By: Randy Edwards
Re: Know Thy Enemy: 'Defensive Action Manifesto'
Introduction To Paul Hill's Text
By Tom Burghardt
Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights
The following file, "Should We Defend Born and Unborn
Children With Force?" provides the necessary theological
"justifications" by the Defensive Action network for the
assassination of abortion providers by direct action
We are well-aware of the political implications of Paul
Hill, Michael Griffin and John Salvi's murderous acts of terror -
the destruction of women's access to reproductive health care. It
is also imperative that clinic defense and other activist's
tracking or directly combatting the far-right have a working
knowledge of the ideology guiding the formation of armed fascist
movement throughout North America.
It is my hope that this text of Rev. Hill's is studied and
circulated as widely as possible. It provides valuable insight
into the inner workings of the anti-abortion movement in general,
and direct action proponents of rightist terror as practiced
today, in particular.
The sources of far-right paramilitary violence are:
1. the little-known theology of Christian Reconstructionism or
2. the racist, anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement;
3. the nativist conspiracism of the Christian Patriots and their
allies within the Militia Movement;
4. the welter of Klan, neo-Nazi and bonehead groups and their
elaborate conspiracy theories;
Of some interest is the apparent ideological linkage between
Paul Hill's text to a little-known far-right extremist, Richard
Kelly Hoskins, author of "Vigilantes of Christendom".
Similar to Hill's advocacy of armed paramilitary violence,
Hoskins' racist, anti-Semitic diatribe heavily draws from the
Phineas story in the Book of Numbers.
"For Hoskins, the 'Phineas Priest' - the embodiment of
Christian Identity belief and obedience and to God - is not one
who prepares for impending race war, but one who commits racist,
anti-Semitic or homophobic murder to stave off God's ongoing
judgement of white people for failing to uphold the 'Law.' For
Hoskins this includes such 'crimes' as interracial marriage and
allowing homosexuals to live." ("The Northwest Imperative:
Documenting a Decade of Hate" Coalition for Human Dignity,
BACORR: DEFENDING CLINICS, EXPOSING TERRORISM -- BECAUSE NO ONE'S
GONNA DO IT FOR US!
Copyright Paul Hill 1994 all rights reserved
Should We Defend Born And Unborn Children With Force?
Paul J. Hill
On March 10th, 1993, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed as
he was about to enter an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.
Five days after Dr. Gunn's death, Mr. Paul Hill appeared on the
Phil Donahue show to defend the use of force to protect innocent
life. This paper explains and develops this position.
Two Essential Distinctions
Two distinctions must be made in order to rightly understand
the issues surrounding the death of Dr. Gunn.
1) Distinguish between the wisdom of using force to defend
the unborn and the justice of so defending the unborn. The wisdom
of using force to defend the unborn has been debated by many.
Some say it harms the pro-life cause. It is best to suspend
judgment on any given forceful act to defend life until all the
facts are in.
The wisdom of using force to protect life would depend on
many variable factors. Certainly not any or every violent act
intended to protect life would be wise. It must not be forgotten
that we not only have a responsibility to protect the unborn, but
we also must protect ourselves and provide for those dependent
upon us. Our current government threatens you with imprisonment
or death if you protect your unborn family members or your unborn
neighbors with force. Individual discretion is, therefore,
required to determine when any given defensive act would be wise.
The justice of using force to defend the unborn is apparent
if we don't forget that the object is to defend unborn babies
from violent death. The justice of using force to protect unborn
children from deadly force would be easy for you to affirm if
your life had been spared by the use of defensive force.
2) The second distinction to be made is between what is just
and what is legal. It is self-evident that a government may
declare an act legal that is actually unjust according to God's
law. A slave owner prior to the Civil War may have abused his
slave in a way that was legal, but ultimately unjust. The present
abortion laws legalize the killing of unborn children, but they
are unjust in God's eyes. Yet this legalized killing was just
about to be carried out when David Gunn's life was taken.
Don't Forget The Babies
Your conclusions on this matter will be largely determined
by where your true sympathies lie, with the doctor or with the
preborn children. If next to Dr. Gunn's dead body were to be
spread the gruesome remains of the thousands he killed, the mere
space needed would be staggering.
Most equations that condemn using force to defend our
children do not duly consider the children in question. Many
distort the true situation by focusing on the force used to stop
a "legal act." In reality, it is just to protect the innocent
from a bloody death at the hands of a paid killer.
