Eugenics, Abortion, and Guidance to
the Society
The Church Must Speak with One
Voice
In order to speak to society to give guidance, the Church must be speak
with one voice. The confusion over the issue of slavery in the Church,
North and South, led to war. But in the 1850's the Church united over
its opposition to abortion and so led the nation in the establishment
of a national consensus against abortion, and it was made illegal (See
George Grant: Third Time Around).
The present impotence of
the Church in America, I assert, can be directly attributed to the
quiet assimilation of eugenic, racist, and classist ideologies in
the mainline denominations during the 1930's. Like Balaam's poison,
the Church ingested death in the name of the "good," and so brought
upon itself a legacy of corruption leading to irrelevance in social and
political matters. It ceased to be the conscience of the nation when it
ingested the poisonous thinking of the "quality of life" argument.
This legacy began in the
1920's with the adoption of the birth control ideologies promoted
by Margaret Sanger. Any reading of her contemporary works betrays
the vile racism and anti-Catholicism that motivated her. The nation,
awash in immigrants from Slavic and Catholic countries, was having
trouble assimilating the people. Poverty and disease were endemic
among these people. It was especially evident in the New England
areas. Margaret Sanger promoted her agenda, claiming that it was
better for society as a whole to reduce the number of "Slavs, Hebrews, Italians" and other
dysgenic peoples being born in the US. She promoted birth control as a
means of reducing the reproduction of these and other undesirables, including
the "colored" people. She hosted well know racists and even Hitler's
eugenic mastermind in her magazine, and they contributed to her cause...
mostly with the goal of preserving the influence and ascendancy of
the Anglo-Saxon in the country.
That evil is bad enough, but the worse sin was that the mainline church
bought into her agenda and ingested a subtle classism and racism into
their moral practice. The argument of the quality of life was not spelled
out, but went like this:
There are people who are less worthy, less intelligent, made a little
less in the image of God than we, who need to be managed and whose breeding
needs to be shepherded by our God-given superior wisdom. Since these poor
creatures are not as worthy and will corrupt the purity and quality of
life in the United States, we need to limit their reproduction. Of course,
this is the compassionate thing to do, because these ignorant people live
is squalor and poverty, and their Catholic doctrines only further their
misery. We Protestants, know better, and we should stamp out such religious
superstition. We are made more in the image of God and it is our God given
destiny and mandate to rule...
Contemporary writings reveal how this attitude of racial superiority
was a socially accepted without fear of criticism or challenge. Well known,
mainline Protestant church leaders in every denomination began to support
Sanger in her cause, giving her open endorsements or verbal praise. Many
signed onto her manifestos. Money poured in from such wealthy scions as
Ford and Rockefeller, and other bastions of American industrial wealth.
And as a result, by the 1950's virtually every protestant denomination
was on board with the planned parenthood ideology (Sanger's organization
became the present day Planned Parenthood), accepting it as the compassionate
expression of godly wisdom for the remedy of the social ills of poverty.
However, it is the foundation of this assumption which I contend led
to the contemporary impotence of the Church. Having accepted a quality
of life argument, i.e., some are more in the image of God than others,
the Church lost its moral authority to speak to the culture. Abortion
is only the fruit of the seed ingested so long ago... if some are more
worthy than others, then the killing of the unborn is obviously an act
of social compassion for it prevents only the life of those who would
live it miserably. It does not mar or kill the image of God, but only
pieces of tissue, and is usually practiced on members of society who are
inherently less valuable and less worthy.
I submit that the other errors of the Church, the questioning of the
Word of God as the source of authority, the adoption of liberal humanism
in the place of Orthodoxy, and the like, NONE of these errors of doctrine
or practice invalidated the Church's witness. But when the Church ingested
the moral poison of prejudice in the rejection of the value of all life
as equally made in God's image, it lost its ability to speak coherently
to the culture, it lost its unified voice, and it lost its ability to
challenge the culture to moral righteousness. Like Balaam's sin, the Church
corrupted itself and was henceforth open to being rejected and oppressed.
The Supreme Court decisions against the Faith in the 1960's are a direct
result of the Church's abandonment of the higher moral call and its consent
to evil. (When salt has lost its savor, it is worthy only of being cast
out and trampled on by men.) And so we live with the legacy of its irrelevance.
As evidence of this moral compromise within the Church, I would cite
my experience as a former pastor in the PC (USA)... The Presbyterian Layman
magazine, the conservative watch dog of the church, continually hammered
the denomination over its promotion of homosexuality and radical feminism,
but would not print one article against abortion. Why? Because social
conservatism is not the same thing as biblical conservatism. It is okay
to stand against homosexuality, because nobody likes homosexuals, but
to stand against abortion is to stand against a fundamental American value
of individual freedom... and the subtle classism and racism that is still
present in old line conservatives. To stand against abortion created too
much controversy within the conservative camp, and so it was better to
avoid this issue. Even the conservative camp could not be made to speak
with one voice on an issue so central to the heart of God, and with that
lack of voice, the Church remains ineffective in its witness and in reversing
the sins of the land. The Church cannot and does not function as the conscience
of the nation on any matter: homosexuality, abortion, social programs,
etc, because it has stepped down from its position of the Lord's voice.
It has ceased to be salt.
Is that too highly an exalted
role for the Church in society? No, for it is the plan of God that "through the Church" God
would make known to the principalities and powers, the manifold wisdom
of God. (Eph 3:10)
If the Church will repent, we may once again regain our rightful role
- not to rule the nation as the religio-political conservatives wrongly
assume is our duty - but to advise and guide the nation by speaking to
its leaders the very words of God (1 Peter 4:11).