Month Archives: October 2012

200,000,000 Silent Voices

by Lindsay Smith

October 25, 2012

We live in a culture which clamors for political correctness. Our society demands equal access to everything from golf courses to father-daughter dances. But a society so consumed with a womans right to pills and procedures has failed to protect a females most precious right: birth!

Chances are youve heard mumblings about infant girls killed in other countries and cultures which favor sons. Perhaps you have only heard mumblings because 200 million voices are silent, 200 million pens cannot write, 200 million faces remain unseen; all because 200 million girls are missing in the world today. Based on these massive numbers, this issue, these girls, deserve more than our mumblings or passing comments; they deserves our full voice! A new documentary is amplifying this voice through media and personal testimonies Its a Girl, explains why these are The Three Deadliest Words in the World.

The trailer alone speaks boldly. Early in the clip, one man shares sobering statistics: Today,India andChina eliminate more girls than the number of girls born inAmerica every year. Abandoned, aborted, smothered, strangled killed: as the film reveals, this is the plight for many girls in these countries. Sadly, the future isnt much brighter for those who survive infancy:

One in three girls in the developing world, as young as 7 to 10 years old, face being forced into marriage every day. These child brides are two times as likely to be beaten by their husbands, are often treated as property, and rarely see the opportunity to get an education.

While shocking in their nature, these hardships are not a surprising consequence of a culture which discounts women in the womb. If we want to increase a womans access to education or eradicate domestic violence, we have to first promote her dignity in the womb! As Melissa Ohden, an abortion survivor, explains, defending women begins with defending life:

If its acceptable to end the life of a child simply because she is a female, how then do we stop the floodgates of abuse, violence, sex trafficking and the like? How do we draw the line in the sand to protect and respect women at one point in their lives when we fail to protect and respect women at their most vulnerable point: developing in the womb?

This documentary reminds us all that gendercide doesnt just destroy baby girls overseas; it damages the dignity of women everywhere.

While the documentary mainly focuses on issues in Indiaand China, sex-selection fatalities are not isolated to these countries. In fact, they are not even isolated to that country over there. A recent blog exposes the occurrence of sex-selection on our own soil. It might surprise you to know India and China (along with 32 other countries) have laws against sex-selection, but the United States does not! Only four states in our country ban sex-selection abortion, but thanks to Live Action, we know these laws do little to deter some clinics from performing them.

Girls are threatened overseas; girls are threatened in our own communities; girls are threatened for being girls. These three words are being uttered all over the world today: Its a Girl! But the question remains, will she survive as one?

If you would like more information on this documentary or would like to get involved with this cause, click here.

A Cost Reduction Plan for Unplanned Pregnancies

by Sharon Barrett

October 25, 2012

One of the most unfortunate trends in our day is Politics Posing as Medical Science, as MARRI director Dr. Pat Fagan points out in a post on the MARRI blog. Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, helped author a study on the effects of birth control that was released just in advance of the presidential election. The study, titled Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception, was designed to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.

In other words, the Peipert study tries to suggest that the HHS contraceptive mandate is beneficial to society because, in the words of an NBC News report, offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

Dr. Fagan explains, however, that it is impossible to draw this conclusion from the Peipert study. First, the studys methodology is flawed. The authors did not use a control group, exaggerated the statistical effect of LARCs on the abortion rate, and tracked data that were not generalizable to a larger population over the long term (for example, they only reported on abortions and births, not on public health outcomes like STDs).

Second, by concentrating only on abortions and unplanned births, the study ignores the whole life cycle of women. As Dr. Fagan explains, as social science has tracked the consequences of contraceptive use for the long-term marital, family, parenting, and sexual habits of the women involved, negative outcomes have been found to be typical.

My prediction is that young women who use these methods…will have many more sexual partners, behavior that itself increases the likelihood of procuring an abortion. The program will also have high STD effects, likely have very significant effects on future marital stability, and in turn have significantly weakening effects on these womens future childrens life outcomes.

