THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT -- Feedback Box:

Chapter 14 September 1994 All Rights Reserved

NOTICE TO NEW READERS: these are chapters of a book being published, a chapter at a time, as John Brockhoeft writes them. (The book will be further revised, of course. Write to the P&A if you would like to reserve a copy from the first printing.) You are starting in the middle. John wants you to have the first chapters so you can understand where he is coming from. If you subscribe specifically to our /C/ "Pro Life Controversies" issue, your subscription will already be counted from December 1993 to December 1994, and you will be sent the back issues from Brockhoeft's beginning. But if you have subscribed to the weekly P&A, and would be interested in the back issues, just write or call, and we will send them -- free. (P&A, 137 E. Leach, Dsm IA 50315; 515/256-0637)

Dear friends,

I am prisoner #01886-017. I now live in D (cell) house, but there are some of you old timers out there who have followed my story since when Shelley published the first TBR, and you can remember when I used to live in C-house.

Any subscriber to Reader's Digest knows that several times a year RD sends sweepstakes entry forms to its subscribers. You can win five million dollars in these contests; so once, while I was still living in C-house, I mailed my entry in. Not long after that, a computer sent me a letter stating that if my entry was drawn a chauffeured limousine would pull up to 018860017 C house, Ashland, Kentucky, and pick me up, and take me to a really nice banquet with all kinds of good food.

I had a mind to write back and tell them that if they could just talk the warden into letting me go to the banquet in that limousine, shucks, I'd just let them keep the five million bucks, and I'd be as happy as a pig in a mud puddle.

* * * *

BOY, OH, BOY, ARE YOU "LUCKY"!!

What? You don't believe in luck? Well, neither do I )) at least not insofar as the word "luck" implies that things happen by mere chance. That's not what I believe. I know that the Lord our God is in control, so things don't happen by chance. So I apologize for using "lucky"; but, as a writer, I just liked the sound of it better in the context of what I want to share in this issue of TBR. At the end of this column I will repent and tell the truth: you are blessed by God.

Have you ever stopped to consider how "lucky" you really are? I mean the incomprehensible good fortune you had just to be conceived in the first place! Have you ever stopped to consider what happens when a man and woman conceive a baby? I don't mean the mechanics of the thing. Of course you've thought about that. We all have. I mean: have you ever thought of the astronomical statistics involved?

But to establish a statistical point of reference, let's diverge, momentarily, from conceptual statistics to another kind of statistic. It is not my intention, by any means, to promote the superlotto in which people are awarded multi-millions of dollars for picking the right combination of numbers. We're just interested in the statistics. If one of your neighbors buys one of those tickets there is only one chance in 7,000,000 that his numbers will be drawn. So if you picked up the morning paper and read that he had hit the right combination and won all those millions of dollars, the first impression you'd get is that he was pretty "lucky", right? At least statistically speaking, right? Yet, if you stop and think about it, such an event would be like an ordinary everyday occurrence compared to how fortunate you are (statistically speaking).

The Lord our God, Who has microscopic vision, designed your mother's reproductive cells (ova) so that after your father's sperm cell penetrated the ovum's wall, the ovum set up a defensive barrier so that no other sperm cell could enter )) just that first one )) just you. You know, you, as the specific individual whom you are, could only have been created from that one particular ovum plus that one particular sperm cell. In that particular act of intercourse in which you were conceived, if the sperm cell in line immediately ahead of you (or behind you) had penetrated the ovum first, an entirely different person, not you, would have resulted. This other person might even have been a member of the opposite sex. He or she might have had a different hair color or eye color, or a higher or lower I.Q., or more or less athletic prowess. In any case, it would not have been you at all. You never would have existed.

The first, and most fundamental, statistic we examine in determining the improbability of your being conceived staggers the mind from the onset: the fluid carrying the sperm which your father donated to your mother's system contained 500 million sperm cells. So, even if the selection of that one cell )) you )) had been entirely arbitrary (by chance) you would have had only one chance in 500,000,000 to come into being! Boy, oh, boy, are you fortunate! But that's only the very beginning. Your odds are going to get much slimmer.

If somebody doesn't give you a break (lots of them, in fact) you'll never make it! We're going to give you a big, big break right now. We're going to say your parents weren't trying to practice any kind of birth control. Even so, the odds were slim that the sperm cell you came from would be deposited at a time when your mother would be fertile. Otherwise you're a goner, pal. You'll never even exist. If, as believed, a woman is usually fertile for only two days out of a month, then simple math would seem to indicate that any single act of intercourse would stand only one chance in fifteen of resulting in pregnancy. [TBR note: don't accuse me of resorting to an oversimplification here. I'm on your side. I'm trying to help you, for heaven's sake!]

