Frequently Asked Questions

Questions on Abortion
Questions on Homosexual 'Marriage' and Homosexuality
What is the Relationship Between Africa Christian Action, Frontline Fellowship, Christian Liberty Books and Christian Africa Network?
How Does One Become a Member of Africa Christian Action?

 

What is the relationship between Africa Christian Action, Frontline Fellowship, Christian Liberty Books and Christian Action Network?

Frontline Fellowship is a founder member of the Christian Action Network (formally United Christian Action).  The official publication of CAN is Christian Action.  This now combines the previous UCANEWS and ACA’s Salt Shaker.  So Christian Action is the official publication of ACA and CAN. 

Africa Christian Action is a ministry of Frontline Fellowship.  ACA is the social and moral action arm of Frontline Fellowship primarily in South Africa, but ACA does also have work throughout Southern Africa.  Dr. Peter Hammond is the Founder and Chairman of Africa Christian Action.  Charl van Wyk is the Director of ACA.

Christian Liberty Books is a ministry of Frontline Fellowship.  It serves both as a publishing house for FF, ACA and CAN, as well as for importing, exporting, wholesaling and retailing, mostly through mail order and the web, but also through our book shop in Cape Town.  CLB is a non-profit ministry, any funds generated above those needed for maintaining the ministry are donated to missions, schools and colleges as far afield as Zambia, Nigeria and Sudan.

Christian Action Network (formally United Christian Action) was founded in 1984.  FF is a founder member of UCA.  Mrs. Dorothea Scarborough of Gospel Defence League is the Chairman of CAN.  Dr. Peter Hammond is the Director of CAN.  CAN is an umbrella body which represents it’s 30 member organisations to government and to the media.  CAN puts out press statements, makes submissions and representations to Parliament, and presents a co-ordinated voice on mutual concerns shared by the member organisations. 

Africa Christian Action is the grassroots mobilisation ministry which organises the pro-life, pro-family and moral actions such as the Sanctity Life Sunday, National Day of Repentance, National Women’s Day outreaches, the International Life Chain, etc.

The Christian Action magazine includes articles and news items dealing with Reformation and Revival issues.  The Frontline Fellowship News is primarily a report back on Frontline’s mission activities and research in restricted access countries, dealing primarily with the persecuted Church and ministry in Marxist and Muslim areas.  For more information visit www.frontline.org.za.

How does one become a member of Africa Christian Action?

Africa Christian Action is more a grassroots movement of volunteers rather than an organisation. Our strategy involves a network of organisations co-ordinating volunteers in home or church fellowships. You can start or join an ‘Action Group’ or ‘Transformation Team’! Request a Starter Pack and purchase a copy of Make a Difference: A Christian Action Handbook for Southern Africa.

There is no membership to Africa Christian Action as such. If you would like to find out how you can transform your community, we encourage you to join our E-mailing list and subscribe to our Christian Action magazine to keep yourself informed and up-to-date. We send out regular updates and information through our E-list and Christian Action magazine about how you can make a difference and get your church involved: e.g. outreaches, demonstrations, prayer vigils and letter writing campaigns. Also, you can visit Action Items on our website for report-backs and upcoming events.

If, however, your church fellowship or ministry would like to be affiliated to the Christian Action Network, please contact the Christian Action Network Co-ordinator for an application form and constitution: info@christianaction.org.za, Tel: +2721 689 4480 or PO Box 23632, Claremont, 7735, South Africa.

The Christian Action Network is an umbrella body of Christian congregations and organisations that stand together in the socio-political arena to uphold the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas of life. CAN represents it’s 30 member organisations to government and to the media. CAN puts out press statements, makes submissions and representations to Parliament, and presents a co-ordinated voice on mutual concerns shared by the member organisations.

Homosexual ‘marriage’ and homosexuality

Acknowledgements to and adapted from Robert H. Knight, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family. These FAQs are helpful for answering difficult questions or in radio interviews.

Q: Aren’t we denying homosexuals their rights by not instituting same-sex marriage?

