Written in 1986 and re-published here with permission of Rev. G.I. Williamson see his essay Some Thoughts on Theonomy here.
This is the flier which is being passed out the morning of Nov. 18, 2017 to hundreds, if not a few thousand, people attending a Pro-family conference held at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Southwestern is the largest SBC Seminary in America. The conference is to help Christian parents deal with the LGBTQ / Trans agenda in the public schools coming in to Texas.
Such conferences have the impact of impeding the exodus of Christians from the Christ-less public schools.
Rescue the Perishing’s goal is counter these efforts and encourage the youth to implore their parents to get them out. Co-sponsors of our flier are Crown and Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, Conroe, Texas and Exodus Mandate of Columbia, South Carolina.
A pro-life evangelical girl who testified in front of her state legislature on a pro-life bill was, three years later, still steeped in fornication.
I wrote this linked FAX in June of 1994 after being confronted by a Christian, pro-life, young woman, (who had testified in the South Dakota legislature for “pro-life” legislation) while I was picketing outside a so-called Christian, prolife Crisis Pregnancy Center on May 10, 1994. The CPC is called the Alpha Center, located in Sioux Falls, SD. Allen & Leslee Unruh, the founders of the Alpha Center a few years later went on to establish the phony National Abstinence Clearinghouse to do harm on a much larger scale.
This fax was sent to Jody Clemens, then a counselor at the Women’s Care Clinic, Fargo, ND. I had never met Jody but found their clinic was one of three I could locate in the U.S. (others were in Cumming, GA and St. Paul, MN) that did not conform to the wicked policies of Care Net and NIFLA regarding “absolute confidentiality” when counseling a pregnant woman who was considering aborting her child. Fargo’s Women’s Care Center would reserve the right, as policy, to contact those in authority in a young woman’s life regarding her sexual sin, pregnancy and possible abortion. (I.e. Boyfriend, father/mother, husband, pastor, etc.).
I had previously called and visited with Clemens about the policy and commended them for it. And was sure they would understand my point in this FAX. Her supervisor took my FAX, blotted out the names, city and state and added her comments in hand-writing on the bottom of the 2nd page and mailed it out to their supporters.
On the link above, I have attached their hand-written comments on the bottom half of the un-redacted original. And Mrs. Houle recently gave me permission to leave her name in it.
Here were my concluding remarks with that “evangelical, pro-life Christian” young woman on that May 10, 1994 day.
“I said young woman, this is how I see your picture:
You fornicated as a youth and haven’t repented of it; you gave up your child for selfish motives; you gave her to a couple that could (statistically) be wanting her because of the results of their prior fornication; you are fornicating still; you are pumping your body full of abortifacient chemical hormones that are statistically killing one 2-week-old baby each year; the hormones if taken long enough in conjunction with your continued fornication will render you sterile; and finally you and your husband will turn around in 5-10 years and put pressure on some CPC, adoption agency, or private adoption lawyer to get you a child because of your sterility. The vicious circle of sin goes round and around. And this, in your case, is all done in the name of Christ and the pro-life cause.”
Facebook Discussion With Texas Mass Resistance
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
RTP has been a financial supporter of Mass Resistance out of Boston, Mass. No group has been more willing to confront the most radical of radical homosexuals in America, than Mass Resistance (MR) MR is led by Brian Camenker who is of Jewish background. In the streets, in academia, in legislative testimony, etc. they have been fearless! They put to shame 99% of Christian groups.
Yet their solution of ‘cleaning up’ public schools (not closing them) is wrong. (In particular they want to throw out the homosexual material and use abstinence education.) They are now starting new state groups around the country. Their Texas chapter recently did a large neighborhood leaflet drop in Austin, inviting concerned parents and citizens to a recently held meeting where they can learn more of the perverse new homo-sexual/transgender sex-ed curriculum being introduced into the Austin Independent School District.
The material is so truly offensive there is little left to shock people with. The next and last thing left will be sexual acts leading to death. So I messaged them on their Facebook page. See the problem in its fullness below. This dialog was held on Friday, September 8, 2017.
My message to TMR:
I’ve been down all these roads in the 1990s. Even the population control/US Govt. (HHS)-funded abstinence programs are fatally flawed. My ministry did the first-ever interview of a repentant abstinence instructor. The question she could no longer answer was, “How do you talk about marital union apart from Christ, His Word, the parents and a Godly pastor in the pulpit?”
The flaw in your approach is that you are battling sinful human nature and the devil on the devil’s playing filed. Get out!! At great love and sacrifice to your (grand) children, de-legitimize public education by pulling the children out and placing Christ at the foundations of your children’s education. Once yours are protected then go on the attack of the public schools. But all new recruits to your cause must first get their own out!
You are all sounding just like my generation did back in the late 1980s and early ’90s. This same response failed then (and it got MUCH worse) and it will fail now. Public schools are now under a generational compounding curse. And children ‘opting out’ does nothing because your son or daughter will be, like a little goldfish, swimming in filth-pool filled with sexual sharks. Almost all of their peers in the halls, classrooms, gyms and locker-rooms will still have been perversely sexualized. This culture remains an unjust setting for the ‘opted out’ child.
