Robert Dear Is Not the Face of Biblical Christianity

As a Christian who believes the Bible, I can never support an action so horrendous as abortion, especially mass abortion that is supported by government funds (our tax dollars). But even still, Christ calls us to respond to the darkness of this world with light, not with more darkness. If Christians are to truly follow Christ, we must never stoop to the same level of slaughter which the abortionists employ.

The news agencies have yet to give us Robert Dear’s motive for killing three and terrorizing others, but the sneaking suspicion is that Dear perpetuated these crimes “in the name of Christ.” I truly hope that’s not right. Maybe he’s just some generic deranged lunatic, however, we all know that is unlikely. More likely, he is a militant “Christian” who launched a personal crusade.

If this is the case, let me be the first to say that Robert Dear is not the face of biblical Christianity. His understanding of Scripture is deeply faulty (for example, Christ explicitly commands his people to love their enemies, not kill them—Matt 5:43-48). In order conduct his pathetic criminal activity, Dear would have had to explicitly deny and disobey the Word of God. This means he does not represent biblical Christianity, but rather the opposite of it.

Likewise, in using guns to make his point, Dear was again disobeying the clear teaching of Scripture. Christians must, indeed, be “militant,” but what this means is that we take the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and boldly, lovingly, and sacrificially preach the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:18-20; Gal 5:22-26; Eph 6:10-17). Our weapon is the Word of God, not a gun, not rage, not irrational anger.

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:12).

Yes, Planned Parenthood is a government-sanctioned terrorist organization. It engages in infanticide, which is the most heartless type of genocide, on a mass level. It has even convinced a giant segment of the US population, even high-level politicians who are educated enough to know better, that its actions are actually good and helpful (evidence that we live in a truly dark world, for how can slaughtering a baby every be thought of as good?)

But if Christians respond with similar actions, namely, slaughtering our fellow human beings, then we have done the world no service at all, but have only made it worse. The old saying is true, two wrongs never make a right.

Our response must be — always! — to love and serve our enemy. Christ was slaughtered, but did not slaughter in return. He died to save those who crucified him. We must take up our cross and follow him.

Robert Dear does not represent biblical Christianity. I’m afraid that Planned Parenthood and others opposed to the Christian worldview will attempt to lumped all Christians into the same big pile. They will attempt to demonize all who claim Christ as Lord, because of the actions of a renegade crusader who has either never read or understood the Bible. This would be a hasty and unfair generalization.

Robert Dear’s face is not the face of Christ, who sacrificed himself to save abortionists, murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars.

Drowning Swine: How Christ Defeats
Darkness, Demons, and Death

2 thoughts on “Robert Dear Is Not the Face of Biblical Christianity

  1. Hi, I just wanted to point out you misuse both the words “terrorist” and genocide. Terrorism is not the same as genocide. Terrorism is specifically about getting people to do what you want by causing fear (terror). I suspect the fetuses re not terrorized into voting a certain way or acting in other ways. Genocide is not the same as mass murder. Genocide is about the targeted elimination of a population segment. Although I would personally also disagree with the use of “mass murder”, based on more specific definitions, that is I believe the term you want to use and would fit with your other pre-existing, definitions. That one is fluid,; the other two are just inaccurate.

    1. Kate, I appreciate you desire for accuracy and proper use of terms. However, I do think both “terrorism” and “genocide” where used within acceptable limits in the post.

      With terrorism, I used the term primarily to counter the use of the term in various news articles, used in relationship to Robert Dear’s actions. Namely, if Dear’s action were an example of terrorism (and certainly it was), then abortion should also count as such.

      Plus, think of the many ways we use the term in the common vernacular (“my brother is terrorizing me”). Thus, it can be broadly defined, and context helps readers understand that. If my post were academic literature, say a sociological study, then sure, I’d want to restrict my definition to the narrow way it used in that discipline. But my post was intended for a popular audience which often uses the term in a broader sense.

      As for the term genocide, here is the common definition: “The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.” The word “especially” means, of course, that a mass killing does not HAVE to target a specific group to be defined as genocide.

      That said, doesn’t it seem clear that abortion does target a specific group? Namely, those who have not been born yet. Though this is not a nationality or ethnicity, it is something that all aborted children have in common. They are all unborn, and they are being targeted as such.

      Also, many studies have made it clear that minority groups are by far the most targeted group when it comes to abortion (at least in the USA). For example, though it is a bit dated, see John Piper’s sermon, When Is Abortion Racism? (

      That said, I think if you take into account my context, the type of post I was writing, the acceptable semantic ranges of the two terms, and the fact that abortion is a targeted act of killing, you’ll probably see why I don’t think the terms were misused.

      I do appreciate your accountability.

Comments are closed.