THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT -- Feedback Box:

Vol I, No. XII September 1994 AD 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,

The food here is pretty good )) the best of the four federal prisons I've been in. Occasionally they still make mistakes, though. They served brownies for dessert with the evening meal. The brownies had been left in the oven too long )) so long you couldn't eat them. To compensate, they gave each prisoner two brownies, instead of the usual one.

* * *

TWO NATIONS AT WAR
ONE UNDER GOD - ONE UNDER …?

For the sake of argument, please let us establish the distinction between a nation and a country. A country is nothing more than a geographical land mass with internationally recognized borders and, presumably, a sovereign government. A nation is a group of unified people, not a territorial land mass. The members of a nation have a sense of belonging to one another, being bound by cultural ties. Thus it is possible for a dispossessed nation of people not to have any territory of their own, yet still be definable as a nation.

The Kurds of the Middle East are an example of this. They live in northern Iraq and southern Turkey, although they are a distinctly separate nation from both the Iraqis and the turks. Yet, both the governments of Iraq and Turkey refuse diplomatic recognition of the Kurds' claim to the right of any territory of their own. Since these two governments have the military might to exercise de facto rule over their respective lands upon which the Kurds dwell, it is a fact that the Kurds are a nation of people without a country.

I'm not sympathizing with the Kurds, but simply using them as an example. They have a history of slaughtering my people, i.e. Christians. They've even done it recently )) in the twentieth century. The only reason they don't kill Christians any more is because there aren't any left nearby to kill.

I don't like Kurds. The iraqis and Turks are also mortal enemies of Christ and His people. I don't like them, either. I don't like very many people, to be honest with you.

But before you get disgusted with my lack of diplomacy, let me say two things.

If one of them (Kurd, Iraqi, Turk) repents, I will like them. They wouldn't even necessarily have to accept Christ for me to love them. All they would have to do is cease from hostilities against my people, and then I'd apply "love your neighbor as yourself" to them. The other thing I want to say before returning to the main topic is that I already love their babies, because they are innocent.

All babies are equally innocent, whether their parents are Christian, Muslim, cannibal, or whatever. I believe that anyone who dies in infancy (whether in utero or post-natal) goes to heaven. I also believe Jesus, who said that no one can enter heaven except through Him. Therefore my theory is that anyone who dies in infancy is actually a Christian.

So if ever I make some statement such as that I am in prison for fighting for the lives of my people, that statement is not made just for its emotional, rhetorical value. It's from the heart. I believe it. It's true. Now back to the subject. So a nation is no more than a unified group of people. And a country is a geographical region which can be occupied by more than one nation of people who are, perhaps, even hostile toward one another.

My point? That's the way it is in the U.S. today.

Someone will say: "Oh, no! Brockhoeft has an 'us and them' mentality!" Well, of course I do! I've had that attitude for a long time! The other nation of people living in our land, the anti-Christians (left-wingers) )) you don't think they have the same attitude? Haven't you read a single newspaper or seen even one or two news broadcasts in the past five years? Wake up! Please! When they speak of us, they revile us. When they don't speak of us, they're simply ignoring us momentarily. It doesn't signify a lull in their hatred of us. It simply means that none of our people have shot one of their beloved abortionists or anything like that recently. They don't speak of us when we're being lukewarm.

[Note: of course, TBR is not demanding another abortionist's dead body as evidence to prove we're not being lukewarm at this particular moment. And, incidentally, at the time of this writing, Paul Hill's act of defensive warfare has been quite recent.]

A few months ago, this column pointed out that when I was a school boy our recitation of the pledge of allegiance included the words "...one nation, under God..." Also pointed out was that, at that time not so long ago, the unspoken concession (it was so obvious it didn't need to be said) was that that God under Whom this was one nation was Jesus Christ. We were saying: "the U.S. is one nation of Christian people."

You wouldn't have to travel back very far in a time machine (any further than the 60's, if that far) to see how recently it was we who were respectable. We, the American public, in general, were a united Christian nation. Far from being scum, far from being on the outside looking in, we, Christians, were the respectable. Never had our American heritage not been Christian. The Lord God of heaven and earth was our Father, and we were adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. What position could be more respectable than that?

