[a few excerpted elements from a detailed theological review of this question from Vol. 2 of First the Gospel, Then Politics..., © 1999-2010 John C. Rankin]

_____________

   When "Operation Rescue" hit the national scene in 1988, it advocated a strategy of physical blockade of abortion centers. Its founder, Randall Terry, published a book by the same name shortly thereafter, and in it he made a case for civil disobedience, arguing that all abortion centers could be shut down if the numerical force of blockaders were large enough. I first encountered this idea two years earlier in Philadelphia, and immediately rejected it.

   I wrote Terry in early 1989 to pose some biblical questions about his strategy, and was able to arrange a meeting with him on April 1 in South Boston. But he was unreceptive to my concerns, and thereafter he shunned all further discussion about the issue. The very idea of blockade was predicated upon coercive tactics hatched in secret against police authorities and pro-abortion organizations. Terry’s position, as he articulated it in his book, and in the meeting I had with him, effectively placed politics ahead of the Gospel.

   First, I asked Randall if God forces people into eternal life. He said no. Then I asked him why he was trying to force women into choosing life for their unborn. His response was straightforward, "We’re talking about saving babies, not saving souls," and then said that I did not understand the nature of choice. Here I saw the idolatry of "pro-life" as clear as can be. Politics were placed ahead of the Gospel. This thinking actually serves the reversal order of sex → choice → life →/God, for the idolatry of "pro-life" serves the idolatries of sexual promiscuity and "pro-choice" by giving such advocates more self-justifying energy to maintain their sin if we are seen as being coercive. If the preaching of the Good News is not our ultimate and defining purpose, then we labor in vain to protect the unborn. If the saving of the unborn from abortion is not a subcategory of the doctrine of salvation, then why do we bother? In his book, Terry called for the "rescuing" of the unborn by any means possible. He said to me that Jesus would not stand by and let innocent children die, and thus we must physically intervene by means of blockade or otherwise. I asked him: "Why then did God not only ‘stand by’ when Herod slaughtered the innocent boys, but also called for the death of children in the pagan nations that sought Israel’s destruction?" No answer.

   Second, I asked Terry if he believed, like me, that all Scripture is defined interpretively by the doctrines of creation, sin and redemption outlined in Genesis 1-3. He said yes. Then I asked, "Can you then show me where you root the strategy of blockade in these doctrines?" He answered quickly, "Well, how do I know that your strategy is rooted in these doctrines?" He then dismissed the subject and refused to entertain the question again.

   Within several years after its inauguration, Operation Rescue (OR) was not only a failure, but it hardened the hearts of many people against the Gospel, and provided a windfall for abortion-rights groups for fund-raising. Sadly, Terry proved to be a perfect foil for them to demonize and raise money by fear, since his language against abortion-rights advocates was so condemning. His face and name was splashed on Planned Parenthood fund-raising letters to motivate their donor base to give more (and very successfully). The impact of OR, and spin-off efforts, greatly affected this nation’s view of the abortion debate.

   Also, it allowed pro-abortion groups to lump Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) in with OR in their public rhetoric. And for anyone who participated in the blockade of an abortion center, it reduced their ability to participate in political dialogue, for they had already forfeited that arena by their vigilante actions. Thus, I contend it was a large net loss both for the pro-life witness in this culture, and for those Christians and churches who participated in or supported it. Subsequently, Terry became an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Congress in 1998, but in order to do so, he had to sign a consent decree with the National Organization for Women (NOW), promising never again to be involved with blockade or cognate violative actions. He signed the decree in order to avoid further lawsuits against his former actions and make himself more "politically viable," and in particular, to avoid the loss of his campaign funds to those lawsuits. What moral or intellectual integrity does this represent, if truly he believed that the strategy of blockade was biblical?

The Language of "Rescue"

   The name "Operation Rescue" is derived from Proverbs 24:11-12, which Terry used as an all-encompassing hermeneutic: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"

   But the context is one of speaking the authority vested in the king to make such rescue, and consistent with the Law of Moses, in which vigilante action for the sake of changing the law is not to be found.

The Parallel to Child Sacrifice

   The unborn are fully made in God's image and regarded as children. Thus, when we consider the pagan practices of child sacrifice condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures, we have a full parallel, which can be seen in Jeremiah 19, where King Zedekiah and the elders in Jerusalem had vested in them the authority to stop child sacrifice.

   If the strategy of blockade were applicable anywhere in the Bible, it would be here. More than a constitutional and democratic republic, this was theocratic Israel, where the laws were given directly by God, and the king was charged with enforcing them. The redress available to dissenting citizens was not to rewrite the laws within the nation if they did not like them, but it was the freedom to emigrate to another nation that more closely resembled their values. And many of the surrounding pagan nations endorsed the practice of child sacrifice. The Jews had agreed with Joshua that Yahweh’s laws were good, and they had agreed with the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah was the final prophet to the city, reminding Judah of these stipulations.