I have taught a class in Lakeway, TX a few years ago on de-funding Texas public schools at the ballot box.
Final summary. You are fighting a defensive, rear-guard battle that has been losing since George H.W. Bush fist pushed thru legislation in the early 1970s to (Title X) fund classroom sex-talk, shortly after Mary Calderone (medical director of Planned Parenthood) with then-Monseigneur James T. McHugh’s (of National Conference Catholic Bishops) assistance, launched SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States). (Search “Rubbers” Bush.) [Editor’s Note: Their speaker in Austin was referencing Calderone and SEICUS in her remarks. But I heard no mention of the Catholic Church’s or the Bush family’s involvement in her remarks.]
A truly offensive approach would be to pull the children out of these ‘damned’ government schools and then go after their funding.
But then that might upset the Texas Baptists and their idolatrous love of football. Let them slump back and keep fighting their civilization (family) destroying, rear-guard battles – all to assuage their consciences while they can celebrate their Friday night lights! I can’t wait until God in heaven darkens those idolatrous lights!
You guys need to lead the Exodus out of the schools!
Replacing publicly owned public education controlled by secularists with privately owned public education controlled by parents is not a solution until it succeeds. MassResistance favors the long-term solution, but we are more focused on the immediate need to “resist” rather than the long-term need to “replace.” The latter goal is better addressed by organizations dedicated to it. Trying to accomplish both goals through one organization doesn’t work well for us.
“Privately owned public education controlled by parents”….what is this referring to?
In all due respect, your approach has not been a solution or succeeded over the last 45 years. I have been a financial donor to Brian Camenker (Mass Resistance) for some time but may need to reconsider.
Let me suggest you consider a legislative front to repeal all compulsory age laws, repeal state income tax and property tax levy laws used to fund public schools, repeal the corporations of Texas ISDs and get rid of the system. When successful, the tidal wave of cash in each local community would make high quality, God-fearing, parent-directed private schools easily affordable. And there would be boatloads of cash left over to fund charitable donations so that the children of the poor would start to receive a real education, instead of serving as a mere warm seat/enrollment unit needed to get access to state aid. And serve to further fund their opulent system.
One never gets down the road to such a reality until they first get past the snickering “You can’t be serious!” stage.
Abstinence education was created as a ruse in the late 1970s because the sexual perverts were panicked that so many Christians (especially in the Midwest and South) were pulling their kids out and starting private schools in response to George H.W. Bush’s and SEICUS’ new push to introduce classroom sex talk. The perverts responded with a two-fold approach.
They first funded development of the Christ-less, abstinence sex-talk curriculum, (I.e. Sex Respect was one of the first….have you ever looked at their “Teachers Manual”?) to trick parents into thinking their public school was OK as long as my kid can ‘opt out’ or be taught these pervert-created “abstinence” courses. Second, they made sure that all these new private schools were accredited by the state. (The root word to accreditation is credo or creed. So what is the state’s “creed” which these Christian schools seek to conform to?) In time, most private schools are now teaching the same crap. The Exodus of public schools was thwarted by their superior educational/legislative manipulations.
True resistance will begin with free-falling public-school enrollment numbers. God is not blessing their system. Like the Berlin Wall, Texas (and American) public schools will collapse. Personally, I think it will be sooner than we can imagine.
BTW, one of the first mainline pro-family organizations in the country has now joined our cause. See https://illinoisfamily.org/education/christian-parents-must-exit-government-schools/
Is there any way for us to exist in some kind of friendly way with you without us totally agreeing with you on every point of strategy in dealing with immediate needs? I’ve already said we agree with the preferability of privately owned, public schooling that is accountable to parental needs. (Privately owned, public schooling (POPS) is a phrase that comprehends Christian schools as well as other privately owned schools. It’s useful in recognizing two things: (1) Christian schools are open to the public, and (2) the problem with government-owned public schools (GOPS) is they are government owned, not that they are public. Most people involved in disinvesting government from ownership of public schools are well aware of why the preceding points are useful.) We don’t expect to turn GOPS into Christian schools. Our intent is to make them as tolerable as possible for people who have no other immediate choice but to use them. There is no need to browbeat us with info we already know. As far as our solution not working for 45 years, the situation we are dealing with is the result of your approach being corrupted into the mess we presently see. Your attempt to recover from that is laudable and we eagerly support it, but it’s no solution for parents whose only option tomorrow is a public school. In not seeming to understand that, I think you need to appreciate the difference between what is good and what is right— there’s a difference.
My further reply:
Tyranny and many failed solutions have been rationalized by the urgency of the “immediate”. This ‘immediate’ problem has been around for 45 years.
You seem to disparage me as not one of the ”most-people” who are aware of your definitions. But awareness of such a definition is a bit challenging, when your ‘definitional’ target is moving. In your first reply you wrote “privately owned public education”. Your next reply then ignores that and asserts what you were talking about was “Privately owned, public schooling (POPS)”
Public education, for the millions involved in it, has a fixed definition. It is schools incorporated by their given states, funded with taxpayer (income and property) dollars, accessible to all, with parent’s subject to the state’s compulsory age laws. There is no ‘private ownership’ of them of these government institutions.
