Archive for Dr. George Grant

Put differences aside to end abortion and be our brother’s keeper

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 8, 2016 by saynsumthn

What does it mean to be “my brother’s keeper?” This question has been asked time and again by Christians over the years. It played out in the first pages of the Holy Bible when we read how Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4:9) :

    Afterward the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother? Where is Abel?”
    “I don’t know,” Cain responded. “Am I my brother’s guardian?”

In this story Cain was jealous that God chose the sacrifice of his brother Abel over his – so he murdered his own brother. But, can we in effect do the same thing with our neglect to do what is right to help our brother? What happens if our inaction brings about more years of suffering for our brother?

Charles Spurgeon, the feisty preacher credited by some for bringing great revivals in the 1800’s once asked, “What say we of those who never sow? Well, they will never reap; they will never have the joy of harvest.”

In his history of the Pro-life movement from the viewpoint of the early church, Dr. George Grant described the effectiveness of the church with regard to protecting life and the secret for success:

    “The church was only effective in its task of protecting innocent life when it remained steadfast in doctrinal purity and Scriptural fidelity. Whenever it began to slide into comfortable heresies of the day, it became compromised and impotent. But whenever it would “earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3). God blessed its efforts gloriously. Whenever and wherever it took its every cue from the dictates of the sovereign God, it was remarkably successful.

So simple are these words that I often think some of us have become so embattled we can forget that the goal is to simply stand for truth, protecting life. Grant, considered at one time a giant in the pro-life movement and whose historical documentation dated 1991 when the call was to rescue those being led to the slaughter also writes:

    “As a single interest group the pro-life movement has failed. As a political force it has proven to be a disappointment. As an institutional philanthropic enterprise, it has been more than a little impotent. But, as an outreach of the historic church, it has had stunning success. The modern pro-life movement has proven that commitment to the sanctity of life is the consequence of the Spirit’s work in the authentic sacramental church.”

Keeping this in mind it becomes important to remember that the work of the Spirit belongs to the Spirit. He is the one who puts it forward and the one that should get the glory. And, if this is my belief as it is yours, why couldn’t we support an all out ban on abortion even if it comes from those once known for their criticism of our very movement? Well…such a bill exists and as Christian News has recently reported and as Saynsumthn has also documented, it was proposed by the group Abolish Human Abortion, which has been very contentious with the “pro-life movement” regarding immediate versus incremental methods to end abortion.

Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk, sponsor of S.B. 1118, which includes "abortion" under the murder statutes.

Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk, sponsor of S.B. 1118, which includes “abortion” under the murder statutes.

    Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

    “No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

    The bill defines abortion as “the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being” and provides the unborn with protection from the moment of conception.

My personal goal is to see abortion end in our nation- through whatever means God chooses to use. He chooses to use His people – all of us – if we so choose. That is why I would like to get behind any effort that seeks to protect our preborn neighbors.

As was the day when slavery existed in the world – we saw incredible bravery as individuals rose up to cry for an end to the slave trade. America was rich with defenders of the slave from the outspoken William Garrison to former slaves themselves like Frederick Douglas we heard time and again how the cry rang on “No compromise with slavery.”

The abolitionists often pierced the hearts of those in their day with the simple message asked by Jesus “Who is my brother?” Imergery from that era showed the enslaved Black man asking: “Am I not a man and a brother?”

Official_medallion_of_the_British_Anti-Slavery_Society_(1795)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer defines “who is our brother” in the Cost of Discipleship where he writes:

    “The first law which Jesus commends to His disciples is the one which forbids murder and entrusts their brother’s welfare to their keeping. The brother’s life is a divine ordnance and God alone has the power over life and death. There is no place for the murderer among the people of God…”

Spurgeon also expounds on “who is thy brothers keeper” when he writes in the aforementioned text:

    Shake yourselves up, brothers and sisters, from sinful sloth. “Oh!” says one, “I am not my brother’s keeper.” No, I will tell you your name; it is Cain. You are your brother’s murderer; for every professing Christian, who is not his brother’s keeper, is his brother’s killer;and be you sure that it is so; for you may kill by neglect quite as surely as you may kill by the bow or by the dagger.

As you ponder this history, we look to today as we face the possibility of a Supreme Court that could turn majority hostile to life and we ask, as they did so many times before over the course of history, with whom do we place our trust: in God or in man? If we abandon an opportunity to propose measures that end all abortions because it has not worked before, or it “will never pass” are we being truly honest to our core and our deeply held values? How will history itself play out at this crossroads?

