Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today, I want to highlight an article which is going to merge two concepts we previously talked about. Abortion, which we've been ending our season on for like three episodes now, and non violence. So in episode seven of season one, I gave an analogy about a Nazi concentration camp that went something like this: You are a German citizen, you have lived outside of this Nazi concentration camp, you know what's been going on there, but you know that the Allies are coming and you see Germans start to leave the concentration camp, and you, as a German citizen, walk up to this camp and you see that there's some Jews being shoved into the or some people being shoved into this this room and, you see that there's a German officer who is about to to pump gas into this room to kill them. And you see a gun lying on the ground that one of the fleeing German soldiers must have dropped, and you pick it up.

And now you have a choice. Is it moral to shoot the guard to save lives? Like, is that optional? Like, I could do that. Is it required?

Oh, I need to shoot the guard to save those innocent lives or, I'm not being moral or is it immoral to kill your enemy in this situation, to save lives? Right? You've got three three moral paths. The it's morally necessary to save life, it's morally necessary to not kill your enemy, or it's of up to your conscience. It's it's a toss-up.

Whatever God lays on your heart at that time. And so the way that most people answer that, in The States at least, I don't think I've ever had an answer other than, you should kill the guard. Actually, might have had some people say it's up to your conscience. But most people are gonna say, it's either okay to kill the guard, and most people are going to say, yeah, definitely kill the guard. Kill the guard to save the innocent lives.

The catch to this hypothetical situation though is then we bring it to today, and call, conservative evangelical Christians call abortion, the modern day holocaust. It's been going on for fifty years. It's killed sixty million lives. That's a modern day holocaust. It's worse than the holocaust in terms of number of lives lost.

So if it's okay to kill the Nazi in the gas chamber or at the gas chamber if it's either good to kill them or okay to kill them and not bad, and we have a modern holocaust going on today, why do we condemn people who kill abortion doctors? The answer seemed clearest to me that there is no moral distinction between the Nazi example and the abortion example. I have yet for somebody to come up with a legitimate moral distinction. People just you can't come up with one, as far as I can tell. I've asked people for years.

Nobody can come up with one. And then the question then becomes is, if there is no distinction, then something is amiss with the premises in one of these issues. Either, my conclusion was, it's okay to kill abortion doctors and maybe, actually, we should be, or it's wrong to kill even the Nazi who's about to kill people. Both of those things are unsatisfactory for American Christians most people. Right?

But I fail to see how there is moral distinction in these situations. So the article at hand today, which will be linked in the show notes below, is about this issue, sort of. Now the article is really about protesting and violence at the protest and all that kind of stuff. The author is just trying to talk about how it's not legitimate to use violence as some of the protesters are doing or the people coming in from the outside are doing. But then, the author goes on to bring up this Nazi example because the author is pro violence.

He believes that violence is very important as a last resort. He emphasizes that as a as a last resort. But he he uses this Nazi example in in here, which is what I want to confront and address. So let's go ahead and take a look at the article and dissect it a little bit. So about halfway through the article, the author explains what he thinks are legitimate uses of violence.

He argues that violence is only feasible, morally feasible, as a last resort, and it is used in the protection of innocent life. And he emphasizes the lives of others, but I think he would also include one's own life. But let's just take the protecting the lives of others. That makes it more morally clear, I think, or polarized. But the author does say that not only is it feasible to use for the protection of innocent life, but he argues that not protecting life when you could, through the use of violence towards an aggressor, would actually be wrong.

Before though, we do get to the abortion example, I want to highlight in this article where I believe the author kind of tips his hands and makes some missteps on his last resort reasoning here. So first, when he condemns protesters here for the violence that they use, let's just assume that the protesters did do the violence and it isn't outside forces. The author assumes that this violence is not a last resort. But how many decades or centuries of oppression does it require in order to think that you you won't protect future lives if violence isn't used? Used.

I mean, if you talk to the black community, a lot of them would say that this oppression has been going on for centuries, since, what, 1618, '16 '19. In the black community. They've been oppressed through a variety of different methods. So if we're not hearing them by now, what's to make them think that it's not a last resort? It might not be considered a last resort for a white author, but might it not be for a black man?

