​ In the late 80’s a Pastor, in order to dismiss my appeals to him to support the “Rescue” movement, gave me a copy of some pages of Norman Geisler’s book called “Christian Ethics” (1989).  It seems that Geisler like so many other Christian leaders felt compelled to take some action to dissuade Christians from rescuing their preborn neighbors.  I imagine that he put more effort into dissuading people from rescuing their preborn neighbors than he ever took to encourage Christians to intervene in any other way, let alone providing an example by intervening himself. 
  I will provide some excerpts from those pages from chapter 13 of Geisler’s book.  Anyone who has come to identify with the victims of this ongoing holocaust will see the errors in his writing, without my rebuttals.
  He writes about 3 differing positions, “anarchism; radical patriotism and biblical submissionism”.
On “radical patriotism” he provides Biblical examples of people, like Daniel, who disobeyed their governmental authorities when they were commanded to do evil or restricted from obeying God. Geisler states & I agree “…government should be obeyed as long as it takes its place under God, but not when it takes the place of God.”  Later in the same paragraph he says “Christians can obey a government that permits evil, but not one that commands them to do an evil.  Blind obedience to the evils of government is not patriotic; it is idiotic.” 
  Notice he leaves out any mention of a government which restricts good; love of one’s neighbors or obedience to God, particularly when it comes to “rescuing the innocent being led off to slaughter” or defending the fatherless.
  Geisler provides this Table 13.1 to help understand the differing positions as to when Christians should disobey their government.
                                                            Table 13.1
  Antipromulgation Position                                            Anticompulsion Position
When it permits evil                                                          When it commands evil
When if promulgates evil laws                                        When it compels evil actions
When it limits freedoms                                                   When it negates Freedom          
When it is politically oppressive                                   When it is religiously oppressive 
 Here is the 3rd paragraph of page 245. “Anticumpultionist, on the other hand, believe that it is wrong to disobey the law in order to protest abortion.  This is because there is a difference between a law that permits abortions and one which commands abortions.  We should legally protest unjust laws, but we should not disobey them. It is one thing for a government to allow others to do evil, but it is another thing for it to force an individual to do evil. Only in the latter case is civil disobedience justified.”
  NOTE he uses the word “Protest”.  Most protests are legal. Rescues, which is what he is really opposed to, usually involve trespassing and not walking away when to do so would allow another fellow human being to be murdered.  He is right about the difference between a law that permits abortions and one that commands abortions, but in either case there is an innocent person being killed. He totally, as he does throughout his book, fails to give any consideration to the preborn victim.  Innocent blood is shed and the Bible has much to say about innocent bloodshed & bloodguilt. By not allowing one to protect his or her innocent & helpless preborn neighbor from being murdered the government is forcing evil.  There are sins of omission.  If the government prevents me from doing the good that I should do it is causing me to sin.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.”
The 2nd qualification that Geisler gives for disobedience is in the case where the government commands one to disobey a clear command from God. In order for this to be applied to the rescues he need to neglect all the commands to “rescue the innocent being led off to slaughter” or to defend the fatherless or most importantly the 2nd greatest command to “love” one’s neighbor as one’s self. After all, wouldn’t you want someone to risk arrest to protect you from being murdered?  The Christians that we commend in Nazi Germany are the ones who disobeyed laws that restricted them from doing good to the victims of that holocaust.
  Geisler refers to the Exodus and that Pharaoh restricted the Israelites from worshiping God, and thus were justified. God commands us to love our neighbors and to defend the fatherless.  If the Government makes laws that restrict us from doing this then they have restricted us from obeying God. 
Near the top of page 245, Geisler writes about Jezebel’s attempts to have the prophets of God killed. And Obadiah’s effort at hiding them.  Geisler says that Obadiah was right because “…the government has no right to compel the killing of innocent servants of God.” I say that the Government has no right to compel the killing of any innocent people and that we are under the same obligation to rescue them as Obadiah was.  If you think that this government does not compel the shedding of this innocent blood, think again.  The government sends tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to build & maintain their buildings; promote abortion in the schools and a whole lot more. 
   At the end of page 245 Geisler commends Peter and John’s refusal to obey the command on them to not preach.  What Peter & John did was to do what God had commanded them to do in spite of what the authority over them said. It would have been a sin of omission for them not to continue to preach.