Now two things both have to happen for you ever to exist. Upon your release from your father's body, there must be a ripe ovum in the right place in your mother's system, and you have to be the first to get there and penetrate that egg. Here the "both and" principle of probability theory comes into play. Both A and B have to happen in order for C to happen. To find the new odds against your existence we have to multiply the odds of the one thing (A) happening times the odds that the other thing (B) will also happen. Let's see...15x500,000,000=... boy, oh, boy are you fortunate! All of a sudden the odds against your conception are one in 7.5 billion!

If your mother was fertile for two whole days she was actually giving you a big break, compared to your father. A sperm cell has a life expectancy of thirty days )) but wait a minute )) that doesn't tell the whole story. During this short span the sperm cell aged, reached a peak, and then began to decline in vigor. To get to the egg and penetrate it first you had to be a strong swimmer relative to your 499,999,999 competitors. On top of that, you had to be in a good position within your dad's seminal vesicle at the moment of release. Were you in front or back? Top or bottom? God only knows.

I am little familiar with the principles of hydraulics, but our own common sense tells us that, however it happened, having a head start on some of the other sperm cells had to help, didn't it? If you had been too far back, a weaker swimmer might have beaten you to it. Or a stronger swimmer would have had enough time to come from behind and pass you.

Now, if a sperm cell's life span is thirty days, that translates to about 2.6 million seconds. But you had 499,999,999 competitors! Therefore, relative to the teeming hordes of competitors, all in their varying ages and stages of vigor, your state of primacy over the others probably lasted only the slightest fraction of a second! But it was going to take you several hours to swim to the ovum, so you had to be released some time earlier than at your peak, al the while taking into consideration the relative favorableness of your position within your father's seminal vesicle when the race against time began. The timing and everything had to be perfect. If your mom had made your dad wait until she had redone the nail polish on her toe nails you never would have existed. Some other person would have been born.

Tight underwear lowers a man's sperm count. That's no joke. It's true. Sperm cells can't endure much heat. The Lord made them that way for some reason, and He therefore designed men's anatomy in such a way that the glands which produce sperm are situated outside of the torso, in which it would have been too hot. But tight underwear; e.g., briefs, carry these glands up too close to the body, where the extra heat kills off some of the sperm cells.

How did you come into being? In high school your dad wore briefs. After high school he joined the U.S. Army. His first day in boot camp, they made him send home all the clothes he was wearing and issued him what they wanted him to wear The new duds included cooler boxer shorts. He got used to wearing them. Not long after getting out of the army, he was shopping at K-Mart and thought about buying some briefs. But the job he had in those days didn't pay much, and an angel of the Lord whispered in his ear [your army boxers are still good]. Your dad said: "Naw, my army boxers are still good."

Besides, your dad had been a gung-ho soldier and had a little sentimental attachment to those tan boxers with his service number printed next to the fly. Your mom liked him in them, too.

Ten months later you came screaming and kicking into the delivery room, and your dad was as proud as a black and tan hound barking at two 'possums up the same tree.

It wasn't until ten years later that medical science discovered tight underwear lowers a man's sperm count. The Lord had known it all along. Only the good Lord knows all the circumstances and things that had to happen for your life to begin.

What all happened on that miraculous night when you were conceived? Whenever there is a power blackout in big cities, doctor and nurses say: "Un-oh,", because they know they'll be working overtime, nine months later, delivering babies by the hundreds. Without electricity, everything closes up. Cinemas can't show movies. Bowling alleys' pin setters can't set pins. Restaurants can't operate. Traffic lights don't work. Everybody stays home. They can't watch TV. What do they do? You know.

God only knows what all happened on that night. Your dad was driving home from work. It was the coldest night of the year, -15EF. He stopped for gas. He hadn't checked the air pressure in the tires for a couple of weeks, so he thought about doing it right then. That would have taken two minutes. Too long. The one sperm cell that took part in your conception would have been too old. A sperm cell which had started the race .00003 inches behind you would have beaten you out. An angel of the Lord whispered in your dad's inner ear [it's too cold out]. Your dad said: "Naw, it's too cold out," and went on home. You almost didn't make it. It was a close call, but you got another break. Boy, oh, boy, are you "lucky"!