Anyone who denies that the preborn are human beings would
have no basis upon which to defend them with force. If the
preborn are in fact human we owe them the same protection we
would render any other defenseless human. If we believe the
preborn are living human beings, how can we justify defending
them with force only after they are born?
The Biblical Basis For Defensive Action
In order to determine if we may use force to protect the
unborn we must ask and resolve two questions. The first question
is, "What responsibility does the individual have toward his
neighbor if his neighbor's life is about to be taken by force?"
The answer to the question is, "You must take all action
necessary to protect innocent life."
The Bible clearly teaches that we may protect our own lives
from unjust harm with deadly force if necessary, "If the thief is
caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there
will be no blood guiltiness on his account", Exodus 22:2.
The Scriptures also clearly teach that as we should defend
our own lives with force, we should also do so for our neighbor.
The second great commandment is to love "your neighbor as
yourself", Luke 10:27.
Surely Rahab protected the innocent lives of her neighbors
when she hid the Israelite spies, Joshua 2:1-24. The Hebrew
midwives also defended the lives of the Jewish boys, Exodus
1:15-22. The disciples protected the innocent life of Paul from
imminent death in Acts 9:23-25. They helped him escape Damascus
by lowering him in a basket through an opening in the wall. In
each of the situations referred to above, whatever action was
necessary to protect life was taken. In Exodus 22:2 deadly force
is justified when used in defense of the innocent. In the case of
the midwives, deadly force was not necessary. Therefore, the
Scriptures clearly teach that we should take whatever action is
necessary to protect innocent life.
The second question that must be asked is, "May we use force
to protect unborn children from imminent death even if the
government forbids us to do so?" The answer to this question is
found in Acts 5:29b. When the State or any other authority
requires one to do what is contrary to God's law, the child of
God "must obey God rather than men." This was clearly the opinion
and practice of Peter and the Apostles.
The Hebrew midwives were greatly blessed by God for
defending innocent life though the civil authorities forbade them
to do so. Moses also illegally used deadly force to defend the
innocent, "and when he saw one of them being treated unjustly, he
defended him and took vengeance for the oppressed by striking
down the Egyptian", Acts 7:24. He did so even though no one had
appointed him a ruler or judge, Acts 7:27. In this context
Stephen clearly extols Moses for delivering the oppressed Hebrew
from the Egyptian. His point is to condemn the Jews for rejecting
the deliverance of Moses and Christ. Hebrews 11:25-26 clearly
refers to the act of Moses as an act of self-denial.
Acts 9:23-25 and II Cor. 11:32-33 tell us the Jews joined
with local civil authorities in seeking the death of Paul in
Damascus. The disciples certainly broke common local laws
forbidding individuals to breach the walls of a city when they
let Paul down in a basket. Clearly such laws forbidding the
breach of the walls were designed to prevent robbery and murder.
In breaking these laws Paul and his disciples were actually
protecting innocent life from imminent death. Thus, laws designed
to protect life may be violated if the violation does in fact
protect innocent life. Individuals may, therefore, use force to
deter a mass murderer who wantonly begins to kill innocent school
children. Using the same logic, we may also use force against
mass murderers who wantonly kill preschool and preborn children.
We should do so even if some horribly unjust law presumes to
declare it to be wrong to do so.
If we should defend born children, we should also defend
unborn children. If we should defend born and unborn children
from harm, we should also do so if our government forbids us to
do so. As Rahab, Moses, the Hebrew midwives and Paul all broke
the law to do whatever was necessary to protect innocent life, so
There is no question that deadly force should be used to
protect innocent life. The question is, whose life is innocent -
those who kill our children or the children who are being killed?
The government believes those who kill our children should be
protected. We believe the unborn should be protected. The
question then for us is, should we protect innocent life from
harm if the government forbids us to do so?
The Golden Rule clearly and irrefutably answers the question
in this way; "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you,
do so for them; for this is the Law and the Prophets", Matthew
7:12. If someone was about to tear your limbs from your body,
what would you do? If you could defend yourself with force, would
you? If you couldn't defend yourself with effective force, would
you want someone else to? If so, Christ teaches that you should
treat others similarly.
If you dispute this clear teaching of the Bible you will
have assumed the unbearable burden of having to prove the justice
of using force to protect the born, but not the unborn. You can
no more deny your responsibility to defend the unborn with force
than you can deny the good Samaritan's responsibility to aid the
wounded and dying traveler. The priest and the Levite must have
tried to justify their neglect of the dying traveler. Has human
nature changed so drastically that we are no longer in danger of
justifying our neglect of our neighbors?
