Archive for the ‘Refuse, Resist and/or Rebel’ Category

A word of caution

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

If you are an Indiana attorney or ever think you would like to become one then you should take the time to pray and reflect before signing the Manhattan Declaration, which you can go to by clicking here.

That fine work of Christian Resistance ends on this high (as in Higher Law) note:

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

 

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

 

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

ONCE AGAIN, A WORD OF WARNING.  SIGNING THIS PLEDGE MAY GET A PERSON DISBARRED IN INDIANA. 

WANT PROOF?  STAY TUNED.   AND COME TO OUR DECEMBER 8 BANQUET.

Christian civil disobedience … time to think about it

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

On-the-Duty-of-Civil-DisobediThe lengthy story in red that follows was in the Washington Times this morning … and then mysteriously removed.

This (click here, later) scaled down story replaced it.

Here is the one that went down the Orwellian memory hole, with bold highlights:

Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues

More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative
Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing
civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in
“anti-life acts” or bless gay marriages.

Called the “Manhattan Declaration,” the six-page,
single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship
founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton
University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and
included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops,
archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens
of clergy and laity.

Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl is one of the
signatories.

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that
civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes
required,
” says the document which cited civil rights icon
Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his
beliefs.

“Because we honor justice and the common good,” it states,
“we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel
our institutions to participate in abortions,
embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia
or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule
purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships,
treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from
proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and
immorality and marriage and the family.”

When pressed to say what sorts of civil disobedience the
writers were proposing, its originators were vague on the
details at Friday’s news conference during which the
document was released.

“We certainly hope it doesn’t come to that,” said Mr.
George, who added that he has represented a West Virginia
resident who has refused to pay a portion of her state
income tax that funds abortions. “However, we see case after
case of challenges to religious liberty,” such as compelling
pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or health care
workers to assist in abortions, he added.

“When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot
comply, it’s better to suffer a wrong than to do it,”
he
said.

There are at least 224 million Christians in the United
States, according to the Web site Adherents.com.

The document, which was drafted over the summer, is being
released at a time of high stress for many of the groups
that signed it. The Archdiocese of Washington is under fire
for saying it will not comply with a pending D.C. law that
would force the Catholic Church to give health benefits or
adoption services to same-sex couples.

Archbishop Wuerl, who attended the news conference, said it
was a “joy” to welcome the religious leaders at the news
conference and emphasized that their task “is to change
human hearts. That is how society is changed.”

Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, one of the signers,
said people’s consciences must be formed first.

“The institution of marriage is at risk of being redefined
at its very essence,” he said. “Justice demands that we not
remain silent in face of these threats.”

However, he twice dodged a reporter’s question about whether
it would be a mortal sin for a politician to vote for a
national health care bill that obligates taxpayers to pay
for abortions.

Several speakers said the document was moral, not political,
in nature and that the bulk of it defines three core issues:
life, marriage and religious liberty.

“This is truly a matter of the heart,” said the Rev. Robert
Sirico, founder of the Michigan-based Acton Institute. “To
portray it as something other is to mischaracterize our
intentions.”

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, said the document was very political.

I am optimistic that the people in the pews will not heed
their leaders’ misguided call to action,” h
e said. “Polls
show that most churchgoers do not want to see their faith
politicized. But I am also well aware that religious leaders
have vast lobbying power that cannot be ignored.”

The document does portray a gloomy picture of the current
political situation, citing the “pro-abortion ideology
[that] prevails today in our government.

It adds, “The present administration is led and staffed by
those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal
development and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer
expense. Majorities in both houses [of Congress] hold
pro-abortion views.”

The first 148 signatures include Southern Baptists,
Anglicans, the Orthodox Church of America (OCA), members of
Reformed, evangelical, Hispanic Protestant, Church of God in
Christ, Antiochian Orthodox and Evangelical Free Church

traditions plus the executives of numerous parachurch
ministries.

There were only a handful of Presbyterians, United
Methodists and Pentecostals, and no apparent signatories
from Seventh-day Adventist, Messianic Jewish and Episcopal
churches.


