_____________

When "Operation Rescue" hit the national scene in 1988, it advocated a strategy of physical blockade of abortion centers. Its founder, Randall Terry, published a book by the same name shortly thereafter, and in it he made a case for civil disobedience, arguing that all abortion centers could be shut down if the numerical force of blockaders were large enough. I first encountered this idea two years earlier in Philadelphia, and immediately rejected it.

I wrote Terry in early 1989 to pose some biblical questions about his strategy, and was able to arrange a meeting with him on April 1 in South Boston. But he was unreceptive to my concerns, and thereafter he shunned all further discussion about the issue. The very idea of blockade was predicated upon coercive tactics hatched in secret against police authorities and pro-abortion organizations. Terry’s position, as he articulated it in his book, and in the meeting I had with him, effectively placed politics ahead of the Gospel.

Second, I asked Terry if he believed, like me, that all Scripture is defined interpretively by the doctrines of creation, sin and redemption outlined in Genesis 1-3. He said yes. Then I asked, "Can you then show me where you root the strategy of blockade in these doctrines?" He answered quickly, "Well, how do I know that your strategy is rooted in these doctrines?" He then dismissed the subject and refused to entertain the question again.

Within several years after its inauguration, Operation Rescue (OR) was not only a failure, but it hardened the hearts of many people against the Gospel, and provided a windfall for abortion-rights groups for fund-raising. Sadly, Terry proved to be a perfect foil for them to demonize and raise money by fear, since his language against abortion-rights advocates was so condemning. His face and name was splashed on Planned Parenthood fund-raising letters to motivate their donor base to give more (and very successfully). The impact of OR, and spin-off efforts, greatly affected this nation’s view of the abortion debate.

Also, it allowed pro-abortion groups to lump Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) in with OR in their public rhetoric. And for anyone who participated in the blockade of an abortion center, it reduced their ability to participate in political dialogue, for they had already forfeited that arena by their vigilante actions. Thus, I contend it was a large net loss both for the pro-life witness in this culture, and for those Christians and churches who participated in or supported it. Subsequently, Terry became an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Congress in 1998, but in order to do so, he had to sign a consent decree with the National Organization for Women (NOW), promising never again to be involved with blockade or cognate violative actions. He signed the decree in order to avoid further lawsuits against his former actions and make himself more "politically viable," and in particular, to avoid the loss of his campaign funds to those lawsuits. What moral or intellectual integrity does this represent, if truly he believed that the strategy of blockade was biblical?

The Language of "Rescue"

The name "Operation Rescue" is derived from Proverbs 24:11-12, which Terry used as an all-encompassing hermeneutic: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"

But the context is one of speaking the authority vested in the king to make such rescue, and consistent with the Law of Moses, in which vigilante action for the sake of changing the law is not to be found.

The unborn are fully made in God's image and regarded as children. Thus, when we consider the pagan practices of child sacrifice condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures, we have a full parallel, which can be seen in Jeremiah 19, where King Zedekiah and the elders in Jerusalem had vested in them the authority to stop child sacrifice.

If the strategy of blockade were applicable anywhere in the Bible, it would be here. More than a constitutional and democratic republic, this was theocratic Israel, where the laws were given directly by God, and the king was charged with enforcing them. The redress available to dissenting citizens was not to rewrite the laws within the nation if they did not like them, but it was the freedom to emigrate to another nation that more closely resembled their values. And many of the surrounding pagan nations endorsed the practice of child sacrifice. The Jews had agreed with Joshua that Yahweh’s laws were good, and they had agreed with the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah was the final prophet to the city, reminding Judah of these stipulations.

Jeremiah had friends in high places in Jerusalem, friends at the palace court and within the priesthood. So though as a prophet he had the opposition of the king and the religious elitists, he was not alone. He would have had little problem rounding up a good remnant of faithful Jews, who if persuaded that blockade were called for by Yahweh, would have provided a blockade to the Valley of Ben Hinnom where the child sacrifices were occurring regularly and with increasing frequency. Moreover, unlike the status of the unborn still within their mother’s womb, Jeremiah would have had the physical ability to "snatch away" the little boys or girls from their parent’s arms en route to Ben Hinnom. He could have actually had a literal "Operation Rescue." But he did not do. If blockade were truly applicable from his chosen language of natzal in Proverbs 24:11, then it should have been in evidence at this very moment. The reality of my critique is ratified by Jeremiah’s use of the exact same words to king Zedekiah: "This is what the LORD says: 'Go down to the place of the king of Judah and proclaim this message there: "Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, you who sit on David’s throne – you, your officials and your people who come through these gates. This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place" (22:1-3).

