The unity of the body and the soul in the unborn, by the Rev. Gerrit Dawson
Doors, Julie's story told by husband Matt
The call to adoption, by Candace Adams
Eight steps a congregation can take to support families who adopt older and special needs children
Knowing what we are doing, by Elizabeth Achtemeier
ACSWP seeks to redefine General Assembly abortion policy
A short history of the Presbyterian Church on abortion: Part 2
From the President of PPL: Stewardship of life, By Don Elliott
Woman to Woman: Passing on the truth, by Terry Schlossberg

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
The unity of the body and the soul in the unborn
by the Rev. Gerrit Dawson

• This is the first of two articles that focus on Theologian Thomas Torrance's central arguments that the church's historical position on abortion is derived principally from the doctrines of Creation and Incarnation, and are consonent with scientific evidence. Copies of Torrance's essay are available from PPL.

What does this all mean? If the union of human sperm and human egg do not produce a new human being, what exactly do they produce? If Presbyterians believe that whatever is produced eventually--apparently in every case--becomes a human being, when does that transformation take place and how?

There is a dualism at work whenever the discussion separates the biological reality from some additional quality that makes a human being. Noted theologian Thomas F. Torrance, whose work has emphasized the intersection between science and theology, has brought his Trinitarian theology to bear on the discussion of the unborn in a manner that disputes a dualism that allows for a biological entity to exist that is not yet a human being.

It is Torrance's emphatic assertion that Christian faith demands a thoroughly pro-life stance. He explains why in an essay of his titled "The Soul and Person of the Unborn Child" (1999).

The early church believed in a unity of body and soul
Amidst a culture of rampant abortion, what led the early church to strongly declare, "do not murder a child by abortion, or kill a newborn infant"?¹ The Christian church arose from Judaism, and continued in the biblical understanding that a living human being is a body/soul unity. Continuing that historical precedent of the church in the face of the most current scientific knowledge, Torrance writes, we are embodied souls and besouled bodies. Human beings are not just a collection of individual parts bolted together by skin and bones, living just until one of the vital cogs wears out and we cease to be. No, the reality that we have a soul means that an essential part of who we are is a relationship to a higher intelligence. We are "specifically created by God in correspondence to himself." We find the meaning of our lives only in connection to One who is more and other than we.

Good science
This relationship of every human being to God is much more continual and dynamic than we may ordinarily realize. We are a unity of body and spirit and in relationship to God from the beginning to the end of our lives. Paul wrote that all things were created by Christ, the Son of God, and "in him all things hold together."² This means that God has an immediate relationship to his creation. Right now, he is holding things together by his power.

Too many of us today are unconsciously influenced by a philosophy of Deism that was prevalent 200 years ago. Deists believed that God set up the world, then departed, pretty much leaving things to run by themselves.³ Their philosophy entwined with the science of the great Isaac Newton. He articulated the laws that apply in our world with unprecedented clarity. We owe a great debt to his science. But Newton viewed God as standing outside the creation, seldom interacting or intervening in the real world. And today many of us think that way. We're here. God is there. He may have made things, but basically he set it up and now lets it run its course.

The science of Einstein returned us to a more Biblical view. In his view the universe is not closed, like a box, but open. There is a source to the order we find in the universe. There is a higher intelligence, what Torrance calls "a controlling source of information." For us to live, our component parts must exist in relationship to each other and in relationship to God.

A metaplan: Gods relationship to us from the beginning
Torrance speaks of a metaplan which regulates the forming of living beings. He quotes the physicist Paul Davies, "If every molecule of DNA possesses the same global plan for the whole organism, how is it that different cells implement different parts of that plan?" In other words, all the genetic information about you is contained completely in every one of the trillions of cells in every part of your body. Each cell has the whole package. But how is it that a fingernail cell knows to become a fingernail, while a heart-chamber cell knows to become part of the heart-chamber? This seems to be determined by the order of the chemical "letters" in the genes. But how and why do they get into their particular order?