Ethical Basis For Defensive Action
In addition to defending the innocent from a brutal death
there are other reasons for using force in the abortion
controversy. One of these reasons is found in Numbers 35:33, "So
you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood
pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for
the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed
it." Numbers 25 makes a similar point through the example of
Phinehas violently took the life of two immoral persons in
order to turn God's wrath away from the people. Numbers 25 tells
us that the Israelites were playing the harlot with Moabite
women. God's wrath in the form of a plague, therefore, turned
against the people. As a result of the sins committed, Moses and
the Judges were weeping before the tabernacle. As Moses and the
leaders looked on, Zimri, the son of Salu, brazenly brought a
Moabite woman named Cozbi by the weeping leaders. He led her past
them and into a tent for immoral purposes. When Phinehas realized
what was happening he was filled with zealous jealousy. He then
followed them to the tent and checked the plague by driving a
spear through them both.
The startling truth is that this violent act was not done by
a civil leader or after due legal process. Yet, this violently
zealous act by an individual "made atonement for the sons of
Israel." Though sin had fanned God's righteous anger to a searing
blaze, the shedding of guilty blood had cooled the flame and
saved the people from destruction.
The commentators essentially agree on the factors necessary
in order for zeal such as Phinehas' to be ethically just. Such an
act must first arise from a pure motive. It must also be
according to the legal standard found in the Bible and summarized
in the Ten Commandments. Lastly, all such actions must ultimately
seek the glory of God in order to be ethically justifiable. All
true defensive action, therefore, must arise from the motive of
love for God and our little neighbors. It must also be according
to the objective law of God and seek the ultimate glory of God.
The zeal of Phinehas by which he "made atonement" was, after
this incident, taken up by the people as a whole, verse 16, "Then
the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Be hostile to the Midianites
and strike them,' Lest someone object to the individual or
corporate vengeance that led to such violence, consider Calvin's
comment on this passage:
"Inasmuch as God constantly forbids His people to take vengeance,
it is surprising that the people of Israel should now be
instigated to do so; as if they were not already more than enough
disposed to it. We must bear in mind, however, that since God,
who is the just avenger of all wickedness, often makes use of
men's instrumentality, and constitutes them the lawful ministers
for the exercise of His vengeance, it must not be altogether
condemned without exception, but only such vengeance as men
themselves are impelled to by carnal passions. If any one is
injured, straightway he is carried away to the desire of
vengeance by the stimulus of his own private injury; and this is
manifestly wrong: but if a person is led to inflict punishment by
a just and well-regulated zeal toward God, it is not his own
cause, but that of God which he undertakes."
The remarkable thing about the violent zeal of Phinehas is
that it arguably received as much or more emphatic approval from
God than any other act in the Old Testament. God's approval of
violent zeal is also seen in the New Testament example of Christ
cleansing the temple of moneychangers. In Christ's example the
act was not only violent, but also an act of civil disobedience.
Who could say whether his cleansing the temple helped stay God's
hand of judgment on Jerusalem for a few more years?
Are there any heinous sins being committed today that could
again fan the flames of God's righteous anger to the scorching
point? Is there any need in today's world for men of the stamp of
Phinehas? Could the bold daring of Cozbi and Zimri in parading
before Moses as he wept over sin have any modern parallels? The
righteous zeal of Phinehas did not permit him to stay his hand
long enough to even ask Moses or the church leaders of the wisdom
of his action. If any similar zeal be found among us today,
occasion to exercise it will not be lacking.
Theological Basis For Defensive Action
Biblical Christianity affirms both the individuals' and
their leaders' responsibility to protect the innocent from unjust
harm. The responsibility to protect innocent life is not given
directly to government leaders from God. This responsibility is
first given to the people who delegate some of this
responsibility to their appointed civil servants. If our civil
servants neglect their responsibility to protect our children,
the responsibility falls even more heavily upon us as individuals
to do so.
We would be naive to think that we are the first to deal
with issues such as these. Ecclesiastes rightly affirms that
"there is nothing new under the sun." Taking defensive action in
the face of oppressive civil governments is nothing new. The
common sense principles asserted in this pamphlet have been held
by untold numbers of Christian theologians. Franklin Sanders also
makes this point in an article in the "Herald of the Covenant"
dated April 15, 1989:
"The real question is, Can any civil government make a law which
is... (against the law of God)? As to the Scriptures, there is no
question that this is impossible. As to the commentators, Thomas
Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox,
George Buchanan, & Samuel Rutherford, to list only a few, all
agree with our position: such a law is no law at all. As to the
civil law, we have already shown that constitutionally and
legally, no such law as "legalized abortion" can be established.
