Zach’s Theological Musings

  That abortion is a unspeakably horrific act of murder against the most defenseless of human beings is an obvious moral fact which I have addressed, for example, in: Of Course It’s A Baby and Sonography (see also the entire abortion category on this blog, and don’t miss http://menaretheproblem.info while you’re at it). That the staggering scale of such murders for convenience’s sake makes “Holocaust rhetoric”, if anything, too gentle and mild is an obvious numerical fact which I have addressed, for example, in Postman (see also the numbers at the bottom of my abortion quotes page, all from pro-abortionist sources mind you). Thus when we hear that an abortionist/murderer such as Dr. George Tiller has been killed the natural question is, “Is it right or wrong to murder murderers to stop them from murdering?”, to which I am compelled to answer, at least at this point in my life, “Whew… hmm… that is a very important, very heavy, and very difficult question.”

  I must say I certainly don’t resonate with the majority of the American Christian pro-life movement that is so quick to stand up and unequivocally condemn the murder of an abortionist/murderer. Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, “hold on”, I want to scream. If we really believe in our own rhetoric, for example that a 9/11-scale slaughter is happening on our own (American) soil every single day, and if we applaud the soliders who go out to engage in bloody warfare following just one single 9/11 tragedy, then isn’t it at least worth considering the possibility that lethal force is justified to stop the actions of a determined, ongoing baby-killer? I think so. I really don’t want to make unfair blanket accusations about people’s motives, but I’ll just say that my impression from the writings of some such Christian leaders is that they are more interested in avoiding a public outcry than they are in grappling with the difficult issues and standing for the truth.

  On the other hand, I’ve read some of the writings of people who have been arrested for anti-abortionist violence (e.g. at the Army of God website) and I certainly don’t resonate with a lot of what they say either. What I hear coming from many of them is a rebellious attitude toward government in general. I really don’t want to make unfair blanket accusations about people’s motives, but I’ll just say that my impression from the writings of some such people is that what they really want most is to vent a lot of pent-up anger and “stick it” to the US government, and that killing an “abortion doctor” (oxymoron) is one way they can feel justified about doing so. But from a Biblical Christian perspective, it seems to me that the governments that Jesus (e.g. Luke 20:19-26), Paul (e.g. Romans 13), and Peter (e.g. 1 Peter 2) commanded submission to were entirely wicked themselves. A submissive attitude toward human authority is not contingent on the worthiness of that authority. We put ourselves under them because in doing so we are directly and indirectly submitting to God (see, e.g., how David treated wicked King Saul with respect as “God’s Anointed” until God saw fit to remove Saul from the throne and from the land of the living).

  Human life. Made in the image of God. The baby, the mother, the father, the abortionist, and the abortionist killer. Whew. To take a human life is a massive thing. For that reason I don’t think you’ll ever find me shouting and waving a banner that says, “Kill the abortionists! Kill the abortionists!” At the same time, and for the very same reason, I don’t think you’ll ever find me affirming James Dobson, Al Mohler, or the many other “pro-life Christians” in their categorical condemnation of those who murder murderers regardless of the thought process and motivations that such a person might have.

  There are just such weighty Biblical issues on both sides of the question: to murder (ongoing, determined) murderers or not to? It seems to me that many doctoral dissertations in Biblical ethics could struggle over the issue for hundreds of pages and not reach definitive resolution. Presently, I can only offer a mere sampling of the issues:

