Abortion
Vigilantism Worksheet
(In
56 Questions)
As a pro-life activist and the pastor of Denver Bible Church, Bob Enyart developed this worksheet to help Christians think through the issue of vigilantism regarding the intentional killing of abortionists. As the former director of Operation Rescue Colorado, Bob Enyart has spent six months incarcerated in county jails for peaceful civil disobedience by blocking abortion clinic entrances and in defense of Christian liberties.
Disclosure: Prior to using this worksheet, Bob would like the reader to know his own position. Bob affirms these statements:
1) Governments have the authority to use lethal force in more circumstances than do civilians.
2) The Bible’s escalation of force principle prohibits civilian use of lethal force if less force could suffice.
3) Civilians may use lethal force defending innocent life against threats of imminent harm.
If true, these principles do not prohibit the use of civil disobedience to prevent abortions. This worksheet, however, concludes that those who advocate and/or defend the intentional killing of abortionists are morally wrong. Some of those who defend such killings complain that others are unwilling to seriously address their position. To any such, this challenge goes out: take the time and courage to answer these questions, and then mail your answers and contact information to KGOV.com, PO Box 583, Arvada CO 80001. We hope to do a radio and web broadcast to address any worthwhile responses we obtain. This worksheet explores the underlying principles involved in the defense of killing abortionists. Let us see if such advocates can defend their positions in the light of this scrutiny.
Definitions for terms as used below:
●
Threat: consider all threats herein to be life-threatening, unjust, fully
credible threats.
●
Lethal Force: where lethal force is called for below, lesser force would be
insufficient to save innocent life.
●
Governmental Authority: refers to the actual authority God has delegated
to governments.
●
Civilian Authority: refers to the actual authority God has delegated to
civilians.
Worksheet Instructions: By the author’s understanding, the correct answer to every question appears as the first choice. This is not an exam but both a research and a teaching tool. Thus the author does not hesitate to lead the reader through the task of thinking carefully about the relevant principles. If you disagree with the proposed correct answer, please provide your reason for the disagreement on extra paper, and as appropriate, please include Bible verse references.
1.
Principle: As a general statement, the
government does have authority, in certain circumstances, to use lethal force.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
4.
Principle:
It is justifiable for a
civilian to use force, even lethal force if necessary, in self-defense against
an unjust and imminent (impending,
about to occur) deadly threat.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
5.
Principle:
Now consider an extension of this idea of self-defense,
with a deadly threat as described above but targeting an innocent third party. In such a circumstance, a civilian may
justifiably kill someone who is unjustly threatening to kill an innocent third
party.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
6.
Principle: If you answered “True” to
Question
5
affirming the civilian right to use lethal force defending a third party, then
please indicate true or false: if someone obstructs the saving of a victim from
imminent murder, it is justifiable for a civilian to kill such an accomplice. (For example, walking at dusk in a park, a
law-abiding civilian and a gang member simultaneously come upon a rapist about
to kill his victim. If the gang member
tries to stop the law-abiding civilian from saving the woman’s life, the
civilian can rightly use up to and including lethal force against both the
rapist and the interfering gang-member if necessary to save the woman’s life.)
True / Unsure / False / Q5 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
7.
Principle:
If you answered “True” to
Question
4 affirming the civilian right to lethal
self-defense, then please indicate true or false: the threat must be imminent to some significant degree as a
necessary factor in justifying lethal force in self-defense.
True / Unsure / False / Q4 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
8.
Principle:
If you answered “True” to
Question
5 affirming the civilian right to lethal force
in defense of others, then please indicate true or false: the threat must be imminent to some significant degree as a
necessary factor in justifying lethal force in civilian defense of others?
True / Unsure / False / Q5 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
9.
Principle:
If you answered “True” to Question
7 affirming the civilian right to lethal force
to defend against a threat of imminent harm, then please indicate true or
false: a civilian facing a threat of future
harm should not immediately use lethal force, but should first use either
the government or lesser force to prevent the crime, and only use lethal force
if the threatened harm becomes imminent.
