DON’T SHOOT THE WARRIORS IN THE BACK

George Offerman

I just received a copy of Where are our Shepherds? Co authored by coach Dave Daubenmire and Gregory Thompson, one of the ND 88. I will dedicate a posting for this phenomenal read once I finish it, but just reading the forward of this book will challenge the most seasoned warriors in the fight for the unborn and may outright enrage the lukewarm.

There seems to be a very strong undercurrent in many of the pro life groups and pro life movement in general. This undercurrent I speak of is the idea of 1) perceived criticism/attack and 2) perceived extremism. Depending which side one finds themselves on will determine how this is perceived and what is done about it.

One can take criticism levied at them, and perceive it as an attack. However, there are huge differences between criticism and attacks. Criticism is issue driven, attacks are personal Criticism is meant to change and challenge behaviors that need to be addressed, attacks are directed at the individual, his personality, family, etc. Criticism is based in reason, attacks on emotion. Some of the people that claim they are being attacked, when it is actually criticism levied at them, then go on an attack themselves, by making very personal statements, and sometimes telling outright lies, and then use the “Christianity” moniker to excuse their behaviors. The irony is that they don’t seem to note their own behaviors and will not tolerate this being pointed out to them. Being a Christian does not make one above reproach or engaging in sinful behaviors. To act any different is to be in the grips of pride, which is considered the first sin, as God made clear this was Lucifer’s downfall.

Proper criticism makes one stronger and actually brings about more unity in the long run. To pretend one group has the ‘in way’ to the exclusion of other groups that are effecting change, albeit in an uncomfortable and inconvenient way is sinful behavior. True Christianity must call the truth the truth, and not sugarcoat it. If one wants sugarcoating, go to most churches and one can get as much as they want.

This brings up the second perception, and that is of extremism. Somehow, many seem to believe that holding up graphic signs that may ‘offend’ is extremism. One doesn’t even need to go to the case for being arrested for life, to see that most would brand that behavior as extremist. The irony of this is, the new government definitions of domestic terrorism includes such things as Ron Paul bumper stickers, certain evangelical groups, and ‘one issue’ people like pro lifers who have been arrested and participated in other activities which are confrontational in nature.

Now, would most Christians consider this government an agent of God, or representing God, or speaking for God? I doubt it. Then why do most of the mainstream pro life groups agree with the government in effect, labeling the same people extremists and trouble makers? So we have the most pro death government lead by Obama, that only wants to use the word ‘terrorist’ in a domestic setting, and most of the pro life movement in agreement with calling the same behaviors extreme, embarrassing, and wanting to distance themselves from it. Many pro life organizations make the claims that certain people and groups are an ‘embarrassment”, and wish they would go away. (Fr Jenkins wishes the ND 88 would go away too) Frankly, if I found my self agreeing with this current administration and government, I would feel very insecure and scared.

Obama was forced to discuss abortion at the Notre Dame fiasco because of the arrests. He has little ‘choice’, due to the non stop coverage of the arrests, especially the searing image of Fr. Norman Weslin’s arrest by another priest, Fr. Jenkins. These ‘extreme’ measures forced the issue of legalized child killing front and center. This was an embarrassing moment for both Obama and Fr. Jenkins, and most know by now that Mr. Obama does not like to be ‘embarrassed’, and ‘took names’ of those who caused this embarrassment. The mainstream pro life movement went along with this, by essentially ‘icing’ the stories and the coverage, and indirectly colluded with Obama. By colluding with the Obama administration, the mainstream pro life movement essentially shot the warriors in the back.

Before those who may be ‘offended’ by these words get up in arms about it, I want you to think about a few things first. Having an opportunity to sit in jail with many of these people, I have first hand knowledge of what processes these people went through when making the decision to come to Notre Dame. I have found the vast majority of these people to be prayer warriors, active in the pro life movement by doing, not talking, and all reported being lead by the Holy Spirit in making this difficult decision. Now, would the Holy Spirit ‘con’ these people into doing sinful behavior, and have those that disagree with them, also being lead by the Holy Spirit in their labeling the ND 88 as extremists? Is the Holy Spirit of dual minds? Is the Holy Spirit confused?

Many in the pro life movement are uncomfortable with arrests and civil disobedience. That is ok. There is a need for education, crisis pregnancy centers, letter writing campaigns and the like, and there needs to be services in place for the post Roe, and Doe world. But until that happens, the pro life movement must get behind those who are willing to go on the front line and ‘take a bullet’ for the babies. No respectable general would send his troops into harms way, only to strand them, or worse, betray them to their enemies. We must not do the same.