Stand Firm

Ex-Planned Parenthood Director Not So Welcome At Episcopal Parish

“One of the things I’ve been told is that as Episcopalians, we embrace our differences and disagreements”...

But what about accepting and affirming her in a spirit of diversity and inclusion?

Of course they do! You’re perfectly free to be more lefty than the current Official Position at any time. However, being to the right of the Gang of Four will land you in hot water every time.

Sigh. If only we had the latest issue of the Revisionist Dictionary…
As all good Piskies know, choice is when you are correctly applying the priniciples and values (or lack thereof) as you have been <strike> indoctrinated </strike> taught by your Episcopal leadership. When the decision is contrary to what the leadership <strike> demands </strike> you believe, it is racist, mysogonist, homophoic hatred. Oh yeah, mean and anti-social justice. Some other stuff too.

We have cherished memories of St Francis, College Station. The parish was a small, fabulously loving congregation under Father Jeff Schiffmayer. The nearest thing to the Community of Acts that we have ever experienced. (Father Jeff came out of the charismatic Redeemer, Houston.) It certainly would have welcomed the former director’s change of heart. We left before Andy Doyle, the current bishop of Texas, became vicar. Under Andy Doyle’s ‘leadership’, the parish officially became a “Integrity ” friendly church.

Of course she’s no longer welcome - she has repudiated the most important “sacrament” in the Gospel according to the New Thang, baby killing.

Her realization at seeing the ultrasound images of the abortion procedure was only the first of many masks she will see drop. May the Lord continue to bless her!

How could you act so foolishly? You had a safe job that paid well. Now you’re out of work during a recession.

You say your conscience told you to leave, to speak out, to risk it all. That’s when your common sense should have kicked in.

Yet you acted even more boldly. You came to church and told your friends what you’d done and why you did it. You questioned something very precious to them. You made them feel . . . uncomfortable. Liz pulled you aside and tried to talk sense into you. I said, “Let’s adjourn this debate and go for skim milk lattes over at the Forty Carrot Café.”

But you knew better. You kicked it up another notch. You said the most offensive things imaginable. “Baby-killing” was just too much for the crowd to stomach. Of course the religious folks complained. That’s what religious folks do.

And after all your ranting and raving, you want to feel “accepted” and “affirmed.” Acceptance must be earned. I don’t intend to be dismissive, but my pastoral responsibilities preclude me from acting in any way as your enabler. Don’t expect a ride home from me.

This was the unforgivable sin. She could have quietly changed her mind, and simply resigned. She could have kept her opinions to herself. This would have been in keeping with the TECian idea of inclusivity and diversity. According to this ideal, people are free to make such decisions as they see fit. But they are not free to seek to restrict the decisions of others by thought, word, or deed. The prime moral imperative is to uphold the autonomy of the individual.

Abby Johnson went public and joined the other side. She is going beyond the claim that abortion is simply not a choice that she would ever make. She is claiming that abortion is a choice no one should make. She is seeking to submit the autonony of the individual to an unchosen obligation, and the modern zeitgeist of TEC will not have it. This will not go away. She has violated the Prime Directive, and she must be punished.

Last Sunday I led a discussion on abortion at an adult Sunday school class at my Mennonite church. This is a subject that is not often discussed among the Mennonites, but from many conversations, I had gotten the impression that my congregation has a few solidly pro-life people as I am, and a few strongly pro-choice people, but that most were somewhere in between. I assumed they were closer to the pro-life side because Mennonites oppose war and capital punishment and claim to oppose all violence. I was wrong. I had asked the most pro-choice person I knew in the congregation to be present up front and she expressed her position, as did I, and we both had handouts, and we opened it up for discussion. All I heard was pro-choice comment after pro-choice comment. Several people expressed real anger at me for opposing “choice.” I was shocked and distressed, but I realize now I should not have been surprised. This church acts much like a mainline Protestant church in most areas. At some point I asked if ANYONE there believed as I did, that abortion was wrong except to save the life of the mother when there was a definite immediate threat to her life, and no one raised his hand, including several people who had told me privately that they were pro-life. Finally a man slowly and tentatively raised his hand and said he agreed with me, but as a man, he felt he had no right to have an opinion on abortion. Women shook their heads in agreement. So much for the egalitarianism of feminism. At some point I yelled at them. I told them I was disappointed in them. I said I couldn’t believe Christians believed this. And later in the week I resigned from the adult Sunday school committee that I had been on for over 3 years and of which I was the chair. I have other responsibilities with this church and will do my best to meet them, but my days with them are numbered.

