Presbyterians Pro-Life Blog

God or Sophia?

2012-02-10T22:13:00.000-05:00

After the Obama Administration announced that it would force The Catholic Church and others to pay to provide sterilization, contraceptive, and abortion services in health care plans for employees, the public outcry among those of faith was loud and clear--except in the PC(USA) and others affiliated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (or RCRC) is known for supporting late-term and partial-birth abortions without restriction, so it is no surprise that it sides with those who (ironically) seek to force their “choice” on everyone. Still, it is hard for other Christians to stomach.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s President Mark Tooley commented:

"How bizarre that these religious institutions are openly applauding a federal government imposed mandate that would override the liberty of religious institutions to uphold their own beliefs. For left-wing Mainline Protestant elites and others, are coercive government control and subsidized sexual freedom more important than religious freedom? What other government impositions on faith would these church groups support?”

Perhaps some clue into the collective mind of the PC(USA) leadership lies in Reformed Theology. We are depraved. Our natures are bent, and we cannot even recognize our own error. The PC(USA) proudly thinks it is doing the right thing, but in this case, (as in most) its sin is idolatry.

Those who are pro-abortion unabashedly proclaim that a woman’s right to control her body trumps every other consideration, including Biblical authority and a child’s right to be born alive. A pro-abortion pastor told me that the very presence of PPL was “an affront” to women because PPL’s existence was judgmental in that it made women feel bad. This, however, is serious error. Such thinking elevates a woman’s body over God. If a woman’s body and feelings, and “choice” are more important than obedience to the commandment not to murder, then that is not a right--it is idolatry.

“Personally opposed, but…” I like Stephen J. Heaney’s take on the phrase!

2012-02-06T14:17:00.000-05:00

The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse posted an article on Feb 6, 2012 by Stephen J. Heaney. “Personally Opposed, but Sleeping with the Enemy” is a thoughtful and challenging response to those who define their positions on abortion or same-sex marriage as “personally opposed, but…”.

According to Heaney,

“If you were truly opposed to something, then you would try to defeat it, especially if your conscience tells you that this something is both a moral wrong in itself and disastrous in its consequences.”

I agree! This applies as much to the church as it does to the culture. Too often with abortion, and now with same-sex marriage, the group Heaney describes as the “personally opposed, but… contingent” ends up working actively for exactly the thing they profess to oppose. As ‘abortion’ was redefined to ‘terminate a pregnancy’ and then ‘reproductive choice’ and most recently ‘reproductive health’ those ‘personally opposed’ on moral grounds caved to the ‘but’ of personal freedom.

Heaney writes:

“Most people would automatically, and reasonably, come to the conclusion that such a person is not being honest: he is neither personally opposed, nor following the faith he professes.”

If our faith leads one to believe abortion is morally wrong, that in abortion the life of a child created by God and set apart for his purposes is snuffed out, but the law allows women to choose to permit a doctor to abort that child, reason dictates we should work to change the law! It is a “strange moral arithmetic,” says Heaney, that leads someone to forsake their own professed moral stance and instead “start working to forward someone else’s vision of the good.” He makes a great point! It surely does not add up when someone who believes abortion is morally wrong also works to protect a woman’s “right” to choose to abort her unborn child.

Heaney offers one possible trajectory of thought from “personally opposed” to “but”. He points to a passage in the US Supreme Court’s Casey decision (1992),

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

First, it is clear the above statement does not flow from a Christian understanding that God alone is the source of all truth and wisdom. Neither does it take into consideration that mankind is totally depraved. But even if we put that understanding aside, what seems on the surface to be freedom to define one’s own thinking and belief, Heaney says is more—

“...[O]ne has to be able to decide for oneself what is important and then act on it. . .Just having the right to decide for myself who counts as a person is not enough; I must be able then to kill those I find do not measure up, lest I have no liberty, and thus no personhood. In the marriage context, it apparently means that, whatever I believe or want marriage to be, it can be that, and the law is powerless against my desires.” Such thinking leads to lawlessness. No law can forbid anything because there will always be someone who disagrees. “In such a world the powerless are at the mercy of the powerful.”

Following such logic, according to Heaney leads to a strikingly familiar result:

“Under such a regime, only the conscience of one side can be tolerated. All opposing consciences must be silenced.”

LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

2011-07-01T13:31:00.002-04:00

Is our American concept of freedom compatible with Christian faith? Does Scripture give us any guidance when these three liberties collide?

Last week I was privileged to hear five candidates who are seeking to become the next President of the United States. They spoke to a pro-life audience at the National Right to Life Convention in Jacksonville, Florida. Each of the five made the point that ‘life’ is the first of the liberties proclaimed by America’s founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence. I liked Herman Cain’s take on it best. His words went something like this, only better than my paraphrase: “Pursuit” is the right word to describe our American culture. We pursue happiness, but we have a right to life and liberty. Our forefathers ordered it correctly. Our pursuit of happiness ends when it bumps into someone else’s liberty. Their liberty takes precedence. And when our liberty—our “right to choose”—bumps into someone else’s right to life, then life takes precedence.
I am convinced that Cain is right.

What does Scripture say?
Freedom is never truly absolute—it is necessarily limited when it infringes on the well-being of another. Scripture teaches this pretty clearly. Paul and Peter both wrote about the freedom from the law that we have through Jesus Christ, but both also teach that we ought to voluntarily limit our own freedom in order to seek the good of others and also in order to glorify God. In I Corinthians 6:12-20, Paul says “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.” He uses the example of sexual immorality. Because our bodies are members of Christ’s body and “bought with a price” we bring disgrace to Christ when we become “one flesh” outside of marriage. In effect, Paul says, if a man sleeps with a prostitute he has joined Christ (and all believers in Christ’s Body) to her as well. So when our sexual liberty bumps up against the holiness of God we must limit our freedom to “pursue happiness.”

Freedom’s paradox
We have been set free from the bondage of sin, yet we are called to submit as slaves to Christ. That submission is vital to our continued state of being free from sin. “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” The image here is of stubborn oxen who have been set free by their master after being entangled in the harness traces. But, if they do not stand still while he returns to the wagon and takes up the reins, they will become tangled again before the master is able to guide them forward.

Paul also wrote about limiting our own freedoms in order to protect the conscience of a brother. Even in our eating, our liberty is not complete. It is a gracious thing, for example, to avoid alcoholic beverages when in the company of a recovering alcoholic or to forgo a chocolate doughnut when eating with someone who is dieting. When we sin against one another by wounding their conscience in the places where it is weak, the “brother for whom Christ died” is destroyed and “you sin against Christ” (I Cor. 8:11-12).

Peter advises us to limit our freedoms for the sake of Christ, being subject to “every human institution.” At the same time however our spirits are not bound. We are to “live as people who are free” but without using our freedom to “cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.” Peter even extends this call to subjection to those rulers who are unjust, teaching that enduring suffering is “a gracious thing in the sight of God” (I Peter 2:13-25).

These are hard teachings for liberty conscious Americans to follow! Yet, how can we not remember the example of Christ? He who created all things, has the pre-eminence in all things, is the King of Kings, is divine, perfect and holy, yet bore the weight of our sin and suffered our death on the cross that we might be free from sin and have eternal life!

Abortion: Liberty vs. Life
There is no better example in our culture where liberty bumps up against the life of another person than abortion. In the United States, where women freely choose to abort their children, the number of children who have died in the womb by the choice of their mothers now stands at 53,310,843 since 1973. How God must grieve their loss!