Is John Calvin ambiguous against such a presumption when he
writes (Comm. Daniel, Lecture XXX, on Dan. 6:22), "For earthly
princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and
are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We
ought, rather, to spit on their heads than to obey them." Stout
talk, even for the mild John Calvin..."
John Knox also understood the Scriptures to require
individuals to protect innocent life in spite of government
opposition. Francis A. Schaeffer's "A Christian Manifesto", makes
this point on page 97. In referring to John Knox, he says, "He
maintained that the common people had the right and duty to
disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to
the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God."
In a meeting John Knox had with Queen Mary, she questioned
him about his views which legitimized subjects resisting their
princes, "If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, it is no
doubt that they may be resisted even by power", said Knox. When
Mary protested that the Apostles had not resisted their
persecutors by force, Knox replied that the reason was solely the
lack of funds (Roland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth
Century, Beacon Press, 1952, p. 241).
Samuel Rutherford also defended the right of the individual
citizen to protect innocent life on page 188 of his well-known
"But because I cannot return to all these opinions particularly,
I see no reason but the civil law of a kingdom doth oblige any
citizen to help an innocent man against a murdering robber, and
that he may be judicially accused as a murderer, who faileth in
his duty, and that Solon said well... It is a blessed society in
which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother, as
an injury done against himself. As the Egyptians had a good law,
by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that
suffered wrong; and if he was not able to help, he was held to
accuse the injurer, if not, his punishment was whips or three
days' hunger; it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew
the Egyptian. Ambrose commended him for so doing."
Later on the same page Rutherford adds:
"Ambrose (Lib. 1, office. c. 36) citeth this same text, and
commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew
man. To deliver is an act of charity, and so to be done, though
the judge forbid it, when the innocent is unjustly put to death."
He further proves his point on page 189:
"The law of God, commanding that we love our neighbor as
ourselves, obligeth us to the same, except we think God can be
pleased with lip-love in word only, which the Spirit of God
condemdeth (1 John ii. 9,10; iii. 16). And the sum of law and
prophets is, that as we would not men should refuse to help us
when we are unjustly oppressed, so neither would we so serve our
The principles advocated in this pamphlet are, therefore,
not only true but commonly accepted truths of the historic
Who Was The Real Aggressor?
Before considering common objections to this historic
position let us pause to consider a helpful distinction made by
Barry Sindlinger in his paper "Is It Just...?" The distinction is
made by identifying the aggressor and the defender in this case.
Rather than accepting the common portrayal of a gentle
hardworking doctor being chased down and shot in the back by a
murderous lunatic, consider the facts. A brutal paid killer of
hundreds upon hundreds of innocent unborn children was deterred
by a deadly force as he approached his latest victims. The man
who killed Dr. Gunn took the defensive posture and with apparent
self-sacrifice killed the guilty to defend the innocent from a
horrid death. The fact that the government describes what Dr.
Gunn was about to do as abortion does not change the fact that it
was the bloody slaughter of people made in God's image. The fact
that Dr. Gunn killed the innocent in the white garb of the doctor
with government approval does not justify his killing. His
killing was no more justified than a man entering a school and
personally killing school age children. Dr. Gunn was the violent
aggressor. The man who killed him was defending your neighbor's
children at great personal cost.
Ten Objections Resolved
Having given many clear and certain proofs of the truth that
we may take all action necessary to protect innocent life, let us
proceed to consider ten common objections to this biblical truth.
Objection 1: Isn't A Government Leader Required For Forceful
To respond to this objection, one must consider an important
distinction. The distinction is between a private citizen
defending his neighbors from another private citizen who is
seeking to kill them, and a group of men taking up arms against
the established government. In the first instance, a magistrate
would not be required; in the second instance, a magistrate
ordinarily would be. Biblical proof has already been presented to
substantiate the validity of a private citizen taking all just
action necessary to protect innocent life. Dr. Gunn's death was
the result of one individual trying to stop another individual
from taking innocent life. This action does not require the
authority of a civil leader.
Many who affirm that a government official is necessary for
forceful civil disobedience also assert that a government
official is not necessary for nonviolent civil disobedience.
