm the pro-life cause than anything else in recent history, and as such he is responsible for more abortions than Tiller ever performed. Let him rot.
Report comment to moderator
Ernie Lee, why is murderer in quote marks in your post?
Report comment to moderator
I put murderer in quote marks because there are those who think that John Brown is a hero and merely an executioner, or a soldier doing his duty, not a murderer. Just like we don’t consider our soldiers in a war murderers, like some radicals actually do, and call Bush a murderer for our wars. I am not advocating that position to be sure! (killing drs) , just asking some questions that I think many are afraid to ask.
I understand we all feel like we must say the safe thing… that all violence is bad and wrong. But do we really believe that? Yes, John Brown harmed the anti-slavery movement at the time. Confusing isn’t it?
See the wikipedia entry on him for an eye-opener.
Should we always sit by and watch and pray only?
Be honest.
No matter how serious the sin?
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes there are intermediate options between “sit by and watch and pray only” and murder or John Brown style armed insurrection (I got to use that word twice today).
Most times actually.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, there are many in-between steps, and waiting for governments to change may take decades, or even centuries, if ever, to change if all we do is whimper.
I have said enough.
I have no conclusion except to say…. think about how you can obey God and observe his commandments to Love God and one another.
Report comment to moderator
As abominable as it is, abortion is legal in this country for any reason or no reason. George Tiller took upon himself God’s prerogative to take life. Scott Roeder took upon himself the role of judge, jury, and executioner when he violated the law. When we were children we were told that “two wrongs do not make a right,” simplistic though it may be. I am a Christian and I hate abortion, but we live in a society supposedly governed by law, and if the law is wrong it can be changed. Personally, if I were on the jury that convicted Roeder I wouldn’t have waited 30 minutes to condemn him.
Report comment to moderator
“Should a people not rebel against an unjust government, or even a murderous one?”
Yes, we should, but as with those who fought the War for Independence, we should try all avenues of legal process and persuasive rebellion before bearing arms.
There are still far too many legal and persuation measures to be used in this battle. Violence is not justified because many non-violent means remain available to us AND there is no evidence that violence qagainst people like Tiller will even curtail abortions. Abortion seekers will just go to other doctors. Tiller is dead and abortions go on as much as before. It is still fully legal to kill innocent bablies.
Remember, it’s NOT just government doing this, nor is it just doctors. It is MOTHERS killing their own progeny, with the legal help of gov’t, doctors and other agencies. To oppose gov’t is one option, but the moral and practical problem remains.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t mean to italizies all above:
“Should a people not rebel against an unjust government, or even a murderous one?”
Yes, we should, but as with those who fought the War for Independence, we should try all avenues of legal process and persuasive rebellion before bearing arms.
There are still far too many legal and persuation measures to be used in this battle. Violence is not justified because many non-violent means remain available to us AND there is no evidence that violence qagainst people like Tiller will even curtail abortions. Abortion seekers will just go to other doctors. Tiller is dead and abortions go on as much as before. It is still fully legal to kill innocent bablies.
Remember, it’s NOT just government doing this, nor is it just doctors. It is MOTHERS killing their own progeny, with the legal help of gov’t, doctors and other agencies. To oppose gov’t is one option, but the moral and practical problem remains.
Report comment to moderator
“What about Hitler?”
One clause for a Just War is that peaceful means to respolve the conflict have been tried and are fully exausted.
Hitler had to be stopped and all peaceful attempts prior to WW2 had failed. To this day, if I thought there were reasonable peaceful means to stop Hitler other than war, I would support them. But even a peaceful man like Dietrich Bonhoeffer came to believe that all such options had expired.
That’s not the case with the legal aborticide industry in the USA. There are multiple ways to oppose it still without killing anyone. And killing a doctor is not necessarily an effective means to stop or even curtail abortion either. There’s always another doctor to go to.
Report comment to moderator
KI He was in a church, not in the midst of doing anything evil at that time and innocent people may have been hurt.
According to testimony, Roeder pointed his firearm threateningly at two other people in the church. That’s felonious assault in addition to the murder.
KI makes an excellent point. The ethics of justifiable homicide only apply to the prevention of imminent harm. Roeder had no way of telling, to a moral certainty, whether Dr. Tiller would perform another abortion. At the moment of killing, Roeder was really punishing Dr. Tiller for past abortions.
Report comment to moderator
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Obsolete. God instituted Mesopotamian water despots, pharaohs, Roman emperors, Holy Roman Emperors, Bourbons, Tudors, and Stuarts. But in these last days, since 1776, all authority is given by the people.
