ARE CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS FUELING THE ABORTION CRISIS?
By Paul R. Dorr
As first published in Christian Conscience newsletter, Des Moines, IA, 1996, with some updates since.
The establishment political pro-life movement has been promoting legislation, and in some states passed laws, requiring abortionists to notify a minor girl’s parents before performing an abortion on her. At first glance one would be pleased with this effort. Certainly some babies have been spared death, because their grandparents were notified. But maybe we should rethink its overall implications.
A frequently heard criticism of this type of legislation raises this question: How can we sign into positive law, legislation that in practice, would often share the blood-guilt of child-killing with others? As sidewalk counselors know, many parents today are assisting their daughter in getting the abortion. Shouldn’t we rather continue to advocate the complete outlawing of all surgical and chemical abortions? But now let’s plumb a little deeper. Let’s consider all the circumstances surrounding the notification of parents when a young woman is about to kill her child by abortion – and let’s focus on the covenantal body of believers in Christ Jesus first. After all, if God’s people aren’t acting in conformity with His will, can we really expect unbelievers to be any different?
How Do The Crisis Pregnancy Centers Handle The Confidentiality Issue?
Two pro-life organizations, Birthright of Toronto, ON, with 500 American affiliated centers and CARE NET (formerly Christian Action Council) of Falls Church, VA, with over 450 affiliated crisis pregnancy centers (CPC), each require their affiliates to pledge a vow of `absolute’ confidentiality to pregnant mothers who come in for counseling. This is not uncommon among most independent CPCs as well. But as Christians, should we be willing to make such a vow? Jay Adams, former professor at Westminster (West) Theological Seminary, in his book Handbook of Church Discipline makes it clear why we should not. Adams says that this type of vow “…originated in the Middle Ages and that it is unbiblical and contrary to Scripture.” (p 30) CPC counselors need to consider that `absolute’ confidentiality often prohibits the proper exercise of restorative church discipline for a young woman or couple, per the commands of Matthew 18:15-17.
Now don’t misunderstand. This is not to say that counselors are free to talk with anyone about what they’ve learned in a private counseling session as the Bible does condemn gossip and speaking “unseemly” (1 Cor. 13:5). However, they must always reserve the right to inform those people that are Biblically authorized to know. Most CPCs today do not notify a Christian girl’s parents or Pastor when they have knowledge that she is uncertain as to what she is going to do with her pre-born child, or worse, declares her intent to abort her baby. At that point the CPC has the same confidentiality policy as Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It serves both as a business model to ‘market’ traffic in the door.
But James 4:17 is very clear, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” And Leviticus 20:4-5 says, “If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.” How about the counselors in those CPCs that close their mouths when the young woman is about to kill her child? Do they prostitute themselves to the Molech of convenience, to the Molech of keeping a steady flow of clients coming in the front door when they remain silent? Do you think that God will set His face against them? Do you think that these CPCs will, or are, experiencing such judgment?
As well as rendering counselors culpable in each aborted child’s death, this policy can only work in time to undermine the integrity of such a CPC’s overall `pro-life’ commitment in the eyes of their clients. More and more CPCs don’t show “emotional” pictures of bloody aborted babies during counseling sessions. Is it because their own consciences are bothering them? One can only imagine how convicted such counselors become when `Operation Rescue’ people are down the street the next day blocking the very same woman from entering the abortion mill, when the counselor could’ve made a simple phone call that may have prevented her from going in. The longer this policy is adhered to at CPCs, the further they demonstrate to young people that they themselves have no fear of disobeying God’s biblical commands of earthly authority.
What Is God’s Prescription Of Authority?
Obedience to Christ is always first. (Psalm 90:1-2, 2 Cor. 10:5). Then Christian young people are commanded to obey their parents. The 5th Commandment, Exodus 20:12, teaches us to, “Honor your father and your mother….” Aren’t young people taught by the example of Christian counselors that adults aren’t concerned about obeying this command themselves when they fail to require a young girl to involve her parents in such a life and death matter? With such inconsistency doesn’t the next Commandment, prohibiting murder, become easier to ignore too? It is true that government schools, social service agencies, etc. regularly war against parental authority. But does this mean that Christian groups should do likewise?
