On Killing Abortion Doctors – Just War and Enemy Love
Controversial abortion doctor George Tiller was shot and killed yesterday while attending Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas.
Tiller was known for being one of the few doctors willing to permit late-term abortions. Who knew the guy was an usher at a Lutheran church? His wife was apparently in the choir when the killing happened.
The pro-life movement is going to take a big hit for this in the press, and in the court of public opinion.
It doesn’t surprise me to find out that Scott Roeder, the man who allegedly murdered Tiller is a ‘pro-life advocate’ and a ‘Christian’. But just because it doesn’t surprise me doesn’t mean it doesn’t sadden and horrify me.
It saddens and horrifies me because it’s the latest in a long line of evidence that Christians in America have lost an essential component of their faith: the habit of thinking and speaking in such a way to sustain a specifically Christian critique of violence.
Historically, there have been two Christian disciplines in regards to violence: just war theory and non-violence.
Just War is a term thrown around a lot by Americans.What they typically mean is that they are justified in declaring war for whatever purposes seem right to them; a war is just if we say it is just. We have been taught from birth through education, entertainment and ritual that we are the bearers of freedom and democracy. As such, our cause is just.
But Just War is a hard discipline born in Christendom and preserved mainly within Roman Catholic theology. But you might ask how well the just war tradition is doing in the U.S.?
The Pope declared the Iraq war an unjust war…but the American bishops opposed him anyways. Was this based on their superior understanding of Just War tradition? Or, as William Cavanaugh might propose, was this based on some other peculiar aspect of modern American Christianity?
In 1994 Charles Rice, a moral theologian and professor at Notre Dame Law School, dealt with the question presented to us today, “Can the Killing of Abortionists Be Justified?” He proposed, based on Catholic moral theology, that the answer is No.
William Saletan at Slate.com asks the same question, noting that the alleged murderer admired the Army of God’s defensive action statement**, which says that “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.”
**WARNING: The Army of God link includes a graphic image of abortion)
Saletan proposes that the Scott Roedens and the Army of God-types are the ones that really believe that the unborn child is the moral equivalent of a child. The rest of the pro-life movement is play-acting.
Even though a better understanding of Just War theory could have prevented this murder, there is another solution to Saletan’s puzzle.
The question of using violence to stop abortion might not a matter of whether or not the unborn are the moral equivalent of the born. It’s possible even among the pro-life crowd to find varying answers about that dilemma.
You could concede to the Army of God that whatever force is legitimate to protect the born is due the unborn…and then deny that, for the Christian, the use of force is legitimate at all! This is the Christian non-violence discipline.
Just War theory arose under medieval Christendom through St. Augustine of Hippo under the peculiar circumstance of Christians finding themselves in positions of political power. And let’s face it…from Emperor Constantine until very recently, Christians have been in power in the West, for good or ill. And there are plenty of us that lean toward or ill.
Until Constantine Christianity was a minority religion, sometimes outlawed and often persecuted. Under those circumstances, why would Christians even wonder when it was okay for the state to go to war? Without the temptation of political rule, Christians maintained a strict rule of non-violence, in accordance with the teaching of Jesus and the witness of the Apostles, the Scriptures, The early church Fathers and the Martyrs.
Their disavowal of violence was so complete that they couldn’t even stand to see the pagan state punish criminals, let alone participate. Athenagoras, defending the church against false charges of cannibalism(!) c. 177 says that “We cannot endure to see a man put to death even justly, who of them would charge us with murder or cannibalism?” (Early Christian Fathers, Cyril C. Richardson, p. 338)
Roman soldiers that converted were not allowed to kill and, for the most part, followers of the Way were forbidden to even serve in government! In short, they were wary of the rule of force that had killed Jesus and instead lived by the rule of non-violent, self-donating love lived and taught by Jesus…even to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44).
It’s not accidental that the Church has martyrs rather than heroes. Heroes conquer through force, martyrs through gift.
In killing, Scott Roeder wanted to be a hero. Instead, he dies along with George Tiller as just another casualty of a ‘Christianity’ that denies the politics of Jesus.
If the American Church can recover the habits of thought and speech necessary to critique the world’s power, the hard discipline of theological, historical, sociological and ethical reflection (as if these can in any way be meaningfully separated), then maybe William Saletan and the rest of the world could know that Scott Roeder wasn’t pro-life enough.
For now, I will mourn this new evidence that the Onion takes the commands of God more seriously than God’s so-called Army.
