I find it interesting that your abortion position includes an exception for the safety of the mother. Not because I have any problem with that (I don’t), but because you go on to say that you oppose capital punishment and war. What is your reasoning for believing that a woman has a right to safeguard her life if it is unintentionally threatened by a pregnancy, but that society has no similar right to safeguard itself from murderers or external agressors. After all, in the second and third case, there is plenty of biblical precedent for a society’s right to defend itself.

I come from a more fundamentalist church background where we were oriented around a rather Old Testament “righteousness,” and the death penalty and “good” wars were approved — sometimes vociferously. Recently my wife and I became Methodists though and as we do our best to concentrate on “pure love” I find myself growing more and more into the viewpoint you articulated, almost in spite of myself.
In my old church we would never have openly approved of the doctor’s slaying, but deep down inside a lot of us would have been happy to see him go. I am glad to say that this time my first reaction was shame, and the second one was sadness. How can I promote life on behalf of the One who was Life if I am unwilling to promote all life?
Thank you for your post.

Incidentally, that wasn’t meant as an anonymous comment; Beliefnet ate my name and URL (and almost got the post itself!).

Hi Joshua: My view is the same in all three cases. The first principle in these matters in a fallen world is that you cannot make an ethic out of exceptions. Exceptions are lesser of two evils choices. As a person completely opposed to war, I do not believe in the just war theory, but I can conceive of a circumstance where defending one’s self, or one’s town etc. is less evil and less destructive of life than standing idly by. As a pacifist I would do my best to defend life without taking it, but I do not object to defending life per se. Capital punishment may also be a lesser of two evils choice, but I see no positive reasons to support it, not least because judges and juries are not omniscient, and if you kill someone, you also deprive them of the possibility of everlasting life, if they have no conversion whilst incarcerated.
So let me restate my view—- the principle is I am totally pro-life. I think there may be some lesser of two evils exceptions in all three circumstances however the burden of proof is on the Christian who says there is in view of the teaching of Jesus. I of course am talking about an ethic that applies to the Christian community, not to the state. Christians are called to a higher and alternative ethical standard in such matters. In my judgment, capital punishment is in some ways the hardest of the three to justify (see John Grisham’s fine non-fiction book An Innocent Man).
Hope that clarifies things.
BW3

And one more thing. On my view abortion, capital punishment, and war are all sins, which require repentance of if they are done, and even if they are done in a lesser of two evils situations. All three violate the sanctity of life and the commands to love your enemies and avoid murder and should not be glorified.
BW3

There was a reason why in medieval England the execution asked for pardon from the man about to be executed— There was a clear recognition that forgiveness was needed for what he was about to do.

Hi Ben (or anyone else who would like to comment),
I consider myself an evangelical, but I’m not politically pro-life from conception. The issue I struggle with is that of defining when life begins. I used to err on the side of conception, though now I’m not so sure that’s practical. I would still be against late term abortions, as I do believe life begins in the womb. Lately, I’ve been leaning more towards brain activity as the measurement for when life begins (which I believe is about the 5th month of pregnancy).
Instead of turning this into a debate, perhaps someone could direct me to some thoughtful literature on the case for conception from both a scientific and Biblical point of view.

I agree with the essence of what you wrote Ben. These issues are results of a horribly fallen existence. But I always hesitate to discuss abortion and capital punishment together. They are apples and oranges. In abortion the sheer number of babies aborted far exceed the death toll from capital punishment. Also, while our justice system is as flawed as we are, at least there is a system to protect and give some kind of voice to those who are accused of capital crimes.
Neither act is desirable. And I appreciate what you said about confession and forgiveness.

I’m probably not going to be checking comments anymore today. If anyone wants to recommend some books or resources that take the life at conception point of view, feel free to email them to me at kenny [dot] johnson [at] gmail.com
Thanks

Dr. Tiller’s killer is a terrorist and should be charged as one.

Well MAF I’m afraid I must disagree. He is am murderer plain and simple. A terrorist is by definition someone who intends to attack a nation or ethnic or religious group other than his own. In this case we are talking about one Protestant murdering another.
BW3

Hi, Ben. It would be good for you to describe at what point your position reaches its limit. Is it always true that taking the law into one’s own hands is wrong, e.g., Bonhoeffer and the plot to murder Hitler? I believe that what the killer of the Dr. did was murder and reprehensible. But I can imagine a point at which people of good conscience (though it appears in this case that the murderer was orbiting in the universe of mental illness) will reach a limit. Some time back Carol Kent wrote I Will Lay My Isaac Down, the story of her son’s “murder” of his wife’s former husband, who he believed was an abuser of children and who the courts would not restrain by a severe restriction of custody rights. He chose to kill and suffer the punishment rather than having his step children go through the hell of abuse. I believe that Ms. Kent believes her son did the wrong, but I think many people believe that he did the ethically good.