• The idea of an “inalienable right to life” bestowed by the Creator smells more of Jeffersonian-Americo-deist philosopy than it does Biblical theology. Ever since the Fall of our father Adam, man only has a right to death (Gen 3, etc.). Babies have no right to life, nor do abortion doctors have any right to life. But then, just as mere men don’t have the right to life, they neither have the right to kill. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything was so simple and straightforward as to say that no human being should ever be the agent of another human being’s demise. But wait! There is more nuance to the Biblical picture because…
• While the sixth of the ten commandments is, “Thou shalt not kill”, the same Jewish Scriptures command the armies of Israel to slaughter the Canaanites, and command communities to execute certain classes of criminals. While Jesus said, “Love your enemies”, “Turn the other cheek”, and “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, the same Christian Scriptures also teach that governing authorities “do not bear the sword for nothing”. It seems that the reconciliation of these various principles is that killing is not an individual prerogative but a responsibility (in the form of war or capital punishment) of societies, and in particular “God’s appointed” leaders of societies (which, to add to the tension, includes a great many very, very evil men—see Daniel 4). So we could be tempted to say that while those guilty of involvement in the abortion process deserve to be executed, it is only the government that has God-given authority to do so. That line of thinking might prompt us to go no further than seeking legal venues to make the consequences of abortion the same as the consequences for involvement in any other murder. Indeed, I am personally convinced that: 1) in a just society abortionists should be executed, yet 2) in a society as unjust as ours it is sinful and wrong for an individual to murder an abortionist/murderer with vigilante motives—that is, as punishment for previous crimes committed, no matter how horrible, that the government has failed to prosecute. But unfortunately the issue at hand is too complicated to stop there because…
• “Professional” abortionists/murderers are almost certainly determined to return to their gory crimes day after day after day. In fact many of them will proudly state their intention to continue providing their “services”. Now, it is one thing to try to take justice for past crimes into your own hands; it is another matter to respond when you see someone walking in a wholesale, brazen, committed, ongoing occupation of baby slaughter. Which brings us to…
• At least in the Old Testament, it seems that “self defense”, including defense of the larger “self” of your family and your people, at least in some cases (e.g. Ex 22:2), is not only a right but in fact the obligation of a godly man. There is nothing honorable about a man who cowers in the closet and calls the police on a cell phone while an intruder hacks at his kids with an axe and rapes his wife. In the urgency of the moment it is his responsiblity to act forcefully. Or take a different scenario. A black boy is being led away to be lynched. There is no point in calling 911 because the Klansmen in white hoods are themselves the local police officers. What do you do? Though the extent of the similarities between the above scenario and the modern abortion scene are debatable, I would argue that the similarities are quite significant. But in any case, the main point is that one must grapple with a passage like:
• “If you are slack in the day of distress,
  Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
  And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
  If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
  Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
  And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
  And will He not render to man according to his work?” (Prov 24:10-12)
• Yes, if you murder you are accountable for the blood on your hands. But (don’t miss the weightiness of this) it also seems, at least in the Jewish theocracy of the Old Testament, that if a community fails to deal properly with a murder then the blood the murderer shed is on their hands (e.g. Deut 21:1-9). Could it be that those of us who merely “sign petitions” and offer up lukewarm, half-hearted prayers while thousands of our defenseless neighbors are being LED TO SLAUGHTER,… that we actually have MORE blood on our hands, in God’s eyes, than those who have killed an abortionist in a desperate attempt to stop him?
• In other words, Biblically, only blood can remove blood stains (compare Rev. 7:14)! Which brings us to a right and fitting Climax, to the Person and the place on whom and on which we must continually fix our eyes: Jesus and His cross. Though more issues could be raised, our picture will only be clearly focused to the extent that Jesus Himself is at the center.

  Personally, I feel, at least for now, I cannot resolve the ethics of murdering murderers to my own satisfaction by attempting a systematic harmonization of the many, many, immensely significant, Biblical principles which must come in to play if one seeks to be faithful to the full counsel of God’s revealed will in Scripture. But on a practical level, looking to the Truth and Life Himself does give me some clarity in how I might move forward.

  Jesus conquered by dying. Any angry pagan can pick up a gun. Mohammed was quite adept at wielding the sword. It takes the Spirit of Christ to pick up a cross.

  On the one hand, perhaps killing abortionists is justified. I for one will certainly be slow to judge someone who is zealous to defend defenseless human life. Though I have yet to see it, I can hypothetically imagine someone fighting the abortion Holocaust in the ethically burdened and heavily constrained-”I don’t know if this is really best but is the best I know how to do”-spirit of Bonhoeffer; and I for one would want to publicly stand in solidarity with such a brother.

  However, even if such actions may be justified, it seems to me that there is a more uniquely Christian way that should be pursued with even more wholehearted zeal than the octane that drives someone to commit homicide. What if we who know abortion to be “murder” refrained from the possibility of murdering an abortionist/murderer and instead murdered our own greedy, gluttonous self and its lifestyle in order to ensure that, at the very least, no person in our country could EVER claim financial motivation for killing a baby? What if the “pro-life” community guaranteed all expenses would be paid for any pregancy in our nation? (I’m not talking about socialized medicine, but in any case I would plead with any self-ascribed Christian Republicans to value life infinitely more than any economic philosophies.) How about if presented abortion clinics with an offer that for every woman they referred away to a crisis pregnancy center, we would pay them TWICE the money they would get for performing an abortion? Essentially the offer is, “Here take ALL of our money, ALL of our property, ALL of our possessions (we don’t need them), and let the babies live. Please!?!” (Again, what I’m talking about isn’t socialism, but it is not Republicanism either. It is about something far more important than the entire political system, which is raw Christ-following without watering down His life-overturning First and Second Greatest Commandments!) Sounds like a fabulous trade to me! Oh yes, I know that such a plan leaves open enormous doors for us to be taken advantage of. Fine. Let your gift be abused and misused. That’s what Jesus has done for us.

Zach Harris
Longmont, CO

  I sent out the following message to our family’s prayer list in April 2008:

---

  A little internet research just turned up an interesting factoid. The combined American casualties in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the Mexican-American War (of 1846-1848), the first Gulf War, and the War of 1812 are estimated to be 1,372,678 [1]. Almost exactly the same number of Americans were killed by abortion in the year 1996 alone (est. 1,370,000 deaths, see [2])!

  Gosh, there’s lot of interesting stuff on the internet isn’t there?

  Hmm, I could really use a snack. Hope we’ve still got some of that peanut butter and banana bread left.

  Hey, Happy Easter everybody! The weather sure has been nice out here in Longmont.