Number two, would we say that this applies to any other sin? If someone put a gun to your family's head and said, you need to have sex with your kid to save your family, should you? Should you rape your own child to save your family? If they told you to recant Jesus, should you? You go down the list of moral sins and ask whether saving lives justifies them.

But many times, if not all, the answer would be no for most people. Why does killing get a pass? Is it because it's our enemy who's disposable and able to be objectified? I think so. Number three, one of the assumptions may be that only taking the life of the guilty is justified of the aggressor, which could counter my point number two.

Right? Somebody comes in to harm your family and they're an aggressor, the reason you can kill them is because they've lost their right to life. But know their sin which is against another person is justified only that which is against an aggressor. Now, you can kill, lie to, torture for information, all that good stuff, so long as it is against an aggressor. Doesn't this just mean that we're able to objectify people so long as they're our enemies?

Sin isn't sin if it's against our enemies for a purpose we deem appropriate in a circumstance that we feel is a last resort. That seems like a very slippery slope to me. I mean, you justify all sorts of things. You justify all kinds of sin so long as it's against an aggressor. And I just don't see Jesus' rationale in when people lose their rights to be treated as image bearers of God.

I just don't see it. And even even someone like Augustine, who is known for beginning the just war theory, he he would have said, you can't kill an aggressor because you couldn't do it in love. And even he would say, lying is never justified. So it's just so interesting to me that that our just war ideology and self defense ideology, even though we try to ground it in Augustine, it's so far from what he advocated. But anyway, let's jump in now to the specific scenario of killing abortion doctors.

Just remembering that we've already got all of these problems with this concept of last resort. It's concept of convenience that we can invoke when we feel like it's a last resort, but we can condemn other people because we say, oh no, you could have done this and that and that, or you should just wait a little bit longer. So let's jump into the abortion scenario keeping that in mind. The author raises the initial question. If it was noble for a Christian theologian, like Bonhoeffer as his example, to assassinate Hitler in an attempt to bring an end to the Nazi Holocaust, then why are the vast majority of Christians opposed to violence against Planned Parenthood workers that would lead to an end of the current Holocaust of abortion?

And just a side note here, you can go back and listen to Bonhoeffer episodes because this is a caricature of Bonhoeffer's life and actions. But we'll just assume for the sake of argument that Bonhoeffer did try to kill Hitler. So the author goes on to recount the story of an abortion doctor who was murdered and asks why most Christians universally praise Bonhoeffer's supposed assassination attempt while simultaneously denouncing the murder of abortion doctors. Here's his answer. The answer is simple.

It was not the last resort to kill an abortion doctor. We live in a great nation that allows its citizens to peacefully advocate for change. Change might not always happen as fast as we would like. Nevertheless, Americans enjoy the freedom of speech and can continually advocate for change. In fact, we have seen a change regarding the Holocaust of abortion.

Many people are beginning to see that the pro choice movement is on the wrong side of history, science, and logic. The numbers are slowing. Let's break that argument down a little bit. So the first thing that the author says is that it was not a last resort to kill this abortion doctor. And that just strikes me as odd.

And here's how I'd summarize it of snarkly. So a fifty year industry killing sixty million children is not a last resort because it might end at some point, maybe? While a six year holocaust of about 10,000,000 exterminations, assuming that Bonhoeffer knew about the extent of this and it had reached this number by the time he decided to act, that was a last resort. The two don't even compare in terms of numbers and in terms of what we know is happening. Yet Bonhoeffer's was a last resort and ours isn't.

Just by the numbers, that's that doesn't even compare. But it also doesn't even compare pragmatically speaking, like, in terms of of what you would seek to accomplish because, killing Hitler might have had no impact on exterminations. Hitler had plenty of higher ups who were as sadistic sadistic as him and won a Jewish extermination. It's very plausible that someone would have just filled in the gap. Now compare that with killing an abortion doctor.

You can shut down an operation, a whole clinic with a bombing. Some women who are on the threshold for abortions, in terms of their gestational period might not be able to reschedule in time to get an abortion. Some women might be scared to get an abortion if they feel threatened. And surely, the man you kill will no longer be able to kill, so you're taking a murderer out of circulation until someone else can be trained to replace him. Now if there were enough Christians who are willing to stand up for their faith and what is moral and do that, you could put a really big dent in the abortion industry for sure.