Homosexuals enjoy all the rights every citizen has—they can vote, own property, etc. That is not the issue. The issue is about redefining the social institution of marriage, as it has been understood and transmitted down through the centuries throughout civilisation. Homosexuals have precisely the same right to marry as anyone else. Marriage is the bringing together of a man and a woman. To enter marriage, one must meet its qualifications. Society has always defined qualifications about who may enter a marriage, and who may not. For example, there is discrimination on the basis of “family”: a brother and sister may also not marry. Any attempt to get around the rules that apply to everyone else is an attempt to have special rights, not equal rights. When homosexuals are not allowed to marry each other in the eyes of the state, they suffer no more discrimination than do brothers and sisters.

Q: In restricting marriage to one man and one woman, aren’t you imposing your beliefs on others?

Those who are trying to radically redefine marriage for their own purposes are the ones who are imposing their values on the rest of the population. Marriage, of men and woman, has been the foundation of civilisation for thousands of years. Any attempt to alter that definition is an effort to undermine the most fundamental building block of every society: the family unit.

Q: Whom does it affect if a same-sex couple wants to get married?

When homosexual couples seek civil and public approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they seek to impose the law on everyone:

Q: But if two people love each other, why not let them marry?

If the definition of marriage is radically altered and based on "feelings" or “love”, then there is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for gutting other requirements, such as minimum age and blood relative status. For example, if there were no restrictions on marriage and feelings were all that mattered, fathers could marry their own daughters or brothers could marry their sisters. Any person, of any age, could marry anyone he wished or any number of persons he wished—a close relative, three young children, etc. If there were no restrictions on marriage, the possible arrangements would be endless.

Q: Don’t studies show that homosexuals are born that way?

Absolutely not. The genetic studies that have been publicised have been misrepresented in the media. The studies themselves typically have tiny sample sizes, biased selection, and other major methodological flaws, and are not replicated by reputable scientists. By contrast, 70 years of therapeutic counselling and case studies show a remarkable consistency about the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed. Homosexuals can choose their behaviour, and they can change their sexual preference, although this process is always difficult, as researchers Masters & Johnson and Robert L. Spitzer showed in their studies and as numerous testimonies of ex-homosexuals reveal.

Q: For the past, Black and White people were prevented from marrying each other by apartheid laws. Eventually, these laws were overturned. Aren’t same-sex couples being similarly discriminated against?

Skin colour and sexual behaviour are entirely different from each other. Skin colour is a benign, inborn characteristic that has no bearing on conduct or character; sexual behaviour, on the other hand, is based on a person’s actions and has to do with character, morality and society’s basic rules of conduct. If special rights are granted to citizens based on behaviour, new laws would have to be passed almost daily to accommodate the flood of claims based on any activity. Smokers, compulsive gamblers, paedophiles, thieves, etc., could all claim new "rights" to protection against discrimination.

Q: Isn’t the traditional view of marriage religious in nature? And if so, doesn’t the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman violate the religious beliefs of those who disagree?

As regards religion, the five major world religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism all recognise the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage. By contrast, these religions teach that homosexual behaviour is sinful or wrong. But besides religion, every culture, race and custom in South Africa as a norm has historically and traditionally upheld marriage as between men and women. Marriage is also an independently quantifiable good for society, providing stability and protection for the next generation. That is why marriage has always been protected in law. The state has an interest in preserving and protecting the special status of marriage, regardless of religious beliefs.

Q: What about childless couples? If marriage must be protected partly because of its importance in forming families, does this mean that heterosexual couples who don’t want or can’t have children should not be allowed to marry?

Although most people marry with the intention of someday starting families, married couples who do not have children still have the potential for becoming mothers and fathers, either biologically or through adoption. They then have the potential to bring up children offering them ideal conditions for growing and maturing into healthy individuals. An infertile heterosexual couple can offer ideal conditions to an adopted child – a mother and a father. Two men or two lesbians can never offer that. But marriage is a societal good even without children. Sociologists tell us that marriage has a powerful affect on society, deterring individuals from socially harmful behaviour. Marriage also contributes to the health and longevity of both husbands and wives. Additionally, marriage encourages sexual regulation, a characteristic that historically has been the most important factor in creating and preserving healthy and productive cultures. It is the breakdown in society of marriage, commitment and sexual faithfulness that has led to the STD and AIDS epidemic. We therefore need to work harder to preserve marriage. Procreation is an important aspect of society’s high regard for marriage, but it is not the only reason that marriage is protected.

But what’s the big fuss about gays? What about adulterers?