Then you switch over to privately owned, public schooling, complete with your cool little acronym POPS. Aside from the fact that this looks like a term invented by a graduate student in a thesis written for some social welfare graduate program and he/she is offended that their work is not being recognized by a critic, I know most of the leaders involved in an informal national coalition ‘to exist public education’ and I’ve never seen POPS used in any of their writings.
Now let me help you become aware of the divergence in your moving target: Public education is funded by money extracted from taxpayers by force of law. Privately owned schooling is not.
Further, Christian schools being open to the public is NOT the same as public education schools being so open. The Christian schools can, should and must limit who of the public is so allowed in. Yes, they can be employed as tools of evangelism but an adopted child of a lesbian couple who has been given ‘orders’ to advance their cause in such a school, should not be a member of the public permitted into a Christian school. But true public education cannot so limit.
Let me apologize for any confusion I may have written which drew you to conclude, “As far as our solution not working for 45 years, the situation we are dealing with is the result of your approach being corrupted into the mess we presently see. “
To be clear, I have resisted your approach since the mid-1980s. My peers didn’t as few to anyone has picked up “my” approach. Again, the organic effort to start Christian schools was aborted in the mid-1970s by the legal/educational gamesmanship of the perverted sexologists and their public policy friends.
The mess we currently see is the fruit of the pro-life movement’s failed response – which I opposed starting in the mid-1980s – and yet the one you folks are browbeating people into following still today. The only recovery will come when Christians abandon these schools and in time the public schools close. That will be both good and right. Even with all the great work Judith Reisman did, I never read where she called for closing public schools and getting the children out NOW!
The discussion became less than productive after this. But now you see the problem. That which has no Biblical warrant to exist, public schools, and which are anything but free, remain ‘a given’ in their eyes. It remains an issue we will deal with some day down the road. But not now! This ultimate faith in the Christ-less government school systems has only made matters ‘compoundingly’ worse for each new generation. When will leaders have the heart of sacrificial service to Christ and to children?
I still think we need to begin leaflet-dropping these compromised gatherings with a flier on the “Sin of Public Education”. I am confident there will be some in the audience whom the Holy Spirit has prepared their hearts to hear His Word and save their children.
~~Paul R. Dorr, Director
THE WAR FOR THE SOULS AND MINDS OF CHRISTIAN CHILDREN ALONG WITH THE SPIRITUAL WAR TO CLOSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS LONG OVERDUE!
Martin Luther was right. Schools not founded in Christ are hog-pens, they are of Satan and they will perish!
“For, it is my serious opinion, prayer, and desire that these hog-pens and Satan’s schools either be sunk into the abyss or changed into Christian schools”. ~Martin Luther, To Magistrates and Councilmen
“Gerhard Groote, a wealthy and educated man from Holland, saw a need and founded the Brethren of the Common Life schools. These schools stressed piety and Christian living…These schools were foundational to the Reformation insomuch as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and other reformers were trained in Brethren of Common Life schools or ones inspired by them…
“These schools, existing primarily in Holland and Germany, maintained, as do Christian schools today, “Learning without piety was rather a curse than a blessing.”” (Kienel 189).
“Above all in schools of all kinds the chief and most common lesson should be the Scriptures….but where the Holy Scriptures are not the rule, I advise no one to send his child. Everything must perish where God’s Word is not studied unceasingly”. ~Martin Luther
E. Ray Moore Director of Exodus Mandate has submitted a paper to Liberty University’s 500th Anniversary celebration of the Reformation. The quotes above were taken from it. It is titled and can be found here: What Once Was Can Be Again. In it, Moore documents the clear connections between the Reformation and the Biblical training/education of children.
Many Christian schools have lost their way today because they sought the humanist state’s money and accreditation. R. J. Rushdoony says here that the Christian school should be so superior in knowledge and training that all other schools will be seeking the Church’s accreditation, not the other way around.
Failing Christian schools will be restored once they also end their idolatry of the state.
Having done plenty of sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics several years ago RTP was recently drawn to penning this text below, to be used by any ministry who want. This has received positive critiques from Christian men with more years of sidewalk ministry than ours. Use as you desire.
When I submitted this letter to one of the most award winning weekly newspapers in America, I never thought they’d publish it. I was quite surprised to see they did. In its entirety. You can read it here.
IS BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES PRO-CHOICE?
Reprint of Rescue the Perishing newsletter February 1993,
by Paul R. Dorr firstname.lastname@example.org
Author’s Notes: This article was published and disseminated throughout NW Iowa and portions of South Dakota and Minnesota, 25+ years ago. What I never anticipated was the flurry of the phone calls I received from a District-Associate Judge, foster parents, unwed mothers and young couples trying to adopt – all who had read it! Their common refrain was, “Finally, someone has exposed this fraud of a ministry!” Or, “What’s most disgusting is that it’s being done in the name of Christ!” There were plenty of tears over the phone and one indignant Judge. Nothing has been done about Bethany, to my knowledge, and they continue to enjoy the support of Reformed and evangelical churches!
