Posted on 10/04/2003 11:55:26 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
After 20 years of ups and downs, it has become evident that the pro-life, pro-family movement has been the biggest single political and social loser in American history. For all of the money, time, and apparent strength of the movement, lost ground is the only thing to show for it all.
Sodmites march in our streets -- with the persistent presence of high-ranking political officials. Homosexual rights are recognized by our highest court. Despite fewer abortionists, surgical abortions continue apace. Protest is so limited by law and court mandate as to be almost wholly ineffectual. Abortuaries and abortionists enjoy a protected status equal to our highest officials.
What could possibly explain all of this? Why is it that those who should have God on their side -- who fight to preserve godly principles in a nation founded on God -- why are their efforts so apparently fruitless?
I believe Achan has the answer.
The story of Achan in the Bible tells of the victorious army of Israel's first incursions into the promised land. Once Israel had crossed over the Jordan River, their first job was to take out the city of Jericho. In God's instructions to Commander-in-Chief Joshua, the Israelite soldiers were not to take any "spoil" or "booty" from the first of the ten-city offensive. Most of us remember the story of Rahab hiding the spies and of the walls which came "tumblin' down," but few remember the story of Achan (Joshua 7).
Achan, it seems, decided to squirrel away just a little booty from Jericho. After the conquest of Jericho, the Israelite generals were pumped. One said, "Joshua, just give me a few guys and well go over and take the city if Ai. It is real small and it shouldn't be any trouble."
The problem was, Ai beat Israel's army -- and beat them badly. Israel had never lost a man in battle until Ai -- where they lost 36.
After seeking God over this awful event, God showed Joshua that the loss was due to "sin in the camp." In short order, Achan's sin was uncovered and he was stoned to death. Only then could God continue to bless the entire nation of Israel with victory.
Something very similar applies to what the Bible calls "spiritual Israel" -- the church. In fact the sin in the American church's camp is far worse and far more widespread than Achan's transgression. While Achan stole what was God's (the booty of one city in ten), the American church has murdered God's heritage.
Ten years ago, many Christians were surprised to read that a survey showed that one in six of the women going for surgical abortions was a self-identified "evangelical" Christian. Recently, the same survey showed an increase to one in five. (These figures could only be higher if the interviewees were completely honest.)
But that is not the worst of it. While Christians have been calling for an end to the slaughter of the unborn and proclaiming that these little ones have a right to life "from the moment of conception," they themselves have been busy killing off their own children with CHEMICAL abortions.
They have been consumers of abortifacient birth control -- pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) -- at the same rate as their pagan counterparts.
IUDs have only one method of operation. They prevent implantation of an already conceived child. Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation.
Bo Kuhar, president of Pharmacists for Life estimates between 8 an 13 million abortions per year in the U.S. alone due to these methods.
And Christian women -- even pro-life activists -- use these methods. Many churches counsel the use of birth control. And while many (including me) believe that all birth control is unbiblical, there can surely be no argument that abortifacient methods of birth control are sin.
But we have all sorts of excuses. One pro-life activist couple I am aware of said they had "prayed about it" and that they (presumptuously) believed God would not allow the pills to ever use the third, abortifacient mechanism.
Others simply refuse to believe what is printed right on the patient information -- that the pill prevents implantation -- and find "Christian" doctors who are willing to continue the deception. Churches support the denial and continue to advise newlyweds to use abortifacient birth control.
Thus, millions of Christian babies are aborted by their Christian parents every year in the U.S.
With all that blood on the church's hands, how could we ever expect God to bless our efforts. We've been so busy trying to remove the splinter in the pagans' eyes that we have neglected the beam in our own.
The fact is that blood guilt demands the payment of the blood of the murderer. Fortunately, we have a Substitute who will offer His blood instead of ours -- if we will acknowledge our transgression and repent.
For as long as I can remember, people in the pro-life, pro-family movement have quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (KJV)
We talked a lot about it, but we never DID it. Yes, we had prayer meetings. Yes, we called on God to forgive "the sins of our Nation." But we never did what the verse says. We didn't repent of our own sins. In fact we were completely blind to our own sins. And those of us (like me) who knew (that we were killing our own babies), were unfaithful watchmen on the wall -- we did not sound the alarm.
But today we are still alive. Wickedness has not yet fully enveloped the nation. There is still time to repent. There is still -- in that repentance -- hope that God will heal our land.
God forgive me for not sounding the warning!
I'm on the board of trustees of our local Right to Life organization. We meet on our own time, try to scrape up money from dues, garage sales, a thrift shop, etc., and every meeting we worry about whether we can operate for another month. By contrast, our opponents have paid jobs opposing us, at which they put in 40 hours a week. They don't have to oppose us on their own time, the do it during working hours. I know, life isn't fair, but it does irk me.