Problems associated with the breakdown of the family, including adultery, are being addressed. The concerns about ‘partnerships’ and marriage benefits to couples who shack up are equally serious. Children are born into relationships where there is no permanent commitment between man and women. The effects of divorce and separation on children are devastating.

Questions on Abortion

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." 1 Peter 3:15
"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction." 2 Timothy 4:2
"Every pro-choice argument requires that we pretend, that we play mind games, that we forget, ignore, or deny the humanity, worth, and dignity of unborn babies. The pro-choice movement thrives on having a silent victim. It thrives on our ability to forget and ignore innocent victims as long as they are out of our sight. Tell a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it and end up reciting it. This is the story of the pro-choice deception." Randy Alcorn

1."Freedom of Choice"
"Don’t Women have a right to choose what they want to do with their own body?"
There are two aspects to this statement:
You can't always do what you want with your body. For example: we have laws of public decency and laws against rape and prostitution. It is against the law to take certain drugs. You may not use your body to assault another person. The key question is whether what is done with one person's body brings significant harm to others. Obviously, abortion does - abortion kills another person!
The baby is not your body! A woman does have rights over her own body, the right to choose what to wear, what to eat, her career...but she does not have rights over someone else's body. When our rights infringe on someone else's rights that's where our rights stop. The baby within her is a separate human being often having its own blood type. The baby has its own heartbeat, brain waves, lungs, hands, feet, eyes, ears, fingerprints and it can, of course, be of a different gender. The baby has an entirely different and unique genetic structure.
"It would be unfair to restrict a woman's choice by prohibiting abortion."
Yes, you do have a right to choose what you do with your body - but that choice is made before the baby is conceived. Men and women are free to choose to obey God's moral laws and abstain from sex outside of marriage; to disobey God's moral laws but use birth control; or to disobey God's moral laws and not use contraceptives. Your choice is made before conception. Once fertilization has occurred, you no longer have a choice - you have a child! Mary O'Brien Drum points out: "After a woman is pregnant, she cannot choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother. She already is, and since the child is already present in her womb, all that is left to her to decide is whether she will deliver her baby dead or alive." 2
Once the baby is born, the woman is again free to choose - she can keep the child or give him up for adoption. The option that pro-lifers oppose is that of murder!
Those Who Hate God Love Death
What does God think about abortion? In Psalm 139:19 we read: "If only You would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men! They speak of you with evil intent; Your adversaries misuse Your name." There are so many people in this country who call themselves Christians who are saying that they stand for "the right to choose" whether women should have an abortion or not. Is it "a right" to choose whether to murder? Which of us has the legal right to choose to take someone else's life? They speak about "women's rights" , how about equal rights for unborn women ? Much more than half of aborted babies are girls.
In Communist China, every family is restricted to only one child. They are forcibly given abortions if they conceive any more children after their quota of one. Therefore, China has the largest number of reported stillbirths of baby girls. Often when they see their firstborn child is a girl, they strangle her or drown her in a bucket of water and report a stillbirth so that they can have another child. This is the end result of abortion. No freedom of choice at all - just murder.
"Pro-Choice" in China means that the government is the only one who has the choice. You can only have one child. The rest get killed. In China, demographers calculate that every year they have about 600 000 more boys born than girls. 3 Presently, in China there are millions more males than females.
This imbalance is even greater in India. There they use amniocentesis tests to determine the sex of the baby and many choose to abort their baby girls. They prefer sons to daughters. Consider the effect on society when these sons begin looking for wives.
So those feminists who are marching for women's rights are only marching for a holocaust - a massacre of women. They should be campaigning for equal rights for the unborn women instead. As Psalm 139:21 declares: "Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against You?"
Those who hate God, love death (Proverbs 8:36). There is no other way to describe the motivation of the pro-abortion lobby. Those who hate God love death. Humanists love abortion. They love euthanasia. They produce violent films. Those who hate God love death.
