THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT --- Feedback Box:

Vol I, No. VII March 1994

God's Country

NOTICE TO NEW READERS: these are chapters of a book being published, a chapter at a time, as John Brockhoeft writes them. 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)

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Griffin Defense, Part II

(Note: TBR Will Not be dwelling on the griffin case ad infinitum. This issue includes the last lengthy discussion of the matter, although future issues may briefly allude to it.)

First let's find some common ground, something we can all agree with, even George Tiller and every atheistic existentialist. The common ground TBR proposes is this: that any human act can be categorized in one of three ways: just, unjust, or morally neutral. Can anyone have any problem with that? What alternative choice is there? Even existentialists should be able to go along with this proposal, because it gives them the choice of simply classifying every act as morally neutral.

It is highly doubtful there are any existentialists among our readers. So we can dismiss their amoral position out of hand, which they won't mind anyway, since they don't care about moral debates. The rest of us have strong feelings one way or another. So that leaves us only two alternatives: just or unjust.

Let's take a brief look at the word "homicide". Hom+man, icide+killing. Without regard to the legal jargon and implications, the literal meaning of "homicide" is "the killing of a human being." a Preborn baby and an abortionist are both human beings. Whenever abortionist David Gunn killed a baby it was a specific act of homicide. When Michael Griffin shot him it was another specific act of homicide. Both acts were homicidal, but the similarity ends there, because, thereafter, the acts diverge widely in nature. If the word "homicide" is isolated (like if it simply appears on a list of spelling words, and is not used in a sentence) it becomes dispassionate and meaningless. Then it is merely a word, not a victim.

The dispassionateness of the mere word is pointed out to illustrate the obvious fact that we cannot honestly, and fair mindedly, analyze any particular act of homicide without asking thee questions: who got killed?...Who did the killing?...And, why?

A preborn baby is an innocent human being. It is obvious to anyone with the most fundamental sense of justice that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is the most horrendous breach of justice, the ultimate human rights violation. That's what abortionist Gunn did to weak, little people. Why did he do it? TBR Can think of only two possible motives. We will be willing to publish any alternative ideas proposed by thoughtful readers. Only, please, do not submit such a silly and irrational notion as that he killed babies because he loved their mothers and wanted to "help" them.

Our first thought is that he did it for money. He considered a child's entire life to be worth no more than 250 U.S. dollars. The other possibility is that he was in league with the devil, whether deliberately or "merely" in fulfillment of left-wing ideology.

TBR doesn't remember who the author was, but someone once said: "Indifference is the most sincere form of hatred." It seems an inescapable conclusion that abortionist Gunn hated those babies, at least, to some extent. We know from the Bible those babies were created in the very likeness and image of Almighty God, and that God loved them. So it also seems inescapable that Gunn hated the Lord or, at least, scoffed at Him in derisive disbelief.

To speak frankly and forthrightly, Gunn was industrial-strength scum. Scum, pure and undiluted, in exactly the same class as Adolph Hitler and for exactly the same reason. I hesitated, briefly, to use that word -- scum -- because I'm not an entirely impolite fellow; and I'd rather avoid offending folks if it can be done without sacrificing truth. But here is a case where the truth needs to be emphasized, and scum provides a nice, little emphasis to it.

Those moderate prolife allies who will take offense at my use of scum -- do you know how little it would take to keep them from being offended at this very same usage? Thirty years, that's all. Maybe less. Gunn, Griffin, prolife friends, you, and me -- if we had all been born thirty years sooner, and if all these things had happened thirty years ago, in 1964, and I called Gunn scum, not one of these prolife friends would have taken offense. This was still a Christian nation in 1964, and, though already starting to crumble, still had some semblance of greatness.

Do you know what else is funny about it? You can take the thirty years either way! Take it thirty years from now, to 2024 AD. Abortion will be history then, having been vanquished and forbidden either by Christians' wrath and intervention or by the Lord's wrath and intervention. You are free to choose either one; but you cannot choose neither one; because if you do not choose the one, then the other will come automatically through your acquiescence.

So, if you want to sort of "help" the Lord usher in the apocalypse and millennium...if you want to sort of "hasten" these events...go ahead! Simply do nothing! Or, better yet, offer to compromise with Hillary and Janet! Who knows? -- you might, thus, help me get out of prison sooner (i.e., at the Lord's second coming)! Who knows? -- if you, thus, "urge" Jesus' return to occur suddenly enough, you might even prevent Hillary and Janet from chopping my head off! Who knows? -- if you "help" bring the Great Tribulation in suddenly enough you might, thus, even cause them to chop my head off and send me to an eternity of joy! And I'll have you to thank for it!

