-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 12 - Operation Rescue: An Ethical
Evaluation - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
Operation Rescue:
An Ethical Evaluation
by Grover E. Gunn, i l l
I hate
to
be undecided on issues. I had
already made
up
my
mind on
Operation
Rescue and
was wondering when I
would
have
an
opportunity to
get
in
volved. The prospect
of
being
a
martyr
of
sorts had a romantic appeal for
me If
I had any
fears, it was fear
of what
my
Christian friends
would
think
if
turned
~ o w n an opporturucy to participate I
didn't
want
them
to
think I lacked cour
age
and
conviction. Then
just
as that
opportunity to
be
involved directly in
an Operation Rescue effort materialized,
some of my Christian friends brought
to my attention
some
questions they
had about the tactics
of
Operation Res
cue.
These
questions had never occurred
to
me
and
I did not
have any answers.
I
began asking several
of
my ministerial
friends about their position on Opera
tion Rescue.
Now
I
am
writing this
article
on my
findings
and
conclusions
to .date. I
am
not
writing as
one
who
thinks
he
haS the final word
on
the sub
ject. I am writing
more
as
one
who
wishes
to
use the discipline
of
writing
to
clarify further his thoughts. I also
want to submit my tentative conclu
sions
to
the scrutiny
of
others.
.
As you
probably know, Operation
Rescue
is a movement
that
is
using
direct action
to save
babies from abor-
tionists.
Before
Operation Rescue, prac
tically all pro-life activists were using
on1y the indirect action approach. They
worked to save
unborn babies from the
abortionists
by
educating people about
the evils
of
abortions,
by
working
to
elect
pro-life candidates tci public office,
by
lobbying for anti-abortion legisla-
Grover
E.
Gunn, ll is pastor of the
Carrollton Presbyterian Church
(PCA)
in
Carrolfton
1
Mississippi.
He is co-author of tne book,
Dispensationalism Yestl rday, Today
nd Tomorrow.
tion and executive decisions, and by pro
viding practical alternatives to abortion
to women with crisis pregnancies.
The
pro-life movement has made much pro
gress
in
all
these areas. Nevertheless the
abortionists continue
to
slaughter be-
tween
one and
two million unborn chil
dren each year.
Some
have apparently
concluded that these indirect approaches
at saving the unborn children from the
abortionists are
not
enough. Direct ac
tion
must
be used as well.
The
result
has been the development of Operation
Rescue.
In an
Operation Rescue effort, pro-
. life activists gather
at
an abortion center
for a public protest against abortion.
Then those who are willing to go the
extra step to direct action seek to block
the entrances of the abortion center. The
stated purpose is to temporarily
shut
down the killing center. Those pregnant
women seeking an abortion who
are
denied entrance
can
come back later or,
in larger cities, can go to another
abortion center.
The
argument is that a
certain percentage of hose women seek
ing an abortion, forced
to
delay the
lethal procedure, reconsider and change
.their minds. Entrance to the abortion
center is restricted
to
some degree until
the police arrive
and
arrest and remove
those blocking the entrance. The Opera
tion Rescue participants go with police
peaceably.
Most
offer passive resistance
by allowing their bodies
to
go
limp, a
maneuver which forces the police
to
carry them off the scene. This tactic
lengthens the time the abortion center
is blocked.
After
being arrested, so me
refuse to give their true names. They
call themselves Baby Jane Doe
or
Baby John Doe
in
honor
of
the
nameless mllltitudes of aborted babies.
This stratagem delays police processing
and
legal proceedings, clogging
and
inconveniencing the judicial system.
What are we
to
say to this? How
should we answer this call to direct
action? Answering this question
is not
simple. Let's begin with the principle
of
higher law.
We cannot argue against Operation
Rescue with a simple law-and-order
argument as
if the
Christian should
al-
ways obey the state
in
any and every
circumstance. The Bible does teach that
the Christian citizen should obey the
civil magistrate,
but
the Bible
also
teaches that there are exceptions
to
that
rule.
The
.authority of the civil magis
trate
is
not
fmal
and
absolute.
