Yesterday's execution of Paul J. Hill provides me with another opportunity to comment on the legacy of an utterly self-deceived man.
I published my initial comments on Hill in a small book, "Lone Gunners for Jesus: Letters to Paul J. Hill," in November, 1994. My initial letter to him was dated September 29, 1994. My second letter was dated October 17, which was my response to a letter I received from Hill, which was dated October 10.
You can receive an instant-reply copy of my two letters to Hill by sending an email to: hill@kbot.com
Why did I write to Hill? Because he had first written to me, but prior to his murder of a physician and his bodyguard, and injuring the physician's wife. (Shotguns are sometimes indiscriminate regarding innocent bystanders.)
In my September 29 letter to Hill, who was then in jail awaiting trial for murder, I began with a reference to his earlier letter to me.
Sometime in the months following the murder of
the abortionist in Florida, Dr. Gunn, you sent me
two position papers. One was called, "Was the
killing of Dr. Gunn Just?" You added this
parenthesis: "Rough draft, numerous revisions
still being made." Obviously, you have other
things on your mind these days besides continuing
the revisions of your rough draft. I am
responding to this paper belatedly because you
seem to have taken your own suggestions seriously
enough to shoot an abortionist, kill his escort,
and wound the escort's wife. That, at least, is
what you are accused of.
The subtitle on your paper is called, "A Call
to Defensive Action." You also sent another paper
titled, "Defensive Action: Is a Pro-Life
Organization Proclaiming the Justice of Using All
Action Necessary to Protect Innocent Life?"
I did not respond to your letter or to your
papers. I cannot find your letter in my files,
but I did save your two papers. I should have
responded. Perhaps I might have persuaded you
that you were headed in a terrible direction. In
all likelihood, though, you would not have taken
me seriously. I say this because you were
excommunicated by your church, and you did not
take that seriously. Your church asked only that
you cease speaking in public -- such as on the
"Donahue" show -- in defense of the right of
anti-abortionists to kill abortionists. So, there
is no good reason for me to believe that you
would have taken anything seriously that I might
have written. I do not expect you to take this
letter seriously. On the assumption, however,
that men can repent before they are cast into
hell, which is where you are clearly headed, I am
responding here.
Before his execution this week, he told the media that he believed his execution will make him a martyr. I sincerely doubt that he will be regarded by most anti-abortion Christians, just as I have also sincerely doubted his entire self-justification for his dual murder. Hill never did possess the ability to interpret his actions in terms of what the Bible and Christianity teach about murder, or the public's understanding of his actions. As I wrote to him a decade ago:
The public may otherwise see you, not as a
martyr, but as the creator of a martyr. I prefer
to see your victim positioned as a hired
assassin, which every abortionist is, biblically
speaking. This positioning will not be what the
media will try to establish at your trial, but I
hope that you will not be positioned as a hired
assassin, with the church in the broadest sense
as the one who hired you. You were an assassin
acting on your own, under the authority of the
dark one with whom Adam covenanted, and with whom
you covenanted by failing to submit to the
discipline of your church.
Paul Hill was to the anti-abortion movement what the murderous renegade bands of self-appointed vigilantes were to southwest Missouri during the Civil War. He, like they, operated outside the law. He, like they, justified his murderous actions by appealing to The Cause. Whether William Quantrell in 1865 thought he would be remembered as a martyr, I do not know. If he did, he was incorrect. Paul Hill should be remembered as a small-time Quantrell, not as a spiritual heir of Justin Martyr.
Termites Inside The Building
Hill's vigilante action inflicted an enormous wound in the side of the anti-abortion movement. Little remains in public view of the anti-abortion movement in the United States. There are very few picketers today in front of abortion clinics. It is as if the anti-abortion movement's troops looked at what Hill did and concluded, "If this is where this movement is heading, count me out."
Two men virtually eliminated anti-abortion activism in the United States after 1994: Paul Hill and Randall Terry. They became the visible symbols of anti-abortion activism, both for the pro-abortionists and for anti-abortionists. The two of them cut the heart out of the activists.