   Jeremiah had friends in high places in Jerusalem, friends at the palace court and within the priesthood. So though as a prophet he had the opposition of the king and the religious elitists, he was not alone. He would have had little problem rounding up a good remnant of faithful Jews, who if persuaded that blockade were called for by Yahweh, would have provided a blockade to the Valley of Ben Hinnom where the child sacrifices were occurring regularly and with increasing frequency. Moreover, unlike the status of the unborn still within their mother’s womb, Jeremiah would have had the physical ability to "snatch away" the little boys or girls from their parent’s arms en route to Ben Hinnom. He could have actually had a literal "Operation Rescue." But he did not do. If blockade were truly applicable from his chosen language of natzal in Proverbs 24:11, then it should have been in evidence at this very moment. The reality of my critique is ratified by Jeremiah’s use of the exact same words to king Zedekiah: "This is what the LORD says: 'Go down to the place of the king of Judah and proclaim this message there: "Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, you who sit on David’s throne – you, your officials and your people who come through these gates. This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place" (22:1-3).

   The use of "rescue" is again in the hiphil form – to "cause deliverance," to "snatch away," and the language of "shedding innocent blood" refers to the practice of child sacrifice consistently in the Old Testament, as Terry also points out. Jeremiah refuses to become a vigilante, to take the law into his own hands, as he worked through civil government even when it was uncivil. He called the king to be faithful to the covenant, and to his role in civil government. Whereas Zedekiah was turning away from the enforcement of the Mosaic laws, Jeremiah knew that the restoration of civil order was not to be attained by a resort to civil disorder, by condescension to the tactics of the ancient serpent. Civil order is restored by a successful appeal to a higher civil order. And if the people do not respond to such an appeal, then Yahweh will bring his judgment by his means. In the application of the ethics of choice at this juncture, this meant the destruction of the city, the siege, famine, cannibalism and other horrors Judah brought on itself.

   The Valley of Ben Hinnom was shortened in common parlance to the "Valley of Hinnom," which in the Hebrew is ge’hinnom. In the New Testament, it is translated by the Greek geenna, or Gehenna in the English, and it is used as a word for "hell" by Jesus. Thus he describes the nature of hell as a place of burning that never ceases, a place of fire where people choose to come and worship a false god who demands human sacrifice. These are the ethics of the ancient serpent, his very abode. To speak of the hell of human sacrifice and human abortion is to be biblically literate. The Valley of Hell.

   So in Jeremiah 19 we see the parallel to human abortion, yet we see no blockade, even though Jeremiah had the political power to pull it off (at least once), and the technical ability to actually snatch the child and run away with him. But to the end, Jeremiah lobbied for the king to stop the evil. Had Jeremiah tried to rescue the children himself, the culture at large would have undoubtedly ended their tolerance of him. He would likely have been stoned to death, and his prophetic ministry ended well before God’s appointed time. King Zedekiah stayed in power partly because he continually oscillated between the idolatrous will of the people and the word of Yahweh. He would not embrace the courage to lead the people and put his life on the line, trusting in Yahweh to protect him if he were to be faithful to the covenant. When an elitist regime introduces idolatries to the common people, as a means to maintain control over them, eventually a monster is created that demands the obeisance of the political elitists as well. It comes to the point where they are controlled by the idolatrous appetite of the people they have fed. Thus Jeremiah prophesied both to the people, their elders and priests, and to the king himself.

   As we thus see, the strategy of blockade is not employed in a theocracy as a means of rescue. Nor is it applied in a pagan nation. The United States has both a biblical heritage and the freedom for pagan religion to exist freely within it at the same time. There is no biblical precedent for the coercive practice of blockade as a means to rescue the unborn from the death of abortion.

Vigilante Action

   In Terry’s book, he only looks at some selective passages, out of context, in order to support vigilante action. A brief summary of the major texts in the Bible concerning this matter is helpful.

1. In Exodus 1:6-22, we see the courage of the Hebrew midwives in opposing Pharoah's order to drown all the newborn Hebrew males. They were shrewd in their language and actions, and they entered into no vigilante action to change the unjust laws of Egypt. Pharaoh could not charge them with any wrongdoing. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.
2. In Exodus 2:1-10, the mother of Moses saved his life by a shrewd act, entering into no vigilante action to change the unjust laws of Egypt. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.
3. In Exodus 2:11-15a, Moses does commit an act of vigilante action in murdering an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, and as a result, he has to flee for his life. This text is not cited by Terry.
4. In Joshua 2:1-16, Rahab acts with shrewdness in protecting the Hebrew spies, seeking the true God of Israel, but never entered into any vigilante action against her native pagan Jericho. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.
5. In the book of Esther, the Jewish queen of a pagan king risks her life to protect the Hebrew people from a murderous agenda, showing the power of civil obedience. This text is not cited by Terry.
6. In the book of Daniel, he thrives in the power of civil obedience in a pagan nation, and in the process becomes de facto prime minister for seven years, able to do justice for the weak including the abolition of any child sacrifice with the nation. These texts are not cited by Terry.
7. In Matthew 2:1-23, the Magi did not follow Herod's deceptive wish, a) not being under his jurisdiction, and b) not engaging in any vigilante action in the process. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.
8. In Acts 4:1-31 and 5:12-42, the apostles disobeyed hypocritical religious authority, not civil authority, and engaged in no vigilante action in the process. These texts are central for Terry in justifying the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

Biblical Criteria for Civil Disobedience

   The only basis for civil disobedience in the Bible is:

1. When believers are being forced to deny the Lord by word or deed;
2. when believers are politically disenfranchised; and
3. only insofar as necessary to keep integrity, never by means of vigilante action to change evil laws.