Here at the ArchAngel Institute we have been foreshadowing this battle for more than two years now.  In fact, our Executive Director, Bryan J. Brown, is shoulder deep in this battle.  Come to our December 8 banquet to hear much about this.  Also check out our category “Refuse, resist or rebel” for more on this subject, including Church teaching.

Is the secular state the anti-Christ state?

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

small_crucifixParents the world over have objected to teachings found in the local public schools.  Whether it be atheistic evolution, amoral sexuality or radical politics – most all objections fall upon deaf ears.

Few such cases are ever won.

NOT SO when a doctrine of secularization is brought to court!

Hitler ordered the crucifixes removed as well — see cite at end of this article.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled Tuesday (11/3) that Italy’s display of crucifixes in public schools was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ protection of the rights to education and freedom of religion.

The applicant, Ms. Soile Lautsi, petitioned the Court after Italy had rejected her requests to take down crucifixes that were prominently displayed in her children’s classrooms in accordance with Royal Decrees dating from the 1920’s. Responding to Italy’s argument that crucifixes had become a symbol of secular Italian history and culture, the Court relied on its former holding in Buscarini et al. v. Saint-Marin that the social and historical meaning of a text used in oath-taking did not deprive the text of its religious character. The Court noted that the crucifixes could easily be interpreted as religious signs and that children could feel that their school environment was Catholic; this point was further aggravated by the fact that Catholicism was the majority religion in Italy. As students could not avoid the classrooms without undue hardship, the Court found that the presence of the crucifixes thus interfered with the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe.

The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for moral damage, considering that a mere declaratory judgment would not be sufficient as Italy had not expressed its readiness to review the relevant Royal Decrees.

SOURCE

A previous European Court ruled that those who refused to obey such “Royal Decrees” must be sentenced to death for “aiding and abetting the enemy in the betrayal of the fatherland and for plotting high treason.” Blessed Maria Restituta, inspire us in these dark hours.

    (The Rise and Fall of
    the Third Reich: A History
    of Nazi Germany
    by William L. Shirer
    (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :100)

Shirer records  the Nazi attitude to Christianity.  This thinking led to the beheading of Blessed Maria Restituta and the imprisonment of countless Catholic Germans, Austrians and others:

What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the “National Reich Church” drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that of “the Fuehrer’sDelegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction forthe National Socialist Party.”
A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:
1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably the strange and foreign Christian faithsimported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.
14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampi is the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.
18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

(Ib. :238-40

ROSENBERG LIVES AGAIN IN EUROPE –  (sans the adoration of Mein Kampf.   That vacuum will likely soon be filled.)

WILL YOU OBEY SUCH A ROYAL DECREE, MODERN CHRISTIAN?

Kind David’s zeal for the true law

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Today’s Psalm seems especially motivational.  People just do not talk like this anymore, most being far too concerned about how they will sound to the elites leading us toward a Brave New World  …  but one does not have to go back too many generations to find such zeal for the Law of God.  (And pockets of resistance are yet among us!)

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 119:53, 61, 134, 150, 155, 158

R.  Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
Indignation seizes me because of the wicked
who forsake your law.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
Though the snares of the wicked are twined about me,
your law I have not forgotten.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
Redeem me from the oppression of men,
that I may keep your precepts.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
I am attacked by malicious persecutors
who are far from your law.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
Far from sinners is salvation,
because they seek not your statutes.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.
I beheld the apostates with loathing,
because they kept not to your promise.

R.        Give me life, O Lord, and I will do your commands.

Looking into the past to make sense of the present

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

In the next series of posts the ArchAngel Institute presents a letter from an American prisoner of conscience.  This letter was written from a county jail by a Christian held in contempt by the federal court seventeen years ago.  The prisoner was held for refusing to pledge obedience to a judge-made law that he knew to be both unconstitutional (as was later held by the U.S. Supreme Court) and violative of his conscience.   The prisoner was held without hope of release short of making a pledge that offended his Faith.

A classic church-state conflict for this individual.

As such this letter is very much onpoint with the mission of the Institute.   We exist to further Christian activism and support Christians who are suffering persecution for the Faith.  This particular Christian activist got caught up in the federal system as he attempted to rescue an 83 year old great grandmother from rough handling during a false arrest.  She was later acquitted. 