And so the reaction of St. Francis Church to Abby Johnson’s change of heart does not surprise me. God bless her for her courage. The main reason I am so interested in this blog is because I see so much of what has gone wrong in TEC starting to happen in Mennonite Church USA. It seems that on the abortion issue, it’s farther along than I had realized, at least at my congregation, which is admittedly far more liberal than most.

God bless you for your courageous stand, KarenR. You heve taken the Road Less Travelled, the one that leads to the Narrow Gate. May you grow even closer to the Lord.

Br_er Rabbit said it very well in #11. God bless you, KarenR, for having the courage to stand up for what you stand for.

#10-KarenR, I agree with you and with Br_er Rabbit for praising you for what you did in your church. I am equally amazed that otherwise godly and caring people can so easily dismiss the taking of a human life as “simply the removal of tissue” and place it in the same category as clipping one’s nails. Equally, the idea that men have no business having an opinion about this abomination makes absolutely no sense to me. Are we not responsible for the condition? How can we, who pride ourselves in knowing so much more than our predecessors about literally everything, delude ourselves into believing that a fetus is not a human being?

For me, it is a horrible example of how we can make ourselves believe almost anything, if it suits us to do so. Any attempt to support the truth with evidence (i.e., pictures, witnesses, etc.) is seen as being disgusting and horrid. It reminds me of the reaction of some children when they learn the true story of Santa Claus. They can’t stand it.

My home parish is St. Francis Anglican in Dallas. Our patron would be horrified to learn what has happened in a church bearing his name.

It is hard for me to understand how they can support the disarticulation and dismemberment of the fetus’s body, the suctioning of its brains, and the crushing of its skull, except that they had been brainwashed. These positions are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

Here’s an irony…among other ironies…the front page of the parish website offers an invitation to an upcoming special adult class…Wait for it…“What is saving your life right now? We explore this question with noted author Barbara Brown Taylor in our 9:00 am Sunday morning adult class beginning Oct. 18”
Like I said, an irony among ironies…

#10 KarenR
Do you have any insights into the presuppositions underlying their pro-choice stance? Are they influenced by the sexual revolution? racism? Is this a twisted consequence of social isolation—it doesn’t matter what others do because it doesn’t affect us? I’m just trying to understand their rationale.

The Episcopal Church should respect everyone’s views on abortion. It is an issue on which reasonable minds can legitimately differ. Where I have a problem is where either side compels the other to go along by force of law. No woman should ever be forced to abort. Neither should any woman be forced to carry a pregnancy. We men have no say in the matter. Hence I am neutral. It is a strictly an issue for each individual woman.

Thanks to Br_er Rabbit, Ol’ Bob and RicardoCR for your words of encouragement. I feel very alone sometimes among most people I know when it comes to beliefs about abortion.

Jill, I think there are several reasons for the pro-choice views of some liberal Mennonites. There is the basic feminist view that a woman has a right to choose and control her body. There is a very strong “social worker” kind of mentality among Mennonites that tries to approach things from a practical point of view and try to keep people from bringing unwanted children into the world who might be abused or severely handicapped. Some see the fetus as a potential person and not yet a person. These are all of the usual pro-choice arguments. I am just more distressed with Mennonites than most because of their strong stand against violence and injustice and their defense of the vulnerable and oppressed. I tried to appeal to them using information from an organization called Consistent Life that argues against war, capital punishment, abortion, racism and poverty. I tried to put it in that framework, which should make sense to them. And indeed, there are many Mennonites who support the Consistent Life idea. There just aren’t very many in my congregation.

I think that when it gets down to it, the main reason is that good liberal Democrats are pro-choice.

Abortion is not a medical necessity, except in a few rare cases. It is elective surgery (and that’s another reason it should not be covered in any government plan; they won’t cover cosmetic surgery, also elective, how is abortion different?). It also does not happen in a vacuum. In a few cases (the percentage is single digits), a pregnancy may result from rape. In most cases, a pregnancy results from a man and a woman having mutually agreed to sex. No one is “forced” to carry a pregnancy once they have had mutually agreed to sex - by participating in the sex act, they have agreed that the woman may become pregnant. They just don’t like having to deal with it.