Yet, if, right now, you are offended by my calling abortionist Gunn scum; and if you do not throw away the paper you now hold in your hands, but only misplace it; and if you rediscover it, yellowed, thirty years from now, you will not be offended upon rereading it. In the year 2024, when you look back to this time, you will feel the same revulsion and abhorrence toward abortion as you now feel toward Adolph Hitler's slaughter of innocent people. Please read this sentence aloud: "Adolph Hitler was scum." Didn't sound bad at all, did it? Didn't offend you at all, did it? See what I mean? Well, that is approximately how you'll feel thirty years from now if you read these words: abortionist Gunn was scum. But all this is neither here nor there, so let us go forward with our study of homicide.

Michael Griffin killed abortionist Gunn. He killed Gunn so he wouldn't be able to kill any more babies. An earlier issue of TBR commented that everybody in the whole world believes in the use of force insofar as the question is not whether force is ever justified, but at what point? It should seem obvious that such a statement is neither exaggerated, arrogant, nor overreaching; because your own common sense tells you that if ever you meet a man who is trying to kid himself into believing force is never justified, you can easily change his mind, in less than five seconds, simply by threatening to kill his mother or daughter. Of course, neither you nor I would ever make such a threat; but we can be sure that, if so, the guy would change his mind right away. In an interview our friend and fellow absolutist Andrew Burnett once offered this immortal quote:

Having already dismissed the "morally neutral" tag, and now rejecting the even more ludicrous "unjust" categorization, TBR once again applies the only remaining alternative: just. Since this will be the last issue of this journal which will openly make this proclamation, let it be emphasized: not only was it just, but, in fact, it offers the most prime example of genuine justice. Thus, it exemplifies not the finest (i.e., most obscure) point of justice, but the most fundamental point. Mike Griffin's act did not answer the question: where does justice end? It answered this one: where does justice begin? In other words, if someone will say it was unjust, what in the world will they offer as an example of something that would be just and more obviously so?

Momentarily, we'll examine the three perspectives from which the justice of Griffin's act can be seen. Please, let us, first, point out how some of our moderate allies in the prolife movement twisted a Scripture completely around to "prove" something that is not valid at all. When Mike executed that abortionist a score of prolifers sang in perfect harmony: "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword! Jesus said: 'He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'!"

See how people can twist things around 180E? That verse was not meant as a warning for Mike. But, no, Mike was the fulfillment of that verse! It was meant as a warning for the abortionist, not for Mike Griffin! The abortionist lived by the sword and died by the sword. Mike won't die by the sword, thus fulfilling the verse that way. He fulfilled it the other way!

These prolifers who quoted this verse to Mike -- did they ever tell it to David Gunn while he was still alive and putting babies to the sword? Of course not. Yet he was the kind of person it would have been truly appropriate to quote it to. The ones who never met Gunn because they live in other parts of the country -- do they ever tell the abortionists in their own cities: "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"? Of course not. Never. Why, for goodness sake! You can't go around quoting the Bible like that nowadays! They know the abortionists would call the police and have them arrested for terroristic threatening. They'd end up doing a year in jail, and this sacrifice would accomplish nothing. Therefore, I don't blame them for not quoting it to their local abortionists. I wouldn't either, for the same reason. Yet, neither will I misapply it to Mike, and neither should they.

You prolife friends who cited this verse against Mike Griffin, do you want to keep using it against our people, against Christians? Okay! Fine! Tell it to Sgt. York! Tell it to Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington! When you go to heaven look up George Washington. Ask him: "During your Christian walk on earth, did you believe in the entire Bible as the inspired word of God?" (Note: he read the King James Version).

"Surely, I did," he may reply.

Then ask him: "Well, then, since, during the Revolutionary War, you lived by the sword, how did you reconcile your conduct with Jesus' statement: 'He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'?"

Perhaps he will answer somewhat along these lines: "Well, friend, we knew we were not being disobedient, because we understood that the Lord had not intended that verse to be applied to the circumstances surrounding the War of Independence. That did not mean the circumstances caused the verse to be invalid! It meant, simply, that the verse had no bearing on those particular circumstances in the first place!"

But, my prolife friends, you don't have to wait until you go to heaven and discuss the matter with General Washington to understand you have made a mistake. There is someone you can go to today. Since you have used this Scripture in this way against Mike Griffin, now you must go to your children for the right answer. You must go to your sons, your Catholic and Protestant sons, who are currently active-duty members of the U.S. Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

You must tell your son: "Now, son, it's fine for you to be a U.S. Marine during a time of peace. But remember! -- if war breaks out you must desert your unit, because Jesus said: 'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'"!