In an unrelated Federal lawsuit Dorr brought against his local Sheriff for violation of his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights (in which the Sheriff later suffered a humiliating loss in the final order from the Federal Judge), Bethany’s Adri Rusich (discussed below) notified the Sheriff’s attorney that she’d be willing to be a witness against me. I was eager for Ruisch to arrive on the stand. She was never called to testify and has never responded to this article. There has been no response from their corporate office, where several copies of the original were sent.
The enemies of God and human life (Planned Parenthood, etc.) have for years hidden behind the veil that abortion is a women’s right to choose. “Choice” is everywhere around us today. The alluring language of freedom to choose is even drawing many in the church of Jesus Christ and now the prolife movement into its seductive web. That web is constructed of spindles called “privilege,” “freedom,” “patriotism,” “decision-making,” etc. But the spider’s poison is still as deadly and even bitterer when one has been destroyed by this process of choosing.
This is not to say we shouldn’t enjoy a wide selection of choices when we focus on behavior that is amoral. (“What color dress should I wear?” or “What kind of automobile do I like best?”, etc.) These decisions center on personal preference. But the dilemma is when behavior, forbidden in the law-word of God, is taught in such a manner that one believes that any response is not necessarily good or bad, just that they are supposed to choose the decision that is best for me. That is truly another law at work within the body of Christ, and is not of the law of God. See Romans 7:22-23
This heresy has been advanced through the Church by infiltrating the seminaries, other higher academic sources, secondary education, “Christian” psychology, and now even some in the pro-life movement are adopting this belief. And the danger is that it’s internally eroded the very credibility of our message; that only God can take the life of an innocent human being.
Let’s take a look at how this is affecting one ministry, Bethany Christian Services (Bethany). Bethany is a national Christian adoption agency that, for years, has helped many anxious parents adopt a child (ren). The aching empty arms of some barren parents have been filled by the work of this agency. Naturally, many of these parents and the affected families are strong supporters of Bethany.
Bethany is based in Grand Rapids, MI and was originally supported by Christians affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church. According to the organization’s 1991 literature they had offices in 26 states and 55 communities, a budget of $16 million ($71 million in 2011..prd), 345 staff members, placed 822 children in adoptive homes and had 3,440 women visit their offices that year. This budget equates to $19,465 spent for every baby placed during 1991. Bethany’s closest offices in this region are located in Orange City, IA, Des Moines, IA and Rapid City, SD.
Bethany has enjoyed the reputation of having a long record of pro-life Christian service. In northwest Iowa the Orange City office has regularly joined with other pro-life groups to sponsor a Spring pro-life rally, which usually draws a large crowd. But interestingly, a review of their literature, provided to women in a crisis pregnancy, revealed little use of the identifying ‘pro-life’ label.
Updated photo of Bethany office
in Orange City, IA
Before discussing the detrimental effect of Bethany’s use of the “choice” language we would do good to understand the larger picture of abortion and adoption. In 1986 (the most recent year published numbers are available) approximately 104,000 babies were placed for adoption in America. In the year prior, approximately 1,589,000 babies lost their lives by abortion, according to the “Statistical Abstract of the US, 1989.” In other words, approximately 15 babies lost their lives for every one that was adopted.
Also, according to the Abstract teen-age girls had 290,000 births in 1986 and 427,000 abortions in 1983. A fact commonly agreed on by adoption agencies is that only 3% of all teen girls who let their baby live, place the baby for adoption. The other 97% keep their babies, alone or married. In 1986 this would equal 8,700 babies (290,000 x 3%) adopted out by teen mothers. To summarize, in 1983-86 approximately 49 babies conceived by teen-age mothers, died by abortion for every one baby that was placed for adoption (427,000 divided by 8,700).
Regardless if it’s 15 to 1 in the overall population or 49 to 1 in the teen population, babies conceived and not raised by the birth mother or birth parents, have a high likelihood of dying in the abortion chambers of America. This is important to remember when reviewing the programs promoted by Bethany.
One Bethany office provides a 27 page brochure entitled, A Loving Choice to women in crisis pregnancies who seek their counseling. This brochure was published in 1990 by their Grand Rapids, MI home office. In Orange City, IA it is supplemented by other materials, but appears to be their primary counseling document. It merits our review.
At first glance one notices it is laced with Planned Parenthood style language, i.e. “Explore your options,” “examine all your choices,” “explore your feelings,” “sexually active” (as opposed to the Christian term “fornication”), etc. And except for some occasional generic uses of the word God and Christian, there is little of Christ found in the text. No mention of His name, no use of the Word of God, etc. It only teaches the young reader how to battle sin in the flesh and nothing to equip them spiritually. (Eph. 6:12)
Nowhere is abortion identified as sin or as an offense to God in the brochure. In fact, the brochure makes no case as to why the woman in a crisis pregnancy should not have one. The very word abortion is only found once – on page 11. It says, “Allowing your child to be born, rather than choosing abortion, is a loving decision.”
