In reply to Sarah.

Let us dispassionately dissect this your statements:

"You all are making me sad to be a Christian with your remarks about leaving Thrivent over this change.” Why? Should we not discern good from evil, or God’s will from the alternative? Should we not speak out plainly about our understanding of God’s will? Should we not have the freedom to not only speak, but freely associate with organizations that are concordant with our beliefs?

"I for one am happy they are funding neither side of this issue it SHOULD lead to less bureaucratic meddling in the Choice program. Ever since the LCMS first complained about planned parenthood being on the list, Thrivent has spent money and time trying to please both sides – money an time that could have gone to doing good works instead.” The best response to this position is a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

"By adopting this new policy they are hoping to avoid upsetting either side. Clearly, as a Christian organization they believe in life.” So, the goal is not to upset either side? There are multiple sides to any issue and we should not discern between their positions? You state they “believe in life”. Do they? On what basis do you make that determination in light of the organization’s statements and actions?

"However, the LCMS and other bodies have told them for decades to stay out of theology and stick to finance.” So, not to murder children is a theological position? I suppose that, to some degree, is true since the foundation of all morality is God, the source of all good things. But, if that is true your “logic” leaves us with an inability to oppose amorality in any way that is not based on theology.

"It was Lutheran Thrivent members who voted initially to let ANY 501(c)3 into the program…” Clearly a mistake.

"Thrivent is now simply trying to get the program back to what is has always been meant to be – a helpful hand to churches and charities to go out and do good work.” Except for those organizations that are most active in the defense of the most innocent. Let us not forget the status quo ante: supporting organizations that perform and advocate the murder of children.

"You all need to stop and realize that there are many Christians who like charities that you may not – like Planned Parenthood – for reasons you may now have considered – as in they do prenatal care for low income women.” So, by analogy if someone gives a meal to a homeless person we should be unconcerned if they later beat them up? We can support organizations that offer prenatal care to low income women without supporting abortionists. One abortion is too many, but you may be interested in this: http://liveaction.org/blog/less-than-8-of-planned-parenthoods-provide-prenatal-care-40-do-abortions/

"Please get off your pedestals and realize you are in no right to judge a company poorly who is just trying to navigate a very complicated path in an ever changing world. The good work they are doing should never be out shadowed by these petty and unimportant disagreements.” Judge not, lest you be judged, eh? Well, do we not have the right, no the duty, to speak out? I’m curious as to whether you think the church should never speak the truth to the world. If you believe we should, what is the principle by which you suggest we judge when to speak and not speak. Should we not, out of love, correct or brothers when they are in error? To not do so represents indifference, not love.