The whole George Tiller incident continues to dominate the newswires around the interwebs. Bobby likens the issue to the question of whether it was justifiable to assassinate Hitler, finding himself, admittedly in a quandary because there is an instinctive desire to support Hitler’s assassination in a way that doesn’t quite feel right for abortionists. Davey also responds, asking if there is not room, along with Barth for a “practical pacifist” position that, on the basis of Romans 13 defers the use of violence to the state in the righting of wrongs. There are several similar comments in my own thread as well.
These responses all seem to, in some way or other, come home to roost on the issue of the immorality of vengeance and the importance of legitimate authority (i.e. the state) in the dispensing of just violence. This seems to go wide of the target in this instance for two reasons.
First, I seriously doubt that Roeder was attempting to take vengeance on Tiller in any normal sense of the term. By all accounts Roeder was stridently pro-life, had protested regularly at Tiller’s clinic, and truly believed that what he was doing was saving innocent lives. In short, he was not acting out of a desire for revenge, but out of a desire to protect the innocent. And there’s a good case to be made that he did just that. Tiller is one of only three late-term abortion clinics in the country and he performed the latest term abortions in all of history. Killing him certainly did prevent some abortions from happening. If abortion is murder (and I think it generally is), Roeder saved innocent lives. Thus, if we affirm that lethal violence in defense of the innocent is morally justifiable, it would seem that we have to defend Roeder’s actions.
Second, and related to the first point, I see no reason to assume that, if lethal violence in defense of innocent life is moral, it should only be the state that carry out this violence. Again, if a guy was shooting up an office building, and someone stopped him by throwing him out a window, no one would say what he did was wrong because he wasn’t a police officer. Indeed, for the non-pacifist, it is morally incumbent on us to utilize violence to save innocent lives. To fail to do so would be a sin of omission. As such, I don’t think the appeal to governmental authority dissolves the problem here. If we have an ethic that allows for the use of lethal violence in defense of the innocent, I don’t see a way for us to avoid affirming Roeder’s actions, or at least mitigating the manufactured moral outrage that is coming from key pro-life groups.
Great discussion Halden. Incisive questions.
I disagree with Daniel that pacifism is by default perpetuation of violence against the oppressed. That argument makes the common mistake of assuming that non-violence means inaction. It is a fallacy that greatly annoys pacifists like me. Indeed, being utterly opposed to all violence of any kind, the true pacifist is obliged to intervene where they perceive violence occurring, they just refuse to do so violently.
There are infinite numbers of ways that one might act to prevent violence non-violently. They may not be successful, but we are not required to be successful, only faithful. And frankly, non-violence has a good track record, whereas violence always begets more violence. This murder of Tiller may have prevented a few abortions that he himself would have directly performed, but it has almost certainly hardened the resolve of other doctors and nurses who will perform abortions, and unquestionably it has eroded the social perception of pro-lifers. Society is going to be more likely to practice abortion because of this murder, not less. It will accomplish the opposite of what Roeder intended.
I think the opportunity of this situation is for us to show that the only consistent Christian ethic is a pacifist one. Because all compromises on violence inevitably end up leading to a situation which we know is evil, but cannot condemn because we have trapped ourselves into an untenable ethic.
With regard to my comments in various threads: I am currently in the middle of Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is within you,” so I fully expect to be incoherent and inconsistent until the dust settles (some time in the indeterminate future). :-)
Indeed. That issue is one I wish to take up shortly as well. The quest for perfect consistency is not exactly a good thing, at least most of the time.
On “the latest term abortions in all of history”: only if we forget the accepted ancient form of abortion, exposure.
What an awful mess we humans make.
For true.
It might be fun to inject some actual knowledge about late-term abortion into this “great” discussion.
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming excessive knowledge about all the issues at play here, only outlining what I take to be a moral inconsistency within the standard pro-life platform.