We were the respectable, the insiders, the elite. We were so predominant )) both numerically and in terms of political sway )) that when we pledged allegiance as "one nation under God" we were confident it was true, and it was true. It was the relatively small minority of left-wingers, who scoffed at Jesus, who were not respectable.

Those who were blatant unbelievers were so relatively few; so lacking in credibility; and, seemingly, so noninfluential, that we, not unreasonably, did not recognize them as a distinctly separate nation within our national borders. Those infidels who were blatant about it were mainly found on university faculties ("re-educating" our youth) and among the ranks of writers. Oh, sure, some leftists had already infiltrated the media, public school system, government, even the church But they couldn't be blatant; they had to be subtle so as not to incur the wrath of the general public.

Because we truly were so strong, we were smug and self-assured about it. So, like Christians are, indeed, supposed to be during a time of peace, we were meek. The minority of devoutly atheistic, left-wing low-lifes seemed no threat to overthrow our Christian society. We loved them in meekness, even pitied them. "There, but for the grace of God, go I." We saw them as poor, wretched, lost souls (but still redeemable); and, since they seemed so weak, we didn't see them as our nation's enemies. Such a small minority could not incur the wrath of God against our country. They could not pose a threat to our national security, it seemed. So, as Christians, it probably was indeed proper for us to love them, and we did.

Just a very few years ago (1980 something) a left-wing media pollster (I don't remember if it was a Lou Gallop poll or which ) released the results of a study. The poll had found that over two-thirds of Americans (about 70%) still consider themselves Christians. It was even published in establishment-controlled newspapers. Oh, sure, I'll be the first to admit, and quickly, that the percentage who truly are is undoubtedly much smaller. I'm only pointing out the significance of how wide-spread this lingering relic of an idea is...that the U.S., generally speaking, is still a Christian nation.

Because it is the very fact that Christianity was predominant have so recently that keeps so many decent adherents of traditional American ideals from facing the reality )) we are no longer one nation.

Within our borders there is still a Christian nation; but within these same bounds has emerged a distinctly separate, anti-Christian nation which is openly hostile to us, slaughtering our young, bludgeoning our adults and adolescents, and blaspheming our God.

They have drawn a line in the sand. Our people, scared to cross that line, and equally scared even to have a line of demarcation, stoop over and smooth the line into oblivion. Then we straighten up and pretend we never saw the line in the first place. This refusal to face facts is stupid and dangerous in the extreme.

Volume I, no. 3, of TBR explains how, after reading a column by Patrick J. Buchanan, I saw and recognized that "government"-ordained abortion is a war crime. Please bear that in mind as I ramble on. I described my immediate feeling of certainty that I would eventually come against abortuaries with fire and/or explosives.

Nevertheless, a person doesn't just suddenly rush out and do such a thing. He has to study on it for a while. Risk level, potential benefits (live babies), potential costs (death, imprisonment) )) these are not all the factors needing consideration. An overriding consideration was: is this thing right? Is it the moral thing, is it the principled thing to do? I saw that an arson or bombing would not be a petty little thing. It would be a thing of sufficient magnitude that if it were wrong, it would be terribly wrong. So I saw it was important to make absolutely sure it was a morally correct thing to do. I use the Bible as my guide to determine right from wrong.

Love your neighbor (the baby) as yourself. Do unto others )) the babies )) as you would want others to do unto you. It was easy for me to understand reasons why I should do it. But because of the seriousness of the thing, and wanting to make a thorough study of it to make sure I wasn't making a terrible mistake, I tried to think, in light of Scripture, of all the reasons why, perhaps I should not do it. If I could take all the Scriptural objections, one by one, and resolve them and reconcile them with Scriptural reasons why I should do it, then I'd know my resolve was right.