"I have a hard time taking this all seriously." Others simply refuse to believe what is printed right on the patient information -- that the pill prevents implantation... Churches support the denial and continue to advise newlyweds to use abortifacient birth control. Thus, millions of Christian babies are aborted by their Christian parents every year in the U.S.
It just doesn't belong in politics. OK, Where does it belong?
Lastly, the article below is on Freeper Polycarp's homepage. I think it puts this thread in a more complete context.
The Harsh Reality Regarding Abortion
The connection between the protestant acceptance of contraception, beginning only in 1930, and the legalization of abortion, cannot be overstated.
The apocryphal "right to privacy" upon which the horrid decision in Roe versus Wade was based, was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold vs. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a "privacy" right to purchase contraceptives.
This struck down the only remaining "Comstock Laws," laws written by PROTESTANT Amereican legislators in the 1800's, based upon scripture and the constant teachings of Christianity, that outlawed the sale/distribution of ALL FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION.
So legalized abortion was based on legalized contraception. Contraception was accepted in our culture because sola scriptura Christians caved on the continual teaching of 1900 years of Christianity regarding contraception, but only during the past 80 years.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade [U.S. decision to permit abortions] stated “in some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception… for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail”.
The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary, any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close”. Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.
To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for “contraceptive purposes”. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly, we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available, the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increase greatly.
The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual relationship as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness - no room for - the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possibly until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.
Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one’s sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments.
It's time to look at how Protestant's throughout history have viewed sex deliberately made non- procreative. Let's start at the beginning. Historical Protestant views on this subject came from reading commentaries on Genesis 38, in which Onan, who married his deceased brother's wife to fulfill his familial obligation, withdrew from her during intercourse rather than impregnate her. God then killed Onan.)
Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.
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."
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method.,
"but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."
By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible.
Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43).
For shedding of innocent blood in Israel God brought a series of escalating judgments culminating in the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C. (Psalm 106:36-43; Jeremiah 33:35,36) and, according to Jesus (Matthew 23:34,35; Luke 11:49-51), the life for life judgment and total destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. To the idolatry of Israel involving child sacrifice to Baal and Molech in exchange for material wealth and to celebrate sexual promiscuity, we have added an idol of convenience.
Dr. George Grant in GRAND ILLUSIONS documented a 1989 discovery of 39,000 patient information forms from 14 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics nationwide indicating that 62% of the women receiving abortions identified themselves as Evangelical Christians, another 20% as Catholic or Orthodox. Of those 82% of Planned Parenthood customers, 76% identified their local church membership and pastor. In the 25 years since abortions were legalized in 1973, Planned Parenthood has performed napproximately 2.5 million abortions. Based upon this sample, as many as 2 million (82%) Christian women have been Planned Parenthood patients.
- The research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, reported in surveys of 10,000 abortion patients in 100 clinics, hospitals, and physician offices in all regions of the country that in 1987, 16%, and in 1995, 18% of abortion patients described herself as a "born again" or Evangelical Christian. All Protestants accounted for 37%, Catholics - 31%, Jewish - 1%, and those citing no religion only 23.7%. This means that of the estimated 38 million abortions since 1973, up to 7 million involved Evangelical Christian women. It also means that the total number of abortion victims in Protestant and Catholic churches approaches 26 million women. If the fathers of the aborted children were Christian as well, the number would approach 52 million.
- Most believe that these statistics about the number of abortions is low. The inescapable conclusion of these sources is that for most churches, like the rest of the population, every third woman in the congregation and probably the same number of men have been responsible for an abortion. After 25 years there are millions of these women and men in the church who carry hidden sin and all are in dire need of post-abortion ministry.
An article called "Silence of the Shepherds," published by World Magazine on January 21,1995, offered the following observations on the absence of pastoral leadership in opposing abortion:
a. A study of preaching on abortion by World found that out of 20 well known Christian leaders (from 9 National Association of Evangelical-member denominations, and 2 at-large denominations) only 6 could provide a complete sermon on abortion and only 3 more could provide even an excerpt,
b. A poll by Molly Stone of Last Days Ministries in Tyler, Texas for her master's thesis at Regent University of 104 pastors from evangelical, mainline, and fundamentalist churches in the area surrounding South Hampton, Virginia, found that:
-76% believed that life began at conception, and 69% believed a strong stand on abortion was important, but only 39% ever devoted an entire sermon to abortion. Among evangelicals, the percentage jumped to 58%. -90% mentioned abortion in a sermon, but less than 50% ever announced a pro-life event from the pulpit or church bulletin. -70% said crisis pregnancy centers were the pro-life activity of choice, but 70% did not actually support such a center. -Only 17% endorsed pickets or prayer at clinics, and only 7% encouraged rescues.