The scientist Davies asks, "Is there perhaps, a 'metaplan' to tell each cell which part of the plan to implement?" And Torrance answers, "It is clear…that however wonderful and complicated the DNA may be, it cannot of itself account for the enormously greater complexity of many parts of one's physical body. Where does the information content of the genome come from?….There is and must be a regulative force, and indeed a controlling source of information… something over and above our genetic [parts]and which bears upon the human nature and life of the developing embryo from the moment of conception." There is a transcendent source of information that causes us to be, every moment, and that source is God.

We are more than the sum of our parts
We cannot be explained by the sum of our parts. There is a ground and source of life, and of order that sustains us. From the beginning, we are not just bodies; we are besouled bodies. Through the soul, which opens to a reality greater than we can perceive, the regulating, shaping information comes and makes us who we are.

God is in a dynamic, constant, living relationship with every cell in our bodies! He created us and continually creates us as the source of the metaplan that causes our cells to take the shape and perform the functions required for the miraculous complexity of a human being. This relationship began at the moment of our conception. From the instant of fertilization, the unique metaplan of each person began expressing itself. Through him all things hold together. In him we truly live and move and have our being.

In the end, Christian faith answers the question of when a human life begins. Psalm 139 interprets the scientific facts with the metaplan: "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mothers womb.... Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." Any dispute among Christians over the beginning of a human life must begin with this intersection between faith and science.

Footnotes
1. The Didache, 2.2.
2. Colossians 1: 16-17
3. The traditional image is that of a watchmaker creating the watch, winding it, then letting it go. Evolutionary theory would add that the watchmaker was blind!

• Gerrit Dawson is married and the father of four children. He is pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Lenoir and engages in an active writing ministry. Dawson has written numerous articles on the Christian spiritual life and his fifth book, I Am With You Always: Meeting Jesus in Every Season of Life, will be released this Spring. He met Thomas Torrance in Edinburgh five years ago and immediately became an ardent student. Their relationship led to Dawsons editing in 1999 a book of essays by the Torrance brothers entitled A Passion for Christ.

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
Doors
Julie's story told by husband Matt

In July of 1985, my husband and I paraded through the front door of Methodist Hospital in Minneapolis. We came to give birth to a beautiful baby girl, Bonnie Joy. Six years prior to that life-giving entrance through the front door, I had quietly slipped into the back door of Methodist Hospital, also known as The Meadowbrook Women's Clinic. Single, lonely, frightened, I had come to terminate an accidental pregnancy. I had come to abort a baby. This is the story of those two doors.

Babies at the front door
When I entered through the front door, they insisted that I ride in a wheelchair. The nurse called me "Mrs. Woodley" and wheeled me past a nursery room brimming with living, breathing, screaming babies. Babies with names. Babies with freshly washed faces. Babies carefully wrapped in blue and pink blankets and little white capes.

Everything about my hospital room invited, embraced, and welcomed babies. Painted in bright pastel colors, the walls boasted little teddy bears dancing and smiling at me. Delicate, ruffled curtains graced the windows. The decor quietly said, "This is a time for celebration. We will take care of you and your baby."

No babies at the back door
In stark contrast, when I entered the back door (that is, The Meadowbrook Women's Clinic), they insisted that I, first of all, pay the bill. Then the nurse gave me a number and directed me to a plain waiting room. Little teddy bears did not dance on the walls. Actually, anything baby-like--baby curtains, baby noises, baby colors, baby names--was strictly forbidden. Instead, the decor sternly commanded, "This is not a time for celebration. Take care of your business, and go home."

Care at the front door
Shortly after entering the front door, my nurse strapped a monitor on my belly. As she tightened the belt, her calm, relaxed eyes met my fear-filled eyes. Gently touching my hand, she offered her reassurance: "I know you're nervous, honey, but don't worry. Here we don't take any chances with babies." She silently studied the monitor's printout, and then confidently informed me, "Don't worry. The heartbeat is strong. Your baby is alive and healthy." For the next twenty hours, three nurses took turns methodically recording and analyzing the rapid little heartbeat.