In China, women do not have such liberty to choose. Instead, they are limited to having just one child and when they become pregnant a second time they are often forced to abort against their will. Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s rights without frontiers, says in a report about a blind man who has endured imprisonment and torture for speaking out against forced abortion in that country:

In pressing for justice for Chen and his family, let us not forget those for whom he has sacrificed his freedom: the families of China who are being shattered daily by forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. The coercive enforcement of China’s One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth. It is the greatest women’s rights issue in the world today. No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice.

How God’s heart must be broken for these women and their families. His longing for life for his people and their children is clearly expressed in Deuteronomy 30:19, “…I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days….” God’s prohibition against the taking of human life is also clear. “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Jesus extended the meaning of this commandment to include anger against a brother and even insults. The commandment is not diluted, but the murder in our hearts is also exposed to judgment. Our liberty, our “right to choose” is necessarily limited when it bumps into life in the womb. To take the life of a child by abortion is surely an offense against God who both created the child in his own image and also gave His Son Jesus Christ to die for this little one who will never bear witness to God’s glory through his/her life on this earth.

Presbyterians Pro-Life speaks for voiceless unborn children and for many PCUSA members who hold every human life as precious. Our lives are not our own. We are bought with a price. We belong to Christ. Human beings have been given great liberty in decision-making by God, but we have not been given liberty to choose to end the lives of others.

Planned Parenthood: Babies Alive: 7998; Babies Aborted 332,278

2011-02-28T09:58:00.003-05:00

The numbers tell the story: Planned Parenthood does 165 abortions for every one woman who receives pre-natal care at their clinics. They do 1,186 abortions for every one woman they refer for adoption. These are the facts from their just released 2009 report. The results are clear—when taxpayers fund Planned Parenthood, babies lose their lives!

Take a look at the numbers!

Pregnancy tests: 1,158,924
Abortions: 332,278
Prenatal Care Clients: 7,021
Adoption referrals: 977

In addition Planned Parenthood provided contraception services for 2,327,662 clients.
“Emergency Contraception Kits” were supplied to 1,537,180.

How should the Church respond to the ugly truth these numbers reveal? Planned Parenthood claims to be an organization that is looking out for the health of women, but recent videos have revealed their failure to protect minors from sexual abuse. They have failed to inform women of the risks of abortion and have given false information about the development of the baby in the woman's womb.
Obviously we ought to stand up, speak out, and call our Senators. Our government should stop funding Planned Parenthood. There are many other medical facilities that offer BOTH the health care that women need and health and LIFE for their babies!

There is another more powerful response that the Church can make and that is to tap into the power of God through prayer. 40 Days for Life is an organization built around prayer, fasting, and vigil outside abortion clinics including those of Planned Parenthood. The next campaign begins on Ash Wednesday, March 9.
I’ve signed up for a 4-hour vigil in my city. It really is the least I can do. I will also be praying and fasting from certain foods during the 40 day period. I will cry out to God to end abortion in our nation and in the world. I hope you will join me! Go to the 40 Days for Life website and click on your city to find out how to sign up to pray and keep vigil.
Jesus said we should let the little ones come to him. Surely we can find the time to ask God to preserve their lives!

The Lie that is Planned Parenthood

2011-02-09T17:09:00.002-05:00

“You can’t make peace with evil because—evil always wants more.” The previous discussion had been about peacemaking efforts in the Middle East. The speaker was an Asian man and a member of the Peacemaking and Justice subcommittee of the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church (USA). I was an observer at that meeting and this gentleman came up to me with these amazing words during a break in the meeting. I haven’t spoken with him since, but those words made a profound impact on me because they are words of truth.

Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and those who are Christ followers ought to be people who speak words of truth. Sadly, sometimes the Church has made the mistake of trying to make peace with evil. Take abortion. Our denomination has spoken words condoning abortion. They have attached qualifiers such as “is not morally acceptable for gender selection” and “it is preferable for it to happen earlier rather than later” and “abortion ought to be an option of last resort.”[1] And they have tried to write a policy that makes peace between those words and words that affirm that God is the creator of life and human life belongs to God. “The strong Christian presumption is that since all life is precious to God, we are to preserve and protect it,” and “taking of human life is sin.”[2] There is no peace between truth and a lie.

Lies always lead to more evil. Take Planned Parenthood. Many good people have supported Planned Parenthood throughout the years because they believed the lie that birth control was the answer to the perceived problem of ‘over-population.’ Many thought that birth control was the solution to poverty, especially among racial minorities—communities where poverty was concentrated. But evil was not content to espouse birth control, it wanted more and Planned Parenthood became the number one abortion provider in the United States and in 2009 received 363 million dollars of your tax money and mine. They perpetuate the lie that “women need abortion.” Think about what that really means morally and spiritually. Do women need to make the choice to have their vulnerable, dependant, unborn baby torn limb from limb (without benefit of anesthesia) and removed from his or her God sanctioned safe environment—his/her mother’s womb—by suction, or forceps? What does the mother become morally & spiritually when she makes this decision? A woman may need provision, safety, counseling, assistance, but she does not need abortion. What woman needs to take the life of her own child?

But that is just one of the lies that Planned Parenthood espouses. The trouble with lies is that the truth will come out! Over the last two year period, Planned Parenthood’s house of lies is crumbling. Clinic staff at various facilities have been caught on video covering up statutory rape. Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, has written a book exposing the underlying lies that allowed her to rationalize her participation in abortion for eight years. She has since repented and her life has dramatically changed direction by the grace of God.

In the last few weeks two new videos have recorded Planned Parenthood staff telling those involved in the sex trafficking of minor girls as young as age 13 how to cover up their unlawful abuse. Videographers posing as a pimp and his prostitute heard staff instruct them on how to get abortions for minors without parental knowledge or consent, and how to circumvent laws that require the reporting of statutory rape! If you don’t believe it, watch these two videos for yourself.

Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp's Underage Sex Ring
Bronx, NY Planned Parenthood tells pimp he can pose as "guardian" for underage sex slaves

The PCUSA General Assembly in 2008 made a strong statement against sex-trafficking, urging the Stated Clerk and the General Assembly Mission Council to work to strengthen laws against sex trafficking and bring to justice those who break those laws. In 1992 the General Assembly approved an abortion policy that advocates against any legal restrictions on abortion, access to abortion or public funding of abortion. The PC(USA) is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights, an organization which is on record advocating against ANY restrictions on abortion including parental consent or information requirements. How will we make peace between these competing interests in our own policy advocacy? “You can’t make peace with evil—evil always wants more.”

[1] Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, I.E.1.g,h,l, PCUSA, 1992, p. 11.

[2] Ibid, I.E.1.l,n(5).

Parents try to force abortion! What were they thinking?

2010-11-04T16:09:00.001-04:00

Several news agencies reported last week on a 16 year old girl whose parents tried to force her to abort a baby that both she and the father wanted. Sidewalk counselors at an Austin abortion facility witnessed the attempts of the parents to forcibly drag the pregnant girl into the clinic and called 911. The Alliance Defense Fund assisted the girl in obtaining a temporary restraining order after she was literally dragged by her parents to two different abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood. One day later the girl’s parents signed a court order agreeing that they will not force her to have an abortion.