The case that formed the backdrop for this letter and incarceration was Women’s Health Care, PA (George Tiller) v. Operation Rescue-National, 91-1303K, filed during the “Summer of Mercy” in Wichita in 1991.  The great grandmother who was roughly arrested was doing nothing other than standing, peacefully, with a pro-life sign on a local dentist’s  parking lot (that she had gained permission to stand upon).  When the police attempted to make her move — at the request of the local abortionist – this grand lady stood her ground.  She was soon placed under arrest, hands cuffed behind her back, confused and hurt in the back seat of a squad car without the benefit of her necessary medicines.  

When the Christian activist attempted to reason with the police he was arrested himself, and then alleged by abortionist George Tiller to have violated a federal injunction.

This letter to a federal judge will be presented without commentary over the next week.   Those wishing to post rebuttal to bring balance and thus help us impress the IRS are urged to do so.  Unfortunately Judge Patrick Kelly never answered this letter and now cannot do so due to his death.  (RIP)

This same Christian activist finds himself in a similar situation at the present.  Thus the look to the past to build Faith for the present.

This site previously presented, in six posts, Bryan Brown’s 1992 letter from a Kansas jail to federal judge Patrick Kelly (RIP).

That letter can now be viewed in the Angel vault, click  here and click on the text to enlarge.

 

WHAT IS AN ACTIVIST? (Food for thought)

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

activist
noun

  1. one who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change

“One who takes an active part, usually as a volunteer, in a political party or interest group. Because activism is costly, activists are unusual people. Either they enjoy political activity for its own sake, or they have off-median views which give them an incentive to pull the party or interest group towards the position they favour, rather than the position it would take to maximize its vote or influence.

source:  Political Dictionary: “activist”

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN?  An active Christian?

“If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

CHRISTIANS ARE SOCIAL (THE KINGDOM OF GOD) AND POLITICAL (JESUS IS LORD) ACTIVISTS BY DEFINITION.

If you are neither, then maybe … (insert quiet reflection here)

If you, rather, are an unusual person seeking change, one who the ruling elite dubs dangerous, or idiosyncratic, or a misfit, or even evil, well then, you might just fit this bill of fare:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.  Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;  Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

I Peter 2 (KJV)

(Written to a generation accused of treason against the gods and empire due to their refusal to “go with the flow.”)

This is mere foreshadowing, stay tuned for follow-up …

Just say no to tyranny

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

This post concludes the background on the legal infanticide of the Baby Doe case.  This post is, like the others that came before it in this past week, taken directly from our series on civil disobedience last summer.  See the June – August archives for more on this necessary topic.

Baby Doe was born on April 9, 1982.  April 9 is also Passover this year and Maundy Thursday  — a rare and unusual paring of religious dates.  Such significance!  Our Lord and Saviour celebrated Passover on Maundy Thursday and was crucified as the Lamb of God, the fulfilment of the Passover, on the next day.

On April 9, 2009 this site will present an interview with the Indiana judge who signed the papers and established the “due process” that paved the way for that baby’s painfilled demise.   We will present this interview devotionally.

For more on the Passover/Easter connection see our posts from Lent 2008.

We have been working with the Baby Doe event from two decades past as our example of good government gone bad. Numerous other examples could be sited, and will be in the posts to come. I am building on the Baby Doe order because it helped me in my formation as a Christian Activist.

Others have been inspired to consider the same by the example of Franz Jagerstatter, who refused to serve in the nazi army and was executed for his faith-filled answer of “Nein!” to the Uberstate. Click here for more on this man of great courage.

The Christian Church was not born to serve as a bastion of banality for lukewarm status quo social orders. In its worst years it has been pressed into such service, but that is not the intent of the Church’s Head, Jesus the Christ. He calls His Church to engage on social issues, for social issues are issues of Faith.

The Church is to preserve what is best in any social order, which is to say that which is in keeping with Natural Law, and to confront that which is raised up against Natural Law and the Revealed Will of the Creator.

Examples are not difficult to come by, although they are, at times, difficult to agree upon. If the Church was left behind without leaders with true authority then the plan was a recipe for disharmony and disunity.

Thankfully the Church has been graced with offices and leadership.

So has the government. But what happens when leadership fails to follow the Natural Law or the Revealed Will of God?

What is the Christian to do when ordered to assist in wrongdoing?