By this time I knew all about little heartbeats. During our prenatal classes, I discovered that at a mere three weeks after conception, my baby's heart began to beat and pump blood. If necessary, an electroencephalogram could have detected brain waves at about eight weeks. My classes also taught me that at ten weeks from conception a tiny Bonnie Joy was closing her delicate eyelids, puckering her lips, responding to touch, and forming a fist.

Darkness at the back door
Of course, In 1979, when I entered the back door for an abortion, all of these well-documented medical facts were carefully avoided. Nobody talked about baby heartbeats, blood, brain waves, eyelids, lips, or fists. Instead, they spoke softly and solemnly about "unwanted tissue," "inconveniences," and "choices." It (the baby, that is) was an intruder--a formless, featureless, undifferentiated blob, but still a dangerous intruder. The attitude was simple: let's remove it.

Hope at the front door
Not so behind the front door. After nearly twenty hours of grueling but unsuccessful labor, a young doctor was urgently called into my room. Jody, my third nurse, whispered anxiously to the doctor. Then he sat by my bed, deep in thought, his eyes lost in charts and papers and printouts. His eyes did not quite meet mine as he spoke carefully and logically: "Things are not going according to plan. I do not want to alarm you, but the baby is in distress. We have two problems. First, there is meconium in the womb. To complicate matters, the baby's head is posterior. We need your permission to do an immediate C-section." Sensing our fear, ignorance, and confusion (after all, what exactly did the doctors description of the baby's condition mean?), the doctor glanced at my husband and quickly added, "We will do everything possible to protect mom and the baby. We have the resources to keep both of them safe."

After that, I recall only a blur of frantic activity. They ushered my husband out to a waiting room. Nurses rushed about my room. Bags were hooked on to my bed. Somebody ordered anesthesia. Two orderlies hustled me down to surgery. The entire staff could only think of one thing: save lives--a mother and a baby are in distress.

Emptiness at the back door
When I went through the back door, a mother and a baby were also in distress, but no one came to save us. When the abortion "procedure" was over, as I rested on the bed at The Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, I noticed a poster taped to the ceiling. In bold, stark letters, it read, "IF IT WERENT FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WHERE WOULD YOU BE TODAY?" Even more than the abortion, the poster nauseated me.

Filled with anger and frustration, I began to weep quietly. "You did not help me," I thought. "You had the resources, but you did not protect me or my baby. You found the cheapest, easiest, quickest solution possible: you simply vacuumed the new life out of my womb. You helped my boyfriend pursue his career. He wants to become a United States Senator. You protected him and his dreams. Why didn't someone try to protect the baby and me?"

Doors of life and death
Today Bonnie Joy is twelve years old. Somehow we (my family, church, and society, and Methodist Hospital) found the resources to save her life. That is what they always do inside the front door. If necessary, they race against time, spare no expenses, employ cutting-edge technology to preserve a tiny life. Less than 1,000 feet away, a few floors down, and one wing over, inside the back door, tiny lives are quietly and efficiently destroyed. That is what they always do behind the back door. The door of life and the door of death exist side by side.

Twelve years ago I left the front door holding a beautiful baby girl. Six years earlier I exited the back door with empty arms and deep wounds in my soul. After the abortion, I attempted to cover those wounds by pointing other women to the back door and trying to protect them from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I thought it was the only was to freedom and healing.

A third door
Actually, it took a third door to heal my back door wounds. For a society so confused about life and death, this door provides direction. For women wounded by abortion, this door provides forgiveness and hope. For those whose hearts are coarsened by an easy abortion culture, this door provides the power to repent and receive a new heart. By entering through this third door, we join a radically different community, a fellowship committed to protecting the life of both mother and baby.

"I am the door," Jesus said, "if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (John 10:9, RSV) He is the true door of life. Now I will spend the rest of my life pointing confused young women to the true door of life and freedom, to Jesus Christ.

