August 2, 2006 7:16 PM
The Protestant church turned its back on the pro-life position long ago
I mentioned during the editing process of Reaching the Left from the Right that my editors were not comfortable with the portion of my book having to do with the selfishness of birth control and the part which established why I thought the church's acceptance of birth control was the first event on a continuum of Have It Your Way! thinking that eventaully led to feminism, abortion, genetically-engineered babies, homosexuals demanding a blessing on their lifestyle, and euthanasia.
Some of you asked me to share with you the original text of this section of my book, a discussion of Roe v. Wade which is found in Chapter Three, Serving Your Community. Here it is - with the edited-out portions in blue. It's pretty long. I'd be interested in hearing what those of you who read the whole thing think.
That was January 22, 1973, the day on which the future of the nation turned as we began the slide down the slippery slopes of moral relativism. As a radical feminist, I had scoffed at the term "slippery slopes" - the warnings that abortion would lead to other, even graver ethical compromises and societal problems.
Now in retrospect, I think the term slippery slopes was too cautious. For when our culture no longer acknowledged God as the author of life, but gave women that role by allowing them to choose whether a baby would live or die, we began a moral freefall.
One of the most important players in that freefall has been Planned Parenthood, the euphemistically-named organization which might more accurately be called Planned Barrenhood, since its primary mission has always been to seriously decrease the number of births in the United States and all over the planet.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), as the world's oldest and largest provider of birth control services, may have seen that it stood poised to gain immensely from the legalization of abortion. And it has: For its 1998-99 fiscal year, it claimed profits of $125.8 million on gross earnings of $660 million. Of the $660 million, $211 million came from clinic operations while the rest came from government funding and donations. And of the $211 million, $58.8 million came from abortions performed in Planned Parenthood clinics. (this paragraph was retained, but placed elsewhere in the test)
To this day, its counseling of women with "unwanted" pregnancies while it offers those same women abortions for a fee represents a conflict of interest, though one not many seem interested in exploring.
______omitted box__________
Resources
Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, George Grant Cumberland House Publishing, ISBN 1581820577
The history of Planned Parenthood, beginning with its founder Margaret Sanger, who opened her first birth control clinic in 1916 in an impoverished section of Brooklyn, particularly to attract those of races she deemed coarser. In the late 30's, she began especially to target blacks. In today's Planned Parenthood, where Margaret Sanger is presented as some kind of feminist savior, few people actually know the mean-spiritedness and racist roots of the "family-planning" movement, (Chapter Three, Endnote 15) nor understand the big business it has become.
Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, Francis J. Beckwith, Baker Book house, 1994, ISBN 0801010500
A complete and systematic examination of pro-choice arguments - from a logical as well as moral perspective. Superb reference tool. www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/abortion: Focus on the Family's guide to the basics of the abortion issue, plus essays and up-to-the-minute status reports.
www.abortionfacts.com: Sponsored by Heritage House, a comprehensive site offering help for pregnant women and teens, plus all you need to know to discuss the facts about Planned Parenthood, including the real agenda of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who stated in her book, Woman and the New Race, "The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it."
_____________________end of omitted box
But the pro-abortion side isn't the only one whose members are missing pieces of the past. On our own side of the fence, we need to examine a bit of church history that's been long forgotten. Most people think that Catholicism - which has the distinction of remaining throughout the ages staunchly pro-life in its teaching - is the only denomination to condemn birth control.
Not so at all.
Originally the entire church - all denominations -- forbade birth control. In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared:
The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare. (Chapter Three, Endnote 16)
But by 1930, the Anglican Church became the first to change its tune, declaring at that year's Lambeth Conference that "Each couple must decide for themselves, as in the sight of God," about "scientific methods to prevent conception." (Chapter Three, Endnote 17)
The other Protestant denominations quickly followed suit - giving up any hope of affecting the world and instead becoming conformed to it - so that within 30 years there was no difference between the Protestant position on birth control and that espoused by Sanger's followers. It was all about individual choice.
As a result, the concept of marriage in America changed, from an institution based on service - maintaining the well-being of the family and children - to a couple who are already complete and may or may not want children at all. There is actually a sizeable community of couples networked over the Internet who refer to themselves as CF - that's childfree - some of whom are militantly anti-child no matter who those children belong to.
So perhaps the slippery slopes began before Roe v. Wade - back in 1930 when the church began to capitulate to world, rewriting church law away from the timeless spirit of the Bible and in the direction of accommodation of modern humans - modern but still tainted by selfishness and sin.
And those slippery slopes have led us to a world where:
• Abortion is rampant: over one quarter of babies conceived in the last 30 years have been aborted.
• The womb is the unsafest place for a baby to be.