There is no biblical evidence for this distinction. It should not
be considered valid until proven. The biblical evidence used to
support nonviolent civil disobedience also logically supports
violent civil disobedience. If we say that one may justly
trespass upon clinic property, upon what consistent biblical
principle may we say that destroying clinic property requires a
Objection 2: Only Peaceful Civil Disobedience Is Justified
Someone might object to the use of force to protect life and
point to the "peaceful" civil disobedience of Martin Luther King,
Jr. or Gandhi. Limiting civil disobedience to pacifism does not
reflect consistent Christianity. Pure pacifism more closely
reflects the teachings of the Hindu religion than those of
The Bible does not endorse militarism in which deadly force
is used regardless of whether a cause is just or not. Nor does
the Bible advocate pacifism in which all violence (even in a just
cause) is considered to be wrong. The Bible does teach, however,
that just force may be used to protect innocent life. Our undying
gratitude is due to all who have and continue to use peaceful
civil disobedience. Such persons should also consider the justice
of taking all action necessary to protect innocent life.
If we consistently neglect the truth, the soldiers of an
oppressive government could come into every home in its domain to
rape, kill and steal. They could do this without fear of anyone
using deadly force to protect innocent life as long as no lower
opposing civil ruler were properly constituted.
If you do not believe it to be our responsibility to take
all just actions necessary (including deadly force) to protect
the lives of the unborn, please ask yourself a question. At what
point do you think it would be just to use force to protect
innocent life? How old does a helpless child have to be before we
defend him with force?
Objection 3: Use Of Deadly Force
Some might question the use of deadly force in protecting
innocent life by suggesting that merely wounding the oppressor
would be just, but killing him would not. In some circumstances
this is true, but not in this one. The principles considered
earlier in this paper under "Ethical Basis For Defensive Action"
clearly speak to this question.
In addition to these principles, experts in self-defense
hold that in life and death situations you often need to seek to
use deadly force in defending yourself or another. If you seek to
simply wound the one seeking to harm the innocent you may not
harm him at all. Even if you do wound him, he may still succeed
in killing his victim or you, the one protecting his intended
victim. In conditions where the government is just, merely
wounding an unjust aggressor might be sufficient as he would be
arrested and prevented from doing further harm. It might not be
wise to merely wound an unjust aggressor if you had reason to
believe that he would return to kill the ones you were
protecting. Mistaken sympathy for an aggressive killer could
result in the death of the ones who should have our ultimate
Objection 4: The Example Of Christ And Christian Piety
Someone may object and say, "Christ is to be our example and
He did not resist the government that put him to death." Christ
had a direct command from God that he should offer His life as an
atoning sacrifice. His case was unique. We have no such command.
We have the God-given responsibility to take defensive action to
Many people will say, "Rather than taking such decisive and
possibly violent action, should we not prefer the more
"spiritual" approach of prayer and fasting?" Any thinking
Christian will soon see the biblical inconsistency of this
objection. True faith shows itself by good works. Common sense
clearly condemns the "piety" that would respond to the mugging of
a helpless victim with prayer without taking defensive action.
Objection 5: Defensive Action Is Not Loving
Some might object that the action suggested in this paper
isn't loving. The truth is that if we love Him we will keep His
commands to defend innocent life.
Another might say this isn't in the Christian spirit of
meekness and gentleness. In order for an action to be right, it
must proceed from the right motive and the just biblical
standard. These objections focus on the motive of the one taking
an action. It is true that all action to protect life must be
from a humble heart of self-denial and zealous love for our
neighbors. Yet from this motive we must act by God's objective
standard to protect life as summarized in the Sixth Commandment.
Biblical Christianity has always held in highest esteem the true
Christian soldier. The Christian soldier (while preferring the
joys of domestic tranquillity) is willing to temporarily lay them
aside to self-sacrificially respond to the call of duty to
protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Christian
soldier may, therefore, with love and humility, take guilty life
to defend innocent life from unjust harm.
Objection 6: What If Church Leaders Oppose Defensive Action?
Another likely objection is, "My church leaders oppose
taking all just action necessary to protect innocent life." When
lawfully constituted authority in family, church or state opposes
an individual, that individual must weigh the issues involved
seriously and humbly. The Bible summarizes its teachings on an
individual's responsibility to authority in the Fifth
Commandment. The Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us what
duties are required in the Fifth Commandment: "The Fifth
Commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing
the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and
relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals." Therefore, it is
the individual's responsibility to both preserve the honor of his
superiors and to perform the various duties he owes to them. If
he finds it his duty to oppose those in authority over him, he
must do so in a way that preserves the honor of the one in
authority. That an individual should, under some circumstances,
disobey authority has been previously proven from Acts 5:29.