An incident documented in the book Amazing Grace by historian Eric Mextaxas on the life of the great British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, gives us some direction and perhaps insights. It reads as follows:

    When he [Wilberforce] spoke that day urging Parliament to strike from the peace agreement the clause that gave the French five more years of their commerce in human beings, he sounded especially toward the end of his wholly unprepared speech, like what one could well imagine the conscience of the nation might sound:

    When the heads of all those now living are laid low, and the facts which now excite such powerful feeling are related by the pen of the cold, impartial historian, when it is seen that an opportunity like the present has been lost, that the first act of the restored King of France was the restoration of a trade in slavery and blood, what will be the estimate formed of the exertions which this country has employed, of the effect which they have produced upon a people under such weighty obligations? Surely no very high opinion will be indulged either of British influence or of French gratitude.”

Please consider coming together to seek an end to abortion. Let’s put differences aside to be our brother’s keeper!

“We make alliances of peace where we ought to proclaim war to the knife; we plead our constitutional temperament, our previous habits, the necessity of our circumstances, or some other evil excuse as an apology for being content with a very partial sanctification, if indeed it be sanctification at all. We are slow also to rebuke sin in others, and are ready to spare respectable sins, which like Agag walk with mincing steps. The measure of our destruction of sin is not to be our inclination, or the habit of others, but the Lord’s command. We have no warrant for dealing leniently with any sin, be it what it may.” ~ The Treasury of David.

Birth Control and the Church how did we get here ?

Posted in birth control, Birth Control and Eugenics, Birth Control and the Church, Church Timeline on Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

A documentary film series produced in 2013, but one I have only recently viewed, maintains that the modern church’s stand in accepting birth control is contrary to centuries of early church teaching.

Kevin Peeples Birth COntrol The MOvie

Birth Control The Movie was directed by Kevin Peeples based on his own personal journey to answer the question: As a Christian, is birth control up to us?

Little did he realize that his journey coincided with producers Scott Matthew Dix and Nathan Nicholson.

The series consists of two DVD’s: BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?, which looks into why there is no fundamental difference between the Church of Jesus Christ, and the world, on the issue of child prevention.

And Birth Control is it up to us?

Birth COntrol how did we get here is it up to us

For the purpose of this blog, I will review BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?

The film features interviews with authors, historians, theologians, radio talk show hosts and others, such as Dr. George Grant, Dr. Allan Carlson, Geoffrey Botkin, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Lila Rose, Kevin Swanson, and Julie Roys.

RC Sproul JR

The Bible says that the serpent is more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. There are a million ways in which the serpent has gotten the church to think his thoughts after him. This is one of those places where we are fed in our selfishness of viewing children as a burden. But, we’ve got a calling to make manifest the reign of Jesus over all things. And that’s why now and always we have the obligation to raise up godly seed…” says Christian minister R.C. Sproul Jr.

Experts in the film maintain that today the Christian use of birth control is based in selfishness over money, materialism and convenience, but that this attitude is a new one that has not been upheld over the centuries of Biblical teaching. Basically saying that the church abandoned it’s historical positions on family and children and the command to procreate and has used the issues of the day to approach scripture rather than using scripture to define the issues of the day.

The film begins with a verse out of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and makes the claim that from the beginning God ordained children for marriage.

One of our weaknesses in the modern church is all we know about is the modern church,” the film begins.

It has only been in the twentieth century with the influence if evolution and eugenics that Christians have publicly embraced the lifestyle of child prevention as Biblical theology. So how did we get here?” they ask.

George Grant

What first caught my eye when I watched the trailer for the film was that author and teacher George Grant who wrote the book, “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood” was featured in the film.

Gran Illusions O1,204,203,200_

I have already done timelines for eugenics and also for how the church accepted abortion prior to it’s legalization so watching this compilation of the acceptance of birth control sparked my curiosity.

Birth control was coined by Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood the film points out but was never the mandate of God’s people who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply according to Genesis and continues into the New Testament of the Holy Bible where the family is elevated over and over again.

In historical terms, the film goes through several Biblical eras where the family or the “dominion mandate” is again upheld as commanded in Genesis.

As a student of eugenics I was aware of how the idea of limiting births came about- beginning with Thomas Malthus and leading to eugenics and abortion.

