I hope this helps you all understand what is being said about the just nature of defending the preborn child with force, even deadly force.

This is a word from a friend of mine, Bruce Murch, who I first met in 1991 while we (Operation Rescue) were rescuing preborn children by blockading abortionist George Tiller's butchertorium for about a month or so.


******************


After a lengthy phone conversation with my friend David Miller (LoveOneAnother) I felt that a clearer delineation of my position on this topic is warranted.

Before I do that, let me say that I do count David my friend, in spite of our profound disagreements on this and other topics. I grieve to see active preachers ripping each other to shreds and feeling quite justified in the doing of it. It is the devil's own work. This division amongst the brethren will have no good end.

But I digress.

I loved Paul Hill. I believe that what he did was justifiable by scripture and by civil law. I believe it was a righteous act.

Paul has written that to kill abortionists is "our Christian duty". His detractors, like David Miller, Ruben Chavez and others have made much of that. I disagree with Paul on that point. I disagreed with him when he was headed that direction in his philosophy back in '93. I disagree with it today. Many others that believe that he was justified in his killing, nonetheless disagree that every Christian is duty-bound to do likewise.

Some have taken his same course. They have proclaimed themselves "cowards" because they have not shot abortionists. They either think that they are hypocrites for agreeing with his actions while failing to act similarly, or they simply have not thoroughly considered all the possibilities surrounding a person who has acted thus.

To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?

In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified.

And quite possibly, Paul Hill was called. We see Phinehas, not one of the "judges of Israel" whom Moses gave authority to slay "all those who join themselves to Baal_peor", but rather a man who acted out of his own zeal for God and His law, kill the fornicating Israelite and his Midianite whore right in the camp. I suspect many of us would have thought Phinehas guilty of murder, but God vindicated him.

Perhaps God called Paul for such a time as this. I do not know, but would not dare to say that He did not, since it is entirely within the character of God to order it, and to reward it when it is done spontaneously. To declare with indignance that killing the wicked is "not God's way" is ignorant of God's character and His history, and is extremely presumptuous.

I am not a coward because I think Paul was justified, but have no drive, desire or mandate to kill abortionists myself. I am being obedient to what God has called me to do in the face of this evil, and have been doing it for the last 15 years. Courage is not the lack of fear, but the willingness to act in spite of it. So, I will continue to defend Paul Hill's righteous deed, and I will continue to act as God has called me to act.

Several of the very vocal participants in this doctrinal bloodbath do virtually nothing, either to oppose the wickedness of abortion, or to preach the gospel to the lost. Such ones should simply keep their opinions to themselves, until they have actually done something that qualifies them to have a considered opinion.

We can hash this out as long as you want. But to those who say, "you're a heretic because you believe Paul Hill is a murderer" and those who say, "you're a heretic because you DON'T believe Paul Hill is a murderer": You all border on a heresy that brings deep division to the Body of Christ. You all feel righteous and justified. "Anathemas" are flowing like water between men of courage and conviction.

Men and Brethren. These things ought not so to be.
_________________
Bruce Evan Murch

This was my reply to Brother Bruce and the street preacher's e-mail debate list.

I hope this helps in our discussion if force is justifiable in defense.


Watchman (Bruce Murch) wrote:

"To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?

In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified. "





This has been my position all along. Tactically, such intervention IMHO, should be used only when all other intervention fails.

Others may disagree and think that defenders have a hand in distributing righteous judgment of God. I disagree some what. I see this justice as a biproduct of the act of defending. IMO-the intent should be defense of another for the heart to be judged honorable. (not all will agree [Phinehas seems to show a different intent] your mileage may vary- so to speak- I am not interested in making this leap and will focus on the issue of defense)

I have asked prolifers to allow God to use this opportunity of Hill's witness in death to change and to spur their heart on to the peaceful action that I invite them and others to join me in. Not everyone is called to be a Paul Hill type defender.

But if prolifers continue to refuse to defend children peacfully and prayerfully- it will just give more need for last min. defense of the children by shotgun.

