the answer. Prominent evangelical clergymen now endorsenOperation Rescue’s illegal tactics, and Jerry Falwell has evenngone to Atlanta to get himself arrested in demonstrationsnthat must remind Atlanta police of an earlier generation ofnillegal protests. Mr. Falwell had hoped to enlist the supportnof other prominent Southern Baptists, but Atlanta ministernCharles Stanley, former president of the Southern BaphstnConvention, was not persuaded by his colleagues: “Ifnblocking an entrance is permitted, then why not . . . evenndestruction of those who are performing the procedure?nAnarchy and chaos will ultimately result.”nAnarchy and chaos — what else is the object of civilndisobedience? The most conspicuous protester is JoannAndrews, sentenced to five years in prison for her part inntaking over an abortion facility in Florida. Any humanenperson can understand her motives and wish the judge hadnexercised more clemency. But frankly speaking. Miss Andrewsndid not make it easy. She refused to cooperate in anynway at her trial, declaring the United States to be a Nazinregime that lost all legitimacy after Roe v. Wade.nEven moderates in the pro-life movement regard JoannAndrews as a martyr, but by her own words she has virtuallynaccused herself of treason — and not for the first time:nbefore discovering abortion, Andrews was already a careerncivil disobedient, who began by protesting the VietnamnWar. Life is not the only issue for which such people arenwilling to break the law. Nuclear reactors, war, the government’snimmigration policies, the ratio of minorities in anschool system — all have attracted the support of Christiannactivists, many of whom are now marching with OperationnRescue.nMost sensible people in the pro-life movement havenwarned that the Gospel does not teach anything like thisnreckless disregard for law and order. Charles Colson, whilenexpressing sympathy for Joan Andrews, points out thatn”Cenerally speaking it is not justified to break a just law innorder to protest an unjust law.” Even more to the point isnthe strong statement made by John Whitehead and FrankynSchaeflFer (in Arresting Abortion), that “We are commandednto be good citizens until such time as we are ordered bynthe law and government to do those things contrary to thenlaw of God.”nIf the US were governed by a Nazi regime, there wouldnbe no question of permitting abortions. A Nazi state wouldnbe commanding some parents to murder their “inferior”nchildren, while punishing with death any “superior” parentsnwho tried the same thing. Such violations of natural law donnot jiist permit opposition; they require resistance andnrebellion. In America, the state is not compelling women tonkill their babies. It is simply looking the other way. If parentsnreally want to commit infanticide, in most cases they can getnaway with it — whatever the law says. The fact that a largennumber are willing to do it — that is the real horror, and notnthe fact that the federal government allows it.nWe cannot afford to do nothing, but concern for thennation’s moral health does not free us from the obligation tonobey the law, and I would urge the demonstrators to spendntheir time reading St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans ornLuther’s savage denunciation of the rebellious peasants andnhis repeated injunctions against disobedience. If we are freen14/CHRONICLESnnnto violate property laws, why stop there? Suppose we didnmanage to secure a national law against abortion. Whynshouldn’t conscientious feminists defy the law?nRespect for law is not restricted to Lutherans and Baptists.nThe Calvinist Rousas J. Rushdoony, so frequently accusednof “theocracy,” knows better. In the January issue of hisnChalcedon Report, Rushdoony denounces illegal tactics asn”non-Christian and revolutionary” and observes: “To usenungodly means is a way of saying that God’s grace andnpower are insufficient resources for Christian action. Itnmeans abandoning Christ for the methods of His enemies.n. . . When the leaders of the people wanted to force Pilate’snunwilling hand, they assembled a mob to demonstratenbefore Pilate and to shut down all protest, screaming,n’Crucify him.'” Indeed. Using the tactics of rights andndemonstration is like using a devil to cast out devils. Accusednof just such an act of sorcery, Jesus observed that a housendivided against itself cannot stand. The American house isnalready wracked by every sort of dissension. A militantnright-to-life movement could be the last straw.nI do not wish to be too harsh against well-meaningnChristians who are understandably eager to wrap themselvesnin the popular mantle of civil rights. If they are impatientnwith the slow progress of the courts and with Congress’snrefusal to act, they ought to concentrate on state and localnpolitics, where the real battles will ultimately be fought. Ifnthey wish to resist the current law, they cannot do itnlegitimately either as private citizens or as members ofnconspiratorial little groups. They need to galvanize theirntowns and cities into action against the abortion clinics. It is antactic that has been employed successfully in campaignsnagainst smut. Of course the federal courts will decide innfavor of the clinics, but then it will be up to communitiesnand states to stand upon their lawful rights.nIn the early days of our republic, when the FederalistnParty was pushing the central government’s authority at thenexpense of the states, Kentucky and Virginia passed a set ofnresolutions that clearly stated the rights of states to resist suchninterference. In 1828 John C. Calhoun refined upon thisnargument by declaring that the final arbiters in any constitutionalnquestion were the original parties to the Constitution,nthe states, who had the right to interpose a veto upon unjustnor illegal legislation. As Clyde Wilson writes, “This programnCalhoun defended not as a step toward disunion but as annalternative to it.”nToday, such a strategy needs to be revived by states thatnhave seen their laws overturned, school systems restructured,nand institutions corrupted by the federal courts.nSomething like nullification has been resorted to already byna number of governors who have banned the shipment ofntoxic waste into (or even through) their states.nWhen states, through their democratically elected legislatures,nhave drawn up laws regulating, restricting, or forbiddingnabortions, then these same states, acting as lawfulncommunities, can legitimately insist upon their constitutionalnrights without in any way undermining respect for law andnwithout arrogating still more power to the government. Ifnthe courts will not change their ways, then the only othernchoices are tyranny or disunion. And that will mean, truly, ancrisis in the house divided.n<^n