Answering the Nervously Confused

February, 2010

The following reply follows some communication which I do not possess. As I recall, a Mr. Palmquist was criticizing Dan Holman for failing to use force to stop abortionists. Since Dan had defended the likes of Scott Roeder for his action in terminating Abortionist George Tiller, Mr. Palmquist charged Dan with hypocrisy for not taking up a weapon and performing the same deed. In reply Dan made certain spontaneous (I shall presume) admissions of cowardice.

Well as Clooney’s character, Ulysses Everett McGill in O Brother Where Art Thou?” advised, “It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.” That is to say, our very ears can certainly play havoc with our own thinking at times. I suggested that Dan, a most noble follower of Christ as I have ever known and a faithful devotee to those who are threatened with death by abortion, was not really a coward, but was following a true calling of God faithfully. I answered him accordingly, as follows:

5 February, 2010 (by email)

Matt,

I see the problem this fellow Tim has with the Holman statements. It reminds me that I ought to speak with Dan. I am not on the same page with him (his ethical stance), and I appreciate the line the man wants to draw between yours and Dan’s view.

Our national idolatry, apostasy, and consequent de-criminalization of child-slaughter puts those who stand against Lawlessness in a generally awkward position.

What are God’s people, who honor Him and His Law, to do?

We are to “do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly” – generally speaking – as per Micah 6:8. But that, of course, is a general command. And each solitary act is not a manifestation of each or all of the three attributes. Jael’s driving of the spike into the head of Sisera was neither an act of kindness from the perspective of Sisera or his mother, nor humility from the perspective of her husband, Heber. But it was an act of justice from the perspective of Jael and Israel and God, one could suppose.

Each had a calling. Let each walk in his own calling. If you are a cheerer or a cheer leader of those who drive liberating stakes into the heads of oppressors and murderers, do your job well. But don’t cry if you are not called to drive the stake. And don’t fail to cheer, either. But of all things, don’t fail to give honor where honor is due.

Dan Holman need not lament the lack of a calling as he praises others for walking in obedience to their own vocation. And Mr. Palmquist ought to perform any of the following legitimate modes of behavior: 1) avoid condemning those who have a “Jael calling,” 2) cheer for those who have acted upon such a calling, 3) advocate that others fulfill a Jael calling if they think that they have one, 4) defend those who have demonstrated the calling, or 5) advocate that the calling is for all.

I would recognize myself as being in category number four. Perhaps contemplation of being associated with a number five guy is what Palmquist is uneasy about.