In other words, all I’m saying is that if you take the position that all abortion (late-term or otherwise) is murder, and violent defense of innocent life is morally justified, you can’t say that Roeder was wrong.
The fact that late-term abortions are part of what Tiller provided here is actually a non-factor, since for most pro-lifers the stage of the pregnancy isn’t of much consequence.
That typo is really awesome – “excessive knowledge”. I assume you meant extensive, but there is something to the kind of “morality critique” you and other thinking anti-abortionists that suffers from a kind of fear of knowledge as excessive. Such that to acknowledge that the late-term abortions (some of the latest ever!1!!!11!) were actually practiced in the name of saving the life of the mother would be to undercut the cleverness of this sort of “cultural analysis”. Or the kind of “excessive knowledge” that comes from speaking with real women who have had abortions rather than ruminating on the abstract “women-who-have/had-abortions”. Now, of course abortion is a complex issue, but this sort of weirdo-not-quite-decrying violence just adds more complexity to the problem instead of offering any light to deal with it.
Your exactly right here. I’ve had this discussion several times over the years. It’s logically sound. Anti-abortion activists often use the language of the holocaust when talking about abortion.
IF human life begins at conception
IF killing innocent human life is murder
THEN abortion is murder
IF defending innocent human life by killing is virtuous
IF killing an abortionist defends innocent human life
THEN killing an abortionist is virtuous
The argument can then begin at whom should be responsible for this violence, or if any violence is warranted.
Thank you for putting these two posts in syllogism form, Steven.
I think Steven’s syllogism’s are exactly right, per the logic here.
But I remain in my dilemma.
What about this one?
IF abortion is akin to the holocaust
IF World War II was justified in stopping the holocaust
THEN World War III must stop abortion
Halden,
I think a big problem here is that WE ARE the state, so we can’t just defer the problem to a designated agent whose policy is set by us as a collective in the first place. I think of the torture issue. Is it morally ok for the government to do our torturing, that is our dirty work, for us? No, of course not. We are responsible for the actions of our agents. Romans 13 is not an excuse for the government to be allowed to torture and it’s not an excuse to leave any moral issue in the hands of officials, especially popularly elected officials in democracy. Why does violence become just/justified simply because I get someone else to do it for me? So I say that neither vengeful (to speak to your first point) nor preventative (to speak to your second point) violence is permissable when we have a God who is in control of the ends and each life along the way. Our job is to walk humbly in the meantime, being aware of our own sin, being the light of the world, and though I hate to use a term that sounds so flippant, especially in theological discourse, let the chips fall where they may. And I know the chips in this case are precious babies. I am pro-life by the way. But God sees all and will make all things new.
I would agree with you Alex, about the impermissiblity of violence for Christians. The problem that this post was seeking to address is that many pro-life Christians do not, and as such, hold an incoherent moral position.
Agreed, and all my friends are the ones you speak of so I’d be interested to discuss this with them.
If we are going to use Jesus as the exemplar, which we should; then “non-violence” is not, in every case, the only approach for the Christian. Jesus engaged in “active-violence” in order to subvert the legally/religiously sanctioned practice of “money-changing.” In the process “innocent” (per the law of the land) were hurt (lost their ‘livelyhoods’ in the process).
I only say this to provide some more perspective here; I am certainly not using this as an analogical for the actions taken by Roeder.
I have more to think about here though . . .
Seriously Bobby? You’re pulling the money-changers card? Not lethal force, for one. But the big issue against this counting as a “Jesus wasn’t a pacifist” argument is that it wasn’t an effectiveness-driven action. It was a prophetic action demonstrating Jesus’ authority in the temple, and his role in its restoration. He wasn’t trying to cleanse the temple by kicking ass and driving everyone out, as if he were taking the temple by force. He did his thing, made a symbolic statement, and then left, accomplishing the real work of restoring the temple through the cross and resurrection.
Additionally (from Yoder), if any part of Jesus’ actions had been illegal/disorderly, then the Jewish authorities would have had a legal argument against him, which they did not.
