As much as I detest abortion. As much as I believe anyone who supports it (including our president) is a defacto murderer, I do not support Dr. George Tiller's killer. Scott Roeder, the man who walked into a church and shot Tiller point blank in the head, has just been found guilty of first degree murder.
His reasons notwithstanding, Roeder is a murderer and deserves whatever punishment is handed down. Even the death penalty. Tiller was on his was to a face to face judgment with God Himself, and he would not have found any mercy; he would have received the just punishment for his own crimes against humanity, which are secondary to his crimes against heaven. Dr. George Tiller would still have spent eternity in hell. What Roeder did was hasten the inevitable, and rob Tiller of any hope of possible redemption. Anyone can change, even a monster like Tiller.
The fact that Tiller was in church when he died means nothing in terms of the state of his soul. What it does speak to is the complete abrogation of Christian faith and standards by the church which accepted him as a "good and decent man. A Christian."
You can't convince me that a man, with the Holy Spirit residing in him, can for decades commit the most heinous acts of mutilation and destruction against the unborn. When the Holy Spirit comes in we are changed; we become new creatures. There was nothing new about Tiller. You can't convince me that Tiller's profession pleased God... that he did God's will. Only a complete fool would argue that he did.
Likewise, Scott Roeder may believe he has done God's will, but he has listened to a spirit other than the Spirit of God in the commission of his crime. And should he pay the ultimate price for his crime, he may Join Tiller in hell. Or he may himself escape the fires of hell; he may actually be covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. I can't say. His life and profession have not been as open as Tiller's. And I'm not worthy enough to stand in judgment. Justice has been served in Roeder trial, but will it be served? He has earned death.
But for Tiller? Was he covered by the blood? Maybe... but I see no evidence of it. It is simply beyond my ken to see how such could even be possible. But then, I am only human.
Obviously, Roeder's actions don't quite match the standard for self-defense or defense of others. Tiller wasn't in the process of having another baby murdered. But if his intentions were only to prevent Tiller's further actions, I don't see how it can be compared to the average murder. Even Jack Ruby's intention doesn't compare as it was more revenge than prevention.
Punish him, yes. But to what extent?
Why could Roeder not have been content to let nature run it's course? Tiller would have eventually died and met his maker, and his just reward. Of that I am certain.
When Roeder took the action he did, he demonstrated a genuine lack of faith in God. God is in control of everything; everything works to his will. The thousands of children murdered by Tiller did not take God by surprise. And nowhere does God command Christians to kill His enemies. God commands us to PRAY for our enemies, not shoot them point blank in the head. We are instructed to submit ourselves to those who are over us.
Peter cut off the ear of a man during Jesus' arrest. What did Jesus say? "Yeah, Peter! Smite another so I can get free!"
No. He said if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. The 50-plus million babies murdered since ROE became the law of the land WILL be answered for... in GOD's time.
Do you think Roeder will receive a reward for what he did? What if he could have witnessed to Tiller and actually turned Tiller's heart to the Lord? There's a very real reward for that. But not for murder. And do you not think God would have welcomed Tiller through the blood of His son? All his sins erased?
So Roeder will spend the rest of his life in prison. If, after the moment he dies, he is truly a saved man, he will escape the damnation to which he consigned, against God's will, Dr. George Tiller. Tiller's crimes sent him to his eternal prison, but Roeder stole any opportunity for a future Tiller repentance.
If man's law decreed Roeder be executed, who are we to argue? God has told us not to kill. He has told us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
To what extent do we punish him? To whatever extent the law, a jury of his peers, and the presiding judge demands.
As for Roeder, his intentions, as misguided as they are in our opinions, could have been incredibly sincere in that all he thought of was preventing this scumbag from taking more innocent life.
Think of Hitler, Stalin, Obama, John Wayne Gacy. Imagine you know you will have opportunity. The odds that any of these guys will murder again are pretty much a given. If you walk up to any of these guys in a similarly public place and perferate his skull, you'd also be guilty of murder under our civil laws. Our society isn't much different than Hitler or Stalin's in that many feel that what they're doing, in this case Tiller the baby-killer, is just fine and dandy. You and I know it isn't at all.