• Aborted babies are harvested - whole or in parts - for testing and transplanting.
• Parents began aborting babies for such disabilities as spina bifida and Down syndrome, but by 2004 were aborting for cleft palate and wrong gender.
• Peter Singer, chair of Princeton's Ethics department, preaches that parents of a child born with a disability should have 30 days to decide whether to allow him or her to live.
• Mothers seem more apt than ever to extend their "right to choose" to children already born, or so it would appear by the number in the news killing their own children.
It is here - in how we regard children - that we need to question the status quo, to raise our eyes from the things of the world to try to catch a glimpse of God's perspective. The past century, while seeing many gains in the legal status and protection of minors (child labor laws, advances in education, punishments for those who do them harm), has also witnessed a steady devaluation of children, even among adults who still want to raise a few themselves.
Whereas in agrarian societies, large families were clearly a blessing and children were valued members who co-labored with their parents for the good of the family, in today's families, children are considered economic burdens and liabilities.
But Christians should beware before accepting this narrow valuation. And Christian parents should beware of making decisions based on their convenience. God's word tells us:
Sons are a heritage from the Lord,
This means that in whatever context, we should see our children differently than those in the world. And yet, I've heard the same remarks from believers and non-believers alike:
children are a reward from him
Like arrows in the hands of a mighty warrior
are the sons born in one's youth.
Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them. (Psalm 127:3-5)
"Two's all I can handle!"
"No more for us!"
As though, using His language, we would say to God: "Two rewards are all I can handle!" "No more blessings for us!"
Unfortunately, Christians lost much moral high ground to deal effectively with any issue concerning children when they started regarding them with no more respect than the world.
Does that mean I think they shouldn't stop trying to confront the terrible reality of abortion? No, not at all.
It just means that I think believers can be more effective if they don't frame the issue in the black/white, liberal/conservative, Christian/secular polarities of the media. I think we could do better if we subjected our own lives, our own thoughts about children, our own ability to sacrifice, to intense scrutiny - laying all our presuppositions before the Lord and asking him to show us where we may have sinned and fallen short ourselves in not accepting His best for our lives.
So often I meet people who tell me they would have had or adopted more children if only their spouse had been in agreement. Sometimes it's the husband who's placed limits. But just as often it's the wife. The sad result is all around me in the Christian community I see people who've limited their family size in conformity to the world's ideas, and never tasted for themselves what it means to see children the way God intended us to see them - as rewards and blessings He has showered on us.
In counterbalance to the CF (childfree) couples who maintain control of their lives by purposely excluding children, are the growing numbers of evangelical and Catholic couples who are welcoming more blessings by trusting God completely with their family size. They're reading and writing books with titles like:
• Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ
• Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception
•Bible and Birth Control
•Life-Giving Love: Embracing God's Beautiful Design For Marriage
And thousands of Christian couples who had put a permanent end to their childbearing, now save up $5000 plus traveling expenses to get to Midwest clinics where they can have vasectomies reversed. Some refer to it as a pilgrimage. Among the half dozen couples I know who've had reversals (some of whom already had four or five children), all have been successful in having more.
Given the church's conformity to the culture, that kind of trust in God - and willingness to sacrifice - demonstrates a commitment to life that challenges each of us to re-examine our own position.
My own conclusion is this: Showing up to demonstrate at abortion clinics or counseling pregnant women not to have abortions, or writing on the evils of abortion - these things do not give a person the distinction of being pro-life. They only prove one to be anti-abortion, which would justify the media's refusal to use the term pro-life.
There is also the ugly fact that one out of six women who have abortions - that's 250,000 per year - identify themselves as evangelical Christians. (Chapter Three, Endnote 18)
Way to lose the moral high ground.
Even in foreign countries marked by poverty, parents consider having many children a form of wealth. It has nothing to do with money or the inconvenience they cause in our lives. I have come to realize that the people who have seen beyond the limitations of our culture today and who truly understand the value of children in God's plan for their lives - these are the people who are deserving of the title pro-life.
Were we to truly model the concept that children are blessings, perhaps some desperate, pregnant mother might have just a little more wherewithal to counteract the lies our society tells her about children being a burden. Perhaps at her desperate fork in the road it might just nudge her in the direction of choosing life rather than death. And perhaps those who've regarded us as hypocrites would listen more carefully when we tell them what's wrong with abortion.
Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
This is EXCELLENT. Thank you very much for sharing the unedited version! Your book has been on my to-buy list since I first heard about it, but honestly, after seeing what your editors cut out in this chapter, I am much less likely to buy it now. It makes me wonder what else they cut out?