   All three criteria must be met. The way to change evil laws is not by matching the civil disorder of immoral laws with the civil disorder of challenging such evil. No tit for tat of civil disorder versus civil disorder. For then, as we condescend to the devil’s own terms, the debate is forfeit. Rather we answer with a superior appeal to God’s civil order, of his laws which transcend political contest. And we are all called to do so as a praying people, seeking when necessary to be imbued with signs and wonders according to the biblical pattern.

   Moses changed the situation of the Jews being tyrannized by Egyptian law not by taking vigilante action against it, but through the civil order of approaching and providing Pharaoh a way out.

   Esther risked her life by going through civil order, and thus thwarted an evil law.

   Jeremiah worked through civil order, and even though it was not heeded, he refused to fall into the idolatry of taking the law into his own hands. His witness was crucial for the exiles in Babylon, and the preparation for the Messiah.

   Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego all did the same, and evil laws were removed, and good laws made in their place.

   Civil obedience is more radical than civil disobedience when seeking to transform culture. Civil obedience per biblical ethics is courageous, whereas civil disobedience per vigilante action is by definition cowardly, even in spite of the best motivations. Such civil obedience is effective, whereas vigilante action is not. Thus, we have basis to understand why civil obedience is prescribed for Jews and Christians in the Bible. True civil disobedience, in its limited arenas of permissibility, it not a prescribed teaching. It is a necessary reaction, but only insofar as rooted in a prior redemptive proactivity. Reactively, we disobey when called to deny Christ, but we do not initiate such conflict, and we engage in no vigilante action. We initiate in accordance with an appeal to the power of the image of God; we initiate a radical ethos of civil obedience.

   Simply put: civil obedience is prescribed for the church as a proactive ethic in culture (cf. Romans 12:9-13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:9-17; 3:8-22; 4:12-19.

Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn

   In the spring of 1989, I initiated a Christian witness at New England’s largest abortion center, Preterm, in Brookline, Massachusetts, adjacent to Boston, which later I called the Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn. Preterm was then performing about 10,000 abortions a year. Over a two-year period we maintained a weekly presence on Saturday mornings. Usually we had from a dozen to three dozen people; on a number of occasions we had 50 or more, and several occasions we had large turnouts, including our first time on June 3, 1989, with some 225 participating. Activists from the Boston chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) were also there for the first nine months in equal numbers, but afterward called it off because, according to one of their leaders, we "were persuading too many of them."

The Strategy

   In these assemblies, we had several points of strategy. First was a visible presence augmented by banners and signs. Second was a peaceful and conversational presence where we sought to engage abortion-rights protestors, police, passersby, "escorts," guards and others in honest dialogue. Third was worship, including song and prayer in various capacities. And fourth was the eventual development of The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy (found under the Mars Hill Society icon). It all involved a specific embrace of spiritual warfare, where we were seeking to break the demonic forces present, and to see the Spirit of God touch the hearts and minds of all those involved with Preterm in any capacity, especially the women coming for abortions.

   In the first element of our strategy, we had two large banners, each about six feet in width, and three-and-a-half feet in height. One banner was at the front of Preterm, on the sidewalk on Beacon Street, and the other on the side street near the rear entrance and parking lot.

   The banners had white block letters against a green background (like a highway sign), and easily visible from quite a distance:

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE LIFE

   We also had some signs (three by two feet in size) that said the same, with the same colors. Then we had ten (now eleven – #3 is the new one) sets of yellow signs with black letters, that posed rhetorical questions, also designed to be clearly visible against any surrounding. These read:

1. AREN’T YOU GLAD YOU WEREN’T ABORTED?
2. WHY DO YOU FEEL NO CHOICE BUT ABORTION?
3. IS IT YOUR CHOICE, OR HIS CHOICE, FOR YOU TO ABORT?
4. HOW DOES HUMAN ABORTION ADD TO YOUR OWN DIGNITY?
5. MIGHT YOU REGRET THIS ABORTION SOMEDAY?
6. CAN ANYTHING GOOD BE SAID ABOUT HUMAN ABORTION?
7. DOES GOOD CHOICE NURTURE LIFE, OR DESTROY LIFE?
8. WHY DOES THE HUMAN FETUS FIGHT TO STAY ALIVE?
9. IF FEMINISM = HUMAN CARE, WHY DESTROY THE UNBORN HUMAN?
10. CAN LAW OR CHOICE EXIST WITHOUT A DEFINITION OF HUMAN LIFE?
11. CAN YOU IMAGINE JESUS PERFORMING AN ABORTION? WHY NOT?

   In the language of the banner, the first six words equal the centerpiece of feminist sympathies: "You have the power to choose ...." And pagan feminist thinking believes the concept of the power to choose is their formulation of an identity in stark opposition to a biblical worldview.

   The words "you have the power" strengthens this language of acknowledgment, and in adding "power," feminist yearnings find resonance. This is further symphonized with the addition of choice – "You have the power to choose ...." These six words are as central to all feminist theories as any summation can make. We know that the abortion choice is largely the result of male chauvinisms, and many feminists and abortion-rights activists are in painful reaction to having been so violated.