   On the 1st whole paragraph on pg. 246 “All of these divinely approved cases of civil disobedience follow the same pattern.  In each case the believers are compelled to act contrary to their beliefs”.  Our government has compelled Christians today to NOT rescue their preborn neighbors from being murdered and to not defend the fatherless.  “God has commanded in his Word that we worship him and not idols, that we not kill innocent people…” And he has commanded us to rescue the innocent being led off to slaughter; to love our neighbor as ourselves and to defend the fatherless! 
  Geisler goes on to say “There is a right way and a wrong way to disobey an oppressive government when it compels us to do evil.  The biblical pattern is to refuse to obey its compulsive commands, but not to revolt against it.  This is evident in all biblical examples just discussed.  The midwives, for example, refused to obey Paraoh’s order to kill the male babies, but they did not lead a revolt against Egypt’s oppressive government. 
Justified civil disobedience should be nonviolent resistance, not violent rebellion.”
Here Geisler misrepresents the rescue movement which was not & is not a “revolt”.  He also implies the Rescues were violent as he attempts to build a straw man and slander’s fellow Christians.
   On pg. 247 Geisler addresses the Proverbs 24 passage.  He imposes his slant on the text by saying “Furthermore, those being led away to death (v. 11) are probably lawbreakers, not those being put to death in accordance with the law.”
  Who’s law? Any laws that permit the killing of innocent human beings would seem to be in conflict with the “Due Process” language in the 5th & 14th Amendments in the Bill of rights.  Geisler’s other writings support the idea that all scripture interpretation should start with the most normal or first impression of the text. Why impose on the text what simply is not there.  “Rescue the innocent being led off to slaughter” should be taken to mean just that.  The verses just preceding and following :11 would support this. This is also supported by the commands to defend the fatherless; to love one’s neighbor; to show mercy; seek justice and all the many verses about innocent bloodshed & bloodguilt.
 Geisler’s reasoning in the last paragraph on page 247 is contradicted by the previous paragraph.  Here he states that “Second, the comparison between German Jews and the unborn is invalid, since there are significant differences. The holocaust was mandated by the state, whereas legalized abortion in America is only permitted by the state.”  According to the position stated in the previous paragraph, if that was the law then it should be obeyed.   The former would allow for civil disobedience but the latter would not. Furthermore, the Jews were unwilling to go to the gas chambers but mothers (who are responsible for the life in their womb) are willing to have the abortion.  This is the most revealing of all of Geisler’s statements. He, like so many other Christians misidentifies the victim, and fails to identify with the baby in the womb. The baby like the Jew is being forcibly murdered. Really how crazy is this.  One could reasonably presume that the baby in the womb would not volunteer to be murdered any more than the Jewish person or any other innocent human being. The only way that Geisler can make such a ludicrous statement is that he does NOT identify with the victim of this present holocaust.  
  The paragraph continues “Forced abortion is another matter; it would justify civil disobedience.”  Again, the baby is the victim and is being forcibly killed. “In addition, failure to disobey the law to kill unwilling Jews is tantamount to assisting in the crime.” Scripture requires us to defend the fatherless and rescue the innocent. These next 2 sentences are the craziest. Finally, the humanity of an adult Jew is obvious to all, but the full humanity on the unborn is hotly debated.”  This was hardly true at the time of his writing, in 1989, and even less true today. As early as 1972, the Science & Industry Museum in Chicago has preborn human beings in jars of formaldehyde displayed along with much of the same information that we distribute today about their development and humanity.  The cover of the April 30th, 1965 issue of Life magazine had a picture of a baby in the womb that we use still today. And the cover story included much support for the humanity of the baby in the womb. Suggesting that the baby in the womb is anything but an innocent human being is not just a totally anti-Biblical position but one that is supported by only the willfully ignorant.  “All of these divinely approved cases of civil disobedience follow the same pattern. In each case the believers are compelled to act contrary to their beliefs.” In the case of rescuing the preborn the government is compelling Christians NOT to rescue the innocent or defend the fatherless.  The sins of omission are probably more prevalent and just as offensive to God as the sins of commission. “God has commanded in his word that we worship him and not idols, that we not kill innocent people, that we pray only to him, and that we proclaim the gospel.” God also commands us to rescue the innocent and to defend the fatherless.   
