1. The statement is clearly designed to placate the publicity assault mounted by Planned Parenthood and its supporters. Whatever the substance of the statement, Komen wants to appear that it has backed down.

2. The statement pledges not to withhold funds based on political investigations. There’s a GOP Congressman investigating Planned Parenthood now, but the Komen foundation doesn’t want its funding determined by partisan politics. They will change their grant standards to make that clear. So Planned Parenthood becomes eligible for grants again on that criterion. But as we shall see, there is another criterion that Planned Parenthood still doesn’t meet.

3. The Komen foundation agreed to pay-out existing grants and says that Planned Parenthood is eligible to apply for future grants. Here’s the language:

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Here is what is not clear. Brinker, founder and CEO of Komen, was saying precisely the same thing the day before the statement was released. She was already arguing that Planned Parenthood would continue to receive existing grants and would be eligible to apply for future grants. She also said that the Komen foundation would prioritize their grants for facilities that actually perform mammograms. Planned Parenthood gives referrals for mammograms, but they don’t provide mammograms. Komen reserves the right to refuse future grants based on the fact that Planned Parenthood still does not offer mammograms in their facilities.

The Washington Post makes the same observation:

The statement left some ambiguity, however, because it did not mention a second reason Komen has given for ending Planned Parenthood’s funding: That the group did not provide direct mammogram services, but instead referred patients out to other locations.

So the real issue is whether or not the Komen foundation will approve future grants to Planned Parenthood. There’s nothing in this statement that says they will. They still have a grant standard that prioritizes facilities that actually perform mammograms. Are they going to make an exception with Planned Parenthood? This statement doesn’t say so one way or the other.

In any case, the moral calculus doesn’t change. If the Komen foundation is going to fund Planned Parenthood—the nation’s leading provider of elective abortions—then pro-life people are not going to be able to donate to Komen’s otherwise worthy cause. It is an outrage that the Planned Parenthood and their allies hold the Komen foundation hostage. It is even more outrageous that Komen retains a connection to the abortion mills.

Any other group thinking about donating to Planned Parenthood ought to take note. If you ever decide to stop giving them money, Planned Parenthood may try to destroy you and your group’s reputation—just like they have done to Komen. Planned Parenthood has powerful allies in Congress, in the White House, and in the media. Don’t think they won’t use that influence against anyone who crosses them. As I said before, abortion is their sacrament, and Planned Parenthood is their temple. They will not tolerate anyone treading upon their holy ground.

The Komen foundation has really botched the communication of its new policies. As a result, Komen is even more tied to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby than its ever was before. For an organization that wants to stay out of the culture wars, Komen is worse off now than it was a month ago, when many Americans didn’t even know about this controversy. Many pro-lifers also were unaware of Komen’s connection to Planned Parenthood. But that is no longer the case. Going forward, Komen will be viewed by Americans as a lackey of Planned Parenthood. Komen looks more like a leftist political group than it ever did. The only way to change this impression is to make a decisive break with the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood.

If you are not familiar with Eric Metaxas, you should know that he is the author of last year’s best-selling biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Komen has given some grants to Planned Parenthood in the past but has now decided it can better spend its money by funding groups that actually provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood has some educational services related to breast cancer, and they give referrals for mammograms. But they don’t do mammograms themselves (see video below). Komen CEO Nancy Brinker said it this way, “We were giving them money; they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.” That Komen would reconsider giving grants to Planned Parenthood is no surprise. It was a strategic decision, and a good one at that.

Yet the response from liberals and their cohorts in the media has been stunning. They have excoriated Komen’s decision as bowing to pro-life pressure to dissociate from Planned Parenthood. I would like to think that pro-lifers have such influence over an enormous charity like Komen, but I doubt that they do—despite the congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood that critics keep citing.

In any case, I don’t think the facts matter at this point. Pro-abortion zealots are trying to weave a narrative to the public so that they can portray Komen as the bad guy. They want Komen to either change their standards or feel the wrath of millions of pro-abortion donors who will no longer support Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Yes, you heard that right. The pro-abortionists are so committed to their sacrament of abortion and to their temple of Planned Parenthood, that they would rather see the breast cancer charity die than lose funding for their abortion mills. That is a sick and distorted calculus, but there it is.