I know what the law says, and I know that Roeder will have to deal with that as he should. My question was for you personally. If he's in a death penalty state, does he qualify? As wrong as this is, and I definitely don't condone it in the least as it makes life tough for both Christians and other pro-life people, I don't see this as, to paraphrase Whoopie, MURDER murder.
If you read the Old Testamant, you can find many examples of Godly men used by God to kill evil men.
Look at David. Look at Gideon. Look at many more. It could be that God used Roeder to execute His plan. How do we know He didn't?
Judas was needed to betray Jesus so the scripture would be fulfilled.
Perhaps Roeder needed to kill Tiller to fulfill God's will. Who are we to say?
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
2 Peter 3:9
While it is true that God does not change; He is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow, yet it is also true that we live under a different dispensation than did those in the Old Testament. Because now there is a propitiation for our sin in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I do not think that God makes people do things in as much as He already KNOWS what they're going to do, and uses those actions to fulfill His will.
God knew what Judas would choose. Judas could have at any time accepted the Lord as the other eleven did. That God used Judas' lack of repentance doesn't mean God wanted Judas to betray Jesus. He merely knew what was going to happen anyway and used it to His purpose. I believe God would have accepted Judas' repentance had Judas genuinely desired to repent.
God knew what Roeder would do, but that doesn't mean Roeder wielded the sword of God, or was himself wielded BY God.
By the reasoning of some, then the rapist just MIGHT BE the "sword of God" to bring "justice" to sinners. The terrorist just MIGHT BE doing "God's Will" (like Judas was?) in blowing up innocent people. Who are we to say??
No. We are to say that God does not desire us to do evil, to commit wrong acts. This is not the will of God. The will of God is for us to walk in Jesus' steps, to display the fruit of the Spirit, to love, to honor, to be kind, to do good, to be humble, to be patient, to be gentle, to seek justice, to be holy, etc, etc, etc.
THIS is the will of God, not engaging in acts of terror or murder.
I understand Marshall's question, and once would have agreed wholeheartedly. But 9.11 changed all that. Muslim's, in the name of 'allah,' commit all manner of heinous evils; their god has no qualms about killing unbelievers (yet, strangely, considers abortion a crime).
In contrast, Our God, the LORD, does not sanction murder for any reason. Judas, we can all be sure, has paid (and continues to pay) for betraying our God incarnate, Jesus. Yet despite the great good that came of his betrayal, he still pays for his sins. Despite his betrayal, Jesus can now offer forgiveness to anyone who calls on His name. No where in the New Testament do I read of any sanction, provided by God, to commit murder. If there were, would God be any better than 'allah'? My God is holy, and therefore could never sanction the murder of anyone, regardless of how many abortions a man performs, or what good may come of it.
I guess-- if one wanted to torture the limits of logic --one could say that because God doesn't stop a thing from happening it is His will that that thing occur. By that token, because God didn't stop Eve from eating the forbidden fruit, it was His will that Adam sin and plunge all of resultant humanity into sin; that God WANTED to take on human flesh to redeem man-- perhaps because He wanted to experience death?
It makes sense to me that God would have much preferred that Adam NEVER sinned; that man never fell, that the world would this day still be holy, and filled with a holy people.
Roeder was wrong. God will be able to use what Roeder did, but God did not sanction the crime.
Really, Dan.
Then, how do you explain God sending the Angel of death to kill all of the first born sons of the Egyptians?
Of course, we notice that Dan has no problem speaking for God, but woe to anyone else who might suggest God might have intentions unfathomable.
Jesus had not yet come to show us all how the Law is supposed to work. And it was the Angel of Death doing the smiting at God's direction. God didn't direct the Israelites to kill the first born of every household not covered by the blood of the lamb. How would that have demonstrated the power and glory of the great I AM? It would have led to the slaughter of every (perhaps) man, woman, and child in Egyptian bondage.