According to the NBC article, experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money. In 2011, the Guttmacher Institute calculated that unplanned pregnancies cost the United States $11 billion each year. Princeton University professor of economics James Trussell argues that using LARCs to reduce unplanned pregnancies will cut other, invisible costs as well for instance, by reducing the economic burden borne by on single teen mothers.

The best cost reduction plan, however, is not to flood the market with free birth control, but to encourage women and men who are sexually active to do so in the context of committed marriage. Not only is the married intact family our best insurance of economic prosperity, but growing up in an intact household reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes throughout a womans life including abortion and unplanned pregnancy.

10 Questions Pro-Choice Candidates Are Never Asked by the Media

by Cathy Ruse

October 25, 2012

Heres some food for thought from Trevin Wax at thegospelcoalition.org blog —- 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

1. You say you support a womans right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on the war on girls and the growth of gendercide in the world abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the eugenics movement a century ago the slow, but deliberate weeding out of those our society would deem unfit to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that abortion is the white supremacists best friend, pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a tragic choice. If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

Adoption: Welcome to the Family

by Sharon Barrett

October 24, 2012

What if all children could have the chance to grow up in a loving, intact home? What if those who are bereft of father and mother through disease, poverty, famine, or war could be assured of a bed at night, a place at the table, and warm arms to hold them? What if even a small number of the worlds 153 million orphans could be welcomed into someones family?

These are questions posed by MARRI intern Lindsay Smith as she explores Adoption: What If. For many orphans (children who have lost their father, their mother, or both parents) around the world, the loss of their family signals an end to any kind of stable existence. In Russia, for instance, orphans living in state-run institutions are booted out once they reach age sixteen. These teenagers estimated to number around 10,000 must fend for themselves on the streets, often turning to crime or prostitution, and sometimes to suicide.

Closer to home, the picture is shockingly similar. According to an article from Relevant Magazine,

As of late 2010, more than 408,000 children were in the U.S. foster care system. Of those children, 107,011 were considered adoptablemeaning, their parents rights have been terminated or relinquished.

Every year, 20,000 to 30,000 kids age out of the foster care system. Of those, 50 percent will have dropped out of high school (compared with 8 to 9 percent of the general population). Sixty-two percent will be unemployed within 12 to 18 months. Half will be unemployed at 21 years of age. A quarter of them will be homeless within two years. Nearly 50 percent of females will have a child within 12 to 18 months. And 30 percent will be arrested between the ages of 18 and 21.

When compared to these tragic statistics, the evidence that Adoption Works Well should sound a clarion call to every family that is in a position to consider adoption. Adopted children experience positive outcomes in academics, health, relationships, and parent-child communication in some cases even better than children raised by their biological parents.

When we consider the nature of adoption, this should come as little surprise. Adoption is, in the purest sense, a divine act. Lindsay Smith explains,

Adoption in its truest form is a response to the love and gospel of Jesus Christ. We were adopted into His kingdom, so we in turn adopt children into our homes. Not just so they will have an earthly room, bed or siblings, but so they may have a chance to know about a Heavenly Father who is recklessly and passionately pursuing their adoption to Himself.

On Sunday, November 4th, churches all over the United States and the world will be celebrating Orphan Sunday. Started by the Christian Alliance for Orphans, this Sunday raises awareness for the plight of the orphan through local church services.

Whether or not you and your family are able to adopt a child (either domestically or internationally), consider other ways to support families who adopt and the agencies that walk them through the process. The Christian Alliance for Orphans offers numerous links for this purpose. Remember: what if even one more orphan could be welcomed into someones family?

Some Thoughts on Human Nature and Political Action

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 23, 2012

Constants in the world include the Rock of Gibraltar, Mick Jagger, and human nature. The first of these is immovable. The second is incomprehensible. The third is the subject of this short essay.

A national election occurs two weeks from today. It is, in a sense, a referendum on human nature. Conservatives argue that because man is imperfectible, our long, diffident, inconsistent struggle out of barbarity should be welcomed, even celebrated, as we continue to strive to do better.