It should be easy for you to believe I was honest in my study of these questions. If I could have found a Scripture which irreconcilably condemned my plan, wouldn't I have gladly abandoned it? Why would I twist a Scripture out of context to fit my own "convenience"? Do you think I thought my own death would be convenient for me? Or have these six years in prison been "convenient"? If I had been looking for Scriptures to twist for my own convenience, I would have been looking the other way.

There were many hard questions to resolve. Please forgive me while I briefly depart from my main point (in this issue) to describe the hardest objection of all to overcome. I'm eager to explain, in a future issue, how I dealt with it, but you've probably already been wondering about it. So let me describe it now.

I myself am a father of small children. What about them?

There is a New Testament epistle which says:

That's serious. It's hard and direct. It's right there in the Bible, so I believe and revere it. I have a great responsibility to my own children. If I endanger my life or freedom, I'm endangering my own children's welfare. For now, please understand that I did think of my own children first, before others'. I did recognize that my first obligation was to them. As I said, we'll examine this matter thoroughly in a future column.

Now back to the present point. There is a Scripture about turning the other cheek (Luke 6:29). That one was easy. I have a moral obligation to turn my own other cheek, because the Lord said so. But it is not for me to turn a helpless, preborn baby's other cheek. It is for me to defend that child. Two verses before that one, there is a somewhat similar but much harder verse to reconcile. In Luke 6:27, our Savior said:

Well, it's right there in the Bible, and I believe it and revere it. I have to conform to it. So how am I going to destroy their property?

To arrive at actual truth )) God's truth )) Christian truth, sometimes you have to fly backwards in a "time machine". Are there such things as time machines? Of course there are. The direct question should be: is there any such thing as a portable, mechanical time machine? Uh...who knows? Aside from that, though, the human brian is a kind of "time machine", and the universe is one giant time machine whose Pilot is God. [I got that stuff from Joe Bartlett].

My assertion that it is sometimes necessary to go backwards in the "time machine" in your mind in the quest for truth is another way of saying: "hindsight is 20/20".

In his seminal work, Actors in the Kingdom, Not Clappers in the Audience, the Rev. Michael Bray asserted (page 127):

Scarcely anyone is able clearly to see the truth of our generation in our generation. In order to discover the truth of our generation we have to use the "time machines" in our minds. If you look at your own generation and see circumstances so remarkable and incredible that you can hardly believe these things are really happening, there's an easy way to explain the mystery. Just use your machine.

The first step is to clearly define these bizarre, present-day circumstances. Next, you think back in your studies of history and find an earlier generation wherein those same circumstances were present. Then you superimpose today's circumstances onto those same, identical circumstances which occurred in the past generation. Then you simply study that generation, and you'll find the truth! It's easy! Yet, the process is easier to understand if it is worked in reverse.

Sometimes it is possible to use this devise in reverse. If you look back at history and can't understand why in the world a certain generation would act in such a strange, unexplainable way, and if those same circumstances are present in your own generation, then all you have to do is go around asking your own contemporaries: "Why are you acting like this? Why do you live your life like this?" Yet, to make the working of the process crystal clear, let me give you a practical example of how to use your mental time machine in reverse. Here's a little experiment you can actually conduct and see the results with your own eyes...

...If you have some time on your hands, go to the holocaust museum in Washington, D.C. That museum commemorates Nazi Germany's slaughter of innocent civilians from 1939-1945. Stand right outside the entrance and start asking men who are about to enter: "Are you a Christian?" To the first one who answers yes, ask: "Do you mind if I go through the tour with you?" He will have no idea what you're up to, so he'll agree.

In that museum they show a movie which reviles that generation of Germany's Christians, because they just stood around with their hands in their pockets while innocent people were being slaughtered nearby. The film points out how, if these "Christians" felt any pity at all, they showed no evidence of it. [With, of course, a few notable exceptions like Bonhoeffer and his fellows.]

After watching that film, the other man might shake his head and ask questions such as: "How could those Christians have been like that" How could they have allowed it" Could they actually have been genuine Christians: We couldn't have been like that! I would have had to do something! How could they not have realized that, with such a tragedy, it was their UNAVOIDABLE Christian DUTY to do something? What in the world kind of people were they in Germany )) that they could just stand around with their hands in their pockets while innocent people were being slaughtered nearby?"

