THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT


Vol. 1 Issue VIII ........ Federal Prison, Ashland ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TBR BOOK REVIEW


Third Time Around -- A History of the Pro-Life Movement from
the First Century to the Present by George Grant. Wolgemuth
and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. 1749 Mallory Lane, Suite 110,
Brentwood TN 37027. 224 pages.

The third issue of TBR noted that the slaughter of innocent
children (whether preborn or new-born) is nothing new. It has
gone on, here and there, for thousands of years. Likewise, the
pro-life movement is nothing new. It is thousands of years old,
as old as Christianity itself. Also noted in that issue was that,
when earlier generation of Christians saw this horror, this evil,
and saw the magnitude of the injustice, they were thoroughly
outraged and took an active and uncompromising stand in
proportion to their degree of outrage. (Please notice that the
root word of "outrage" is "rage"). We also asserted that such
responsiveness on the part of earlier generations of Christians
had to do with why the Lord our God has not yet poured His
cup of wrath out on the world, in general, and America in
particular.

All the above points are documented in George Grant's fine book,
as we will show.

Abortion did not first become an issue in the U.S. in 1973 with the
Roe v. Wade fiat. Nor did it first become an issue here in 1967
when the very first state (California) loosened its restrictions on this
evil. Abortion was committed in this country at least as early as the
mid-1800's. When Christian Americans were aroused they put a
stop to it. Half a century later the forces of darkness, evil, and death
reared their ugly heads and, once again, children began to be sacrificed.

During both these earlier death movements in the U.S., the government
acknowledged that abortion was illegal. The laws on the books prohibited
the crime. Abortion was not being committed under government
sponsorship. It happened simply because government "looked the
other way".

When the news media shed light on the evil and brought it to the
public's attention, our (fairly recent) ancestors' wrath was so severe
that the government was compelled to enforce the existing laws
prohibiting abortion. It must be remembered that this was a great,
Christian nation in those days. It must be understood that this was
before the left-wingers won the cultural revolution and had come to
dominate the media. Today not one major, daily newspaper is on
our side. Yet, in those days every news medium, every editor, sided
with life and justice. Not one supported the baby-killers
(gasp! Oh, my Brockhoeft, shouldn't you tone down the shrillness
of your rhetoric a little? After all, if you will be a little more polite
you might reach more people!)

No, I should not mellow out, because, in the first place, how many
times do I have to tell you that it is ineffective and wrong to oppose
abortion politely? And secondly, I'm not necessarily interested in
reaching the greatest possible number of people. If necessary, I'd
much rather reach a smaller number of the right kind of people --
men who are still capable of passion in their opposition to this satanic
abomination. And thirdly, can I, as a Christian, let secular journalists
from our nation's past outdo me in my rhetorical language today?

What kind of rhetoric did the mainstream American media
(even the N.Y.T.!) use against abortionists in those days?

George Grant has documented it for us in Third Time Around.

They called abortionists "demon doctors", "human fiends",
"professional murderers", "child-destroyers", and "monsters of
iniquity". Secular journalists called abortion "the crime against
nature", "the evil of the age", "a damnable deed", "the curse of
American society", "a long record of infamy", "child-murder in
Massachusetts", and "the terrible sins...". The bold rhetoric used
by non-religious journalists earlier in this century makes today's
Christian, pro-life writers look like a bunch of ambiguous sissies.

We owe George Grant a debt of gratitude. He has given us a very
good book. With a few minor corrections it could be a great book.

Third Time Around is highly recommended by TBR. You must
read it. Nevertheless, we all make mistakes; and our brother George
is no exception. As the sub-title implies, this work is a history book
chronicling nearly 2,000 years of Christian, pro-life activism. George
wisely wants to familiarize us with our history so that we will be able
to apply yesterday's lessons today. Unfortunately, George has not
perfectly learned these lessons yet, himself.