True / Unsure / False / Q7 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
10.
Principle: Think about the moment of irreversible harm, either
that point in time when a crime is actually committed, or earlier, when events
proceed through a point that makes an irreversible offense virtually
inevitable, unless some defender forcibly intervenes. If you answered “True” to
Question 4 affirming the civilian right to lethal
self-defense against an imminent
deadly threat, then please indicate true or false: justifiable civilian lethal
force cannot precede an imminent
threat because God has only delegated to civilians the authority to use lethal
force at the moment of irreversible harm.
True / Unsure / False / Q4 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
11.
Application:
Even if some of your previous answers make
this question irrelevant, please go through the exercise of evaluating each
circumstance below. Think about the
timeframe differences of threats of imminent harm as contrasted to threats of
future harm. This question presents a
range of time-sensitive threats. Circle
“No” to indicate which circumstance would
not justify civilian lethal force immediately
at the moment of the threat. Circle
“Yes” to indicate which circumstance would
justify civilian lethal force at the moment of the threat:
No / Unsure / Yes: Prisoner threatens to
kill you when he gets out of jail in 10 years.
No / Unsure / Yes: Prisoner threatens to
kill you when he gets out of jail in 1 year.
No / Unsure / Yes: Released convicted
mass murderer threatens to kill your unborn child after delivery.
No / Unsure / Yes: Boyfriend says,
“Don’t worry, I’ll schedule the abortion and pay for it.”
No / Unsure / Yes: Prisoner threatens to
kill you when he gets out of jail in 1 week.
No / Unsure / Yes: Prisoner threatens to
kill you when he gets out of jail in 1 day.
No / Unsure / Yes: Neighbor threatens to
kill you when he gets back from buying a gun.
No / Unsure / Yes: Neighbor threatens to
kill your child when your son gets home from school in an hour.
Yes / Unsure / No: Perpetrator puts a
knife to the throat of an innocent person.
Yes / Unsure / No: Abortionist about to
abort your own child while you are restrained in the room.
Yes / Unsure / No: Abortionist about to
abort any child while you are restrained in the room.
No / Unsure / Yes: Ex-con mass murderer
threatens to kill in the womb the next child your wife carries.
No / Unsure / Yes: Neighbor threatens to
commit a murder tomorrow.
Reason for disagreement:
Note: Unlike the rest of this
worksheet, only this Question 11 and the Conclusion below considers the circumstance
of actually being in the abortion
procedure room itself.
12.
Application: Furthering Question
11, and if you answered “True” to Question 4 affirming the civilian right to lethal self-defense,
then please indicate true or false: if a civilian reports to the government
that his neighbor threatened to kill him when he gets back from buying a gun,
regardless of the governments intended response, if the government has not
prevented the neighbor from returning with a gun and continuing with the threat
of imminent harm, the civilian may then justifiably use lethal defense.
True / Unsure / False / Q4 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
13.
Principle:
God gives the dominant responsibility of enforcing
the law to government rather than to civilians.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
14.
History: To help think about the
difference between governmental and individual authority, for the statements
below, please circle True, Unsure, or False:
T / U / F: From Adam’s Fall to Noah’s Flood,
the Bible indicates that God withheld from mankind the authority to
execute criminals.
T / U / F: From The Fall to The Flood (called by some the
dispensation of conscience), the Scriptures do not
indicate that God delegated governmental authority to mankind.
T / U / F: Immediately after The Flood, God delegated the
governmental authority to execute criminals (called by some the dispensation of
human government).
T / U / F: Prior to God delegating the
governmental authority to execute criminals, the Bible says “that the
wickedness of man was great,” that every thought of man’s heart was “only evil
continually,” and that the world was “filled with violence”.
Reason for disagreements:
15.
Principle: Because of The Fall, mankind’s sin prevents any
current human government, regardless of the form of that government, from
perfectly protecting innocence.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
16.
Tautology: As a general statement,
different ideas for governing, if implemented, would produce different results.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
17.