The use of "rescue" is again in the hiphil form – to "cause deliverance," to "snatch away," and the language of "shedding innocent blood" refers to the practice of child sacrifice consistently in the Old Testament, as Terry also points out. Jeremiah refuses to become a vigilante, to take the law into his own hands, as he worked through civil government even when it was uncivil. He called the king to be faithful to the covenant, and to his role in civil government. Whereas Zedekiah was turning away from the enforcement of the Mosaic laws, Jeremiah knew that the restoration of civil order was not to be attained by a resort to civil disorder, by a condescension to the tactics of the ancient serpent. Civil order is restored by a successful appeal to a higher civil order. And if the people do not respond to such an appeal, then Yahweh will bring his judgment by his means. In the application of the ethics of choice at this juncture, this meant the destruction of the city, the siege, famine, cannibalism and other horrors Judah brought on itself.

The Valley of Ben Hinnom was shortened in common parlance to the "Valley of Hinnom," which in the Hebrew is ge’hinnom. In the New Testament, it is translated by the Greek geenna, or Gehenna in the English, and it is used as a word for "hell" by Jesus. Thus he describes the nature of hell as a place of burning that never ceases, a place of fire where people choose to come and worship a false god who demands human sacrifice. These are the ethics of the ancient serpent, his very abode. To speak of the hell of human sacrifice and human abortion is to be biblically literate. The Valley of Hell.

So in Jeremiah 19 we see the parallel to human abortion, yet we see no blockade, even though Jeremiah had the political power to pull it off (at least once), and the technical ability to actually snatch the child and run away with him. But to the end, Jeremiah lobbied for the king to stop the evil. Had Jeremiah tried to rescue the children himself, the culture at large would have undoubtedly ended their tolerance of him. He would likely have been stoned to death, and his prophetic ministry ended well before God’s appointed time. King Zedekiah stayed in power partly because he continually oscillated between the idolatrous will of the people and the word of Yahweh. He would not embrace the courage to lead the people and put his life on the line, trusting in Yahweh to protect him if he were to be faithful to the covenant. When an elitist regime introduces idolatries to the common people, as a means to maintain control over them, eventually a monster is created that demands the obeisance of the political elitists as well. It comes to the point where they are controlled by the idolatrous appetite of the people they have fed. Thus Jeremiah prophesied both to the people, their elders and priests, and to the king himself.

As we thus see, the strategy of blockade is not employed in a theocracy as a means of rescue. Nor is it applied in a pagan nation. The United States has both a biblical heritage and the freedom for pagan religion to exist freely within it at the same time. There is no biblical precedent for the coercive practice of blockade as a means to rescue the unborn from the death of abortion.

Vigilante Action

In Terry’s book, he only looks at some selective passages, out of context, in order to support vigilante action. A brief summary of the major texts in the Bible concerning this matter is helpful.

1. In Exodus 1:6-22, we see the courage of the Hebrew midwives in opposing Pharoah's order to drown all the newborn Hebrew males. They were shrewd in their language and actions, and they entered into no vigilante action to change the unjust laws of Egypt. Pharaoh could not charge them with any wrongdoing. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

2. In Exodus 2:1-10, the mother of Moses saved his life by a shrewd act, entering into no vigilante action to change the unjust laws of Egypt. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

3. In Exodus 2:11-15a, Moses does commit an act of vigilante action in murdering an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, and as a result, he has to flee for his life. This text is not cited by Terry.

4. In Joshua 2:1-16, Rahab acts with shrewdness in protecting the Hebrew spies, seeking the true God of Israel, but never entered into any vigilante action against her native pagan Jericho. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

5. In the book of Esther, the Jewish queen of a pagan king risks her life to protect the Hebrew people from a murderous agenda, showing the power of civil obedience. This text is not cited by Terry.

6. In the book of Daniel, he thrives in the power of civil obedience in a pagan nation, and in the process becomes de facto prime minister for seven years, able to do justice for the weak including the abolition of any child sacrifice with the nation. These texts are not cited by Terry.

7. In Matthew 2:1-23, the Magi did not follow Herod's deceptive wish, a) not being under his jurisdiction, and b) not engaging in any vigilante action in the process. This text is cited by Terry to justify the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

8. In Acts 4:1-31 and 5:12-42, the apostles disobeyed hypocritical religious authority, not civil authority, and engaged in no vigilante action in the process. These texts are central for Terry in justifying the vigilante action of Operation Rescue.

Biblical Criteria for Civil Disobedience

The only basis for civil disobedience in the Bible is:

1. when believers are being forced to deny the Lord by word or deed;

2. when believers are politically disenfranchised; and

3. only insofar as necessary to keep integrity, never by means of vigilante action to change evil laws.