Like any and all Christian nurses and doctors ordered to ignore the cries of Baby Doe.

Here is the ancient and accepted teaching of the Christian Church:

399.
Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel.[820] Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse.[821] Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.[822]
It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God
. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
*** End of selection from The Compendium of Social Teaching of the Church
Any and all Christians who participated in the killing of Baby Doe need to seek forgiveness from On High, for such participation was a “practice which, although permitted by civil legislation, [was] contrary to the Law of God.”
Unless, of course, Legal Positivism is the right system for America. If such is the case then there is no God, there is no absolute right or absolute wrong, and the dehydration of Baby Doe was the “right” thing to do. Furthermore, any who stood opposed to that legal process were flirting with small t treason. Just like the early Roman Christians.

Those early Roman Christians had to right to conscientious objection, said the Apostles. No such right, said the Empire. The Empire won in the coliseum but lost in history. Although the great grandchildren of those who triumphed over Roman paganism look to be rethinking all of the issues and look to be resurrecting the gory glory that was Rome.

Do pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, judges, policemen, social workers and other professionals enjoy the right to object to participating in acts contrary to Church teaching in our current social situation? How about parents? Do they enjoy such rights? Yes, but not for long if the political correctness movement continues to push its “diversity of morality” platforms on a post-Christian social order.

Rampant Christian persecution could fall upon us all much faster than many realize.

Readers might want to bookmark the above Church teaching. It could come in quite handy in the years set before us.

Natural Law or Legal Positivism, that is the question

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

This post continues our background on the legal killing of a newborn baby with Down’s Syndrome and a blocked esophagus in Bloomington, Indiana almost 27 years ago. 

 

Because the court-ordered dehydration of a newborn in Bloomington, Indiana figured highly into my own formation as a constitutional law attorney (I was licensed in Kansas 14 years after Baby Doe was ‘lawfully’ killed) I am using his execution as a platform to address significant issues of law and policy affecting all Americans today.

Like this:

The judicially-decreed death rattle of Baby Doe, and of countless babies like him (born and unborn) raises important questions: What is the foundation for the law and what purpose should it serve?

These questions are among the most important any individual can ask of her social order. For that reason they are largely ignored in this amusement-driven culture.

Notre Dame Professor Emeritus Charles Rice, a friend of the Institute, refuses to ignore these crucial questions. One of his best books is 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What it is & Why we need it. (Ignatius Press, ISBN No. 0-89870-454-5, click here to order).

In this very readable work (it is written for laymen) Professor Rice defines such crucial terms as legal positivism and natural law, breaking them down to an understandable level.

“Natural law will seem mysterious if we forget that everything has a law built into its nature….The natural law is the story of how things work. … Morality is governed by a law built into the nature of man and knowable by reason…. Let us say upfront that the natural law makes no ultimate sense without God as its author. The natural law provides a guide through which we can safely and rightly choose to love God by acting in accord with our nature and by helping others to do the same…. The natural law provides an objective standard of right and wrong….. if an enacted law is contrary to the natural law, it is not even a law. It is void, an act of violence rather than law. The natural law is therefore a standard for the state as well as for its citizens.”

50 Questions, excerpts from paragraph 3: But what is natural law?”

Natural law assumes a Creator who leads us to Reason. Legal positivism is a child of the Enlightenment, and thus assumes no Creator and demands Reason to lead us to affirm that atheistic assumption. (See Romans 1)

Professor Rice quotes Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to make this point: “The fundamental dogma of the Enlightenment is that man must overcome the prejudices inherited from tradition; he must have the boldness to free himself from every authority in order to think on his own, using nothing but reason.”

50 Questions at p.36, quoting a 1991 address by the current Pope.

Positivism led Europe into a nightmare, and is taking America to the same dark place. Rice turns to a German legal scholar for the following quote: “Positivism, with its thesis that ‘[the] law is [the] law’ has made German jurists and lawyers defenseless against laws of arbitrary or criminal content. Positivism simply holds that a law is valid because it is successfully enforced.”

Rice quoting Henrich Rommen, Natural Law in Decisions on the Federal Supreme Court and the of the Constitutional Courts in Germany, 4 Natural Law Forum, (1959).