After your mom unwittingly gave you another break by not redoing her toenails, she and your dad fulfilled the marital act. Fifteen minutes after the act was completed, your mom rolled over to one side to pick up a women's magazine off the night stand. Whoosh! This action caused a principle of hydraulics to shift the recently introduced fluid within her body to a new position. Oh, no! Now you're too far back! Sorry about that, pal. Now you'll never exist.

On the other side of town your mom's parents are watching TV (the power came back on) and laughing at Jackie Gleason on "I Love Lucy". An angel whispers in your grandmother's ear [pick up the phone and call your sugar-doodle]. She tells your grandpa: "I think I'll call sugar when the commercials come on." But the angel whispers [No! Do not wait! Cal sugar now!] Grandma says: "No, I think I'll call sugar now. For some reason I just feel like I should call her right now!"

The phone rings in your parents' bedroom. Now your mom has to roll the other way to get the phone. When she does...whoosh!...the same principle of hydraulics works in reverse, propelling you back into the forefront. A few hours later...bingo! You're alive! You made it! YOU'RE ALIVE!! CONGRATULATIONS! Boy, oh, boy, are you "lucky"! I've never seen anything like it! I've never seen anyone like you in my whole cotton-picking LIFE!

What all had to happen in order for your life to begin? God only knows. However many things had to happen in advance, their separate "probabilities" all had to be multiplied times one another, not added, to find the unlikelihood of the end result )) your life.

AxBxCxDxExF=G. What might the "mathematical odds" against you have been? A hundred-trillion to one? A quadrillion to one? I'll tell you! They were a zillion to one. Zillion: an indeterminately vast number.

But that's only math. No one could be that "lucky", mathematically. It wasn't luck. It was a whole series of unfathomable miracles. So, we can forget about math, because it had to be the Lord's hand that brought it about. Since He is Almighty, the "odds" were an unavoidable one out of one. He chose you for a reason. Since He always knew all things, He knew you and saw you long before that miraculous night in which you were conceived. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..." (Jer. 1:5, KJV)

Many years after your miraculous night, another baby was conceived in some other mother's womb. That's right, it was only ten weeks ago. This child waited thousands of years in the heart of God for his or her only chance to walk this world's hills and valleys. When you consider the (seemingly) insurmountable obstacles and the (mathematically) astronomical "odds" the good Lord helped this child to overcome )) simply to be conceived )) the word "inconceivable" seems to take on a whole new meaning.

Can you believe that tomorrow morning that mother is planning on carrying her ten-week post-conceptual baby to Planned "Parenthood" for an abortionist to rip her baby's body into crude pieces? Can this really be happening? Can this actually happen in the real world? What is this, the twilight zone or something? Can this really be happening in America?...the land of the WHAT?!...the land of the free and the home of the brave?! In a land where millions upon millions of grown men go to church every Sunday and claim membership to the body of Christ? God help us!

I'm sorry, dear friends, to have ended this miracle story on such a melancholy note. Yet, would it be normal for true Christians not to grieve when our Lord grieves? Would it be right for us not to feel the despair of the moment? Of this moment pending the imminent, horrifying, and agonizing death of this child? Forgive us, O Lord, for our lukewarmness and indifference! Help us to be better for Your holy name's sake! In Jesus' name!

* * * *

A CLARIFICATION

In earlier columns TBR has dealt harshly with certain moderate prolifers. This was only because of their attitudes and their words which degraded the babies, as if these little ones were less worthy than born people. Not inconsistently, an earlier issue of this column also emphasized that I have never looked down on any other anti-abortion activists whose tactics are nonforceful. If you save a baby's life from a bloodthirsty war criminal that's all I care about. Given the enormity of the injustice and the magnitude of the evil, there is no wrong way to save a baby from this most heinous crime. So I have never held contempt toward any prolifers except for their lukewarm attitudes toward the babies, and toward the babies' suffering and the good Lord's consequent suffering.

So please forgive the redundancy, and let me reconcile these two positions (the approval of those whose tactics are nonforceful, yet the contempt for those who speak cowardly words of compromise) one more time. This time I'll make the distinction crystal clear, and never bother you with it again, and we can go on. Let me offer a hypothetical example to make my point.