When compared to death by abortion why is life referred to as “a” loving decision? Why isn’t it “the” loving obligation? Why is the young reader provided an option to “choose” when it comes to the child’s life?
Several times the text also intrudes between the young woman and her parents, similar to the method used by Planned Parenthood and many of our government’s social services and education agencies. On page 6 it says, “You have plenty of time to thoroughly examine all of your choices. [Ed note: Never does it say abortion is not a choice.] With the help of a social worker or other adult whom you trust you will be gradually able to…”
Why does Bethany steer the girls first to a government worker and away from her parents? Surely not every teen pregnancy involves an abusive father. As well, most county social workers are very familiar with their area Planned Parenthood staff. Why can’t Bethany Christian Services establish a network of Christian pastors or Christ-centered counselors who could bring the Gospel into the center of the family’s problems? If churches won’t do this, then why doesn’t Bethany publicly call them to account for not their called task of “sharing the burdens”?
Page 22 of the brochure discusses the merits of family counseling by stating that it “may” be wise to include other family members in this counseling if the girl is thinking about placing her baby up for adoption. And then it says, “Although your parents have no legal rights to your child, they are concerned about you.”
In light of the silence regarding abortion in this brochure, why does Bethany share this knowledge (sic. Parents having no rights) with young women in a crisis pregnancy? Couldn’t this give her an additional opening to “choose” abortion? Is this information vitally important for her to hear during her counseling?
In a strange argumentation, the brochure attempts to convince young women why they shouldn’t feel obligated to raise the child as an act of punishment for past ‘sexual activity.’ It concludes on page 14 with the following, “God does not sentence you to a life of parenting when you are not ready.”
Why is the joy of raising a child presented to these girls as a “sentence”, a punishment? How does this make her view her child? As an instrument of some meted out punishment from God? What if she truly is contrite and repentant and wants to raise her child in the fear of the Lord? This remarkable statement is an offense to all mothers who turned their lives around after an unwed pregnancy, bore their child, and faithfully nurtured him/her in the faith to adulthood, married or unmarried.
Page 6 and 7 place considerable emphasis on the “you have choices” theme. Never are Biblical boundaries placed by Bethany on the choices set before the reader. Then, in a hazardous discussion, they portray the seemingly impossible task of single parenting and/or teen-age marriage through a frightening set of undocumented statistics implying that teen parenthood will surely leave her/them poor and uneducated. This message, while pandering to materialism, conveys the identical message that our government social services conveys and is in conflict with Matt. 6:25-33. This is done to share their “concerns” with the young woman about her keeping the child.
But noticeably absent is any discussion of the joys of motherhood or any encouraging talk to stop sinning and begin working at rebuilding her life, in Christ. Some may think, “Well they are an adoption agency, isn’t this expected of them?” Well, maybe. But remember the statistics cited earlier. Once the young woman is convinced not to keep her baby, the probability of the baby living is very low. This anti-parenting counseling (motivated to generate an adoption, and the resulting cash this creates for Bethany) can easily be a death warrant for the child. When the absolutes of God’s law-word are ignored and is replaced with “choice,” everything begins to unravel.
Bethany’s choice-based teaching as also showed up in a chastity video they produced for young viewers entitled Second Thoughts. The problems with this video haven’t escaped the attention of another pro-life group, Human Life International (HLI) of Gaithersburg, MD. HLI has earned world-wide respect (at that time…editor’s note) for its resolute defense of the unborn.
In a recently published critique of Second Thoughts HLI wrote, “The video does talk about abstinence from sex until marriage, but it fails to give a strong Christian message and it follows the Planned Parenthood (PP) for teaching about sex. The first scene of Second Thoughts opens during Julie’s wedding day preparations. Her mother comes in acting silly and forgetful, and asking stupid questions. This is typical of PP materials; parents are never portrayed as competent and in control…No matter how small and insignificant this may appear, it leaves the child wide open to powerful influences from outsiders.”
The next scene is a flashback to the day the kids played hooky and went to the beach. Julie is wearing a one-piece bathing suit cut high over the hips—a very immodest cut. The girls are discussing fornication. Julie says she is not “ready for sex,” but Rosie, who is smoking a cigarette, already fornicates, and talks about it. Boys appear on the scene. Todd gives Rosie a hug, then grabs her buttocks and pulls her toward his groin.”
Later in their critique HLI reviews the discussion guide that comes with Bethany’s Second Thoughts video, produced for the Sex Respect abstinence curriculum. On pages 16-17 of the Christian version of the discussion guide HLI found the following, “Many options exist other than marriage in the case of teen-age pregnancy. Abortion, single parenting, and adoption represent some other options and each carries profound ramifications. However, the best option might be something other than marriage.”
HLI’s critique concludes, “How can calling abortion an option be in harmony with the prolife philosophy? Abortion is diametrically opposed to life. It is the most “extreme” choice.” It is legalized murder.”