Another key issue here is that, whatever Jesus did, he wasn’t engaging in any sort of defensive action. No one was being physically threatened by the moneychangers. As such I really don’t see how this could be construed to speak to the issue of violence in defense of justice.
So are you saying that His intention mattered, Adam?
This is true, it is not “lethal-force” (at least maybe not so directly); but that wasn’t my point, my point was simply to illustrate that “violence” was used by Jesus. And as you rightly underscore the context was part of a promise/fulfillment motif that He was directly fulfilling as the Messiah.
All I’m trying to do now is get out of the “lion’s den” here; I seem to be the only non-pacifist on this thread. But I just want to make clear, from my perspective, that I do not think this is an either/or situation. I think there are times that “defensive action” is justifiable; and then I also believe that “passive action” is justifiable.
Adam, you seem to want to decry any casuistry; not me! Scripture is full of this kind of “situationalism.” We have paradigmatic law (principles i.e. 10 Commandments), and then we have casuistic law (Levitical law-code). To assert that THE theme of scripture, and ethic of Jesus is ALWAYS pacifistic seems ad hoc to me. It’s just an assertion based upon “selective passages” of scripture (per various contexts). Does this mean I don’t realize that we are to be at “peace with all men?” No, I do see this as the stance the Christian is to take towards the world and others; but that does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves (personally), or that the gvt. cannot defend itself (collectively).
To be honest I see pacifism as an cop-out; it’s easy to say this kind of stuff from the comfort of our own homes in the US of A.
Anyway, peace (I leave on a pacifist note ;-).
Btw, I’m primarily responding to Adam.
I don’t actually think pacifism is an “cop-out,” that was a slip of the tongue — sorry :-). I just don’t completely agree with it. Done.
Aric said what I was trying to say much better than me when he said, “we are not required to be successful, only faithful.” I find a connection here with the attitude of simple faithfulness expounded in Pope Benedict’s second encyclical Spe Salvi. Interestingly, Jurgen Moltmann criticised Spe Salvi on the grounds that, if I remember right, it didn’t ask for action or promise any justice in the here and now, but only looked forward. But I lean with Benedict’s attitude on this one, though I see plenty of injustice, and injustice that can be solved in the here and now. I lean this way precisely because of what Aric said.
to quote a friend: How would the “ends justify the means” in a universe where the end is already a given? God has given both the end and the means to bring it.
The pragmatic questions about the value of resisting violence with violence are interesting but the only question that really matters is what Christ has commanded us to do. It’s hard to love an enemy while you kill them.
Or to quote a Brethren bumper sticker, “When Jesus said love your enemies, He probably meant don’t kill them.”
I guess non-pacifists are duty-bound to support preemptive war, too.
Are you implying that Roeder’s action was analagous to a preemptive strike?
If I, as a pacifist who is not totally opposed to abortion, might defend non-pacifist pro-lifers for a moment, I think your example is off the mark. There are two major differences from the Tiller case in your example: 1)The person being killed in your example was at that moment engaged in a violent act, and acting to stop him had immediate tangible benefit, not only potential. Tiller was going to church. 2)The person being killed in your example was committing an illegal act, Tiller was not.
Let’s say that after that person shot up the building was later captured, put on trial, and for whatever reason found not-guilty. Then, later someone went to that person’s home and murder him while he was watching tv. That would be more comparable to the Tiller case. In such a situation, there would certainly be many people who would praise the actions of the vigilante, but it would be far from universal. This is not because they are ethically inconsistant, but because of their view of the proper use of violence.