Your son won't give you the answer. You'll give it to yourself. On the way to his camp to give him this sermon you will realize it would be wrong to tell him such a thing. Then you will have your answer -- the right one.

With armed force, Griffin engaged an enemy of our country, a war criminal who was killing our people, our children. Indeed, and, in fact, Griffin's act is as prime an example as there could be of the conduct of justified and defensive warfare. If it is not, neither is anything anyone has ever done throughout human history. It matters not that Griffin had taken no military oath, nor that he did not wear a uniform with insignia. Few of Gen. George Washington's men wore uniforms, either. If Griffin's act fell short of justified warfare, Washington's conduct fell even shorter of that mark; because the circumstances today are much more evil and intolerable than in his day.

TBR hopes that when you realize it would be wrong to deliver that verse, in that context, to your U.S. Marine son, you will admit to yourself that, by the same virtue, you were wrong to use it to rebuke Griffin. We all make mistakes. When we see one, we must not pretend we do not. The Lord knows better. He knows our hearts.

As this journal has previously stated, and as we now repeat, it is by no means our intention to encourage anyone to bomb abortuaries or to shoot abortionists. Yet, neither can we overemphasize the extreme importance of the correct response to these things which have happened, in the event they happen again.

You do not, necessarily, have to shoot abortionists or burn their joints in order to prove you are not a coward. You do not have to do these things in order to show you have rejected all moderation and all willingness to compromise with evil. You need not do these things in order to be an absolutist. Absolutism is not a tactic or a strategy. It is an attitude! It is the only winning attitude! So it is TBR's intention only to recruit friends into a movement of men (with all due respect to Shelley and many other fine ladies) with perfect attitudes toward the babies.

Only two people have picked up guns and opened fire on baby-killers. What marks a man as a compromising coward is not whether he follows the example, in action, of these two brave friends. The dead giveaway lies in how a man reacts to our friends. Nor is it possible to entirely separate a man's attitude toward these two and his exact attitude toward the babies. The man who has guts enough to tell the truth, right now, and acknowledge our friends' justice proves, as far as TBR is concerned, that he has forsaken cowardice and willingness to compromise with the wicked.

For the future (i.e., the near future), the extreme importance of the 1993 shootings lies not in whether they lead to more shootings. No, much, much more important than that, the shootings defined who the babies are as a people. (Are they 90%, 99%, or 100% as worthy as the rest of us?)

Yet the shootings signified something even more important than that. Since it is us upon whom the babies' lives depend, and since it is us upon whom the final outcome of this war hinges, the absolutely, singularly, paramount importance of the shootings is that they precisely defined who we are as a people! Those guns not only made loud reports concerning our two friends who fired them. They also made very loud statements about those of us who will embrace these two brave souls and about those moderates who will reject them.

A movement of absolutism can win this war outright. We don't have to be satisfied with saving only twenty out of every thousand babies appointed for destruction. But without the right attitude we'll never pursue a winning strategy. Without the right attitude no strategy can succeed.

Please let us remind our readers that we are not calling for disunity. We are calling for unity...but the right kind of unity. The moderate prolife movement has always been fragmented, scattered, and in a state of disunity; and always will be. Because there are a hundred different levels of moderation -- and everyone thinks his own level is the right one -- but none of them is. On the other hand, we, who are absolutists, can enjoy complete unity and be of one heart, because there is only one degree of absolutism -- that degree which was perfectly defined by our two friends.

THREE LEGITIMATE PERSPECTIVES

The justice inherent in the shootings can legitimately be viewed in any one of three ways or any combination of them. Only one is needed to establish that justice was actually done. They are:

1. Justifiable homicide

2. Capital punishment

3. The conduct of justifiable war

Because of this journal's unflinching assertion that abortion is a war crime (since it is committed under "government" auspices) and, thus, an act of (unconventional) unjust warfare, our main interest is in the just war view. Nevertheless, we'll examine the other, equally valid, perspectives.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The above caption is exactly the phrase police detectives use over a dead body when they conclude that the person who inflicted death acted in self-defense or the defense of another innocent person. If this is established immediately then the person who did the killing isn't even arrested or charged with any offense.

Preborn persons are endowed by God with the inalienable right to life. Since it is legally impossible for the "Supreme" Court to take away the child's right to life, it is also legally impossible for that court, or any other agency, to take the justice out of the justifiable homicide status inherent in the execution of abortionist David Gunn.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Liberalism (more accurately, left-wingism) has crept into the Church recently (within the past thirty years). There are now those among us who believe, counter to generations of (mainstream) Christians who went before us, that capital punishment is always wrong. Some claim that in the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) Jesus invalidated and overturned the Old Testament commandment to administer capital punishment. Exactly what did He say? What were His exact words?