Zach

PS

[1] Wikipedia contributors, “United States casualties of war,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_casualties_of_war&oldid=294166076 (accessed June 3, 2009).

[2] Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, Guttmacher Institute.

---

  One friend responded to this message telling me that when he read it he was disgusted by my transition from the first part of the message to the second. I told him I was delighted to hear of his disgust. That was precisely the intention. In our contemporary TV age, we have become far too accustomed to allowing our minds to transition from heavy, life-and-death matters to triviality in literally a flash (e.g. the flash of the screen cutting from world news to a commercial break).  For more on the dangers of flippancy, see my post And Now This! But please, when all is said and done, forget everything else I’ve said and remember the 1.37 million. Remember the 1.37 million, remember the 9 wars including two world wars, and let the enormity of the abortion Holocaust sink in!!!

  I voted for a black man in the 2008 US presidential election. And if indeed Alan Keyes (together with his running mate Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right to Life) had won, then it indeed would have been a magnificent occasion to celebrate, amongst other things, progress against the evil spirit of racism in America.

  But that didn’t happen. Barack Obama won the presidency instead. A question that arises then is this: despite whatever policy disagreements someone like myself might have with the Obama administration, it this nevertheless an occasion to celebrate progress away from a history of ugly prejudice in America? With all due respect to my black and white countrymen who see it that way, I must say that no, I don’t think so. Allow me to explain.

  Imagine with me a hypothetical scenario for a moment. Let us say that over the last two hundred years there was an additional ethnic group in America called the Taiers. Through the 19th and first half of the 20th century the Taiers enjoyed favored social status. Indeed they were given special treatment and highly regarded by all other segments of society. Moreover, say in our hypothetical situation that about the time of the civil rights movement, about the time society started to recognize that African Americans deserved the same rights and equality as white Americans, a strange thing happened — Taiers gradually started to become an oppressed group! Whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asian Americans together gradually began to see too many Taiers as a burden on them and on society, rather than as a blessed group that everyone loved to love. Hate terms like “Nigger” were becoming socially unacceptable, but simultaneously whites and blacks together began to find new ways to describe Taiers as if they were now something less than human. Whereas in the past black people would be lynched by white people and the courts would bring no measure of justice against the whites, Taiers had now been dehumanized to the point that courts started giving approval to kill Taiers for the crime of being inconvenient to non-Taiers. It was if the focus of discriminative anger, injustice, and oppression had simply shifted off of blacks and onto Taiers. American society was not an inch closer to recognizing the value of human life, it had simply redrawn the boundaries of which groups would be considered valuable — blacks were now in and Taiers were out.

  Of course, the only imaginative part of the above scenario is that Taiers were/are not an ethnic subgroup of Americans, but rather a developmental subgroup of Americans — those still in the womb (”tai er” is Chinese for “fetus”). You see, we should be careful and realize how the very vocabulary of our language shapes our thinking about the things it describes. In English we have the word “racism” that carries (rightly so) a very negative connotation. But what if I say I hate all Buddhists: “Black, white, brown, red, and yellow Buddhists, I hate them all equally and wish they were dead.” Does that make me a “racist”? No, not by the dictionary definition. Perhaps I could be called a “religious bigot”, but not technically a racist since Buddhists come from different races. Now say that I hate all old people, I think that their hefty health care expenses are a needless, useless burden on the economy, and thus nature should be allowed to “take its course” in wiping out anyone after retirement age. What word or phrase would you use to describe me? Now it gets harder to find a accurate and precise word that is in common use. You could say I’m a “selfish jerk”, and that would be true enough, but that phrase certainly doesn’t differentiate me from the wide variety of other manifestations of selfish jerkiness out there.

  The point is this: whether my animosity and devaluing of human life is directed towards a group defined by skin pigmentation, by religious affliation, or by age, the spirit and attitude and sinfulness behind it all is identical even though common vocabulary might describe my attitude with different terminology depending on the nature of the categorical boundaries defining the target group. More succinctly, “alreadybornism” is just “racism” repacked in a slightly different flavor.

  To put it yet another way, if Barack Obama, with his current core set of values and ethics intact, was born a white man in the Southern US in the 1940’s, would he approve of the lynching of “trouble-making niggers”? I think there is good reason to believe that absolutely yes he would. When Obama says he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby“, when he opposed legislation to protect babies born alive due to botched abortions (see pages 86-87), when he made it a priority as President to resume taxpayer funded support of aboritons worldwide, etc., etc., he repeatedly proves that he sees nothing inherently valuable in human life itself.

