Bloomington Planned Parenthood attacked with ax; Man tells cops he did it due to religious beliefs

Thanks for the ping and for taking the time to present these thoughts. However, I am not sure that they are relevant in this case.

This deacon did not commit murder. Nor did he foment an insurrection against the power. He did vandalize a death chamber in which murder is done and the natural right to life is violated as a matter of course.

Perhaps this faith tradition does indeed make what the deacon did wrong. And, it is certainly legitimate for that tradition to require its adherents to form their consciences in obedience.

However, I do not see how this act of property destruction which halts, even for a short time, the greater evil, can be made to fit as violating the sword power of the state.

A counterargument to the Romans 13 argument is presented by Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin. You’ll have to search “Romans 13” and “Chuck Baldwin,” I don’t know why the Mod expunged the link post and haven’t time to find another.

I’d say taking an ax to a few computers is a fairly mild act.

It's a baby slaughterhouse, so, yeah. No tears here.

An ax is appropriate, given what happens inside

Thank you for your note.

We certainly agree that felony property damage and capital murder are not on the same level of seriousness, and that is recognized in both secular law and church doctrine. Based on what I’ve seen so far in news media reports, it looks like the axe attacker didn’t manage to get into the part of the facility where abortions were performed and only attacked walls, windows, computers, and office equipment.

A key issue here is that this man is not just a private member but a deacon in the church. If the church does nothing or fails to speak clearly, it will be accused, rightly so in my view, of either supporting or failing to clearly state its stance on the deacon’s actions.

In theory that applies to any church member, but the general public understands that people may be members of a church and actively involved in it without their actions carrying the endorsement of the church. That case is far harder to make when a deacon, elder or pastor does something like this.

Rev. Bayly is a fairly well-known figure in the evangelical world. To paraphrase his church’s name, if ClearNote Church does not sound clear message with the trumpet they’ve been handed, bad things will happen, and happen quickly.

It probably should be noted that the local Right-to-Life organization also condemned this attack on Planned Parenthood.

He must have had a question.

Thank you for your note.

While I cannot speak for the moderators, Free Republic’s policy is to forbid advocacy of violence. I agree with that policy for a number of reasons.

Having said that, I wasn’t aware of Chuck Baldwin’s view on this issue and I will do the research on my own.

People have to be strong(calm)...What part of that don’t you get.

Commandment 6a, quite so, I forgot!

VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VIa. Nevertheless, thou shalt be calm.

They can slaughter one-sixth of the US population, but we mustn't break any windows. Yes, I see what you're saying.

The gist of Baldwin’s argument in the expunged link was that the Constitution is the lawful authority, not the official, in our country. He was saying that citing Romans 13 as an excuse to do nothing but submit, is lame. I don’t think he was advocating violence. Although if someone were to bomb Pearl Harbor tomorrow, I believe he might.

More than two thousand died at Pearl Harbor. Some 50 million Americans have been slaughtered by abortionists. I would call any violence against that an act of national defense, but...

(Mod, can you tell me why the post was removed so I won’t make that mistake again? Thanks.)

“Free Republic’s policy is to forbid advocacy of violence”

Just this morning I saw numerous comments about nuking muslims: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3007922/posts (posts 5, 6, 8, 10, 11)

NTTAWWT! :)

The gist of Baldwin’s argument in the expunged link was that the Constitution is the lawful authority, not the official, in our country. He was saying that citing Romans 13 as an excuse to do nothing but submit, is lame. I don’t think he was advocating violence. Although if someone were to bomb Pearl Harbor tomorrow, I believe he might.

During the Reformation, Abraham Kuyper taught a view summarized by the phrase "spheres of sovereignty" (last summer, Darrell posted a thread that touched on it briefly). Basically stated, God instituted three equally legitimate governments (civil, ecclesial, and family). All three spheres of government are themselves ruled over by God, and their laws (family, church, and state) should commonly have at their foundation His revealed Word and Law. No sphere of government can be legitimately encroached upon, except by joint declaration/action of the other two (with an appeal to that joint foundation) that the first has (previously) encroached into their sphere(s) and must be pushed back.

In this current case, we have a church deacon (ecclesial sphere) striking out against a business (family sphere) which is operating lawfully under the federal government (civil sphere). The issue is was the deacon acting as a deacon, with the authority of his office behind him? The answer back from his church leadership is no, he did not have our permission to behave in this manner (the destruction of property). Both his church AND his family would need to have authorized him to act, in order to legitimize his act of property damage.

Abraham Kuyper taught a view summarized by the phrase "spheres of sovereignty" (last summer, Darrell posted a thread that touched on it briefly). Basically stated, God instituted three equally legitimate governments (civil, ecclesial, and family). All three spheres of government are themselves ruled over by God, and their laws (family, church, and state) should commonly have at their foundation His revealed Word and Law.

Well then. No wonder the Devil is always found in political life! Political office is his sanctuary. ;)

The website you linked to in the removed reply is not welcome at Free Republic.

Thank you, Alex.

Only one clarification... rather than living at the time of the Protestant Reformation, Abraham Kuyper lived from 1837 to 1920, was in the Dutch Parliament from 1874 to 1877 and 1894 to 1901 and was Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905, remaining involved in politics as the de facto head of his political party until his death.