Could you clarify what you mean by: “It saddens and horrifies me because it’s the latest in a long line of evidence that Christians in America have lost an essential component of their faith: the habit of thinking and speaking in such a way to sustain a specifically Christian critique of violence.”
As I read it, it appears to be a generalization that closely equates the lack of a “habit of thinking and speaking…” with a willingness to commit murder. Or… is it one example, among many that you see, that speaks to the lack of a “specific Christian critique.”
This is seriously just a question for clarification. I feel like I missed something in that bit of your post.
Army of God are bunch of psychopaths
and Religion is the plaque of the 21st century
Mary…thanks for dropping in.
Our ethics, our imagination, our practices…they are formed by our habits of thought and speech.
As the heirs of the enlightement project and liberal democracy, Americans are dissociated from history. We are the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘free’, so whatever might have happened in the past is irrelevant. In other words, we have no story except the story that we choose as free ‘individuals’.
To be ‘unstoried’ is presented to us as freedom. However, without the disciplines I added later in the post, you are left with Nietzsche’s will to power.
In a world hell-bent on violence, where we are trained from birth to have no story, we need those specifically Christian habits to be able to witness to another way…the way of peace.
The Christian story done rightly is, among other things, a habit of thought and speech that creates and sustains a peacable community that is able to speak the truth to power.
Joey, thank you for sending me to your blog. I believe I understand what you were saying about Luke 6 and gun control, now. I must admit, this particular blog went “over my head” a few times but I did get what you were saying.
[...] Scott Roeder convicted of killing abortion doctor George Tiller I wrote earlier on killing abortion doctors, just war and enemy love. [...]
“Without the temptation of political rule, Christians maintained a strict rule of non-violence, in accordance with the teaching of Jesus and the witness of the Apostles, the Scriptures, The early church Fathers and the Martyrs.”
We simply don’t know enough about early Christian history to declare this as a fact. It’s not clear exactly when a rigid structure was formed to enforce such a rule, even if it did exist. Your schema largely follows Bainton’s history of Christian ethics (picked up by Hauerwas and many other of the anabaptist mindset) that oversimplifies early church history – essentially an argument from silence. While some of the early Fathers were pacifist, the injunctions in some of their writings against serving in the army would indicate it was happening at least enough to mention in correspondence. This is, of course, in addition to the numerous soldiers that Jesus and/or his followers bless in the gospels, with no indication that they are to lay down their arms.
“…followers of the Way were forbidden to even serve in government! In short, they were wary of the rule of force that had killed Jesus and instead lived by the rule of non-violent, self-donating love lived and taught by Jesus..”
Again, an argument from silence. We don’t know *why* they were forbidden to be in the government. Modern-day Christians who don’t think Christians should be involved in government anyway of course say that this is reasoning that goes back to the earliest Christians. But historically informed critics have suggested that it is at least as plausible that Christians could not serve in the government because to do so required participation in pagan religious rituals (also an issue with the army), rather than an injunction against the government qua government. That is a very big *why*.
As for “heroes vs. martyrs,” don’t speak too soon: http://www.amazon.com/Heroism-Christian-Life-Reclaiming-Excellence/dp/0664258123
And now for the big, glaring issue with this post:
“Even though a better understanding of Just War theory could have prevented this murder, there is another solution to Saletan’s puzzle.”
Whooooaaaaaaaaaa. Just War tradition is a set of teachings and ideas that apply to governments, state entities (usually called “legitimate authority,” for which neither a crazed individual or para-military unit would qualify). Just War has nothing to do with this assassination. Simply because this lone, crazed person thought this was a case of justifiable homicide does not associate it with the just war tradition.
And one to grow on:
Calling just war “medieval” and pacifism “early church” teaching is a little bit misleading. The layperson would likely associate ‘medieval’ with castles, kings and queens in europe circa 1000-1400. In fact, the just war tradition developed from Ambrose and Augustine as early as the 300′s…which, by my count, still puts it within the realm of the early church.
The Bible doesn’t SAY that the flying spaghetti monster has destroyed New York, but we can assume that because he is a monster and can fly that New York never had a chance.
A good compendium of the overwhelming evidence that the early church was thoroughly non-violent is here: http://thomstark.net/?p=282
The early church was anything but silent. There simply is no compelling evidence to the contrary.
“Just War has nothing to do with this assassination. Simply because this lone, crazed person thought this was a case of justifiable homicide does not associate it with the just war tradition.”