The actions of these parents seem twisted and bizarre. Yes, a 16 year old is very young to face the responsibilities of parenting a child. I can understand the disappointment they might be feeling. Their dreams for their daughter probably include a college education, a career, a wedding, and then someday children. They may feel their daughter’s early pregnancy threatens those dreams.

It is true her life will be changed by pregnancy. The next nine months a child will be growing and developing in her womb. Her decisions about nutrition and activities will have direct impact on someone’s life other than her own. If she reacts responsibly, she will need to limit her own desires. The pregnancy could delay her high school graduation or the start of her college education. If she decides to parent her child, she may need to work while she takes classes. Realizing her dreams may take more effort and time, but pregnancy and parenting are not insurmountable obstacles. In fact, she may be far ahead of her peers in her ability to accept responsibility making her more attractive in the job market over time.

The real problem is not the pregnancy of the daughter, but the wrongheaded thinking on the part of this 16 year old girl’s parents. For them, their own grandchild in the womb of their daughter is a problem and they see abortion as the solution! Their attempt to force their daughter to have an abortion speaks volumes about where their concern lies. They are not looking out for their daughter’s best interest at all—but their own. No doubt, their concerns are based in the realities of the cost of medical care during pregnancy and the financial cost of raising a child. They are no doubt also unwilling to have their own lives disrupted. Clearly they have no concern that their daughter may experience grief, guilt, and regret as so many women do in abortion’s aftermath. Have you heard the stories of women who regret their abortion and are Silent No More? The negative feelings that so often accompany abortion are increased when the woman feels she has been coerced or forced into having an abortion she did not want. Studies have shown that women who have abortions are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, promiscuity, broken relationships, and breast cancer. No, these parents are not concerned about abortion’s effect on their daughter.

Even more, these parents ought to have concern for the spiritual well-being of their daughter. What effect will taking the life of her unborn child have on her relationship with the God who created that child? What response in this situation will draw her closer to God? What will help her grow and mature in understanding the trustworthiness of God and His great love for her?

Sadly, these parents will not find helpful guidance from the Presbyterian Church (USA). Our denomination is conflicted on the issue of abortion. Our policy supports a woman’s right to choose abortion as a “morally acceptable” choice in certain circumstances and at the same time says that the “taking of human life is sin”. It excuses this conflict by saying we “don’t know when human life begins”. Frankly, we all do know, but as a denomination we refuse to acknowledge what is clearly true from Scripture and from medical science. Our conflict was evidenced in July at the General Assembly when an overture asked commissioners to speak out against forced and coerced abortions. Commissioners did so, but not before adding language that also spoke against forcing or coercing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. We have lost our moral compass on this issue!

The real solution to the conflict in our church is the same as the solution for these parents. We love the woman best when we express unconditional love for her, point her toward the Creator God who has begun a new life inside her womb, and walk with her through this experience as long as it takes. In offering assurance of unconditional love and practical support, churches and parents have an opportunity to model God’s grace--grace that accepts, forgives, restores, and brings growth.

In a relationship of loving support parents and churches can guide a young woman in evaluating her own readiness to parent and whether or not the baby’s father is committed to helping and supporting her. They can assist her in exploring the option of adoption and help her understand this as a life-giving choice that blesses a couple who may be unable to have a biological child. They can encourage her to think reasonably about the responsibilities of parenting and if she decides to parent they can walk with her through that—picking her up when she stumbles just as they taught her to walk as a toddler. An early pregnancy is not the end of a girl’s life—but abortion always ends the life of the child in the womb!

Doing the math: The cost of abortion

2010-08-25T16:43:00.000-04:00

A June news report by Sharon Youngs, Communications Coordinator for the Office of the General Assembly of the PC(USA), announced that at the end of 2009, total membership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) stood at 2,077, 138 (down 3 percent from the previous year. VaGentleman posted a comment to the article: Why would any reasonable Christian of traditional faith continue to worship with or support the mission of a denomination such as this? By this time next year PC(USA) is likely to have fewer than 2M members – the direct result of policies from the past 40 years.

What did he mean by "the policies of the past 40 years?" Being the Executive Director of a pro-life organization of PC(USA) members, I immediately thought of the erosion of the church’s historic and biblical stand against abortion. I was curious, so I did the math. Ordinarily numbers mean nothing to me compared to the spiritual health of the church. It is the latter that I believe is the true cause of our denomination’s decline, but even I was astonished at the numbers that resulted from my calculations. Here it is—straight from my tiny little desk calculator.

In 2009 the Presbyterian Board of Pensions spent $11,000 to cover abortion claims under the Medical Benefits Plan for employees (and their dependants) of PC(USA) churches and other entities. That amount represents between 7-26 abortions at rates charged in Pittsburgh abortion clinics. (Costs vary with the number of weeks of the pregnancy—from $420 for early abortions to $1500 at 19 weeks gestation.) Let’s say all those abortions were done early in the pregnancy. Suppose there were 26 children of PC(USA) pastors & their families aborted last year. Figuring that there are 11,000 churches in the denomination and just guessing that they average 3 employees per church who are covered by the Medical Benefits Plan, .08% of those individuals had abortions in 2009. That number seems insignificant, but it does not tell all.

Curious, I went a little further. I figured that .08% of the 2,077,138 members of the PC(USA) would be 1,662 and added that to the 26 abortions paid by the BOP in 2009 (1,688). Then I multiplied that number by 20 years (a generation). The result was 33,760 PC(USA) members lost to abortion over a 20 year period.
We all know, however, that every life touches and influences other lives. I went further. Suppose every one of those 33,760 persons, if they had been allowed to live, would have influenced one other person to join the PC(USA). Now we have a total of 67,520 persons. Suppose each of those persons married and had 2 children (202,560).

Imagine, then, that in the next 20 years each of those children brought one person into the PC(USA) and also married and had two children. We are now talking about 1,012,800 PC(USA) members aborted.

Yes, VaGentleman, the policies of the last 40 years have cost us immeasurable loss. The cost is spiritually first, but also numerical.

PPL Daily Report on GA Action.

2010-07-07T15:13:00.002-04:00

Please follow this link to see my daily report on actions taken by the 219th General Assembly that impact the church concerning life. Make sure you use Internet Explorer to view the video.

We are praying, and we have heard from many of you that you also are praying. Please continue to pray that God would use his infinite power to turn the church back to himself. May all glory and honor be to our God who hears the plea of the yet to be born and who loves and cares for every human life, even the sinful.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"Trashing" of Daily Delivery was staff error

2010-07-07T10:48:00.000-04:00

I was relieved to find out in talking with staff, that PPL's Daily Delivery was not thrown in the trash by malicious intent, but by a staff person who was simply not aware of the purpose of the tables at the back of plenary. These two tables are intended to give a place for individuals and groups to place items they wish to communicate to commissioners. Apparently the young staff person watching those tables was not given enough information to know that our DD was appropriately placed there. I think maybe this is good news--I am glad to know it was not done out of mean-spiritedness.

You may want to know more about the PARO luncheon I mentioned in my last blog entry. Here is a link to an article by Jim Berkley who reported on the event. I am so grateful for his post. It is a story that needs to be told and I was present without a pencil!