All three criteria must be met. The way to change evil laws is not by matching the civil disorder of immoral laws with the civil disorder of challenging such evil. No tit for tat of civil disorder versus civil disorder. For then, as we condescend to the devil’s own terms, the debate is forfeit. Rather we answer with a superior appeal to God’s civil order, of his laws which transcend political contest. And we are all called to do so as a praying people, seeking when necessary to be imbued with signs and wonders according to the biblical pattern.

Moses changed the situation of the Jews being tyrannized by Egyptian law not by taking vigilante action against it, but through the civil order of approaching and providing Pharaoh a way out.

Esther risked her life by going through civil order, and thus thwarted an evil law.

Jeremiah worked through civil order, and even though it was not heeded, he refused to fall into the idolatry of taking the law into his own hands. His witness was crucial for the exiles in Babylon, and the preparation for the Messiah.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego all did the same, and evil laws were removed, and good laws made in their place.

Civil obedience is more radical than civil disobedience when seeking to transform culture. Civil obedience per biblical ethics is courageous, whereas civil disobedience per vigilante action is by definition cowardly, even in spite of the best motivations. Such civil obedience is effective, whereas vigilante action is not. Thus, we have basis to understand why civil obedience is prescribed for Jews and Christians in the Bible. True civil disobedience, in its limited arenas of permissibility, it not a prescribed teaching. It is a necessary reaction, but only insofar as rooted in a prior redemptive proactivity. Reactively, we disobey when called to deny Christ, but we do not initiate such conflict, and we engage in no vigilante action. We initiate in accordance with an appeal to the power of the image of God; we initiate a radical ethos of civil obedience.

Simply put: civil obedience is prescribed for the church as a proactive ethic in culture (cf. Romans 12:9-13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:9-17; 3:8-22; 4:12-19.

In the spring of 1989, I initiated a Christian witness at New England’s largest abortion center, Preterm, in Brookline, Massachusetts, adjacent to Boston, which later I called the Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn. Preterm was then performing about 10,000 abortions a year. Over a two-year period we maintained a weekly presence on Saturday mornings. Usually we had from a dozen to three dozen people; on a number of occasions we had 50 or more, and several occasions we had large turnouts, including our first time on June 3, 1989, with some 225 participating. Activists from the Boston chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) were also there for the first nine months in equal numbers, but afterward called it off because, according to one of their leaders, we "were persuading too many of them."

In these assemblies, we had several points of strategy. First was a visible presence augmented by banners and signs. Second was a peaceful and conversational presence where we sought to engage abortion-rights protestors, police, passersby, "escorts," guards and others in honest dialogue. Third was worship, including song and prayer in various capacities. And fourth was the eventual development of The Jeremiah 19 Liturgy (found under the Mars Hill Society icon). It all involved a specific embrace of spiritual warfare, where we were seeking to break the demonic forces present, and to see the Spirit of God touch the hearts and minds of all those involved with Preterm in any capacity, especially the women coming for abortions.

In the first element of our strategy, we had two large banners, each about six feet in width, and three-and-a-half feet in height. One banner was at the front of Preterm, on the sidewalk on Beacon Street, and the other on the side street near the rear entrance and parking lot.

The banners had white block letters against a green background (like a highway sign), and easily visible from quite a distance:

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE LIFE

We also had some signs (three by two feet in size) that said the same, with the same colors. Then we had ten (now eleven – #3 is the new one) sets of yellow signs with black letters, that posed rhetorical questions, also designed to be clearly visible against any surrounding. These read:

1. AREN’T YOU GLAD YOU WEREN’T ABORTED?

2. WHY DO YOU FEEL NO CHOICE BUT ABORTION?

3. IS IT YOUR CHOICE, OR HIS CHOICE, FOR YOU TO ABORT?

4. HOW DOES HUMAN ABORTION ADD TO YOUR OWN DIGNITY?

5. MIGHT YOU REGRET THIS ABORTION SOMEDAY?

6. CAN ANYTHING GOOD BE SAID ABOUT HUMAN ABORTION?

7. DOES GOOD CHOICE NURTURE LIFE, OR DESTROY LIFE?

8. WHY DOES THE HUMAN FETUS FIGHT TO STAY ALIVE?

9. IF FEMINISM = HUMAN CARE, WHY DESTROY THE UNBORN HUMAN?

10. CAN LAW OR CHOICE EXIST WITHOUT A DEFINITION OF HUMAN LIFE?

11. CAN YOU IMAGINE JESUS PERFORMING AN ABORTION? WHY NOT?

The words "you have the power" strengthens this language of acknowledgment, and in adding "power," feminist yearnings find resonance. This is further symphonized with the addition of choice – "You have the power to choose ...." These six words are as central to all feminist theories as any summation can make. We know that the abortion choice is largely the result of male chauvinisms, and many feminists and abortion-rights activists are in painful reaction to having been so violated.