Next, Matthew 16:18-19, Acts 16:4, 1 Corinthians 12:27-28 and Hebrews 13:17 are a few texts where God establishes the authority of the Church and it’s elders to oversee the spiritual growth and moral welfare of their members – young members included. Why are they not informed when one of their members is planning to commit a sinful murderous act? How can they be expected to fulfill their calling, if fellow adult Christians will not honor their office?
The CPCs involved have a standard answer justifying their `absolute’ confidentiality policy. They fear that if they bring parents, husbands and pastors into the situation, pregnant women will stop coming to their center. They want to evilly ignore God’s authorities so that they can ‘save a baby.’ This again, is the same argument employed by Planned Parenthood as they resist parental and ecclesiastical authority while trying to `help the girl in her time of trouble.’ Remember though, that Paul thought it slanderous that some charged him with doing evil “…so that good may come” in Romans 3:8. It was slanderous because it was not true. Paul honored the “immutability of His counsel” (Heb. 6:17) and would not willingly employ evil means. Not surprisingly, this CPC policy has proved itself not to be true. The few centers which do honor parental authority remain very busy.
Pro-Life Action Ministries is one of the more dedicated pro-life groups in the state of Minnesota that performs crisis pregnancy counseling. Located in St. Paul, they will have nothing to do with such an `absolute’ policy. Executive Director, Brian Gibson says, “We have never found it necessary to establish a policy to bring the issue of `unconditional’ `absolute’ confidentiality into our counseling. We will call whomever necessary to help a woman and to save her babies’ life. But at the same time, we try to use wisdom and good sense in keeping matters as confidential as possible while still trying to help them both.”
Now consider again the response of these other CPCs. Doesn’t their answer presume that Godly parents, spouses and ordained men of God will not be used by Him to guide a Christian woman back to the right path; to bring accountability back into her life and maybe bring a humble end to the matter in such a way that brings glory to King Jesus? And what impact would this have with the baby’s father or other young pregnant women contemplating abortion when they hear the account of the restoration of an entire family because of the Holy Spirit’s working through biblical discipleship?
Some will assert that we can’t require those who are not Christians to obey the laws of our God. But this denies that all men have been created with a moral nature (Romans 2:14-15). And it is not what Christ taught in John 8:21-47. In this passage, Jesus said of the wicked Jews who were seeking to kill Him that they were bond-servants of sin, they didn’t understand His speech because they could not hear His word and that they would die in their sins. Though slaves to sin, they were yet responsible. Further Romans 1:18-20 makes it clear that unbelievers in one real sense know the truth of God and will account for not obeying it. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse;” But few Christians at CPCs are willing to raise this standard with young people – to hold each of them responsible. Why do so many insist on doing it man’s way and not the Lord’s? Could it be little faith (Matthew 6:30) or poor theological doctrine?
Moreover, CPC staff members cannot be held accountable for those women who abort their child while failing to even talk to a CPC counselor in advance. The woman and the abortionist will be directly culpable for that death. And certainly the CPC counselor is not responsible if young women refuse to provide any detailed information about themselves during a personal or telephonic counseling session.
And with a measure of uncertainty I now offer this proposal. Should the babies of mothers that willfully proceed with plans to abort and fail to seek or heed Godly counsel, be classified as truly orphaned babies? And do they then need to be rescued at the abortion mill and adopted into Christian homes? I acknowledge an ignorance of what Biblical law declares on this point and could use some assistance from my readers. Obviously, much would depend on the mother’s beliefs after the rescue. At the same time, we’re long overdue to stop labeling mothers of aborted babies as joint victims. Most of them know full well what they were doing. If such Just laws were on the books at the time of the abortion, most women who willfully aborted their child should be tried for the murder of that child. This does not include the young mother who was unwillingly drug to the abortion clinic by her boyfriend or her parents.
With such an unholy vow of silence covering the CPCs, how can the fornication or adultery, that often conceived the child, be repented of and made right before God? What keeps the unrepentant sinners from ending up at the CPC again or even the abortion mill? Very little is corrected with this silence.
Is The Church Doing Its Part?
