Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« Elite Motherhood & Prayer Mats | Main | A New Thing in the World »

September 25, 2005

Molly Yard, RIP

Among evangelicals, we have the category of the "MK" or "missionary kid." This is a child who grows up as an American on the mission field with parents who are there carrying the gospel. Many "MKs" have grown up to serve the cause of Christ and Kingdom with distinction and honor. This week, however, the world mourned the death of a Methodist MK who articulated a very different gospel from that of John Wesley and the great missionaries of the Methodist past.

Friday's Los Angeles Times announced the death of Molly Yard, longtime head of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Yard, as many will remember, was the prototype of the angry feminist, often screaming at the top of her lungs on the Capitol lawn. The obituary notes that her first act of feminist defiance occurred when she told her husband she was not going to take his name. Her cause celebre was abortion rights, which she led NOW to keep at the top of its list of priorities.

The obituary also notes that she was "born a feminist," because she was the third of four daughters of a Methodist missionary family  in Shanghai, China. The obituary said that Yard's father was given a gift by a Chinese family as a consolation for the "tragedy" of having a girl who "didn't count" in a Chinese culture that "tossed girls away."

Molly Yard was created in the image of God. Her death, like all death, is a tragedy. Even so, we shouldn't let go unnoticed what the obituary doesn't note. That is, we should remember the irony of a sad woman who lived to a ripe old age arguing for the creation of a culture that would toss away girls and boys who, after all, don't count in Molly Yard's America.

Molly's parents understood that the way to combat the Chinese culture of death was to welcome baby girls into life, even if no one else understood why. As we pray for comfort for Molly Yard's family, let's pray that the American church might do the same: joyfully receiving and protecting children...even those that "don't count."

Posted by Russell D. Moore at 02:05 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8345a06e569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Molly Yard, RIP :

» Molly Yard, 93; Led Fight for Womens Rights from Depravity
As Mere Comments points out, she helped create an abortion culture in the U.S. where both boys and girls are tossed away. Rest in peace, and may God have mercy on your soul. Molly Yard, 93; Led Fight for Womens Rights - Los Angeles Times Y... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 25, 2005 8:51:45 PM

Comments

Ruth Bell Graham (wife of evangelist Billy Graham) was also born to missionaries in China. Her life turned out a little differently than Ms. Yard's life.

Whether it's PK's or MK's, there seems to be a switch inside of them that tends to one extreme or another: either they are really turned on for the Lord or for the world (and trouble). Then again, you have someone like Franklin Graham who started out his adult life with "indiscretions" but later repented and is now involved in his own ministries.

Posted by: MarcV | Sep 26, 2005 7:22:40 AM

It always puzzles me that feminists and other correctors of politics fail to see that the Chinese policy is exactly what makes most sense, given their insistence that the world is overpopulated. Population is determined not by the number of young men you have roaming around, but by the number of young women, and for obvious biological and mathematical reasons.

Why avoiding a surging population of Chinese people trumps the safety of baby girls aborted or exposed to die, I can't fathom. Something similarly perverse is true of the left's bitter dismissal of the so-called double standard regarding sexual morality. It's clear that if you want a society in which most children are raised by a married mother and father, then you have to ensure that the women, or most of them, are chaste. The female is the sex that will demand your admonitory resources, so to speak. After all, you can make ninety percent of the men as chaste as you like, but if women en masse do not accept chastity, you might as well have told the men to go and sow all the wild oats they liked -- the practical result will be much the same, and again for obvious biological and mathematical reasons. That double standard protected women; yet for some reason it is deemed more important that sexual chaos prevail than that women be secure in their modesty and chastity. I wonder why.