My prayers are with Abby Johnson - she must be under a lot of pressure and seems to have lost her church’s support. May the Lord protect her.

#18-DesertDavid, I must respectfully disagree with you. You must not believe that the child is alive in the womb or you couldn’t say that. To me, what you are saying is almost the same as saying, “The life of every baby under a year old is strictly the prerogative of the mother. No one should tell her that she cannot kill her six-month old baby if she wants to.” Also there is no reason why men should be excluded from the discussion. We are not talking about fingernails here.

I am reminded of something that comedian Brother Dave Gardner once said, “All I know about abortion is that I’m glad that my folks were ignorant of it.”

That is a good reason for sponsoring a way for unwanted children to be adopted by others who want them, not for murdering them. Many of these same folks advocate making it harder for people to adopt because they are afraid the child might be mistreated. They have a lot of damned gall, if you ask me. I thank God that Stephen Hawking wasn’t aborted. He is one of our most significant thinkers. No, the truth is that inconvenience is the most common reason for abortion. People might have to make changes in their life or endure some hardship for a brief time to permit the child to live.

How so, DesertDavid? Your statement is a total cop-out. If your female partner decided to kill your month old child, would it be your business?

To be fair, let’s see how your statement could possibly be correct. 1) the male sperm contributor was raped. 2) the sperm contributor was a victim of green genital theft (only took a renewable resource) 3) the sperm contributor has been pronounced dead.
That about does it. Outside of these reasons, the only way the male partner can claim “he has no say” is if he is not the sperm contributor. The right of the male to say no is as valid as the female.

Once a sperm becomes united with an egg, life begins. Even the pro-abortion crowd admits the facts of this simple science. The role of the male is that of protector. If you are not willing to accept that responsibility and protect the most innocent among us, then do the world a favor and make sure that your ability to be a sperm contributor is removed.

By the way, Karen, I am a good liberal Democrat and I hate abortion. I hate all forms of murder.

What sane person isn’t pro-life and pro-choice? Those words have been co-opted in the war of words to put forward ideas, just like “gay”. I still pray for God to give us “gay and grateful hearts” (from the 1928 prayerbook), but I’m not asking to become homosexual. People cannot change the true meaning of words by putting them in their commercials.

God is clearly “pro-choice” in that He gave us free will. How could we truly love Him if we were coerced by His power? What would that kind of love be worth? But God is also clearly “pro-life” because he went to an awful lot of trouble to create us and give us life.

If we cannot be trusted to take care of what He has given us, what does that say about us? We don’t have the right to take the life of another person. In the war between good and evil, we can’t be neutral. We can’t just say, “I won’t kill anyone, but if you want to, go ahead.”

Ricardo CR, I spent most of my adult life as a pro-life liberal Democrat. It’s just been in recent years that I went over to the other side, and now I am a largely pacifist conservative Republican. So it seems to be my destiny to not fit well into categories and I know that is the case for many.

It is very sad that “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are used the way they are in the abortion debate, and that most people aspire to be both in a general sense, because both are very good things.

I am the wife side of Lutheran Lurker, or should I say ex Lutheran Lurker. My husband walked away from 22 years of parish ministry, into the darkness of a recession, over life issues. We were ELCA in a very liberal congregation. It was clear to us that any, and I mean any however subtle, hint of pro-life leanings was met with temper tantrums and aggressive action. I felt that my head was going to explode. I have bitten my tongue so often it is almost off. A few years ago, I purchased a Feminists for Life bumper sticker for my truck. I was afraid to put them on, knowing the consequences. That sticker sat in the drawer for two full years haunting, or perhaps better stated, convicting me. Eventually, it went on and Hell did break out. Anyone who tells you these mainline churches are tolerant is fooling themselves. They are militantly pro-choice with a handful of pro-life people afraid to come out of the closet on the issue because most of the other church choices involve the word Catholic or evangelical.

He is still job hunting, any leads would be appreciated. We crossed the Tiber where the air is cleaner and the grass is greener. As a wise mother of a young man with developmental disabilities in our special service said, “no regrets, except for the timing.”

