Dare to be a Daniel?

Buffer zones and breaking unjust laws.
A Christian Perspective

It got me thinking.  A Christian politician cited the children’s song “Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone” as a personal favourite, then voted with 118 other MSPs for abortion clinic buffer zones in Scotland.   One MSP voted against the bill.  Surely he is the modern day Daniel. 

Let’s not forget, though, Daniel was thrown into the den of lions because he wilfully defied a prayer ban implemented by Darius.  So, by voting for a bill that will ban visible prayer outside abortion clinics, one stands more in the tradition of Darius than of Daniel.

It is Christians who undertake prayer vigils outside abortion clinics, so, from a Christian perspective, should they defy the law like Daniel?  I consider this carefully in this article. 

This is no abstract academic exercise.  For those who believe that they are called to participate in these vigils, it is an urgent question.  The law is not yet active in Scotland, but it will start to be enforced in the months to come.  Is it wrong to carry on in defiance of a law passed by our democratic parliament, or is there a sufficient case to break the law? 

The Vigils

The vigils in Scotland usually consist of from two or three people up to around a dozen.  The people stand close to but not right next to the entrances to NHS buildings where abortions are facilitated.  People attending such a clinic or hospital will see the group, but will not be barred or diverted by their presence.

The group prays silently individually, or quietly within the group.  There is no intention that anyone overhears the prayers, but passers-by may realise that they are praying.  This is the first purpose of the vigils: to pray against the tragedy and evil of abortion, for the protection of unborn children, and for those considering or seeking an abortion.  Praying at these locations adds poignancy and gravity to the experience of those praying.

Also, the vigils serve to offer help, of various sorts, to those considering abortion, hoping that this might influence people towards keeping their unborn baby.  Placards making this offer explicit are often held.

Awareness of a pro-life presence can challenge those considering or intent on abortion and lead them to change their mind.  This can happen through just seeing the vigil or through conversation with vigil participants.  Placards such as “Ask me about my abortion” make the invitation to talk explicit.   Ther have been cases where babies have been saved from death because the vigil prompted a woman to change her mind. 

Finally, the vigils serve as a witness to the immorality of abortion, reminding passers-by, NHS staff, and the wider public through media coverage.  Placards such as “Pray for an end to Abortion” communicate a general pro-life message.  While vigil supporters eschew the labels “demonstration” and “protest” as they bear connotations of more brash and noisy activities, there is an element of expressing moral disapproval of abortion.

The vigil participants do not approach anyone and only engage in conversation with those who approach them and speak.  Deeply personal conversations with those hurt by abortion are common, giving an opportunity to share Christian truth.

The recently passed buffer zone law would ban such vigils within 200m of any abortion facility.  The key legal test is whether the activity is intended to influence anyone’s decision with regard to abortion.

Vigils have been targeted with abusive language and gestures, intimidation, false accusations, threats and relatively mild physical aggression.

On rare occasions, pro-life action at abortion clinics in Scotland has been more forthright and noisy than the vigils described above.  I am only addressing vigils as I have described them.

My purpose is not to rehearse the arguments against buffer zones, but to consider disobedience within them.

General instruction to obey authorities

There are several passages in the New Testament that teach obedience to established authorities.  However, other Biblical texts make it clear that disobedience can also be justified when authorities command what God forbids or forbid what God commands.   

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3)

King Nebuchadnezzar’s edict demanding that all worship his golden image was defied by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  Their conscience would not permit them to worship anything or anyone except God, so they refused.  Where a law or authority demands we do something that is morally wrong, we must refuse. 

The buffer zone case is different, however, in that the law forbids a good action rather than demanding a bad one. 

Daniel (Daniel 6)

The story of Daniel is more relevant.  King Darius imposed a temporary ban on prayer to anyone but himself.  Daniel could have refrained from prayer to God for the specified thirty days.  He could have prayed in secret.  Instead, he prayed as he always did, for all to see.    

A prohibition on prayer to God is a ban on maintaining a core aspect of one’s relationship with God, so a believer should ignore such a ban.   Of course, a prayer ban is unpoliceable as one can pray with no outward indication.  However, Daniel did not just proceed in prayer, but made clear his open defiance of the King’s edict.

Where a law prohibits prayer or worship of God, it must be disobeyed.  We should not fail in our duties to God in deference to human authority.  The secondary question is whether such defiance should be hidden or open.  Daniel provides an example of open defiance.  Christians in many persecuting nations today practice their faith in secret.  The choice between hidden or open defiance seems to be an open one.  A case could be made for either according to circumstance and God’s leading.  Perhaps where persecution is deadly, secrecy to preserve lives is more justified.  Where persecution is less intense, a democratic system is functioning and there is free public debate, open defiance might be favoured.

The key feature of personal prayer and corporate worship, however, is that they can be performed in private and in secret.