I agree. 100%. Thing is, while I’ve read Just Warriors, every Christian I’ve actually met that claims to espouse Just War theory has no knowledge of what it is. They just want permission to kick ass, and not just at the nation-state level.
I’ve seen Stark’s stuff and I’m not impressed.
Why does “the early church” not include Ambrose and Augustine?
Why do the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers have no credence in this discussion?
No Christian has any knowledge of just war theory? You mean the average layperson isn’t spending their free time reading Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Paul Ramsey, etc?
Color me shocked. Most Christians assume the necessity of violence at some level because they watch the local news and pay taxes to keep police around (this, by the way, is a big, gaping hole in the pacifist position – how can police be justified?).
Most Christians also can’t articulate what we mean by ‘Trinity’. Presumably, we should still keep confessing the Trinity, though.
“I’ve seen Stark’s stuff and I’m not impressed.”
You’re very snarky. But not substantive.
“Why do the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers have no credence in this discussion?”
Evidence that while you’ve seen Stark’s stuff, you haven’t read it.
“this, by the way, is a big, gaping hole in the pacifist position – how can police be justified?)”
Evidence that while you’ve seen Stark’s stuff, you haven’t read it.
Clement talks about Christian soldiers in war time and when not at war. While not at war, the soldiers were the police.
I’m more than willing to acknowledge that there are differences in opinion in Christianity regarding police action. For myself, I don’t see how a Christian can ever employ violent force. So, for me, it’s no on police.
Two comments ago you were saying that I was arguing from silence…and then you ask why the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers has no credence.
I don’t espouse non-violence because I think it would be better for the state, or for the community, or for my family. I espouse non-violence because I see it there are the heart of the gospel. The evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.
There are sophisticated, intelligent people like yourself that aren’t impressed with the ‘so-called prophets of american Christian radicalism’ who think that you can love your enemy, pray for your enemy, return evil for good, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute you all while blowing his fucking head off.
Either rest of us are just too stupid to figure out how those are compatible, or you are hell-bent on using the wrong weapons for the wrong warfare (Ephesians 5).
If you want me to be honest, I did coursework with Hauerwas in seminary and I wasn’t convinced then. I doubt that a blog post is going to do it. I’ve come across Stark’s stuff recently and don’t find it to be anything unique or game-changing. Looking through his series on nonviolence, I found nothing that explained away the New Testament stories of soldiers.
“While not at war, the soldiers were the police.” You mean like the national guard? They are still carrying swords on behalf of the empire. How can this be seen as an endorsement of nonviolence? It’s like giving condoms to a bunch of high schoolers and instructing them to be abstinent.
“The evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.” Few people read the Bible and get a clear vision of nonviolence. You’re all about moral speech and habit, right? This is one of them. Rather, we have to be convinced – schooled in this tradition – to read Scripture in that way, and then, magically, the “evidence” will fit our prejudice. This, by the way, is also why science is not so objective as we are led to believe.
And still, I have not been told why Ambrose and Augustine don’t belong in the early Church canon…
…but to a new, final, and sad point:
“There are sophisticated, intelligent people like yourself that aren’t impressed with the ’so-called prophets of american Christian radicalism’ who think that you can love your enemy, pray for your enemy, return evil for good, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute you all while blowing his fucking head off.
Either rest of us are just too stupid to figure out how those are compatible, or you are hell-bent on using the wrong weapons for the wrong warfare (Ephesians 5).”
Augustine, in speaking of the correction of the Donatists, argues that it is in fact an act of neighbor love to correct their wrongdoing. If you restrain someone from committing evil (the task of the state), you have done both them and your neighbors a service. You won’t like that answer, but hey, Augustine is no dummy.
But on to a more serious issue. There is a legitimate reason to ask, “Why does any of this matter?” Because of our brave police and military, it is likely that we will never be asked to commit violence on behalf of the state and not be faced with the choice. Why does it matter if I am a just warrior, when I am not a soldier or officer? Why does it matter that you are a pacifist, when others do your fighting for you anyway?
Barth wrote that nonviolence was rendered meaningless by the absence of the draft. What consequence is there for your belief (outside of, say, a mugging situation)? Who will persecute you for this?
Perhaps we are both too convinced that our opinions matter. Just War means nothing here – though it would if I was in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nonviolence means nothing here – though if you were in the Sudan or China, it might.
But, since we are trading questionable internet resources, charity requires that I reciprocate:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=david_kopel
Wouldn’t it be fair, given the evidence that we DO have, to say that Ambrose and Augustine were largely innovative? Personally, I cut off “early church” around their time because the Christian attitude towards the Empire began to shift in the 3rd Century. So, to me, that shift is what defines the difference between the early church and what comes after.