Secondly, the plague was not just upon the Egyptians. Any Jew not painting their lintel and doorposts with the prescribed blood would have suffered the same fate as the Egyptians. But this is beside the point.
Roeder had no such command from God to kill Tiller. Whatever God did in the Old Testament doesn't translate to what WE are allowed to do in the New Testament.
I know my name isn't Dan, but this at least is how I would answer your question.
Remember, as Christians we are NEW creatures. OLD things are passed away. LOVE your enemy. Shun them at worst, but kill them? No.
Well, Mark. I think in some instances we CAN presume to speak for God. We have His word, and we can infer from those pages what He is and is not going to ask us to do.
To a degree, again, I agree with you, at least a bit. In this case, when I said "This is God's will," I only referencing direct and clear quotes from the Bible. It IS God's will that we display the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc). I don't believe anyone disagrees with me on that point, right?
It IS God's will that we walk in Jesus' steps, that we strive by God's grace to be holy. These are just direct references to biblical commands that I don't believe anyone disagrees with. Correct? We all agree that it is God's will for us to do these things, right?
We do agree that the Bible quite clearly tells us that God is not the author of evil, that God does not tempt us to do evil, right?
As Eric says, some things we can presume a bit and say, "Thus saith the Lord," and not be too far off. Whatsoever is good, true, right, THESE things we can advocate for and not go wrong.
Surely we agree?
Then, how do you explain God sending the Angel of death to kill all of the first born sons of the Egyptians?
Eric answered this quite well ("[We have] no such command from God...")
And, at least in that instance, that was God acting (if you take it literally) not God telling people to commit murder, which is what Roeder did. And murder, you may recall, is condemned in the Bible. Thou shalt not, and all...
However, Eric, you do make a good point, that I wholeheartedly agree with:
God uses these type of circumstances for His purposes, but doesn't create these situations, in my opinion.
On the other hand, there MUST be SOMETHING wrong with your argument if Dan agrees with you.
Why or why not?
A broken clock is right twice a day, right?
It would seem the three of us can agree on that much.
My question was regarding the severity of the punishment with the intention behind the act. I haven't read of Roeder's every thought behind what lead up to the hit. But, assuming he only wished to prevent more baby murders, and that from that we can possibly take the liberty to assume he could think of no better way to accomplish this goal, that would, it seems to me, separate him from the average murdered worthy of a death penalty.
I agree he was wrong in doing what he did.
I agree he needs to answer for it according to the law.
My question concerns just how much punishment he has coming. Personally, I don't even think he's deserving of life in prison. Perhaps 10-20 with a chance for early release upon good behavior. I don't mean this as a reward for killing a baby murderer, but for the fact that he likely was aware that he was looking at some serious trouble, but did what he thought needed to be done. A warped kind of selfless act.
"Never hold where speech is enough.
Never hurt where holding is enough.
Never injure where hurting is enough.
Never maim where injury is enough.
Never kill where maiming is enough."
Would it not have been better, if Roeder truly wanted to keep Tiller from killing more babies, to have taken him captive and while having him under his control, remove Tiller's hands from his body? It sounds brutal, I agree, but without hands Tiller couldn't perform another abortion. And without hands he could have spent the remainder of his life reflecting upon how his loss was saving lives, and the mercy extended to him in that he could have lost his life, but instead lost only his hands.
Never kill where maiming is enough.
Now, in consideration of those in the "eye for an eye" crowd, no need to even consider the death penalty for Roeder... just remove his hands.
Again, I understand how this sounds. But wouldn't this scenario be preferable to killing Tiller outright?
Would you rather to lose your Life? or your hands?
But I would never advocate this scenario either. I would rather Roeder had left Tiller to his life... let God mete out Tiller's punishment. It is HIS pervue, not ours. But better maiming to killing... any day of the week.
