Selling Their Souls

by Tom Strohbar                                                                                           Vol. IX, No. 9, October 1996

      President, ProVita Advisors

While the history of Protestantism in America has produced its share of discord and disunity, when it comes to the issue of abortion, it has spoken in a remarkably similar voice.

What's that? Aren't some denominations pro-life and some pro-choice? Haven't the mainline churches, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc., if not officially at least in practice, lined up on the prochoice side repeating comforting phrases like, "It's a very personal decision?" Haven't Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and others often referred to as the Christian Right or the more encompassing "fundamentalists" shouted about the evils of abortion? As easy generalizations go, it's basically true. In some ways, there probably hasn't been as big a split over the practical application of essential doctrine since the issue of slavery when Baptists split into American Baptist and Southern Baptist adherents. So what's the same? What "similar voice"? MONEY - that's what is the same. As the French philosopher Voltaire said, "When it comes to money, we are all of the same religion." One voice as it were.

When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, the different denominations are virtually indistinguishable on the issue of abortion. The largest Protestant denominations in this country, the Southern Baptists on one side and the United Methodists on the other, are promoting and profiting from abortion on a daily basis. Forget the rhetoric - when it comes to the billion dollar pension funds of their ministers, abortion profits are just as welcome as those from other industries.

This startling conclusion was reached after Joni Hannigan, a writer for The Indiana Baptist newspaper, and a participant in the 4.2 billion dollar retirement fund of the Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, secured a copy of the actual investments. On the United Methodist side, Vidette Bullock Mixon, Director of Corporate Relations and Social Concerns, was kind enough to provide a list of investments of the 5.7 billion dollar General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church.

Both organizations have taken great pains to exclude alcohol, gambling and tobacco companies for decades. These exclusions may have even negatively impacted their returns but were done so ministers would not seem hypocritical. You can't very well call for the avoidance of alcohol on Sunday and profit from it the rest of the week. Exclusions have been incorporated into the investment policies of most religious groups for so long no one seriously questions it. It just made sense. Churches shouldn't invest in activities contrary to their beliefs.

The Southern Baptists were recently informed that twenty of their 762 equity holdings were in companies that made abortifacient drugs, performed abortions for profit, or financed abortions. Another fifteen companies regularly gave shareholder money to the nation's largest abortion-performing organization, Planned Parenthood.

One might think they would have remedied this situation by simply selling the offending companies and replacing them with one of the other thousands of investment choices available. Instead, they did nothing. Their response was to hide behind the issue of fiduciary responsibility. They said it wouldn't be prudent to exclude all of those companies. It might lower their rate of return, and they might be legally liable. Ministers wouldn't be able to retire in as much comfort. They didn't explain how they excluded alcohol, gambling, and tobacco stocks for so many years with no apparent fiduciary problem.

Their response was surprising since earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Annuity Board announced they would avoid or divest companies "found to have a service or product that is publicly perceived as uniquely aiding, supporting, or promoting abortion." Maybe the key phrase here is "publicly perceived." As long as the company isn't "publicly perceived" as promotion or profiting from abortion, it is acceptable.

More succinctly, they don't mind profiting from abortion as long as no one notices. As a religious institution they should be more aware than most that some things are impossible to hide.

If Southern Baptists are investing in companies profiting from abortion, it probably comes as no surprise the United Methodists are doing basically the same thing. Indeed, many of the offending companies on the Baptist list were also in the Methodist plan. The Methodists do seem less hypocritical since they made no pretense to screen for abortion-related companies and obviously didn't! Their "social concerns" lie elsewhere. They did go one step further, though. They owned shares in the French company Rhone-Poulenc. This company has a 40% interest in the manufacturer of the new abortion pill RU-486. It is a simple fact - thousands of Methodist ministers in this country will be better off with each pill sold. Leave the social and moral effects of the abortion pill to those unconcerned about its monetary value. It could be a great investment!

There may be economic reasons for owning Rhone-Poulenc, but it does seem insensitive to own it and other abortion related companies. Even in the big tent of the Methodist church, there are many people who would describe themselves as pro-life and would presumably be aghast at the thought of their pension money financing this activity. Individual pensioners have no choice in how their money is invested. Should they be forced to finance the abortion industry?

It is one thing for a church to leave the abortion question to the mother. Surely, it is something quite different to use church funds to promote and profit from it. Shareholders do exactly that!

Legal abortion is a fact of life and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It is also a billion dollar industry with scores of companies already engaged in it and looking for more money. There is little evidence Christian organizations are the least bit reticent about joining the newest money-making game in town.

Followers of Christ of whatever denomination, should be familiar with the story of Jesus in the temple and the money changers. It was one time when the normally loving and serene Jesus exhibited extreme rage toward those profiting from questionable activities. Perhaps those who control the purse strings of today's temples should be reminded of this event. They should feel comfortable with the source of their profits, lest they anger the One they profess to follow. They shouldn't need to be reminded that some things in life are sacred, and money is not one of them.