The stories of soldiers in the Gospels have very little direct bearing on the morality of war or violence. You could almost make that case with prostitution. Jesus’ affirmation of the seeming oppressors begins, in Luke’s Gospel, with Luke 4 where Jesus extends forgiveness and inclusion towards the oppressors. Does this affirm their oppression? By no means! The overall trajectory of Luke’s Gospel is one of including the fringe. Jesus includes the soldier because of their out-status as enforcers. It would be a mistake to read beyond that to find an affirmation of their vocation.
The body of evidence, starting with the Sermon on the Mount and continuing into the first two Christian centuries, is overwhelmingly pacifistic. You can massage the “silence” all you want into getting it to affirm what you want it to affirm. But Just War and self-defense are both, within the Christian tradition, later innovations. One could most certainly not say the same for pacifism.
Romans 13?
Ambrose, in his writings on Just War Theology based it on actual events. He was angry with a bishop who, when thugs radded villages in this bishops territory, did not act because “Our Lord taught that we are to turn the other cheek”.
The fact is, we are commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ to turn our check, but we have no right to turn another person’s cheek.
This is why Ambrose of Milan insisted that a christian had a duty to use force to come to the defense of a third party. In fact if one did not come to their neighbor’s aid, they were as bad as the one who commited the act.
Hence, Ambrose argues that if someone is breaking into our neighbor’s home, and we do not come to their defense, even if to do so would mean we would have to injure or kill the attacker, we have not loved.
In fact Ambrose took it a step further. If someone is breaking into our neighbor’s home and we do not act Ambrose argues that we have not loved our neighbor and he would even question whether we are saved.”
Tough talk, but true nonetheless.
This is why I don’t pay much attention to all those bleeding hearts who speak out against violence and the armed forces. If it were their home being broken into, and their life was about to end, a shot to the head of their assalant would suddenly be their greatest blessing. And the act of pulling the trigger, an act of love.
I agree with Ambrose. If someone is breaking into our neighbors home and we do not act we have not loved our neighbor and that is problematic in turns of whether or not we are Christian.
But what you’re missing is that no one is advocating passivity. Christian non-violence is an act of self-donating enemy-love. It is not passive. Rather it takes imagination, courage and personal sacrifice.
Shooting my assailant in the head takes none of those things.
If your idea of love is to kill a man, and your idea of blessing is to shoot my enemies in the head, then maybe you should listen to a few bleeding hearts who speak out against violence and the armed forces.
People like, I dunno…Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Amos, Jesus, Paul, Ignatius, Cyprian.
Shooting your assailant in the head actually would require those things. You’d need imagination to train ahead of time to fire the shot and actually stop the assailant, rather than missing him and potentially killing someone else. If firing a gun doesn’t take courage, don’t tell the US marines. I’m sure even in self-defense situations, there is fear that must be overcome. Personal sacrifice? Yes, I think killing someone would be a sacrifice. Regardless of how just the act may or may not be, it would take a toll.
The Old Testament is not exactly the best source for anti-military Christian nonviolence. Jesus was much more charitable towards soldiers, and their mission, than modern pacifists. And for every Ignatius or Cyprian I can still give you an Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.
Welcome back, Mack.
The Old Testament isn’t easy, but it is a great text for anti-military Christian non-violence. At any rate, my initial comment that Moses, Samuel, Isaiah and Amos do speak against violence and the military stands, whether or not there are contradictory passages elsewhere.
“And for every Ignatius or Cyprian I can still give you an Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.”
Yes, and for every Martin Luther King Jr. or Bishop Tutu I can give you a Michael Novak, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. My argument is not that the disavowal of violence is more popular, rather that it is at the heart of the gospel. We’ve been here before.
“Personal sacrifice? Yes, I think killing someone would be a sacrifice.”
At least two sacrifices:
First, it’s a sacrifice of your normal unwillingness to kill. There’s a reason marines are trained to kill. It’s not natural.
Second, it’s a sacrifice of your faithfulness to the gospel of peace (loving your enemy, praying for those who persecute you, blessing those who curse you, giving to those who ask of you, returning good for evil-Rom12).
Thirdly, it’s a sacrifice of that poor dumb bastard’s life in order to protect me. But I don’t need you to protect me. I am at peace with God, I have the Holy Spirit, and I have faith that God will raise me at the last day.