MichaelD - The matter is much more heavily defined than your analogies. The woman would never have the right to decide to terminate her child if the male were more responsible in how he deposited his sperm. To go along with DesertDAvid or any of the other millions of men who have elected to hid behind this free pass for sex without responsibility garbage, you have to discount the direct responsibility and relationship of the male to the child. While your statements are valid and I understand where you are coming from, the parties you mention as seeking voice are not directly responsible for the consequence, ie, the non-solider presumably did not commit the act to cause the war.

Lutheran Lurker, my heart goes out to you and your husband for making this difficult and courageous stand. In the 80s, I was a member of an LCA church that then became an ELCA church. When I asked my pastor for a reference because I was applying to become a volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center, he got very angry and told me off. He then went into a long tirade about the importance of allowing abortion in all kinds of situations, giving half a dozen or more examples from his years counseling parishoners who chose abortion with his blessing. He initially refused to give the reference, saying crisis pregnancy centers were very harmful organizations who hurt women badly. He then reluctantly gave it. Learning his response, I didn’t have the courage to bring up the abortion issue with anyone else in the congregation. And it wasn’t long before I moved on to another church. Your experience is so very sad. I hope your husband is able to find a job soon.

This reminds me of the story of Richard John Neuhaus, the Lutheran pastor who was a liberal civil rights activist changed forever by Roe v. Wade, and who left the Lutherans to become a Catholic. Most likely you know way more about him than I do.

So much for gender equality, right? How is it that women have a constitutional right that is not available to men?

Kind of gives lie to any “marriage equality” suggestion doesn’t it? Because if men and women aren’t actually equal, then there’s no way two men could ever equal two women, much less one of each. Separate isn’t equal.

#17 Planned Parenhood started out favoring class eugenics. Its founder believed the under classes were spawning like fish. It was a natural outgrowth of Darwin and the ideas of the 1930s.

Pb #33, I thought of early Planned Parenthood eugenics views when someone in my Sunday school class on abortion suggested that some people shouldn’t have children and should be neutered.

1. One possible natural consequence of having sex is pregnancy.
2. One possible natural consequence of drinking too much is becoming drunk.
3. One possible natural consequence of jumping off a 24-story building is death.

I have two wonderful teenagers concieved while using two different forms of birth control. The only safe sex is no sex.

Thank you Karen for your response. Your story is truly sad. You asked for a job recommendation—a happy thing—but you unearthed something. How much blood or destruction is on that pastor’s hands. How many young women did this pastor push towards abortion. How much sympathy and sound direction did he give to a woman whose abortion left her physically and emotionally shattered? How did he handle a mother or father of a young woman who pushed his or her daughter towards abortion only to see in the face of a same age child the grandchild who was killed. How did he handle the young woman, or man for that matter, who was suffering from depression or engaging in substance abuse and has not a clue as to its origins. There is so much grief in the wake of this evil. I can only hope and pray that he has repented, for his sin is truly great.

Yesterday, I spoke with a woman, a self described conservative, who felt that the consequences of a woman’s actions were her’s alone and was unwilling to stop abortion totally. She did not understand that the bearing of consequences was not solely borne by the woman. The baby experiences the most severe consequences. A young woman may have to change her future plans, deal with the profound pain of placing a child for adoption, or have to work ten times harder to make her plans happen. But she is alive. She has options. There is no do-over in dead.

Abby Johnson, as you and I have, has seen the evil and looked it in the face. You and I knew what to do—run. Ms Johnson, when the dust settles, no doubt will have to put on her running shoes.

You have a bizzare idea of being neutral and respecting everyone’s view, when you clearly have no respect for the view that abortion is murder and are actively against the view that this particular form of murder should be as illegal.

KarenR, there’s an interesting book on the church and eugenics that may interest you, called “Preaching eugenics”—and guess what folks, there were a number of Episcopal clergymen a hundred years ago who were all for it! Some things don’t change, though the equivalent of those clergy today love to hoot about how progressive TEC is now, compared to the bad old days. But of course they would never see any similarity between eugenics and abortion today. For those with ears to hear, let them hear…

“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”
-2 Timothy 4:1-5

Well, maybe she should try another church. College Station is full of churches that would welcome her.

©2009 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.