Adri Ruisch Lies
From what HLI has reported, Bethany is consistent in their “choices” teaching. Bethany’s, Orange City, IA director, Adri Ruisch, responded to an inquiry by Rescue the Perishing’s (RTP) director, Paul Dorr, regarding HLI’s charges in the critique. In a note dated January 14, 1992, Ruisch wrote Dorr and said, “I will review brochure (sic. HLI’s critique) and be happy to discuss it with you. I will also forward to our corporate office.” After several months of silence, Dorr inquired again in a letter dated June 2, 1992. To date, RTP has not heard of a rebuttal to the charges made in HLI’s critique. HLI officials also report that they have heard nothing from Bethany, as well.
Current Picture of Adri Ruisch
Further, Adri Ruisch made a presentation to several hundred adolescents at a Northwest Iowa Peer Helper Referral Fair in Sioux City, IA on February 26, 1992. This peer referral event was sponsored by the Sioux City East High School peer-referral group and school counselors were in charge. Ruisch was there, as she has done several times before, sharing the podium with Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s Sioux City director. (For more information on Planned Parenthood’s peer referral strategy read page 110-111 of George Grant’s book, Grand Illusions.)
Also in attendance during Ruisch’s talk were two Sioux City, IA pro-life mothers. Neither had prior knowledge of Bethany or of Ruisch. One of them, Dana Black, took short (but careful) notes during her presentation. Black reports that Ruisch painted the same dismal picture of teen parenting that their counseling brochure does. In a meeting held with Black and Dorr on June 11, 1992, Ruisch confirmed this portion of her presentation. But worse, both women also accused Ruisch of saying,
“Now if the pregnancy test comes out positive, we offer four options. There’s abortion, marriage, single parenting and adoption. Although we don’t do abortions, we will make referrals. If you decide to get married, you need to realize how hard it’s going to be. A lot of people think, ‘we’ll get married and have the baby and everything will be all right.’ But that’s not how it is.”
Interestingly, Ruisch’s alleged ‘four options’ statement is consistent with Bethany’s Second Thoughts video discussion guide, examined earlier.
After this presentation a third Sioux City woman who heard Ruisch that day, Virginia Van Lent (who had not had any previous acquaintance with Black and her colleague) wrote a letter-to-the-editor to the Sioux City Globe (Catholic Diocese) newspaper on March 19, 1992, alerting readers that Bethany “…do(es) referrals for abortions.” Since hearing these three accusations, Ruisch has denied making the statement about referrals for abortion, when she faced two of her accusers in a private meeting held in Sioux City, IA on June 11, 1992. But seven months after hearing this Ruisch has not yet brought forth one witness that affirms her version of that day’s events. If these accusations are true, why would Bethany’s Ruisch make such statements if they, in fact, aren’t making referrals? What purpose did it serve to say it then? Did she want to sound like Planned Parenthood? If so, why?
Again, remember the low number of babies adopted out relative to the high number of babies aborted. Could it be that Ruisch needs to lie to these young people to have them believing Bethany provides the full range of services (including abortion referrals) so any future pregnant teen will not prematurely rule them out as a possible agency to seek, if they wouldn’t offer the full range of services? Only later during a counseling session when the girl decides she is not going to adopt and wants to abort and asks them for a referral, they can say, “Oh, we’re sorry, but we don’t offer abortion referrals.” When the teen girl protests saying that she heard Ruisch say otherwise, they can reply, “Oh, you must have misunderstood her, we’ve never offered abortion referrals.”
Does Bethany lie to young girls so as to insure the high volume of pregnant girls coming through their turnstiles so that they can harvest their 3% off of, which generates the cash flow for the organization? Sure they do.
Further, Bethany’s corporate Mission Goals statement says, “We will…be allied only with organizations and advocacy groups that are consistent with our mission and promote the goals of our agency.”
If this is so, then why did Bethany ally themselves with Planned Parenthood at this teen peer referral event? Is Planned Parenthood, as an organization, consistent with the goals of Bethany?
An answer we might expect is, “We are making inroads into these public schools and getting to these kids to offset the effects of Planned Parenthood.” Well, let’s step back and objectively think about this. George Grant says, in Grand Illusions (p. 126), that, “Planned Parenthood…is so deeply entrenched in the public school machinery that reform can only mean more of the same: more debauchery, more brazenness, more humanism, and more wickedness.” Also, government educators are persecuting Christian children for even trying to silently pray in public school cafeterias.
In this environment, are we to believe that Bethany is maintaining its’ distinctively Christian moral perspective at these teen referral events? If a truly Christian moral view was offered by Bethany, do you believe they would be invited back into this public school another time? Yet Bethany gets invited back. Does Bethany believe they are helping bring about ‘reform’ in the public schools? Maybe we need to ask, who is reforming whom?
During the Sioux City, IA meeting held last summer Bethany’s Orange City, IA director Ruisch, admitted to RTP’s Dorr that if an unwed pregnant Christian girl does not agree to adopt through Bethany, they will not necessarily notify her parents, even if they know she has scheduled an abortion. Her reason was that they have to maintain confidentiality as they never know how many of the girl’s fathers are the actual abusers.