Four years after Hill's crime, in 1998, Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, abandoned his wife of 19 years, along with their four children (three were adopted), and then declared bankruptcy, so that the National Organization of Women would get off his back. This declaration deprived his wife of their home. He then married his assistant, 16 years his junior, age 22. Without informing his followers of what he had done to his wife and children, he sent out a fund-raising letter to his supporters, who responded faithfully, whereupon he bought a $432,000 home -- not in New York state, where he could see his children regularly, but in Florida, where the state's bankruptcy laws don't permit creditors to get your home. His church in New York had brought him under discipline before the marriage, but he paid no attention.
Think of the three adopted children. They were Afro-Americans. Their mother had been a drug addict. The Terrys adopted them, giving them a stable home. Then Terry's roving eye caught sight of a younger woman. "Hello, baby! Goodbye, kids!"
As for his new wife, all I can say is this: to trade Jesus for Randall Terry is a poor trade.
Naturally, his shenanigans are a cause for gloating within the pro-abortion crowd. Here is one more example of commitment by a Christian leader to the same ethics of situational convenience that the abortionists proclaim, one more case of Christian leadership run amok, leaving God-fearing followers, as always, out in the cold, wondering what had happened. Here is one more example of selective moral outrage, selective ethics, and what R. J. Rushdoony called smorgasbord religion.
Terry actually told the press that the Bible doesn't oppose divorce, but it does oppose homosexuality. This, despite the clear teaching of Jesus that anyone who divorces his or her spouse without judicial cause thereby commits adultery -- a capital crime under the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10) -- by remarrying.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away
his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she
committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
At least his church brought him under discipline even
before he remarried. It is a characteristic feature of our
era that most churches hesitate to bring public discipline,
while other churches, always short of funds, welcome
disciplined Christians with open arms. "We're under grace,
not law!"
He plans to start another satellite radio talk show. If he gets it, and if it prospers, it will be one more piece of evidence that middle-aged fundamentalist women, who are the financial backbone of the electronic ministries, have no sense of justice. What they would not want a man to do to their own daughters they will fund in the name of Jesus. "We're under grace, not law!" No; we are under humanist lawyers and courts, who know that if Christians refuse to bring justice through their churches, and then uphold other churches' judicial pronouncements when excommunicated members apply for membership, then humanists have nothing to fear from Christians, which is surely the case today.
The anti-abortion movement has been battered from within, as well as battered from outside. Battering from the outside took a heavy toll on fundamentalists, who have been taught all their lives that (1) Jesus is coming back soon, so attempts to reform society are a waste of time and money that could be spent on evangelism or, better yet, members-only gymnasiums ("family life centers"), and (2) political reform is not only hopeless, it's a liberal plot. But it was the undermining from within that disheartened the troops. If you're going to be publicly betrayed and humiliated by your spokesman, why bother to risk everything you own?
Church Sanctions
By God's grace, Hill's local church had brought him under formal discipline before he murdered anyone. I was told a decade ago by his pastor, Rev. Mickey Schneider, that when some representatives of the media called him, they would lose interest in pursuing their investigation of his connection with Hill as soon as he told them of Hill's formal suspension prior to the murders. He thought at the time that some of them were looking for a way to tar and feather Christianity by using Hill as poster child for Christianity's threat to social order.
In his October 10 letter to me, Hill denied that he had ever been brought under church discipline. He lived in a fantasy world. He was psychologically desperate to defend the lawfulness of his actions in the sight of God. That he had been told to cease and desist by his church, and later had been brought under formal discipline when he refused, undermined his self-proclamation of his office as a lawful agent of God, an executioner sanctioned by biblical law. His prior excommunication made him appear to be a rebellious man operating outside of the church's sanctuary, which is exactly what he was. So, he said this had never taken place. But saying this did not make it so.
There is a scene in "The Apostle" where the murderous pentecostal minister, Sonny, baptizes himself an apostle. This is essentially what Paul Hill did. In defiance of his local church and in defiance of biblical law, he appointed himself an executioner. He chose violence as his means of public protest. Then, having gunned down his victims, he walked away from the scene of the crime. He made no public defense of his actions to the police, standing steadfast, shotgun on the ground beside him, at the location of his deadly deed. He just wandered away.