Please heed this warning: as I point out the mistakes in Third
Time Around I might sound very severe with George. Please
don't take it that way. It is not my intention to ridicule George
to death. I do not think George is either cowardly or insincere,
unlike my assessment of some other pro-life leaders. I like George.
I'm not just saying that to be solicitous, either. You know me better
than that by now. Somewhere in the book of Proverbs it says:
"The kisses of an enemy may be profuse, but
faithful are the wounds of a friend."

That's it right there. I mean only to smite George as a friend,
to help him. There are some false leaders whom I would be
willing to "destroy" (not kill, of course) by humiliating them
with my pen. George doesn't deserve that. He's okay. No,
I'm talking about the kind of false friends who apply such blatant
inconsistencies against the babies, such obvious discrimination,
that they must have known, beforehand, they were making mistakes
in their manifestly insincere political posturing. No, I'm talking only
about those who try to hid their cowardice behind a veil of false virtue
and who are so defiant in their error (not their stand) that they will
not likely ever be able to admit they were wrong. So there may be
nothing we can do to help them. These people carry self-inflicted
wounds so grievous that they may now never be able to fully
recover and be effective.

So let me tell you something. I would not feel bad at all if, thorough
terrible ridicule flowing from my pen, I "destroyed" these false friends,
these faint-hearted men. Because if these "leaders" are going to insist
on promoting lukewarmness and inappropriate pacifism among their
followers, then I'd feel like I'd done a good thing if I could make them
go home and stay there. Preborn babies then might actually be less
endangered. In support of that, look up Deuteronomy 20:8. These
faint-hearted men, by expressing willingness, even eagerness, to
compromise with the enemies of our country have, in effect, become
our enemies.

Does that last statement sound too severe? Please read on. Do
you want to know a couple of stout-hearted, Christian men who
agree with me? Theodore Roosevelt and George Grant. It's right
there in George's Third Time Around, on page 116! George offers
a 1917 quote from Teddy Roosevelt, who was speaking of such
a time as we now face:

The world is at this moment passing through one of those
terrible periods of convulsion when the souls of men and
of nations are tried as by fire. Woe to the man or the nation
that at such a time stands as once Laodicea stood; as the
people of ancient Meroz stood, when they dared not come to
the help of the Lord against the mighty. In such a crisis the
moral weakling is the enemy of the right, the enemy of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added)

Well? How about it? I feel certain that I'm not using Roosevelt's
quote out of his intended context. Hopefully, brother George won't
feel I'm misapplying his intended use of the quote. However, if he
feels I have done him an injustice in my citation of his use of
President Roosevelt's quote, I'd be very curious to know exactly
how he was meaning to use it.

Two interesting points in Teddy Roosevelt's statement are his
references to Laodicea and "moral weaklings". Laodicea, you may
recall, is the Biblical symbol of lukewarmness which was, therefore,
on the verge of being rejected by the Lord Jesus (see Rev. 3:14-19).

Concerning the reference to moral weaklings, some of TBR's
younger readers may misunderstand Roosevelt's meaning. In his day
the word moral had a second meaning in addition to the way we
normally use it today. By "moral" he was not referring to principles
of right and wrong. The other (older) definition he was using is
"courageous" or "spirited". The word is seldom used that way today,
but some good dictionaries still carry this other definition. Yet, for
a clearer idea, look up "demoralize". So Teddy Roosevelt was not
talking about immoral men, but demoralized men, irresolute
men, men unwilling to confront injustice and oppression aggressively;
in a word: cowards.

Before we start picking on brother George, let's look at some quotes
from Third Time Around which show that earlier generations of American
Christians held to a belief which TBR has asserted all along: that unless
the Church repents and stops abortionists from killing babies, our nation is
doomed by God.

From an 1869 general assembly of Presbyterian churches:

This assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own
offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against
God and against nature;...we hereby warn those that are guilty
of this crime that, except they repent, they cannot inherit eternal
life. We also exhort those that have been called to preach the
gospel, and all who love purity and truth, and who would avert the
just judgments of Almighty God from the nation, that they no
longer remain silent, or tolerant of these things....

From an 1868 Conference of Congregationalist Churches:
...those who best know the facts and bearing of this crime
declare it to be a greater evil, more demoralizing and
destructive, than either intemperance, slavery, or war itself. ...
we have come to consent to customs and habits that will
destroy us as a people unless arrested betimes.