Liberals argue that because man is perfectible, our erratic strides toward human dignity are ignoble, inadequate, and embarrassing. This is why massive statist intervention to re-craft both man and his society are, to the Left, so profoundly important: The enlightened few, the Gnostic elite, should guide the pathetic masses with firm benevolence. From the size of their soft drinks to the partners they marry, endless adjustments, large and minute, can be made through the guidance of those whose vast wisdom will die with them.

Our intellectual achievements are beyond impressive: from nanotechnology to the quantum theory, we’re sharp cookies. But are we really any different from those who, building their tower to the heavens, find their grand plans and pretensions shattered in confusion? Are we so unmindful of our finitude and so confident in our potential for perfection that like lemmings moving in herd-like solidarity, we eventually find ourselves drowning after falling, unexpectedly, off the cliff of our own arrogance?

Even as the Internet has opened vast vistas of personal communication and international commerce, “about 2 million sexual predators are online around the world.” In an era of almost immeasurable abundance, nearly 11 million children die annually of hunger. We fling our intricate machines to the stars and murder one another with increasing diligence.

The point: Conservatives should aim to foster virtue, in individuals, cultures, and governments. But this side of heaven, man cannot be perfected. Moral character is best formed early, in family and church and the decent communities they form. Let’s work to that end, and be ever leery of those whose relentless dissatisfaction - animated by a false understanding of man’s promise - assures us that our country is, because imperfect, permanently ignoble.

We are both the image-bearers of God and sons of Adam . We cannot fulfill the hope of the first characterization without a sober recognition of the permanence of the latter.

Polygamy and the Promiscuity of the Beasts

by Sharon Barrett

October 23, 2012

Have we ever considered that we might be living in a polygamous society?

This is the question posed last week by MARRI intern Maria Reig Teetor. Maria observes,

Its common to hear complaints of how horrible it is that in certain cultures and religions, polygyny is respected and normal. We hear an outcry that it attacks womens dignity and reduces them to objects. But have those who are raising this outcry ever stopped to question whether their own sexual behavior may be reducing their human dignity?

Where is the difference, when men and women in Western society embrace sexual activity with whomever they please, whenever they please, leading to multiple sexual partners by the time they are thirty?

A French intellectual writing over 200 years ago made a similar observation. Louis de Bonald was a French reactionary a conservative in France who opposed the libertinism of the French Revolution just as MP Edmund Burke opposed it in England. In On Divorce, published in 1801, Bonald wrote the following:

The union of all with all indiscriminately is the promiscuity of the beasts; the successive union of one with many is polygamy, repudiation, divorce; the indissoluble union of one with one [is] Christian marriage….

Thus, as promiscuity is the union of the most imperfect of human beings, the beasts, it appears that indissoluble union, which is the other extreme, must be the union of the most perfect of living beings, men….*

In other words, sexual promiscuity reduces ones human dignity because it is equivalent to animal behavior. Promiscuity can be made more socially acceptable when covered with the veneer of divorce and remarriage, but it still fails to reach the standard of fidelity for Christian marriage prescribed by in the teaching of Christ (Matt. 19:3-9). As a conservative Catholic, Bonald believed in an indissoluble union; but as a student of history, he also believed (as MARRI research also shows) that lifelong marriage is naturally superior to other unions because it provides security for every member of the family.

Bonald, along with other conservatives of his time, thought of human society as a community ordered by the duties each member owes to all others (what Edmund Burke called a web of obligation, stretching from our forebears to future generations). He described marriage and the family as a society in itself, one that the larger human community has a duty to uphold and protect.

The French Revolution upset this social balance by proclaiming radical individualism and freedom from religious restraint (which, as Bonald pointed out, led to new divorce laws and an epidemic of divorce that he called serial polygamy). The same is true today, as Maria Reig Teetor describes:

As Pat Fagan points out, in the Western culture of polyamorous sexuality, family life is just one option among many other lifestyles. This culture treasures sexual freedom, meaning whatever is desired by the partners (two or more partners, as the case may be). It wants to eliminate religion and suppresses its public manifestations, attacking religious freedom. Ones moral code is individual and consequently relative; anyone should do as he or she pleases, not only sexually but in any arena of life (so if I need to kill an unborn child, I should have that right). In short, the idea of freedom is to have no constraints imposed on you, to have a carefree life.