Rev. Dr. David Swanson Preaches on Life

2010-07-05T16:21:00.002-04:00

Click here to see a video of our first PPL event at the 219th GA. The video recording and web hosting are both provided by BxVideo, free of charge. And just to be clear, they donated out of kindness, our views are not necessarily their views. Make sure you use Internet Explorer to view the video.
If you have any technical issues, let us know. The webcast may not run on Safari. When you click the link, a form asking for information comes up. The form is enables us to track who has seen the video and to contact you in the future. We will not share your information. If you do not wish to complete the form, you are still welcome to view the video. Thank you.

Stack of PPL's Daily Delivery trashed--twice!

2010-07-04T22:51:00.001-04:00

At the 219th General Assembly this year there are no commissioner mailboxes. Commissioners can request them if they wish but they are not automatically provided. PPL has always placed their daily newsletter Daily Delivery in those boxes.

Instead, tables have been set at the entrance to the Plenary where materials can be placed by unofficial groups at the GA.

For the most part, GA is a place of courteous and civil debate and individuals and groups with widely divergent viewpoints co-exist in relative peace. However, at least one individual took mean spirited action yesterday, dumping the entire stack of PPL's Daily Delivery in the trash basket, not once but twice. It's sad to see such a display of childishness at a meeting of the highest governing body of the PC(USA).

We've posted that issue and you can download it here.

219th GA, Days Two and Three in a Nutshell

2010-07-04T22:31:00.002-04:00

This is a post from Sean Bowen, Administrative Assistant of PPL:

The 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) started yesterday at 1:30pm. I was busy at the time with a handful of PPL Team members handing our special GA newsletter, the Daily Delivery, out on the streets outside the convention center here in Minneapolis. While the commencement ceremonies were about to begin, we passed out our DD's to as many commissioners and advisory delegates as we were blessed to have pass our way. Over the past few years we have been more and more curtailed as to where we were allowed to pass out our fliers. Because of those restrictions in the 2008 GA, we had to focus our distribution on commissioner mailboxes, and this year there were none! But thankfully our team members met with no harassment during this first handout and we hope that we might be so blessed tomorrow when we go out to do so again.

The event of greatest concern during the first day of official business was the election of the 219th GA Moderator. The starting ceremonies tend to have a lot of fanfare, and this one had a baptism, but they are usually of less importance than the days when actual overtures are considered. The Moderator who was elected is Cynthia Bolbach, a church elder. She is known to be in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. There are overtures on civil unions being considered this GA, so please pray that God would preserve the PC(USA) from that as well as many other issues of concern (for detailed information on overtures that we are concerned with, please see those listed on the PPL GA website.)

Today we had a bit of an easier morning, thankfully as today is the Lord's Day. Our team members all had their own choice of churches to visit, and most tend to shy away from the GA's official service as those proceedings do not tend to nourish with the truth of God's word. At lunch time we were tremendously blessed to hear a talk from Dr. David Swanson at our first PPL event and his talk will be up on the web soon. He is a passionate pastor and his sermon is well worth the short time it will take you to watch it. We will post the link on the website as soon as possible.

Committees also started meeting today during the afternoon hours, though very little in the way of real business happened today. Orientation, learning about meeting procedure, and a greeting from the various advisory groups occupied the GA delegates time in their first meetings. And just so you know, the advisory groups they got to hear from were only those officially connected with the General Assembly, groups like the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy and the Advisory Committee on Women's Concerns, which do not generally favor PPL's Biblical stances. I find it terribly unjust to the people in the pews of the PC(USA) that they are unilaterally represented by such groups that, in my opinion, do not follow the testimony of scripture or the majority view of the church at large.

Tonight our team members are preparing for the meat and potato events of the committee meetings, public testimony and the actual deliberation of overtures before the assembly. We need your prayers right now and over the rest of the week most seriously. If God does not make our few voices powerful and authoritative then we will have little affect at this GA. We have been working with commissioners in each committee that is facing life issues. Our team has been preparing testimonies to give in favor of God's truth. And with his power, with the Holy Spirit of God to give influential might to our feeble expressions, we will win a mighty victory this year. Without God we have no hope, but with the Lord our hope is unending and assured.

PPL Orientation for GA 2010

2010-07-03T22:51:00.002-04:00

This post is from Sean Bowen, the Administrative Assistant of PPL:

Yesterday afternoon our team of volunteers for the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) met for their crash course on GA happenings and PPL's work. We heard from our president, John Sheldon, and other veterans of the cause about what work needs to be done and how PPL aims to accomplish it. I have been to a few GA's in the past, in supportive roles, but even with some experience and the knowledge of PPL's internal workings, I feel overwhelmed at the enormity of our task. Our team is small and the body of the General Assembly, the highest governing body of the Presbyterian Church (USA), is huge in comparison. The number of hearts and minds that we have to sway, moderates who have yet to stand for life in the church and those who oppose a Biblical understanding of the sanctity of life in the womb, far outweighs our few voices.

I do not mean to offend and using battle metaphors to express the disagreement over life issues may not be constructive, but I keep thinking of David and Goliath. It boggles my mind that so many people can avoid standing up for what God has made holy and precious. I grieve that so many seem to be easily persuaded that a woman ought to be allowed to choose death for her child in the womb. I grieve because God loves life, he loves babies and kids and pregnant mothers. I grieve because God loves people who are hurting and provides for them in every situation and the church steals that care away from people by lying about what is acceptable. But I know that when people oppose PPL, or just want nothing to do with us, that does not make them our combatants. We do not wage war against the flesh, as Ephesians 6:12 declares, these people are our sisters and brothers in the church. But the Goliath we face this week is a wrong belief, a deception from the enemy of our souls. And I suppose the numbers of people under that deception makes me fearful that we will not succeed.

But that is not how David's story went, he courageously stood for the Lord and his reputation as God Most High, the Deliverer and Defender of Israel. And with a single smooth stone, so much like the simple truth uttered in faith, was used by God to destroy that giant. I will not give up my hope nor lose faith that God can do all things and that I, living in the strength of my Savior Jesus, can cast a faithful word that he might use to redeem his church.

If you are with us, stand fast and pray for us. Orientation was a fruitful time, as I am sure our work here will show fruit, but we need encouragement and we need God to make our words and work effective. And so it should be, by the power of God alone, otherwise we might sin in thinking we did it ourselves.

ACSWP paper on human life misses the JOY!

2010-01-29T16:04:00.001-05:00

Six years and several writing teams have not been enough. The Advisory Committee for Social Witness Policy is still struggling to fulfill a mandate from the 212th GA (2002) to update the 1981 study paper, The Nature and Value of Human Life.

Some progress has been made by the committee since I first began following this writing effort in 2005. Ironically I am not permitted to talk about what is in the current draft—even reporting the strengths of the paper is off limits. New ACSWP 'protocols' (although not yet officially voted into their policy manual) prohibit reporters from quoting draft papers, or even discussing their content in blogs, news articles, or in emails (like this one, I suppose.) Under those limits, about all I am free to report is what is missing in the document—the joyous Good News that God places an outrageous market value on human life!

Human beings are more than the sum of our 'parts.' Our value is not derived from our usefulness to society, our position, our work, our income, or even how we treat other human beings. Though the things we do may inspire the admiration of others, our accomplishments do nothing to increase our intrinsic value. Conversely, nothing others do to us can make us less valuable! Scripture helps us put our worth into perspective when we are compared to grass or a flower of the field that is present for a short time and then it is gone (Psalm 103:15, I Peter 1:24). With each passing year I am more aware of the brevity and frailty of my own life and I wonder with the Psalmist, “What is humanity that God is mindful of us?”