From evangelist John Todd in 1867:
Murder is, of course heinous of its own accord. But the
murder of a mother's own flesh within the womb is a crime
against heaven that is the very essence of sin and inimicable
with the Christian religion. Left alone, such a crime would sunder
the whole fabric of our families, of our communities, of our
churches, of our markets and industries, and finally of our nation.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to take George apart, but now it's
time to point out his few (though substantial) errors.

The book presents the history of pro-life activism in sections (by era)
in chronological order from front to back. So the earliest accounts
(pre-medieval) are in the first chapters. Each section names, and
describes the actions of, prominent pro-lifers of that era, presumably
to inspire us today. George seems to admire all of these historical
figures. At least he certainly doesn't condemn any of them.

Yet, all down through the ages he offers examples of prolifers who
resorted to the use of destructive force to defend innocent life.
The earliest such example (from the fourth century) is Basil of
Caesarea who, as George says, "decimated" the death facilities and
(on page 29):
...late one evening after Vespers, he and several deacons
from the church actually went outside the city to dismantle
the old Caesarean infanticide shrine with their bare hands.

(J.B. note: they didn't have gas or explosives in those days.)

Then on page 42 we see John of Amathus, born toward the end
of the sixth century, who tore down the death facilities outside the
city "with his own hands."

Then, during the Renaissance, we see Francis de Girolamo. On
page 63:
Once he burst into a laboratory where parricides were
being concocted and, like Jesus in the temple, literally
decimated the room, overturning the equipment and
scattering the drugs singlehandedly. (emphasis added)

Although there is no clear evidence he exerted force, Thomas
Villanueva (1500's) is also noteworthy, because, as we see on
page 60:
...when he discovered an abortion cabal operating illicitly
in a nearby city, he flew into a frenzy of righteous indignation.

(J.B.: doesn't that mean he was angry?)

Then, on page 133, George even holds up our hero Dietrich
Bonhoeffer as an example!

Ah, but then we come to page 146. Bear in mind that, since George
is our brother-in-Christ, surely he will readily agree that whatever
is morally right is always morally right-- yesterday, today, and in
all ages. Notwithstanding, somewhere between pages 133 and 146,
George slipped up and lost his sense of continuity. He has brought
us up to 1984. Yet, before we point out this little inconsistency,
let us take note of another thing.

There is tremendous power in words. Words make people think.

So it's very important to use the right words. Our opponents
understand this very well. That's why they never talk about preborn
babies. No, they are always "products of conception" or "fetal tissue".

That's why our enemies never talk about baby-killing. No, it's always
"termination of pregnancy" or "reproductive choice". And that's why
they never call their satanic altars what they really are. No,
they're always...what?!...clinics! They call them abortion clinics!

Since, as we all know, a clinic is a medical facility where life
and health are administered to people, and never a place set aside
specifically to kill people, therefore, there is no such thing as an
abortion clinic.

Or, if there were such a thing as an abortion clinic, it could only
mean a place where you take wounded babies, for medical treatment,
who have survived unsuccessful abortion attempts!

The very phrase "abortion clinic" is dishonest, pro-abortion rhetoric.
The borts have to use euphemisms like this, though, to make their
abomination sound more acceptable. Yet, we should never use their
terms to compliment their haunted houses.

So, having noticed the propaganda value for the other side in their
choice of words, we always try to counteract this ploy by calling
their facilities abortuaries or abortion chambers. Which is only being
honest, because that's what they really are. They aren't any kind
of clinic.

Now, to be fair, we have to give credit to George for carefully
avoiding the "C" word. He nearly always calls them either abortion
chambers or abortuaries (both terms appear in Third Time Around).

While reading the book whenever I saw these terms, I had to smile
and nod my approval at George's writing. In fact, he calls the death
camps "clinics" only once in the whole book. It goes like this (page 146):
Sadly, a series of events would seriously minimize the
impact of pro-life forces:
!(etc., etc.)
!In 1984, a spate of abortion clinic bombings rocks
the pro-life community.
!(etc., etc.)