Germany rejected Natural Law and embraced Positivism in the years following World War I. Hitler’s dictates were the law, and the law was the law. Dissidents, be they Christian conscientious objectors, Generals who recognized strategic folly or brave pastors like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were all dealt with in very rough fashion.

 

At the end of the road Gernany’s new found faith did not serve her well.

Baby Doe’s death rattle, which came as the Indiana Supreme Court stood guard over that dying boy’s tortured body, was a signal to Indiana and all of America that this nation was crawling down the God-denying corridor that led our German cousins to trial at Nuremberg.

Indiana was embracing this new found faith, as signaled by a human sacrifice. The sacrifice of a Baby Doe.

Many have stood against this apostasy from the Christian faith these past four decades. One of the goals of the ArchAngel Institute is to memorialize those who so stood and to prepare all for a future that will ask for more Faith and Courage in the face of godless statism. If we do not return to moral sanity quite soon then our collective insanity will claim more careers, more families and even more lives.

The next post will present to the teaching of the Church on the taking the stand against godlessness in high places.

Postscript: The art in this post is a poster from 1930’s Germany informing the reader of the high cost of keeping the handicapped alive. Hilter, like the Indiana Supreme Court, had a final solution for those like Baby Doe.

Master, teach us how to pray, er, protest; swansong # 9

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

I have protested abortion more than a few times and represented protestors in state and federal courts. I have stood in the docket myself for numerous acts of protest and represented protestors who were up on criminal charges, who were being sued and who were doing the suing. I have argued protestor cases before judges, before juries and before appellate courts. I have argued protestor cases in more states than I can remember without my files, but they at least include Oregon, Arizona, Montana, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico. I have argued protestor cases before the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.

I might be considered somewhat of an expert on protesting.

One of the reasons that I walked away from representing protestors to take up the Consumer Protection crusade in 2003 was the caliber of the protestors I was dealing with. While many were principled, too few seemed to be doing anything other than offending people with six foot dead baby signs.

This needs to be put into some historical context. (Click here for the Fort’s history in a nutshell.)

The “pro-life movement” was born in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. First as a religious expression of dissent mostly among the Catholic bishops. Then, as abortion clinics came out of the back alleys to hang their neon signs on sidestreets like Webster, pro-lifers were attracted to them like bugs to light.

Some of the best of those bugs were actually pro-life nurses. I am willing to be corrected, but I think that Fort Wayne was one of the first places where such nurses were sued for protesting. Thanks to Phyllis Morken, the late Phyllis Avila and Concordia Lutheran Seminary.

All these “bugs drawn to the light” did to get sued was stand on the sidewalks adjacent to abortion clinics, in their white uniforms, offering abortion bound woman a choice. “Choose Life” they softly offered. And for that they were sued $750,000 by the so-called “pro-choice” champions.

Note that they had a communicative reason (to abortion bound women) to be at the clinic.

As the 80’s droned on the “pro-choicers” became more aggressive on overruling the “choose life” option. They crowded around the abortion bound women as “clinic escorts,” singing loudly to drown out the “choose life” message of the nurses and those that had taken their place. The escorts even began getting a little rough with the sidewalk-stationed “pro-life counselors.”

The abortion industry had, through its useful idiots, upped the ante. The pro-lifers answered in kind, kinda. We began gathering at the clinics en masse to support the sidewalk counselors. It was a show of force, a show of Christian resolve, unified Christian resolve, to stand opposed to the abortion clinics that were proliferating across America.

More escorts showed up. As our masses grew theirs became more desperate. Sidewalk counseling became impossible as rings of escorts rushed abortion bound women toward the doors of fate covered under blankets with music blaring.

Then, in the late 80’s, a tipping point was reached. Some pro-lifers began to stand in the doorways and block access. The cry went out – if abortion was really murder, act like it! What would you do if they were killing one year olds? What is the difference between one year olds (conception plus 21 months) and one month olds (conception plus one month)., The logic seemed inescapable. The Rescue Movement was born out of pro-life angst and collective guilt.

One of the byproducts of the Rescue Movement was a tri-fold division of labor at the clinics. We had the “rescuers” who would block doors, the “counselors” who would approach the clinic bound women and the “pray warriors” who supported the other two by corporate worship onsite.