To find the answer we must look outside ourselves. Our worth is not in what or who we are, but in whose we are. We are made in the image of God. We bear his stamp, his signature, his seal, and that makes us the genuine article. We are image-bearers. We look like the King of Kings! To be sure our sin obscures His image in us much of the time, but even then, God does not reject us but claims us as His own. More than that, he has purchased us with the very lifeblood of His only Son, Jesus Christ. The death penalty we deserve has been paid through the death of Jesus on the cross. The gift of eternal life which we do NOT deserve is ours through His resurrection. We have value because God loves us outrageously and is extraordinarily committed to us!

My husband and I own an old 1880 house which, according to my bank, has doubled in value in the 20 years I have lived in it. The bottom line is, however, my house is only worth its market value. It is really only worth the price that someone is willing to pay to purchase it. We could look at human life in the same way. Others might set a value on us that would be higher or lower than our own appraisal. Some place a very low value on life in the womb, or those at the end of life who require care that is costly. Others are devalued in our eyes because they are in prison or are uneducated or come from a culture we do not understand or have limited intelligence or ability. We are prone to value others for what they can do for us or because they make us feel good about ourselves. God sees human beings quite differently. He has already signed the check for our purchase! He sent Jesus into the world to die for our salvation.

What if the church said THAT about the value of human life! What if we tell the world that God loves them extravagantly and has paid more than anyone thought they were worth! What if our social witness policy flowed out of God’s view of the value of human life? That is the unique message the church has to offer. JOY! Sadly, that message is missing in ACSWP’s report.

PC(USA) advocacy for abortion coverage won't stop until we change policy

2009-12-08T19:06:00.006-05:00

Once more the PC(USA) has crushed my spirit with their blatant advocacy for abortion coverage funded by my tax dollars. Why so dramatic a reaction? It's simple. I am a member of the PC(USA) and I am pro-life. As awful as this action is and as low as it makes me feel, it does not surprise me at all. It does anger me that those who profess a covenant relationship with me so disregard my conscience and my convictions that they advocate on my behalf for something which horrifies and offends me to the core of my being. That's not very Presbyterian!

Some in the denomination will be shocked when they hear that their church supports abortion. They cannot comprehend that someone who claims the name of Christ--calls themselves a Christian--could ever condone abortion. Many PC(USA) members have no idea that the health coverage which is mandatory for pastors in the denomination covers ALL abortions, for any reason at any time during pregnancy. I have known about this for 20 years and have been actively working in the denomination to change the policies that allow this advocacy to continue. So, I'm not surprised, but I am sickened.

Polls show that 61% of Americans do NOT feel that abortions should be funded by taxpayer dollars. It is reasonable to believe that a poll taken in the PC(USA) would reveal similar results to those of the general population. So, why, after so many years of paying for abortions through their pastor's medical benefits plans has there been no outcry? Why have so few overtures come to the General Assembly to protest this? One reason is that people in the pews do not KNOW.

Some have been pacified by the Relief of Conscience program which theoretically allows a church to put a percentage of their funds into a pool to cover adoption expenses rather than pay for abortions. Don't misunderstand me, it is VERY important that churches request Relief of Conscience from their presbyteries. Every church that does so is a living witness against abortion.

But, anyone who has looked closely at that plan knows it's just an accounting gimmick. All abortion claims are still paid for even for the pastors, pastor's wives, and pastor's daughters in Relief of Conscience churches. And, premiums for medical benefits for presbytery and denomination staff that are paid for by per capita funds are not a part of the relief of conscience plan. Although an individual employee may request relief of conscience, there is no conscience protection for the church member whose tithes pay for per capita to their presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly. And, I cannot help but wonder why only 500 our of 10,000 churches have requested Relief of Conscience if 61% of the public opposes abortion coverage in government funded health plans. Shouldn't we be more concerned to prevent abortion coverage in denomination funded health plans?

So, no, I'm not surprised that the PC(USA) is advocating abortion coverage in a national health plan paid for by Americans, 61% who object, notwithstanding. But, I am surprised, grieved, disheartened, that so many Presbyterians are silent. I am saddened that there are not hundreds of churches sending overtures to their presbyteries asking for the denomination to cease paying for abortions. I know that many pro-life churches in the PC(USA) are very active in supporting the ministry of their local pregnancy care center, collecting and distributing baby items and pregnancy clothing for women in need.....all of that is work the church should--MUST do. I applaud those efforts and urge congregations to do more to create a culture that cherishes life in their own locality. But, if you want to stop abortion advocacy by the PC(USA) articles, letters, and complaining won't do it. You've simply must effect policy at the GA level.

It's easy to blame the Washington Office, or Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, or Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options, or the Advocacy Committee for Women's Concerns for their pro-choice, sometimes even pro-abortion advocacy. But the fact is as long as we as members of the PC(USA) leave in place the policy document written in 1992---they are just doing what the GA has asked them to do!

There is only one way to stop the advocacy and that is to effect change in the social witness policy on abortion in the PC(USA) by using the overture process. Seventeen years ago the General Assembly said that Presbyterians "don't know when human life begins." The document describes five possibilities for when human life begins from fertilization to birth. Only one of those holds up to the scrutiny of medical and scientific knowledge. With today's ultrasound technology this 1992 document paints Presbyterians as being embarrassingly ignorant.

The 1992 policy document on abortion fuels advocacy against any law that would limit a woman's 'right' to abortion at any time during her pregnancy or would limit access or funding for abortion. As long as we let that document stand as the PC(USA) policy on abortion, our denomination staff and leadership will continue to dishearten us with their advocacy.

Well, there is one other reason that PC(USA) has had a 'pro-choice' abortion policy in for the last 30 years. Many of us (yes, I am guilty on this count too) have taken a certain prideful stand, found comfort in being 'right' about abortion. Don't get me wrong, I believe that human life is sacred, set apart for God by his creation of us in his image and by the coming of Jesus Christ as an embryo and by his death for us on the cross. Human life has been stamped for eternity as precious to God and for that reason should never be 'terminated' or 'aborted' by the hand of man. But believing in the sanctity of human life is not enough and it does not make us more righteous than our 'pro-choice' opponents. We are required to take a stand. As a Presbyterian that means going to your session and your pastor, finding out where they stand on this and calling them to take action. That means sending an overture to your presbytery and, yes, maybe becoming a 'stink' in the nostrils of those who oppose you. It means spending your vacation to go to General Assembly and give testimony in committee. It means having hard conversations with your family and friends and being prepared for ministry to those in crisis pregnancy and those who have experienced abortions.

I've been working on being courageous, being a prophet, taking a stand. I'm getting better at it and I highly recommend that you try it. God will meet you at your first step! I guarantee it. You will be amazed at the boldness that follows obedience. If you want an ally, contact Presbyterians Pro-Life. We've been in the battle a long time and we can share some experience with you. But, make no mistake, it's not easy. It's not popular. But, as Ben Sheldon, then President of PPL, told me 20 years ago....it's the right thing to DO!

Health Care should have preservation of life at heart

2009-08-17T10:11:00.011-04:00

A friend of Presbyterians Pro-Life recently sent me a copy of a Catechism for Young Children. It was written as an introduction to the Shorter Catechism, one of the documents in the Book of Confessions of the PC(USA). Published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication in Philadelphia, it was and copyrighted in 1840. It is a wonderful gem of truth and teaching.