Whoopsie-daisy! Throughout the rest of the book, these places
where babies are mutilated and tortured to death are abortuaries
or abortion chambers. But the minute some freedom-fighter
bombs one, all of a sudden...it's a clinic! George probably didn't
mean it that way, though. It was probably just a slip of the type-
writer, as it were.

At the end of each section (dealing with the various eras) George
draws conclusions. Then he has a series of topic discussions,
presumably to show us lessons we should glean from our forebears.

The topic headings appear in bold print and always in the same
order: Orthodoxy -- The Church --Servanthood -- Urgency --
Patience.
(huh?)
That's right! The lists include both urgency and patience,
and the two appear one right after the other!


Now, how do you figure that? How could anyone, even a
Christian, be both urgent and patient at the same time?

Especially with such a matter as child-slaughter? Urgency
and patience are opposites of one another, mutually exclusive!

You can only be in one of those states at a time! Especially
when it comes to killing babies! I take my hat off to George
for wanting to instill in the church a sense of urgency. But,
even if patience was, indeed, a virtue at such a time as this,
a time of war, what makes George think there is a need to
exhort pro-lifers to patience?

Today's pro-lifers are the most patient people the world has ever
known! I mean, as a whole of course. Oh, sure, there are a few
pro-lifers like, for example, Shelley Shannon, Margie Reed, Curt
Beseda, and Don Anderson who are impatient, but they are exceedingly,
exceedingly rare. Perhaps one in a radius of five hundred miles.
Perhaps one out of every 20,000,000 pro-lifers.

99.999% of prolifers are very patient. 99.99% are very, very patient.

And 99.9% of pro-lifers are absolutely (ahem) "PERFECTED" in
"patience!" Yes, 99.9% of pro-lifers have "achieved" a state of
such "perfect" "patience" that they have waited over twenty-one
years to pick up their very first picket sign or to make their very
first appearance on the sidewalk in front of an abortuary. To this
very day they have never lifted a finger to help an imperiled baby.

How much more "patient" do we want these people to be?

All this massive, widespread "patience", this wonderful "patience" --
that -- that is what has led to 30,000,000 dead babies' bodies being
strewn over a landscape of more than two decades! There is no need
to increase, or to maintain, the level of "patience" among pro-lifers.
But if they ever start getting "impatient", please don't tell them.

Please!

Now, let me explain something here. I have to be very careful here
with this patience matter. I study the Bible, and I'm sure most of my
readers do, too. The Bible says a lot about patience, and brother George
quotes it. He rightly points out that true patience is a fruit of the Holy
Spirit (Gal 5:22). I believe the Bible like nothing else. I revere the
Bible like nothing else. I hold it up as the final authority on all matters.
I'm a fundamentalist.

This is important. What is patience? And what is impatience?

While observing a man's conduct, by what criteria can we judge
him, and be fair about it, and decide whether he is being patient
or impatient? If we see a man responding severely to any given
set of circumstances, is it fair to assess his level of patience only
by the severity of his response? Aren't we also obligated to examine
the severity of the thing he was responding to?

TBR acknowledges that genuine patience is good. It is a Godly virtue,
a fruit of the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? And what does it not
mean? For every good thing that God has, Satan has a counterfeit that
bears a striking resemblance. What kind of patience is a fruit of the Holy
Spirit? What does the devil's counterfeit "patience" look like? Before
we answer those questions, let me point out a disturbing thing George
wrote about patience. On page 172

Patience

Victory will not be won in a day, however fervently we act.
It will take time, perhaps generations. It has always been
that way. It always will be. (JB note: Aarrghh!)

In the interim, we are to rest and rely on God's
"very great and precious promises". (2 Peter 1:4)

Now, for one thing, that verse doesn't say anything about rest,
although the Bible elsewhere does talk about resting in the Lord.
But this spiritual rest is no exhortation for the Army of God to
physically recline and restrain themselves in a combat zone while
innocent civilians (e.g., the babies) are being killed all around.
Please bear in mind George's mention of God's promises as we
look a little further. On page 173 George quotes Psalms
37:7, but not in a context proper for the situation at hand:
Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him...