Peter and the Apostles (Acts 5)

What about a duty to God that can’t be performed within a secretive group of Christians?  Like evangelism.  We have a duty to share our faith with others, to go and make disciples.  While this may be pursued cautiously, it inevitably involves communication that risks discovery.  Surely Christians living under laws that prohibit evangelism must still endeavour to share their faith. 

In Acts 5, Peter and the apostles are imprisoned for preaching about Jesus.  They escape and, on the instruction of an angel, immediately recommence preaching about Jesus very publicly.   On their re-arrest, they were told, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name”.  They replied, “We must obey God rather than human beings!”  After being flogged, they continued in their public preaching about Jesus. 

In this example, the preaching continued, including at the most apposite site for the message: the Jewish Temple.  Again, we see that God’s servants engage in deliberately open defiance. 

Rescue those being led away to death (Proverbs 24:11)

At abortion clinics, the unborn are being led away to death.  Wherever the decision to abort was initially taken, a final step in the journey to death is often into the NHS abortion facility.  The proverb quoted above can be reasonably interpreted as applying to the unborn facing death by abortion.  It is the obvious application of the verse in our society and age.  Add to this a personal sense of conviction that some experience, calling them to participate in the vigils.

This case is closely analogous to the question of evangelism discussed previously.  There is a general instruction to rescue those being led to death.  There is an obvious application of this to abortion.  Abortion clinic entrances offer a unique opportunity to be present where those seeking an abortion are approaching the end of the process and have what might be a last opportunity to reconsider.  (Most abortions are now administered by pills and attendance at a clinic is not required, but not all.) 

Relocating vigils outside the exclusion zone would render them ineffective in this regard.  There is no other means within the power of the vigil participants to communicate as effectively with those considering or seeking an abortion.   

In summary, being outside the clinics saves lives that would otherwise be lost.  If rescuing those being led away to death is imperative, being outside the clinics is necessary.

There is no way to be present with this mission without attracting the attention of the authorities.  If the people present are not recognisable as pro-life, no moral challenge and offer of help will be issued.  It is a case where disobedience to the law can be necessary in order to fulfil a moral duty and personal calling.

Some Christians will contend that there must be better ways to challenge and avert the evil of abortion, ways that are uncontroversial, universally admired and extremely effective.   So dominated is their church experience by pastoral, therapeutic and relational activity that they are unwilling to countenance anything else.  Even though the vigils are extremely gentle, inviting conversation, even these can be regarded as tainted by those who mistakenly believe that evils can be challenged with the full approval of their perpetrators.

Turning the tables (Matthew 21)

The vigils serve as a witness to the immorality of abortion, a demonstration of disapproval and a protest against an evil. 

When Jesus wishes to protest the commercialisation of the Temple, he took direct action in the Temple itself, where the problem was manifesting.  He did not write a letter outlining his concerns to the temple authorities, or ask for a meeting to discuss the matter.  He took action on the spot, in defiance of authorities. 

Some suggest that pro-life campaigning should and could relocate to politically relevant sites instead of abortion facilities.  However, the poignancy of proximity to the evil is powerful. It strengthens association between the vigil and the act of abortion and makes it more difficult for people to dismiss the issue as abstract and remote. 

Also, the additional media attention lavished on the vigils because of their location amplifies the pro-life message, leading to more God-given consciences being stirred across the land.

I do not claim a straightforward Biblical mandate for explicitly challenging evils at the place where they are committed, but witnessing to the grave evil of abortion must weigh heavily against any legal prohibition.  The core driver of the buffer zone law, in my view, was a desire to protect people’s consciences from challenge.  Our mission as Christians can be to awaken consciences, leading to conviction and salvation.     

So, in addition to the saving of unborn lives, the vigils are a powerful means to awaken consciences, a step towards making disciples. 

Jericho (Joshua 6)

God instructed the Jews to march around Jericho praying to bring down its defensive walls.  Of course, God could have acted on prayers from any location, but He commanded prayer adjacent to the target, where the people would be stirred by the sight of the enemy fortification.  The noisy and demonstrative prayer marches made the Jews’ call on God explicit to inhabitants of Jericho and provided an opportunity to surrender.

At the very least, we learn that specifically located prayer can be part of God’s scheme to address an issue. 

Located Protest

Through history, there have been sites where evils are committed or facilitated.  Those intent on the evils wish to proceed unchallenged, as though their activities were uncontroversial and benign.  Others, however, are determined to make this impossible.  Though they lack the means to halt the evil, they will not allow the perpetrators to escape moral challenge.  They ensure that the site is associated with protest and that attention is drawn to the nature of the evil conducted therein, making it clear that the victims are not forgotten.

Of course, any institution would wish to be free from such protest and moral challenge and assistance from authorities may be sought to this end.  Perseverance in such prophetic acts can be justified where the law is being used to protect the sensibilities of evil. 