So right off the bat, I would say that at least at face value, the author's definition of last resort is defined conveniently in accord with his subjective feelings about certain issues. He can rail on Nazis because he doesn't have to do anything about them, but subconsciously knows that if he maintained the same standards in our present situation, it would cost him his life and reputation. The dissonance is assumed away rather than taken seriously. Let's take a deeper look at some of the specifics he addresses. I'll quote him again here.

We live in a great nation that allows its citizens to peacefully advocate for change. Change might not always happen as fast as we would like. Americans enjoy the freedom of speech and can continually advocate for change. In fact, we have seen a change regarding the holocaust of abortion. Many people are beginning to see that the pro choice movement is on the wrong side of history, science, logic.

The numbers are slowing. So in essence, because we have the freedom of speech to talk a lot about how abortion should stop, we don't have to defend life with violence and action as a last resort. Despite the length of the atrocity and the severity of it, so long as we can talk about it, we don't have to do anything about it do the ultimate thing about I should say. Right? Use our last resort of violence.

It just strikes me that there are quite a few ironies in this. First, just compare this to some other real world examples, both of which I I believe the author, and if not him, at least our community that we're in, these events that that our community thinks is just. So the civil war and ending slavery, was that just? Was that a last resort? I mean, think about this.

The the territories had become begun had been limited from taking on slavery. Right? For every edition of a slave state, there had to be one of a of a free state and vice versa. Right? So we started limiting slavery in that regard.

The slave trade had ended. It was only by birth now. It was being talked about among people and in in governments. They were debating it, trying to, end it even further. It was being disbanded in other countries.

I mean, there was great progress. Did we really need to fight about it? Slaves who tried to run away and revolt if they used violence against their masters in 1790. Should they have just said, well, you know what? They gave me three fifths of my humanity.

You know? That's better than better than zero. So that's some progress. I'll wait and hold out and hope that hope that I just get freed soon and I get the rest of my humanity. When does last resort come into play for either the civil war or slaves slaves rebelling, all of the different rebellions that you see from both both black and white people that were related specifically to slavery?

Yes. But but, of course, the civil war in particular, was the South seceding from the government. So the government had the right and duty to preserve the union. Right? Well, then what about the American Revolution?

Revolution of many wealthy businessmen who were sick of paying taxes, having unsellable land because the crown prevented them from expanding their territory west. Conversations were going on and concessions were being made at times from from the crown. There were actually quite a number of concessions that were being made, and and taxes at times were actually lower than than they were elsewhere. So were the patriots' right to rebel against the government? They only gave them well, I think the the first act that they were really ticked off at was, like, in the the sixties, which limited the land to 17 sixties.

And by 1776, they're rebelling. They gave the government a decade, and then they fought against their own government. So where's the civil war logic here as far as, like, we should let the South secede, it seems? Shouldn't we have? Or the revolutionary war was wrong.

It becomes clear that that we're so selective with what constitutes as a last resort and who is able to wield it. Sometimes the last resort is 250 in the making and people just need to keep waiting, like slavery. And even more than two hundred and fifty years in the waiting if you, go back to the colonies, you know, before we were a country. But sometimes, when it's convenient, because we really don't like Nazis, then somebody like Bonhoeffer only has to wait five years to assassinate Hitler. And in fact, if he would have assassinated him in 1940, I mean, that would have been even better.

Right? And then, of course, sometimes, there is there is no such thing as last resort like with abortion. Right? Wait. Forty years and 60,000,000 lives, and there's no such last resort even on the table here.

And that just seems ludicrous to me. It's it's this it's this double speak, this double standard. Now sometimes, last resort is necessary because of government authority, like the union and the civil war. But at other times, the government loses its authority and credibility when it hinders the finances of the wealthy, like with the American Revolution. And sometimes, the government is complicit in racial oppression and abortion, and murder, and genocide, but those things require cool heads to prevail and demand that there's no violence because we can just talk about it.

