Monday, December 15, 2014

Playing with matches


In the recent past I noted that AHA needs to be more cautious about who they work with. Unfortunately, my admonition was greeted with knee-jerk hostility. 

Here's another case in point: according to one AHA source, AHA is committed to nonviolence:


Now, I say "one source," because AHA keeps telling us that AHA is not an "organization" or parachurch ministry. But in that event there's nobody in authority to speak in an official capacity regarding what AHA stands for.

However, I'll let that pass for now and move on to my main point. Compare AHA's nonviolent policy with this:

Matthew Trewhella made this presentation at the Against the World – For the World Conference conducted by Abolish Human Abortion in Memphis, Tennessee on November 1st, 2014. The presentation defines the doctrine and demonstrates the necessity of the interposition of lower magistrates for total abolition of abortion. 
https://lessermagistrate.com/powerpoint-presentation-of-lesser-magistrate-doctrine/
That raises questions of consistency. For instance, Trewhella was a signatory to the following statement:
We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.  
http://www.armyofgod.com/defense.html

The clear implication of that analogy is that lethal force is sometimes legitimate or necessary to defend the life of the unborn. 

In subsequent developments:
Trewhella had, in 1994, signed this statement, which says he and others feel it's OK to be violent against abortionists. One of the other signatories later shot two people at an abortion clinic.  
But he tells me that he pulled his name from the statement about six months after he signed it, when it became clear to him that Paul Hill and others took the statement as a justification for doing violence themselves. Trewhella says he does not advocate using physical force against abortionists. 
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/31907074.html

But given what the statement actually says, which he originally signed, he apparently removed his name, not because he changed his mind, but because it became inexpedient to be associated with the other signatories. To put it bluntly, at that point he was covering his posterior. 

In addition, he eulogized Paul Hill: Among other things, he said:

What I learned is that he is not a madman or a flake as some have tried to dismiss him, rather he is a brother in Christ who has rational, biblical reasons for his actions which landed him in prison. 
It has long been established in law, not to mention Holy Scripture, that it is legitimate to use force in order to defend other persons from bodily harm. Therefore, this idea that the use of force or violence on behalf of the preborn is “unthinkable” or “wrong” is nonsense. However, it is legitimate to question whether Paul used the proper amount of force or too much.  
Paul was not allowed to discuss “why” he shot the abortionist at his trial. He was not allowed to discuss his intent. 
http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/mtp_articles.html#paulhill

The clear implication is that assassinating an abortionist is, in principle, a legitimate use of force. 

Likewise, intent would only be germane if that was exculpatory, which would only be exculpatory if intent makes that a case of justifiable homicide.

He abruptly ends on this note:

For those who may be wondering, we here at Missionaries to the Preborn remain committed to non-violent action on behalf of the the preborn, but that does not mean that we will disparage those who use force, for to do so is to repudiate the humanity of the preborn.
But in light of what he just said, that's a throwaway disclaimer. He's having his cake and eating it too. Why would he be committed to nonviolent action given his stated position that lethal force is legitimate or even necessary? 
This seems like a situation in which you first say what you really mean, then attach a declaimer to buy you plausible deniability. A declaimer that's incongruous with what you just said. A wink and a nod. 

21 comments:

  1. Hey everybody! Look! There are a lot of Christians coming together all over the word to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into conflict with the evil of abortion, Let's do everything we can to make sure that doesn't continue to happen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, you don't care whether collaborating with Trewhella is contrary to your stated nonviolent philosophy?

      Delete
    2. I think what he meant to say was, "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

      Delete
    3. LanternBright, the problem with you statement above is to infer that everything else on the face of the abolitionist movement looks just fine. The problem with this is that we know this is not what many of the critics of the abolitionist movement are really thinking. So they end up picking on things that I would call "the path of least resistance" instead of dealing with the core of the matter.

      The abolitionist movement, has never hidden itself behind a curtain or anything else. The movement as spelled out on the AHA website and on the countless blogs, Youtube channels, and other social networking sites has been about the most transparent movement ever. You see the ideology spelled out and lived out everywhere. And almost without exception they are consistent with one another.

      So now we see a critic, who to anyone being honest here sees this as a disingenuous intent, points out one potential inconsistency, and you make a statement that implies the abolitionists are hiding something. Or are in comparison to a con-artist or charlatan.

      For arguments sake, let's suppose that the abolitionists have made a mistake of inconsistency in endorsing the words and sermons of a man who has failed to condemn the use of violence in all cases. If that is the case, then what do you make of that? What follows from that. Are you saying that the abolitionist movement is then a violent movement? Or is it an inconsistency that should just be called out or asked to be explained?

      I will pose the same question I posed to Steve, how much does this really matter to you? Or is it a whole lot more than just this?

      Delete
    4. The question at issue isn't what it means to me, but what it means to you and other abolitionists. It's your movement, not mine. AHA is hosting a man to train volunteers in political philosophy who defends the legitimacy or even necessity of lethal force against abortionists. After that became too hot to handle, he evidently assumed a lower rhetorical profile. But I haven't seen him repudiate his earlier statements or endorsements.

      What does that mean to you? If AHA professes nonviolence, but gives a man like that a podium, does that mean anything to you? If not, then why should we take AHA disclaimers seriously? On the one hand there's what you say on paper. On the other hand there's who you collaborate with.