   When the final four-letter word is added to the phrase, "You have the power to choose life," the de facto feminist ethic of misinformed choice is revealed. The power of informed choice requires accurate definition of terms, it requires an acknowledgment of reality. When "life" is put in, the object of "pro-choice" is no longer amorphous. It takes on flesh, it becomes real in its consequences. The power to choose? The power to choose what? Are all choices equal (e.g., dualism), or are some good and some evil?

   The questions were all designed to be intelligent and thought-provoking, and not accusatory. Over two years worth of Saturdays, we saw as many as 200 women turn away from their abortion appointments. Hundreds of honest discussions occurred with abortion rights activists and others who were there, and many anecdotes are relayed in Vol. 2 of First the Gospel, Then Politics...

The Power of the Banner

   As an example, on September 30, 1989, I was not present at Preterm, but I received a detailed report from several witnesses to one of the most signal examples of the power of this slogan. At the rear entrance, two volunteers were holding up the banner, with other pro-life volunteers also present. One was Sue O’Connell, a volunteer who with her husband would travel nearly 100 miles from Amherst, Massachusetts, and they were as regular as any of our volunteers. That morning, Sue’s eight-year old daughter, Kelly, was also with her.

   Sue and the others were positioned on the sidewalk next to the entrance to the parking lot, and from the lot people coming to Preterm would then enter the rear door. There were about eight "escorts" positioned by the door, many dozens of feet away from Sue and Kelly, each wearing aprons designating their escort status. These were women and men, serving as volunteers (I was told) to Preterm, to "guard" incoming "clients" from being harassed by "anti-choice zealots." Since the parking lot was private property, our volunteers never went onto it from their public sidewalk positions.

   This particular morning, a college-age woman walked down the street and was preparing to cross the lot to the rear door. As she did, she stopped, looked at the banner and pondered its words. Sue offered her some printed literature, and the young woman was preparing to receive it. But during those moments, the eight escorts saw what was happening and quickly came up and surrounded her, creating a human blockade around her with arms linked. This was a common practice such escorts developed to shield women when trying to break through an Operation Rescue blockade wall. Blockade against blockade, force against force, human angst against human angst. So it was tragicomical to witness their intensity of forming such a blockade where there was no physical interference to such women as they entered the abortion center. But they had a deeper fear – that abortion-minded women might intelligently reconsider their choice, and seek some informed input from a different perspective. Thus, these escorts started shouting and chanting so as to prevent her from hearing anything Sue might say, and especially to prevent any printed literature from coming her way. Thus they forced her into the doors of Preterm by such a surrounding tactic, being careful not to physically touch her and run afoul of the law.

   One witness to the event told me that as much as he opposed the tactic of blockade, the sight of the woman being hustled inside made him so frustrated that he emotionally wanted to physically intervene. As he wrestled with these thoughts, eight-year old Kelly O’Connell started praying out loud and with the strength of child-like faith, as she rebuked the devil, his deceit and his influence upon that young woman, and commanded in Jesus’s name that she would come out of Preterm. And within minutes the woman did, shaken in countenance, making her way back to Sue and the others, where she received some materials and went her way. A triumph for the biblical power of informed choice. By God’s grace, not by answering coercion and lawlessness with opposing coercion and lawlessness – but by answering with prayer.

   Thus the banner, in its summation of biblical theology, "You have the power to choose life," has a power that abortion-rights activists are unable to answer. When Yahweh said to Cain that he must overcome his sin, and when Moses and Joshua told the Jews to choose between life and death, between the true God and the false gods, he was saying that they "have the power" to do so. Not the intrinsic ability within sinful humanity to overcome evil, but the broken remains of God’s image within them are sufficient by God’s grace to discern truth from falsehood, and to say "help me Lord," at which point he sends his help. By acknowledging this "power" within hurting people, we serve the reversal of the reversal, and redeem the language of choice to serve human life, not to destroy it.

The Power of the Questions

   Our ten signs also proved effective at having women stop and reconsider their intentions, and effective at catalyzing conversations with the abortion-rights activists. I conceived of them the day before our first chorus, and they remained almost unchanged for our entire two years at Preterm, and as we changed them from cardboard signs to more durable materials.

   On September 9, 1989, as we began to be present every Saturday, and the numbers of people equaled about 40 on each side, I saw some of the fruit of how deeply these signs affected the abortion-rights activists. A woman representing the "Reproductive Rights Network" ("R2N2" as her signs also said) had taken the time to make six signs, each numbered correspondingly to our signs (as then numbered, as in the meantime I have added a new #3, and the old #3 becomes #4 etc.). In each case they sought to answer the questions we had posed. I was delighted. She was trying to have other abortion-rights activists hold up her signs, but almost without success. So I went to strike up a conversation with her, and thanked her for having taken the time to answer our questions in such a fashion. I asked her if she were interested in talking about her answers, but she was very tense, distrustful, and did not want to talk. Yet she could not resist asking me some questions, and as I answered, she relaxed somewhat. I then asked her if I could copy down the words from her signs, and she was hesitant, and then allowed me to do so, as long as I did not harm any of her signs. So I sat on the sidewalk and copied their words down:

Question #1: Aren’t you glad you weren’t aborted?

Answer #1: My mother is pro-choice and I am glad that she was not forced to bear an unwanted child.