When the final four-letter word is added to the phrase, "You have the power to choose life," the de facto feminist ethic of misinformed choice is revealed. The power of informed choice requires accurate definition of terms, it requires an acknowledgment of reality. When "life" is put in, the object of "pro-choice" is no longer amorphous. It takes on flesh, it becomes real in its consequences. The power to choose? The power to choose what? Are all choices equal (e.g., dualism), or are some good and some evil?

The questions were all designed to be intelligent and thought-provoking, and not accusatory. Over two years worth of Saturdays, we saw as many as 200 women turn away from their abortion appointments. Hundreds of honest discussions occurred with abortion rights activists and others who were there, and many anecdotes are relayed in Vol. 2 of "First the Gospel, Then Politics..."

The Power of the Banner

As an example, on September 30, 1989, I was not present at Preterm, but I received a detailed report from several witnesses to one of the most signal examples of the power of this slogan. At the rear entrance, two volunteers were holding up the banner, with other pro-life volunteers also present. One was Sue O’Connell, a volunteer who with her husband would travel nearly 100 miles from Amherst, Massachusetts, and they were as regular as any of our volunteers. That morning, Sue’s eight-year old daughter, Kelly, was also with her.

Sue and the others were positioned on the sidewalk next to the entrance to the parking lot, and from the lot people coming to Preterm would then enter the rear door. There were about eight "escorts" positioned by the door, many dozens of feet away from Sue and Kelly, each wearing aprons designating their escort status. These were women and men, serving as volunteers (I was told) to Preterm, to "guard" incoming "clients" from being harassed by "anti-choice zealots." Since the parking lot was private property, our volunteers never went onto it from their public sidewalk positions.

This particular morning, a college-age woman walked down the street and was preparing to cross the lot to the rear door. As she did, she stopped, looked at the banner and pondered its words. Sue offered her some printed literature, and the young woman was preparing to receive it. But during those moments, the eight escorts saw what was happening and quickly came up and surrounded her, creating a human blockade around her with arms linked. This was a common practice such escorts developed to shield women when trying to break through an Operation Rescue blockade wall. Blockade against blockade, force against force, human angst against human angst. So it was tragicomical to witness their intensity of forming such a blockade where there was no physical interference to such women as they entered the abortion center. But they had a deeper fear – that abortion-minded women might intelligently reconsider their choice, and seek some informed input from a different perspective. Thus, these escorts started shouting and chanting so as to prevent her from hearing anything Sue might say, and especially to prevent any printed literature from coming her way. Thus they forced her into the doors of Preterm by such a surrounding tactic, being careful not to physically touch her and run afoul of the law.

One witness to the event told me that as much as he opposed the tactic of blockade, the sight of the woman being hustled inside made him so frustrated that he emotionally wanted to physically intervene. As he wrestled with these thoughts, eight-year old Kelly O’Connell started praying out loud and with the strength of child-like faith, as she rebuked the devil, his deceit and his influence upon that young woman, and commanded in Jesus’s name that she would come out of Preterm. And within minutes the woman did, shaken in countenance, making her way back to Sue and the others, where she received some materials and went her way. A triumph for the biblical power of informed choice. By God’s grace, not by answering coercion and lawlessness with opposing coercion and lawlessness – but by answering with prayer.

Thus the banner, in its summation of biblical theology, "You have the power to choose life," has a power that abortion-rights activists are unable to answer. When Yahweh said to Cain that he must overcome his sin, and when Moses and Joshua told the Jews to choose between life and death, between the true God and the false gods, he was saying that they "have the power" to do so. Not the intrinsic ability within sinful humanity to overcome evil, but the broken remains of God’s image within them are sufficient by God’s grace to discern truth from falsehood, and to say "help me Lord," at which point he sends his help. By acknowledging this "power" within hurting people, we serve the reversal of the reversal, and redeem the language of choice to serve human life, not to destroy it.

Our ten signs also proved effective at having women stop and reconsider their intentions, and effective at catalyzing conversations with the abortion-rights activists. I conceived of them the day before our first chorus, and they remained almost unchanged for our entire two years at Preterm, and as we changed them from cardboard signs to more durable materials.

On September 9, 1989, as we began to be present every