As a manager of such events it was always the latter group that seemed the least Biblical. The sidewalk counselors had a message to share. The rescuers were engaged in civil disobedience in pursuit of the doctrine of interposition. But the Prayer Warriors were, in my mind, possibly unbiblical.

Here is why …

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven…

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Well lawsuits, aggressive arrests and Congressional action (The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, FACE) pretty well shut down the rescues cold. Threats of the aforementioned and the ravishes of time has worn down the sidewalk counselors. But the prayer warriors have now recently reemerged, only without rescuers or counselors to support. They have now become an end in themselves. And the above verses yet give me pause.

I simply do not comprehend, given the ground rules, a communicative reason (other than public prayer) to be at the clinic. If it is merely to pray in public in close proximity to sinners, then I fear that the above red may apply in full.

Especially when said prayer gatherings attempt to supplant liturgical seasons from the ancient past, such as Lent.

Another recent strain in the protest movement that gives me pause is the advent of the six foot dead baby posters. (And now even truck mounted 10 foot dead baby posters.)  They were not prevalent back in the day of my protest activity. They seemed to spring up once FACE shut down rescues. They strike me as a desperate (and even crass) attempt to create social tension. I have never been comfortable with their use in the general public and have often worried that they simply serve to further coarsen an already too-coarse culture. Think about it … if you were murdered would you want your lifeless body displayed on six foot panels for five year olds to view?  If your wife was torn assunder would you march about showing her most tortured moment?

I turned down as many cases involving these giant posters as I took on when I worked for the AFA Center for Law and Policy. Too many of the protestors acknowledged, even boasted in, their sign’s ability to enrage viewers, and then inexplicably used the same in school zones, along busy highways and in places where families gathered.  It seemed to be all about the impact, and to be, at times, done with a vindictive spirit.

I often asked the sign wielding protestors how they would feel if someone who viewed their signs became visibly shaken or enraged and drove their car into innocent persons. Most of the zealots replied that they would not feel responsible. I wanted to represent only those who clearly understood their responsibility to be responsible protestors.

Finding few, I traded in my constitutional law perch for a position in the civil service. Being pro-life must mean more than holding giant pictures of decapitated babies and praying in public for others to repent of their sins.

How does one best protest the Culture of Death responsibly? How does one protest the Culture of Death with the greatest impact? How does one protest the Culture of Death most biblically?

These are fine questions. As my final bequeathing to the Movement that I actively served these past twenty years I will end this swan song series answering these fine and pressing questions.

Baptisms by fire … swan song post # 10

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

I crossed a social line on January 13, 1989. I violated the law. More than that, I violated a social norm. That was the day that I sat down on the public sidewalk near the front door of the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood in New York City. I was arrested twice in about four hours time. The first arrest was the most exhilarating and most difficult. Taking the ground between the preborn and those who were about to terminate them was a strategic decision that I had thought through theologically and emotionally. I realized that certain ramifications would necessarily follow. I realized that I was throwing down a gauntlet before the Culture of Death, letting them know that I recognized what they were doing to my nation. I blocked access an American Patriot, willing to actively resist the eugenic inroads of the Culture of Death (COD) in my nation.

My first arrest for civil disobedience resulted in a bus ride of about ten blocks. We were then shooed of the bus and abandoned by the police. It was surrealistic. It seemed that “the system” lacked the resolve to lock us up. We trotted back to Sanger’s legacy child-killing flagship and again blocked access. Contrary to the media’s lies we did this peacefully, orderly and prayerfully.

My second arrest on January 13, 1989 resulted in a brief period of incarceration. (A few hours.) Most all of us so detained found that incarceration one of the most spiritually moving experiences of our lives. We were unified in our Christian faith, singing spiritual songs and quoting scriptures and ministering to one another as we stood up to the Planned Parenthood juggernaught and the government that deemed the abortionists worthy of its protection. (But only since the 60’s)

I was baptized into pro-life leadership through this weekend of theologically driven political dissent.

I was not an “officer of the Court” at that time. I was still four years away from law school, still seven years away from my Kansas licensure. Little did I realize the social and spiritual forces that my radical actions (some would say radical obedience) would unleash. The Indiana bar and others (Democrats, mostly) have voiced much concern over the number of civil disobedience arrests that I rang up in three years. Will all due respect that is the wrong question. The huge gulf that separates me from the bulk of my peers was that first arrest on January 13, 1989, not the eleven that followed.