(Note: you are already aware of my position on the question of capital punishment. If you are already inclined to disagree, can we agree on something else? Can we agree to bear patiently with one another and to be honest, both with one another, and with the Lord? We can surely agree that it is extremely important to arrive at the actual truth of Jesus' teaching in this matter: it's a matter of life and death! Also, whether you are right, or I'm right, that which is actually true is very important; because it decides whether genuine justice -- Godly justice -- is observed or cast aside!

(Please let me get something off my chest. I ask you to believe how I reach conclusions. Please believe that all I've ever wanted to know is the actual truth! Since childhood I've searched for nothing but truth! Even then I saw that to arrive at the actual truth was extremely important -- all that mattered! I saw that we cannot cause anything to be true simply by wishing it were so. The real truth won't go away! It is that truth I've always sought.

(In grade school they taught me the world was round, but that, long ago, everybody thought it was flat. Of course, I understood that the earth never conformed its shape to the way everybody believed. They were just wrong! Actual truth is completely external, standing on its own two feet, independent of whether people believe it or not. I apologize for using such a silly and childish illustration, but I want you to know I consider spiritual truth to have the same character. Of course. Who doesn't? Yet, haven't we all, at some time or another, been using the Bible to make a point when, suddenly, the other guy said: "There's a thousand different ways to interpret the Bible!"

(I like it when people say that. I reply: "yes, but God has only one way to interpret it; and His way is the only way that's right; so let's search for that one!"

(The point is that, on the one hand, no one living in the twentieth century would even think of trying to make the earth flat simply by believing it is so. Yet, on the other hand, some folks seem to feel as though they can make a questionable spiritual matter valid simply by believing it and proclaiming it loudly enough.

(Please believe that I would never just decide to believe something simply because it was what I wanted to believe, and, then, only afterward, go window-shopping for Scripture to support my point. Anybody can do that...and find what they're looking for! But that approach can lead to an invalid conclusion! Please believe that, in my study of the Bible, if I encounter a passage of Scripture in which the message seems to be painful and hard to receive, I do not take an inclination to look for a more pleasing way to interpret it. I want to know the actual truth -- even if it hurts. As Patrick Henry said in his famous speech:

• "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.")

The reader's patience is appreciated, and we now return to the study of Jesus' statement on capital punishment. Which of the two following statements contains Jesus' exact words in John 8:7 (as found in the NKJV)?

A. "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

B. "No one who has sin among you may throw a stone at her first."

Statement "A" is correct. We can all reach agreement on that simply by looking it up. Yet, there are some who claim that statement "B" is what the Lord really meant! Do the two statements mean essentially the same thing, or is there a difference? There is a subtle, but very important, difference.

He didn't tell them not to stone her! He told them -- literally -- to go ahead and stone her! He was literally offering for someone -- anyone -- to step forward, take the initiative, and throw the first stone!

Had He told them not to stone her, he would have given the Pharisees an excuse to accuse Him. And He would have given those Christians today who oppose capital punishment, on the basis of Jesus' teaching, a leg to stand on.

Yet He knew the qualifier: "He who is without sin..." would make them all too ashamed to do it! None would have the audacity to claim sinlessness!

[Ed: please forgive my interjection, Johnny, But I have an additional thought. When Jesus said "let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone", that was consistent with saying, in Matthew 7:1-5, "...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye." Again, He is not saying, "don't even think of helping sinners overcome their sins, you good for nothing," but rather, "purify yourself, so you can help others".

[There is a very practical, everyday principle here. A society cannot criminalize a crime of which most are guilty, or most would be in jail. That makes sense, doesn't it? Only 30 years ago, adultery was still against the law in most states. A century ago, it was even enforced. But today that would put nearly all of us in jail. Before we can even think of criminalizing it again, America has to have Revival! Only after Revival has made a crime rare, or at least the activity of a minority, can a society condemn it without condemning itself.

[The same is true for abortion. If we got a law that put mothers who sought abortions in jail, this year, who would escape? But if there is revival first, and a national commitment to obey God's laws, then such a law would help maintain a minimal number of abortions.

[It's not just a matter of lacking the moral manpower to condemn. In a society where most are guilty of a particular crime, it takes unusual moral courage not to follow in committing that crime; so it is harder to blame average folk for following along and trusting their leaders. (Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:...) But as a crime becomes rare, then the commission of it requires increasing premeditation, calculation, and malevolence. It becomes increasingly appropriate, for these reasons, to criminalize it.

[That is, as long as we stick to objective criteria of what is criminal: that is, God's criteria.]