Here it is. If a man is actively opposing abortion, whether by picketing, sidewalk counseling, or whatever, and if this same man has never exerted the use of force, nor ever will, just let him tell me this...this will completely satisfy me...only let him tell me this:

"John, I agree with you on the justification for the use of force, because the babies are just as worthy of the same level of defense as any other people. And if there were an organized viable force of men willing to fight for our country and defend our land against the New World Order and against our domestic enemies I would join that force of men right away. But I just don't have it in me to try to do it all by myself. I just don't have what it takes to stand all alone, like Paul Hill, and commit an act of war )) even a justifiable, defensive act of war )) against the policies of the New World Order. If ever such an organization does form I will join it right away, but right now there is no such organization. So, for now, I'll keep on saving babies like this." (Sidewalk counseling or whatever.)

That's all I ask, the right attitude, a manly attitude, an attitude free of compromise. That's all I ask! If only a man should make the above statement to me I promise you I will show that man nothing but patience and gentleness...forever! I will never call that man a coward. I will believe he is sincere and has all the courage I would expect in a man. I will never call him stupid. I'd like to have that man for a close friend, preferably live next door to him. I'd like to enjoy camaraderie with him every day. And even if only 20% of the men in that man's church were as manly as he, I'd be so happy and encouraged by that fact that I'd join that church immediately. I wouldn't care what denomination it was, as long as they proclaimed christ the King. At a time of such grave national crisis as this, denominational differences must take a back seat to zealotry. Wherever other men show Christian zeal, that's where I want to be found.

In real life there are still such Christian men as I have described above. But let me emphasize that the above example has been offered only as a hypothesis to make a distinction (in my attitude) between men engaged in nonforceful tactics, who may be very brave indeed; and those whose thoughts and words are cowardly. In other words, I'm not trying to encourage anyone to actually come right out and say such a thing to me. I wouldn't even want that )) especially if the speaker were someone I had not known very well for a very long time. If a stranger were to say such a thing (especially if he were to make an even bolder statement) I would feel compelled to wonder if he might be an agent provocateur from the other side, the devil's side, trying to entrap me. If you are a stranger to me and were to approach me in that manner )) that would be the surest way of guaranteeing that I would never enter into any high-level intrigues with you, nor even discuss such things. Once more: the hypothesis was offered only to make the philosophical point described.

* * *

A NOTE TO THE LADIES AMONG TBR'S READERS

Please do not feel excluded, as readers, by how obviously TBR includes exhortations aimed particularly at men. For example, you would not have to make the statement of the hypothetical man, described earlier, in order to satisfy me. If only you will say: "It is right for men to have that kind of attitude," I'll be happy. If you have read the early issues of TBR you are familiar with this column's assertion that abortions, when committed openly and with "government" cooperation, constitute war crimes. Thus, in a land where abortion rages openly, that and is already in a state of war )) even if only one side (i.e., the devil's) is doing most (or all) of the waging.

Please understand that my male buddies and I are a bunch of old fuddy-duddies, so we maintain the traditional gentlemanly position that women and children are special, and it is for us men to defend women and children. If thinking normally and correctly entails a position of fuddy-duddyhood, then so be it. We're heard-headed and narrow-minded, and we're not going to change our minds. That's a promise.

So we maintain that it is not for women to be thrust into a combat situation or to otherwise be put in harm's way. Our attitude is biblical, too. That's why we believe it. Wherever in the Bible the Lord sanctioned armed warfare, by His people against wicked nations, He sent out only the men among His people to do the fighting. Only rarely, extremely rarely, in very exceptional cases, does the Lord anoint a woman to carry out an act of war. I can think of only one such case described in the Bible (although other passages of scripture occasionally show women during wars in supportive roles, not combat roles). That one case is found in the fourth chapter of Judges where Heber's wife, Jael, drove a stake through the head of Sisera, the enemy army's king. In these nineteen hundred years since the last book of the Bible was written I know of only two cases in which women went into actual combat apparently with the Lord's anointing. (But not being a highly knowledgeable historian, there may be cases I'm unfamiliar with.)

Those tow cases are )) yes, you guessed them )) Joan of Arc and Shelley Shannon. In the cases of both heroines, they lived in nations wherein the vast majority of those nations' men (who claimed Christianity) were unwilling to trust God to give them utter victory over the enemy occupation forces. So the men were eager to compromise with the enemy instead of facing up to him. Yes, even during poor Joan's era, there were men like Randall Terry, Keith Tucci, Flip Benham, and Patty Mahoney. But there could not have been anyone like Terry Sullivan in those days. Sullivan couldn't have lived in that era. Those people wouldn't have allowed it.

In any case, ladies, please don't think I've meant to ignore you, as readers. Although, since abortion is a war crime which means that our nation has been in a state of actual war since 1973, I place all of the blame for not having abolished this wickedness at the feet of Christian men and especially at pastors' feet.