  Sure, under the current real life circumstances he supports equality for black, white, and brown Americans; why wouldn’t he? But he has clearly stated that sees no transcendant, “universal value” which would affirm that babies of all races shouldn’t be killed while in the womb, while partially in the womb and partially out, or (in some circumstances) even after fully exiting the womb. Relegating Scriptural authority to the realm of “personal belief”, his criteria for determining what constitues a genuinely valuable human life apparently has no where to rest except on that which is “self-evident”. Interestingly though, many of the signers and supporters of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence apparently did not consider it to be “self-evident” that Negroes were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Such notion only became “self-evident” to the majority of (white) Americans nearly 200 years later (if at all). For a white man in the South in the 1950’s it was “self-evident” that trouble-making Niggers deserved to die. So again, Obama’s refusal to ascribe universal truth value to God’s word in the Bible (or any other so-called sacred text, for that matter) tells me that if he was born into a different context, he would have had no grounds for opposing, for example, the gruesome murder of Emmett Louis Till. Insofar as the entire white population of Money, Mississippi is part of the “universe”, it would seem that no “universal” principle “accessible to all people” would condemn Till’s murder.

  So, one more time to be clear. The reason I can’t say that I’m excited about the Obama presidency in one sense (progress towards racial reconciliation demonstrated in an African-American president) and yet sad about the Obama presidency in another sense (increasing approval for the slaughter of innocent babies) is because I don’t see these as TWO DISTINCT SENSES. The great irony is that the very spirit and fuel behind America’s ugly history of racism (dehumanization of a weaker group of people that are considered a bother to the stronger group) is the exact same spirit that is embodied in so much of what Obama stands for. Do we see superficially shifting sands of allegiances, variation regarding who’s on whose side, changes in which is the “stronger group” that is in position to stomp on which “weaker group”? Yes! But progress towards acceptance of universal and transcendant principles which can form a foundation of genuine racial harmony and love, no, sadly I don’t see any evidence for that in the outcome of this election.

  The only true grounds for harmony, reconciliation, love, and unity between Jew and Gentile, male and female, black and white, Western and Eastern, born and preborn, young and old, etc., is through coming into the oneness that has eternally existed in the Triune God (John 17, Gal 3:28).

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:13-22

Human society has not, and never will, make “progress” towards racial harmony. The church of Jesus Christ is the one place that you can and should expect to see love for all manner of human life. May it be so.

  To end on a practical note tying all of the above together: I am told by a friend with experience in the American adoption bueracracy that, while there is generally a waiting period of years to adopt a white American baby, “you can adopt an African-American baby tomorrow.” Sounds like an opportunity for American Christians of all colors to take seriously!

  Today is the inauguration of http://www.allexpensespaid.org.

  Lord, may this day mark the start of a beautiful new era of your glory being revealed through the sacrificial love of your people in America. Amen.

  For the last few weeks, on and off, I have hung a banner from my car in the parking lot of my workplace with this image (click for better resolution):

together with a magnetic car door sign which simply reads, “Men are the Problem, menaretheproblem.info.” To make a long story short, some people complained, the property management got upset and threatened my company that they were in violation of their tenancy agreement unless they made me stop. On Monday October 27, 2008, I was fired.

  Now, it seems that whenever I do something that is considered slightly controversial amongst Christians, like hang a banner displaying the plain reality of abortion from my car or pass our Bibles to Muslims (don’t ask me to explain how the question of whether or not to pass out Bibles can be a controversy in the church !!!???!!!, or how it can even be a question at all !!!???!!!) that there are certain recurring questions and remarks to be addressed. So here is my first edition of an activism FAQ. There is a particular focus on this recent incident with the banner at work, but many of the principles also have wider applicability. Many of these are questions or remarks I’ve heard first hand, some I have heard second hand, and some are questions that I’ve asked myself.1) “Hmm, well Zach. I do appreciate the fact that your heart is open to do something about this issue [whatever it is], but are you sure this is the best way?”  Nope! I’m not sure it is the best way. But I’m pretty sure that it is a good way! Or at the very least an acceptable way! There is a saying out there that, “The good is the greatest enemy of the best,” that is, we never reach the best because we settle for the good. But I’ve found that mixing that adage up is much more relevant to my life, and perhaps yours. My modified saying is, “The best is the greatest enemy of the good.” That is, as long as I keep searching for the best way to do something, I never find it, because every path has its list of disadvantages. Pursuing the best, I end up doing nothing. Better to do the good thing, than to do nothing while on the endless quest to find the best! See also this post.2) “Um, wow. That’s an, um, interesting thing that you did. I’m not sure how to respond.”

  Here is what I think is some Biblical advice for the person in such a situation. You’ve got two choices. If you’ve gathered enough information to adequately understand the situation, and you think that what I’ve done is sinful, then by all means you must rebuke me (Matthew 18:15ff). If not, if what I’ve done appears to be within acceptable parameters for a disciple of Christ, then I think that Biblically you are called to encourage me (1 Thes 5:11) as we continue to spur one another on towards love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Certainly, such encouragement can take the form of constructive suggestion, “Hey, did you think about trying this… ?” But of all of the “one another” statements in the New Testament, I don’t see any that say, “Heap discouragement on one another.” Either rebuke the sin, or encourage the fainthearted (1 Thes 5:14). And yes, I do get fainthearted; I probably loathe conflict more than most people, and yet the Lord keeps putting in me a compelling drive to step out in ways that inevitably bring conflict. It’s hard.  And this isn’t just about me. Let’s all try to stop discouraging each other. One person loves to share Christ in the context of relationships and another loves going door to door. Praise the Lord for both of them, don’t attack each other! One person wants more prayer meetings and another one wants more Bible study. They are both right! Any desire within the church to turn off the tube and devote oneself to holy endeavors of eternal value should be cultivated rather than squelched. To anyone I have discouraged in their simple quest to love and please the Lord, I’m sorry; I’m seeking to turn away from that and be an encourager of all things good.