The first time one stands opposed to the secular state for ideological reason is the hardest decision. All that follows after that initial revolt is actually quite easy – maybe too easy.

My boss in industry got it at the time. I was employed full time in January, 1989. I was told that I had a budding career in industry. Some had told me that I was corporate quality assurance material. Upon my return from New York I was called into my boss’ office for some well intended mentoring. It went something like this: “What are you thinking, Bryan? Don’t you realize that you are taking this pro-life thing far too seriously?” He warned me that certain consequences were sure to follow if I did not jump of the civil disobedience track and jump fast.

My initial decision to sit down in the doorway of an abortion clinic was much more consequential than almost any that came after. It has defined my life like few other choices. That choice led me to take an active role in NorthEast Indiana Rescue, led me to attend future Operation Rescue events, led me forgo Indiana University School of Law (I had been seated in the class of ’92) for the much more activist Regent University, distinguished me to the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy as well as Attorney General Phill Kline. Those were the positive benefits. The decision to cross the line has visited much personal pain upon me as well.

The Culture of Death must target those who cross the line with much unfriendly fire, else risk all of us rising up, as was done in Poland under Solidarity, as was done by our American forefathers, as was done by MLK during the civil rights movement. (Click here for his defense of quite similar actions for politically acceptable reasons.)

And such a collective arising is, I assure you, the last thing that the Culture of Death wants. Whether it be the COD in the form of atheistic communism, Planned Parenthood or the end times antichrist, it matters not. The COD fears, more than anything else, Christians resolved to civilly disobey rather than accommodate. As Edmund Burke, all that is necessary for the triumph of the COD is for Christians to accommodate.

You tell me, has our accommodating since the sexual revolution advanced or retarded the Gospel of Life?

My choice to stand opposed to Margaret Sanger’s legacy on January 13, 1989 soon led me into federal court, where I was relieved of the life I had built before I crossed the line. My career as a quality assurance professional was a casualty as well, just as my former boss had foreshadowed. Other significant losses were visited upon me, including a house, a community and a wife.

My baptism into pro-life leadership was one of fire.

The path I chose twenty years ago placed me in a crucial leadership position after the Summer of Mercy in Wichita. This mantle of authority caused me to stand on principle when an 83 year old grandmother was wrongly arrested. I was then arrested. That arrest led me to once again stand against the legal theory that animated Susan Hill’s lawsuit in Fort Wayne. Sixty-eight days of federal incarceration followed. This rare experience gave me the opportunity to make use of an Anglo Saxon writ more than 700 years old. I authored my own Writ of Habeas Corpus which led the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to set my case for a hearing. The lower court judge then backed down and set me free.

Eleven years later I was appointed by Attorney General Phill Kline to head up one of the most powerful government agencies in Kansas. What an irony – from the King’s dungeon to the right hand of the state’s top law enforcer in about a decade! I was a pro-life leader entrusted with unsupervised subpoena power, which I never abused. I led that government agency into a complete and total constitutional makeover, undoing thirty years of government overreaching. (Click here for my final report’s conclusion.)

Between those two missions I served the Movement as one of five constitutional law litigators at the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy. As such I was a leader in “the Movement.”

Before landing that great gig (which materialized almost out of thin air the week I graduated from law school as Anne and I walked forward in faith) I was one of the leaders of the Catholic Newman Club on the campus of Regent University School of Law. I was a founder of that organization at Pat Robertson’s post graduate education establishment.

My point is merely this … January 13, 1989 positioned me into leadership in the Movement, a leadership which I have exercised, in one form or another, since that time. My current and final post is as the founder and executive director of the ArchAngel Institute.

Twenty years of leadership on the front lines of America’s most controversial social issue.

I am not claiming to have been involved in civil disobedience that entire time. Indeed, I have not been arrested for civil disobedience since 1992, more than a year before I started law school.

But some crimes are simply unforgivable. Civil disobedience against the Culture of Death seems to be chief among them. All tyrants are marked by such intolerance toward their dissenters.