Furthermore, we can’t believe that God “institutes” rulers. Shakespeare (Lord Angelo) and Melville (Captain Ahab) blew up that idea for good. It’s utterly absurd to claim that Romans 13 forbids the assassination of Hitler.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think I have any problems with what Scroop Moth wrote above.
Report comment to moderator
I meant #15. #16 was written after my comment.
Report comment to moderator
No it wasn’t, JOEL. #16 comes before #17.
Report comment to moderator
So the American revolutionaries “distrusted God” and acted to bring about justice impatient that He will not act?
Should they have continued to pray and write petitions and waited until a new monarch and a new parliament reverse their policy and change the unjust laws 100 years later?
Report comment to moderator
15
excellent point, moth.
would it be justifiable then if he had killed the abortionist while he was about to suck the baby’s brain out?
Report comment to moderator
No, because a fetus isn’t a person, silly. A fetus is property. People don’t have the right to kill for the purpose of protecting property (though juries in gun-crazy America regularly allow such murderers to go free).
Report comment to moderator
that’s your personal opinion, silly. what if the majority opinion and the law changes to declare every human being who can’t speak for himself a “non-person”?
Report comment to moderator
” A fetus is property.”
Pardon me??????
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #16 — “But in these last days, since 1776, all authority is given by the people.”
Arrogantly, one might think “all authority is given by the people”, but more clearly it seems to be given “to” this people by God. There was little reason, considering the course of human events, that such a fledgling, disjointed society would succeed to become what it has without divine assistance.
Historically, it should be fairly obvious from the recent governing course we ‘the people’ have chosen and ’set upon’ with this nation that when God is excluded from the governing equation—as we continue to do—the results will not be good. Historically, it never has been good and clearly, our better days are long behind us.
We’ve sat on our hands since 1973 when the Court went off the tracks and ever since only made half-hearted attempt to correct that problems—as opposed to what a unified, determined people might do swiftly. We’ve willfully ignored God in this area, as well as in many others equally destructive to our society and wonder why it’s in decline.
Yet, we don’t see it—and some here even trumpet all of the destruction as ‘progress’—but from what I understand of our long-suffering God, He has not missed a thing and will correct the situation, as He’s done many times before.
But the good thing is, that with God, it may be not be too late to make correction.
Report comment to moderator
DDL I am confused by your statement below.
Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Scott Roeder is the biggest baby killer that ever lived. His actions have done more to harm the pro-life cause than anything else in recent history, and as such he is responsible for more abortions than Tiller ever performed. Let him rot.
Are you saying Roeder has killed more children than Tiller? If so could you expound.
On another point, the clinic that he ran was closed shortly after he was killed. He was the one abortionist who did all the late term abortions. I have not heard if any other abortionist has “taken his place” in another state.
In either case there are still 3000 children being killed every day by abortion and that is a black mark on our society. When a nation turns its back on the littlest among us it can not stand for long.
Report comment to moderator
Reader #23. If just me thunk a fetus was property, then I’d be overruled by the majority. Will such a day ever come? Not in a thousand years. Nobody but crazies like Roeder think abortion is murder, regardless of what they say. Even if abortion disgusts people –perhaps most people– they are unwilling to treat the participants like the participants in murder. Murder is universally abhorred, but abortion is supported by substantial numbers of people. Criminal sanctions require universal support, due to the jury system.
D.C.INNES transparent purpose here is to give Evangelicals an excuse for ignoring a moral obligation, the duty to stop murder, which they don’t really believe in the first place.
A lot of people confuse the natural aversion to bloody surgery — skull punctures, brain vacuuming – with a moral instinct. That’s enough to raise a perpetual opposition of Old Believers, but it isn’t enough to change the ethical structure of Western culture.
Report comment to moderator
according to moth there’s no absolute right and wrong, it’s all a matter of majority opinion that evolves with culture
logically it’s OK if one day the majority opinion and the law changes to declare every human being who can’t speak for himself a “non-person” thus allowing him to be treated as “property” of his relatives and “aborted” on demand
there’s a word for that philosophy, what was it… oh yes, “disgusting”
Report comment to moderator
?No it wasn’t, JOEL. #16 comes before #17.”
Are you really being THAT snarky? I’m not sure. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. All I wanted to do was make a knid comment about your comment at #15. I posted mine before I saw your second post at #16 and I just wanted that to be clear.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Jiller, I am claiming that Roeder’s actions have so harmed the pro-life cause that he is responsible for more deaths than Tiller. One of most difficult problems the pro-life side has faced is accusations that were crazy (see the post direction above mine) or dangerous. Roeder helps to perpetuate such claims. He has irreparably damaged the side of life.