The first several questions offer teaching about God's creation of human life and about our substance as beings that are more than the bodies we inhabit.

Q. 1 Who made you?
A. GOD
Q. 3 Why did God make you and all
things?
A. For his own glory.
Q. 4 How can you glorify
God?
A. By loving him and doing what he commands.
Q. 5 Why
ought you to glorify God?
A. Because he made me, and takes care of me.
Q. 6 Are there more gods than one?
A. There is only one God.
Q. 19 Have you a soul as well as a body?
A. Yes, I have a soul that can never die.

Our nation is embroiled in a heated debate about health care. It's not a new debate. There is, however, a growing sense that our current system of health care is broken and an intense desire to find a solution quickly. Recently, faith groups--mainline denominations, interfaith coalitions, and advocacy groups-- have joined in calling for a speedy resolution that will provide health care for everyone. The PC(USA) is one of the denominations joining the discussion.

Presbyterians have long displayed an active concern for society and involvement in our country's government. We take seriously the commands of Scripture to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 19:19). The years of Presbyterian caring are visible in the countless colleges, hospitals, children's homes, mission organizations, food pantries, pregnancy centers, and other works of help and care that have been established. Our compassion causes us to want good health care to be accessable to everyone and the prospect of a quick solution is enticing. But there is grave danger here that in our hurry to help we will sacrifice more lives than we will save.

Once before, Presbyterian compassion led to the abandoment of principles of faith that strike at the heart of who we are as created beings in Christ. In the late 60s and early 70s, Presbyterian women became concerned by the numbers of women dying from botched back alley abortions and they began to work in the church and in the nation for support for legal abortion. Their compassion for women was sincere, but they proposed the wrong solution. Where they should have addressed the spiritual, social, and economic needs that caused women to feel so desparate about their pregnancy, they instead provided abortion as the answer to a "problem" pregnancy.

Thirtysome years later, even some women who would label themselves 'pro-choice' are admitting that abortion harms women. The loss of humanity is staggering. Almost 50 million U.S. babies have been aborted. Countless men and women live with regret, grief, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and other symptoms as a result of their abortion experiences.

Now PC(USA) voices are speaking out in the national health care debate. Our current policy on abortion and our alliances with pro-abortion groups (i.e. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) threaten to cause us to propose the wrong solution once more. Presbyterian General Assemblies have called on the government to establish a national health care plan as recently as 2008. Last week, Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) released a statement urging quick action on national health. The PC(USA) is on record as a supporter of a single-payer universal health care plan.

Where am I going with all this? Well, I'm not a fan of single-payer health care---I prefer personal freedom to government control as a general principle--but, it's not a cross I would die on.....except when that plan would put human lives at stake! When endorsement of a single-payer universal health care plan is coupled with the current PC(USA) social witness policy on abortion, then the result is advocacy for a health care plan that covers abortions. That puts pro-life Presbyterians in fundamental disagreement with the advocacy of our denomination. A Zogby poll in March surveyed 30,117 Americans from 48 states and found that 51-69% oppose federal funding of abortion. It is reasonable to assume that a poll of Presbyterians would produce similar results. Like most Americans, a majority of Presbyterians do NOT want to see abortion funded by tax dollars. They do not want to be complicit in destroying innocent human lives.

Abortion is not health care. Pregnancy is not a disease or injury requiring a cure. Pregnancy is a normal and usually a healthy condition. It involves two lives. While a woman does have particular health care needs during pregnancy, abortion is not a treatment. Abortion causes the death of the child and does nothing to enhance the health of the woman. Abortion is the termination of a human life, as is assisted suicide. Both end life, not in God's timing, but at the whim of human hands. That brings us back to the questions in the Catechism for Young Children: Who made you? Why did God make you...? Do you have a soul? A health care plan that includes abortion and/or assisted suicide goes against everything Presbyterians know and believe about God as creator and owner of human life. It denies who we are as human beings created in His image and for His glory and redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ! We are beings with souls, whose value is more than our bodies and whose purpose is eternal. Our lives, even the care of our bodies, ought not to be placed at the mercy of the political wind.

So, I believe I speak for most pro-life Presbyterians when I say, there are some specific things we ought to see in a health care plan endorsed by the PC(USA):

1. A good health care plan needs a statement excluding coverage of abortion, assisted suicide or any procedure or treatment that would deliberately cause the death of the patient (born or unborn).
2. It should include stated protections against the withholding of care or treatment needed to preserve a life, no matter how limited that life might be, and including those waiting to be born.
3. There ought to be written protections for medical providers so they are never required to participate in procedures or treatments against their religious conscience or risk losing their jobs if they refuse such participation.

Verbal assurances that these protections will be in the end product are not enough. Americans have been told that an advisory board will make these decisions. In the proposed H.R. 3200, decisions about what would be covered in an "essential benefits" package would be made by an advisory board appointed entirely by the President. Two thirds would be appointed by the president directly and the other 3rd appointed by the Commissioner (who apparently would be appointed by the President). One person would essentially control what procedures and treatments are covered by the plan. With each change of administration we would be embroiled again in controversy over what is a covered charge.

Without apology, this Presbyterian will be lobbying my senators and representatives to work for a health care plan that holds the preservation of human life as its central purpose. It's the right thing for Presybterians--we who believe that "he made me and takes care of me," "I have a soul that can never die" and "there is only one God"--to do.

These things we can say together

2009-05-21T13:21:00.005-04:00

Is there Common Ground on abortion? Is there any hope of fruitful dialogue? Is it possible for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to work together to reduce abortion? Can this happen in our sharply divided nation? Can it happen in the PC(USA)?

Tuesday was one of those days filled with little occurrences that are separate, yet somehow all of a piece. By afternoon I began to ponder whether God was trying to communicate something in particular. After a few days of reflection I think maybe I am seeing a way forward for the church on the prickly issue of abortion and perhaps even a model for other areas of conflict…..or I could be wrong. Let me just ‘think it through’ aloud in this blog and you can respond with your comments.

This morning I made a presentation to the Pittsburgh Presbytery Council on behalf of The Pittsburgh Presbytery’s Task Force to Study Abortion. As I was waiting, I chatted with a friend…

A friend of mine asked if she could talk with me a while ago and confessed that she had not one abortion, not two….she had four abortions, and the guilt! She cried and cried. Fortunately she attends a church that teaches forgiveness through Jesus Christ and she is going to be okay…

I was called into the Council meeting to give the Task Force report. I requested that Council approve distribution of the report to the churches in the Presbytery. I told how four women with differing views on abortion were surprised to discover common areas of concern and a shared vision for tangible, practical care and ministry that if engaged by the whole church could provide women with real alternatives to abortion. Our study together did not alter our political or theological positions on abortion, but we found a desire to work together to reduce abortion in our denomination and in our community.

One council member admitted that when he saw the topic of the Task Force report—abortion-- he cringed and almost didn’t read it. He expressed his weariness of the debate on abortion. But then he shared how he was drawn in as he began to read and he concluded by saying it was the “most even-handed” and perhaps the “best” document he had seen from the church on abortion. He enthusiastically gave his endorsement for the broadest possible distribution of the resource.