I turned from civil disobedience toward constitutional arguments as a method to achieve my goals a good two years before I started law school. My constitutional defenses to the Wichita arrests, my Habeas Corpus filing and my lengthy letter to the federal judge who unconstitutionally detained me prove out that claim. (Click for details).

Hey, were I a tree huggin’, baby seal savin’, same sex marryin’ leftist I would probably be a national icon! Since I am a conservative I am pretty much viewed – and treated — as an enemy of the state. (Bias as usual, click here and here for more on that.) Oh, do pay attention to how the liberals receive the new movie Defiance. They will laud those acts of civil disobedience (felony murders!) as courageous, while damning my mere ordinance violations as ominous signs that I lack basic civility! It would be funny if not so sickeningly leftist.

The Indiana Supreme Court, through its surrogates, has now poked and prodded me far more significantly and thoroughly than any other of the three state bars or United States Supreme Court poked or prodded me in the past. I have been forced, as a prerequisite to mere bar admission, to submit to an evaluation process that no federal Senator, Representative or Presidential candidate has ever been subjected to. Or ever could be.

I get the feeling that someone must consider me a very dangerous person because I crossed the line twenty years ago. To be completely honest the government’s theory is that I am mentally unstable. I must have been, so the thinking goes, to have engaged in a dozen acts of civil disobedience and to show such a low regard for modern man’s law. I have now been handed over to those who have demeaned my Christian faith and pro-life principles. I have been, in effect, handed over to the intelligentsia of the Culture of Death for an evaluation of my psyche. (You could not write a melodrama outdoing what I have documented over the past 18 months! It is too bad that Hollywood is not interested in the topic of Christian persecution.)

If anyone could find me too crazy to license to practice law it should be my ideological enemies in the Culture of Death, no?

Yes.

I now await their final decision as to whether I am fit to practice law given my controversial past, given that I had the questionable mental health that allowed me to cross the line and stand up to both the Culture of Death and the governments protecting it on January 13, 1989 and many times thereafter.

I await this fateful decision while my twentieth anniversary in the Movement comes due and the most pro-abortion president in American history takes office.

What a fateful time, for me personally and for “the Movement” in general.

Is there a future for this “Movement”? No, not as it is now structured. It is dying. The first generation is literally dying, and the second generation (i.e. those who the first generation have appointed) are dying for lack of vision. They are mostly emulating advertising execs, maintainers of a status quo merely trying to figure out which fundraising letter will best grease the skids to continue the forward process of the institutionalized “culture war.” That, or self proclaimed Culture Warriors like Bill O’Reilly, who confuse mere talk, yada, yada, yada with a baptism by fire. You shall know them by their fruits, not their slick words.

To put it bluntly, the current pro-life movement is mostly led by those who have never paid much of a price. Only received dividends. In some cases numerous large, unmarked dividends.

This is a recipe for disaster. This is why I say that “the Movement” currently has no future. Once President Obama’s goon strike the weak shepherds will run for the hills and the sheep will scatter for cover.

If there is a vision to lead “the Movement” forward it is found in the pain and agony of the consumers of abortion on demand. Such persons have paid the ultimate price. Such persons have been baptized in the fire.

Our emotionally charged and non-theologically cognizant culture has not responded to the message “thou shalt not” kill preborn children. The proof is in the pudding for pragmatic pagans. For that reason it is post-abortion men and women, and most of all women, who should now lead “the Movement” if there is to be a movement at all.

Those who have laid on the table, or paid to have another lay on the table have had a baptism by fire. They know, in full, the pain that is abortion.

The ArchAngel Institute has promoted such wounded healers (see Raphael category) and is seeking out other such wounded healers to lead us on. We believe it best to have those most intimately wounded by the COD to be the second generation of leadership if there is to be a “Movement” at all.

I am not such a wounded person — but I am not too shy to bequeath advice to those who should now step up to lead the charge against those who butcher the next generation for ideology and profit.

These adult victims of the Culture of Death should lead with four basic principles in mind.

Those principles are the subject of the next, and almost final, installment of my swansong.

Finally, here is tonight’s rock and roll, sent out to all who have also been baptized in fire and have not given into the spiritus mundi.

Click here for a more on that latter term.

Here are the lyrics to tonight’s cut.