It
is de-
rived. granted to
him by
God The Bible
gives the civil magistrate guidelines
concerning his authority,
C Ild
the
ci
vii
magistrate sins whenever he legislates
and
executes laws beyond these Bib
lically defmed boundaries. The Chris
tian citizen, however, can still be obli
gated
to
obey the civil magistrate even
when the civil magistrate has gone be
yond his Biblically defined sphere
of
authority. The Christian cail often obey
these sinfully legislated human laws
without sinning himself.
The Christian is justified in dis
obeying the civil magistrate orily when
his obeying the civil magistrate's
law
necessarily involves his disobeying
God's law.
The
classic example is in
the book
of
Acts where the Apostles
continued to proclaim the gospel of
Jesus after the Jewish rulers had ordered
them
to
cease.
The
Apostles there had
to
choose between obeying God and
obeying nten; they could not in those
circumstances
do
both.
An
Old Testa
ment example is the Hebrew midwives
in
Exodus who refused to obey
Pharaoh's order
that
they kill the male
Hebrew children. n such situations,
civil disobedience is
not
merely an op
tion but a moral necessity. Therefore,
Christians should use the direct action
tactics
of
Operation Rescue
i
and only
if the principle of obeying od rather
than men
not
orily allows it but de
mands it.
This Biblical principle
of
higher law
is
our
criteria for evaluating Operation.
Rescue. The participant
in
Operation
Rescue direct action is violating man's
P a g e 2 2
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, December, 1988
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 12 - Operation Rescue: An Ethical
Evaluation - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/3
law by trespassing on private property
and by blocking public access. What
law of God would he
be
breaking if he
obeyed the law
of
men and did not tres
pass and block public access through
participation in the Operation Rescue
effort? That is the most basic question.
We can evaluate direct action from
several perspectives, and let us begin by
looking at it as
a form of vigilante
action. The current civil laws do not
require anyone to have an abortion; they
merely allow it. The current abortion
laws do
not
require anyone to do some
thing sinful. What the current abortion
laws do is to permit as legal a practice
that would be legally defined as a crime
in a God-honoring society. When some
one blocks access to an abortion center,
he is using a form
of
force and coercion
to prevent others from taking an action
which he regards as criminal but which
the state has defined as legal. This is
vigilante action. God has entrusted the
sword
of
force and coercion to the civil
magistrate alone; the individual citizen
has no authority to wield that sword.
Vigilante action is wrong and therefore
is
no
justification for direct action.
As a Biblical example, consider the
actions of the three Hebrew children
when Nebuchadnezzar conunanded all to
bow before his idol. The three Hebrew
children refused to bow down them
selves even upon threat
of
death. Yet
they did nothing to try to force others
not to bow down before the idol. They
made
no
efforts at making citizen's
arrests even though God's law taught
that open idolatry ought to be illegal.
At this point, proponents of direct
action often ask a hypothetical ques
tion.
What
should the Christian do if he
sees obvious evidence that his neighbor
is beating his child to death? Should he
not
try
to intervene even if he has to
trespass on the man's property to do so?
My
answer is that the Christian should
intervene indirectly by calling the po
lice and directly i f conunon sense con
siderations allow it. I mean, if the
Christian is a weak, elderly person, and
the abuser has some lethal weapon, the
direct action options might be some
what limited. I do concede the point
that there are situations where direction
is justified to stop child abuse. This,
however, is comparing apples with
oranges. Direct action to stop child
abuse is
not a vigilante action. Physical
ly abusing a post-natal child is illegal;
deliberately aborting a prenatal child is
legal. When the Christian trespasses to
stop child abuse,
he
is acting
on
the
principle of the citizen's arrest. The
civil magistrate is
on his side, sym
pathetic with his emergency use
of
force. The civil magistrate is
not
on the
side of those blocking passage to abor
tion centers.
A second perspective from which to
evaluate Operation Rescue direct action
is as an effort to change society. The
civil rights activists and the anti-war
activists
of
the '60's used direct action
very successfully as a means
of
social
extortion. With the help
of
the media,
they got society's attention for their
causes. They clogged the judicial sys
tem and threatened continuing social fer
ment and chaos until their demands
were met. It worked, but that does not
mean it was right. The end does not
justify the means.
Christianity strongly emphasizes
changing unjust social practices
through indirect action. The Apostle
Paul did not invest his time and efforts
in the politics of power
t
try to force
justice on society. He instead preached
the gospel and concentrated on writing
God's laws on people's hearts through
the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul
sought to tum the pagan world upside
down not by fermenting social revolu
tion
or
by clogging Caesar's judicial
system but by the foolishness
of
preaching the cross
of
Jesus Christ.