We shouldn’t be naive about the condition of the Church today. It’s understood that many faithless Christian parents and churches today are not offering the kind of ethical instruction and accountability young men and women should have. And, tragically, some of the parents and churches are a part, if not the source, of the problem. This doesn’t waive the CPC’s response-bility, though. They should have the courage to rebuke such churches, then challenge other God-fearing churches to confront the irresponsible churches involved and finally, if need be, call them into account publicly. (1 Timothy 5:20) Meanwhile, they should attempt to steer the unwed pregnant girl’s entire family to one of their sponsoring churches that understands the biblical doctrine of generational covenant obedience. (Deut 5:9-10, 7:9) If the girl and her family reject this, then the death of her pre-born baby is not on the hands of the CPC staff.
Is there something else going on here too? Do many churches want this type of confidentiality at the local CPCs? Does this veil of silence protect many pastors and elders from facing up to their ineffective preaching and discipleship if they seldom must discover how many of their youth are fornicating and how many women in the church are getting abortions? They may hear of it ex post facto, but the deed has been done. Could this also explain the rush to set up CPCs by some hither-to-fore uninvolved pastors and church members the last few years, to steer them away from the church?
Let’s Look At One CPC.
Also, a noted trend is the number of staff members involved with CPCs that have degrees in psychology or social work. The replacing of biblical/ethical counsel with government style `non-judgmental’ psychotherapy is undermining the foundations of those CPCs that employ it. Such CPC’s, in practice, are really just another of the State’s unbiblical social welfare agencies employing “affective education theories” in their teaching and counseling. But in this case, agencies that bleed private Christian funds. (See one of many essays about it and about my old friend Dr. William Coulson who exposed it all, here.) To illustrate, consider the Redwood Area Crisis Pregnancy Center (RACPC) in Redwood Falls, MN. The RACPC was formed in 1993 and is a member of CARE NET. (Update: Ever so tellingly they changed their name in 2000 to Choices Pregnancy Center.) One Christian wife and mother, Mrs. Tammy Houle, of Redwood Falls, applied to be a volunteer counselor at RACPC. What she found disturbed her. Houle reports that she initially questioned the Board’s commitment to absolute confidentiality. Then she found that the reference letters used by RACPC to perform background checks on potential volunteers, such as Mrs. Houle, included the following questions:
“Is she a non-judgmental, open, accepting person?” and “Does she keep confidential personal information which is given to her?” When Mrs. Houle first read the questions on the reference letter she said, “No I’m not non-judgmental. 1 Cor. 2:14-15 tells me that the Spiritual man makes judgments about all things. Why would I not employ God’s Word to assist me in making judgments about these young women’s lives?” “And, as a repentant sinner myself, I am certainly open to embrace any contrite young Christian woman that wants to get right with God, but I’m certainly not accepting of rebellion, pride and sexual sins, that she refuses to repent of. Meanwhile, I’ll always point them to Christ as the purpose and model for their life.” As well, Houle reported that she would never give a vow of confidentiality that restricted her from contacting the woman’s parents, husband and even her Pastor, in the case where she was a professing Christian.
Potential For CPC Abuse Is High.
Might `absolute’ confidentiality also be the seeding ground for abuse by some occasional opportunists who manages a CPC? Certainly, many CPCs are governed and directed by Godly Christians who wouldn’t consider such ideas. In some cases, though, a domineering personality at the helm of a CPC that is not being governed by proper biblical authority, one who does not submit their own life to the Godly oversight of Church elders (Acts 16:4, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, Hebrews 13:17, et al) could be very tempted to abuse the information learned during counseling situations. A subtle abuse, for example, could be in fund-raising. Consider the following hypothetical scenario.
The unwed girlfriend of an adulterous married man informs a counselor at the local CPC who the father of her illegitimate child is. They go to the same church and he – like David trying to save face by arranging the death of Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah the Hittite – has agreed to arrange for the death of the child to “spare everybody the embarrassment and heartache.” After several hours of counseling the young woman leaves and later kills the pre-born child. Meanwhile, the CPC counselor agreed never to inform his wife, her parents or their Pastor. Misery and guilt hang all over the situation. Rebellion from God grows deeper. They now have the blood of a dead child on their hands. Later, how is the husband to react when his own wife comes to him excited about their first financial request received in the mail from the local CPC? She might say, “Honey, they do so much to help young girls in trouble, I think we should donate!” Wouldn’t guilt and fear compel him to donate? But look how subtle this coercion can be. Such an opportunist operating a CPC, lacking biblical authority to discipline sin (so as to see confession, repentance and restoration unto Christ) and who refuses to direct such women to submit to their authoritative church Pastor or elders, are granted powerful opportunities to manipulate such people.