If you have mastered your mental time machine, you'll be able to answer his questions with great authority. Tell him: "I'll tell you what kind of people they were in Nazi Germany who could just stand around with their hands in their pockets while innocent people were being slaughtered nearby. As soon as we walk out of this museum, take a good look at the very first face you see. That is the kind of people they were. And the first one hundred people you will see upon leaving this museum, those are exactly the kind of people they were in Nazi Germany who could just stand around with their hands in their pockets while innocent people were being slaughtered nearby. And the next time you look in the mirror you will see what kind of people they were."

At that point, he will prove you are correct, because he won't have any idea what you're talking about. So you'll have to explain to him how to use the "time machine" in his mind to discover the truth about himself and our generation. Explain how to superimpose the circumstances of one generation onto the same, identical circumstances in another generation. Point out how the victims of Bill Clinton's holocaust are identically as human, as worthy, as innocent, and as helpless as the victims of Adolph Hitler's holocaust. Explain that, therefore, to whatever degree Hitler's holocaust was intolerable, so is this one. Tell him that, therefore, to whatever extent German Christians acted irresponsibly, so do Christian Americans today. (Cont'd in box)

When he says: "No, but you don't understand )) I'm a prolifer, too!"...you can tell him: "No, but you don't understand )) the German Christians were prolifers, too! They thought that what the Nazis were doing was BAD! They just didn't think it was so terribly bad that they had an UNAVOIDABLE Christian DUTY to deal with it. They thought exactly like American Christians today." Remind him that the exact same horror which he had just seen in the museum is happening right now )) within walking distance of where the two of you stand there in Washington, D.C. Challenge him to go with you to the abortuary. When he tells you he already has plans for that afternoon, tell him: "Uh huh. The German Christians had other things to do, too. Just don't be a hypocrite and say you would have done something about it back then. It wasn't just then, it is now. It is always "now", when uncaring people who call themselves Christians are not vigilant."

Dear reader, if you were to take the next airline flight to modern day Germany, and look up some of the octogenarians who were Christians during the holocaust, and ask them: "Why didn't you do something?" )) what would he say? They'd have to be ashamed, wouldn't they? They might not know what to say in words. But the shame they will now show will give you a clue as to why they didn't do something fifty years ago.

Their shame now means that, fifty years ago, they did not think to look at themselves "retrospectively, from the vantage point of the future." In 1944 they didn't ask themselves: "Hey, wait a minute )) how will we appear to people fifty years from now, in 1994? Won't our apparent apathy and non-involvement seem shameful...even damnable...to people in 1994?"

And the reason 32,000,000 American babies have been slaughtered, and more are being slaughtered at this very moment, is because no one in your church is saying: "Hey, wait a minute )) how will we appear to people fifty years from now, in 2044? Won't our apparent apathy and non-involvement seem shameful...even damnable...to people in 2044?"

What did you do in the war, Daddy?

While trying to determine the moral rightness or wrongness of destroying abortion facilities, I bumped up against our Savior's commandment: "Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you."

At first glance, it seemed there might be some condemnation of my plan it there. It would have been easy for me to tell myself: "There! See? You don't have to put yourself at risk bombing those places! It must not really be the Lord who has laid this plan on your heart! He wouldn't tell you to violate a Scriptural mandate!"

But I wanted to know the definite truth )) God's truth. If the plan was indeed Godly, and if that Scripture was not exactly applicable to it, I did not want to twist the Scripture out of context to use as an excuse for not doing unto the babies as I surely would want others to do unto me. I used the mental "time machine" mechanism to find the truth. But before I explain how it worked, let's establish some common ground for agreement.

Christianity is approximately 2,000 years old. Right? About 2,000 years ago, our divine Savior was born. At the age of thirty he began His public ministry, preaching His gospel of salvation. At thirty-three He was crucified for our sins. On the third day He rose again form the dead. Right? Forty days later He ascended into heaven. Some time after that, He sent His Holy Spirit down to help the believers. Right? Now, what I ask you to agree with me on is that, at that point, all theological truth was permanently established. At least from that point on, no new theological truths could come into existence. Right? From then on, every valid doctrine would always be valid, every false doctrine would always be false.