Theologian and Pastor Jay Adams in his book Handbook of Church Discipline (p. 33) addresses this very situation. He says, “The matter of confidentiality has arisen in some pro-life centers for unwed mothers. Certain centers have opted for giving prospective mothers assurance of absolute confidentiality. But this means that when a Christian plans to have an abortion in spite of their counsel to the contrary, the center pledges not to tell her parents or her church. That leads not only to making an unacceptable vow, but possibly also to having complicity in the death of the child.”
Bethany could also enter into agreements with local church boards, where a teen girl wants to repent, wants help and accuses her father of being the molester, where the church could step in between her and her father and offer her a home to stay in, and call her parents to repentance and notify civil authorities where appropriate.
A Spy Goes Thru Bethany
On August 14, 1992, Tammy Dvorak went through a crisis pregnancy counseling session in Bethany’s Orange City, IA office. With mounting concern regarding Bethany’s ‘pro-life’ ethics, Dvorak agreed to pretend she was pregnant so as to obtain an accurate appraisal of their counseling. (Is it a sin to conceal the truth from one who intends to use it for sin/harm? No, please check here.) Dvorak knew it would be the only way she could get a true-to-life counseling experience. She has now reported her experience back to us saying,
“The Lord’s name was never invoked, nor was the truth of Holy Scriptures ever employed. Also my counselor hardly mentioned the baby. When I appeared to lose interest in the baby’s welfare, she dropped it and I never heard about the baby again. Everything focused on what was best for me. Finally, when I mentioned that I wanted an abortion, my counselor said nothing to dissuade me, nothing to fight for the child’s life. A few days later I called back and talked to Adri Ruisch. I told her I was desperate and had to have the abortion. Again, nothing was said to try and stop me from getting it. And though I mentioned where my family lived no effort was made to contact them after I said I was going to get the abortion.”
If Miss Dvoark had truly been pregnant, a child’s life would have been at risk. How many other young women have been through this Bethany office and have received the same silence when she said she wanted to have an abortion? Remember, they are known as a “pro-life Christian” adoption agency. This could be the only Christian counselor that a scared, vulnerable, young girl talks to before she heads to the abortion mill to kill her child and to be scarred for life. And this counselor from Bethany could be the baby’s one and only [earthly] hope. This outrage of silence is going on under the banner of Jesus Christ. This very situation is addressed in James 4:17, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”
Under a Hillary Clinton view of what makes for a “fit” parent, government social service agencies around the nation are now determining that certain “overweight” parents, in and of itself, now present an “at risk” situation for their children. In fact, Missouri’s Parents as Teachers family ‘disruption’ program has already included a category for ‘overweight parents’ that a social worker must check when conducting a home visit. Apparently, overweight is subjectively left up to the government employee. In Iowa and other states several reports have come out that large numbers of women employed in social service agencies are often crusading against the Biblical prescriptions for the family, are supports of the feminist agenda, and have few children of their own and experience abnormally high divorce rates.
Reliable reports have come out that certain overweight parents who meet all other standards of eligibility are having a more difficult time being placed on Bethany’s adoptive parents list. We also need to understand the manipulative power that an adoption agency can wield over a couple who is longing to adopt. It is doubtful that such rejected parents will complain about Bethany’s policy if they ever wish to adopt through them in the future. They will endure much before they will walk away from a potential child and such an investment of time and money.
Clearly “choice” has now triumphed at this 48 year old agency. Like many other previously good organizations and churches, subtle error takes a small seed and begins to grow, and finally overcomes their original good goals and purpose. Today, Bethany’s corporate State of Purpose, says they want “to…be a quality social service agency…” Maybe that is the most we can say of them. They are another government-style social service agency. Granted, they do make some couples very happy when they adopt a baby. But then, so do secular adoption agencies.
So what do you think? Should Bethany be called “pro-life”? Should they have “Christian” in their name? Would you send a girl in a crisis pregnancy to one of their centers for counseling? Would you send them any financial support?
Revelation 3:1b-3 says, “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God.[a] 3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”
Maybe the hour is later than we think for Bethany. Pray that they repent and obey soon. The good news is that not every Christian adoption organization has compromised with the spirit of death stalking our land.
John Upton of Vallecito, CA is operating a Christian adoption ministry for hard-to-place babies. He come highly recommended and can be reached at Chalcedon, PO Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251 Ph 209/736-4365. Also, Operation Rescue National has launched a national adoption ministry. They can be reached at PO Box 127, Summerville, SC 29484 Ph 803/821-8441. If you know of other ethical Christian adoption agencies, please let us know at RTP.
Note: In 2019 Bethany announced they were going to allow sodomy couples to both foster and adopt babies through their program.
See hard copy to print off here.
Rescue the Perishing has long seen the threat to Christian civilization posed by the sexual revolution as being much greater within the Christian churches than from unbelievers. The silence, acquiescence, apathy and finally capitulation, has occurred in about one generation. The power of the Gospel and our Lord’s Law-Word was taken off the table and replaced with fear and/or deceptive sophism’s.