The biblical position is that we are never permitted to sin
even though someone in authority over us requires us to. If an
individual's authority is merely in error but not forcing that
person to sin, he may use constitutional means to seek to rectify
the error. If an individual's authority requires him to sin, he
must resist it utterly and at once. Apart from these principles,
those in authority could rule wickedly with little or no fear of
Church leaders must, however, do much more than merely allow
their members to defend the unborn. They must do what leaders are
supposed to do and lead the people. They must do so even if they
lose some followers. This calls for men who love the truth and
are willing to swim against the tide. Jesus affirmed this in
Matthew 10:38, "And he who does not take his cross and follow
after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall
lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."
We should not be surprised to encounter opposition to these
truths from the church. Before World War II the church in Germany
also shrank from resisting the evils of an unjust, oppressive
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is an example of a church leader who, as
an individual, sought to protect innocent life by plotting the
death of Hitler. He is now considered a hero and his Ethics is
used as a college text. A holocaust was going on and no civil
leaders arose (they are hard to find under totalitarian rule).
Few people today, looking back, would say that the active civil
disobedience of that time should have been restrained. We can be
certain that the counsel of restraint today will be regretted by
those who look back on it in the future.
Objection 7: Everyone Can't Take Defensive Action
Some well-intentioned person may ask, "Should everyone take
the most drastic defensive action? The answer is "No." One of the
rules for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments in the
Westminster Larger Catechism is as follows, "That what God
forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always
our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all
times." Although we have the duty to protect innocent life, there
are many valid ways we may do so. We also have other important
duties summarized in the Ten Commandments. We must use wisdom to
know which duty is to be done at what time and in what way.
One of the major functions of wisdom is to direct us as to
when and how we are to carry out our various duties. Consider
this maxim of wisdom, "One may at times postpone a good deed to
pursue a better one." We may deduce from this maxim that there
are many duties we may justly postpone in order to come to the
aid of our innocent children who are daily being killed in
staggering numbers. For lesser duties than stopping abortion men
have left their families and occupations to fight and die in
World War II and the Civil War.
Objection 8: Judge And Jury Are Necessary For Defensive Action
Some may object and assert that a judge and jury are
necessary before someone may be killed justly. Others object that
the killing of Dr. Gunn was premeditated and not spontaneous
self-defense. These and similar objections have excellent answers
if one compares the killing of Dr. Gunn to the theoretical
killing of the notorious Dr. Mengele who practiced at Auschwitz.
We are told that Dr. Gunn was a hardworking man who traveled
widely so as to kill as many of the unborn in a given week as
could be reasonably expected. Who knows how many of the 30
million unborn killed in America were literally torn limb from
limb at his hands? Dr. Mengele is considered to have been
responsible for the death of 400,000 Jews. He conducted every
type of inhuman torturous "experiment" to determine how long
people could survive under various torturous conditions,
mutilations and injections of chemical substances. The flick of
his finger indicated to guards which newcomer to Auschwitz would
be gassed and which would be spared for such ghastly
experimentation. The reader can resolve the objections raised
above and many others through the use of this and similar
Objection 9: Many People Oppose Defensive Action
The beliefs and duties outlined in this pamphlet are so
entirely contrary to popular opinion and practice that opposition
is to be expected. Many who will eventually take defensive action
may be slow to adopt the concept at first. Our reaction to
opposition must be one of understanding and patience. We must
respond to severe criticism and searching questions with solid
answers and winning persuasion. As people grasp at any straw of
an objection to deny these truths we must recognize what they are
doing and be patient.
Objection 10: This Is Religious Fanaticism
Many will scoff at the principles asserted here as
"religious fanaticism." It is true that all men are religious and
have accepted by faith either the validity or invalidity of the
Word of God. By faith, Christians accept God's Word to be true
and may deduce from His Word the principles in this paper. People
who assert their faith that God's Word isn't true no longer have
an objective standard from God by which to determine what is
ultimately right or wrong. When those who reject the truth of the
Scriptures mock those who accept them, we may ask, " By what
absolute moral standard do you ridicule the truths of God's
Word?" They have none. For those who reject God's Word, there is
no consistent higher ethic from which they can conclude that the
killing of Dr. Gunn was unjust. Their mockings are ultimately
directed at God. Their hatred of their Creator reaches its most
blasphemous height when they kill the unborn made in His image
and vilify us for protecting them.