I think that extending the meaning of "pro-life" like you have here is one of the most important messages that can be communicated to the conservative and especially Christian world today, and I am very disappointed that they cut this out of your book. It's powerful stuff, and you did a great job presenting it.
Posted by: miller_schloss | August 2, 2006 8:00 PM
Wow. Interesting that they took the word "ugly" out.
I would think that people who read the book, who can handle everything else you have written...could have handled the deleted blue parts.
Posted by: Holly | August 2, 2006 8:18 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on this matter and am happy to see someone unafraid to share it! The church IS afraid to broach this subject, but I think it's high time it's tackled!
Posted by: Nancy | August 2, 2006 9:09 PM
I agree 100%. My cousin Cassandra introduced me to above rubies(www.aboverubies.org) which helped me realize God's plan for my fertility. I believe you are correct in asserting that the birthcontrol has laid the groundwork for abortion. I hope more Christian couples can realize this. I wish the editors were more accepting of such a radical opinion.
Posted by: Lauren | August 2, 2006 9:34 PM
Barbara, this is great. I totally agree with you that to be pro-life means something different than being anti-abortion. A lot of Christians these days aren't especially pro-life at all - I go to church with (and love!) a bunch of them. I think a lot of them just haven't really thought it through and don't want to. But we can't ever be successful at convincing women not to kill their babies as long as we're so negative about those babies. If we could show the world that babies are a wonderful blessing, no one would want to have an abortion. No one would want to do away with something they really believed was an incredible gift.
Posted by: Shannon Miller | August 2, 2006 11:02 PM
Oooops! I messed up on the highlighting - there was a lot more edited than appeared to have been - which is why you couldn't understand, Holly. I've fixed it now - you can see that EVERYTHING important about how the Protestant church became conformed to the world regarding birth control was removed.
Sad.
I love my publishers, but this was very hard for me. Maybe what I will do eventually is find a publisher who will let me tackle the subject head-on. We'll see.
Posted by: barbara | August 2, 2006 11:42 PM
You do that, Mrs. Barbara. I was sad to learn that the couple who wrote the book you mentioned, Open Embrace, have seriously backed away from their earlier position as they discovered that it wasn't all a bed of roses. You on the other hand have lived it all the way through and can share the difficulties and ultimate joys and blessings with more authority than we untried younger people.
Thanks for posting this, Christians using birth-control has been one of my pet peeves since I got married. I mostly just share what my hopes and expectations are through allowing God to be in control of me, but I would love to have a resource to point interested people to. Especially because I know you will share these hard truths in a loving and compassionate way, Mrs. Barbara. :-)
Posted by: Cheri | August 3, 2006 6:18 AM
The most significant, single, Right To Life issue in this millenium was the murder of Terri Schindler.
The Catholic Church in Florida stood by; no cheered, as Terri was murdered.
The Catholic Church of Rome did little more.
How Right To Live advocates could stand by and watch the murder of a disabled American, then MARRY the spousal killer to his next probable victim, in a CATHOLIC church, shall forever be an enigma.
Posted by: Layer Seven | August 3, 2006 9:01 AM
Wow! That's powerful stuff. I agree wholeheartedly. What a shame this excellent passage was removed from your book. More Christians need to hear the truths you have laid out in these paragraphs.
Posted by: Kim | August 3, 2006 2:22 PM
Dear Barbara,
Thank you for giving me so much to think about. I have 5 children and "fight the urge" every day to have more, simply because of what others think, and the sacrifice that it would involve. Sacrifice for whom? I will pray for the strength to let God decide.
Posted by: Jenny | August 3, 2006 7:12 PM
Oh, well, yes! That additional blue really does make sense. :) Wow. They edited out all of the good stuff!
Posted by: Holly | August 3, 2006 8:17 PM
I'm seriously disappointed in your publishers. I think that christians should be able to confront the issue of birth control without feeling threatened. I mean if one is really secure in one's position to use birth-control, why should they care about the opinions of those of us who are more QF minded.
We just gave birth to our 6th child in January and I'll tell you this transition has been tough! My convictions regarding letting the Lord plan the family have been seriously challenged, to the point where I checked out the possibility of NFP.
But...I've had no peace about saying no to the Lord. I've prayed and prayed about it. My reluctance to have more kids is based on vanity (I'm tired of having to lose weight after every baby), fear (what will others think--we can't afford to provide for the children what family and even church family expects us to), lack of faith and just plain selfishness. My husband and I don't think that these are biblical reasons to limit God's blessings, so as I have submitted once again to God's will for our family, the peace returns.
Thank you, Barbara, for all your encouragement in this area. I really need it. Sometimes we feel all alone and just plain crazy, even in the world of evangelical christianity.
Posted by: Maggie | August 4, 2006 4:53 PM