Paul considered this spiritual weapon
mighty in God for pulling the world's
strongholds.
He
was determined to
know nothing but Jesus Christ and
Him crucified.
In
the Great Conunission, Christ
conunanded His church to disciple the
nations. Surely the church has not
finished discipling a nation until its
laws are just. Yet the church does not
begin the work of discipling with the
nation's law books. The work begins
with the hearts of the citizenry. Christ
conquers nations from the inside out
and from the bottom up.
The Bible often compares the growth
of God's kingdom to the slow, steady
growth
of a garden. The Christian is
responsible for the direct action
of
sow
ing, cultivating, and watering, but only
God can perform the direct action of
giving the increase. Even though the
kingdom
of
God may seem like a
mustard seed, the smallest seed in the
garden, we should not give up on our
indirect action of gospel sowing, cul
tivating, and watering. The kingdom of
God will
one
day be the biggest plant
in the garden.
Some involved in direct action argue
that they are following the example of
Christ by giving themselves as a sacri
fice in order to save others. ut are they
really following the example
of
Christ?
They
seem
instead to
be
following the
example of the Zealots and of ar
Kochba, the militant false messiah who
tried to defeat pagan Rome through
direct action. Jesus made very clear to
Pilate that His kingdom was not to be
established through direct action:
My kingdom is not
of
this world.
f
My
kingdom were
of
this world,
My
servants would fight, so that I should
not be delivered to the Jews; but now
my kingdom is not from here. '
We have no reason to believe that
Christ would condone
tl1e
more passive
direct action of Mahatma Ghandi
or
Martin Luther King as a way
of
changing society. We are not following
Christ's example when we are trying to
use the world's methods to do the Lord's
work.
On this question
of changing society
through direct action, an issue related to
prophecy comes to mind. For years,
many people refused to
get
involved in
Christian efforts
at
promoting social
righteousness. They argue that such
efforts were futile and misdirected.
There
would
be
no
progress toward
social righteousness unt il Jesus returned
and ruled the earth with a rod of iron
from
an
earthly throne. In essence, they
believed that the indirect action
of
preaching the gospel in the power of
the Spirit could change individual lives
but no society at large. Jesus can heal
from a distance the Roman centurion'
The Cou
nse
l of Chalccdon, December, 1988
Pagc23
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 12 - Operation Rescue: An Ethical
Evaluation - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
servant but not a spiritually
sick
civili
zation. Jesus can change society
only
through His immediate physical
pre-
sence
and
direct coercive actions.
That
once
was
a popular rationale for-
not
polishing the brass on a sinking ship.
Now,
more and
more, many
of
these
people are getting- involved
in
the effort
to conquer
society for the Lord Jesus,
and praise God for that Many have
realized
that
Jesus does
not
have
to
be
physically present
to
change society.
But have
some
failed
to
learn in addi
tion that Jesus conquers nations today
through the
indirect
action of gospel
means?
Do
some still believe
that
ana-
tion can
be
effectively discipled
only
by
means of the iron rod
of
coercive direct
--
- action?--
- -
----
- .....
--
--
- -
--
-
--
Also, many
people
have been
in -
fluenced
by
various varieties
of
perfec
tionism. Perfectionism is the teaching
that
by some
direct action
of
the will
(such as willing
to
put Christ on the
throne
of
one's heart),
one
can shortcut
the sanctification process and reach a
state of sinlessness.
Here
we
see evi
dence
of
a theological propensity
to
ex
pect
quick
re
sults
and
shortcuts through
some
form
of direct
human action
.
Could
part of the motivation for Opera
tion
Rescue
be a form of social perfec-
tionism?
So
far we
have found
no
Biblical
justification for the -direct action tactics
of
Operation Rescue, but there is one
other perspective to examine. We need
to
consider them as an effort to save vic
tims.
The
Bible unquestionably teaches
that
the Christian should help victims
when
doing
so
is legal.
The
primary
example of
this is
the
parable
of
the
Good
Samaritan.