Question #2: Why do you feel no choice but abortion?

No Answer:

Question #3: How does human abortion add to your own dignity?

Answer #3: The right to abortion adds to every woman’s dignity because it allows women to control their lives. No religion can be allowed to limit or dictate choice!

Question #4: Might you regret this abortion someday?

Answer #4: No. Women who have been able to obtain abortions maintain that it was the right decision. They have put a lot of thought into exercising their right.

Question #5: Can anything good be said about human abortion?

No Answer:

Question #6: Does good choice nurture life, or destroy life?

Answer #6: Good choice nurtures the lives of women.

Question #7: Why does the human fetus fight to stay alive?

Answer #7: A fetus is not a human being. It is dependent on a woman’s life and cannot survive outside her womb.

Question #8: If feminism = human care, why destroy the unborn human?

Answer #8: Feminism = freedom from oppression and harassment. Help women exercise their right to accessible, legal abortion. Save women’s lives.

Question #9: Is not all law based on a prior definition of human life?

No Answer:

Question #10: Can you imagine Jesus performing an abortion? Why not?

No Answer:

   When I composed our signs, I had certain words underlined, words which were meant to quickly touch a point of response of the image of God in the readers. As well, the signs made no negative statements about or caricatures of any people, groups or political affiliations, but instead sought to get women to think in terms of their own dignity and power to make the right choice.

   In reviewing this woman’s selective responses, I had opportunity to reflect upon words which she had carefully chosen, and cared about deeply enough to commit to public language. And in her words, I see a reflection of the motivating pain behind the abortion-rights movement – the nature of male chauvinism.

   In my first question, the focus was on you, getting women to think about their own humanity, their possession of life and gratefulness for it. With the R2N2 woman’s response, I see aversion of the question. She did not say she was not glad to be alive (unaborted), but rather focused on her mother’s dignity being preserved in resistance to being "forced." 2N2 woman must have been hurting enough to deflect the purpose of the question.

   The R2N2 woman did not answer the second question. Perhaps she did not have time to prepare answers to all ten, and she chose the six she felt most interested in, or for which she was most able to give some answer. Or perhaps she, like many abortion-rights activists, was a woman who once had an abortion, one where she felt no choice as the father of the child refused any responsibility. Then in her pain at such chauvinistic treatment, she conflated an attempt to rationalize some dignity on her part by saying she had a choice to have an abortion, although her boyfriend actually gave her no choice. Maybe this was not the case with the R2N2 woman, but her answers indicate much pain, and such a scenario I have proposed has been true for too many other women.

   (The new question #3 builds on question #2 with more specificity about the male influence, and hence his chauvinism.)

   In her answer to (the original) question #3, the argument that "the right to abortion" adds dignity because "it allows women to control their lives," again seems to be a reaction against the chauvinistic treatment by men. And then her answer reflects an emphatic fear of impositional religion, which is a subject not even in view in this question. As well, all our signs, along with the banner, along with our non-blockade presence, equaled the opposite of limiting or dictating choice.

   Even yet, though we try our best to succeed at the metaethics of language, some people have been violated too much by organized religion to see through their own pain to the substance of what we are trying to say. Our mere presence was interpreted viscerally on their part as a shoving of unwelcome religion down their throats. At times like this, gentleness in spirit, preceded by prayer, and augmented by eyeball to eyeball respect for her dignity as an image-bearer of God, is all the more important as we seek to hurdle these obstacles. As she relaxed a bit in my brief conversation with her, hopefully this was due to something of the goodness of the true Gospel touching her.

   In the R2N2 woman’s answer to question #4, the "no" answer seems defensive as much as it does personal. Most women do regret their abortions, modestly or completely, and the reality of post-abortion trauma is real and pervasive. And for many who say they do not regret it, a legitimate question is raised as to what extent a denial mechanism is in place to help salve the emotional pain. This woman may have had an abortion herself, and put much thought into it, though her sign put it in the third person. (And my experience leads me to view this as the likely scenario.) And having done so, no regrets are possible without an identity crisis such as the subconscious might suggest. And whereas she might have put much thought into it, many women being hurried off to an abortion appointment have not, and they are the ones that such a sign can reach at the last moment.

   Question #5 went unanswered. Human abortion is an act of intrinsic destruction, and very hard to rationalize as "anything good." In the ten signs, the choice of what words were underlined sought an overall balance in focus, and this is the only one that actually focuses on the word abortion itself. In so doing, it focuses on the human nature of its object. It is all in an attempt to help focus on the humanity of the unborn child, which only in the touching of the mother’s humanity, can we help to serve his or her rescue.

   The answer to question #6 is again selective and defensive. It gives a true statement, but perhaps a false implication. Namely, the choice of human abortion does not serve womanhood’s intrinsic nature, and only rarely is it necessary to actually save her life from an otherwise septic condition coincidental with pregnancy. If such rare cases were the sole focus of "abortion-rights," there would be no political turmoil. Good choice does not deliberately destroy human life.