• Mrs. Julie Woodley founded Restoring the Heart Ministries. The Rev. Matt Woodley is pastor of Cambridge (MN) United Methodist Church. This article first appeared in Lifewatch, 512 Forence St., Dothan AL 36301.

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
The call to adoption
by Candace Adams

• Editor's Note. Until I read this story and looked at the pictures of the Adams family, I had never thought enough about what it would mean to grow up as an institutional child. Candace and Doug have adopted young women at ages that are almost always categorized as "unadoptable." That means that when they pass a certain agea very young agetheir chances of ever having a permanent family become nearly nil! They are without family and without heritage. Adopting older children can be a huge commitment. But there is no substitute for the gift of family. The family was God's idea, and adoption was his idea too.

Adoption was not our second choice or third choice or even our fourth choice as some might assume. Adoption was our first choice because it was our calling.

My husband, Doug, and I have adopted three daughters. Our daughters were adopted when they were 17, 13, and 12 years old. And we believe they are treasures from heaven!

What makes our story unusual is that Doug is 27 years old and I am 28 years old. We feel God has gifted us with the ability to parent female adolescents.

It is our desire to encourage others to view adopting older children and children who have special needs as a calling.

Yes, we have been tested as we have stepped out in faith to care for the least of God's children. Yet, God has been with us every step of the way. And we have truly discovered that with God's help all things are possible.

Adoption is about providing for children
I recognize that many adoptions of older children and children who have special needs fail; however, if one believes he or she has been called to this as a ministry there is a greater chance that the family will be a forever family. Adoption ought not to be about the couple's need to have a child; rather it ought to be about providing for the least of God's children.

Within the first year of our marriage, Doug and I sensed God's calling for us to be adoptive parents. It had been my heart's desire for as long as I can remember.

During the initial three years of our marriage, God repeatedly showed us that we had been called to be adoptive parents. We took a dramatic step forward by becoming licensed foster parents in the state of Iowa in 1996.

One critical question was asked during our licensing interview: Are you becoming licensed in order to adopt children? We answered that at that time we were not; however, we would desire to be considered if a child placed in our home became available for adoption.

The unadoptable are adopted
Little did we know how important that question would become. Our first placement was in July of 1996. Two lovely young ladies, Tanya and Cassie, came to stay in our home for one week (their foster parents were away on a family vacation).

After the girls had been in our home for a few days, a social worker approached my husband and said Tanya and Cassie were in need of a new foster home. There was little question in our hearts as to what we needed to do.

Tanya and Cassie moved in August 2, 1996. Tanya was 16 years old and Cassie was 11 years old. The girls were much older than we had prepared our home for, but we knew immediately that God had brought us together.

Over the next several months we learned of the state's plan to have Tanya and Cassie remain in foster care until they reached age 18. They had already been in the foster care system for several years and had lived in numerous foster homes. Furthermore, the state had determined the girls were unadoptable because of their ages. We disagreed so much with that assumption that one and one half years later, on February 2, 1998, we celebrated the adoption of Tanya and Cassie Adams.

Lots of children need a family
God would again lead us to our next daughter. We first learned of Stacy through a bookmark distrib-uted in our church. Stacy's picture was on the bookmark with the slogan: "She's looking for very special parents." The back of the bookmark read: "Every child deserves a forever family." Stacy Adams became a member of our family by adoption on March 29, 1999.

Although we would love to care for all the children who need a forever family, we also recognize our limitations. Every day there are thousands of children waiting to be adopted in the United States. We, as a family, feel God is leading us to tell our story. It is one of our deepest desires to share this message with others.

Please contact us. We are eager to spread the message: Adoption is a Calling! We may be reached through PPL.

PPL Adoption Resources

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
Eight steps a congregation can take to support families who adopt older and special needs children

1. Educate your faith community about the unique nature of older children's adoptions and special needs adoptions. Other families in the church may need help to know how to support a new adoptive family, and they may discover that they are ready too to respond to children who need families.

2. Offer support to the family prior to the child's arrival. This is not the arrival of a baby, but you can encourage the family with your own excitement about the coming of a new child into the community of the church as well as into the family's home.