As I left the meeting of the Council, I fell into conversation with a stranger who had listened to my presentation…

Didn’t President Obama say he wanted to work with pro-lifers on alternatives to abortion?

I explained that I’ve been away for a few days and haven’t paid attention to the media. We were interrupted and our conversation ended.

I stopped at McDonald’s for a cup of coffee and a late breakfast and headed back to my office. I turned on the radio, set to my favorite Christian station…

The solution to conflict and division in the church is God’s grace!

Yes! That resonates with my recent experience on this Task Force. We listened to one another carefully and deeply. We shared our hearts and not simply our positions. We extended grace to one another in the prickly moments when we disagreed most sharply. Sometimes we were simply silent rather than being defensive. We were aware of deep differences in the way we read and interpret Scripture and in our political positions on abortion. Yet, we found commonality as beings created in God’s image, sinners for whom Christ died. God’s grace provided a unity that was stronger than our differences.

Upon arriving at the PPL office I found in my email inbox two articles and a video link all responding to President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame University. Baptist Press said:

Obama urged both sides of the abortion debate "to work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions," to "reduce unintended pregnancies," to "make adoption more available" and to "provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.""Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women," the president said.[1]

All three commentators agreed there is NO common ground. The problem they exposed is that Obama’s call to “work together” is denied by the pro-abortion actions he has taken since his inauguration and by the appointments of numerous pro-abortion radicals to positions of power and influence.

I found myself reminded of the PC(USA) policy document on abortion, “Problem Pregnancies and Abortion”. The policy document was written by the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion and approved by the General Assembly of the PC(USA) in 1992. The Committee was made up of persons with differing views on abortion. Like Obama they acknowledged the conflict on this issue. They recommended that future publications of the denomination reflect the diversity of positions on abortion. They called the church to “open debate” and “mutual respect” in areas of controversy and debate. And, like Obama, they expressed a desire to protect individual conscience.

Unfortunately, like Obama, the actions of the PC(USA) in advocating an extreme abortion rights position over the years since 1992 have caused all the words about “areas of substantial agreement[2]” to be neglected and forgotten. The portion of the document dealing with the church and the law is the section over which there was the least agreement among committee members.[3] It essentially affirms that there should be NO laws restricting abortion or limiting access to or public funding for abortion. For many years Louisville staff and the Washington Office have used this part of the 1992 document as platform from which to advocate for unrestricted and fully funded abortion.

Recently, however there seems to be a change. During the last two years there has been a virtual silence on abortion from the Washington Office. That silence is a welcome breathing space that allows dialogue on abortion to bear fruit in groups like the Pittsburgh Presbytery Task Force to Study Abortion.

What does this uncanny string of Tuesday’s events mean? What is God saying?

I think the point is this. What that one Presbytery Council member found to be so different in the Task Force’s report from other church documents on abortion is simple. We did not attempt to make a statement on those things about which we disagree. We chose to focus on our areas of agreement and we sought God’s guidance to help us identify what we could do together. We extended God’s grace to one another in all the areas of disagreement between us and we relinquished our need to say more than those things about which we were united. We essentially said only two things: 1) The church needs to break silence on abortion and talk to one another about their differences, and 2) The church can do much better in making alternatives to abortion tangible and practical choices for women.

The search for common ground can be treacherous. Too often it crumbles beneath us into coercion and compromise and leaves a trail of forsaken conscience and lost integrity. Too often “dialogue” is a thinly veiled “hearing” by a governing entity that has already decided their course of action. I don’t hold a lot of hope for finding common ground with the Obama administration on abortion, but for the church I have a great hope.

“The solution to conflict in the church is God’s grace.” Yes! There it is. When we practice God’s grace we hear the other’s heart. We listen to views that oppose our own and forsake angry response. We make ourselves vulnerable by the completeness of our honesty. When God’s grace is present and acknowledged we are reduced to the lowest common denominator--- we are all sinners saved by grace through the death of Christ on the cross. In the presence of God’s grace we know complete equality and our common value as adopted sons and daughters of the Most High God.

From such loved-ness comes the safety to engage in open-hearted, honest, caring conversation that helps us identify those things--limited though they may—that we can do together to make a tangible difference in the lives of women and men facing problem pregnancies. This we can do. This we must do.

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. John 13:35

Related:

Report of the Pittsburgh Presbytery Task Force to Study Abortion, May 2009
Obama's 'Common Ground' on Abortion is Killing Ground, Family Research Council, May 20, 2009

[1] “Pro-Lifers: Policies deny common ground, Staff, Baptist Press, May 18, 2009.
[2] The report said there was “substantial agreement” that “we are disturbed by abortions that seem to be elected only as a convenience” and that “abortion should not be used as a method of birth control” or “for gender selection” or “to obtain fetal parts for transplantation.” The committee expressed “grave concern” over the number of abortions in our society. There was agreement that “we ought to express love and grace to one another,” and that “after a human life has begun, it is to be cherished and protected as a precious gift of God,” and that “taking human life is sin.” (pp.10-11)
[3] Problem Pregnancies & Abortion, Section E.3, e, 1-3, p.15

Fear of the truth takes RCRC off focus

2009-03-24T17:13:00.005-04:00

An email from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) dated March 9 carried the headline: “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice President Applauds Obama Stem Cell Research Policy”. It was written by The Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of RCRC.

It caused me to wonder. What possible reason could The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) have to “applaud” President Obama’s Stem Cell Research Policy? Why would they have any interest in embryonic stem cell research? How does it relate to their mission “to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy and… to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations.” Why does The RCRC need to speak publicly on the issue of embryonic stem cells?

In the email, Rev. Veazey reveals his prejudice against “right-wing religious politics.” Then he trots out the list of religious organizations (sadly including the PC(USA)) that have made statements supporting embryonic stem cell research. Most of these organizations also speak out against cloning. Veazey doesn’t mention that Obama’s policies would allow cloning by any private organization. Embryos created by the cloning process could then be used in any research funded by taxpayers like you and me. His email leaves the erroneous impression that the only human embryos that would be destroyed by stem cell research would be those already slated for destruction---“leftover” embryos from IVF (in vitro fertilization). [The routine creation of excess embryos for IVF and their subsequent destruction is yet another example of our moral confusion about human life in its earliest stages of development]. Veazey is either misinformed about the effects of lifting the current ban on use of embryos in stem cell research, or he is ignoring the truth in an attempt to make Obama's policies seem less immoral.

To get back to my original why question, I believe The RCRC’s real motivation for speaking out publicly in support of Obama’s policies on stem cell research is fear. They know that if embryonic stem cell research is banned it will serve as an affirmation that a unique human life--a new person--is present in that embryo at fertilization. They know it will result in the moral comprehension that the human embryo is a tiny ‘person of potential’ and not merely ‘potential life’ or a ‘potential person’.

The RCRC is well aware that if the public accepts the truth that “a person is a person no matter how small” (Dr. Suess, in Horton Hears a Who) and they apply that truth by banning embryonic stem cell research, it is only a matter of time until they also apply that truth to abortion. Fear is the motivation. Fear that we might believe the truth.

Members of the PC(USA) should be informed that three entities of our denomination hold membership in RCRC: The Washington Office, Women's Ministries, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO). PARO is one of the networks of Presbyterian Health, Education, & Welfare Association (PHEWA).