Why Keep Files On Past Sexual Sins?
Further, consider the long term potential of the filing and archiving of this type of sexually related information on Christians. This author is aware of only one unique CPC, the Women’s Care Clinic of Fargo, ND, that has a policy regarding the archiving of their counseling files. Former counselor, Jody Clemens, reported that they destroyed their client files two years after their last contact. This is not true for most CPCs that I’ve surveyed, though. What does happen to those old files over the years? This was a relevant issue in pre-war Germany. In May of 1933 the NAZIs destroyed the library and 45,000 personal files of the Sex Research Institute (SRI) of Berlin. Why? Because the SRI held dossiers on the sexual sins of many of the leading members of the NAZI party, plus other important Germans. Prior to their destruction, SRI director Magnus Hirschfield was leaking select information to German newspapers to silence certain political opponents. He was so effective at manipulating people that the NAZIs were compelled to destroy the files. (Read: The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively) (Editors note: I’ve come to learn this was one of several reasons.)
Now consider the same operating principle today. If, for example, a CPC sees 1,000 to 2,000 clients a year (often Christians) on matters that most often involve sexual sin, and they’ve been operating for 10 to 12 years, this could yield up to 24,000 files kept in one center. Why are these files kept at most CPCs? Sandy Menor of the Mitchell Area Crisis Pregnancy Center, of Mitchell, SD sought training from the Alpha Center, Sioux Falls, SD, when first opening their CPC. The Alpha Center had several questions on their Intake Form (questionnaire) that Menor found offensive and that served no legitimate purpose. The form first asked some routine biographical questions. Then they asked such invasive questions as “Have you ever used illegal drugs?” and “Have you ever been treated for venereal disease?” and “Do you have VD…?” Why record this? What is this information needed for? Keep in mind they are not offering medical treatment. Yet, this same Intake Form, according to Menor, also failed to ask the client who her parents are; if she is a Christian; what Church she attends; or who her Pastor is? Illegal drug use, multiple sexual partners, STDs, etc. are being kept on permanent, often electronic, files in most CPCs. The form also assures the young woman that if they go through with the abortion they are “invited to return for post abortion counsel.” This further complicates matters.
When a CPC makes post-abortion counseling so easily available, while assuring them that neither their parents nor Pastor will find out she is pregnant, this can have two impacts. For the girl, it greatly lessons the immorality of the abortion prior to the act, as it can appear as if the CPC expects her to get the abortion. After the abortion, it allows for the CPC to add this knowledge to the file. Ten to fifteen years after these sins have been repented of imagine the bondage that the very existence of such a file might have on a Christian’s willingness to even speak out for righteousness. In an age where sexual guilt manipulation is debilitating so much of our society, why don’t CPCs act like repentant Christians are truly free in Christ? The apostle Paul had so much to be ashamed of prior to his conversion, but holding in faith to the completed work of Christ, he was confidently able to say, “….but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Phil. 3:13-14
Where Does Necromancy Fit In With Christian Counseling?