3. Welcome and embrace the child into your church family. In very homey ways you can make the child feel that he or she belongs.

4. Celebrate the adoption. The church can help the family know that this child has become a part of the covenant community:

5. Teach the child a special skill. Older and special needs children may not have had a lot of personal attention as they were growing up:

6. Help families celebrate special occasions. Remember that this family is creating new memories for the child. Help make them extra-special.

7. Give the parents a break. Adoption of an older or special needs child places adjustment pressures on a family that the church family can help bear:

PPL Adoption Resources

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
Knowing what we are doing
by Elizabeth Achtemeier

The great Swiss theologian Karl Barth once wrote a letter in response to a young man who was zealous to reform the church. This is what Barth said: "It is not thanking God...to compose thoughtlessly generalizing articles and paltry battle songs, to write me (and assuredly not only me) such fiery letters, to pour suspicion on all who do not rant with you, indeed, to punish them in advance with your scorn. Instead you should be watching and praying and working at the place where you have been called and set, you should be reading holy scripture and the hymn book, you should be studying carefully with a pencil in your hand.... Then in modesty, which is true power, you should preach good sermons in Christ, give good confirmation lessons, do good pastoral work--as good as God wills in giving you the Holy Spirit, and as well as you yourself can achieve with heart and mind and mouth." (The Letters of Karl Barth, 1961-68, p. 230.)

Why those activities?
Those words startle all of us church reformers and renewers a little, don't they? They say nothing about us getting out there and working to renew the church, attending General Assembly, lobbying in committees, setting up workshops, writing and distributing literature and videos. Barth just tells us faithfully and diligently to carry on our work in the little spot God has placed us. And he emphasizes study and prayer, preaching and pastoring and teaching. Are those the primary instruments for the renewal of the church? Why just those activities?

Certainly Barth emphasizes such tasks because he is writing to a young pastor. But perhaps Barth emphasizes the ministries of teaching, preaching, and pastoral work for two reasons: First, he knows the means through which God works his will in the world. Second, he knows the depths of human sin.

Our idolatrous claims
We persons in the renewal movements have often made the statement that we wish to restore "righteousness" to the church, or we wish to remove some idolatry or some errant practice from the church and thus bring "purity" to the Body of Christ. But surely such views are manifestations of our own idolatry--of our own self-righteousness in ourselves?

Everywhere the scriptures tell us, good Christians, that our righteousness is in Jesus Christ alone, and that solely through his work on our behalf and our faithful participation in it can we be presented pure, "without wrinkle or spot," "holy and without blemish" before our Lord on the Day of the Lord. We, who "have done what we ought not to have done, and left undone those things that we ought to have done" --we purify the church? Surely we deceive ourselves!

But the scriptures know, as Barth knew, that God in his mercy has given us the "means of grace" through which we may inherit the benefits of the righteousness and purity of Jesus Christ our Lord. God has given us his Word, spoken through the scriptures, incarnated in our Lord, mediated through the preaching and teaching, the sacraments and service of the church. And by that Word, poured in and written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, we can be incorporated into Jesus Christ and know the justifying and redeeming and saving benefits of his gracious work for us. Thus, Barth, in his reply to the angry young pastor, has emphasized the preaching, teaching, and ministering of that saving Word. As the Apostle Paul has written, "Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes from the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17)--from Christ proclaimed by pulpit and lecture, music and pastoral ministration.

Our labor not in vain
Yes, surely we are right to be at work in the polity and practices of the church. Yes, truly we should bend every effort to oppose the church's sometimes indifferent acceptance of abortion. Yes, of course we should raise our voices against those practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide, of promiscuity and familial disruption and sexual corruption that so characterize our modern society and, sometimes, our church's views and publications. Paul assures us that our labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58). But in our efforts, good Christians, let us be fully aware of what we are doing!