Painful Consequences

2009-03-04T15:55:00.009-05:00

One of the ways we love our children best is by teaching them to avoid painful consequences. It is the reason we run across the kitchen to snatch the hand of a child reaching toward a hot burner. "No! Hot! Don't touch!" we say with urgent intensity (usually with a raised voice) and then in a slightly calmer tone. "Hot! Mommy doesn't want you to burn your fingers. Mommy loves you!"

Our desire to protect our children from painful natural consequences is the reason we emphasize "Look both ways before crossing the street!" It is the reason we teach careful handling of knives and needles, and washing hands, and bandaging of scratches & wounds. As our sons and daughters approach their teens we issues warnings about the negative results of smoking, of drinking, of sexual activity outside of marriage, of careless driving, and of using drugs.

My father gave us countless (and long) lectures about the dangers of guns. Unlike other boys in my rural community, my brothers did not receive BB guns when they turned 10, and my father did not take them hunting. I 'got it' that guns were dangerous, but I was an adult before I peered into my Father's past and truly understood.

My dad was with his father when Grandpa pushed some rifles backward on a wagon. The trigger caught on something in the wagon causing the gun to fire directly into my grandfather's chest. Hours later, my Dad, the oldest son, lay next to his father on a gurney in the hospital, donating his own blood in a direct transfusion in a frantic effort to save his dad's life. Blood-type matching was not used then and sadly their blood types were not a match. Grandpa died that day, leaving my 40 year old Grandma the single parent of 8 children (including two with special needs).

I was never privileged to meet my itinerant pastor Grandpa. My father carried the burden of that experience in silence for many years. I only learned of it in the last year before Dad went to be with the Lord at the age of 83. My dad loved his children. He did not want us to suffer a similar painful consequence and he taught us how to be safe in our use of guns, or (his preference) by not using them at all.

If the church is to truly love women, we must break the silence about the painful consequences of abortion. We ought to stop presenting abortion as a choice that is morally neutral. We ought to admit the numbers of men and women who suffer guilt, depression and grief following abortion. We need to cry out and warn women that this is an irreversible choice that ends the life of a child and there are painful and spiritual consequences for such a choice!

Abigail Hughes gets it. She is 13. Disturbed by abortion, she wrote this poem for an English assignment:

Invisible Pain, Silent Cry

January 22, 1973

It became legal

The murder of a child

Medically or surgically

Invisible pain silent cry

Fear that she couldn't provide

The doctor shows her a picture

She looks away

She doesn't want to feel ashamed

Invisible pain silent cry

The pressure is gone

People applaud her

but deep inside she knows

she just killed her own daughter

Invisible pain silent cry.

Much more could be said about the consequences to the child who dies as the result of abortion and about what the loss of that individual means to society. Much more needs to be said about the spiritual damage to the women and men who make abortion decisions and the consequences to their relationship with God. Those topics will have to wait for future articles. My point here is this: My dad loved us well by his warnings and his teaching. None of his 8 children have suffered a gun related accident. The church ought to do more to warn women and men of abortion's painful consequences. Love teaches moral guidelines for decision-making. Love is not silent where there is danger of painful consequences. Where abortion is concerned the silence of the church is not love. It is abandonment.

"Slaughter of the Innocent": An open letter to President Obama

2009-01-29T14:01:00.004-05:00

Dear President Obama:

I was thankful to hear you speak out against the slaughter of the innocent. I have some suggestions to help you achieve that goal.

First, do not revoke the Mexico City policy that prevents our tax dollars from being used to promote the slaughter of innocent children prior to birth- instead continue to support FP programs that are not associated with abortion of innocent children before birth. Millions of innocent Chinese children are slaughtered at birth against their parent’s wishes with the assistance of the UNFPA.

Often a woman is under intense pressure by her family or by the man who impregnated her to have her innocent unborn child slaughtered. Women’s Right to Know Acts give these women information that helps them withstand this pressure. Abortions in states with these laws drop significantly. None of these laws prevent even one woman who wants to have her innocent child slaughtered before birth from legally hiring a licensed doctor to slaughter her innocent child, so her choice is intact. Promoting a Federal WRTK act would prevent the needless slaughter of some of these innocent children, if only the ones whose mothers would otherwise agree under duress to their slaughter.

You can promote the bill to protect adolescents from child predators who impregnate them and then take them across state lines to avoid state parental notification/consent laws and have their innocent unborn children slaughtered. The bill would make such interstate commerce illegal. Whether these innocent children were still slaughtered with their grandparents knowledge or not, al least their grandparents would be there for their daughters and to monitor them for complications. And some adolescents with their parents support might choose not to slaughter their innocent unborn children.

Another thing you can do is to leave intact the new regulations that protect physicians like me and other healthcare professionals from being forced to participate in the slaughter of innocent children prior to birth either directly or through being forced to refer them to someone else who will slaughter these innocents. There has been a move on the part of some agencies to force this, and it is significant that regulations to prevent this went into effect on your inauguration day. Please keep them.

Finally, you can resist the pressure from members of your party to make the American people pay for the slaughter of innocents in any proposed health plans either directly through tax dollars or indirectly through mandated insurance coverage of abortion, the slaughter of innocents prior to birth.

Sincerely,

Patricia Lee June, MD

Dr. June is a Pediatrician from Moultrie, GA and a member of the Board of Directors of Presbyterians Pro-Life.

When did I get to be a "foe"?

2009-01-22T15:43:00.000-05:00

This morning's Pittsburgh Tribune Review included a headline, "Foes of abortion....". Wait a minute! Stop there. Are you talking about me?

It's true, I am outspoken against abortion. Who wouldn't be? Have you seen what abortion does to an unborn baby? Are those images of tiny hands and feet severed and lying in pools of blood burned into your brain as they are into mine? Who wouldn't be a "foe" of such violent destruction of the smallest and weakest of human beings?

On the other hand, I don't view myself as "anti" anything or a "foe" of anyone. And by the way, when have you ever known the media to refer to those holding a pro-choice view as "foes of the fetus" or "anti-life-of-the-unborn"? Of course not. Clearly that would be a disrespectful way to address the many who still believe our disagreement is about woman's choice rather than the lives of millions of unborn babies.

Instead the article I read this morning called those who want women to have the right to end the life in their womb, "advocates for legal abortion". Hmm, that's odd. I've never read an article that identified a pro-lifer as an "advocate for the pre-born" and yet, that is exactly what we are!

Today hundreds of thousands of advocates for the pre-born will march in Washington D.C. as a living testimony to our government officials that we are "foes" of Roe v. Wade and, yes, "foes of abortion". They will worship and pray and sing as they march. They will not look or sound like foes. Most of them will look like you and me. Many will be young men and women, passionately aware that millions of their generation are missing due to the legalization of abortion in America!

Sadly, not many of those marching will be Presbyterian...because in the PC(USA) those who hold a pro-life view, "advocates for the pre-born" are viewed as dissenters---as "foes" if you will. It's not a popular identification and not many can stomach it. Too many are silenced by fear of being seen to be a "foe". Still, in July 2010 in Minneapolis, members of the Presbyterians Pro-Life GA team will stand once more, giving testimony in committee that we are "foes" of the social policy of the PC(USA) which currently endorses the slaughter of innocents, as a morally acceptable choice. We have been standing against abortion on behalf of the pre-born in this denomination for more than 30 years. Maybe we are "foes of abortion", and I think I'm okay with that!

"From my mother's womb you have been my God." Psalm 22:10