Please forgive me for going so

slowly, but I want to prove this thing beyond dispute, because it's extremely important; and I'm about to tell you a truth so "terrible" that no Christian has dared to utter it in over twenty years. And that is why our nation is facing imminent destruction.

Please, first, let me ask you to agree with just one more thing. Since all valid, theological truth is at least 2,000 years old, therefore, if we study the entire two millennia of church history, and discover a doctrine believed by every generation of Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) before the 1970's, then we have to strongly suspect (if not be thoroughly convinced) that that doctrine is absolutely true. Right? So if "Christian" leaders in the 1970's had started teaching a new thing, never before believed, in stark contradiction to that which was believed by every earlier generation, then our ancestors must have been right, and the new "doctrine" must be a heresy. If you can agree on all these matters, you'll be able to understand how I resolved the difficulty of destroying abortion chambers )) enemy targets )) without considering it disobedience to Jesus' commandment: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

Bearing in mind that "government"-approved abortion itself is a war crime, I looked back at the wars devout Catholic and Protestant men had fought in down through the ages. Most (if not all) of these wars were ones in which justice did indeed lie on one side. In studying these wars in which Christian men were willing combatants on the side representing justice, I couldn't find any evidence to indicate that the Christians loved the enemy soldiers on the other side. Frankly, the Christian troops seemed to hate their enemies.

I'll only use one war here, World War II. I'll use it because it is so relatively recent, and because so many Christians fought in it. I noticed that these guys, instead of turning the other cheek to their enemies, hauled off and shot them with their M-1 rifles. Now why would they do a thing like that? Sometimes they lobbed 155 mm howitzer shells into their enemies' midst. Or, like my dad, they'd fly over the enemy in a B-17 and drop bombs on them. [TBR note: My dad did not drop bombs on people in a polite manner. He did not bomb them "in a spirit of gentleness and meekness."

Does that sound like a crazy observation? Of course it does. But why? It shouldn't sound crazy to this generation of lunatics, should it? Why should it sound crazy to the Vietnam War/Abortion War generation of lunatics whose motto is: "You should never wage warfare for any cause, but if you do, do it politely."

[Note: Vietnam was the first war ever wherein the good guys were told to fight politely, following "rules of engagement", while the bad guys were allowed to fight as dirty as they liked. So if it sounds crazy for me to point out that my dad did not bomb in a "polite manner" during WWII, perhaps it is because when you visualize a crew of leather-jacketed airmen in a lumbering, propeller-driven B-17, you don't think 1944 thoughts )) you think 1994 thoughts! You think normal thoughts!]

11,000,000 American men served in W.W.II. Because Christianity was so widespread and predominant in those days, it should seem like a safe and honest estimate to expect that at least 8,000,000 of them made some kind of profession of faith in Christ, whether through Catholicism or Protestantism. They read the same Bible as we )) even the King James Version. Why didn't anyone say: "Hey, wait a minute! We can't be shooting these German (or Japanese) soldiers! After all, Jesus said: 'Love your enemies'!"

Could so many millions of Christian men all have been wrong? )) to say nothing of all the generations before them?

Since the Civil War, the U.S. Armed Forces has taken Catholic priests and ordained ministers of Protestant denominations and commissioned them as active duty officers. In other words, these chaplains are not outsiders, wearing civilian clothing, whom the military lets in to preach to the men. They're actual, full-time officers wearing the same uniform as an infantry officer or any other. Only they don't bear weapons. Their only duty is to shepherd the men in their company. Why didn't any of these chaplains tell the men in their care: "You guys can't shoot enemy solders, we have to love our enemies!"?

Here's a little anecdote I read somewhere a while back. I'm telling it from memory, but the story included the names and place. I think it happened in W.W.II. On the eve of a battle, a U.S. Captain was encouraging his men, and at the conclusion of his speech told them that when they engaged enemy troops the next morning to: "Give 'em hell!" Then the chaplain gave a little talk and concluded it with: "Give 'em...what the Captain said to give 'em!"

