Dear Ms. Smith,
With all due respect, it is absurdly illogical to mischaracterize our cry for help as a protest. The word “target” merely means to select. It says nothing about the purpose for which that selection is being made.
It is also idolatry to worship the church, and I fear that you are bowing down before an institution. The church is to be respected (nothing we have ever done shows the slightest disrespect for the church) but the church is not sacred. Our Savior is sacred. In the 7th chapter of the book of Jeremiah, God commands his prophet to stand in the gates of the Temple and warn God’s people that they have innocent blood on their hands because they are committing and tolerating child sacrifice of the very sort being committed and tolerated by today’s churches in the form of abortion. We are acting within the spirit of that command.
You donate to us when we hold abortion photos outside classrooms whose professors are hiding the horror of abortion. You castigate us when we hold those same signs outside churches whose pastors are hiding the horror of abortion. Neither display is a protest. Both displays save babies and protect mothers. Your position is incoherent.
Countless women have told us that they had heard their pastors inveigh against abortion but didn’t embrace that teaching until they saw the evil of abortion with their own eyes. There are no words which are adequate to describe that evil. Many women with “pro-life” pastors have tearfully told us that they would not have killed their children had they seen our signs outside their churches. It is legalism of the most sickening sort when someone would rather allow babies to die than disturb the complacency of churches which are doing little or nothing to stop this holocaust. God help us. We are praying for you. This isn’t merely a principled disagreement over strategy and tactics. This is a decision over whether we are going to continue to cover up the terrible truth about abortion or start exposing it before the church. The blood of savable babies is on the hands of those who demand that we hide that truth.
From: Rebeccah Smith
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:57 PM
To: Gregg Cunningham
My mother has contacted CBR about discontinuing financial support for the organization. Thank you for discontinuing her automatic contributions.
It is my understanding that you have said my mother has “mischaracterized” the work that is the impetus for ceasing support. It is important that you understand this is not true, so that you, as a professional representative of an organization, don’t mistake other’s descriptions, similarly.
First let me say, we have discontinued funding over the same issue. My husband and I, like my parents, are pro-life. We are dedicated to efforts that advance the eventual demise of Roe v. Wade. We want to see abortion illegal in the United States and unborn babies recognized as persons and granted equal protection under the law. We have whole-heartedly supported Sarah’s work that has furthered this cause and believe she has undertaken a noble work.
It has come to our attention that CBR has ‘targeted’ churches and have stood outside of them while congregationalists walk in for morning worship. Although the word “protest” was not used in the description of this work, this fits the definition. We believe churches should preach the Bible and should be gospel-centered. If they do this right, they will not avoid clearly stating that the unborn should be protected, as the Bible clearly supports they are created in the image of God. We do not support protesting outside of churches that do not meet the standard set by CBR. This is not a mischaracterization. Description provided by CBR of the ‘targeting’ is below.
Thank you for your dedication to the pro-life cause. I am sorry we disagree on this particular tactic. I’m sure you would agree that rallying together, unifiying– not dividing– those who want to abolition abortion, should be the aim of everyone opposed to the legalized killing of unwanted children yet unborn.