The concept of breeding the so-called superior over the inferior was imperative to Malthus as well as limiting the looming population time bomb, producers claim.

Next, the film lays out an interesting timeline of how the church went from complete opposition to contraception and the limitation of children by unnatural means to one of accepting it in just over forty years.

One of the main forces driving the decline of fertility in the United States was the rise of the industrial revolution, the timeline begins.

Malthus and Darwin

The timeline goes through the teachings of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose ideas of evolution laid a groundwork for the eugenics movement.

It then explains the Comstock laws which prohibited contraception, put in place by Anthony Comstock until they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

Anthony COmstock

The film describes Anthony Constock as a young Christian who saw contraception as “the devil’s attack on young people. He frames contraception as one that had to be tied to abortion and pornography.”

Margaret Sanger

What makes the documentary unique is the way it details not only the views of so-called “birth control pioneer” Margaret Sanger who eventually locked into the views of eugenics but also the way it details how the church initially opposed the idea of fertility limitation before eventually accepting it.

In 1874, the average clergy person had 5.2 living children, the film points out.

Keep that stat in mind because the film will soon reveal how quickly it changes.

    In the 1880’s, Nevada dramatically weakened their marriage laws by making divorce laws easy.

Francis Galton

    Around that same time, Sir Francis Galton coins the term “eugenics.”
    In 1890, the Lutheran Church Missouri Senate pastors had 6.5 children in the US.
    In 1896, the Comstock laws were challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld.
    By 1901, there was a transition away from and agricultural based economy to a machine based one.

Lambeth Conf contraception

    1908, at the Anglican Church’s 5th Lambeth Conference Bishops earnestly called upon all Christian people to, “discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.”

    But, by 1911, the birthrate of Anglican children falls 55% to only 2.3 children.

What this stat showed, according to the film, was that Bishops and clergymen were engaging in the practice of contraception, while calling it a sin at the same time.

1912 firist international congress on eugenics

By 1912, the first international congress on eugenics commences. It’s leaders strongly embraced evolution and Sanger meets eugenics influences.

Sangers the Woman Rebel

By 1914, Sanger launched the “Woman Rebel” a newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “no gods no masters.”

Sanger wrote, “[Our objective] is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

Sanger most merciful thing

The film camps on Margaret Sanger for a while detailing her charges under the Comstock laws, her flight to England to avoid those charges, her various meetings with Malthusians, her introduction to eugenics and her return to the United States.

If she could argue for birth control using the so-called scientifically verifiable threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and over-population as it’s back drop. Then, she could have a much better chance at making her case,” Grant says.

But, the film states, it was eugenics that left a lasting impression on Margaret Sanger.

Sanger, the film says, cunningly used the divisions between Protestants and Catholics at the time to convince Protestants that birth control was a Catholic issue alone.

    By 1916, Sanger illegally opened the first back ally birth control clinic which was shot down in less than two weeks.

But, all this talk of contraception was taking a toll on the church, as the film points out:

    BY 1918, just after World War 1, the birth rate of Lutheran Church Missouri Senate Pastors fell 40% to 3.7 children.
    In 1920, the Lambeth Conference gave this warning, “We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception.”

    American Birth Control League 1921 Margaret Sanger

    But, by 1921, Margaret Sanger and her cronies lobby Anglican Bishops throughout the decade and Sanger’s American Birth Control League is formed.

Lila Rose

In starting the American Birth Control League,” Live Action founder Lila Rose says.

Margaret Sanger wanted to make birth control something that was socially acceptable. Because at he time it was seen as very taboo. It was seen as something that was antithetical to loving marriages that were open to children and very open to life. So, she wanted to popularize it especially to limit children and families that she thought shouldn’t be procreating and should be having no children or only a few,” Rose adds.

    By 1921, the second international eugenics congress was held in New York City.
    In 1923, the Lutheran Church, Missouri City’s official magazine, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of “spattering the country with slime,” and labeled Margaret Sanger a “she devil.

    Sanger lectures KKK 1926
    In 1926, Sanger establishes the “Clinical Research Bureau,” she also meets with the Klu Klux Klan.
    By 1929, Sanger had founded the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in an attempt to overturn restrictions on contraception under the Comstock laws.