Later on, page 246 Geisler attempts to build a straw man, which is always easier to argue against. “There is a right way and a wrong way to disobey an oppressive government when it compels us to do evil.  The biblical pattern is to refuse when it compels us to do evil. The biblical pattern is to refuse to obey its commands, but to not revolt against it.” Rescue is NOT and never was a “revolt”.  If Geisler would have paid any attention to the rescue movement, he would have seen that it was simply to rescue one’s neighbor from being murdered by interposing one’s self between a murderer (the Doctor) and the victim. The message of the rescue movement was primarily two-fold. 1 a call for Christians to repent and 2 join us and the killing will stop. For the most part Christians have not repented and the killing continues (approximately 50 million more from 1989, when Geisler’s book was published to 2024 when I am writing this rebuttal).
  Later in the next paragraph Geisler writes “Justified civil disobedience should be nonviolent resistance, not violent rebellion.” Again, the author misrepresents the rescues which were totally committed to non-violence. If Geisler would have witnessed the rescues, he would have seen that the perpetrators of violence were often the policeman and pro-abortion protestors who sometimes showed up. Similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.
 Geisler continues the construction of his straw man and misrepresentation on page 247 when he refers to people in the Bible that disobeyed “But none of them engaged in a war against the government.”
  At the end of the same page, he attempts to dismiss the use of Proverbs 24:10-12. “Furthermore, those being led away to death (v.11) are probably victims of lawbreakers, not those being put to death in accordance with the law. Here again, this is almost too crazy for me to even respond to, but unfortunately, I know that there are people taken in by this craziness. Geisler is disobeying the rules for biblical interpretation that he has at least previously subscribed to. He is imposing his own bias on the text. 1. A passage should be understood to mean what a reader would first conclude unless compelled by other scripture to look at it differently. 2. There are lawbreakers involved with abortion. They break constitutional law in the 5th and 14th amendments and they break God’s law not to take the life of the innocent, indeed the 6th commandment. “There is no indication at all in the text or its context that the command is to interrupt the God-ordained adjudication of the law, even in capital cases.” What? This is convoluted. Geisler seems to be saying that the laws that permit the killing of our preborn neighbors are as legitimate as those which support capital punishment. This line of reasoning begs the question what capital crime has any human being in the womb committed? And with this reasoning the Nazi government’s laws and actions to exterminate the Jews should not have been interfered with.
 “Second, the comparison between the German Jews and the unborn is invalid, since the Holocaust was mandated by the state, whereas legalized abortion” murder “is permitted by the state.” According to this position the previous paragraph if that is the law it should be obeyed. “The former would allow for civil disobedience but the latter would not. Furthermore the Jews were unwilling to go to the gas chambers” This is a reasonable presumption since any rational person would not have willingly gone if they new where they were being taken. Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to presume that any preborn human being wouldn’t want to be poisoned to death or cut in pieces and removed from their previously safe environment? “but the mothers (who are responsible for the life in their womb) are willing to have the abortion.” Willing to have their baby murdered. “Forced abortion is another matter; it would justify civil disobedience.” Here again Geisler misidentifies the victim. He only seems to see the woman as the victim and only then when she is forced to abort her child.  What about the preborn baby in the womb? “In addition, failure to disobey the law to kill unwilling Jews is tantamount to assisting in the crime.” What crime?  By Geisler’s reasoning, if the government has made it legal to kill Jews, then there is no crime.  However, failure to disobey the law that permits abortion (the murder of our preborn neighbors) is not assisting in the crime. Finally, the humanity of an adult Jew is obvious to all, but the full humanity of the unborn is hotly debated.” 
  I addressed the willful ignorance displayed here earlier. Clearly Geisler does NOT identify with the victim.  If he did then he would consider the preborn baby as his neighbor whom he is called to love as himself, the way that the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 did. The fact that Geisler uses the term “Unborn” instead of “Preborn” serves to dehumanize the baby in the whom. Non-existent people are unborn “preborn” human beings exist and will usually be born if they are not killed first. 
On page 248 “Third, the same logic could lead Christians to hinder people going to Hindu, Buddhist, or Morman temples from committing idolatry.” This is absolute idiocy.  Geisler is writing to refute something that apparently, he has very little understanding of.  The idea that the Christians might be led to hinder people from entering into other temples would only apply if people were going into those temples to sacrifice their children. I do believe that there is a lot of idolatry behind most abortions but those rescuing are not attempting to stop people from sinning or even committing idolatry, they are attempting to rescue their preborn neighbors from being murdered. He continues in this lunacy “It could also lead us to snatch alcohol and cigarettes out of unbelievers’ hands so as to prevent their (and others’) deaths. Likewise, it would justify civil disobedience to hinder a state executed capital punishment simply because we believe the person to be innocent. But this is to resume one’s personal belief can override the God-ordained governmental process of civil justice (Rom. 13:1).”