Your underlying assumption, Halden, is that the legitimacy of the state is irrelevant. However, whether you agree with it or not, it is not impossible to form an consistant ethical system in which the legitimacy of the state is relevant. In fact, most people, especially non-pacifists, do. While the vigilante in my example probably wouldn’t have the book thrown at him, he would be sent to prison with the consent of much of the populace, because of the view that violence must be contained within a legal framework. Therefore, violence is reserved for A)stopping the immediate commitment of a violent crime, and B)the judicious use by the state. To say that the non-pacifist must assent to use violence wherever it might be used to save lives would only lead to anarchy, as there is no way we could trust everyone to take these matters in their own hands, nor could we judge if everyone’s actions were justified. I would say, contrary to your point, that it is in fact more inconsistant for the non-pacifist to support vigilantism than to oppose it.
That is not to say that there is no moral framework where the non-pacifist could accept this action. It would simply require them to see the state as having become delegitimized by legalizing abortion. But I don’t think most pro-life supporters see the state as delegitimized in any way other than on abortion, and I think it would be inconsistant to support vigilantism on solely the one issue.
As long as we are critiquing analogies, I should point out that Tiller had stated publicly that he planned to continue his actions; not exactly the same as Joe Sixpack sitting in front of the TV. Or would it be more justifiable if someone killed him in the act of an abortion? Remember, in Halden’s construction, it is a matter of preemption and not vengeance.
Exactly, preemption by individual people is not a use of violence which is condoned by this culture, so yeah it would make a difference.
Even if preemption were accepted, it doesn’t mean that one could hold a consistent ethical view that didn’t allow for it. For instance, I would say opposing preemptive war does not make non-pacifists inconsistent. It is an improvement over those who support it, even while I don’t think they go far enough.
But it isn’t a matter of preemption at all. This is a situation in which the person in question has clearly and avowedly done what is alleged and publicly proclaims his intention to do it again. As such your critique doesn’t actually mitigate anything I said.
A better analogy might be the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi official in charge of what is now the Czech Republic. Czech nationalists, under orders from the Czechoslovakian gov’t-in-exile and materially supported by the British, assassinated the notoriously brutal Heydrich. The Nazi response was the massacres in Lidice and Lizáki, in which all men over age 16 were killed.
Heydrich’s police actions were legal; he was, in fact, the government. Heydrich’s mortal wounds were inflicted upon him by a grenade thrown by a Czech assassin under small-arms fire from Heydrich himself. By your standards, the assassination of Heydrich was completely justifiable. However, in the grand scheme of the war, Heydrich’s death didn’t change very much. It was easy to pull in others to take his place. The most profound impact was the razing and slaughter of two Czech villages in retaliation. If the non-pacifist pro-life movement is concerned about this, it is taking a more reasonable position than they’re being given credit for. (But they’re still conflicted and wrong if they’re not pacifist, IMO.)
When a person takes a stand against the imminent harm about to befall an innocent, we do not call this murder, but homicide. Such a partition is Scriptural. Despite the prohibition found in the sixth commandment, Scripture does not condemn all killing. In the Hebrew language there are ten different words which can all be translated as “kill.” The word used in the command refers to both lawful and unlawful killing. When the Septuagint is translated, the reader gains etymological clarification through the Greek word reserved for “murder.” Christ later uses the same word when referencing the commandment. The conception of justifiable homicide is found in the Scriptures, embodied in the concept of mitigation: special circumstances which diminish the degree of liability.
This same principle is reflected in our own civil legal tradition, as seen above. Thus, those who would exercise lethal force to stop a murderer are not themselves committing murder. They act to neutralize a threat.
The individual, in acting to defend another person from an imminent threat of harm, is authorized by God to exercise lethal, defensive force. This is not force enacted in retribution, but a defensive force used to protect. In Genesis, the Lord says:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Given that the imago Dei is not given at birth or sometime following, and God’s law gives protection to the unborn, the same as that granted to everyone else under the law. Christ’s coming does not “abolish the law,” but to fully realize all that was promised under the law. And so, under that law, homicide can be justified when done according to moral right.