Unintended Consequences: By The Law of Unintended Consequences, when
existing behavior is modified to address one problem, often, other
problems are created or worsened.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
18.
Tradeoffs: [As background to this
question of governmental tradeoffs, first consider how we unavoidably make
tradeoffs in virtually all aspects of human endeavor: a husband decides to
provide a better home for his wife, but the extra time working puts pressure on
their relationship; a mother increases the time her kids spend in church, but
thereby reduces their private family time.]
If the rules of governance were modified to reduce one form of criminal
behavior, that modification might increase another form of criminal
behavior.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
19.
Tautology: If God would give the
dominant responsibility of enforcing the
law to civilians rather than to government, then by definition, billions of
individuals then each become a supreme judge and the highest governmental human
authority on Earth.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
20.
The Flesh: If you answered “True” to
Question
13
affirming that God gives the dominant
responsibility of enforcing the law
to government rather than to civilians, then please indicate true or false: if
God would give the dominant responsibility of enforcing the law to civilians rather than to government, that
would likely exacerbate the sin of pride for countless millions of individuals.
True / Unsure / False / Q13 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
21.
Principle: If mankind increased the
exercise of individual authority at the expense of governmental authority, we
would expect to see some type of tradeoff in criminal behavior.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
22.
Principle: If you answered “True” to
Question
1
affirming government’s authority to use lethal force, and “True” to Question
8
affirming the prerequisite of imminent
harm for the just exercise of civilian lethal force, then please indicate true
or false: while the use of lethal force by civilians requires the threat of
imminent harm, government can justly
exercise lethal force in some circumstances apart from the existence of the
threat of imminent harm. That
is, regardless of any actual imminent threat, the government can use lethal
force for various reasons including punishing convicted capital criminals, just
war, etc.
True / Unsure / False / Q1 or Q8 Not True
Reason for disagreement:
23.
Tradeoff: Scenario: Virtually everywhere today, as
governments actually function, a civilian is not permitted to overrule the
government and kill someone whom the government has decided should not be
killed. Now consider the worldwide
scenario in which this situation reversed.
Suppose that now, civilians have
the actual authority, on their own, to decide who should be killed, in
direct opposition to government decisions.
This scenario effectively increases the exercise of individual authority
at the expense of governmental authority.
Please indicate true or false: with billions of people empowered to
exercise individual authority above that of governments to decide whom to kill,
we can know that the shedding of innocent
blood would decrease.
False / Unsure / True
Reason for disagreement:
24.
Principle: In Exodus
22:2-3 God presented a principle of justice in an abbreviated form using a
very few words, yet indicating that killing a house burglar in the dark of night is more likely
justifiable than killing a daytime
intruder. For various reasons, an
intruder at night presents a much greater risk than does a daylight intruder,
including because the residents are more likely to be at home, thus making an
implied threat not only against private property, but against the people of the
house. Not only does the homeowner have
good reason to fear, but due to the darkness of night, he may not be able to
see clearly enough to identify any factors that would minimize the risk. Thus as a rule of thumb, a lethal strike is
justifiable against a nighttime intruder but not against a daytime intruder who
may present a minimal threat, for example, a neighborhood kid snatching a
wallet and running out the back door who gets shot in the back. So, what principle of escalation of force, if
any, does Exodus 22:2‑3 teach?
Describe:
25.
Principle: A war, if fought for the
right reason, is justifiable.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
26.
Application: Could
Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
27.
Application: Could a group of American
civilians, on their own authority and against the prohibition of their own
government, justifiably seek out and kill foreigners in
No / Unsure / Yes
Reason for disagreement:
28.
Bible Story:
No / Unsure / Yes: Was David in imminent danger from the sleeping King Saul?
Yes / Unsure / No: If the situation were reversed, and
David woke to find Saul about to stab him, would David have been justified in
using lethal self-defense against Saul?
Reason for disagreement:
29.
Bible Story: When David refused to kill
Saul, the Bible presents that as one of David’s strengths rather than as a
weakness.
Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
30.