We are not bringing purity and righteousness to the church. As the ancient prayer of confessions says, "There is no health in us," and therefore we sin-sick souls cannot "restore" it to the church. Only Christ can do that. Our one hope, our one source of salvation, our one foundation for all our work is Jesus Christ our Lord. Thanks be to God for his inestimable gift!

• Elizabeth Achtemeier is a writer, speaker, and Bible teacher. She is a member of the PPL board of reference and an ordained member of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Her most recent book is an autobiography entitled Not Til I Have Done, published by Westminster/John Knox Press, 1999.

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
ACSWP seeks to redefine General Assembly abortion policy

The rules of the General Assembly are very clear about how a "social witness policy" is adopted by the General Assembly. Instead of submitting to that definition of policy, however, ACSWP insists that General Assembly policies are cumulative and can include selected actions of General Assemblies over twenty or thirty years.

If their current efforts are accepted by the General Assembly of 2000, the effect will be that church members will not know what a policy is from actions of the General Assembly. They will have to look to ACSWP to tell them the policy derived from what ACSWP chooses to include out of the multiple actions of General Assemblies over the years. That will give ACSWP the power to set policy, thereby making establishment of policies by General Assemblies a farce.

The G.A. changed its policy but denominational entities did not change
Abortion policy is a clear example of ACSWP's determination to control policy and diminish the power of the General Assembly. In 1983 the General Assembly adopted a radical abortion rights policy titled Covenant and Creation, which said, for example, that "...it can be an act of faithfulness before God to take responsibility for intervening in the natural process of pregnancy by terminating it."

A huge number of overtures calling for change in that policy were sent up to General Assemblies from 1984 to 1988. The 1988 G.A. called for a restudy of abortion "to formulate a new policy." Following rules for policy development and the instructions of the 1988 G.A., then-Moderator Ken Hall appointed a task force that looked at Scripture, the Confessions, and past statements of General Assemblies on the subject; they held hearings in the various cities where they met and they heard presentations from Terry Schlossberg of Presbyterians Pro-Life and Mary Ann Lundy from the Womens Ministry Unit.

The 1992 G.A. adopted a new abortion policy as a result of the report from the task force. The new policy is more moderate than the 1983 policy and directs the official inclusion of alternative positions on abortion. Denominational entities resisted this change of policy and by 1997 it was clear that the new policy would not be implemented. In 1997, 1998, and 1999 overtures and a commissioner's resolution called specifically for implementation of the 1992 policy. Those from 1998 and 1999 were referred to ACSWP with direction for reporting back in 2000.

The evidence of ACSWP's determination to set policy
In 1999, ACSWP formed a "monitoring team" to determine what is the abortion policy, and then assess whether or not their determination of the policy is being implemented. ACSWP staff leader, Peter Sulyok, told the team that unless a General Assembly says explicitly that it is adopting "new" policy, they use the cumulative method of determining policy. Therefore, even though the abortion task force was directed to produce a "new" policy for the church, wording that appears in the final version of their published report, since the 1992 G.A. did not call it a "new" policy, it isn't, according to Sulyok.

Moderator Kenneth Hall commented recently that this method yields "no policy at all." Three members of the task force that produced the 1992 policy report have protested the lack of implementation of that policy. One of them, The Rev. Zolton Phillips, was the author of the commissioner's resolution at the 1999 G.A.

How should G.A. respond?
The G.A. should not allow this usurpation of its responsibility. It ought to reject any effort to rewrite what the 1992 General Assembly has already said is the policy on abortion, and direct that the 1992 policy be implemented by General Assembly staff and entities. The G.A. should recognize the broad and long-lasting implications of allowing ACSWP to override the rules, usurp the G.A.'s prerogative, and negate any policy the G.A. adopts. They should act to limit the power of this committee.

How can Presbyterians help?
If you are interested in curtailing the efforts of a small denominational committee to substitute for the G.A. in making social witness policies, your session can send up an overture on this subject. PPL can help. Contact our office.