George, George, you've twisted things completely around 180E

You've taken God's promises, and God's commandments, and
waiting patiently for Him, and turned these things around backwards!

The Lord our God has the right to demand that we wait patiently
for Him to fulfill His promises. But we don't have any right to
demand that He wait patiently for us to obey His commandments!

That's where you've got it turned around, George! He commands
us to do justice and rescue the babies! What did He say in
Proverbs 24:12? Did He promise anything, saying: "I, the Lord
your God, will rescue those being led away to death and will hold
back those staggering toward slaughter"? No, no! That's not what
it says! If that was the case we'd have an excuse for laying around,
and resting, and waiting for Him to fulfill His promise! But no, it
was not a promise for us; it is an imperative, a commandment
to us!

Rescue those being led away to death, and hold back
those staggering toward slaughter. If you say: "But we
knew nothing of this,", does not He who weighs the heart
perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it?

But wait a minute!!
WARNING!! WARNING!! There are other
times when the Lord our God does promise to do justice and to
deliver widows, the afflicted, and fatherless children out of the
hand of the oppressor!
WARNING! WARNING!! THE LAST
THING IN THIS WORLD A NATION'S PEOPLE SHOULD
WANT TO HEAR IS WORDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD,
PROMISING TO DEFEND THEIR FATHERLESS CHILDREN!!!

For the moment a people hear that kind of promise from above,
their nation is one step away from irremedial destruction! In that
hour they must repent with all their hearts and reject all false
"patience" with the open, public slaughter of the innocent!

Because in that day the Lord Almighty has begun not only to
hold that nation's rulers accountable for the slaughter, but the
general public as well!

Yes, the Lord our God is a good God, a long-suffering (patient)
God. But the virtue of patience is only virtuous for so long in the
face of child-slaughter, and that is not very long. If the Lord
promises a nation's people to rescue their preborn children from
open, public slaughter, it can be taken as a signal that He is sick
and tired of waiting patiently for those people to obey His
commandments, and He is sick and tired of those people
"waiting patiently" for Him to do what they are supposed to do.

LOOK OUT!!

In Luke 18:8, Jesus asked:
Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh,
shall He find faith on the earth?

If the Second Advent of Christ the King happened today, oh,
He would find lots and lots of faith! Yet, He would find scarcely
any faithfulness! He will require both! To verify for yourself that
He will also require faithfulness, you need only flip back a few pages
in your Bible to Luke 12:42-46.

Here we return to our book review. George Grant has three
children. I love George, and I love his children. I wouldn't mind
dying for them. Now, although George's own children are special
to him, I can't fault him for feeling that way; because I feel the same
toward my own children. We're all like that. It's only natural. Yet,
though we feel that way toward our own children, we have to admit
that, objectively, other folks' children are equally worthy of equal
protection.

If George suddenly discovers his children in the clutches of a murderer,
and it will require a last-minute, last-ditch effort to save his children's
lives, we will not be able to counsel George to be patient with that
murderer. If George isn't around at the time, and I make the discovery,
I will not be patient with that murderer who is about to kill George's
children. Yet, no matter how severely and impetuously I deal with the
killer, George will not count it as impatience. That's just it. No matter
how special the warmth we feel toward our own children, we must
objectively notice that these other children are worthy of equal protection.

We must resist every inclination to think inconsistently concerning
preborn babies, because that is why they die.

In order to maintain a proper consistency, we must acknowledge
this: that any degree of "patience" which would have been
inappropriate in our dealing with Nazi Germany fifty years ago,
is also therefore inappropriate in our defense of innocent babies
today. The only thing it would have required for Adolph Hitler
to irreversibly wipe out whole races would have been... "patience"
on our part!

During World War II my dad flew around in a B-17 dropping bombs
on Nazis. He did not bomb them politely. He did not bomb them in
"a spirit of meekness and gentleness." He did not bomb them patiently.