Bible Story: Even though anointed as
Saul’s eventual successor, David humbly restrained himself, and this was one
reason why God described David as “a man after My own heart” (Acts 13:22).
Yes / Probably Yes / Possibly Yes
/ Unsure / Probably No / No
Reason for disagreement:
31.
Principle: It is justifiable for a
citizen to help an invading army by killing the leader of his own country, if
that invading army is fighting a just war.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
32.
Application: Please indicate Yes,
No, or Unsure:
Y / U / N: Once World War II broke out, a German citizen could have justifiably
killed Adolf Hitler.
Y / U / N: During the U.S.A.’s War on
Terror, an Afghan civilian could have justifiably killed the Taliban leader
Mullah Omar under
Reason for disagreement:
33.
Principle: If a government in some way
continues to be guilty of shedding innocent blood, then it is justifiable for
one of its citizens, by the authority of a civilian, to kill the leader of that
government?
False / Unsure / True
Reason for disagreement:
34.
Application: Without the umbrella of
authority available from an approaching army, would a German citizen, by the
authority of a civilian, have had the authority to kill Adolf Hitler prior to
the outbreak of war?
No / Unsure / Yes
Reason for disagreement:
35.
Principle: If the government fails to
convict someone of a capital crime, a civilian may not justifiably take upon
himself (usurp) the role of judge to convict such a criminal.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
36.
Principle: If the government fails to
execute someone it has already convicted of a capital crime, it is not
justifiable for a civilian to usurp the role of executioner and carry out the
execution on his own.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
37.
Application: Is it justifiable for a
civilian to kill a retired abortionist?
No / Unsure / Yes
Reason for disagreement:
38.
Application:
Is it justifiable for a civilian to
intentionally kill an abortionist who continues to perform abortions?
No / Unsure / Yes
Reason for disagreement (especially regarding above principles):
39.
Application:
If
you answered “Yes” or “Unsure” to
Question
38 on killing an abortionist, may a civilian
also justifiably kill a person who attempts
to stop him from killing an abortionist?
Q38 No / Unsure / No / Yes
40.
Application: If you answered “No” or
“Unsure” to Question
39
on killing someone who interferes with killing an abortionist, and “Yes” to
Question
6
affirming the civilian right to kill
someone interfering in the saving of innocent life, then please explain
the apparent contradiction.
Q38 No / Q39 Yes / Otherwise explain:
41.
Application: If you answered “Yes” to
Question
39 on killing someone who interferes with
killing an abortionist, please indicate with a check mark which of these people
a civilian would be justified in killing if they attempted to stop him from killing an abortionist:
Q39 Not Yes: _____
Security Guard: ____ Clinic
Worker: _____
Abortionist’s Wife: ______ Abortionist’s
Child: ____ Policeman: ____
Judge: ___ President: _____ Bystander: _____
If you do not check all, please explain:
42.
Application: If you answered “Yes” to
Question
38 on killing an abortionist, please indicate
with a check mark which of these people, if any, a civilian would be justified
in killing if they materially assist
an abortionist in his killing:
Q38 No: ___
Security Guard: ___ Clinic
Worker: ___ Policeman: ___ Governing Official: ___
If you do not check all, please explain:
43.
Principle: A governing official who
explicitly empowers other persons to murder innocent people is guilty of murders
thereby committed?
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
44.
Principle:
As a general rule, a civilian may not
justifiably kill a governing official who continues to explicitly empower other
persons to murder innocent people.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
45.
Principle: If you answered “False” to
Question
44
on the lack of civilian authority to kill guilty governing officials, then
please indicate with a check mark whom a civilian may also justifiably kill of
these human links in the chain between the governing officials who authorize,
and those who carry out, the shedding of innocent blood:
Q44 True: ___
Enabling Bureaucrat: ___
Financial Supporter: ___
Knowing Supplier: ___ Public Advocate:
___
If you do not check all, please explain:
46.
Practicality:
Does the government have the right to bring
to trial a civilian who claims he killed justifiably?
Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
47.