2."But it's internationally accepted."
A couple of hundred years ago racism was widely accepted. Few people doubted that blacks were inferior, that they could be enslaved. But just because it was widely accepted did not make it right.
Equally, just because abortion is widely promoted these days does not make it right. South Africa has just ended a practice of discrimination against people on the basis of race. We now have discrimination based on age.
3. “What about the women who were dying from backstreet abortions? Abortion needed to be legalised to save their lives….”
The statistics of 200 000 – 400 000 backstreet abortions per year in South Africa are not only gross exaggerations, but blatant lies. There is no documented proof for such claims. The official Department of Health estimated that between 42 000 and 167 000 illegal abortions were being performed per year (Natal Mercury 31/01/94). The report however, admitted that estimates varied widely depending on which model was used to determine them, the higher figures being chosen on extrapolations from other countries such as the USA. However, before abortion was legalised in the USA, 100 000 illegal abortions per year were being performed. South Africa’s population is roughly one tenth of the USA so is it unreasonable to estimate an illegal abortion rate of 10 000 per year?
The legalisation of abortion was supposed to lead to fewer deaths from backstreet abortions. But, not expectedly, the explosion in legal abortions has led to an increase in legal abortion maternal deaths. The South African press reported that an estimated 500 women die annually due to the misuse of Misoprostal (Pretoria News, 5 March 2004.) The newspaper surveyed 18 healthcare facilities and each one admitted that women had died from legal abortions. Compare this to the estimated 425 women dying each year from complications from illegal abortions pre-1997 (Medical Research Council, 1994).
‘Backstreet’ abortions have also not decreased because Misoprostal is often used. The same doctors who let woman through the back door and performed abortions pre-1997, are probably the same ones who are more willing to perform abortions that do not meet the criteria allowed in the TOP Act e.g. late abortions.
The author is also aware of two deaths from legal abortions in the Western Cape, neither of which was recorded by the Western Cape Department of Health. Deaths from legal abortions are rarely reported as the state and many doctors are keen to defend such a procedure, as they believe it is helping women. In addition, as for deaths from HIV/AIDS, there is a social stigma attached to deaths from abortions. Death Certificates politely refer to haemorrhages and infections. The family has no incentive to push for the truth, and the abortionist doesn’t want to admit that the abortion, meant to help women, has in fact harmed them.
Furthermore, the number of maternal deaths rose from 425 to over 500 at the expense of thousands of babies’ lives.
This argument also seems ridiculous in the light of the following statement: Because people die or are being harmed while killing other people (i.e. pre-born people), the state should make it safe for them to do so.
Many women will not attempt to have an illegal abortion simply because it is against the law and society frowns upon it. This is evident from the history of legal abortions in the USA. Before abortion on demand was legalised in 1973, approximately 100 000 illegal abortions were performed per year. Now 3 million legal abortions are performed a year!
“No-one doubts that legal abortion is marginally safer than illegal abortion, but neither is there any doubt that decriminalization has encouraged more women to undergo abortions than ever before. Risk goes down, but numbers goes up. This combination means that though the odds of any particular woman suffering ill effects from an abortion have dropped, the total number of women who suffer… from abortion is far greater than ever before.
In 1969 the number of abortion-related complications treated in US hospitals was 9 000. In 1977 it was 17 000.” David C. Reardon.
In the USA in 1967, before the legalisation of abortion, the Federal government reported 160 deaths from abortions. By 1972 abortion was still illegal in 80 percent of the country, but the use of antibiotics had greatly reduced the risk. Hence, the number dropped to 39 maternal deaths from abortion that year ( U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics). Even with significant under-reporting, the figures are nowhere near 5 000-10 000 deaths a year claimed by pro-abortionists. Consider the words of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League:
“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? When we spoke of statistics it was always 5 000-10 000 deaths a year …I confess that I knew the figures were totally false. But in the “morality” of our revolution it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”( Aborting America , Nathanson, 193).
It is not necessarily true that legalisation of abortion prevents criminal abortions. Speaking before the 93 rd Congress of the US, Senator James Buckley stated:
“Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we had in the US suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution.”

