Before he shotgunned an abortionist and his bodyguard and injured the abortionist's wife, and then walked away from the scene of the crime, Paul J. Hill wrote me a letter.
In it, he asked for confirmation of his vigilante viewpoint. I did not respond. I knew his pastor. The church had brought him under discipline.
After he murdered two people, I sent him a letter condemning his views. Maybe I should have done this earlier. He wrote back. I replied. Then I published my letters as a booklet. It is posted here:
I have made it a rule not to debate publicly with men like Hill. To appear on the same platform with them in open debate baptizes their position as being somehow within the confessional limits of Christianity. It is legitimate to write against them, preach against them, and bring charges against them in their churches. It is strategically a mistake to debate them in public.
In 1881, a heretical liberal Presbyterian theologian named Charles A. Briggs persuaded theologians at Princeton Seminary to get involved with a scholarly journal, The Presbyterian Review, which would be jointly published by six Presbyterian seminaries. It would feature a debate between defenders of biblical inerrancy and the higher criticism of the Bible. Princeton took the bait. It cooperated. The debate went on for two years. This baptized higher criticism as being within the bounds of orthodoxy. Briggs should have been brought to trial in 1876 for his public defense of higher criticism. He was brought to trial in 1891 and convicted in 1893. But, in the meantime, his ideas spread among younger Presbyterian theologians. I discuss this in chapter 3 of my book, Crossed Fingers.
So, I do not debate people who should be excommunicated unless the debate takes place in a non-Christian environment. Then I point out to the audience that my opponent's position is heretical, and that his church should bring charges against him. I do not shilly-shally.
I have also learned from letters from so-called "consistent preterists" that debate is futile. They are tar babies. I publish against them, but I do not debate them. I have warned pastors to recommend to their elders to begin formal actions against those who hold such views. I outline this strategy in the Appendix of my book, Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Corinthians. Download the book here:
Stealing for Jesus
I received this question from a man who identified himself as a lawyer:
Greetings to you. I have a question for you which I have pondered quite a bit. Do the heathen have actual property rights? My position is they absolutely do not. I find nowhere in the word of God that they have any property rights. In fact, their only right is to be dead and in the fires of damnation. Any property accorded them by Christians is through mercy, not justice. Therefore it would not be immoral to "steal" funds from godless corporations and individuals if it was appropriate. Wondering if you agree with this? Response would be appreciated. I am considering joining your web service.
I immediately replied:
Do not get near my service. If I find you have joined, I will cancel you immediately. I do not want anyone with your views associated with me. I hope this conveys my opinion of your argument.
My site has Q&A forums, including one devoted to Christian service. This man is a true nut-case. If I allowed him access to ask questions, he would waste my time and give readers the impression that such views constitute Christian orthodoxy. They do not. This is the stuff of lawlessness followed by tyranny.
As I knew from the beginning, he demanded an answer. He is a tar baby. I did not give him an answer by e-mail. This is my answer.
The Rule of Law
I have written over 8,000 pages of economic commentaries on books of the Bible. The message I have presented is that the Bible teaches private ownership. This bothers Christian socialists. This man holds a related position, but worse. The Christian socialist argues for the rule of law -- bad law in every sense, but universal. This man wants selective property rights. Where in the Bible is such a view taught? Nowhere.
The commandment not to steal (Exodus 20:15) does not distinguish property rights in terms of the owner's theological confession.
Even before God gave Moses His law, He laid down the most fundamental legal principle of Western civilization: the rule of law.
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you (Exodus 12:49).
This included the laws governing property ownership.
The Mosaic law had one restriction on pagan ownership: the jubilee law governing rural land (Leviticus 25). Rural land in year 49 was supposed to be returned to family members of the original conquest generation. Yet this law was temporary. It ended after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.
So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel (Ezekiel 47:21-22).
Jesus defended the rule of law at the individual level.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12).
We call this concept the golden rule. Its widespread defense at every level of society is basic to liberty.
In the New Testament, there is the case of members of the Jerusalem church. They sold their property to non-Christians. They received money for the sale (Acts 5). This freed them up to flee the city at any time, which they did when persecutions began (Acts 8:1). There is no doubt that they had surrendered ownership of one form of wealth in exchange for another. Buyers and sellers could exchange goods because the property of both was protected by Roman law. The church members used this protection to gain possession of the kind of property they preferred.
The church needs men who understand the importance of the rule of law and the importance of private property. Whenever we find Christians who recommend theft in the name of Christ, I shudder.
At least Christian socialists lay claim to honoring the rule of law. They adopt the position, "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote." This is not the rule of law taught in the Bible, but at least it is an imitation.
When we find a philosophical "thief for Jesus" who justifies the looting of private owners in the name of extending the kingdom of God, we have is a case for a church court.
Conclusion
What saved the congregation that had excommunicated Paul Hill before he murdered two people was the excommunication. The pastor told me, "I got lots of calls from reporters. As soon as I told them he had been under church discipline, they lost interest in us." The church would have been pilloried by the media if it had not taken formal judicial steps to separate itself from Paul Hill before he acted consistently with his vigilante theology.
This is why I am intolerant of lunatics for Jesus. They are a liability to the church. I realize that there are Christians who regard my views as loony, but at least I have published far more than 20,000 pages in defense of my views, and I have posted them on-line for critics to respond to. So far, there have not been many.
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.