In the homosexual realm we once confronted the fundamental lie of “sexual orientation” being advocated on the “Christian” campus of Central College, Pella, Iowa in the Spring of 2003. We distributed this attached flier all over Pella.
A few years later a public television crew from New York City (WNYC) came to Ocheyedan to film my objections to a Lutheran girl setting up a homosexual GLSEN club at M-OC Floyd Valley High School in Orange City, IA. (They nearly pleaded to interview me when after they spent two days of contacting over 40 pastors in the Sioux County, Iowa area and couldn’t find one willing to go on camera and challenge this high school girl’s public rebellion.)
Their question of me was, ‘How should Christians treat someone in the Church who has been born with a homosexual orientation but has not acted on it; that is, had not engaged in a homosexual act‘ (which was this girl’s claim). My response had the audio/video crew members sporting the “we’ve been had” grin by the time I was done. To my knowledge, my interview was never broadcast. Below is a close summary of what I said on camera. (Their question, BTW, was an accurate repeat of the sinful doctrine held by the Christian Reformed Church denomination.)
What if I could convince the Rockefeller, Robert Woods Johnson and the Packard foundations, who’ve been well known to fund research on sexual anarchy, to donate up to $750 million to the top five research universities and medical schools in North America and Europe, telling them to look for a genetic DNA code that proves some people are born with an orientation to steal their way through life? And, also, look for another genetic code demonstrating that others are born with an orientation NOT to be sexually faithful to their spouse? What if they told these universities and medical schools that they would start with provisional allocations of the money and based on their reports of “promising” research data, more millions of pledged dollars would be freed up to continue their research. No one would be surprised to see these institutions responded by hiring researchers, PhD’s, and lab technicians; then open new labs and go to work doing self-proclaimed objective research.
Who’d be surprised to learn after a few years the research did “look promising” and as a result, millions more dollars came to each university? After 5 to 7 years of this process who would be surprised to see the research directors of these top universities stand with the Executive Directors of these foundations at the National Press Club announcing major scientific ‘breakthroughs’?
Like the following, “We can now prove with scientific certainty that some people have been conceived with a deterministic orientation to commit adultery and others to steal. The research data proves it,” they would sanctimoniously announce.
The response? There’s a big PR hoopla. “Now the problem with stealing and crime is understood! Now the problem with divorce and societal family breakdown has a scientific explanation to it!”
Soon the media and cultural tools are unleashed. This new “science” is showing up in Hollywood scripts, day-time talk shows, videos, songs, etc. The publishing industry gets millions and soon biology textbooks for high schools and universities now report this “scientific evidence” as fact. Soon schools are teaching this new science and people with these new-found genetic orientations are coming around to speak to student assemblies sharing their struggles with such. A full-blown propaganda system has been executed for a few years when suddenly, a few members in your church now conclude that this is their deterministic biological orientation.
How are the rest of us in the church to know such fellow members have been born with this orientation? Easily. They are telling their fellow member that this new scientific “fact” applies to them. And they are asking for our love, prayers, kindness and sacrificial compassion.
Now consider these incidents in my church.
What if after worship one Sunday Pieter came up to Rod and said, “Rod you know I have not done well in life. It’s because I was born with a genetic orientation to steal my way through life, and not work. Would you pray for me brother? Your $70,000 pickup is the best looking set of wheels in the church parking lot. My orientation is to come out late some night to your garage and steal your pickup. I know that would be sin and I can’t do that, but please pray for me, because I’m really tempted and struggling with my genetic orientation to steal.”
Or how about when Helen approached Gertrude and said, “Gertie I need your prayers. You know God made me with a genetic orientation not to be faithful to my Herman. Your Leo is the best looking man in church and I’m really tempted to seduce him some night and sleep with him. Now I know it would be sin to do this, but I need your prayers and compassion so I don’t act on my genetic orientation to commit adultery.”
When the redeemed sinner struggles with lustful thoughts and desires, both material and sexual, and doesn’t act on them in any fashion – then the limit of his/her sin is between them and God. They need to repent of these thoughts, seek a closer walk and dependence on Christ through reading His Word, prayer, right worship, service to the needy and striving to obey His law in all areas of his/her life. If they have not sinned against a brother or sister in Christ (or any others), yet continue to struggle with temptation, he/she must go to their pastor or elders and their spouse (if any), and quietly share their struggles and ask for prayer and spiritual guidance.
But for some reason the person in the Church struggling with the sin of his/her desire to engage in sodomy gets to transform the name from “lust” to “orientation”, go around the church advertising it and asking for everyone to support and love him/her. If the potential thief or adulterer tried this he/she would be firmly advised to stop and come talk to Pastor for counsel the first time. The second time they employed such “coarse talk” (Eph. 5:4) they’d be sternly rebuked and the third time they’d be shown the door as a trouble-maker.
But somehow the rules are different for those with homosexual thoughts/lusts in the Church? I’m not buying it. Homosexuals need to repent of their sinful thoughts and turn to Christ like the rest of us redeemed sinners.
END OF RESPONSE