Jesus had to choose His words with special care in this instance. So we must pay very particular attention to His exact words to ferret out the actual truth. This passage of Scripture even warns us, ahead of time, of the great care needed in studying the exact wording:

• 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?" 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him...."

See?! We've been forewarned that the Pharisees were trying to entrap Jesus,k and so He would have to word His answer just so. He saw through their trickery.

The Pharisees were correct in their citation of Mosaic law. They were invoking Leviticus 20:10.

What the Pharisees did not clarify is that this commandment, and, in fact, the entire "Mosaic" law, did not originate with Moses. Those words came directly from the mouth of God! At the beginning of that twentieth chapter it says:

Who is this God? And who is this Jesus? And is the God of the Old Testament the same God of the N.T.? This God who spoke to Moses, this God of the Bible, our God, is the only real and living God. He is a God of both justice and mercy. He is a God, first, of justice to all and then a God of mercy to those who trust in Him and call upon Him for forgiveness from a contrite heart. Since there can be no untruth nor inconsistency in our God, it must be, then, that mercy can be reconciled with justice -- even the kind of justice that calls for punishment.

We cannot accuse the Lord of inconsistency. Who are we to correct our own Maker? Can the clay say to the potter: "Wait a minute, you're making a mistake"? Furthermore, we rejoice that He is also a God of mercy and forgiveness; because if He were a God of justice only, we would all be doomed by our own sins!

Jesus is this same God. Jesus is divine. He is God. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting. He did not begin (i.e., first come into being) when Mary gave birth to Him in Bethlehem as God the Son. He was already God, already existed, before that. He is the God of both the O.T. and the N.T. He quoted from the O.T. and taught from it. He had it memorized; because He was, in fact, the divine Author of it.

In Matthew 4:4, where Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan: "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,'" to whatever extent He was referring only to the Bible, He was referring to the Old Testament, for none of the New Testament had yet been written.

Jesus is the God who gave Moses the commandment to carry out capital punishment for adultery. More than a thousand years later God the Father sent Him in physical, human form to walk upon the earth for thirty-three years, teaching, and then to be sacrificed as an atonement for our sins -- for the sins of the woman caught in adultery, for yours, and mine. Jesus came to show us both God's justice and mercy. His public ministry lasted three years, during which He showed mercy, and culminated in the ultimate fulfillment of justice, as He was crucified for our sins.

But during those three years, before His atoning blood was shed, He was meek, gentle, merciful, forgiving, healing. The common people He encountered loved Him for these things. If the scribes and Pharisees, who were jealous of both His popularity and of the authority He apparently commanded, could have gotten Him to plainly give the woman over to death by stoning, He may have lost some of the love and devotion of His followers. JESUS DID NOT WANT THE WOMAN TO BE STONED -- TBR WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREES WITH THAT! We have never doubted that! We even agree that he deliberately chose His words in such a way as to persuade the mob not to stone her. We have no problem there. That's not the point.

We use extreme, extreme caution in reading anything into the Bible, anything not explicitly stated therein. But here we dare to interject something which we hope is not unreasonable. Upon the first reading you might get the impression they had caught her right then, and had drug her practically right from the bed to Jesus. The Bible doesn't give any indication how recently the adultery had occurred. We theorize, for two reasons, that some time had passed; the adultery had not occurred that day.

The first reason: Where was the man? Moses' commandment called for capital punishment of the man and woman alike. Could it be that the man was not available, due to the sin having taken place considerably earlier?

The second reason: don't we all want to believe she was remorseful when they had stood her before Jesus? Don't we want to believe Jesus' mercy was related to her remorsefulness? Had she been dragged straight from bed, would she have had time to reflect and arrive at true remorse? Embarrassment, yes. True remorse? Unlikely. We don't know, though.

The Pharisees thought they really had our Savior on the spot. They expected that either way jesus answered, He could hurt His own cause. They wanted Him to tell them not to stone her. Not because they cared about mercy toward her, but so that they would have a clear-cut accusation to bring against Him. He would have been defying the law of God.

His perfect blood had not yet been shed; the atonement had not yet been made! Jesus did not want this poor woman to be put to death, and especially not before His crucifixion. Yet, on the other hand, He could not contradict justice and His own law, the divine law of God.

(Note: we have heard a legend that, as He wrote in the dust with His finger, He was listing the secret sins of all those who were standing immediately nearby -- sins they thought no one else knew about.)

TBR is thrilled that Jesus spared this woman's life and saved her soul! Yet, we also notice that His reply to the Pharisees proclaimed both divine mercy and divine justice. It is entirely false to say His choice of words reversed and overthrew the virtue of capital punishment. On the contrary, He reaffirmed and upheld this form of justice for extraordinary crimes. He never said that no one ever again should be subjected to this form. That's a Hindu concept, not a Christian one.