The Enlightenment concept of freedom that shaped the French Revolution continues today, shaping our cultures view of marriage and sexual license. Those working to strengthen the family will find a powerful resource in writers like Bonald, who fought for social conservative principles long before the term culture wars was coined.

*De Bonald, Louis; trans. Nicholas Davidson. On Divorce (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992), 60.

My Debt to Sen. McGovern

by Robert Morrison

October 23, 2012

George Will recorded the irony that George McGovern, who passed away over the weekend at a ripe old 90 years, seems to have had his foreign policy vision vindicated after forty years in the political wilderness.

Will: The fact that this debate occurred in the immediate aftermath of the death of George McGovern underscores a remarkable reversal in presidential politics for both parties. That is 40 years ago tonight, George McGovern was running on the slogan ‘come home America.’ He then lost 49 states.?Forty years on ‘come home America’ is pretty much the foreign policy of an American plurality, and perhaps an American majority, as the president seemed to understand as he repeated three times, by my account, said we have to get back to nation-building here at home.”

Im not so sure about that. Sen. McGoverns foreign policy vision actually blamedAmericafor the war inSoutheast Asia. The arrival of thousands of Vietnamese boat people on our shores in the aftermath of liberal Democrats like McGovern cutting off all aid to the struggling nations of that region was quietly passed over in debate commentary.

I had the great joy of having a son of that boatlift in my class of interns in 2008. Young Dan Bui corrected me when I pointed out the Scripture quote atop a majestic column in the Jefferson Room at the Library of Congress: The Heavens declare the Glory of God; the Firmament Showeth His Handiwork, reads the golden inscription. Thats from the Psalms, I think, I told my students. Yes, piped up Dan Bui, Pslams 19:1. I was happy to be so corrected.

George McGovern had a huge impact on my life. I was a young candidate for the New York State Assembly in 1972. McGoverns liberal forces had taken over my party. The McGovern Rules enabled liberal anti-war activists to seize control of the Democratic Party, even at the local level. I was known not to be a McGovern supporter, but a more conservative Democrat. Conservative inNew York in those days was not a nice word.

Taxes and education were the big issues then for state legislative candidates, but the abortion issue kept intruding. In the last year before the Supreme Court overturned fifty states abortion laws—laws that were invariably to be found within the homicide code—the abortion question was a troubling issue that candidates had to grapple with.

After pondering the matter for weeks, I came out against liberal abortion. This was hard to do since my campaign workers—with one exception—and even some members of my family strongly disagreed with me.

McGoverns forces were derided even by fellow Democrats. Their hostile slogan for the McGovern movement was Abortion, Amnesty (for Vietnam draft evaders fleeing to Canada) and Acid (a snide reference to liberals supposed fondness for illegal drugs.) I was opposed to all those things, but I loyally stayed with my party.

McGoverns commitment to power to the people went to ridiculous extremes. His nominating convention in Miami actually allowed delegates to make looney announcements like: Wisconsin casts 235.314 delegate votes for…

Such childish antics pushed McGoverns acceptance speech past 2 am in the Eastern time zone. He would afterward joke that his speech was a big hit in Guam. But such gross incompetence was no laughing matter at the time.

Sen. McGovern first tapped Missouri Sen. Tom Eagleton (D) as his running mate. And he said he backed the moderate, pro-labor, pro-life Catholic 1000% As soon as stories leaked out that the Missourian had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression, however, McGovern succumbed to party pressure and forced Eagleton off the ticket.

Ironically, the very liberal party doyens who constantly preached to each other the benefits of psychotherapy demanded Eagleton walk the plank. In Suffolk County, New York, local Democratic leader Larry Delaney took a different view. Tall, balding, forever chewing a cigar and looking sadly at the mad world over half glasses, Larry Delaney was the picture of the kind of professional politico whom the Magoos—as party regulars called the McGovernites—were pushing out.