PPL web reports on ACSWP

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
A short history of the Presbyterian Church on abortion: Part 2

The fall 1999 issue of our newsletter gave a short history of the Presbyterian Church on abortion. The history begins before the Reformation because the church maintained its teaching against abortion from its beginnings. Reformers who divided from Rome on matters of theology and ecclesiology, nonetheless continued the church's teachings on moral issues including abortion. Both Luther and Calvin wrote explicitly in opposition to abortion. And the Christian Church was united on this issue until the second half of the twentieth century.

There is no simple answer to the question about why the mainline Christian denominations began to shift ground on abortion. But it is clear that change did not come about because of theological debates. Literature carrying the culture's language of women's rights and implying the moral good of abortion choice began to appear in the 1970s. The Presbyterian Church formally changed its stand at the 1983 reunion General Assembly by adopting a policy document titled Covenant and Creation: Theological Reflections on Contraception and Abortion.

A lack of theological integrity in the reversal of the church's stand on abortion
In spite of its title, the new policy could not stand up to theological challenge. It built its defense of abortion on changing the meaning of words like covenant and stewardship responsibility. At a time when abortions were rising to 1.6 million each year, the document said,

And it misrepresented John Calvin, who had spoken explicitly against abortion, as a supporter of abortion:

The Church's concern for human life was transformed into concern for "reproductive choice"
As a result of the 1983 policy, the formation of the newly merged denomination excluded any voice representing the historical position of the church. The Women's Ministry Unit, the Social Justice and Peacemaking Unit, and the Washington Office published materials and advocated for abortion as a woman's right and responsibility. The offices began to give financial support to an interfaith organization called The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (now The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice), and to distribute that coalition's materials in the denomination. In 1989 a "Choice Network," which later became Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO), formed under the auspices of the Presbyterian Health, Education, and Welfare Association. PARO is also supported with denominational funds.

The G.A. calls for a new policy
Overtures poured into General Assemblies following the publication of the 1983 reversal of the church's stand. In 1988 the General Assembly called for a study process "to formulate a new policy statement for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)...." The task force charged with the study delivered its report to the 1992 General Assembly where it was adopted.

The primary difference between the 1983 and 1992 policies was that the newer policy acknowledged the historical position of the church. While continuing to support abortion rights, it said

The new policy also said,

It directed that the alternative positions on abortion be expressed officially in the denomination. The 1992 policy has been ignored by denominational staff and entities charged to carry out G.A. policy.

Attitudes are changing
The 1992 policy made a distinction between the church's moral position on abortion and a public policy position. The moral section of the policy raises concerns about abortion--such as the high numbers, the reasons abortion is chosen, and the churchs responsibility to seek alternatives to abortion--that have no bearing on the public policy section which says flatly: "No law or administrative decision should limit access to abortion."

Attitudes about abortion have been changing since the 1970s. Approaching the third millennium would be a good time for the Presbyterian Church to take a fresh look at the morality of abortion, an issue whose roots extend back to the beginning of the Church.

• Note: PPL has pamphlets that give a more complete history of the church on abortion. Click here.

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
From the President of PPL: Stewardship of life
By Don Elliott

As is true with many pastors this time of the year, stewardship has been on my mind and in my sermons. I must admit that pressures from the Budget Committee and the Every Member Canvas Committee have influenced my thinking and even have made demands on what I would preach.

And what gets lost most often is real stewardship--biblical stewardship. I feel the anxiety of thoughts like cutting the budget, having enough volunteers to do ministry, and everyone knowing what I make. The words "time, talent, and treasure" just roll off my tongue without thinking. I love alliteration and three points!!

But what is biblical stewardship? In our zeal to keep the wheels of the church rolling with enough volunteers and money, we can miss the bigger picture. Biblical stewardship is first and foremost the stewardship of life. It is not "time, talent, and treasure." It is my life. It is not simply what I possess or where I exist or when I live, but who I am.

Biblical stewardship or stewardship of life will always have two truths as foundational to who I am. The first is Creation. Psalm 139:14: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Every one of us is a special creation of God. The intimacy of God's activity of making us is projected even into the womb as David continues in Psalm 139: "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of then came to be." So we are not self-made. We are creatures. We have a Creator. And we are his. That is who I am first of all.