   In the answer to question #7, the denial of the unborn child’s humanity is the only recourse. Interestingly, the Latin word fetus simply means "young one" in the personal and human sense. And yes, the fetus is dependent upon mom’s womb, and indeed we are all dependent consistently upon the womb of the earth’s ecosphere for daily survival. The R2N2 woman could have been asked, rhetorically in response, "And upon whom is a woman’s life dependent? Her mother, father and the ecosphere, et al. and etc.? Who is not in some sense always dependent upon others?" And the R2N2 woman avoided the question of the fight. Namely, regardless of the semantics employed to dehumanize the unborn, we are all genetically programmed from our conceptions to be eager for life, to fight to live.

   This eagerness is pre-conscious, and it energizes our self-awareness as it comes into full flower. The abortionist’s scalpel must literally chase the unborn child inside his or her sanctuary in order to kill. The unborn child instinctively fights to stay alive, a point of identification which may help some abortion-minded women reconsider. But for the R2N2 woman, her pain of being hurt by religiously chauvinistic imposition may have been too great for her to be willing to so identify with the unborn – even an unborn child as she was once herself.

   The answer to question #8 is theologically most revealing. In the prior seven questions, I focused principally on the women coming in for an abortion appointment, seeking to empower them to choose life. Question #8 was aimed at the feminists present, asking them to consider the meaning of their own self-defining term of feminism. Feminist theory in its many permutations says specifically that if the world were run by women, and not by (chauvinistic) men, then we would have a more peaceful and ecologically friendly planet. Feminism is thus advertised as equaling "human care," and I sought in this question to link that assertion with caring for the unborn human. The R2N2 woman avoided this linkage and stated that feminism equals freedom from harassment. Amen – and only the power of informed choice can provide such freedom. But only because of the prior reality of Yahweh’s power to give. Here the contrast between Genesis and all other sources for human identity is clear. The highest view of freedom outside of only Genesis is a negative freedom, a freedom from violation. But until violation is understood, freedom from it is not possible. Unless the order of creation, the reversal and the reversal of the reversal are understood, true freedom cannot be grasped.

   Question #9 was designed as the one legal question, for any lawyers, government officials or even police officers who might take notice of it. As I describe my strategy for winning the legal protection of the unborn, the centrality of this question will be more fully understood. The question was phrased differently at the outset, changed slightly later, and she was reacting to the earlier phrasing.

   Finally, question #10 addressed a theological concern, and the only one which I simultaneously answered, in this case with a rhetorical question. Given the R2N2 woman’s response to question #3 where she imported the question of religion, this might seem like a question that would have sparked a response on her part. The reason it did not, I suppose, is that it is one thing to castigate "religion" as an institution or force that oppresses people, and another thing to castigate Jesus as a person. In all of history, very few if any people have ever said anything negative about Jesus as a person, other than the religious and political elitists who opposed him when he was in the flesh – and as they did so knowingly without just cause. Even such elitists today are most hesitant to do so. His reputation is so singular, and also, who can honestly imagine the Son of God, who healed the lame and the blind, delivered the demonized and raised the dead – who could imagine him giving countenance to the surgical or chemical destruction of an unborn human child, on the ostensible grounds of the "right to choose"?

   Once when I was holding this sign at Preterm, a woman abortion-rights supporter approached me and said how she resented me "forcing" religion on her. I asked her how I was doing this, and she pointed to my sign (original #10). I then asked how the sign "forced" religion on her, and she said that the mere introduction of the name of Jesus into such a political issue equaled such a "forcing."

   She was receptive to dialogue, so I explained how the posing of the question was exactly that – a question. It required nothing of her and made no demands of her attention or action. It was one of ten questions we were posing, and the only one with explicit religious content. In fact, she was free not to read it or any of the other questions, and I was exercising my freedom of political expression in the use of such a sign, just as the abortion-rights supporters were doing with their own signs. She was at Preterm by her own volition, and no force was being applied to her to make her read the signs. As well, I noted that the question only has as much influence on people’s thoughts and actions to the degree that they regard Jesus as someone whose person and teachings matter to them. If they believe Jesus is Lord and Savior, then the question raises a critical issue; if they regard Jesus as a mere human teacher, then the question raises concerns proportionate to how they view his teachings; if they do not give a whit about Jesus, then the question means nothing. I explained that many women coming in for an abortion have been raised with some sort of Christian teaching, and that my question might affect them positively as they intelligently reconsider their plans – that this equals the power of informed choice, the opposite of forcing religion on someone. For those abortion-minded women who do not care about what Jesus might think of abortion, the sign poses no force against their decision. Then I briefly profiled the nature of the power of informed choice, and her freedom to disregard the question if Jesus meant nothing to her.

   Her response was lovely. She apologized for having misinterpreted the purpose of the sign, and thanked me for my explanation. I left it there. I did not probe about her opinion of Jesus Christ, nor was it appropriate at that juncture. The ethics of a biblical evangelism at this point is concerned with letting the Gospel be seen as Good News, and from there to trust the Holy Spirit to work in her heart and mind. She did not follow through with other questions, so I did not press her. But it was obvious that she thanked me for a gift given – an explanation for her gut level reaction to the question, and therefore I could see how her mind and emotions were happily catalyzed into considering what Jesus meant to her.

The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy

   Our worship in song was a central element of the strategy; and service to the ministry of the sidewalk counselors was the fourth element.