It's just it's just preposterous to me. There's so many double standards and shifting of terms. Things are murky enough so that we can avoid social action in our time while upholding the rights and concepts we want, which make us personally secure. We can laud the civil war, we can laud Bonhoeffer, we can laud the American Revolution, but then when it comes time to reconcile all of those things and how they fit together, and what issues in our times might require those same things, we cop out. Now just to note here, I'm glad that Christians are copping out.

I'm glad that they are inconsistent in their application of violence because I don't think we should kill people, even our enemies. I don't think we should kill abortion doctors. So I'm thankful that Christians are inconsistent here. But my desire would be that they would become consistent by changing their understanding to follow Christ in terms of enemy love. So far, that's that's kind of a bird's eye view of the problem.

I wanna zoom in a little bit further and talk about some more specifics. What about our free speech? Since we can talk against abortion, should we not use violence? Well, you could talk against Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany. There are just consequences for it.

Just look at Sophie Scholl as one of the great examples and the believing church in Nazi Germany of which Bonhoeffer was a part. They spoke out and there were consequences. So I fail to see how the presence of consequences means that it's not a viable option. If talk is sufficient now, I fail to see why it wasn't sufficient back then. So I think what the author really means is because we can talk and not face consequences, I don't have to use violence and face consequences for violence.

So the aversion here is the consequence because there's always talking that you can do. But talk is cheap, right? You know, we can see the double standard here too because another one of the ironies is that this idea of talking would apply in another situation you mentioned, protecting one's family. There's a robbery going on or someone invades your home, you can talk to them. How do you know what's gonna happen?

How do you know if he has a weapon? How do you know what his intent is? How do you know that if you don't make yourself known and tell him you have a gun that he's gonna go? You don't know what's gonna happen in the course of the invasion. John Howard Yoder's book, What Would You Do?

Really highlights this well and we did two episodes on that that you can go back to I think 1920 in the first season. But you can't guarantee that talking won't work. It might play out okay and it might be perfectly fine. Even if the intruder kills one of your kids, right? So you got a family, you got four kids, the intruder kills one of your kids, you can still talk.

There's a chance that he might not kill anymore, right? I mean, if you apply this abortion logic to an intruder coming in to hurt your family, it's the same thing. Well, I mean, sixty million kids have been killed, but it's not a last resort yet because we don't know what's gonna happen down the road. He would never, the author would never ever apply that to his family. Ever.

And that's just inconsistent. So what we find is that this is essentially what's going on with our abortion and Nazi example here. There's equivocation on the term last resort. When the author applies it to his family, the mere suspicion that his family might get killed, I mean, for how do you know how far the attacker's gonna go? The mere suspicion warrants killing your attacker.

But when we have tens of millions of people actually getting killed and know the intent and scope of the abortion industry, talk suffices because it's not really a last resort for us. So last resort, as it's used by the author, means a preemptive measure taken for innocent bystanders when no recourse is given by our society for said actions. You can defend your family and the government might pat you on the back for taking out a criminal, but you can't do that to abortion doctor. So it's not a last resort for an abortion doctor. Once again, I obviously don't think that we should kill abortion doctors or bomb clinics.

I just don't see how you can get that on the logic of killing in love or the doctrine of last resort. It's just inconsistent and it's conveniently so. You can slap the last resort label on things that you want to protect even if it's not really a last resort and explain away how something which is clearly an atrocity doesn't require our self sacrificial intervention of violence. We could, of course, speak to a number of other problems with this concept in general, but I covered most of that in season one, specifically episodes seventeen, fourteen, 19, and 20. We'd also go back to Augustine's disagreement with the author on using violence in the heat of the moment and not at the hands of the state, and only at the hands of the state.

But again, we've addressed that elsewhere. So for this episode, I just wanted to address some of the specific issues which came to mind from this article. I think the issue is one of the examples which makes the double standard of the self defense position the most apparent. Self defense may be a properly basic belief as the author claims, but so is not murdering an abortion doctor at church before he goes to do his thing. It seems to me that only one of those properly basic beliefs can hold, and you all know which one sticks for me.

So hopefully, episode helps you to see one of the major importances of nonviolence. Nonviolence allows you to live consistently and not have to explain your way out of situations of self sacrifice. It shows us how we can live consistently in love. So peace. That's all for now.

Because I'm pacifist. When I say it, I mean it.