Biblical compassion vs. human concern: don’t get it twisted.

Yesterday I read an article where the headline was “Christian Doctor On Why He Performs Abortions: ‘I Came To A Deeper Understanding Of My Spirituality’”  After reading the article, I wish the beloved doctor had come to a deeper understanding of the person of Christ.

Compassion is so important in a Christian’s life and as an outward expression of our faith. It’s a cardinal truth of the christian faith that we are to to show compassion to the poor. We are chided in the Bible in the parable of the good Samaritan to not turn away from the suffering of those around us. It’s an easy thing to do these days, when we are so desensitized by the violence of our 24 hour media, and the busyness in our lives that make it easy to look past others and focus solely on self.

In the article the Dr. Willie J. Parker after not performing abortions has come into an epiphany that he should instead do the abortions.  To quote Dr. Parker, “In listening to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion,” Parker recounted in an interview with the New Jersey Star-Ledger. “King said what made the good Samaritan ‘good’ is that instead of focusing on would happen to him by stopping to help the traveler, he was more concerned about what would happen to the traveler if he didn’t stop to help. I became more concerned about what would happen to these women if I, as an obstetrician, did not help them.”

I applaud his attempt and desire to show compassion. The poor, those not self-sufficient need all the supports, family, friends, and the community can muster to help them. However, Dr. Parker’s attempt to provide support to women who are facing the decision to terminate their pregnancy is not an example of biblical compassion nor lifts up the legacy of Rev. King who he references but does actually the opposite.

For example, the doctor eludes to the late Dr. King as a impetus for rethinking his position. But Dr. King would have been opposed to abortion. And I quote, “The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929-1968

In 1939, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood outlined her plan to eliminate the Black community: “The most successful, educational appeal to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members.”  Many point to Rev. King’s acceptance of an award by her as his tacit approval of abortion.  But this is not so. Planned parenthood at the time was not pro abortion at the time but was an advocate for birth control (which Rev. King did support).  They did not advocate support for abortion formally until well after Dr. King’s receipt of her award.

Abortion is an inherently racist practice; as it was primarily conceived in this country as a viable means to “exterminate the negro” population, and funded and empowered via legislation and policy to do so. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/ It disproportionately impacts minorities and again was designed to do so by Ms. Sanger.  Whose organization Planned Parenthood is on the front lines of providing abortions in this country.

I find it mind boggling that Dr. Parker would think that the Jesus who chided the disciples with the words “suffer the little children to come unto me.” Would think the same savior of mankind who came that we might have life would approve of what is an inherently evil practice to eliminate persons and especially those within his own community.

At best Mr. Parker has expressed a heartfelt concern for the plight of the women he must see.  But it is not biblical compassion.

True biblical compassion would have been to set up funding and support for the mothers and their children. THAT would have been compassion. Using the good Samaritan as an example; Dr. Parker could have ponied up funds out of his own pocket to lodge and provide the means whereby they could become self sufficient. THAT would have been compassion. Take the personal time out, and sacrifice the personal resources necessary to see to it that the babies were given to adoptive parents.  THAT would have been biblical compassion.

This form of ‘compassion’ flies in the face of empowerment and more importantly, in the name of Christ. For its compassion that comes at the expense of another who has no voice, no say so, and whose end is death. That is the opposite of assistance.  But alas there is a way that seems right unto men, but the end thereof leads to death.

What shall we say to these things? I hope that the black community specifically, and all Christians in general can survive at best what is such a misguided attempt to show compassion. Because despite the Thinkprogress.org’s attempt to pass off a veiled attempt at a Christian’s endorsement of such a heinous practice. It is never “progress” when a society feels comfortable in killing its children.

D