Millions upon millions of American men, both Catholic and Protestant,
fought injustice during W.W.II. When was the last time you heard
any historian characterize these men's conduct as impatient? Under
those circumstances, what did patience and/or impatience have to
do with anything?

Perhaps the only thing George would need, to toughen his attitude
toward post-Roe abortions, is to understand that these crimes are
acts of genuine warfare. Perhaps he still thinks of "war on the
unborn" as a metaphor, and not the real thing. Perhaps he has not
yet been able to take the circumstances of Bonhoeffer's day, and
superimpose them onto today's circumstances, and see they are
identical. The crime is identical, and the victims are, identically,
as human. The illegitimacy of those in power is identical. Perhaps
he has already come to this understanding. The book was written
over three years ago. A man adds to his understanding over such
a period.

How victory will come

In concluding this book review let us point out one last dispute.

By now TBR's a little ashamed of seeming to have dealt so
severely with our friend; and now, with this final point we seem
to be contradicting him at every turn. Such is not the case.

Our dispute has to do with a passage already visited -- the one on
page 172 saying:
"Victory will not be won in a day, however
fervently we act."

For one thing, victory will never be won until we start thinking
fervently. But our main dispute with the statement is: TBR asserts
that--THE VICTORY OVER ABORTION WILL BE WON IN
ONE DAY! If mainstream Christians continue in their steadfast
refusal to fight this battle, the Lord our God will fight it single-
handedly and attain victory in one day. Yet, on the other hand,
even if the war is won by human, Christian exertion
(blessed and ordained by the Lord, of course) we will still achieve
victory in one day. It will not come about by a long, sustained
campaign. It will not be won by any long, drawn-out strategy.

It will be sudden.

There is no solution to abortion which is entirely political in nature.

No one has yet begun to implement the only strategy which has
any hope of succeeding. Victory will not come until, and unless,
there is an explosion of zeal within this dead "church". This can
still happen, believe it or not. But be assured that, one way or
another, we will see victory will within our lifetime, within a few
years. Be assured, you will see it occur suddenly. We have not yet
begun to fight. It will be won in a day, or, if not in an actual twenty-
four hour day, certainly in a very, very short period.

Actually, it seems that George, himself, should have understood this.

A very curious thing about Third Time Around is that, while George
makes repeated calls for patience, and claims that victory "will take
time, perhaps generations", yet, on page 157, he offers a quote from
Hilaire Belloc which contradicts George's prediction and fully supports
TBR's assertion that victory will come utterly and suddenly.

Belloc said:
In history's mixture of good and evil, the thing we
should note -- the thing the historians will note with
amazement -- is the profundity and the rapidity of change.
(emphasis added)

Forget about the power of the Feds. Just look at abortion, itself.

Just look at abortionists. Because of the enormity and magnitude
of abortion, and because of the terrible, great zeal required of an
abortionist to be able to tear a child's limbs off -- all this, coupled
with the cooperation and protection of Washington, D.C. -- because
of all these things, this war cannot be won incrementally, in stages.

It's all or nothing. To the extent any strategy depends on victory being
incremental, it will be a waste of time. (Not that it is a waste of time
to save those few babies whom we can save right now.) Just as the
child's life, so is the war, itself. It's all or nothing. A child has been
appointed to die tomorrow morning. Either you will save that child's
life completely and abruptly, or not at all. You cannot save his or her
life little by little. The overall war is the same way. You will only see
abortion, as a matter of public policy, stopped completely and abruptly.
The abomination will be uprooted all at once by a furious God or a
furious Church. There is no other way. Until you hold steadfastly
to this vision, you will find little encouragement in how you are able
to interpret unfolding events, and your efforts may not be focused
where they will be most effective.

If abortion is stopped only by the Lord's Hand, it will be
accompanied by a devastating, punishing cataclysm (perhaps the
Great Tribulation). But if we stop it (in blessed submission to the
Lord), it will not be some major turn of events which serves as an
impetus to bring the whole, rotting institution of abortion crashing
down. It will be some small thing that causes a sudden uproar in
Christendom, thus bringing about an upheaval, an avalanche, as
it were.