So here is what the Christian soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of WWII told me. They told me the truth...the truth which they and all Christian military men before me had always believed. They told me that when Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, and to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, He was giving us instructions to follow in our interpersonal relationships with our personal enemies )) not our national enemies during a time of war! And I believe this with all my heart.

With no doubt in my mind, I believe He did not mean we must love one who is an active war criminal and an enemy (foreign or domestic) of our nation with the blood of one of our children still fresh on His hands. Let it be known: I have no love in my heart whatsoever for abortionists, nor for their aides. I don't love their allies, not even slightly. I love no member of NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, or any such anti-Christian left-winger. Although they may have been born and raised in this country, they constitute a distinctly separate nation from my people and me.

They slaughter our young, bludgeon our post-natal members [if you don't believe that, you've had little or no involvement in anti-abortion activism], blaspheme our God; and if the tyrants who support them hear so much as a peep out of us, we are persecuted relentlessly.

The pretty men in your church who wear suits, ties, and smiles on Sunday morning may deny that there is another separate nation, a satanic nation, within our country's borders waging war against us. They may call such a statement an exaggeration. If so, that is why these things are happening. Or, just as bad, these pretty men may admit to the objective facts but say we must love the enemies of our nation and of our God. They will think such "love" is proof of their spiritual "maturity". They won't recognize it as the lukewarmness that it is. Tell it to Richard-the Lionhearted. Tell it to Geo. Washington. Tell it to Teddy Roosevelt. Tell it to Sergeant York. Tell it to my dad. Tell it to Paul Hill. (Cont'd in box)

The wrath of God burns furiously against the USA, and we are poised for destruction. Why? It is not only because of the rare satanic zeal which kills babies. It is because of the pervasive lukewarmness which kills babies. You can believe it now, voluntarily; or you can believe it later, involuntarily. But in the end you will believe it. If you have not come to believe it before the end, and the Almighty says it to your face, what will you say? That you still don't believe it?! No. You will agree...and eagerly!

Let me ask you some questions. Be forewarned that the Bible clearly answers these questions. You will be given verbatim quotes from Scripture and told where these verses may be found. I am compelled to issue this warning, because even the questions themselves might be offensive (to Christians of the '90's). So if the hardness of the questions causes you to throw TBR aside without reading the answers, and thus you overlook truth, it will be your own fault. But if you read these answers from the Bible, you will then have to choose between three alternatives. Either you can say:

Please choose carefully.

Does Almighty God love everybody, every single individual? Do the righteous have to love everybody? The Lord God of heaven is omniscient. He has always known everything, including the future. When He foresaw abortionists David Gunn and John Britton fall, how did God react? When the righteous heard of the fall of these two abominations, how should their hearts have reacted? Here are the answers from the Bible:

[TBR note: In the above passage, and elsewhere, the expression "LORD" has not been written in all capital letters for the purpose of emphasis. That is how it appears in the Bible )) all caps. Wherever in the Bible it thus appears, it is to signify that the original manuscript had the ancient Hebrew tetragrammaton there. The tetragrammaton is four Hebrew letters which are transliterated as YHVH, pronounced: YAHWEH. This is actually God's sacred name.]

In the last book of the OT, in Malachi 1:2-3,

[TBR note: In the NT epistle to the Romans, chapter 9:13, Paul quoted a few words from the above passage: "As it is written, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated'", to make a point.]

Psalm 11, To the chief Musician, a Psalm of David:

Proverbs 3:32 (NKJV):

Proverbs 11:20 (NKJV):

Proverbs 6:16-19

Proverbs 29:27

Psalm 15. A Psalm of David (NKJV):

Psalm 31. To the chief Musician, a Psalm of David (NKJV):

Psalm 139 To the chief Musician, a Psalm of David. [TBR note: there are a few verses in the middle of this Psalm which prolifers love to quote. In those verses David is saying that God is creating us even while we are in the womb, and that He knows us even then. I like those sweet verses, too. I like them all. But those cowards who condemn Paul Hill and who tell you you have to love abortionists )) you'll never hear them quote this Psalm's concluding verses:

[TBR note: did you notice a certain thing in the passage above? David, king of Israel, declares to the Lord that he hates the Lord's enemies )) even emphasizing it: "I hate them with a perfect hatred." (!) And at that exact same moment, in the same breath, he challenges God to examine his heart and test him to see if there is any wicked way in him! And what did the Lord say of David? He said David was "a man after My own Heart"!]