That’s a novel definition of terrorist, Ben. This is more the definition we see used daily:
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually
organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often
uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
(wordnet)
Take out the “usually” and “often” weasel words and you are left with someone who uses terror as a political weapon. So, did this killer intend his act to have political consequences? For example, to cow abortionists into stopping their practices? If so, he is a terrorist. OTOH if he killed Dr Teiler purely out of rage at this particular man’s activities, with no thought for the wider ramifications, he is not. Whether they were from different tribes is immaterial.
Oh, and BTW, you and Gus DiZerega (the pagan blogger here on BeliefNet) have a lot to agree about!

Hi,again. Do you take a pacifist position? Curious to know in light of your above clarifications.

Hi Don:
Yes I stand with the many early Christians who were pacifists. Violence only begets more violence. This does not mean I do not believe in active non-violent resistance to evil in various forms. There is a difference between non-resistance and non-violent resistance.
BW3

Thank you for the clarification. So, if I may use an example, you might, based on your ethic, say that America’s participation in WWII was necessary, in the sense that it prevented far greater destruction of life than would otherwise have occurred, but it was still a sin (not sure if that’s the right word) that must be repented of?
You may already be aware of this, but I grew up in an Orthodox church, and the view of war is similar in some ways. I was told that if an Orthodox Christian ever takes a life, even in justified circumstances (self defense, military service, etc) they are barred from communion for a specific period of time in order to properly repent.
I would say though, that I’m not sure this view is as distinct from that of most other Christians, except in degree, as you seem to think. I don’t know of many people (well, ANY actually) who see war as anything but an evil, albeit one that is sometimes necessary in order to prevent greater evil. The main distinction seems to be that many, though not all, don’t ultimately see even a WWII-type scenario as a failure that must be repented for even by the “good guys”.
Anyway, thank you again for the clarification. I look forward to continuing to read your work.

I share your heart to see each life preserved. I am against abortion and capital punishment. That said, how do you treat texts such as Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4? It seems to me that there is a seperation between personal ethic and the responsibility given to authority and government to create and maintain God-ordained order. This seperation between personal and government gets stickier when applied to a representative form of government, of course.
While I would love to wiggle away from these texts on my gut feeling that all life should be preserved within all possible means, I find it difficult to apply to capital punishment and war according to these texts. Any thoughts?

As Christian’s we seem to be overwhelmed with apparent contradictions in the bible that non-Christians are only too eager to point out. How do we react in the face of evil? Do we realize that we are not worthy of casting the first stone and set the adulterous woman free? Or do we face Goliath with sling and stones ready? In each case there are lessons to be learned that the master Teacher wishes to impart. Bible scholars and those with only a casual acquaintance with the Word can all reference Old Testament situations where lives were taken by men of God. Moses, for example, firmly enforced capital punishment but was punished himself for striking a rock! I believe that taking a life for whatever reason is little different than other sins but seems to fall into an area where we may be acting in God’s will by taking that action.
As a society we deem the taking of life in war as acceptable but not during an act of civil disobedience. In the former case we are following the directive of those in authority over us. In the latter a personal choice is made. Soldiers are praised for their actions but murderers are imprisonned or executed for what amounts to the same actions. Clearly, even our imperfect minds grasp a fundamental truth. The ending of a life on earth does not end that life. Only God can end a life. Like David we may find ourselves acting in God’s Will by ending a life. Or like Abraham we may have to prepare ourselves to sacrifice a loved one. These are acts of submission to His direction. The real trick here is knowing His leading.

Sorry, the above post was mine. I also had issues with beliefenet.

Hi James:
My answer to this is simple. The ethic of the NT is not the same as the ethic of the OT when it comes to individual believers. Christians are to live by the ethic of Jesus, Paul etc. You are of course right that there is a different ethic laid down for governing officials and the like, and for Christians, when there is a conflict then there is an issue of conscience. For me, I would be unable to serve in the military in any military capacity, but I could serve as a medic or chaplain. Or again, I could be a fireman but not a policeman on a beat with a gun.
Hope this helps,
Ben