It doesn’t really matter to my argument, but I doubt Tiller’s death prevented a single abortion.
Report comment to moderator
I take too long to post. See the post three behind my last (#27).
Report comment to moderator
Ethical people do indeed have an obligation to stop unjust killing and/or murder. The problem is that killing Tiller did not necessarily do that. And with regard to the problem of abortion, we are responsible to fight the good fight to stop it and there are still many non-violent means remaining to us to engage in that good fight. Our culture is indeed in a moral coma with regard to abortion and we have a lot of persuading to do before we get to the point when even a legal or political victory would have any real-life impact. Hearts must be changed first. We must wake up morally first and foremost. But that does not discount the co-existing need for hard political and legal advocacy too.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Reader is right: Scroop Moth’s moral philosophy is disgusting. Scroop suggests something morally crazy won’t happen “in a thousand years.” Well lots has happened in a thousand years of human history, and some cultures haven’t even rid themselves of what seems crazy to us. But forget a thousand years. Ten thousand years–a hundred thousand–is but a snapshot to your run-of-the-mill old earth atheist. How can he (or she?…sorry, I’m not sure) be so certain of our trajectory based on such a small sample size of recorded human history? And as Reader implies, Scroop’s philosophy doesn’t allow for objective moral assessment anyway, so on his terms, there’s really nothing *wrong* with Reader’s “non-person” scenario.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth also conveniently ignores the persons who have already been convicted of murdering a fetus, such as Scott Peterson. He (or she) likes to pretend that everyone but “crazies” shares his own point of view, but it only reveals his narrow perspective. It makes his life very simple, he never has to confront uncomfortable views since he can immediately dismiss them as crazy. It’s why skittish horses wear blinders, they never have to see anything that bothers them.
Report comment to moderator
Those who care should get Scott Roeder’s address and send him care packages.
Report comment to moderator
#34 — Thanks for bringing up Scott Peterson, because that illustrates my point. Anti-abortion activists, while unable to criminalize abortion, have forced through newfangled laws that seek to “recognize” the personhood of the fetus. These laws are emotionally powerful, but they are morally incoherent and historically radical. If the participants in abortion, including the mother who signs the contract for abortion, doesn’t commit murder — even some hard-core advocates of criminalization absolve her of murder — then it’s illogical to accuse Scott Peterson of murder. That’s not equal treatment under law . . Is it. Scott Peterson certainly was guilty of malicious destruction of his and his wife’s property, and guilty of murdering his wife, but that’s one murder. We should also remember that the Law of Moses excluded the fetus from the protection of the law of personal injury.
Scroop’s philosophy doesn’t allow for objective moral assessment anyway, so on his terms, there’s really nothing *wrong* with Reader’s “non-person” scenario.
What I said was that criminal laws require universal moral consensus, or something very close to consensus, such as our culture has established with respect to murder, theft, and perjury. Abortion doesn’t meet the standards of our criminal regime. I don’t think it ever will, because phenomenologically speaking, a fetus is not a person, and everyone understands that. Even some religious people believe that the spirit has not yet “incarnated” in the fetus. St. Augustine wrote that it is not certain whether the fetus possesses a soul, and said that a defunct fetus could be like a seed that never “fructified.” The Bible also speaks of the fetus in this fashion.
#28 — Our notion of murder protects unwanted persons. The best thing we can do to reinforce that value would be to stop judicial homicides.
Report comment to moderator
#30 DDl,
Where Tiller’s murder probably in the long term didn’t stop any abortions, it cannot possibly have created any more abortions. An uptick in unwanted pregnancies, decisions to terminate them, and accessibility to abortion providers cannot in any way be the result of Roeder’s crime.
Scroop’s comment #27 is riddled with errors. A fetus is undeniably a living human being, whether it is legally recognized as a person or not.
If murder was universally abhored, there would be no murders. Someone doesn’t share in the abhorence, at least to the intensity that it would stay their hand. Crimnal sanctions don’t require universal support for the same reason. Sloppy use of words like universal expose sloppy thinking.
An aversion to blood and surgery has nothing to do with an aversion to killing developing human beings still in the womb. The modern secular acceptance of abortion has a short history, and is apparently short-lived, with a majority of Americans now polling as pro-life.
Report comment to moderator
Declaring legally that a fetus is a person can’t make it a person. We’re nearly all relativists in matters of ethics, but that doesn’t mean we’re arbitrary. Persons have an array of characteristics and relationships, past and present, which are, in total, sufficiently unambiguous for us to tell the difference between a fetus and a person.