To further increase such bondage after the abortion, some CPCs have embarked on a seriously flawed counseling technique for something they call Post-Abortion Syndrome. PAS counseling mostly provides more self-centered psychological manipulation at the expense of true confession, repentance, and forgiveness from God. They often dwell on the woman’s feelings, her anxieties, and her pains. Christ is often absent from such counseling. Certainly, one can mourn the loss of a child, but such a woman should not be encouraged to mourn in such a way that she ignores, what is often, her primary responsibility for the murder of the child. Once the parties involved have truly repented, sought out and received God’s forgiveness, then the matter in the eyes of the Church should be over. PAS counseling often tries to assist the woman in feeling good about herself again, when she should be living a spiritual life balanced between victory, through Christ, over sin and yet humility over the murder of her child and the civil punishment that was left undone. But self-condemnation for the repentant is over, for 1 John 3:19-20 says, “And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”
One group called the National Memorial for the Unborn (NMFU) is leading such a PAS counseling effort. NMFU has been built, in conjunction with a local CPC, in Chattanooga, TN. Smaller scale versions are being erected by other CPCs around the country. After some demolition work was done at the site of this new memorial a letter was found in the rubble. The text of the letter, which is being used by other such memorial efforts, is as follows: “Hear the pain in my heart Feel the cries of my soul This secret I hide My child You were 11 weeks old, so I was told I didn’t know I can’t turn back I know now My child I don’t even know if you’re a girl or a boy I don’t even know if you can forgive me My child Can you feel the pain of my heart? Can you feel the cries of my soul? This secret I hide My child, Your mother.” When CPCs encourage women to write such letters or pray this way, they are encouraging the mother to speak to her baby, her dead baby. They are encouraging her to speak to the dead. If so, the question must be raised; do they teach them to expect an answer? And if so, just what kind of a spirit, do they expect to answer them? Isaiah 8:19 says in the NIV “When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists…should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” Further Deuteronomy 18:10 says “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, [i.e. Abortion] who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.” Speaking to the dead is called necromancy.
NMFU provides various PAS counseling tracts. Some of it is Biblical and edifying. But such material is directly contradicted by a booklet NMFU also distributes, titled Identifying and Overcoming Post-Abortion Syndrome written by a California CPC director Teri K. Reisser and her physician husband, Dr. Paul C. Reisser. The national CPC organization CARE-NET also distributes this booklet. Neither the holiness of God nor one citation of His Word can be found in the booklet. It includes much `me-centered’ psychology and fails to teach the repentant woman to turn to or obey Jesus Christ. It’s easy to conclude that Christ is not the focus of this booklet that deals with the murder of one’s child.
The necromancy theme is found on page 22 & 23 of the booklet. It encourages the woman to “…”recreate” (use of skeptical quotes is theirs) her baby…” then she is encouraged to “begin the difficult task of asking her child’s forgiveness for the abortion.” Further it says, a “wonderful technique to help her facilitate this step is to encourage her to write a personal letter to her aborted child…” After such lengthy discussions, the authors insert what seems to be a gratuitous disclaimer that in such practice one isn’t actually “contacting their children in any way.” They claim, on the contrary, that “this is an exercise in the imagination for the purpose of gaining a clear understanding of where their children are…” The booklet was published in two separate editions, 1992 & 1993 by Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs, CO. One wonders if the second edition didn’t add this disclaimer and some of the skeptical quotes after alarms were raised about such discussions in the first edition. Regardless, what Biblical support could they offer to counsel a woman to imagine that she is speaking with the dead? After all, spiritual guided imagery techniques are from the New Age (occult) movement as well. Remember it was New Age spiritist, Jean Houston who was reported on ABC News (6/24/96) to have assisted former President Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary, at the White House pool-side to have an imaginary talk with the long-dead Eleanor Roosevelt.
Killing a child by abortion and then later wanting to speak with the spirit of that dead child are all part of Satan’s work and that of our sinful flesh. Such CPCs are greatly adrift when they have broken from God’s Law. Meanwhile, will such a letter to the dead baby be kept in the CPC file too?
By What Jurisdiction Does A CPC Exist Anyway?
This file-risk may not be restricted to those few CPCs managed by an opportunist. Think of the possibility of such a file getting into the wrong hands. This possibility is compounded by the fact that most CPCs are incorporated by the State they operate in. Such Church and para-church incorporation (State granted license to exist and to preach) practice is the modern-day resurgence of the heresy of Erastianism. Erastianism replaced Christ at the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23) with the Civil rulers as the head. Today, how much sinful silence has been bought by wicked civil authorities with subtle threats that “you might lose your Charter from the state” or “you can’t do that or you might lose your 501 c (3)”? Most Incorporation charters – voluntarily signed and entered into by the parties seeking it – usually include language where the State grants permission for them to exist and to “conduct such lawful activities” as long as they “adhere to all the laws of the State of (wherever)”. But what is lawful? How far is the CPC willing to go with this? Many say, “Well if it becomes a problem we can always unincorporate.” This often is an excuse to deny reality as it already is a problem as evidenced above. Further, few are aware that a Church or organization can not unincorporate when they merely decide to. Remember, they are a creature (imaginary before God) of the State. The State and its Courts will decide when and how they will be able to unincorporate, taking pains to ensure that all the corporate claims have been met, that all incorporating members are in agreement with this step and that they are not doing it to evade compliance with some State law(s).