3) “What’s all this focus on abortion? Have you abandoned your passion for missions?”

  I still think the greatest need, and what I would like to do more than anything, is the public preaching of the gospel in so-called closed countries. Please pray that God would fill me with His Spirit to empower me for that ministry. I tried standing up on street corners and speaking out a few times in China. Words of conviction and power just don’t seem to come to my lips when I try public speaking. I must say that I just don’t feel the Holy Spirit is in it. Now, when I give a talk on an issue that I’ve written five papers about and spent ten years thinking about, I can by God’s grace give a good empassioned talk. I hope and pray that through writing the Lord will solidify things in my heart and mind which I can then speak about more effectively.

  But I digress. Abortion? Ya, it is quite important too. In fact, I can’t begin to tell you the numerous ways I see the issues as utterly interrelated. Well yes, I can at least begin to do it. See this post and this one. Consider also the non-compartmentalization of God. It seems to me in the Old Testament that if a Hebrew cheated with unbalanced weights and measures in the marketplace (see Deut 25:13-16), then as an “abomination” in the eyes of the Lord, he would have no reason to expect victory out on the battlefield (compare Joshua 7). If I harden my heart to a wicked and unjust atrocity of such magnificent proportions in my own country (and elsewhere) as abortion, how can I go make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded us? Again, the Great Commission isn’t to rake in millions of prayer cards signed by professed converts who don’t really even know Him, it is to make disciples.

4) “Have you thought about your family and especially your kids?”

  Ya, I’ve thought a lot about my family. I’ve thought about my family through the perspective of the German kids who were raised by parents who didn’t really support the Holocaust, but who thought that standing up against the actions of the Nazi regime would be too costly. I’ve thought about my family through the perspective of those kids, now grown, whom I’ve heard say, “I can’t believe my parents stood by and let that happen.”

  As a father I have a responsibility to protect my kids. And some dangers are greater than others. I might let my son fall out of his chair and get a small bump if he insists on ignoring my instruction to sit down on his bum. But I won’t let him “learn the hard way” with a chainsaw. The greatest danger facing all of humanity is eternal hellfire for rejecting God and the salvation offered through His Son Jesus Christ. Unrepentant cowardice is one way that we demonstrate that we have never come to know Jesus or had our name written in His book of life (Rev 21:8), because those who do come to Him receive a Spirit not of timidity but of power (2 Tim 1:7). My greatest responsibility then, to the two little boys who imitate just about anything I do and say is to model for them godliness and faith, rather than fear of man and unbelief.

  When my friend Rick and I were facing the threat of a 2-5 year jail sentence for proselytization in Malaysia, our main interrogator Sergeant Ibrahim repeatedly said to Rick things like, “You are a bad father. You did this and got yourself in trouble while you have a little daughter at home.” In speaking this way, Sergeant Ibrahim was the very mouthpiece of Satan for discouragement to Rick. Little Esther (and now Sarah as well) are very blessed to have a father who loves Jesus as much as Rick does. The best love and care and protection he can give them is to show them how to live for Jesus. Second to my own dad who loves me dearly and was instrumental in leading me to Christ following his own conversion, second to him Rick is (at least tied for) the father I respect the most.

5) “But what about providing stability for your wife?”

  Let me tell you about a woman I know, let’s call her Lisa. Lisa is a preacher’s wife. Lisa’s husband has preached solid Biblical truth from the pulpit for many years. He has emphasized that our thinking must be shaped by the Bible. He has repeatedly said he wants his church to “not merely be a church with Bibles, but rather a Biblical church.” Then one day someone comes along and says, “Hey, here are 1000 free copies of the gospel of Luke in the language of the local Muslim people of this area. Let’s distribute them to people in this church to give to their Muslim friends.”

  Seems like a no-brainer, right? But for a church in this area to be known as actively evangelizing Muslims would bring some consequences. People could lose jobs, the government could take away the expensive church property, and Lisa and her husband who are actually citizens of a different country could be deported. In the end, Lisa’s husband goes along with the decision of his elder board not only to refrain from distributing these Bibles but actually to prohibit the distribution of Bibles in the Muslim language on church grounds. Lisa’s husband has flipped from wanting to shepherd a congregation that seeks “not merely be a church with Bibles, but rather a Biblical church,” into leading a church that outlaws Bibles because the consequences of having them around are deemed too costly. Lisa and her husband get to keep their house and keep their jobs, simply by throwing away everything that her husband has claimed to stand for for decades.

