SBTS figures respond to Komen Foundation-Planned Parenthood controversy
The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure board of directors announced they would continue to grant funds to Planned Parenthood, Friday, Feb. 3, 2012. The statement came as a reversal of an earlier decision made mere days before this that the advocacy group would not donate to organizations under legal investigation, which meant it would no longer maintain its relationship with Planned Parenthood whom Congress is currently investigating.
To no one's surprise, with the pro-life/pro-choice debate lurking in the background, the Komen Foundation's announcements came with much controversy. Providing insight concerning the matter are some familiar figures from Southern Seminary: R. Albert Mohler Jr., Russell D. Moore and Denny Burk.
Mohler, Southern Seminary president, and Moore, dean of the School of Theology and vice president for academic administration, offer their thoughts at Christianity Today's Web site.
In his article, "It Isn't Easy Being Pink: There is No Neutral Ground When It Comes to Planned Parenthood," Mohler observes the cultural pressure and media attention the Komen group faced before announcing its "unconditional surrender." Komen's decision, despite the positive nature of contributing funds supporting breast-cancer screening, cannot be severed from the fact that the group does so in association with an organization involved in the killing of unborn children.
"Breast cancer is not an isolated issue, and the group's funding of breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood could never be kept morally isolated from all that Planned Parenthood represents — and that is the machinery of death for the unborn," Mohler writes.
Moore also noted Komen's "caving to pressure" from Planned Parenthood in his article, "The Pink Ribbon and the Dollar Sign," but beyond this, he argues, devotion to the god of Mammon motivated Komen's decision to continue funding Planned Parenthood. What's at stake in the abortion debates is billions of dollars, Moore contends, and the proclivity to follow money is a temptation for all people.
"The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn't to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It's instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way," he writes.
Mohler and Moore's articles are each available in their entirety at www.christianitytoday.com
In his blog article, "Komen's Ties to Planned Parenthood Clearer Than Ever," Burk, associate professor of New Testament at Boyce College, discusses how Komen has, as a result of the controversy, associated itself with Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice movement more than it ever would have liked. As outrageous as it is that Planned Parenthood bullied Komen into reversing its decision, the greater atrocity is Komen's continued association with an active and vocal supporter of abortion, according to Burk.
"For an organization that wants to stay out of the culture wars," he writes, "Komen is worse off now than it was a month ago, when many Americans didn’t even know about this controversy."