It is only a matter of time before humanists realize the potential of such files being kept at CPCs. In an article titled When Patients’ Records Are Commodities for Sale in the November 15, 1995 issue of the New York Times, Gina Kolata wrote that “Individual medical records, carrying more sensitive personal information than ever before, are increasingly being gathered and stored by the tens of thousands in commercial data banks maintained by institutions like hospital networks, health maintenance organizations and drug companies.” According to the Times article, critics of a federal bill called the Medical Records Confidentiality Act, then being discussed before Congress, said that “the bill does not offer needed protections, but instead makes it even easier for large companies to set up huge databases of medical records. And, they say, it would set a dangerous precedent by authorizing law enforcement authorities and others to delve into records without patients’ consent.”
Soon, alarmed by the rising influence of Christians in the culture, academia, politics, etc., won’t the enemies of Christ want to influence those holding seats of political power to believe that the State needs to further “review,” “audit” and “regulate” such CPCs? All they will need is to trumpet the abuses of a few of the opportunists, cited above, and they will have the `moral high ground’ needed to pass such new laws. At such time, the CPCs, bound by their incorporation chains, would have to grant file access to humanist government regulators – all without the former clients’ approval. How many people’s lives could be manipulated by such information falling in the wrong hands? Romans 6:18 says, “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” Psalm 103:12 assures the Christian that “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.” If Christ has forgotten all repented sins and with these looming risks, why do CPCs continue to document their remembrance?
It’s Time to Eliminate The File Risk.
It is time for truly Biblically-operated CPCs to follow the Fargo, ND CPC’s direction and develop a policy of eliminating all files after a certain number (2 ??) of years. At that time any physical file should either be handed back to the client or destroyed if they cannot be discreetly contacted. And the CPC should purge all traceable personal information from their computer files. Board members should form a separate Audit Committee to insure that such computerized files are permanently erased. This should all be done as a matter of a regularly published policy. If needed, the governing members of the CPC could adopt a certain `exceptions’ policy (i.e. legal matters) where they reserve the right to hold a certain file for an additional time frame. Further, the director or staff should not be granted the authority to make such exceptions. Only the governing elders/board should, and even then, there should be a final limit of time after which the file is destroyed.
CPCs Need to come Under Biblical Authority and Counsel Biblically.
In the end, this critique is not a blanket challenge of all CPCs or CPC counselors. Certainly a lot of well-meaning people work hard at these type of CPCs and simply counsel the way they have been taught – without much thought to the Biblical principles involved. Others have come to live with their troubled consciences. If they have participated in these things, they should be encouraged to repent and confess unto God what they have been a part of. Then they should work to change the policy of their CPC and coordinate their efforts with several churches that understand that they need to be directly involved. If the CPC won’t reform and come directly under church government authority, then they need to leave and work to start another one.
And this critique isn’t intended to devalue the lives of the babies that have been rescued by the Lord through these counselors. We praise God for that, but certainly these children were rescued by a special measure of His divine grace and mercy, in spite of these policies. God has a plan for those babies that is a mystery to us now. Meanwhile the counselors were His vessel, regardless. (Romans 8:28)
It is time to re-think the biblical ethical roots for much of the pro-life movement. Poor moral theology has played a role in our long term impotence. Satan’s greatest strength is the current weakness in the earthly Church and the pro-life movement. The best news is that some church-based CPC’s do not have this unholy confidential policy either. The Chalcedon Presbyterian Church of Dunwoody, GA operates a CPC under the authority of their church elders. Rev. Joe Morecraft says that they will have nothing to do with such unholy vows or practices. Certainly there must be other such CPCs in the country besides in St. Paul and Atlanta. And if they haven’t done so already, maybe they should organize an informal association and challenge the others to adopt their ethical guidelines….or else work to close them down. There can be no neutral ground on this.
You can download a hard copy of this article here. It has been tweaked a bit along the way.