Grinning For Jesus
He had a decade to repent. He refused. He stood before the cameras this week, displaying the familiar grin that had been published in newspapers and magazines across the nation a decade ago.
We have recently seen this same grin on the face of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, the "smiling bomber" who helped kill 202 people in the bombing of a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. Praising Allah throughout his trial and at his conviction, he brought disrepute on Islam. His grin never changed. Neither did Hill's.
On seeing Amorzi bin Nurhasyim's grin and his thumbs-up sign after the court declared his death sentence, viewers correctly concluded: "Fanatical nut-case zealot." This is exactly the response a decade ago when they saw the same response by Hill. It was the correct response. So were the official declarations: "Guilty as charged."
Christian fundamentalists look at Amorzi bin Nurhasyim and conclude, "Islamic zealot. Good riddance." Then they look at Paul Hill and conclude, "Poor misguided man. May God be merciful to him." I call this approach selective judgment. It is at the heart of antinomianism: mercy without repentance.
Excommunication And Final Judgment
This week, Hill told the press that he would soon be rewarded in heaven by Jesus for what he did. It is time for Christian leaders to identify him as the ethical twin of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, but they won't. They have remained discreetly silent. They still see him as "dead in Christ," i.e., redeemed by the blood of the lamb. That is because they do not believe the clear words of the Apostle Paul regarding God's Bible-revealed law:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a
righteous man, but for the lawless and
disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and
murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For
whoremongers, for them that defile themselves
with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for
perjured persons, and if there be any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to
the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was
committed to my trust (1 Tim 1:9-11).
Paul J. Hill was not a righteous man, according to the definition provided by Paul. He was a murderer who disgraced the name of Christ. The media still referred to him this week as a minister, even though he had resigned the ministry before he committed the murders. The humanists got their digs in. They never miss an opportunity to tar and feather the church. The silence of Christian leaders regarding Hill's prior excommunication makes the deception seem true. He was no minister. He was a man declared excommunicate for rebellion before he picked up his shotgun. According to the Apostle John, he was supposed to be treated by Christians as follows:
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the
doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth
in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the
Father and the Son. If there come any unto you,
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house, neither bid him God speed: For he
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his
evil deeds (II John 1:9-11).
To defend Christ's good name, Christian leaders should tell their followers and the press that Paul Hill stood condemned by Christ by way of his excommunication prior to the murders. They don't do this because they don't regard excommunication as anything that important in the grand scheme of things. They do not see the church as speaking authoritatively in God's name regarding the eternal consequences of men's actions in history. But Jesus did.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and
him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee,
then take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:15-18).
John Calvin's comments on this passage are forthright and should be acknowledged by God-fearing men.
In the other clause, Christ's meaning is not
at all ambiguous; for, since obstinate men and
haughty men are strongly inclined to despise the
decision of the Church on this pretence, that
they refuse to be subject to men -- as wicked
profligates often make bold appeals to the
heavenly tribunal -- Christ, in order to subdue
this obstinacy by terror, threatens that the
condemnation, which is now despised by them, will
be ratified in heaven. He encourages his
followers, at the same time, to maintain proper
severity, and not just yield to the wicked
obstinacy of those who reject or shake off
discipline. (John Calvin, "Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists," Vol. 2, p. 359.)
Paul Hill was a man who would not listen to counsel or obey his church. He steadily increased his rebellion against lawful authority until he became a violent man in deed as well as word. He lived out his personal confession of faith. He did so at the expense of his church, his family, his citizenship, and his life, both temporal and eternal. He was, in the words of Cornelius Van Til, epistemologically self-conscious. He was, in my words, ethically self-conscious. Not many people are this self-conscious, for good or evil. Hill was.
Hill had been a conservative Presbyterian minister and Calvinist. But he was comforted in his last hours by a pentecostal minister. Hill knew better than to expect comforting words from a Calvinist. He was not interested in hearing another condemnation. He had already had plenty of those. His former pastor is a theonomist.
Hill Was A Symbol
Hill in the week of his execution thought of himself as a martyr. In his view, he had been a lawful executioner, while the jury that convicted him had been the murderer of a righteous man in his righteous cause. The Christian community in general and his former congregation in particular did not agree with his assessment in 1994, and they still do not.