* * *

It could be that there are those folks who wonder why a forty-three year old man named John would call himself Johnny. I'll tell you. I was named after John Brockhoeft, my father. You very seldom saw Pa use the telephone. On those unusual occasions, he'd dial the other party; and when they answered, he'd reply: "Hello! This here's Johnny Brockhoeft!" We'd all laugh at that.

I'm only forty-three, but Pa kept referring to himself like that until he was sixty-eight. Then he went home to be with the Lord. So I do it in memory of him; and if a bunch of left-wingers want to scoff and laugh at me for it, I've got no problem with that.

That's it for this issue, folks. Thanks for reading it through. Till the next time I'm still...

Yours-In-Christ

Johnny

Personal mail:

John Brockhoeft

01886-017 D-House

PO Box 6001

Ashland KY 41105-6001

Brockhoeft's Response to Sullivan's blasphemies

[Ed: Most headlines are written by yours truly; this one was Johnny's own.]

Several weeks ago Dave Leach, my editor at P&A, sent copies of Terry Sullivan's latest poppycock and blasphemies to Shelley Shannon, Paul deParrie, and me to review (and comment on) before the tripe was to be published in P&A. But I had already read too much of Sullivan's mindless heresy.

I'm glad Dave published our good friend Paul's delightful response last month. I'm glad Paul had the guts to be the first to say something I also intended to say. Before pointing that thing out, I'd like to comment on two other things Paul said. Paul started his commentary: "It has become obvious that Terry Sullivan can out-write both me and Dave Leach )) in volume at least." I doubt that's true, Paul. It probably only seems that way because Sullivan doesn't waste any time thinking while he's writing. If substance in writing required any deep thought Sullivan wouldn't be able to complete a single sentence. I also appreciate your reference to his "gigantic ego". I hoped I wasn't the only one to notice it.

But what I really appreciate is how Paul relieved me of the responsibility of being the first one to point out to our friends: Sullivan is not a Christian. (P&A, October, page 34)

I'm going to be harsher with Sullivan than Paul was. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, said:

All down through the ages, Catholics and Protestants alike have held that both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Exactly what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has long been a subject of debate. Yet, if Terry Sullivan has not committed this offense how could anyone else be charged with it? I have heard a fundamentalist doctrine that to take something which is of the Holy Spirit and attribute that thing to the devil is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That, obviously, would be the most clear-cut case, even if this unforgivable sin has subtler variations.

Terry Sullivan has published assertions that the Bible's Old Testament contains "Strange and wicked ordinances." He even claims that Jesus taught that Old Testament Scripture "is in fact the word of man or even the word of the devil..." [all emphasis is mine]. Indeed, it is because of Sullivan's very blatancy that I dare to charge him with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Not every reprobate is a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, but every blasphemer of the Holy Spirit is a reprobate.

Here's another thing Jesus says to people like Sullivan:

Moses wrote (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) only a small portion of the Old Testament. Not surprisingly, it is Moses' writings which Sullivan is quickest to call "strange and wicked" and to attribute to "man, or even the word of the devil." Even the hypocrites whom Jesus was rebuking in the above reference were not reviling Moses' Holy Spirit-inspired words as demonically-inspired or humanly-inspired. Yet, you can see that Jesus was saying anyone who does not believe Moses' writings neither believes in our Savior's words.

Sullivan denies the divinity of Christ.

His contempt for Scripture is not limited to the Old Testament. He even questions the validity of the four New Testament books most fundamental to Christianity: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He claims to know that these divinely-inspired authors embellished their accounts with falsehoods. When it was pointed out to Sullivan that John 2:15 shows Jesus using force by making a whip of cords to drive the moneychangers and merchants out ot the temple, Sullivan scoffed that the Gospel of John is the only of the four Gospels which includes this detail )) as if that means there is only one chance in four it's true, or as if St. John fabricated it.

Since Sullivan apparently calls into question the authority of virtually the entire Bible, Dave and Paul both have asked him for the short list of those few verses of the Bible he does believe. My question is: why does this cowardly hypocritical lunatic even bother to continue pretending to himself that he believes in our Savior at all" The most unregenerate Muslims and Jews "believe" in Jesus as much as Sullivan does. They all claim Jesus was a "great prophet of God." The devil believes in Jesus more devoutly than Terry Sullivan does. What good does Sullivan think his scoffing tentative "belief" will do him on judgment day when he is called to account for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, among other things?