As wild as this may sound, an example of some such small thing
becoming like a snowball rolling down hill is: One simple tactic that
could end abortion...what if a few, brave Christians in some state
legislature sponsored a bill forbidding any federally funded abortuary
from slaughtering children in the process of satanic ritual, on the basis
that separation of church and state prohibits tax support of Satan
worship?

What would happen? How would preborn children's enemies
(our nation's domestic enemies) react to this confrontation?

What kind of public statements would issue from "Planned Parenthood",
N.O.W., etc.? These hell-and-death-mongers adamantly refuse any
compromise with their "power" (as opposed to right) to kill babies.
That's just it -- in this scenario they could infuriate the public,
especially Christians, however they respond.

How would the federal court system handle it [if it even got that
far (after all the uproar)]? See what I mean? However they ruled,
it might strengthen our position tremendously. If they sided with
us, it would help; and if they came out against us, it would help
even more! Because if they upheld the legislation, forbidding
child-slaughter in the course of Satan-worship, the move could
so keenly focus the church's attention on the spiritually wicked
dimension of abortion that she might then be aroused to take an
active, militant stand against this crime being committed under any
circumstances. Whereas, if the courts struck down the law and
officially endorsed child-sacrifice in the course of Satan-worship,
we could hope that however many real men were left in Christianity
would mobilize. If no such mobilization took place we would know
with certainty that the (ha ha) "church" had become irredeemably
superficial, hollow, and dead. Then we would know we had lost
the war irretrievably and that there was no longer the slightest hope
of saving our nation from Divine wrath.

Although at first we offered this idea only as a hypothetical
example of how abortion will be stopped by some small thing --
a straw that breaks the camel's back -- the more we think about
it, the more TBR wants to set if forth as a serious proposal. If it
sounds silly and/or futile, just compare it to other "antiabortion"
legislation which has, in fact, been enacted in recent years. It could
not be more bizarre than a parental notification law, could it?
Try it. If it doesn't work, babies will be killed. But if you don't
even try it, what will happen? Babies will be killed. So what do
you have to lose by trying it? Nothing.

If a few, brave, Christian state legislators brought it to the floor for
a full vote, it would pass easily, if not unanimously. How many
other legislators would vote against it, going on public record as
saying: "I believe abortions should be allowed to be done during
satanic rituals and paid for with tax dollars"?

AN APOLOGY TO GEORGE GRANT

By the time I had twice hand-written all the preceding thousands
of words in this issue, I realized I had been unfairly severe, at one
point, in my renunciation of George's call for patience. Having
written night and day for the past several days, I don't have the
heart to go back and redo it.

But the main reason for not redoing it is that I still stand by
everything I said about the irrelevance of patience and/or impatience
in the matter of saving children from death by torture. What I
apologize to George for is seeming to imply that, by his call for
"patience", he is offering anyone an excuse for not taking immediate
action. I'm sure that's not what he means at all. Unquestionably,
in my mind, George's intention is to call us all immediately into
activism and only then, in the midst of sustained activism, to wait
patiently for results.

I still refute that position, for all the reasons already explained,
plus two more. For one thing, people won't take it that way. Those
people whom George and I most want to reach -- the arm-chair
prolifers and the couch potatoes who have never done anything
beyond one of those silly, childish, meaningless "life chains"
(if even that much) -- these people will jump on any call for
"patience" as an excuse.

Uh-oh. I just thought of another possible interpretation of George's
call, which, in the case that is what he really means, I owe him
a more unequivocal apology. If by "patience" he means only
"steadfastness", then I have no problem with his position. If he
means only to encourage activists not to give up when they do not
immediately see statistically spectacular results, then I agree with
his position wholeheartedly and offer my sincerest apology.

Yours-In-Christ,

Johnny Brockhoeft

Click for Letter 9 of the Brockhoeft Report. 

Back to John Brockhoeft Select Page.

Back to Home Page. 

Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he man.

Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

To contact e-mail:
Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com 

Telephone 1-757-685-1566

Or write to: Rev. Donald Spitz

Pro-Life Virginia
P.O. Box 16611
Chesapeake VA 23328