   Essentially, we began with guitarists who led us in contemporary choruses and classic hymns – choosing songs where the theology was strong, the melodies delightful and the appeal wide in terms of the cross-section of the believing churches. When we did not have a guitarist on hand, we sang a cappella. In the best scenario, there were always people worshiping in song and prayer, while others were conversing with abortion-rights advocates, while sidewalk counselors were doing their work, and while the banner was being displayed and the signs with their questions being held. Some people only engaged in the worship element, and never held a sign or engaged in conversation with the abortion-rights advocates. Some people concentrated on the signs and witness elements. People participated at the level they chose. And at singular times, we would gather as a whole group for worship, with the signs being held in the assembly, the banners being maintained at curbside and at the rear entrance.

   By the spring of 1990, I developed a more concerted worship strategy, revolving around what I called The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy, and we were able to use it on various occasions.

_____________________________________________________________

The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy

   Leader: We gather here today to seek God’s mercy, to stop the killing of the unborn in this place. Hear the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

   People: This is what the LORD says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you."

   Leader: The Valley of Ben Hinnom in 600 B.C. was used for places of Topheth, where infant children were burned alive to the Canaanite god Baal. Topheth means a fireplace for child sacrifice. Today we stand in front of an abortion center where human life is destroyed. It is a modern, updated Topheth shrine.

   People: "Say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle.’ "

   Leader: Judah faced God’s judgment in 586 B.C., with their destruction as a nation and exile to Babylon. To the extent that this nation sanctions and continues the practice of human abortion, we invite God’s judgment.

   People: " ‘For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods, they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent." ’ "

   Leader: In the idolatry of Baal, the Hebrew people were seduced into believing that by burning their infant children alive they could gain fertility, peace and prosperity. Today we see an "idolatry of choice" where "choice" becomes a false god used to destroy unborn human life, instead of true choice which nurtures all human life.

   In a life disrupted by a crisis pregnancy, human abortion is sold as a means to regain a lost sense of peace, order, stability and hope. But human abortion does not restore these shattered remains of God’s image. Rather, it only fractures a broken life more deeply yet. This is idolatry, and we Christians are just as vulnerable to idolatry apart from God’s grace.

   People: " ‘They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.’ "

   Leader: This abortion center is a modern Topheth shrine, and a precursor to our own nation’s judgment, to our own Valley of Slaughter. The victimizers will become the victims, and one day human abortion will be remembered not as a woman’s freedom or empowerment, but of her and her nation’s slaughter. A slaughter not only of the unborn, but of women’s dignity and men’s dignity as life-nurturing humans.

   People: " ‘In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed upon them by the enemies who seek their lives.’ "

   Leader: Jerusalem’s idolatrous sacrifice of her infant children led to a literal cannibalism. This nation’s destruction of her unborn progeny cries out for a modern equivalent. Family fratricide, social disintegration, drug abuse, sexual abuse, violent crime and coercive euthanasia equal the "writing on the wall."

   The harvesting and cloning of human embryos for research and transplants is its own form of human cannibalism. And why do we presume that we are above the descent into literal cannibalism one day? From the ground beneath our feet there cries out the blood of millions of unborn American citizens. We will reap what we have sown, apart from God’s mercy which triumphs over judgment for those who seek God.

   People: "Then break the jar while those who go with you are watching, and say to them, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter’s jar is smashed and cannot be repaired.’ "

   Leader: The jar Jeremiah used was similar to that used to bury the charred remains of the sacrificed children. And the parents truly wept as they buried them. This is the terror of idolatry. But today, the idolatry of human abortion hides the terrible act of its destruction within the machinery of the suction apparatus. There are no coffins, no tombstones, and too often the grief remains hidden and festering.

   As surely as Jeremiah’s breaking of the symbolic clay jar signaled God’s impending judgment, we believe God pronounces judgment upon the sites and apparatus of human abortion, and upon those who cling to its idolatry while mocking the Lord and Giver of life. As Jerusalem became like Topheth, so too will the ethos of human abortion kill the culture that enshrines it.

   Therefore I break this jar as a prayer for God to bring an end to the evil of human abortion, and the male chauvinisms that undergird it. We thus proclaim God’s love to the women and their unborn children so victimized. I also break this jar as a symbol to break the powers of darkness which govern the abortion mind-set. In the name of Jesus the Messiah, let it be.

   [break jar]

   People: " ‘They will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. This is what I will do to this place and to those who live here, declares the LORD. I will make this city like Topheth. The houses in Jerusalem and those of the kings of Judah will be defiled in this place, Topheth – all the houses where they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts and poured out drink offerings to other gods.’ "

   Leader: When Jeremiah broke the clay jar, he declared that he was not the Judge. He trusted God as the only righteous Judge, and faithfully called upon King Zedekiah and the other leaders to put an end to the shedding of innocent blood. To do so, they had to first put away the sin of worshiping the stars, which leads to human sacrifice.

   Likewise we trust in God and the power of loving persuasion in the public arena. No people are our enemies, even those who perform or support human abortion. Only the devil and his demonic host are our enemies. Thus we seek to win hearts and minds through the truth, love and beauty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We seek the fullest dignity for women and their unborn children equally.

   People: Thus we affirm:

No to gunfire.

No to blockade.

No to human abortion.

No to male chauvinism.

Yes to the image of God in all people – born and unborn.