Anti-abortion activists of 1994 subsequently made a self-conscious attempt to distance themselves from him. That distance grew so great and so fast that anti-abortion activism disappeared from public view. It is confined mainly to lawyers' briefs today.
In the nine years that separated his conviction from his execution, he was forgotten by the general public and abandoned by people in the anti-abortion movement, who in turn abandoned activism. His celebrity status disappeared, as celebrity status generally does when the celebrity is no longer in front of the cameras. But then, for two days, he became a celebrity again.
He had become a symbol. For the abortionists, he was a symbol of Christianity's life-and-death struggle against death. The Bible says, "All those who hate me love death" (Prov. 8:36). The abortionists love death. They do not choose to repent. Instead, they want to inflict their love of death on judicially innocent human beings. They have been highly successful in their judicial efforts. They, too, are ethically self-conscious. They cannot not tolerate compromise. So, they resent Christians who are equally committed to the rival position: defending life.
There is no way to reconcile these two views. Nowhere is the myth of neutrality clearer than in the killing of unborn children. There is no neutrality between a dead baby and a live baby.
What outraged the pro-abortionists was that Hill had adopted their strategy of executing the judicially unconvicted. He had put an abortionist in his sites, just as they put millions of unborn American children in theirs. For them, this was turf-invasion. They do not tolerate turf invasion.
For anti-abortionists, Hill also became a symbol. He was a symbol of a man so committed to life that he was willing to commit murder. He was not a father defending his unborn child. He was not a magistrate defending someone else's unborn child. He was a self-appointed, one-man vigilante who gunned down a physician and his bodyguard.
Christians asked, as I asked in my letter, "Who is next?" Would Hill have gunned down a policeman who was guarding the abortionist? Of course. What about the Supreme Court justices who vote for abortion? Why not? What about gunning down a pregnant woman who is about to swallow an abortifacient? Why not? What about gunning down clerks at Wal-Mart's pharmacy, who might sell such a product? Paul Hill made it clear: no one who was in any way connected in his mind with abortion would be safe if he was still at large. The jury understood this and convicted him. He is no longer at large.
Hill will not be a martyr for the anti-abortionist community, although he may become one for a handful of would-be Quantrells. On the contrary, the activist anti-abortionist community has become a near-martyr to Hill. He just about killed it (and whatever was left of it, Terry then spit on). Men and women drew back from even non-violent public protests in their full-scale retreat from the threat of being tarred and feathered by Hill's brush, which the pro-abortion forces wielded so well.
How To Fight This Evil
After Hill's conviction, I continued to picket the local abortion clinic in Tyler, Texas. Every week, I took a public stand, as I had for five years. Not long after Hill's conviction, the local abortionist died of a heart attack on the ski slopes of Colorado. His son decided that the clinic would stop performing abortions. His father had been an outcast in the local medical community. Abortionists generally are. They make a lot of money, but they remain pariahs in a profession that is (or at least used to be) founded on a vow to do no harm. We should remind abortionists of this as often as possible. We should also remind their wives, whose sense of being at the bottom of the social circle does not appeal to them. And then there are all those trial lawyers who are ready to sue for post-abortion injuries -- many, many kinds of injuries -- inflicted on former patients. There are rising liability insurance premiums to cover the legal costs of defending injury-inflicting abortionists in court. This evil can be fought God's way, within the framework of biblical law and even humanist law.
Paul J. Hill knew this, but he ignored it. The law was not good enough for him. He believed he had a better way.
I do not use the term "fool" lightly. Christians are commanded not to use the term lightly (Matt. 5:22). But in Paul Hill's case, the term fits.
To those who view him as a martyr, I recommend immediate repentance. Mere prudence is insufficient. Prudence may not be enough to protect these people from self-destruction. Prudence is not characteristic of the fanatic. Paul Hill was a fanatic. He was a fanatic who adopted violence as his mode of expression -- bloody violence and a grin.
This newsletter is available by double request only, i.e., double opt-in. Send an e-mail to ice@kbot.com. You will immediately be sent a letter: "Subscription Confirmation -- Take Action!" Click the embedded confirmation link to confirm your subscription. Only then are you added to this mailing list. There is no other way to subscribe.