Colson’s Confusion (Another Acquiescent Pro-life Org)
Michael Bray
27 May, 2000
Chuck Colson seems to suffer from an enduring ailment by which he habitually judges the motives of those who use force to save children in the womb. He groups those who save innocent people from murder with those who inflict harm or death upon human beings with booby-traps and judges them all guilty of “violent public protest.” He says:
“Animal rights activists destroy research labs. Radical environmentalists booby-trap trees, hoping to harm loggers. And now and then misguided pro-life protesters–supposedly Christians –murder abortion doctors.” (Break Point, 26 May, 2000)
Does Colson really see no difference between those who harm innocent people to save trees and those who stop murderers from slaughtering innocent people? He is confessedly no earth-worshiping pacifist. But he is a political theorist and writes profusely about justice. He believes that God’s law has some function in guiding nations toward justice and he has great appreciation – even an inordinate affection – for democracy as the ideal means of advancing the same.
And so “protesters,” whether the pagan tree-worshipping variety or the witnesses against child-slaughter, are all a threat to the golden goose – democracy. He puzzles himself over the actions of “protesters” who desperately resort to “violence”: “Given that we live in a democracy, where we’re free to change the laws, one has to wonder: What drives people to adopt such tactics?”
Is he really so blind that he confuses the actions of those who proclaim the deity of the earth and the equality of man with animals with those who declare that man is created in the image of the Almighty, Transcendent God? Can he really not discern between political protest and defensive action?
Colson does not even renounce in principle the use of “violence” to overthrow a corrupt government, how then can he reject its use for something so fundamentally justifiable as the defense of the innocent? In considering the prior question, he recently contributed to a symposium sponsored by First Things (No. 67, Nov. 1996). In conclusion, he wrote: “We dare not despair of America and advocate open rebellion. But we must . . . prepare ourselves for what the future seems likely to bring under a regime in which the courts have usurped the democratic process by reckless exercise of naked power.”
Perhaps Colson’s love of democracy exceeds his love for God’s law and His justice. Protesting against an unjust law or a corrupt and murderous Attorney General or an adulterous President is one thing; defending the innocent from the immediate threat of death is another. How does he confuse the two and condemn the rescuers, calling them “misguided” and “supposedly Christian”?
To re-quote Colson, “One has to wonder: What drives people to adopt such tactics?” Why does he slander good people who have risked their lives and freedom for others?
Does he love democracy more than Truth? Does he prefer peace to justice? When was the last time he stood outside an abortuary, a few yards away from a room where murder was being committed, and protested against it? And if he believed that there was murder being committed within the distance of a ten-second sprint, how could he condemn the fellow who decides to forcefully intervene and stop it?
In the Break Point article Colson denigrates what he calls “a tiny handful of pro-lifers” who occasionally “are pushed over the edge into violence” – as if being part of the huge majority, or at least a big minority guarantees sanity and righteousness. (His awareness of the smallness of that tiny band of twelve two millennia ago doesn’t quite overcome his prejudice.)
The first of those rare occasions at which an abortionist was terminated was on 10 March, 1993 at the hands of Michael Griffin. A member of Charity Chapel Church pastored by Michael Collins, Griffin shot Abortionist David Gunn as the abortionist was arriving for “work.” The Pensacola News Journal reported on Griffin’s actions in the days prior to performing the deed:
On Saturday, Griffin had specifically asked church members at a Bible study to pray for Gunn, a doctor known to local abortion opponents for coming to Pensacola to perform abortions.
Collins said he led that short prayer in which he asked for Gunn to have a change of heart and stop performing abortions. During the prayer, Collins said Griffin was weeping (11 March, 1993).
Colson speaks disparagingly of folks being “pushed over the edge” as if those who stay lodged on a safe perch away from the battlefield have chosen the more excellent way. Indeed, one who stays away from the bloody encampments, holed up at his escritoire, isn’t likely to be moved to weeping – much less to action.
There are three salient points to be made in reply to Chuck Colson:
1) Do not think that the golden goose of governments is democracy. Rather, it is God’s law which is perfect. It not only converts the soul but it informs nations concerning what justice is. God’s law can be administered through a democracy or a despot. It could even be administered through the current U.S. Supreme Court if its robed rogues repented.
2) Protest against general injustices must not be confused with defensive action (saving an innocent human being from the threat of death). The former ought generally to be pursued by peaceful persuasion; the latter may be carried out as an emergency by whatever means necessary.
3) There are many callings, “vocations” (for you ecclesiastically minded), by which the Spirit of God fulfills the purposes for which He gave gifts to His people. With regard to the particular case of the current holocaust in these united States, folks may be inclined to respond varyingly. Some will picket; others will write letters. Some will offer help to the women; others will sternly warn them of the hell to pay for killing one’s own child. Some will preach to the murderers, others will stop them.
But in no way ought there be confusion sewn as Colson has done. When he refers in Break Point to a new book about the abolitionists in which he confuses “animal-rights activists” with John Brown and “frustrated pro-lifers,” he deceives some readers and makes buffoons of himself to others.
Note: For further commentary on Chuck Colson’s handling of defensive action for the unborn, see p. 127, A Time To Kill, by Michael Bray.
The Capture of Eric Rudolph Conversing with James Kopp: His Disappointments and Exhortations
Comments are currently closed.