The Duty Of Defensive War
The next question to be raised and answered is "What
relationship does the previously proven duty of the individual
have to the duty of government leaders to wage war upon just
occasions?" The answer to this question is clear. Both the
individuals and the civil leaders that represent those
individuals have a God-given responsibility to take all just
action necessary to protect innocent life.
We have established the fact that individuals should protect
innocent life according to their stations in life as citizens. It
is a natural extension of this truth to assert that men who have
been given the responsibility of acting as civil magistrates
should protect innocent life as civil magistrates. All the
evidence previously produced to show the individual's
responsibility to protect life also applies to civil leaders with
equal or greater force. The case of Phinehas in Numbers 25
clearly demonstrates that just individual action often
immediately precedes a just war.
The current civil government will not admit that the Bible
and the American constitution are entirely and fundamentally
opposed to the murder of unborn children. Our government defends
with the sword the killing of approximately 4,100 innocent people
every day. Yet, the most fundamental responsibility of the civil
government is to protect innocent life from harm. Government
leaders, therefore, have the God-given responsibility to resist
our civil government that we may escape the wrath of God due to
The question, therefore, naturally arises as to what
individuals and leaders should do in the present circumstances.
The classic treatment of just war principles is found in Samuel
Rutherford's Lex Rex. He outlines several options given to those
required to protect innocent life from unjust harm. The first
option is to protest. This option has most certainly been put to
use in the years since abortion was legalized. Nor may we justly
be content to wait for four years and six million human souls to
pass before we try the poll box option of protest again. If any
other viable options exist, we have a responsibility to pursue
them. The second option is to flee. If citizens were to flee from
their present circumstances it would be from the responsibility
to protect those in the womb who cannot flee. The third option is
to take up arms in a defensive war under a lower magistrate.
Considering the pressing urgency of our cause and the lack of any
other justifiable course of action our duty is to pursue a
defensive war if possible.
Defensive wars have been waged even when there was no
apparent hope for victory. Such wars have shown the righteous
indignation of those oppressed. Just wars are, however, usually
considered unwise until there are enough men and resources
available to offer a reasonable hope that the effort to overthrow
the existing government will be successful. In order to obtain
such resources people must be won to the cause.
The Necessity of Proclamation
To this end the full and free proclamation of the justice
and necessity of the cause is essential. One of the most
fundamental responsibilities each of us has is not only to
believe the truth, but to pour our energies and resources into
propagating the truth.
The first amendment to the constitution was drafted to
protect and promote the responsibility of heralding just such a
cause. If we may not speak of protecting the unborn, neither
should we be able to speak of protecting any other group of
humans who are being violently put to death.
Some may object that we should not promote these truths, as
some pro-abortionists would like for us to do so. Isaiah 1:17
tells us to, "Seek justice, reprove the ruthless." This objection
asks us not to do what God has required us to do. We must,
however, proclaim the whole counsel of God. We have a special
responsibility to proclaim truths that could result in the saving
of millions of human lives. As strange as it may seem to us,
obeying God is often the wisest thing to do. What is right is
also what works best. All citizens, therefore, have the
responsibility to hold and freely stand for defending the
The Defensive Use Of Arms
Americans also have the responsibility to defend the
defenseless and the American constitution. We should do so with
force of arms if given the opportunity. The second amendment to
the constitution upholds this right, "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." One of the
reasons we have the responsibility to keep and bear arms is so we
may individually and corporately take all just action necessary
to protect innocent life.
A Call To Specific Action
You may ask, "What special duties do righteous politicians,
governors, mayors, police, military men and other civil leaders
have in the present circumstances?" Surely civil leaders should
feel a special responsibility to protect the unborn. Righteous
men, therefore, in positions of civil authority should stand
ready to use their authority to cast down those who oppose God's
authority. They should be willing to do so if given the
opportunity. The wisest course of action is for civil leaders to
maintain their positions of authority, if they may in good
conscience do so without sinning against God. The specific means
and actions people pursue in defensive action must be left up to
the individual's skill, cunning and wisdom.
Surely individuals should continue to protest and pursue
political remedies. In addition, we may justly use legal and
illegal direct action. Picketing, sidewalk counseling and
trespassing are all to be used with zeal and vigor. The possible
legal and illegal activities that could be considered may be
found in numerous books and other sources.