Delaney knew it was disastrous to tell the nation that in your first decision as a would-be President of the United States you had, er, goofed up. They dropped the wrong nut from the ticket, Larry would say.

My own relations with the Magoos were uneasy. I tried not to antagonize these liberal zealots. When I went to a scheduled meeting at the local McGovern headquarters in May, I was relieved to find it closed. On the door, a hand-lettered sign: Weve gone to protest Nixons insane escalation of the war. Actually, President Nixons mining of Hanoi and Haiphong harbor in North Vietnam seemed a good idea to most Americans. More than sixty percent backed Nixons move.

One of the young Harvards volunteering for McGovern came to visit my campaign headquarters. Whats that thing doing up there, he demanded. He was referring to the American flag we prominently displayed in my Morrison-for-Assembly campaign office.

It was probably not wise of me, but I couldnt resist shooting back: Its an American flag. I am running for office in the United States. Would you have preferred a Vietcong flag?

Meanwhile, local Democrats were deeply split. I remember going up on the porch of the home of five registered Democrats. The older man of the house came out to confront me. Are you running with McGovern, he asked accusingly.

I could not deny it. He chased me off the porch with a pitchfork. And they say McGovern invented grassroots politics!

When Sen. Ted Kennedy announced he would come to Long Island to campaign with George McGovern, there was near panic among the Democratic candidates. Few wanted to be seen standing on the same platform.

I was delighted I had a good excuse: I had committed to do voter registration with the NAACP. But local pols were amazed that Larry Delaney said, yes, hed go to the rally and stand with Kennedy and McGovern. Taking his chewed cigar from his lips, Delaney said: I missed Jesus and Lazarus, I gotta see if they can still raise the dead.

Late in the campaign, there was excitement as one of the Magoos came rushing into my campaign office. McGovern is leading in New York, he exclaimed. The state, I asked incredulously. No, New York City, said the Magoo, the Daily News poll has McGovern leading Nixon, 52-48.

As patiently as I could, I explained to our young friend, another Harvard man, that a Democrat had to take 70% of New York City to have a hope of carrying New York States 45 Electoral Votes.

George McGovern went down to a crushing defeat in November, 1972. So did I. He would later tell Fritz Mondale—who also lost 49 states, in 1984, about the experience of being so rejected. How long does it take to get over it, Fritz asked. Ill call you when I do, McGovern said.

Ive long since gotten over my defeat. Since that fateful November, I have come to faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I have been happily married. I have been blessed with a loving family, children and grandchildren. I have had an abundant life.

So I can thank Sen. McGovern for dragging me down with him. I supported little or nothing of what he stood for in 1972, least of all his embrace of abortion. But thanks to him, I never had to stand on the platform with Hillary!

The rest of George McGoverns story is powerfully told by Stephen Ambrose in his best-selling book, The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany. McGovern was a true hero and patriot in World War II. The George McGovern who emerges from these pages is a good man, a fundamentally decent American, one whose wartime record can make us all proud. Then, he understood that there is evil in the world and good men must resist it—without losing human sympathy. Its a moving tribute to an entire generation of World War II veterans now departing from us every day. May God rest these brave Americans.

How to Use the Hammer

by Family Research Council

October 19, 2012

I want to highlight a well-written and insightful article by Hunter Baker on the proper role of government. I like the illustration of the hammer in the articles title because it shows that the main power of government rests in its ability to use force to achieve its goals. The article echoes many of the sentiments of the great French writer Frederic Bastiat in The Law. Bastiat decried the legal plunder of his time in which many politicians sought to use the government as a tool to redistribute wealth and engineer cultural outcomes based on their own ideals. The government is supposed to protect citizens in their persons and property from incursions by others. In this way it promotes freedom and punishes injustice. It is inept at producing social outcomes. Having freedom allows people to engage in the pursuit of happiness which the great law commentator William Blackstone noted was inseparably linked to justice:

God has so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), vol. I, Ch 2, p. 40).