Why not show these women that you support them and join with me in peaceful, prayerful intervention at death's door; as is my usual custom; to offer last min help to those scheduled to be killed that day?


Scripture shows us that it is within God's character to use men to kill in defense of another. Such drastic action might be used when all other prolife efforts have failed. Perhaps some would say ONLY when all other efforts have failed.

Certainly for those 32 that day- all the support offered by PL groups, show the truth tours, sidewalk counceling, education, voting, graphic signs, preaching, etc FAILED miserably those 32. If not for Hill's defensive action to stop the abortionist from killing these 32 would be killed that day.

Each moment of each life is precious. For anyone to claim that IF some of these children were later killed elsewhere by another bort that all of Hill's efforts were in vain is rediculous and a slap in the face of any mother whose cried for just a few more moments with a dying child.

The facts are that THOSE children THAT day were SAVED from THAT threat of death by THAT abortionist.

If some were killed later.... that just means that we failed twice.

If some died later, it does not mean that Hill did not save the child from abortion THAT day at THAT place at THAT time by THAT abortionist.

If a person is heroically saved from death on the battle field only to later be killed in the next battle or next round of gun fire was the heroics not real? Were they false? Were they in vane?

If a teen is pulled from a firery car crash to later be killed in yet another car crash is the person who pulled him from the fire not still a hero? Was not the teens life saved because he may later die?

Detractors of God's defensive spirit can like it or not- the facts remain- the babies schedualed to die at the hands of Barnett that day were saved by Paul Hill's heroic deed. Are they not worthy of protection in the same way as BORN children?

To those detractors of defensive action being a Godly action- what is the significant difference that makes you degrade the preborn from being EQUAL to the born child in this way?

Certainly, Hill saved THESE 32 children from THAT threat of death. If some were later killed because the mothers looked for a NEW abortuary or a NEW abortionist and they were killed then that is sad that there was not another Paul Hill for them.

My God is the God of second chances. It is highly likely that God would give this second chance for these mothers to repent of their rebellion and to choose life for their child. Just because some may not have been obedient to God's second chance does not mean that He did not offer this to them.

To say that these children were not saved is a slap in the face of every mother who had a child die early in life. Every mother who would have died themselves for just one more hour or one more day with their child just a little more time....

Through Rev Hill's defensive action, God gave these mothers a little more time. If they pissed it away that only speaks to their own hearts not to the actions of God or of Paul Hill who offered this second chance at life to these preborn children.

I have a friend who lost his wife to a decease. He wrote a song called "5 more minutes with you" Heart breaking! It would be a good song for these grieving mothers. This is not limited to those who were born alive to die shortly later, of course, many still births, miscariages, and other deaths.

To say that Hill did not save these 32 from death makes a mockery of Mom's against drunk drivers or any other group or person who saves a life to only have it taken away at a later date by a new threat to it's life.

Hill saved those 32. We don't know how many are still alive today but then we do not know how many are alive today from sidewalk ministries 11 years ago, or a rescue 11 years ago either. Should we condemn Rescue and SWC?

What a shame it would be for these mothers to reject a second chance given them by rescuers or Hill or sidewalk ministery teams.

If all life is precious and sacred then all the time they are given to stay alive is also sacred and precious. To say that Hill did not save these 32 is to slap GOD Almighty in the face- as He is the REASON that life is sacred and precious!

Every min of it!

It is great to see the wisdom of Rev Bruce Murch posted here! Bruce is a man of God who has the courage to stand when and where few have, and continues to stand under mounds of oppression at the hands of baby killing advocates as well as his brethren.

www.fullquivermission.com

His children are members of Faithful Soldier School of Evangelism www.FaithfulSoldier.com and are active on the streets in gospel witness many times using an antiabortion catalist to get conversations started.


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?

That is the crust of this, isn't it? Is it just to treat unborn the same as born?


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions.


No, those are not the questions. But many wish they were


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified.


That IS what the Bible teaches Brother Murch!