Posted by: Tony | Sep 26, 2005 9:20:57 AM

The fact that the double standard makes mathematical sense doesn't make it right...and the fact that feminists talk about it a lot doesn't make it nonexistent. First, it is simply wrong to say that women's chastity is more important than men's That's like saying that we ladies have all 10 commandments and you only have 9. And yes, the double standard exists. Henry the eighth fathered children out of wedlock with at least two women, and executed two of his wives for adultery. Hester Prynne stood alone on the scaffold. Modern teenaged girls refer to our looser sisters as sluts, while no such pejorative term exists for promiscuous guys. In 6th century Burgundy, if a man committed adultery it wasn't criminal and his wife could do nothing about it. If she did the same, he could have her executed. In the modern Middle East, men can have four wives and believe they will have 72 concubines in Paradise, while women are cruelly circumcised, an operation which bears virtually no relation to the male version (the one they do to women removes some vital bits and is not commanded by God anywhere), makes normal marital relations painful and childbirth hellish and dangerous to make absolutely sure that they will be chaste. The list goes on. While the double standard "protected" women, once a woman, whether fairly or not, lost her reputation, she was finished, c.f. Anna Karenina ( how Anna married Karenin) and Gone With the Wind. In Africa and India, the double standard leads to the spread of AIDS. Chaste women and their innocent babies get the virus from unchaste men who sleep with prostitutes.We were denied our inalienable rights because we were alleged to be too pure for politics. I would rather deal with the jungle of sexual chaos than be the sexless Angel in the House of a century ago.And a double standard of sexual morality isn't a bad thing? This isn't an argument for the abolishment of sexual morality. I fully intend to still be a virgin at my wedding; I simply so happen to think that the groom ought to be one too. Perhaps if men rather than women could become pregnant and had some physical proof of virginity, the doubl standard would run the other way.

Posted by: Lady Luthien | Sep 26, 2005 1:38:38 PM

I'm not terribly surprised that many mk's grow up to be very angry about God. I went to school with a lot of mk's (and pk's) who really got the short end of the stick in terms of their parents' attention. I've been perpetually struck by how the historic tendency to make the really tough missions the territory of single (and often celibate) men and women is really a piece of human, and perhaps divine, wisdom. After all, the disciples asked, have we not left mother and father, wife and children for you?

This is not to say that there is no place in mission work for the married, but it often seems that to bring children along is to set up a very difficult situation in which the calling of fatherhood and motherhood is sacrificed even as it is attempted. The result: angry and/or displaced mk's.

Posted by: David Deavel | Sep 26, 2005 3:48:32 PM

I enjoy your "comments," but please, Molly yard's death
is hardly a tragedy!! Whence the sentimentality that
anyone's (natural) death is a "tragedy"? This is truly
anti-natural and Unchristian.

Posted by: Caryl Johnston | Sep 26, 2005 3:53:25 PM

Caryl, I don't think the original poster meant to imply anything that is "anti-natural" or counter to Christianity. Describing death as tragic has much support in Scripture and Church teaching. For example, Jesus mourned Lazarus' death (even though he knew he would be raised), as did Mary and Martha, who believed in the Resurrection. Death is a result of sin (I mean originally - "the wages of sin is death"), and in a very real sense death is unnatural for humanity. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were immortal.

Now, of course, with the glorious hope in the Resurrection, we can also consider death as the necessary precursor to eternal union with God in heaven. But we believe in the resurrection of the body, that body and soul will be reunited. Death in and of itself is still a tragedy that separates body and soul, which were meant to be together.

Posted by: Leah | Sep 26, 2005 6:07:33 PM

Cicero once wrote somewhere that while a child's maternity is a matter easily established, his paternity is a matter of probabilities. If men (for the most part) come to believe that they are unlikely to be the fathers (or even not certain that they are the fathers) of their wives' children, they will have little desire and less incentive to support them; and marriage as an institution collapses. That is why female chastity is socially more critical than male chastity.

Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 26, 2005 6:43:43 PM

I cede that female chastity is socially more valuable. That does not, however, make any sort of double standard just, and in the days of rampant AIDS is probably not even as true as it once was. Men still ought to behave as well as they would like us to.

Posted by: lady luthien | Sep 26, 2005 6:49:31 PM

Tony, I'm sorry I my response to your post was so mad and a bit graphic. I should not have made my point with anger or used some of those examples. Mea culpa.

Posted by: lady luthien | Sep 26, 2005 9:56:36 PM

What an irony that Molly Yard’s support for abortion helped lead to so many of her sisters being aborted in China and India where girls are still looked upon as a burden. She addressed an issue of “human rights” but ignored how our sin skews our view.

Posted by: No | Sep 27, 2005 2:09:32 PM

Post a comment