The bottom line is: Sullivan doesn't believe in Jesus; i.e., the real Jesus. He doesn't believe in the Jesus whom Moses wrote about. He doesn't believe in the Jesus of the whole Bible. However much Sullivan may claim to "believe" in the 33-year incarnate Jesus of the Gospels, Who came as the Lamb of God to impart mercy to sinners, he certainly doesn't believe in the Jesus of the Old Testament or the Jesus of the New Testament book of Revelation. Yet, this is one and the same Christ; there is only one.

Since the Christ who is soon to come is a Warrior with a sword to smite the nations (Rev. 19:11-15), the real Jesus must be repulsive to a cowardly unjust pacifist such as Terry Sullivan. And, according to Rev. 21:8, cowardly men are repulsive to our Lord and Savior:

If you haven't read Sullivan's writings, don't "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge." (Pro 14:7). Yet, if you have already read his foolishness, look at how many of the other adjectives and names in the Scripture quoted above can be used to describe him. For the sake of brevity, I'll mention only one: idolater. Since Sullivan denies the divinity of the real Jesus )) our Jesus )) the Jesus of the whole Bible, perhaps Sullivan does not claim to worship Jesus at all? Yet, even if he does claim to worship Jesus, it would be false Jesus of his own making. Sullivan has "created" an unreal "Jesus" in the image he wants Him to be in. That doesn't work, pal. We have to worship God in "spirit and in truth". We have to worship Him according to the way He really is, not necessarily the way we want Him to be.

There are still heathen in the Far East who worship Buddha and Hindu idols. Since these wretched souls' religions are totally unrelated and detached from the Lord our God; therefore, at least, they are not blaspheming our God, since they have no understanding of Him at all. Also, if someone reaches them with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hear the truth, they can repent and be saved! So I assert that these heathens' ignorant idolatry is less repugnant than Sullivan's blaspheming idolatry.

Jesus said that anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, neither in this age nor the one to come. So, while I agree with Paul deParrie's observation that Sullivan is not a Christian, I'll go one step further and say I don't believe Sullivan is capable of ever becoming one. I believe it is possible for individual Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., non-denominationals, etc., etc., to be saved. We Christians can disagree on some of the finer points of our faith and still hope one another are saved. But it would seem Sullivan has gone too far. He can't discern truth and likely never will be able to.

I maintain that, in order for these little babies to be mutilated to death, it requires both the zealotry of abortionists and the lukewarmness of prolifers. Take away either one of those things and the open slaughter of the preborn will stop. Along those same lines, Joe Bartlett once wrote:

It's already hard enough for men to show courage during a time of war. We don't need the dispiriting influence of Terry Sullivan's heresies. The first gullible young man who comes along with a noble heart like Paul Hill's, and who Sullivan persuades to conform to his own cowardice )) Sullivan will have on his hands the blood of all those babies whom that man would have saved. God forbid that this might already have happened.

For two reasons Terry Sullivan is more despicable than any abortionist who does not claim to be a Christian. At least that abominable abortionist kills babies with uncompromising zealotry, whereas Sullivan helps kill babies through his cowardly compromising lukewarmness. And the abortionist who denies belief in Christ )) as abominable as that abortionist is )) at least is not bringing disgrace to our Savior's holy name. Terry Sullivan, through his false confession and blasphemy, is.

By virtue of his cowardly compromise with our nation's enemies, Sullivan is actually in a sort of collaboration with them. Think in terms of truth being eternal. Then imagine you have a time machine. In your machine take Sullivan back with you, back 217 years to Valley Forge. There present Sullivan to Gen. George Washington. Yes, the same George Washington called "the father of our country", who nearly froze and nearly starved with his soldiers who were fighting for our nation's "mere" independence. You wouldn't even have to tell Washington about how Sullivan wrote sacrileges against holy Scripture and blasphemed the Holy Trinity. Just show him some photos of the piles of mangled arms and legs and rib cages and decapitated torsos of those American babies who were slain while Sullivan raged against the actual defense of the babies' lives. Tell George how Sullivan collaborated with America's enemies by doing all within his power to discourage a reasonable defense of our nation's children. If you do not know how Gen. Washington would deal with Sullivan I will tell you. He would surely put Sullivan to death. How do I know? Washington hung some of his own men for showing a lot less cowardice and a lot less treachery than Sullivan has shown.

TO BE CONTINUED

Chapter 15, The Brockhoeft Report

Back to Contents

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)