Aversion to animality is the criminalizers’ strongest persuasive tactic. Demonizing the opponents of criminalization is nearly as forceful.
Report comment to moderator
“What I said was that criminal laws require universal moral consensus, or something very close to consensus, such as our culture has established with respect to murder, theft, and perjury. Abortion doesn’t meet the standards of our criminal regime.”
The fact that this statement is so wrong on so many fronts, it’s hardly worth this beginning sentence, but . . .
- Criminal law requires nothing other than enforcement—made easier or more difficult by the nature of the law and whether or not it is accepted or rejected by those it governs. A society or it’s ruler can make any law it or the ruler wants. After that, what happens is wide open with no predetermined or necessary result. History is rife with ‘ignorant’ law as well as ‘brilliant’ law that was totally rejected and ignored.
- There is nothing “universal” about law—criminal or otherwise—regardless of what our ‘culture’ determines. God gave us ten simple laws thousands of years ago. Mankind, in it’s sinful arrogance, has never been able to accept them as ‘universal’ or necessary to be obeyed, and never will. Our ‘culture’, because of the nature of our legislative system, allows us to determine for ourselves what rules we will identify as ‘law’ in our country. Our laws do not apply to anyone else and we quickly reject laws others make.
- There is no “moral consensus” with respect to anything—there never has been and there will not be any consensus—moral or otherwise—until Christ has finished His reign on earth.
To finally determine anything about abortion—let alone the validity of any standard—using these flawed parameters is ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
A society or it’s ruler can make any law it or the ruler wants. After that, what happens is wide open with no predetermined or necessary result.
It sounds like ROND is arguing that the only prerequisite for a criminal statute is the formality of passage by a majority of a legislature.
In our system, the practice and experience of enforcement is central to the constitutionality of law. The fact that juries in Alabama would never acquit and juries in Vermont would always acquit would raise a constitutional issue of equal protection. A defendant could demand dismissal on the ground that the only reason she was prosecuted is that she lived in Alabama. Murder isn’t a violation of “community standards,” but a common, shared catastrophe. (The magnitude of which is not dependent on physical pain, gore, and horror.)
ROND is right that nothing in ethics is metaphysically universal, but some things are so ubiquitous in culture that we call them universal.
Freud argued that the tabu against the killing of a totem is universal. Cultures define their totems differently, but in all cases, independent killing by the individual is prohibited. The application of the tabu to stranger killing some 10,000 years ago was the ethical structure that enabled humans to leave their 100-person bands and move into town.
Report comment to moderator
Re: 37 Roeder’s actions damaged the pro-life cause in way that will stop it from preventing many abortions that it likely would have.
Suppose if immediately after the Hatti earthquake I responded by bombing the airport and mining the harbors to prevent any aid from reaching the nation. Technically I’m not killing anyone, the earthquake did that. But my malicious actions will clearly lead to more deaths, which I should be responsible for. Same with Roeder.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, am I correct in understanding your position–that a fetus is “property” until it is born? Or, until it is granted “personhood” at the whim of it’s mother (as the law now provides)?
Report comment to moderator
Interesting point in #41, DDL.
If our (pro-life) side prevails as I think we are slowly beginning to do, 50-100 years from now Mr. Roeder may well be looked upon as John Brown is today.
Report comment to moderator
#42 A fetus is property. Personhood is a psychological and social phenomenon. It’s a constructed quality, though not arbitrary. The law recognizes (fully) the personhood of individuals who are present in society. Some animals experience a glimmer – or more than a glimmer – of personhood, and this gives them moral value, even if it is not “granted” by law.
Report comment to moderator
It’s interesting that Jesus, did not use violence, as a way to deal with the evils he was confronted with. Paul did (before he was born again). Paul killed those he believed to be in opposition to God but as Paul so clearly confesses this was against Christ. When Paul was born again he became like Christ. Yes, he was still a man with weaknesses but Paul became a follower of Christ, even in non-violence. Is there no solution to abortion without violence? Was Christ and Paul and so many martyrs in the early church and even today, wrong? Wrong in non-violence?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Innes, I really enjoyed your article. I’d like you to take a look at American Right to Life’s Abortion Vigilantism Worksheet. I think you’ll find that it fits very well with your perspective on why Christians should not engage in vigilantism. It has been endorsed by Dr. Ronda Chervin, a professor of philosophy and theology at Loyola Marymount, as well.
Here’s the link: http://americanrtl.com/vigilante-worksheet
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!