  I feel sad for Lisa. I don’t want to do that to my wife. I want to provide her the stability of knowing that through loss of job, loss of freedom, loss of house, loss of money, loss of property, and loss of life, not only will I never leave her nor forsake her, but I will also always strive to uncompromisingly keep our family on the one solid and stable rock that can endure any tsunami (Matthew 7:24-27).

6) “What crazy thing are you going to do next?”

  I’ve found that the Lord doesn’t open my eyes to step 2 until I’ve taken step 1. So I try to be faithful in the little things, and hope that He will entrust me with greater things. See also the answer to question 1 above. Whatever it is, may it not be “crazy” except in the sense of being “crazy for Jesus, His kingdom, and His righteousness.”

7) “If you end up in jail in some country for doing whatever it is, how do you want people to pray for you?”

  Pray through Philippians 1.

8) “How would you encourage others to act in light of the overwhelming atrocity of ongoing slaughter in this country?”

  If you have an idea of your own, that fits the way God has made you and is within Biblical parameters, then by all means I want to encourage you to do that which is on your heart.

  Ultimately I think the only hope and only answer to the abortion problem is prayer (Luke 18:1-8). But note, the cited parable doesn’t speak of the Lord being moved by a half-hearted word of prayer. Rather it says that He will not delay to bring about justice to His elect who cry out to Him day and night. I believe that a movement of empassioned prayer will only happen in tandem with a movement of empassioned living. If the Spirit prompts us with ideas of, “Hey I could hang a banner from my car,” or whatever, and if we quench Him, then we will be quenching the Spirit of prayer. See again this post.

  If you really feel you “should do something” about this issue, and really don’t know what, I’d be glad to talk you through it. I do have some ideas myself, but even better if in talking I could help draw out some ideas that suit how God has made you.

9) “What drives your concern about abortion? Are you concerned more about the babies, or the mothers, or your own reputation, or what?”

  There is concern for the babies. If you haven’t already, definitely watch The Silent Scream in which an ultrasound recorded the actual images inside the womb as an abortion was happening. This movie is in some ways even more moving than the graphic movies of baby hands and feet being removed from the uterus after he has already been dismembered, because in the Silent Scream you actually see the terrified baby in the supposed safe, warm haven of his mother’s womb, sensing that he is in trouble as the baby vacuum starts poking around. You can almost hear him screaming, “Help me, help me, I’m in trouble, momma, dadda, can you help me? I’m scared!” But of course momma and dadda don’t come to help because they are the ones who paid to have him torn to pieces. So even though the baby is in some ways blessed to be spared from having to live a long life in this evil fallen world (Isa 57:1-2), you still have to have compassion for such a defenseless one to face such a traumatic experience.

  There is pastoral concern for the mothers, too. Hopefully they will find repentance, restoration, forgiveness, and spiritual and even physical healing. Even still, the saddness of such a terrible choice will be hard to break free from in this life.

  And I have a particular concern for the party that is all too neglected in discussions about abortion — the fathers. It is one of the most pathetic and disgusting things imaginable to see true manhood disappearing in a landscape of immature boys who care more about “getting laid” (and football) than things like honor, valor, and responsibility. Seeing selfish boys of any age turn in to real men is always a refreshing and inspiring experience.

  But more so than any of these I’d say my concern is for Christians. If I hang such a banner from my car, I’m more hoping to move the hearts of pro-lifers than pro-choicers. What? Yep. Really, what I want more than anything else is to remove any barriers to a passionate relationship between Christ and His church. And the ongoing hardening of our hearts is just such a major barrier. See again this post.

10) “Why did you sign the end of your prayer letter with `Zach, on behalf of my wonderfully supportive wife, and our two martyr-for-Jesus-in-training sons’?”

  Well, I’m Zach, my wife really has been wonderfully supportive during this and the one or two other “controversial” deeds of activism I have engaged in since we’ve been married, and oh, the bit about our sons being in training for martyrdom for Jesus? I can’t say I have a well formulated curriculum at this point, but basically that is just another way of saying I want them to be Christians. Because I’m sure you realize that Bonhoeffer was Biblically spot on when he said, “When Christ calls a man, he calls him to come and die.” Martyrs-for-Jesus-in-training are the only kind of Christians I see in the Bible.

11) “Perhaps you are being rebellious against authority [the government, or the employer as the case may be].”

  That certainly is a valid issue. The extent to which God expects us to submit to human authority structures even when those people are sinful, wicked, unbelieving, Christian persecuting pagans, is astounding. David knew that Saul had departed from the way of the Lord, but refused to lift a finger to harm the king whom he called “the Lord’s Anointed.” David even killed the messenger who came to tell him of Saul’s demise. All this despite the fact that Saul had spent years on a rabid mission to destroy David (1 and 2 Samuel). Slaves are taught to obey masters who mercilessly beat them (1 Peter 2), and wives are taught to submit to unbelieving husbands “in the same way” (1 Peter 3). Christians of all stripes are commanded to submit to the very governments that persecute them (1 Peter 1, Romans 13). Remarkable.