Tautology: If you answered “Yes” to
Question
46,
that the government has the right to judge a civilian’s use of lethal force,
then does that explicitly indicate also that the government does have the
authority over the question of civilian use of lethal force?
Yes / Unsure / No / Q46 Not Yes
Reason for disagreement:
48.
Tautology: If you answered “No” to
Question
46,
denying the government’s right to judge a civilian’s use of lethal force, then
would not your position explicitly indicate that every individual is a legally
unquestionable authority over life and death?
Q46 Yes / Q46 Unsure / Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
49.
Forecast: Consider the two camps, those
who do and those who do not justify intentionally killing an abortionist. A government could theoretically accept
either view. This question asks you to
anticipate a consequence of a government that accepts the argument of those who
justify killing abortionists.
Caveat: To anticipate the consequences of such a position, you must
first wrestle through a dilemma. The
author believes that the position of those who justify killing abortionists
contains a fundamental contradiction, and thus, if you find this question
difficult, or even paradoxical, it is because we are asking you to visualize
implementing a system upon what we believe to be an unworkable, contradictory
foundation.
Background: Human government is imperfect, and even the Christian masses
commonly lack wisdom, so government and the people commonly misapply any
vestiges of righteousness that happen to remain in society. For example, in vain hope of deterring
perjury the government has put countless witnesses under oath by swearing on the Bible, which directly violates Jesus’
command not to swear an oath “at all” (Mat. 5:34‑37;
[2 Cor. 1:17; James 5:12]), yet in America, godless forces have mostly brought an
end to this unbiblical practice, ironically, at the objection of many
Christians.
Scenario: Now, imagine a government that recognized this broader “right”
of civilians to kill those worthy of death.
Such a recognition does not automatically mean
that the government would also accurately recognize abortion or other such
crimes as the capital crimes that they truly are. Nor does it mean that the majority would know
what circumstances should trigger the exercise of such rights. So, might
the government and any number of civilians and private organizations come to
different conclusions on what “offense” justifies the civilian use of lethal
force?
Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
50.
Forecast: If the government proclaimed
the principle of the right of civilians
to overrule government on the use of lethal force, regardless of imminent
threat or escalation of force, please check those whom various activists might
be significantly more inclined to kill:
All of the following: ___ Oil
executive: ___ Slaughterhouse worker:
___ SUV owner: ___
Logger: ___ Banker: ___ Animal researcher: ___ McDonald’s worker: ___
Pornographer: ___ The president:
___ Rancher: ___ UN Secretary General: ___
International businessmen: ___ Furrier:
___ Wal-mart
manager: ___ Liberal judge: ___
Conservative judge: ___ Pro-lifer:
___ Street preacher: ___ Anti-homosexual activist: ___
Pastor: ___ Unfaithful spouse: ___ Christian evangelist: ___ None of the above: ___
Reason for disagreement:
51.
Principles from Prophecy: The following
statements do not suggest or reject that mankind is in or near the End Times,
and they can be helpful in this vigilantism discussion regardless of one’s
eschatological view. For the statements
below, please circle True, Unsure, or False:
T / U / F: Jesus said that in the End
Times, the saints (believers) would be persecuted (Mat. 24:9; Mk. 13:9; Luke
T / U / F: Daniel prophesied that in the
End Times, anti-Christ forces “shall intend to change times and law”
to persecute Christians (Dan. 7:25).
T / U / F: Jesus said that in the End
Times “lawlessness will abound” (Mat. 24:12).
T / U / F: Jesus said that the End Times
would be like the days of Noah (Mat. 24:37; Luke
T / U / F: In the days of Noah “the
wickedness of man was great,” so that every thought of man’s heart was “only
evil continually,” and the world was “filled with violence” (Gen. 6:5, 11, 13).
Reason for disagreements:
52.
Consequences: If the government
proclaimed the principle of the right of
civilians to overrule government on the use of lethal force, regardless of
principles of imminent threat or escalation of force, it is possible that a
resurgence of the pre-flood world of violence and anarchy could ensue:
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
53.