The
waylaid victim
was left half-dead
and
was probably,
like the unborn child, not in any o n d ~
ition
even
to
ask
for help. Like the pro
life volunteer who works
to
save an un
born child,the Samaritan had
no
idea i f
the
one
he
worked
to save
would
later
be a
saint
or
a
scoundrel. We know
clearly that Christ gave the parable
of
the
Good Samaritan
as an example for
us
to
follow.
What
do
you think the Good Samari
tan
would
have done
i f
he had come
earlier and had found the thieves in the
process of waylaying their victim? I be
lieve he would have intervened with
force i f
he
had the means to do so. I
believe
he would
have followed the
example
of
Abraham who
used
force to
deliver
Lot
from the
four
kings. This
would
be
direct action analogous to the
direct action against the child abuser we
have already discussed. But what would
the Good Samaritan
do
if he
came
across a man being robbed
and
waylaid
by
official tax agents with legal author
ity and Caesar's blessings. That would
make the situation much more compli
cated. And the situation gets even
more
complicated
when not only
the state but
also the parents
of
a_
minor
victim are
on the side of the criminal.
There
are
a few Biblical examples
of
saints
who
defied a civil authority to
save someone's life. Rahab harbored the
two spies and then helped them escape
from Jericho. Obadiah hid
one
hundred
prophets
in
caves and fed them when
they were threatened
by
Jezebel. Jehosh
eba gave the royal son Joash secret re-
fuge from Queen Athaliah.
The Magi
.
deceived Herod
so
that the Christ Child
could escape
to
Egypt,
Note
that
in
each of these cases, _a
saint
or saints
gave
a person refuge from a civil author
ity
or
helped
a person escape from a
civil authority.
Do
these examples justi
fy Operation Rescue as an effort to help
the unborn child escape the abortionist?
I don t believe so, because Operation
Rescue's strategy is to try
to
deny the
mother_ access to the abortionist , even
though that
is
presently illegal, with
the
hope that the mother -will change
her mind
during the delay.
What
would
be a true parallel
to
this? A true parallel
would
be i a true prophet under the rule
ofan
idolatrous king had tried to deny a
mother access t the altar of Molech
where she planned to sacrifice a child.
Why
did no
prophet
in
ancient Israel
ever use this tactic against Molech
worship and other similar evils? Isn't
that what the prophets in
Isra
el sho
uld
have been doing i f the principles of
Operation Re
scue
are valid?
Yet
such
parallels
to
Operation Rescue's strategy
for saving victims
re
absent from the
Bible. - -
The
advocate
of
Operation Rescue
also has to explain why he does
not
also advocate direct action efforts to
save the victims of every other legal
crime in our society. Are we to kidnap
children given
to
the legal custody of
homosexuals? Are we
to
block access
to .-theaters showing pornography? Are
we t conduct shotgun weddings ?
Where do we draw the line? Where does
it stop? f the Bible mandates our pro
viding a direct action rescue for. the
victim
of
one legal crime, then where
does the Bible prohibit
our
providing a
similar rescue for the victims
of
all
legal crimes ? .
Those participating
in
Operation Res
cue also need to explain why they
should
limit
their direct action options
to
ti-espassing
and
the passive, nmi
violent blocking
of
abortion center
entrances, They could
let
the
air
out of
the abortionist's tires.
They
could keep
the abortion center's phone busy and set
tip fake appointments. They could call
in false pizza orders for the abortion
center's staff. They could splatter the
building with chicken blood. If legality
is rto longer an issue; then the possi
bilities are endless. f trespassing is
legitimate. then why
not
these others?
The
conclusion I come
to
is
that
there certainly is no absolute mandate
for all Christians
to
be involved with
Operation Rescue. Beyond that, I have
come to
doubt
that any Christian
should be involved in these direct action.
efforts. I would compare those. Chris
tians who
are
protesting abortion-
and
supporting Crisis Pregnancy Centers
o
Wilberforce, the man who
led
the fight
against the slave
trade
in England. I fear
that those advocating direct action are
following the example not of Wilber
force but of the abolitionist radical John
Brown. They have been attracted to the
low road because it looks like a short-
but I fear
it
is really a dead end.
As we approach the first of
next year, please prayerfully
consider the financial needs
of
The Counsel o Chalcedon
Please respond generously to
the forthcoming letter in
December.
Page24--------------------------------------------------
The Counsel of Chalccdon, December, 1988