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
And quite possibly, Paul Hill was called. We see Phinehas, not one of the "judges of Israel" whom Moses gave authority to slay "all those who join themselves to Baal_peor", but rather a man who acted out of his own zeal for God and His law, kill the fornicating Israelite and his Midianite whore right in the camp. I suspect many of us would have thought Phinehas guilty of murder, but God vindicated him.


What I find intereting is that there is not even a mention of Phinehas being "called" but the Bible rather says that God rewarded Phinehas for his ZEAL.

So, so far we have learned that the Bible teaches that Paul Hill was justified and that the Bible can reward those for their zeal.

Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
Perhaps God called Paul for such a time as this. I do not know, but would not dare to say that He did not, since it is entirely within the character of God to order it, and to reward it when it is done spontaneously. To declare with indignance that killing the wicked is "not God's way" is ignorant of God's character and His history, and is extremely presumptuous.


This is correct Brother Murch! There are a lot of presumptious prolifers, aren't there. I know there are here.



I am not a coward because I think Paul was justified, but have no drive, desire or mandate to kill abortionists myself. I am being obedient to what God has called me to do in the face of this evil, and have been doing it for the last 15 years. Courage is not the lack of fear, but the willingness to act in spite of it. So, I will continue to defend Paul Hill's righteous deed, and I will continue to act as God has called me to act.

You and your family do a great job too! Surely folks should not doubt your courage, since the forces of murder have been able to get multimillion dollar judgments against you for the obedience that God has called you to.


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
Several of the very vocal participants in this doctrinal bloodbath do virtually nothing, either to oppose the wickedness of abortion, or to preach the gospel to the lost. Such ones should simply keep their opinions to themselves, until they have actually done something that qualifies them to have a considered opinion.


I agree. Probably for many they have never seen an abortuary except for passing by in a car- their main action in baby saving efforts is posting on the internet. (a good thing but hardly a sacrifice of courage) as a sidewalk ministry group must have.


Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
We can hash this out as long as you want. But to those who say, "you're a heretic because you believe Paul Hill is a murderer" and those who say, "you're a heretic because you DON'T believe Paul Hill is a hero": You all border on a heresy that brings deep division to the Body of Christ. You all feel righteous and justified. "Anathemas" are flowing like water between men of courage and conviction.
Men and Brethren. These things ought not so to be.

Ok so let's stand together for the truth that God does not discriminate against the unborn. Can pacifists do that?

Watchman (Bruce Murch) wrote:
"To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?

In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified. "







Like in the case of Paul Hill and the 32.







Prolifers who reject an equal defense [let's call them discriminators] need to turn to vengeance, punishment and retribution in order to make their argument. If they stick with defense their view is found putrid rather quickly





Good idea! Did any of the discriminators ever join you in peaceful action? We have seen Faithman try to do this same thing, by asking discriminators to jon him in using the peaceful I AM A PERSON postcards. I don't recall [he or the can correct id this is wrong] a single discriminator taking FM up on his offer.





That IS the ONLY reason Hill had to defend with force. If these 32 had been saved by peaceful means- Hill could have continued where he had been for several years, in peaceful sidewalk intervention.





Maybe because it is easier to bitch about Paul Hill?







Yes, we agree that scripture teaches this character trait of God's; Rev Murch mentioned it also!





That's why there are so many different arms, so many different assignments in the army of God. It may takes several to save these babies.




I agree. 32 were saved that day!





I like your term detractor better than discriminator.

check out the site in signature

-------------------------
http://i81.photobucket.com/alb...avater/IamaPerson2.jpg

what signature? ;-)

Below the dotted line

-------------------------
http://i81.photobucket.com/alb...avater/IamaPerson2.jpg

I guess there is no debate when it comes to the "clarification on defensive action"?

It's good to see that we must all agree that the unborn are entitled to the same defense available to the born.

Some Arabs who flew planes into buildings felt religious justification for their act as well. We call them either insane, terrorists, or both.