Less Abortion hospitals/clinics, less abortions

Many pro-abortionists would say that the less hospitals and doctors there are to perform abortions, the more women will seek out backstreet or illegal abortions. While a few might do this, the inaccessibility of abortion services is actually a great deterrence to many women who are looking for any excuse to not go through with the procedure. It’s a question of “what the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over.” In other words if there was an abortion clinic on every street corner, thousands more women would be having abortions. The distance women have to travel, the time they have to wait between the decision to abort and the actual procedure itself (in South Africa women are often put on long waiting lists) and the stress of the procedure itself are a great deterrence. In fact, if the waiting lists are very long, by the time they get to the top of the list, they may be past the legal gestational limit. The media tends to focus on the horror stories of backstreet abortions, but very little is said about the thousands of women, who, despite having next-to-nothing, decide to keep their babies.
Regardless of whether abortions are legal or not, some women will have abortions and some will die from complications. Certainly all babies will die. However, legalising abortion greatly increases the number abortions. In various surveys 40 – 85% of the women surveyed said they would not have aborted their babies if it was illegal ( Aborted Women , Reardon, 321-322). We must not legalise procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less dangerous.
4. “But if abortion becomes illegal again, won’t we go back to mothers dieing from back-street abortions?”
We have an example of an entire nation – Poland, which refutes this argument. Under Communist rule there were consistently over 100 000 abortions registered each year. In 1990, with both the Church and doctors discouraging abortion, the numbers fell to 59 400. Then in 1993, abortion was banned except for danger to the life of the mother, fetal handicap or rape. In 1994 there were only 782 abortions and not a single death reported due to illegal abortion (Why Can’t We Love Them Both, Wilke, 222).
5. “Having more unwanted babies produces more child abuse….”
A landmark study of 674 abused children was conducted by University of Southern California professor, Edward Lenoski. He discovered that 91% were from planned pregnancies; they were definitely wanted by their parents. What is startling is that, in society in general, 63 percent of pregnancies are planned. Hence, among abused children, a significantly higher percentage were `wanted children' compared to the percentage of `wanted children' in society at large.
Child abuse has dramatically increased since abortion was legalised in the USA. It has not decreased. In the first 10 years of legalised abortion in America, child abuse increased over 500% ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report; National Study on Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting, The American Humane Association, 1981 & 1991; 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research, U.S Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978 ).
If children are viewed as expendable before birth, they will be viewed as expendable after birth.
It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.
6. “What about the poor women from the townships and rural areas with lots of children. Don’t they need abortion the most?”
Legalised abortion is often offered as a solution to the problem of the Third World. What makes us think that they want this choice?
In most of Africa, for many years, medical personnel have attempted to introduce and establish family planning especially among the Black population - without much success. In Africa, from the man's perspective, children are a measure of his virility. Children are an insurance policy for his old age. Many children mean that he can work more land and produce more food, or look after more cattle. More daughters mean more dowries when they marry. Rural people tend to have large families. Contraceptives have been viewed negatively. African people do not kill their babies. This is a foreign ideology that has been imported. In rural Africa, larger families are seen as necessary and healthy for their economies.
According to a National Progressive Primary Health Care Network survey, 82% of rural Blacks oppose abortion! ( Sunday Times, 10 April 1994). The "civilised" Europeans are more barbaric than the "primitive" Africans because the Europeans will kill their babies whom they see as an inconvenience. On the other hand Africans generally recognise the sanctity and innocence of pre-born human life.
7. “What about overpopulation?”
The current world population is at 6.5 billion.
Population growth has been slowing rapidly and this trend will continue. In recent decades, according to the US Census Bureau, world population growth as a percentage hit a high in 1962 and 1963 at 2.19% and has been in long-term decline ever since. It was only 1.15% last year and is projected to be 0.46% in 2049. Population growth in absolute numbers is already dropping despite the increase in total world population. That number peaked in 1989, when the world added a net 88 million new souls, declined to 74.4 million last year, and will be only 42.2 million in 2049 despite the increase in total population to over 9 billion. Of course, since the experts believe life expectancy will continue its rise, this drop in population growth will come from an astounding further decline in families and births to extend the one the world has already seen since the '60s.
Historically, population experts have tended to overestimate their numbers, so it is likely that these numbers will be even lower than currently projected. The population controllers have won: The world has long been on the path to population decline and shows no signs of deviating from it. Slowing population growth rates is due largely to the spread of HIV/AIDS but has also been significantly influenced by the “population control” policies of many nations such as China which include the promotion of abortions as a means of birth control. (Population Research Institute – www.pop.org.)
For a list of Pro-life resources and events, click here.

These Pro-life Answers are taken from Fight for Life:
A Pro-life Handbook for Southern Africa.
Africa Christian Action
PO Box 23632
Claremont
7735
South Africa
Tel: (021) 689 4481
Fax: (021) 685 5884
E-mail: info@christianaction.org.za