Yes to informed choice which serves human life.

Yes to the power to give in face of the power to take.

Yes to the power to bless in the face of the power to curse.

Yes to the power of love in face of the power to hate.

Yes to the Good News of Jesus the Messiah.

   Jeremiah then returned from Topheth, where the LORD had sent him to prophesy, and stood in the court of the LORD’s temple and said to all the people, "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Listen! I am going to bring on this city and the villages around it every disaster I pronounced against them, because they were stiff-necked and would not listen to my words.’ "

   Leader: In all we do, we celebrate the biblical ethics of the power to give and the biblical power of informed choice. We celebrate the religious and political freedom of our sworn opponents to argue their own positions. We expect no more civil liberties in this democratic republic than we first commend to all other law abiding citizens. We are here to persuade for the choice of human life and against the choice of human abortion. Our opponents are free, and indeed invited, to try and persuade us otherwise – if possible.

   People: Jeremiah also says, "See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death." And Moses says, "Now choose life." So listen to the words of Jeremiah spoken to King Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood."

   Leader: Jeremiah promised peace for Israel if King Zedekiah were to obey. The same promise is before us today, if we as a nation, beginning with our leaders, would turn away from the slaughter of unborn human children.

   If there is no God in heaven who judges the acts of men and women, and if Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, then our opponents can be at ease. For if that is the case, all we do is break a piece of pottery in an act of feebleness.

   But if God is God, then this symbol of the broken jar is inescapable. The idolatry of human abortion is in direct opposition to the Creator and Author of human life. And we shall all stand at the judgment seat of God one day.

   Forgiveness is offered to all who seek it, and it is complete in its healing of past sorrow and guilt for those who dare to believe.

   People: We say to all who would listen:

   You have the power to choose life, if you dare to believe it and ask God for it.

   If you do not have this power, what power and choice do you have?

   If you have power and choice, why not use it?

   Courageous and compelling choice always nurtures human life, and in Jesus Christ, such courage, power and choice is uniquely available.

   Amen.

______________________________________________________________________

   We used the liturgy perhaps a dozen times, and it was powerful. On June 16, 1990, we had a Sacred Assembly for the Unborn with about 50-60 Christians present, mostly from one church, including some fifteen young children. About a dozen abortion-rights activists were also present, in one of their rarer appearances those days, and these were people mostly from ACT-UP ("AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power"), the militant homosexual group. During that morning I was able to share Christ with one of the ACT-UP leaders for about two hours.

   When it came time for gathering and reciting the liturgy, some six or eight of the abortion-rights activists stood by observing. One of them was trying to mock it with taunts and laughter, but her compatriots did not follow suit. Instead they were listening attentively to each word. When the jar was smashed on the sidewalk, as on the other occasions when we conducted the liturgy, its symbolic power merged with true spiritual power. There was complete quiet for several moments before I continued with the liturgy, and the one mocking woman was also silenced, not to resume her taunts again. The children were specially intrigued as well.

   In the smashing of the jar we are imitating Jeremiah’s use of the symbol as Yahweh commanded him. In the smashing dynamic, the visual encounter with this destruction conveys to the mind the larger prospect of the destruction of a city or nation, as Babylon in particular ravaged Jerusalem and Judah in 586 B.C. It causes people to become more pensive in considering God’s prerogative and promise to judge sin – and such reflection is on the side of the angels. The catalyzing of thought is our radical goal, necessary before actions can be reformed. This we witnessed here and in other instances, though this may have only been one of several times when there were any abortion-rights activists present apart from the escorts. Thus I was eager to gauge their response, as I would love to see hundreds of counter-protestors every time we were to be present at an abortion center. I am eager for them to encounter the word of God in all its truth and beauty, and I know how such a liturgy conveys God’s judgment upon human abortion while extending mercy to those who would repent.

   After the liturgy was concluded that morning, we began to sing a praise song, and I squatted and began picking up the pieces of the broken jar. Within moments at least six of the children, ages two to seven, were all around me, spontaneously picking up whatever pieces they could find, reverently and in absolute quiet, and placing them into my hand.

   The strength of childlikeness had been catalyzed to crush the works of the devil. After the song, I addressed the group for two minutes, conscious that I also had the undivided attention of the abortion-rights activists. I spoke of what a profound parable this seemed to me:

   "Here we are, in front of an abortion center where adults use technology to break little humans into pieces. And here we are, observing little children, who in seeing brokenness, respond with shock, and instinctively desire to pick up the broken pieces and put them back together."

   I spoke of Jesus’s words in Matthew 18, how we must become as little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. As I did, I looked straight at the abortion-rights activists, and I saw the convicting power of the Holy Spirit begin to penetrate past the pain and defenses. The natural reaction of the little children spoke reams about the nature of the Good News, of shalom coming into a broken world through the work of the Messiah. "Come to me," says Jesus, "all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy portrayed the judgment graphically and in biblical order, so that the mercy which triumphs over the judgment could be grasped. In this one moment of time, of theological kairos (a specific and significant moment in time), the liturgy served the proclamation of the Gospel to people who would not be willing to stop long enough to otherwise consider it. We need to see this power released as often and as widely as possible. An abortion center is a place where the devil tramples hopes and dreams, a place where the Gospel sorely needs to be proclaimed.

###