So did those who perpetrated the Inquisition. Their opinions that what they did was right, didn't make them right either.



What do you expect? He was the worse kind of whack job - a religious whackjob.



Nice! Terrorist wannabes.



Leviticus 25:44-46 states we should take slaves from surrounding nations, make slaves of children, own our slaves for life, and will them to our descendants upon our deaths. If you base your life on such immoral nonsense, I suppose that is your choice.



So your imaginary God ordains your killings, just like the Muslims. This is not only total insanity, but no different than the Crusades or Inquisition.



In America we do not kill those with whom we disagree politically. If we do, we go to jail where we belong, as happened in the case of Paul Hill, regardless of the insane rantings and foolish commandments of your immoral and corrupt God.




Sure you are. Only a coward claims a murder is justified by the whims of his bloodthirsty God. The fact you don't follow in Paul Hill's footsteps only proves you either aren't as stupid as Hill was, or like your freedom too much.



You should damn well know what wickedness is since you advocate killing those with whom you disagree politically.



What are you going to preach to them? That it's ok to listen to the voices in their heads, supposedly from your evil God, which tell them to kill?



This from one who supports what Hill did but doesn't have the balls to do it himself.

-------------------------
A woman without bodily autonomy can be:

1. held as a slave (without consent)
2. raped (without consent)
3. forced to carry a pregnancy to term (without consent)

Read #1-3 above until you fully understand what you support.

How dishonest to imply that Brother Bruce Murches words are those of Robert Ferguson.
That you have to resort to falsehoods and attacks on God are the best someone of such low morals has available to them.

Oh yes. I can't think of anything more Christian than killing those you disagree with. Lovely.

It's sad that all you have is dishonesty and attacks on the posters rather than substantial debate about the worth of the unborn child to recieve the same defense justifiable to the born child.

Isn't it interesting that those who make such attacks are as foreign to Christianity as a Martian would be here on earth?

-------------------------
“The purpose of civil government is to protect life; abandon that, and you have abandoned all.”-Thomas Jefferson." http://www.abortionknoxville.com

Maafa21 Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnNi_qb7nY

CHRISTIANS don't kill people.

-------------------------
50 babies a year that survive abortion... That gets me thinking, if babies survive abortion, what the HELL is being killed in an abortion!

Sarcasm, dear.

All of these terrorists, whether it be a Hill or a Rudolph, were affected by the prolife rhetoric. No wonder they busied themselves bombing clinics, killing abortionists & maiming clinic workers. The prolifers have been screaming abortion is murder for years. There's no reason to be surprised prolifers like Hill or Rudolph finally stepped up to the plate to put a dent in such 'murders.'

Welcome to the fruits of your rhetoric. These incidences, as bad as they may be, show the public at large exactly what the prolife movement is about, even to the point of showing the end game and end results of the rhetoric.

-------------------------
A woman without bodily autonomy can be:

1. held as a slave (without consent)
2. raped (without consent)
3. forced to carry a pregnancy to term (without consent)

Read #1-3 above until you fully understand what you support.

They were more affected by your bloodthirsty actions than anything else. You kill babies by the millions and then expect no one to react violently? Oh wait, I know..... you want us all to be cold and unemotional about the subject of baby killing........ like you.

-------------------------
“The purpose of civil government is to protect life; abandon that, and you have abandoned all.”-Thomas Jefferson." http://www.abortionknoxville.com

Maafa21 Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnNi_qb7nY

I agree with you on this one. They're just a bunch of nutcases. I think most pro-lifers would agree that bombing clinics and terrorism against pro-choicers is not justified.

Edited: 01/15/2007 at 02:37 PM by xLoki

And then you have people who think like this...

So true.......... there are people who think like me.......... who think that you baby killers and all your supporters are the scum of the earth, to put it mildly....

-------------------------
“The purpose of civil government is to protect life; abandon that, and you have abandoned all.”-Thomas Jefferson." http://www.abortionknoxville.com

Maafa21 Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnNi_qb7nY