Kuyper was the major leader of a conservative secession from the Dutch state church in 1886 and led the merger six years later between his “Doleantie” movement and most but not all of the earlier “Afscheiding” seceders dating from 1834.

Otherwise, the summary given is quite good.

I don't agree with everything Kuyper did politically, and I have specific problems with certain aspects of his theology of presumptive regeneration of children of Christian parents. However, there's no way to overestimate the influence of Kuyper on not only preserving but expanding the influence of biblical Christianity in Europe when virtually every other country was falling before the advance of liberal theology. Kuyper’s work turned the Netherlands into the “Bible Belt” of Europe for several generations, lasting essentially until the Nazis liquidated Christian organizations during World War II.

A major reason for Kuyper’s success was creating a political theology which allowed strongly conservative Christians of significantly different view to work together in the sphere of the state without compromising their convictions in the sphere of the church. Getting conservatives to work together without promoting a spirit of compromising one’s convictions is not an easy thing to do, and modern American “social conservatives” would do well to learn from Kuyper’s example.

That example, by the way, was a key behind-the-scenes influence on such men as Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy.

Those familiar with the current liberalism of the Netherlands often ask some version of “what happened.” Of course, there are always many factors in how liberalism takes over a church or a country, but the Dutch experience had some uniquenesses that aren't typical.

The Netherlands suffered greatly from World War II. The battle front stalled on Dutch territory during the “Hunger Winter” of 1944, and the Germans confiscated much of the Dutch farm harvest leading to massive starvation in the cities. Starvation conditions and wartime property destruction caused massive emigration after the war. Huge numbers of Kuyper’s denomination's most faithful younger members left for new homes in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and elsewhere. That, combined with a bitter split in Kuyper’s denomination over some fairly complicated points of the theology of Klaas Schilder, a conservative anti-Nazi leader in the Dutch church who was defrocked during the war while in hiding from the Nazis, were major factors in the post-war collapse of Dutch Christianity into the liberalism for which the country is known today.

Hope that is of some benefit.

A counterargument to the Romans 13 argument is presented by Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin. You’ll have to search “Romans 13” and “Chuck Baldwin”

Having read his sales pitch for his book, I have some immediate problems with Baldwin's argument. The first is that Baldwin cites revivalist preacher Charles Finney. Finney, in case you didn't know, believed and taught that Christ's death was a public display of God's justice, but did not accomplish an actual, vicarious atonement of sin on our behalf. The cross only served to show the severity of punishment that sin deserves. Our repentance is what causes our forgiveness (and that, only of past sins). Having been shown Christ's death as an example, we're supposed to be "scared straight" and stop sinning on our own power. If Chuck wants to get Christians on-board with his program, he needs to cite someone with more orthodox beliefs. Given his education and background, I can see why he'd think Finney is a good example to cite, though.

My second problem is with how Chuck Baldwin mischaracterizes his theological opponents. He claims that "the vast majority (probably at least 95%) of the 300,000 evangelical churches in the United States" believe in

"...the erroneous, fallacious interpretation of Romans chapter 13 that teaches Christians are obligated to submit to government regardless of whether government acts within the confines and jurisdiction of God’s law or not..."

He goes on to claim that "many pastors foolishly believe" and teach their congregations that

"...God directs us through our President (whoever he is), or our Supreme Court, or virtually any other government agency..."

As if his "vast majority" also believes in the functional deity of the state! He accuses them of being

"...sheepish, slavish preachers who idolize the state!"

So Baldwin's view is that 95% of the churches in operation today have pastors who believe that God guides us through our Federal Government, and therefore 95% of our churches engage in worship of the state, just to avoid paying taxes.

Chuck makes some good-but-minor points (he and I agree on 501(c)3 status), but he argues like a politician by demonizing his opponents. The only individuals I know of who idolize civil government are politicians and politician wannabes. The only churches I know of that idolize civil government (besides those with politically liberal pastors) are those who believe God's kingdom doesn't also extend to it, and therefore have no theology that speaks to it. Churches and families have power and authority and mandates, too, but they operate within different spheres using different God-given tools (case in point: Kuyper argued that the church has authority over the communion table, and the family has authority over procreation and inheritance).

The last problem I have with Baldwin's argument is with a lack of information regarding corrective action against a civil government out-of-control. Baldwin states (and for the most part, I agree) that

"...the biggest reason America is in the mess that it’s in today is directly due to the apathy and indifference of the American pulpit."

His book is an attempt to fix that. His personal actions (moving to Kalispell Montana and starting the non-denominational, non-501(c)3 church Liberty Fellowship) at least show he is acting consistent with his message. Let's assume that he's right, and assume that he changes the minds of the majority of pastors with his book. What course of action does he advocate next, regarding citizenry and churches against the Federal Government? This has always been a problem for Baptist and Restorationist theology (see Darrell's "two kingdoms" discussion last year, and sometimes that theological void leaves impatient individuals with the belief that they must resort to violence to effect change.

I'd bargain that's where Free Republic has a problem with Chuck Baldwin's message, and that's why your link/post got deleted earlier.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Just telling truth about sad philosophy...it wasn’t personal, just real.