[Ed: Me again. Did Jesus say "Let he who has never committed a single sin in his whole life cast the first stone", or "Let he who has never committed a capital crime as defined by Moses' law cast the first stone"? I looked for clues in the Greek as to which He meant, and found none. So we are left to determine the correct choice with our common sense and other Scriptures.

[If Jesus meant that any imperfections in one's past disqualifies one from condemning a criminal, then Jesus meant to outlaw all criminal justice systems! Are you willing to accept that as Jesus' meaning? Are you ready to lobby for eliminating all police and all criminal laws? If so, meet me at the capitol and I'll show you how to get started, because I gotta see this!

[You can't get off by saying "Jesus meant to outlaw capitol punishment only, not life in prison", because the woman was set completely free.

[Besides, if Jesus meant to de-legitimize capitol punishment, that would contradict Romans 13:4, "...[the judiciary] beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

[I conclude that Jesus did not mean to eliminate the institution of criminal courts, but only to man them with people who are not, themselves, criminals. Wouldn't that be a blessing? Wouldn't it be wonderful to have America's courts operated by people who are not accessories to baby killing, for example? But we have experienced America's judiciary first hand for Jesus' little ones have seen judicial corruption not just on this issue, but every level. Jesus was saying that only just and upright people should operate criminal justice, like the folks Jethro told Moses to select. By this criteria, the Pharisees were disqualified from operating Palestine's criminal justice system.

[Another criteria by which the Pharisees were disqualified, and by which most of our courts today are disqualified, is the replacing of God's laws with their own laws. Mark 7:6-13.]

THE GRIFFIN CASE AS AN EXAMPLE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The Brockhoeft Report openly admits that, in order to assert that Griffin exerted actual capital punishment, it is necessary to acknowledge that he sort of "took the law into his own hands." Well, so what? We [TBR] heartily laugh at the whole concept of "taking the law into your own hands." Our laughter is not because the concept goes too far. It's because the idea does not go nearly far enough.

Under certain circumstances people can go far, far beyond merely "taking the law into their own hands." They can become the law. When there arises a situation of desperate circumstances, and in a place where there is a complete absence of any legitimate, legal authority, people have the power, the right, the duty, to appoint themselves as upholders of genuine justice. And their self-appointment can be perfectly legitimate and wonderfully authoritative. That's the whole point, right there -- the authoritativeness of the thing. That is what we mean to demonstrate here. History has proven it out. How do you think this nation was born?

Please let us offer a fictional illustration of something that often really happened, only a century and a half ago, on the American frontier, as pioneer families moved into the new U.S. territories.

An uninhabited territory is not a civilization. It is just a wilderness. But when two or more people move into this region to live together, they must decide at some point whether to make up a true civilization or a merely barbaric society. What if this group of people included only such occupations as woodworker, ironworker, farmer, etc., but there was not a lawyer among them? That would not keep them from comprising a small unit of civilization, would it?

[Ed: prior to about 1750, America had only about 1-2 lawyers per state.]

For our illustration let's say a few families totalling thirty people moved into the wide-open Montana territory in 1869. The nearest courthouse was over a thousand miles away. There was no U.S. Marshall nor prosecutor within a thousand miles. There were no policemen and no jail.

One of the arrivals was a criminal. He murdered another citizen. Of course, the legal observation of due process, fair trials, admissible evidence, etc., by those trained and competent in law -- these things are all crucial to the administration of justice, admittedly. To diminish their importance, in this case, however, let's say the murder was eye-witnessed by fifteen people -- half the entire town. So it was a publicly known fact who the murderer was.

The townspeople appointed themselves guardians of justice. They fashioned a noose in the end of a rope; threw it over a stout tree limb, and hung him.

Well, what were they supposed to do -- just let the guy go around killing them off one by one? If that were the case then they, themselves, would not be constituting a civilization! Like the murderer, they, too, would be barbarians, only less cold-blooded than him. What were they supposed to say to one another?...

..."Uh, excuse me, folks, but we've had a murder here, and we all know for a fact who did it--that guy right there (pointing). Has anyone of you ever served as a judge? (No show of hands.) No? Okay, is any one of you an attorney, or has anyone had any training in law? (No hands.) No? Okay, well, I guess that settles that, folks! There's nothing we can do about it then! We'll just have to let him kill more of us, if that's what he wants; because, after all...we can't take the law into our own hands, can we? For Pete's sake! For ordinary citizens, like us, to take the law into our own hands would always be terrible and intolerable, wouldn't it (heh heh)?"