Scottish Christian Tradition

The interference of the state in the church has caused centuries of strife in Scotland.  To cite just one example, when the Covenanters found themselves without church buildings within which to worship, they met in improvised premises and outdoors.  This was illegal and many were punished.  Whatever one’s view of the Covenanters’ theology and ecclesiology, all should respect their willingness to worship according to their conscience.  At other points in history, Catholics and non-conformists have shown similar defiance in the face of legal prohibitions in Scotland.  As well as being true to their beliefs, their defiance was a powerful reminder to the state that Christians’ ultimate allegiance was to God and that they could not be coerced in matters of faith. 

Defying bad law

While the buffer zone legislation was justified to prevent intimidation, trauma and distress, the law does not target activities that could have these consequences.  Instead, the crime is “influencing”.  In other words, the crime is to attempt to make any form of input to the decision-making process of a woman about to have an abortion.  In other words, the crime is to try to save the unborn child.  The law is therefore evil in intent. 

Where a law is morally wrong, one way to protest it is to break it.  This maintains public controversy and makes it clear that some object strongly from deeply held convictions.

Pro-life pregnancy support centres, where women are offered multi-faceted help with an underlying hope that they choose life for their unborn child, are already regarded as sinister by pro-abortion activists, politicians and media organisations such as the BBC.   The criminalisation of pro-life communication and support is likely to proceed beyond the buffer zone legislation. 

We should take our stand against the criminalisation of pro-life activity at this first step.

Banning what God commands?

The Bible does not explicitly command Christians to engage in prayer vigils outside abortion clinics.  However, the goals of rescuing those being led away to death, offering help to others in their hour of need, and witnessing to the evil of killing the unborn are entirely aligned with Biblical teaching.  The vigils are uniquely effective in these regards.  Some Christians feel called to engage is such vigils. 

The purpose of buffer zone legislation is to allow evil to proceed unchallenged and undisturbed. 

Would refraining from the vigils amount to disobedience to God?   It would certainly mean ceasing an activity that plays a part in God’s mission and through which He works powerfully.  It would involve stopping a means to “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24: 11) and therefore failing to obey a command of God.  It would mean capitulating in the face of a restriction that is not based on morally neutral practical considerations, but on the intention to prevent people being reminded of the value of every human life created in His image.  The law breaking could save lives.  There is no legal activity available that could fulfil the same goals.  Someone who believes that God has called them to participate in these vigils is justified in continuing despite a legal ban.  

Perhaps they could even be obliged to continue, as a matter of conscience, but that is beyond the scope of this article.  That is a personal question resting on an individual Christian’s belief that God has called them to such a task.  The verse preceding Proverbs 24: 11 states “If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength!”  For those seeking to “rescue those being led away to slaughter” through the vigils, this is a “time of trouble”.  This verse may solidify the conviction of some to continue with the vigils. 

What next?

Some UK Christians outside Scotland have defied buffer zones with acts engineered to expose the illiberal nature of the laws, elicit public sympathy and embarrass the Government.  For example, individuals have prayed silently without any placard and been arrested following enquiry into the content of their prayers.   I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of devising borderline illegal scenarios to generate a favourable narrative if the activities are not being pursued in good faith as genuine pro-life activity.

While I understand this approach and see its merits, my preference would be for vigils that continue to include placards offering help etc. as before.  This makes explicit the motive of the participants to save lives.  Praying silently individually might be most effective at exposing the unreasonableness of the law, but continuing with an explicit pro-life presence would be most effective in drawing attention to the core issue and motivation: saving valuable of human lives. 

What then?

Vigil participants will be warned, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and fined.  The specifics of this process are not certain, but the outcome is.   It can be assumed that repeat “offenders” will face increasingly severe fines and possibly even imprisonment. 

Ultimately, the state is capable of preventing the vigils, but public sympathy for participants facing ever more severe punishments might be significant.  Comparisons between punishments for violent crime and prayer vigils could be powerful illustrations of the state’s hatred of the pro-life position. 

Widespread coverage of arrests and prosecutions will draw attention to the pro-life cause and give opportunity to those arrested and to others to articulate the pro-life message.   

The pro-life movement could be energised and inspired by the sacrifices some are willing to make in the cause.  When some allies are in prison, commitment and determination could increase.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, I believe that Christians are justified in defying a ban of abortion clinic vigils. 

This is new territory for most UK Christians, reflecting cultural changes and a growing hostility to Christian principles.  The Christian community should stand in explicit open solidarity with any who are punished as they pursue their calling to pro-life activism. 

That will raise new issues in itself.  I’m not even sure whether this article amounts to incitement to commit a crime. 

Sadly, such a united front from Churches is unlikely. 

I won’t respond here in detail to the arguments against continuing vigils that will be put forward by some Christians.   I would ask them one question, though:  what’s your plan to save the unborn and end the evil of abortion in our land?

Richard Lucas

richard.lucas@scottishfamily.org

August 2024