World quotes R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries: "One of the greatest travesties of the church is its silence on abortion, particularly the evangelical church."
Many in the Pro-Life movement have been a major prophetic voice to the Church and to the nation. Their heroic evangelism outside the clinics has saved many unborn lives and quite a few abortionists. Like the abolitionists during the 19th Century, however, the civil disobedience and other tactics of some activists have contributed to their marginalization by the Church. Many on the front lines of clinic counseling or demonstrators have believed that rescuing is the only effective scriptural response since Proverbs 24:11 tells us to rescue those being led to the slaughter. In addition, these and other pro-life activists have responded to the silence of the pastors and the Church by "lobbying" them to become legally or politically involved.
The message sent and received is that the involvement in the abortion fight means picketing clinics, getting arrested or lobbying the legislature. For most pastors, this message simply reinforces the idea that abortion is a political issue and contributes to the ongoing silence from the pulpits. All of us in this movement need to repent where we have had any part in (1) sustaining the silence from the pulpits, (2) distracting the clergy from their ordained roles of preaching that abortion is sin, and ministering forgiveness and healing, and (3) failing to believe that God can end abortion through repentance and revival regardless of whether abortion is ever made a crime again. Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ...
And it's predictable that if and when Arnold wins, he will go to the 2004 Republican Convention and urge the delegates to drop the pro-life plank.
Zack replied #36:
The national effects of Arnold's victory really worry me as well. The Republican moderate/left is always looking for an excuse to muzzle conservatives.
Dahlseide unsolicited:
Referring to ...muzzle conservatives...
They begin by referring to themselves as conservatives. Simply look at the invectiveness on FR towards those who will vote McClintock & can in no way vote Arnold.
Frankly I'll chose another name and let those adamant Arnold folks have both titles Republican & conservative. So how about if I simply refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. I'll section the political spectrum into quadrants. The 1st quadrant, i.e. upper right, is for pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. The lower right is for pro-abortion–fiscal-conservatives. The liberals own the left half plane.
As such I have more in common with the upper half plane than with the lower right quadrant.
But even if I call myself a Constitutionalist that term gets mudded because nearly everyone claims adherence - 'cept for those, David Beyer serving as a prototype, who believe & say in public the Constitution is outmoded.
So what to do? By the way there are non-Christians who are pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. Hey! maybe PLFC will do. Any ideas?
there are non-Christians who are pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. Hey! maybe
PLFC will do. Any ideas?Referring to an unborn baby as a fetus
Letting pro-life be cast aside as a religious
Is one of the goals of your org. the abolition of abortion? Probably not.
In fact most groups specifically state that stopping abortions is not one of their goals (it's a violation of law to stop a baby shredding). If you said that the Abolition of Abortion is your goal, then you'd quickly realize that;
the central government that sanctions the slaughter of the preborn
by law, by LEO force & by redistributing 100's of millions of your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood Inc., by fining, imprisoning & executing prolife activist's that dare stop a baby shredding, and so on,
is your enemy.
Baby shredding is evil. The sanction of evil is likewise evil.
The Abolition of Abortion. Everything else is BS. Everything else is beating around the bush. Everything else is denial of the obvious.
I agree with tkathy that contraception, along with much of today's medicine and technology, is a gift of God - the God of Abraham and Moses, and Whose Son is my Savior.
Dear hocndoc, you and I have agreed on many issues in the past and so I feel free to address you on parts of what you have posted here. It is difficult to find the gentle words I want to use and so I pray that the Holy Spirit will inspire my post to you, sharing truth as Jesus would share it, in love, which is the greatest gift.
Contraception is not a "gift of God." Faith is a gift, love is a gift, and children are a gift.
The word itself - "contra" and "ception" - is sufficient to show that inception: "the beginning" is being contravened: "denied or opposed." Who is it that causes a child to be conceived if not God Himself? The Bible clearly says that children are a gift from the Lord. He is the Lord of all creation. Who then is opposed if conception is thwarted? Is it not the God of Creation?
You say that sterilization is the most reliable method of contraception. I do not argue against it being a reliable method, for surely it is - a am sterile myself as one result of an abortion at the age of 19. I argue only that medical sterilization, that any form of contraception, is not of God, and in fact opposes and denies the God of Creation.
Man has from Genesis sought to oppose and deny the Living God. They tried it at the Tower of Babel, saying, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." They had the technology, but God was not at the center of their thinking. They used the technology to oppose the Living God and His will rather than to work within His plan and under His Lordship.
It is still true today. Advances in medicine have enabled man to conduct surgery on a man or woman's body in order to prevent creation of new life by the sex act. Can one really pray, "Thy will be done," after such an in-your-face rejection of the Creator?
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
Psalm 139:13-16, of David, a man after God's own heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.