But stewardship of life will also have another truth that is foundational to who I am. It is Redemption. I Corinthians 6:19,20: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." A price has been paid for us. It is the price of the Son of God. The price was so high that we couldn't even imagine the cost. Only God could pay it and we are his, and we are not our own. And that ownership of us by God is right now in this body. It does not wait for heaven.

So biblical stewardship is stewardship of life--who we are--before it is what we have. It is simply acknowledging and then living out the truths that we have been made by God and have been redeemed by God and, therefore, our lives are not our own. We belong to God.

So how does that affect the way you live? Notice the question about stewardship of life is not what you "give," but how you "live." Giving is put in its proper context when it is an outflow, even an overflow, of a godly life--a life given to and lived out for God. We are managers or stewards of all we have been given, but it should proceed out of being a manager of the life we have been given.

The passion of Presbyterians Pro-Life is obviously for life. This makes this stewardship of life--lives created and redeemed by God--foundational to our call. Join us in this stewardship of life.

Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS Winter 2000
Woman to Woman: Passing on the truth
By Terry Schlossberg

My grandchildren are happy participants in the life of their local church. They run in the yard and eat the cookies, and make their friends there. They delight in the stories and learn the songs that hold out the message of the Gospel to them. And we delight when they repeat the stories and songs and Bible verses to us. And when they ask the theological questions that burn in the minds of eight year olds and twelve year olds.

Guarding the truth for our children's children
My grandchildren are learning the Christian faith passed down to them from generation to generation. One of my prayers for them is that they will become faithful repeaters of this great gift of grace to their children and their children's children, just as it was handed down to them from others who have received it, including their grandparents. That is what God intended (Deut. 4:9-10; 11:19-21; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:2).

Attacks on truth are a part of the history of faith
Its easy to become short-sighted about our obligations to guard and transmit the truth from one generation to another. We worship the Lord in a denomination where every day the bedrock of Christian faith is challenged and defied by some. The Church which is charged to proclaim the truth has always had in its number those who defy that truth.

A church today says they will not obey the PC(USA) constitution. A synod court allowed a same sex union to stand. Women's Ministries applauded and honored those who not only engage in, but also advocate for, homosexual behavior and promote theologies that include goddess worship. And General Assembly offices continue their support for unrestricted abortion. The church constitution is maintained but there are rebels in our midst.

The Bible has ample warning that these challenges will come. The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles warned of the challenges and urged believers to stand fast and guard the truth.

How should we respond?
How should we respond? G.K. Chesterton used the analogy of fixing the fence. As soon as you put up a fence it begins to deteriorate. So, he says, you must keep white-washing it. And when slats break, you must repair them. The nature of the Fall is that the Church, like the fence, must be maintained with constant and faithful vigilance, or it cannot serve its proper function. In the case of the Church, it is its commitment to truth that deteriorates. And what is passed down to our children and grandchildren is jeopardized.

We are in a denomination that is in need of serious restorative attention. We ought to remember that it is the truth that is under attack, not we ourselves. The need to reform and renew the Presbyterian Church (USA) ought neither to surprise nor to tire or discourage us. This is work that has always needed to be done.

There is an apt saying that the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. We must not think that the erosion of truth is someone else's problem to solve. We are members of this denomination and we have a responsibility for the integrity of its witness and its mission. Each of us has an obligation to pray for this part of Christ's church, to build it up with sound preaching and teaching, and to exercise church discipline. We do this because Christ tells us to care for his sheep. We do it for the little boys and girls playing in the yard of the church, and for their children.

Top
To begin receiving Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS by mail, click here. Then click "Newsletter."

Home / About PPL / Contact PPL / Topical Index / PPL Publications / Pregnant? We’ll Help
Adoption Resources / Post Abortion Resources / PPL NEWS Articles / Order Resources / Prayer Calendar

© Presbyterians Pro-Life
3942 Middle Rd.
Allison Park, PA 15101
www.ppl.org