  Ultimately the reason, I believe, is that human authority is a shadow of the One True Authority over all heaven and earth. Just as Saul, having been anointed as king, was a shadow of the Anointed One (i.e. the Messiah = Christ). As much as a king, or a husband, or a master, or a parent might fail to live a life of godliness, they still hold the “office” which is a shadow of the true King, Husband, Master, and Father of all.

  But at the same time, we are clearly taught to obey God rather than men (Acts 4) and to fear God rather than men (Matthew 10:17-28). We are also called to have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather to expose them (Eph 5:11). When Esther dared to approach King Xerxes she said, “If [I and my people] had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king [emphasis added]” (Esther 7:4b). Causing annoyance to the king, or the president, or the master, or the boss, or the husband, or the parent, or the church elder whose authority you are under is no small thing at all. And yet, when people are in fact being given over to slaughter, destruction, and annihilation (Esther 7:4a) it is not only commensurate but in fact incumbent upon the people of God to somehow intervene (Prov 24:11-12).

  When it comes to these sorts of things, there is nothing that I struggle with more than seeking to know how to respect and be submissive towards authority while at the same time realizing that to completely satisfy the authority would require exalting their wishes and desires about God’s priorities. I agonize for days and weeks and months over such things. I would be delighted to receive a clear and unmistakable prophetic word from the Lord saying, “Do this, don’t do that.” But until that comes, I’m accountable to make the best decisions I can in light of His revealed word with dependence on His Spirit through prayer.

  Do I come out with exactly the right balance on these issues? Probably not. Before this most recent banner at work experience there was something else I had tried, and after a conversation with my boss one time I had to go back to him and apologize for not speaking respectfully. He said he didn’t think I was disrespectful but I knew that by the standard I’d seen in Scripture I was. Of course, I later went on to do some things he didn’t like. But I sought harder to be respectful in the process. So I make mistakes, repent, persevere, keep learning, and move ahead.

  So yes, perhaps I have been rebellious against authority in this or that situation, and to the extent that it is so may the Lord bring correction. But before jumping to such conclusions or lightly throwing around such accusations, please realize that there are agonizingly difficult issues in the balance here.

12) “Why do this at the workplace? It’s not like you work for a company that makes baby vacuums or anything like that. If you are going to protest, why not do it outside of Planned Parenthood?”

  First of all, it is not either/or. Protesting outside of an abortion clinic is certainly commendable and I have done so in the past.

  But I was specifically compelled to take action at the workplace primarily because, after my home, that is where I was spending the most of my time each week. I believe that with proximity (be it geographical, relational, etc.) comes responsibility. Let’s talk about evangelism for a minute. It is good and commendable if you wish to share a brief word about Christ to the cashier at the checkout counter or the person riding in the elevator with you. I almost never do that, unless they happen to say something that gives me opportunity to simply speak my thoughts about the Lord. But as for somebody you spend gobs of time with, isn’t it all the more reasonable that they should know what you believe? [And yes I have spoken about Christ with people in the workplace, especially how He is foreshadowed in the Old Testament (a subject I’m particulary interested in), more than I have spoken with workmates about abortion.] So the more time you spend with people, the more it tears you up inside if you haven’t talked with them about the matters you know to be most important.

  Also, bringing the issue of abortion into the “average everyday workplace” is precisely my intended target. One of the big reasons atrocities such as the slaughter of American lives on the order of a 9/11 tragedy every single are allowed to continue, is because we who know the truth allow society to define the categories and parameters in which the “issue” is addressed. We allow society to stick it with the label “political and/or religious issue” and then we go along with the reasoning that the workplace is not the appropriate context for dialogue on religious and political issue. Ladies and gentlemen, this is more than a religious or political issue. Although I certainly support Colorado’s “Personhood Amendment” 48, I find it offensive that alongside being asked whether I want to reduce tax subsidies to energy companies, I am also asked to register my “personal opinion” on whether a small defenseless person should be acknowledged as a person or whether we should be allowed to chop him up into pieces and suck the pieces out with a vacuum. This is more than a “ballot issue.”

  When there is a national tragedy, even “business workplaces” show enough respect to lower the flag to half mast. Flags should be lowered for respect, rememberance, and shame over the fallen every single day in this country, and short of that happening, I believe that making my own show (in the workplace parking lot) of respect for the dead is entirely appropriate, and if anything it is probably far too little.

13) “OK, but if you want to speak out in the workplace, why a banner on your car?”

  Why not?

  Actually, I did try a few other things before I had the banner idea. I did talk about the issue with the coworkers I knew best [of course, not charging such time to my record of working hours]. The boss said that if the issue came up, it was OK to discuss, but if I tried going from person to person or office to office with such an agenda that I would be canned. I passed out fliers in front of the workplace for about 10 minutes before property management came down on me. I talked with the boss about having an informal, off hours, voluntary forum in which to invite fellow coworkers, and he was actually OK with the idea, but the rest of the management team nixed the idea. The lines kept getting pushed back further and further. Eventually I came up with the idea of a banner on my car, figuring that what I did with my own car in the parking lot outside of the workplace was my own business. And again, to his credit, the boss was personally agreeable, but property management wasn’t.