Except Jesus didn’t use the narrower Greek term you mentioned, because he wasn’t speaking in Greek. He was speaking in Aramaic, which is much more closely related to the Hebrew original. The use of the same Greek term as found in the Septuagint indicates the Gospel writers’ familiarity with the Septuagint, but doesn’t suggest that Jesus himself used a narrower definition of forbidden killing. So the semantic ground on which your argument rests doesn’t actually exist.
Have you considered that Jesus’ tightening of the OT rules on adultery, murder, divorce, oaths, etc. also apply to vengeance and violence?
Certainly, but again, I am not speaking of vengeance. Justifiable homicide is never predicated on vengeance. I do admit a certain tension as respect to violence. But it is a glorious tension, and one which I inhabit with no regrets.
“The individual, in acting to defend another person from an imminent threat of harm, is authorized by God to exercise lethal, defensive force.”
What Scripture authorizes this? You are giving an authorization from God, and unless you have Scripture for this you are either an Oracle or Prophet. Do you claim this for yourself?
I won’t give you my entire jursprudential breakdown again… but the verse I was specifically thinking of was, “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” Exodus 22:2.
Also, in the book of Nehemiah, the prophet reinforces this principle:
“Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.”
Nehemiah 4:13-14
I am glad that you have come to acknowledge the logical consistency of the argument.
It was my parents, not I, whom the FBI were interested in speaking with.
Neither of these passages “authorized” you “to exercise lethal, defensive force.”
The first one is clearly against a thief, and if you notice if this is “after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” So your claim can only be made during the nighttime hours at best.
The second one is concerning the defense of Jerusalem, again not an authorization from God for what you claim.
And clearly the Christian, who is now a citizen of a new country, has been given new orders.
In a previous comment I mentioned how I had had this discussion before. One of them was with David_notacynic years ago. He was a supporter of violence towards abortionists, and claimed the FBI had interviewed him on the subject.
I posted this on my blog as well — My approach tends to be heavily influenced by Kierkegaard’s “suspension of the ethical.” In other words, the decision to kill Dr. Tiller (assuming, of course, a genuine ethical dilemma for his murderer, rather than a response out of vengeance or insanity… keep this in mind) is somewhat similar to Abraham’s dilemma: Do I obey God and commit this crime, or do I obey the ethical imperative (instituted by God as well) — Do not murder?
This, of course, leads to at least two other vital questions. One, how does the person know that God is actually commanding him/her to kill? Two, is the person ready to face the consequences for their actions? Because, as SK so vividly describes in “Fear and Trembling,” suspending the ethical will most likely result in one becoming a universal pariah. This second question, I think, is actually the more important of the two.
What I mean is this: Let’s begin with the assumption — and there is reason to believe that the Bible does NOT advocate such a thing, though that discussion is for another day — that we have a mandate in Scripture to protect innocent life, even if it means killing an evil person to save innocent lives. If so, then it reasonable to conclude that God may reveal to a person that they ought to kill someone. After all, according to a prima facie interpretation, God told people in the Old Testament to kill all the time. Here, I say – do it!
If you really believe that God is asking do to this thing to stave off genocide, don’t shrink back. Do what you must. But don’t try to get away with it, either! The fact that Dr. Tiller’s killer attempted to escape the scene, and is now attempting to defend his actions, shows that he was never completely committed to the act. There is reason to doubt that his act was, in fact, a genuine suspension of the ethical. This is precisely why he is guilty. If he was truly following God’s command and suspending the ethical, he would refuse to defend his actions (indeed, he cannot!) and accept his fate – even if it means death – as the retaliation expected from the ethical system that he chose to suspend.
Clearly, the response to Dr. Tiller’s murder shows that most in the pro-life camp don’t believe his killer really heard from God either. Either that, or they believe the abortion genocide is not sufficient to warrant a violent uprising. In this sense, it should be clear that the motives of many pro-life advocates are conflicted, at best, and therefore those of us who believe an unborn child is a human life ought to keep in mind our own inconsistencies (and the inadequacies of our arguments) before we begin accusing and berating those on the pro-choice side of the issue.