  Again, I addressed the capital punishment issue earlier – The baby in the womb could never be convicted of a capital crime so the point is absurd.
When Geisler addresses justified revolutions on page 249, he mentions “The grounds of such revolutions are based in God-given moral rights, such as “life” “Liberty” and “Happiness”” He again fails to apply the right to life to the preborn child in the womb.  He also includes “Happiness” which neither the constitution or the Bible guarantee as a right.
  On page 251 Geisler writes that “Civil disobedience is a bad testimony for a follower of Christ.”  I strongly disagree and am certain that “civil disobedience” in an attempt to rescue innocent human beings from being murdered enhances one’s testimony. I have witnessed this first hand in that when you are put in jail because of a rescue, many of the inmates express great respect for you and are willing to have you share the Gospel with them.  The late Chuck Coleson called those who rescued the “Best of citizens” and when we look back on other holocaust, we esteem those Christians most who risk their lives and even died because while attempting to rescue the victims of their time they were disobedient to their governments. 
  In his conclusion Geisler defines three basic views.  Anarchism which he agrees that most Christians do not support Radical Patriotism – the idea that one always obeys the Government no matter what and “biblical submission which holds that it is sometimes right to do so” He goes on to describe different views – “Antipromulgationists insist on the right to disobey any law that permits actions contrary to God’s word. Anticompulsionists, on the other hand, hold that disobedience is justified only when one is compelled to do an evil.”
 Rescue in in line with the “Anticompulsionists” position, because it must include the sins of omission.  The Government has made it illegal to rescue one’s neighbor from being murdered and illegal to defend the fatherless.  Since loving one’s neighbors is on of the 2 greatest commandments and the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets, any law which prohibits us from loving our neighbor (especially when it comes to defending him or her from being murdered) is a law that really makes Christianity illegal and should be disregarded.  Any decision of whether or not to rescue should be made with other considerations in mind like the effectiveness of it compared with other efforts that may allow one to fight another day or days (or years) and not whether one should allow himself or herself to have their Christianity restricted by unjust laws or wicked officers of the law.  This consideration should also be made with the awareness that the preborn neighbor that is scheduled to be killed tomorrow will not be here to rescue the day after that.  He or she will have been murdered and we cannot say that we did not know.
Proverbs 24  
10If you are slack in the day of distress,
         Your strength is limited.
11Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
         And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
12If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
         Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
         And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
         And will He not render to man according to his work?
NASB 1995
During the early 1940’s in Nazi Germany Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the Christians that he had to contend with generally fell into 2 camps.  The pietist and the liberal.  In our day the pietist are those who think that it is enough that they don’t abort their own children (though many do) and the Liberals are those who like the woman elder at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Denver who is also on the board of Planned Parenthood. What Bonhoeffer put much of his efforts into was trying to get the all Christians to identify with the victims of the holocaust and see their obligation before God to intervene on their behalf. This is also where I believe that God would have me put much of my efforts today. 
  I am NOT the “pro-life guy”.  I don’t think that Bonhoeffer would have been OK with people labeling him as the “Pro-Jew guy”.  He was just a Christian who took seriously the command to love his neighbor as himself.  

On 10/7/23 about 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas. Were you moved? If you were within 10 miles of that event and knew it was going to take place, would you have tried to intervene?
  Do we give any consideration to those being killed in Myanmar or Sudan, or to the plight of the Palestinians?
Last month over 1,200 preborn babies were murdered in the Denver metro area. Did it move you? You could have known where many were going to be murdered. You could have intervened? Does the media or our culture (including our churches) dictate what moves us or who we should intervene for?
  Yesterday was Mother's Day.  2 days before that I was outside a building where 10 or so mothers had their preborn babies murdered. There were 100's of thousands of mothers who had their preborn babies murdered since the last Mother's Day. There was no mention of these mothers in the vast majority of pulpits throughout the US.  
  Why is this?  What can we do to change it? 
You can make a difference on how many of your preborn neighbors get murdered. You can intervene. You can go to many of the places that they are scheduled to be murdered at and plead for their lives.
You can expose the murder of our preborn neighbors and influence mothers and fathers to identify with these babies in the wombs and spare their lives.
Prov. 24:10-12 If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?
We may not be able to do much about the many people being murdered thousands of miles away from us but we can have an impact within 10 miles of where many of us live that will result in lives being spared; sanctification of us and others; hearts being changed and our Lord Jesus Christ being Glorified.