"I would never advocate this scenario..."
Still, my last comment DOES have some biblical support, though it would have required Tiller to recognize his sin and do the deed himself:
Matthew 5:29-30
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
These are in Red letters, btw. And, as I previously stated, required TILLER to have this done, not forcibly done to him.
Again, cutting off Tiller's hands is not something I would ever have condoned either but, seriously, wouldn't the loss of hands be preferable to the loss of life?
Also, drawing from comments on another post, are we to spiritualize this statement made by Jesus, or does it have real-world application? I mean, if the "Blessed are"s have real-world application so do verses 29 and 30. Especially when you consider what immediately precedes and proceeds them: Adultery and Murder via thought-life.
You are right, however, to say "Oh, Eric." Or are you? Consider...
In many minds the thought of mutilating a man and leaving him less than 100% functioning creates the impression of an assailant whose mental state is twisted and sick. Had Roeder merely cut off Tiller's hands he would have been given a plethora of psych evaluations... after all, 'only a sick twisted mind could do such a thing!' but murder? We see it everyday on television, in the theaters, in books, magazines, in our music and video games. In terms of thought-life Murder is our No. 1 pastime... Murder is everywhere! And yet we balk at maiming; we question the mental state of those in other cultures who cut off hands for crimes of theft. Murder is preferable in our minds (the Western mind) to maiming. Murder quickly puts the victim out of sight, but maiming? we have to look at that for the remainder of the victims life.
I am not saying I advocate maiming, only that it would have been preferable to taking Tiller's life-- Just as many innocent lives would have been saved.
Or even hinted at, it's so horrible.
And we don't even bat an eye at these.
What a twisted mixed up world we live in. We view maiming as horrible but take murder as matter of course. If ever a culture needed to repent and turn to God it is ours.
Roeder is a killer, but not a murderer in my opinion. But he is still not to be encouraged or made into a hero for his actions. They still must not be tolerated by society. But I don't think his actions are worthy of severe penalty. My question is, do you?
As to your list of options, assume Roeder cut off Tiller's hands AND put out his eyes, just to be efficient. Are you sure that would stop Tiller from carrying on with his baby murdering business? Could he not simply hire other murdering abortionists to do the actual abortion whilst he runs the biz on an administrative level? Even if he was totally out of the business, he could still support other butcheries.
Getting back to Roeder's punishment, his incarceration should also be weighed against any evidence that he may have planned to hit other abortionists. If there was not evidence, a lighter sentence is appropriate. A second hit upon release would justify a far greater sentence later. Remember, he's killing murderers only. If you think 10-20 is too lenient, I would not place him with the standard murderous convicts and instead give him time in a lower security prison. This locale is appropriate no matter how long his sentence.
Some of the reasoning, as to why the violence may be acceptable (or at least not "MURDER murder"), is exactly the kind of thing that reinforces the rampant stereotype that Christians are incapable of being reasonable.
And the constant appeal to the Old Testament -- for justification of behavior that neither Jesus, nor his followers in the NT, would have condoned -- is one of the most disgusting characteristics of too many so called Conservative Christians. I couldn't begin to count how often I've heard professed Christians say, "Well, the good book says 'an eye for an eye.'" But the OT way of smiting your enemies has been replaced with the command to love your enemies. If one doesn't get something as relatively simple as that, then what are we to make of their professed faith?
Jesus did say, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." But nowhere does he say that any of us is qualified to put that millstone there, and all the philosophical gymnastics in the world won't change that.
If you see someone hurting a child, you do what you have to to stop them. But the abortion doctor wasn't caught in the act -- and killing him didn't save any lives, since any abortions he was to perform would just be referred to another abortionist.
I've agreed with Eric's arguments on this, but was just bothered that no one blinked at the listing of Obama with Hitler, Stalin, and John Wayne Gacy. I mean, some things are just too ridiculous to go unmentioned. (I mean, Obama's not even as bad as some American presidents, much less the dementos listed.)