Psalm 119 (the longest chapter of the Bible) verse 158 (NKJV):

Some time before Michael Griffin fatally shot abortionist D. Gunn, Gunn brought a small bull horn (to sing through) and a battery-operated tape player with a song by rocker Tom Petty. The song? "I won't back down." In the parking lot, he set up the tape player and proceeded to play the song, singing along with it and doing a little dance to defy the prolifers. He gnashed his teeth at them and snarled, "I won't back down," (from their anti-abortion protests).

A photo was taken of him at that very moment. Ironically, whenever USA Today runs a story on their beloved "martyr", they print that photo showing the haughty look on his face. You can even see the little bull horn in his hand, to the viewer's right. Of course, that left-wing brood of vipers at USA Today won't tell you the whole story. But TBR will. There is one more detail to tell. The Lord, Who knows the future, foresaw what would happen, and...

Psalm 52:6-7"

Psalm 59

Psalm 58

Proverbs 11:10

Please weigh the preponderance of all the Scriptural evidence with which you have been presented in these past pages. In closing my case for not loving abortionists (whom, you are reminded, are our national enemies) I offer one final passage of Scripture, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

There are very few (that I know of) who are my enemies on a strictly personal basis (perhaps no more than one or two). In accordance with Jesus' mandate, I do love those enemies and pray for them. But during this time of war, this time of grave national crisis, I do not love any member of this reprobate anti-Christ nation within our borders which wages war against my Christian nation, against my people.

"There is a time to love, and a time to hate." There could be no more appropriate time to hate than this one. So if this day were not a time to hate, then the bible would be untrue. But we know that's not so. The Bible is true.

Now I'll tell you the whole truth. I actually hate these people. That's right. You read it right. It wasn't a typographical error. I said I hate abortionists. "I hate them with perfect hatred," as King David said in Psalm 139 (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). But that's not all. I'm telling you I hate abortions; AND I'm still going to sign off at the end of this column: "Yours-in-Christ," AND I'm not going to feel the least bit shy about it. All this, in spite of the fact that I am the only Christian whom you have heard say such a thing in more than twenty years. I'll tell you something else: there will be plenty of genuine Christians among those who read these words who will be glad and relieved that someone came right out and said it. So don't feel lonely.

But if you feel like writing to me to rebuke me, my best advice is: don't bother, save yourself the price of a 294 stamp. I've studied too long and too hard on the matter to feel otherwise. The study was struggled over with only the desire to find truth and please the Lord my God. If I thought my hatred of abortionists was displeasing to the Lord, don't you think I would repent?

In light of the fact that love is a Christian virtue and a fruit of the Holy Spirit, does a Christian lightly make a decision to hate abortionists? No, not lightly. This is serious. Do I flippantly and nonchalantly tell my Christian friends it is okay for them to hate abortionists , too? No, not flippantly and nonchalantly. Not on your life. I've had to study long and hard on it, making absolutely sure I was right; because if I were mistaken, it would be a terrible mistake endangering my soul. Don't you think I thought of that )) "in fear and trembling?" If I exhorted a Christian brother or sister to hate abortionists, and if, as a result, he or she did begin to hate abortionists; and if, then, it was displeasing to God, I'd be in big trouble.

