Another pro-life Christian blogger has stumbled upon the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), AKA the modern-day priesthood of Molech. I remember the RCRC from the days when they were RCAR, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.
(As an aside, what's with pro-choice groups who don't like to use the "a-word"? RCAR became RCRC in 1993, and NARAL officially discarded abortion from their name in 2003. The National Abortion Federation, or NAF for short, is still willing to embrace the "a-word", but they're the only major abortion-rights organization to do so.)
I have blogged about the RCRC before, and my feelings haven't changed. However, Lauren points out something that I had previously missed....
The thing that bothers me the most about this website, however, is the original quote. It assumes that only the 50% of children classified as "wanted" are "gifts from God". What then can we assume the other 50% to be? If the prior grouping are "gifts" I suppose these "unwanted children" are "curses". This group seems to believe that God only gives us gifts in the way we ask for them, and that God's Will is subservient to our own. It also seems to belittle God's power and grace, by refusing his gifts and labeling them as problems and prenatal terrorists.
The quote to which Lauren is referring comes from the RCRC's "All Options Clergy Counseling" program:
There is no doubt that a welcomed, loved child is a gift from God and a blessing to a joyful family. Yet, not every pregnancy is welcomed (we do not confuse unplanned or unintended with unwelcome).
Only "welcomed, loved" children are gifts from God? That's an odd position for a "religious" organization to take. The Bible makes it clear that children are a blessing from the Lord (see Psalm 127, among others), and it doesn't fiddle around with whether or not the children are "welcomed" or loved. All children are gifts from from God. Our opinion doesn't matter much.
Frankly, the RCRC position (which is held by most of the pro-choice movement) is an offense against logic. Since when did the opinion of a gift's recipient make any difference to the nature of the gift? If I give you a lava lamp, you may react in several different ways:
- If you love lava lamps, then you'll appreciate the gift. It's just what you wanted!
- You might love lava lamps, but not have anywhere to put it. The gift is appreciated, but inconvenient.
- You might not really care about lava lamps, in which case you'll probably appreciate the spirit of the gift, but your reaction will be largely apathetic.
- If you think lava lamps are stupid, ugly, and tacky ... you'll probably smile politely and then drop the gift into a trash can at your earliest opportunity.
That's not a comprehensive list of lava-lamp reactions, but I think you'll see my point. Your reaction to the gift depends on you, but that reaction does not change the nature of the gift.
The RCRC considers welcomed, loved children to be gifts from God. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that the RCRC believes that unwelcome or unloved children are not gifts from God. However, as we've seen in the trivial example of a lava lamp, the recipient's attitude doesn't change the nature of a gift. Even if you don't welcome or love the lava lamp, it's still a gift. Clearly, the standard of being welcomed or loved is irrelevant to whether or not something (or someone) is a gift.
Let's go a step further and look at what is required to determine that something (or someone) is not a gift. You need to know the motives of the giver, right? The only way for the lava lamp to become something other than a gift is for the giver (me, in this case) to have some other motive in giving it. For example, if I'm merely trying to clean out my basement, and I give you a 20-year-old piece of "vintage" junk, then I'm not really being very generous. Well, who gives us children? Even the RCRC seems to know that children come from God. Therefore, if you want to determine that children are not a gift from God, you have to know God's motive in giving them.
...
Please read that last sentence again: By logical implication, the RCRC are claiming to know God's motives when He gives us children. They are claiming to know the mind of God.
How can they know the mind of God? How can anyone? We do have a certain insight into God's character that He provided in Holy Scripture, and He does reveal His will for our lives through prayer .... but that's a very different thing from claiming to know His motives in every circumstance! In fact, God's Word tells us quite clearly that His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and it's sheer folly for us to claim otherwise. At best, the RCRC are being fools.
At worst, the RCRC are much more than mere fools. Knowing the will of the gods was always the key trait of various pagan priesthoods. One of the key points that separated the worshippers of the One True God from the pagans around them was our belief that God has His own will and His own mind. Our job is simply to follow Him. When you start to blur that particular difference, it calls into question which power(s) you serve: God, or someone else?
(cross-posted to Naaman the Ex-Leper)
And, of course, the RCRC is in the news because of it's complaints about Amazon.com, which can be found at http://www.lifenews.com/nat2161.html.
Perhaps. I blogged the Amazon.com story yesterday:
http://prolifeblogs.blogspot.com/2006/03/amazoncom-gets-suckered-into-abortion.html
It's just perplexing what the pro-choice end-goal could be.... Censorship? Discouraging adoptions? Why are they complaining?
Then again, I should not expect pro-choice Christian pastors to act in logical or insightful ways. I think it was CS Lewis who once said, "The problem with trying to make ourselves stupid is that we often succeed beyond our wildest dreams." Or words to that effect, anyway....
A "Christian" "minister" who is "offended" by adoption? What a riot. That organization is a sick joke.