Activism: Have pro-life activists been
able to prevent abortions at a single
abortion mill for a single day when they have decided to use non-violent
methods such as Operation Rescue’s peaceful civil disobedience, stink bombs,
etc?
Yes / Unsure / No
Reason for disagreement:
54.
Motive: Comparing the number of
children an abortionist might kill in one
day with the number he may kill over
the rest of his career, and considering that various non-lethal acts that
could stop abortions scheduled on one particular day, then we can conclude that
activists who attempt to justify the killing of an abortionist do so as
prevention of whatever abortions he might otherwise have committed in the future, in coming weeks, months, and
years.
True / Unsure / False
Reason for disagreement:
55.
Technique: On the days that activists
have killed abortionists, is there evidence that the activists have considered
whether a lesser force could have prevented the abortions scheduled for that day?
No / Unsure / Yes
If “Yes,” what evidence:
56.
Motive: Activists who advocate killing
abortionists (please circle True, Unsure, or False):
T / U / F: disregard the principle of escalation
of force for babies scheduled to die imminently.
T / U / F: disregard the requirement of imminent
harm for babies scheduled to die in the future.
Reason for disagreement:
Conclusion: God authorized individuals and governments differently. He authorized individuals to use a minimally sufficient escalation of force in order to defend against imminent unjust threats. And God authorized governments to exercise lethal force to punish capital criminals, and to exercise up to lethal force in attempts to capture suspects, and to thwart and deter unjust and credible threats of sufficient harm regardless of their imminent nature. As compared to authorizing the alternative, this wise balance of power between governments and individuals minimizes the chance of descent toward anarchy, averting that likely terrible tradeoff. Thus God empowers civilians to physically thwart criminals at the moment of the actual exercise of irreversible harm.
In structuring human government, God knew that
governing officials would be evil. So
not surprisingly, the Bible presents many examples of citizens disobeying
governing authorities in order to obey God.
But the Bible does not indicate that God has authorized civilians to
rebel and use force against evil governing officials. A growing number of Christians are carefully
rethinking American history and applying these principles, concluding that yes,
If God had increased civilian authority to use lethal force as can government, regardless of the existence of imminent harm, rather than only at the moment of irreversible harm, the number of cases of civilian use of lethal force would likely increase dramatically. God has expertly balanced these powers in the way that the Bible reveals, and that history, governments and civilians have even generally recognized. However, because of sinfulness, cases do arise despite the general acceptance of this conventional balance of authority, wherein governments falsely accuse civilians of wrongly using lethal force, even though the force was used to prevent imminent unjust death. But consider the infrequency of such cases, as compared to the certain greater frequency under the alternative. Visualize the extent of the difference in human conflict between the two alternative methods of empowerment, as God balanced civilian versus governmental lethal force, dealing with the resultant cases is like having to deal with only the point of a sword, and not with the entire edge of the blade running down to the hilt. The historical way, the long-acknowledged and received way, is biblical, for it is God’s way.
We at DenverBibleChurch.com commit ourselves to effective discipleship in many areas of human life. So we provide this worksheet to help Christians identify the specific principles involved in the civilian use of lethal force. We hope the above questions will help Christians think more clearly to determine the proper boundaries of the exercise of lethal force, including as regards preventing abortion. When disagreements do arise, we hope this tool will help identify the precise point of disagreement. These questions can show where someone may be departing from the proper application of the above biblical principles, and at the least, should help bring clarity to our communications.
Finally, if you have learned anything new from this worksheet about law, the Bible, and God’s balance of power between government and civilians, and if you have disagreed with any of the proposed correct answers above, then please go back and reconsider those questions now that you have a deeper understanding of these principles.
© 2004 Bob Enyart, KGOV.com (Bob's Writings Page)
(Invitation: Discuss this issue on a TheologyOnLine.com thread dedicated to this subject.)
“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed…” -God, Exodus 22:2-3
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time. –Daniel 7:25
“But I say to you, do not swear at
all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His
footstool; nor by