No, they didn't act like that. They didn't pretend like they were stupid. They had not been acclimated into left-wing ideology. They had never gone insane watching Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Phil Donahue, et. al, on TV.

They did more than merely "take the law into their own hands." They became the law. They became the embodiment of the true and just law. They executed the murderer. In the absence of any other, formal, legal authority they appointed themselves. The crucial point we want to make, and to emphasize, is that this appointment, even though a self-appointment, and even though made by those not trained as attorneys, was, nevertheless, perfectly AUTHORITATIVE! Under those circumstances they constituted legitimate authority. Thus, the hanging was more than a mere justified homicide. It exemplified a legitimate exercise in genuine capital punishment.

The reason Griffin's act can be seen in the same way is that he found himself in exactly the same circumstances. Innocent people were being killed. It was a publicly known fact who the killer was. There was a complete absence of any legitimate authority protecting the babies. In fact, there was no legitimate authority, period. "Authority" is not made legitimate simply by protecting some groups of innocent people while disregarding the safety of others.

Certainly, whenever possible, and when there are available competent attorneys and judges, the administration of justice should be left to them. But there were no such persons both willing and able to procure justice of the babies in Pensacola, or the state of Florida, or anywhere in the U.S. In this complete absence of legitimate authority, Griffin had the perfect right to appoint himself as a legal authority. It did not matter that he had never seen the inside of a law school classroom. Since the killing of a baby is the most manifest and fundamental breach of law, therefore, Griffin's understanding of law is far superior to that of all nine members of the Supreme Court combined.

Just as the frontiersmen who settled the wild West did not need to ride a horse over a thousand miles to ask someone's permission to appoint themselves as guardians of justice, likewise, it did not matter that Griffin had asked no one's permission to appoint himself. If the Lord God of heaven recognized Griffin's appointment as authoritative, then it is absolutely so. Then the authoritativeness is equal whether everyone in the world agreed with Griffin or no one agreed with him.

The only valid argument against Griffin's act as a study in capital punishment is that, whereas capital punishment is ordinarily inflicted as a means of retribution [punishment for past crimes], Griffin's act was meant to be preemptive [prevention of future crimes]. Even this point [insofar as it is an objection] is made somewhat moot by the fact that it only serves to more richly justify the act.

DEFENSIVE, JUSTIFIED WARFARE

It is by this perspective TBR prefers to hold Griffin's act. Justifiable homicide happens only in sporadic, isolated cases, usually unexpectedly, and on an ad hoc basis. Capital punishment is much more complicated, legally, than defensive warfare. Also, capital punishment shows only justice, but does not demonstrate manly honor and valor. Justified warfare does. If an exercise in capital punishment does, indeed, fulfill divine justice, then God is glorified by it. As hard as that may sound, God is always glorified when people obey Him. "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Samuel 15:22.

Yet, if an injustice is so horrible widespread, and oppressive that it demands toe conduct of defensive, Godly warfare -- then it is TBR's belief that God is even more greatly glorified by this conduct than by capital punishment.

Little more need be said on the Griffin case as a study in justified warfare. See TBR vol. 1, #'s 2 and 3 for a more thorough examination of abortion as a war crime which, thus, causes any armed opposition to it to be legitimately classed as actual, defensive warfare. It does not matter whether Griffin had reasoned out abortion as a war crime and an act of actual, evil warfare. It only matters that that is the truth. He engaged in warfare even if he, himself, did not realize it at that time.

Except for God, Griffin stood alone. One man does not make an army. This, too, is irrelevant. Sometimes, in a war, a particular operation can be carried out by one man. Also, the other side, being made up entirely of active war criminals, does make up an army, however irregular and disunited their forces may be. In other words, it is possible, in an actual war, for only one army to be showing aggression -- if their "opponents" aren't men enough to mobilize.

In the conduct of justified and defensive warfare a man can walk like a man. During a time of honorable, justified peace a man can still walk like a man. As a participant in an unjust, shameful peace a man can only walk like a woman. It is a fine and noble thing for a woman to walk like a woman -- but for a man, so to walk, never. And if a bunch of left-wing femiNazis don't like it -- that's tough.

* * *

A FINAL CLARIFICATION OF OUR POSITION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

TBR believes that Jesus' statement concerning the woman caught in adultery, ultimately upheld the justice of capital punishment. Yet, we also know He deliberately spared her -- in her own specific case. She was remorseful, and the Lord showed her mercy. Therefore, wanting to learn from, and imitate our Savior as much as possible, we would NOT advocate capital punishment for any former abortionists who remorsefully have repented from their sin and turned to God. We have never heard of any activist who would dispute this position. As far as we are concerned, such a person could move in right next door, and we'd be willing to live in peace with him or her and be his or her friend.