Lambeth COnferenec 7th allows contraception

A major turning point for the church was the 1930 Lambeth conference, for the first time, Anglicans allowed the use of contraception by stating, “In those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.”

Around this same time, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod dropped its campaign against the BCFA. But, the film points out that while some Protestants were liberalizing the use of contraception, the Catholic Church was holding fast to its prohibition.

In 1936, the Comstock Act was struck down by a test case set up by Margaret Sanger. It held the Act could not ban shipments originating from a doctor and held a distinction between moral and immoral uses of contraception.

The next year the American Medical Society upheld the use of contraception.

Margaret Sanger Negro project

    In 1939, World War 11 begins and Sanger enacts her Negro Project.

By 1945, the public is becoming aware of the horrors of the Nazi eugenic program. Sanger has connections to some of those who helped Hitler’s regime, such as Ernst Rudin.

Margaret Sanger   birth control the movie

Despite her connections to Hitler and eugenics, Grant points out that Margaret Sanger has been reinvented as a heroine.


“No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler,
” Grant states.

George Grant

Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names forever live in infamy. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped this wretched fate. In spite of her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or the other with the intentions, theologies, and movements of the other three. Sanger’s faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory,” he states.

BCFA Planned Parenthood 1942 and 1944

During the time the Nazi crimes were becoming a reality to America, Sanger’s organization was renamed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you look at Planned Parenthood’s advertisements what you quickly see is their disdain for the church and it’s teachings, for it’s traditions and it’s influence, ” Grant points out.

Over the course of the years, Planned Parenthood has specifically targeted lingering doubts about the authority of the church to speak with any sort of moral authority,” he adds.

In 1951, Sanger was able to obtain a grant from Biologist Gregory Pincus to begin hormonal contraception research. And, by 1953 she garnered the support of her wealthy friend Katherine McCormick who expanded funding by up to 5000% with clinical trials using human subjects.

Lambeth 9th COngress pill

In 1958, the 9th Lambeth congress openly accepts contraception as a “choice before God” calling it “responsible parenthood.”

National Council of Churches Pill Responsible parenthood

    In 1961, The National Council of Churches allowed birth control and even embraced abortion, emphasizing motives and essentially turning it into a “privacy matter.”

Griswold V COnneticut COmstock

In 1965, the Supreme Court declared the Comstock law totally unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut pointed to emanations from the Bill of Rights which pointed to the so-called “right of privacy.”

The film claims that by the 1950’s and 60’s the evangelical church began changing the scriptures regarding the issue of birth control, claiming that the commands in Genesis were not commands.

By the middle of 1966, Margaret Sanger had died.

The timeline continues – showing examples of modern evangelicals, who the film claims compromised on the message of contraception.

Geoffry Botkin

“One of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was how willingly Christians were being pulled along and manipulated along to go along with the entire agenda that was anti-baby, anti-family, pro-contraception, pro-eugenics agenda. And, they felt almost like they had a duty to embrace it because it was “scientific” and they wanted to be modern, they wanted to be with it, they wanted to be cultural. And so in embracing it they rejected the very doctrines of Christianity,” says Geoffrey Botkin.

Grant summarizes that abortion continues in America because the church by and large still holds to the idea that contraception and unnatural family limitation is acceptable, going as far as implying it is pragmatic disobedience to God.

In the modern evangelical church there is almost unanimity against the sinfulness of abortion, ” Grant says.

George Grant

“The bottom line is that while we decry abortion, and the abortion clinic. We decry Planned Parenthood, we decry pro-abortion candidates, when our own circumstances get difficult, when our own economy seems to be constricted. When our own finances are compromised, we’re willing to act on pragmatism rather than principle time after time after time.”

“As a result, abortion in America remains at the forefront of the injustices perpetrated by all of us precisely because the church has not stood on principle and obeyed our God,” Grant concludes.

The film lays a compelling argument that contraception was never acceptable in early church teaching. It documents step by step the influence birth control gained in Protestant church teaching and beliefs.

One of the most interesting facts that I see is how the same ideas that helped usher in the concept of birth control also helped lay the framework for abortion on demand. Yet, many within the church are fine with it.

The debate over whether acceptance of birth control among married couples appears to be settled in modern Protestant church teaching or lack of it.

The question remains, is it settled in God’s mind? That is the question all Bible believing Christians must wrestle with as they seek obedience to our Lord.

If you would like to get the film or find out more about it you can check out the film’s website here.