  I could have stuck with a bumper sticker on my car, and probably wouldn’t have had any trouble. It also would have had virtually no impact. Unfortunately, on such matters, there seems to be a high correlation between people not getting upset and people not paying the least bit of attention to what you are doing.

14) “Are you going to sue your company for violating your rights to free speech?”

  No. Certainly there is a place for “claiming one’s Roman citizenship” not merely for the sake of defending one’s self from receiving a flogging but also: 1) to bring attention (light) to a matter that the forces of the world would want to sweep under the rug and hide and forget about, and 2) to set a precedent. I can see the legitimacy of at least considering the possibility that the case with my current employer is such a case that should fought in court with a godly demeanor. However, my conclusion is that this is not such a case. My main two reasons are:
  i) My bosses are Christian. Along the lines of 1 Cor 6, I think it would bring shame on the name of Christ to bring this issue before the pagan courts and news media. I can hear them now, “Look, the Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves about this issue, so why should we listen to anything they say?”
  ii) Even if I did have a right under American law to not be discriminated against in this way, it is not a right I want to claim or press for. Personally, I believe my employer should be able to fire me if they don’t like the effect my views have on the workplace environment. Morally, I think my employer is wrong. But I don’t think that “doing the right thing” is something that should be legislated in this type of case.

  If the boss wanted to stand up to property management in court and say, “Hey, you can’t threaten us that we are in violation of tenancy agreement for refusing to fire Zach over this,” then I think I would support the company in doing so. But they don’t want to. They would rather get rid of me and the legal counseling fees I was costing them. So if that is the way the company wants to go, I don’t want to fight from that angle in court.

15) “Are you seeking to get persecuted?”

  Are you crazy? No way! If you think I enjoy conflict then you definitely don’t know me. Or is it that you think that I love to get praised by fellow Christians for being zealous? Well yes, I do, and I repent of that. But I need to make you aware of a very sad reality that my experience has been whenever you seek to serve the Lord in a way that may bring about some suffering that could have been avoided had you compromised and watered down your stance, then in choosing the path of righteousness that involves a bit of suffering you will face more discouragement from professed Christians than encouragement. Other professed Christians get afraid that you are going to “make trouble” for them too. Perhaps that is why some portions of this post may come across as defensive or even bitter. I’m sorry for that. I don’t want to give any room to bitterness.

  I don’t seek persecution. But I don’t make the avoidance of it a high priority either. Here is the key: neither seeking persecution nor seeking to avoid persecution should be our decision criteria. The decision criteria is, “How can I please the Lord? What decision is in line with godliness and holiness as revealed in Scripture?”

  You can tell what a listener values by what they focus in on. Supposedly (I haven’t found verification of this story) one time Tony Campolo, speaking to a church audience, said, “Four million (or some such number) people died from starvation last year and nobody gives a shit about it. And the proof of that is that you are more worked up that the guy in the pulpit just said a naughty word than you are about the four million dead from starvation.”

  Suppose I say, “Tom preached the gospel to 100 Muslims and they beat him and threw him in jail (or killed him or whatever).” One person will say, “What? Tom did something that got himself beaten!? How foolish!” Another will say, “Wow, 100 Muslims got to hear the gospel at once! Praise the Lord!” Be careful how you listen, because in doing so you reveal what you consider to be of great account and what you consider to be of small account.

  To those who say that I’m seeking persecution, I say you are missing the point. You are focusing in on the wrong part of the story.

16) “You are not even being `persecuted’, you are just facing the consequences of a bad decision. Christians should be willing to suffer for Jesus, but not for doing something stupid.”

  I don’t think that I ever said I was being persecuted. The word comes up when we discuss such issues, but I don’t think I would choose to use it to describe this situation. I would say though that I believe this incident falls under the category of suffering for righteousness sake. If you think that displaying my banner [or say, passing out Bibles to Muslims] is “stupid”, well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. But I think it is a pretty sad opinion to have. Could you explain to me why you would call such things “stupid”?

  The Biblical call to be ready to suffer in this world alongside Jesus is more than merely passive. Yes, if someone of their own initiative comes to you and points a gun to your head and tells you to renounce Christ then you should stand firm in the faith. But love demands more than that. Let’s say that you were a white Southerner a few decades ago when hate-filled white folk were lynching blacks in America. Let’s further say that no one comes around demanding to know where you stand on the “lynching debate” with threats to harm you if they discover you are a “nigger-lover.” The only way you will suffer is if you take the initiative upon yourself to step out and do something. At the same time, the only way you can LOVE the black community is if you take the initiative upon yourself to step out and do something.

  Note that we didn’t go up to heaven to bring Jesus down and crucify Him. He came. We didn’t even want Him to come, but He came. LOVE often demands that we put ourself in the line of fire to rescue others. The fact that such a concept would be so foreign to contemporary evangelical Christianity is a testimony to how far we have wandered from the core of the true Biblical gospel itself.