      Moreover, if you don't want your movement to go the way of the Weather Underground, you need to disown people like Trewhella. Otherwise, you're playing a double game.

      Furthermore, you haven't shown why there needs to be "a whole lot more than this."? Is Trewhella an essential ally to AHA? If not, why hitch your wagon to a falling star?

      Delete
    5. Just b/c Trewhella spoke to a gathering of abolitionists doesn't mean that we do or have to agree with everything he has ever said on any topic. It means that we thought he had helpful things to say on THAT topic. You do the same thing on your blog - you allow contributors who don't agree with you on certain issues. That's well and good. Allow us the same thing, please.

      You should take abolitionists' commitment to non-violence seriously b/c that's what Christians are supposed to do - take each other at their word absent a good reason not to. Love believes all things. Many times we have been confronted with the opportunity to respond with violence to evil done before our eyes and to us, yet we respond peacefully. I am begging you for the sake of your own conscience and credibility - don't say things like this.

      You say - there's who we collaborate with. This coming from a man whose related argument about Jered Ragon would've meant the early Christians should have refused to let the Apostle Paul anywhere near them. That argument has been met and soundly refuted. Also, do you have some evidence that Trewhella has ever actually engaged in violence? I'd like to see it.

      Delete
    6. NormanAbolition

      

"You should take abolitionists' commitment to non-violence seriously b/c that's what Christians are supposed to do - take each other at their word absent a good reason not to."

      Your stated commitment to nonviolence is subverted by who you work with.

      "I am begging you for the sake of your own conscience and credibility - don't say things like this."

      You're not the arbiter of my credibility. Moreover, if you're truly concerned about credibility, you need to engage the argument I presented.

      "This coming from a man whose related argument about Jered Ragon would've meant the early Christians should have refused to let the Apostle Paul anywhere near them. That argument has been met and soundly refuted."

      To the contrary, I rebutted that comparison. You present no counterargument.

      "Also, do you have some evidence that Trewhella has ever actually engaged in violence? I'd like to see it."

      That's a revealing distinction. An abolitionist who endorses lethal force in principle, but delegates the dirty work to others. Let others take the risk. Let others play the fall guy.

      Delete
    7. Same person, but I just changed the avatar and profile name. Sorry about that.

      I disagree that our commitment is subverted by relating to people who have also never engaged in violence.

      We haven't really made it a high priority to engage many of these AHA-related arguments because we don't really think there is a lot of merit to them, and you have already resisted biblical correction vis-à-vis Jered Ragon. So, as always, let the reader judge.

      Do you have some evidence that Trewhella exhorted anyone to take violent action? Do you know why Trewhella decided not to take the action himself? You seem to imply it's because he was afraid or something. I wonder what evidence you have to substantiate that.

      Delete
    8. "There are a lot of Christians coming together all over the word to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into conflict with the evil of killing abortion providers, Let's do everything we can to make sure that doesn't continue to happen!"

      Fixed it for you.

      Delete
    9. I'm afraid it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though. Sure, it's evil to murder abortion providers, but 99.9999999% of the population already thinks that, it's illegal, it's happened maybe a dozen times in recent memory, the people who did it got convicted and imprisoned, and there is no sizable movement to legitimise it.

      Meanwhile, 3500 children are murdered every day. The number of abortion providers that has been killed is matched by the number of dead babies in less than an hour.

      What point were you trying to make?

      Delete
  2. What Paul Hill did was heroic and self-sacrificial. Thank you Mr. Trewhella for standing up for the least of these.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pardon. Pastor Trewhella.

      Delete
    2. I know Steve Hays thinks abortion is murder, but it's hard to see how he acts like it.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. What Paul Hill did was a violation of the fifth commandment. Abortion providers, despite their evil acts, are human beings with intrinsic worth and dignity, just like the unborn. Gunning them down in the street is not following the Gospel. (sorry about the earlier comment, I deleted it accidentally)

      Delete
    5. May I ask in what way you have loved your unborn neighbor this month, JoAnna?

      Delete
    6. Business Casual,

      Are you a member of (or otherwise affiliated with) AHA?

      Delete
    7. AHA/NormanAbolition:

      i) Actually, you resisted my correction of Alan's disanalogous comparison.

      ii) To judge by how you're defending Trewhella, you evidently think it's okay to endorse the assassination of abortionists so long as you don't directly incite their assassination.

      Trewhella implied that assassinating abortionists is justified homicide and even necessary in some cases. Since you defend him when AHA professes nonviolence, that apparently means you don't commit violence yourself or personally exhort' others to do it. Rather, you approve of Trewhella's position that it's legitimate, then leave it to the reader to draw the practical conclusions for himself. You let a second party make the case on your behalf.

      If that's not your position, then why are you so committed to Trewhella?

      Delete
    8. Given his responses to JoAnna and "Business Casual", it seems AHA/NormanAbolition is implicitly approving of Paul Hill.

      Delete
  3. Abolish Human Abortion

    "I know Steve Hays thinks abortion is murder, but it's hard to see how he acts like it."

    I know Russell Hunter thinks euthanasia, child prostitution, and female genital mutilation are wrong, but it's hard to see how he acts like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abolish Human Abortion

      "I know Steve Hays thinks abortion is murder, but it's hard to see how he acts like it."

      How would you know what I think about abortion unless you've read my arguments? Making a case against abortion is in itself a proactive contribution to the cause.

      Delete