By the way, Komen’s grants were but a drop in the bucket of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget. Planned Parenthood’s budget is about one billion dollars. Komen’s grant last year was $680,000. The attempt to smear and destroy our nation’s leading breast cancer charity is all about a fraction of a percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget (.068% to be exact).

Planned Parenthood and their allies in the media are in open war right now with Susan G. Komen for the Cure. I hope Komen can stick to their guns on this one.

———-

Suggested reading and resources:

“Media discover Planned Parenthood is controversial” by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway – Get Religion

“Why Did Komen Stop? Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Mammograms” by Steven Ertelt – LifeNews.com

“Komen Get It” by James Taranto – Wall Street Journal

“Under fire, Komen CEO denies politics in Planned Parenthood cuts” by JoNel Aleccia – MSNBC.com

“Straight Talk from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen” – Komen for the Cure’s YouTube Channel

Friends, I think I’ve shown that for every skeptical argument Bart Ehrman advances, there is a reasonable response that shows the Bible to be more reliable than he makes it out to be. But in the end, how many of us believe in the Bible because of text criticism, or the number of manuscripts, or differences in the variants? The bigger questions, I submit to you, are these: Is Christianity true? Is Jesus divine? Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins? Did he rise from the dead? Is Jesus the only way? What is the gospel? Will you and I believe? There are many believers in this audience who have become convinced that the Bible is true and that Jesus is real. We’ll continue to advance arguments and counter-arguments on the minutiae of textual matters, and those matter, but let’s not forget the bigger picture. The Bible is trustworthy, and Christianity is true. Hopefully, we can all agree on that. Thank you very much.

Debates like this one are fascinating, and they serve a definite apologetic purpose. But Köstenberger is correct. No erudite argument defending the integrity of the New Testament text will by itself bring someone to faith. Arguments about textual criticism can remove some barriers, but not all barriers to faith. There is a “bigger picture,” as Köstenberger has it. There may be evidence that demands a verdict, but fallen sinners universally make the wrong judgment apart from grace—no matter how much evidence is adduced. Read the rest here.

Dan Wallace is doing great and valuable work at The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. You can check out their work here.

I’m not at all convinced Jakes understands or affirms orthodox Trinitarianism. But even if he meant to do so at the Elephant Room, the issue was not pressed far enough. Saying yes to the right formulations is one thing, but on something as fundamental as the Trinity, we ought to be concerned that a pastor celebrates and promotes the doctrine with passion and joy. We want to know that these core doctrines animate, infuse, and inform our pastoral ministry. We want to see that brothers understand the negation of what they affirm and are willing to guard the flock against these errors. And if someone is espousing a new position or a fuller understanding of the truth, it’s fair to know how they intend to correct previous mistakes and how their ministry will change as a result. These aren’t egghead, nitpicking questions. They get to the heart of the Christian faith and the essence of pastoral ministry.

Kevin also talks about his hesitation to speak out. He writes,

Looking back, I regret that I did not do more to speak more directly about the Elephant Room and the serious mistake in inviting T.D Jakes to share the platform in this way.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the reasons he gives for waiting until now. We should all have such “hesitations” about controversy among brothers.

Read the rest here.

Still, let us go back to the fourth century and see how the `middle aged white guy’ critique measures up.  Well, at the Council of Nicea in 325, many of the participants were no doubt middle aged — which Paul in the Pastorals would actually seem to think is quite a good thing in a church leader.  But white?    I suspect they were ethnically more akin to modern day Turks or south eastern Europeans, not that racial categories really meant anything then.  The key category in the fourth century was that of Roman citizenship, not skin colour.

More significantly, of course, had you been there yourself and looked around the council, you would have seen that many of the delegates had body parts missing – an arm here, a leg there, an occasional eye – because they were survivors of the terrible persecutions under Diocletian and Galerius.  Indeed, many had probably lost close friends and family members too.  Thus, the foundations for the creedal doctrine of the Trinity were laid by men who thought doctrine was something for which it was actually worth suffering and dying.

But hey, if a bunch of middle-aged American pastors in the Elephant Room tell you Nicea and its delegates — and all the Christians who have suffered and died to maintain its truth over the centuries — are irrelevant, who am I to question them?  To do so would surely be the height of arrogance.  Ahem.

Read the rest here.