Author: prd

The Sin Of Public Education Flier Being Passed Out In Fort Worth, TX Nov 18, 2017

 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.

Evangelical, Pro-life, Testified In State Legislature on Pro-life Bill: All The While Continuing In Her Unrepentant Fornication. Visit Your Local CPC!

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 their policy ‘honoring thy father and thy mother.’  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.  (Again, the Fargo clinic mailed it out redacted.)   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.”

Texas Mass Resistance Needs To Be Texas Mass Exodus!

Facebook Discussion With Texas Mass Resistance

Proverbs 16:25
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!

TMR’s reply:
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.

My reply:
“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/

TMR’s reply:
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!

Final Note:
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/Minds Of Christian Children And To Close Public School Is Long Over Due!

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.

Is Bethany Christian Services Pro-Choice?

IS BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES PRO-CHOICE?

Reprint of Rescue the Perishing newsletter February 1993,
by Paul R. Dorr    rtp@iowatelecom.net

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 more bitter 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.

Homosexual Orientation Has Been a Fraud Since Introduced By Propaganda System!

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.)

MY RESPONSE:
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

Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers Fueling The Abortion Crisis?

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.