Take, for instance, Dr. Beverly McMillan, M.D. Many years ago Dr. McMillan was an abortionist. She was broken hearted upon seeing the body parts. Then, when women who had undergone abortions by her returned, grieving, for what they had done, Beverly shared their grief. Unable to bear the load of grief and guilt any longer, she turned to Jesus, confessing her sin and asking forgiveness. She got it. So if the Lord, a perfect God, no longer holds her accountable for her past, how can we, who are not perfect, dare to do so? She is our sister in Christ, no less. Not to mention that she is a fellow-activist, defending babies confrontationally enough to have been arrested several times. Needless to say, there is no one in our movement who would pose a threat to someone like Beverly, but, even if so, you can be sure that we would be the first to stand alongside her husband, Roy, in willingness to violently defend her life. Roy, also, is a long-time activist as well as a decorated Vietnam veteran. Though we do not personally know this couple, they seem, even, to be fellow-absolutists. In the Feb., 1994, issue of Life Advocate Roy, apparently speaking for both of them, wrote,

Warning to abortionists:

REPENT NOW, OR FACE A VIOLENT END. Not at the hands of a few individuals, but at the hands of the entire criminal justice system. (This title added by editor)

Yet, those who continue in this peculiarly sleazy wickedness are criminals regardless of what the current panel of Supreme Court "justices" say. Some day our people will be in authority, and we will fulfill whatever justice God demands.

This is not a threat to act as Griffin did in appointing himself. Neither I, nor anyone I know, will repeat Griffin's act as a self-appointed agent, however authoritative we may consider his self-appointment to have been. We won't be satisfied with stopping only one abortionist like he did. No, we're talking only about when our people are in publicly recognized seats of power, when we occupy the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We're talking about when our people actually hold the reins of power in the U.S. Justice Department with public recognition, and when we, with authority publicly established through the democratic process, will reform public policy.

Then we will pursue the war criminals of the abortion conflict with the same vigor as our own fathers pursued the Nazi war criminals after WWII, knowing, as our fathers then knew, that we are not in violation of ex post facto principal; because the abortions committed even now are already illegal.

You can be absolutely assured that this will happen -- that the zealous among God's people will fill public seats of authority. History gives endless proof of it, and the Bible declares it will happen in the end. History has wearily proven over and over that the pendulum swings back and forth, back and forth, from "right" to "left" to "right", etc. When it swings to the left God is mocked, justice is overthrown, and evil reigns. then there is always a correction as the pendulum swings back to the right. History has shown an unending sequence of mistakes and corrections.

The pendulum has never stopped swinging, only pausing, briefly, at the beginning and end of each cycle. But one day it will stop. It will come to rest on the right side -- on God's side -- the side where truth and justice lie. It is now paused on the left. But the weight of the leftist's evil and injustice is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Surely, the pendulum is poised to swing once more. Inevitably, at least once more, it will swing back to the right with a thunder.

You leftists, you who kill babies, you who participate in this evil in any way, you who promote it, repent now. Believe that thing which you cannot yet see. In other words, if you repent now, while it still seems impossible for the Lord's people ever to ascend to power again, then, when it comes to pass, we will be able to believe your repentance is sincere. We will rise to power, to public positions of genuine authority, again. It may have been predestined that there are still enough brave men who love God, justice, and truth to willfully rise to power through an uncompromising stand. In which case it might not be necessary for the Lord our God to publicly and visibly show His face. And in which case He will continue to insist that people begin believing without first seeing. Woe to those who steadfastly refuse to believe until they see Him! It will be too late.

Believe now! Repent now! And know this: that if the brave among those who proclaim His name are too few to assume authority through their own (blessed by God) exertions, then the Lord Jesus Christ will soon return and install the few in office through almighty, irresistible power. Either way, unless you repent, there is no hope for you to escape. When the Lord came 2,000 years ago it was as a lamb, gentle, to show mercy. This time it will be to show justice.

If you repent now, and if our people's ascension to public authority is brought about without the Lord's physical return, then we will be able to show you the same mercy shown the woman caught in adultery. But if you wait until this changing of the guard appears imminent, and only then make a show of "repentance" to save your own skin, it will be too late. Too late.

* * *

Here we conclude this issue and our study of the Griffin case. We feel we've held it up for examination in every possible light. If we've overlooked any reasonable point we hope a reader will be kind enough to point it out. Thanks for bearing with such a long issue and reading this far. Many thanks to our paid subscribers. Until the next issue, I'm still

Yours-In-Christ,

Johnny

Chapter 8, The Brockhoeft Report

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!)