I don't take the Almighty lightly. I revere Him. My only desire is to please Him; and if I believe He wants me to share something with you, I will not dare to hold it back )) especially when I know there is no one else who will dare to let himself be used by God to deliver such a hard message. At least no one else would be willing to be the first to say it. I fear God, not men.

and,

Friends, I'm sorry. I'm not actually apologizing. I'm just sorry that this issue has had only hard material. Don't you think I wish I could have written nice things? Easy to read things? Don't you think I wish there was someone else to reveal these hard but true parts of the Bible to you? But there is not. So if I don't do it, it won't get done. And "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

The false teachers on the radio, TV, and in the pulpits only mention the nice true parts of the Bible. Yes, I'm talking about those wolves in sheep's clothing who say: "Hate the sin, and love the sinner," in a tone of voice as if that is a verse to be found in the Bible, but it is not. And let me say this: although those words do not appear in the Bible, I freely admit that they constitute good Christian advice )) but only during a time of genuine peace, honorable peace )) not during a time of war while a sinner's sin is the mutilation slaughter of the innocent.

Until the next issue, I'm still...

...Yours-In-Christ,

Johnny

Personal mail:

John Brockhoeft, 01886-017

D-House

PO Box 6001

Ashland, KY 41105-6001

Can a "God of love" hate?

by Dave Leach as usual

I didn't think so until I had the unnerving job of typing up Johnny Brockhoeft's previous installment.

Brockhoeft's troubling logic sent me on a Scripture Adventure that wasn't over until I had filled 10 pages with my thrilling quest.

I was all ready to reprint the whole thing, until I realized it was either that or the reprint of Paul Hill's 14 page Scriptural defense of "justifiable homicide".

Before I summarize what you're missing, let me explain how you can get the whole thing. I have put this and previous Scripture Adventures into a uniform format called The Berean Search.

This series is a living, ongoing Bible study, as opposed to a position statement that has been printed in quantity so that it cannot be revised or corrected as readers react to it.

This series is stored on computer, to be printed out only as requested. That way, critiques can be incorporated into the computer file so that all subsequent requests for that title will include any critiques. Rules for submitting critiques are on the back page of each copy.

This Scripture Search addresses only one issue Johnny raised: how to better reconcile Jesus' statement with David's statement.

I don't think Johnny's reasoning is "wrong", or that his conclusion is wrong. But I would like to try to finish the job he started, of reconciling Jesus' statement with David's. I agree with him, that there is something to the distinction between "our" enemies and "God's" enemies. But he cites many Scriptures about which I have for a long time had more questions than he has answered; so I took this prodding to answer the rest of the questions which have occurred to me so far.

Johnny reconciled Jesus' "Love your enemies" with David's "Hate God's enemies" by assuming "our" enemies are not synonymous with "God's" enemies.

I think we can agree that it can never be right to hate our "own" enemies; that is, enemies whose only "crime" has been to inconvenience us by being ahead of us in line, or more successful than us, or more beautiful than us, but whose offense has not occurred through any ungodly activity or speech or thought.

But is this all Jesus is talking about? Does Jesus' commandment have nothing to say to those of us who have stopped laying up treasures for ourselves on earth, and who spend nearly full time working for God, so that our enemies are, almost entirely, God's enemies?

Are we to hate all of them? Are we to love none of them?

The Adventure begins with a comparison of OT and NT Scriptures to show that God did not "turn over a new leaf" and turn from a hateful, violent God into a loving, polite Pushover 2,000 years ago. In fact, many of the NT "love" passages are actually quoted from the OT; and the OT never even says to hate your enemies! On the other hand, the "New Testament" is described as something to be taken even more seriously than the OT.

Luke 14:26 says we must "hate" our families, in comparison with our regard for God. That is a clue to the meaning of "hate" in Matthew 5. It is a different meaning than David's in Psalm 139. Thus the two are not inconsistent. Jesus was angry on occasion, and David was benevolent to his enemies. But Mark 11:22-26 shows how Jesus had a forgiving heart towards His enemies during the same time he was violent towards them!

Scriptures say God is slow to wrath, and we should be, too; and we should be swift to hear. Scripture lays out a procedure before one may justifiably be angry. Witness, warning, and confrontation with the truth must precede anger. We must be as merciful as we wish God to be with us. We must warn, but not judge; there is a Scriptural difference.

Chapter 13, 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!)