As we put our convictions into concrete actions, the
millions who are indifferent to abortion or accepting it as
expedient will be forced to reconsider. Our proclamation of the
justice and necessity of our cause combined with our consistent
action will certainly persuade the vast majority. Some have
suggested that during the Civil War, the South lost some of its
will to fight due to the realization that some of its slaves were
being mistreated. If this is true, how much more will the
pro-abortionists lose heart when they see our faces set like
flint in defense of the defenseless. When this occurs, the time
will have arrived for the lower civil magistrate and those in
positions of power to call the multitudes to unified action.
Until that time many men will respond to God's call to give
of themselves in direct action. Thousands died in violent action
during the Civil War for a lesser cause. Thousands more wasted
away in confinement. The odds are slim that many already born
will die in our cause. The modern jail system compares favorably
with that of the Civil War system. The prospect of suffering for
doing right is not easy, but never without parallel reward. Such
unjustly imprisoned men would surely give truthful lawyers an
opportunity to present the justice of their cause and persuade
others of it. Perhaps only a few good men unjustly arrested in
protecting innocent life would be required to move the multitudes
to see the light of truth. Never before will so few have the
opportunity to accomplish so much for so many.
Prospects Of Ultimate Success
You may ask, "May we dare to hope that our cause will be
successful in the end?" The answer is an emphatic "Yes!" There
are numerous and compelling reasons for us to have abundant hope
that defensive action will bring abortion to an end.
The reason abortion began and has not ended yet is due to
our inconsistent thinking and action. If we think and act
consistently we will force our opponents and the undecided masses
to do the same. Our position requires us to selflessly take all
just action to defend our children from mortal injury. Their
position requires them to selfishly do all they can to defend the
mass destruction of human life. As the logical consequences of
these two positions are forced upon the multitudes by our
consistent action the majority will choose life. You need not be
an enlightened Christian to prefer protecting innocent children
to destroying them.
There is an initial shock and horror that comes from
considering that the death of Dr. Gunn may have been justified.
Once this shock has passed, the truth and duties involved will
have an abiding effect. These truths will grip men's minds and
not release them from their duties. Men will be forced to admit
their horrendous neglect and will respond with zealous repentant
Our zeal will be from God Himself. He will cause us to
"mount up with wings like eagles." He will make us "run and not
get tired." By his strength we will "walk and not become weary."
He will give us strength and joy in defending the innocent that
we have never dreamed of before. The joy of laying down our lives
and possessions in such a cause will overwhelm thousands. We
will, therefore, rise above those who have nothing but fear,
selfishness and inconsistency to motivate them.
God has given you the energy and resources you now have for
His service. Now is the time to use them in defense of the
defenseless. Many battles in the Old Testament were fought and
won when God's people rose in a just cause. In many instances
God's people virtually stood by and watched as God fought for
them. If we will but act in true repentance and faith God will
bless our zealous but feeble efforts with abundant success.
Therefore, we must act in a decisive and timely manner.
Every civilization experiences the ebb and flow of peace and
war in which lives and resources are garnered and stored in peace
and then expended in war. The resources we have garnered since
the Civil War have caused us to become lazy and apathetic to the
issues of freedom and justice over which the Civil War was waged.
This is the time for us once again to expend our energies,
resources and lives in defense of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. Not all can be on the battle line. However, all
able-bodied men who are men indeed should rise to serve the cause
in one form or another. Many rode into the Civil War in full
gallop without being forced to enlist. Surely their families
suffered as their resources were drained and as their young men
spent the vigor of their youth upon the bloody fields of battle.
But isn't sacrifice and suffering in doing our duty to protect
life the honorable way to serve our God?
The concept of a just cause urged both sides into the
conflict in the Civil War. If their motives were mixed and their
cause unclear, ours need not be. Our motive is love to our unseen
neighbor and our cause is just. Should we not therefore with zeal
fired to a steady white glow, go forth to show forth God's
righteous indignation upon those who defile with gruesome death
children made in His image and likeness?
Will you remain at home while your neighbors respond to the
call from the womb? Will you continue to build bigger barns while
your little neighbors are being abruptly decapitated? Will you be
like the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side on the
way to pursue their own interests? Or will you be like the good
Samaritan who gave of his time and property and risked his very
life because he realized that all his fellow men are his
Death opens her cavernous mouth before you. Thousands upon
thousands of children are consumed by her every day. You have the
ability to save some from being tossed into her gaping mouth. As
hundreds are being rushed into eternity, other questions shrink
in comparison to the weighty question, "Should we defend our born
and unborn children with force?"
Take defensive action!