Often government often tries to promote its own sense of equality instead of justice and attacks our faith and harms our families. Our sincere Faith should guide us to love and provide for our Family and it is through these two institutions that societal outcomes can be changed. Then the government can concern itself with protecting both from injustice and we can truly have Freedom. Indeed, we will then understand what it means to correctly use the hammer.

Our French Connection

by Robert Morrison

October 19, 2012

Ever since I marched in the Yorktown Victory Day Parade (October 19th) years ago, I have had a strong appreciation of the fact that the French provided the essential aid to America that enabled us to become an independent nation. Helping the French whenever I can therefore seems only right to this American.

Following last summer’s visits with the Tocqueville Fellows at FRC, it was good to hear how one of our guests had gone home to France to take an enthusiastic part in the effort there to save marriage. Young Pierre Jovanovic is writing and speaking against plans to eliminate marriage in his country. The new Socialist government of President Francois Hollande is wasting no time in its drive to move France far to the Left. And abolishing marriage is part of their agenda. How gauche!

This week, we welcomed a small but distinguished delegation of French marriage advocates. Mme. Christine Boutin was a candidate for President of the Republic seven years ago. Today, she heads the Christian Democratic Party of France. Joining her were Franck Margain, a knowledgeable banker, and Mme. Beatrice Bourges, president of the Association for the Protection of Childhood.

Our FRC team led off with Dr. Patrick Fagan telling our visitors about the resources of MARRI, the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, which is one of Family Research Council’s most important mission areas. Irish-born Pat understands European culture better than most Americans and has deep wells of sympathy for the home of Christendom.

Pat showed the French how social science data supports the model of a married mother and father, preferably a couple that worships regularly, that unquestionably produces the best results for the health, education, and welfare of children.

Peter Sprigg directs FRC’s Center for Human Sexuality. He shared the research of reputable scholars that shows that the case for same-sex parenting has been much harder to demonstrate. That’s because, in part, that there are so few examples of children being raised by parents of the same sex, and because so many of the “studies” cited by our opponents in the marriage debate are flawed. Oftimes, these so-called studies are merely surveys of the gay parents themselves. They are hardly unbiased respondents. Or, they may suffer from volunteer bias, from the fact that the respondents answered ads in gay publications.

I spoke to our friends about my experiences on the Values Bus. This is a joint venture of Family Research Council and Heritage Foundation. Heritage is taking its case for reduced federal expenditures and lower taxes to the heartland. FRC speaks for hard-pressed families, for the right to life of the unborn, for the defense of marriage, and for our increasingly menaced religious freedom.

Faux-monnayeurs-counterfeiters. It’s a title I remembered vaguely from long-ago French literature classes, but it is the essence of my argument against counterfeiting marriage. (Ironically, the French novel of that name was one of the first gay-themed novels by Andre Gide. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t major in French.)

The key to understanding the fight over marriage is to understand that advocates for same-sex couplings being recognized as marriages do not seek merely to expand the numbers of happily married folks. They are seeking the end of marriage.

Peter Sprigg proved this by showing our guests the statement of a host of very influential left-wing scholars and activists titled: Beyond Same-Sex Marriage. Although the signatories don’t come right and say it, their goal is clear: polygamy, polyamory, polyandry. “Marriage” would be re-defined out of existence if these signers have their way.

Most menacingly, President Obama has named Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Professor and lesbian activist, to the very powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. From this strategic high position, Prof. Feldblum will be able to to assail marriage. What? You run a small business and you don’t want to give spousal benefits to a man, his wife, and his same-sex lover? You may find yourself in court.

I tell our French friends the good news: In every state where voters have been free to render their judgment, true marriage has been affirmed. This has been true in liberal, moderate, and conservative states.

It is especially significant here that black, Hispanic, and Asian voters usually provide the margin of victory in these state marriage referendums. I encourage the French to reach out to ethnic minorities in their country. Even with its large Muslim population-and the known approval that Islam gives to polygamy-it is doubtless the case that many of the women in these minority homes do not want polygamy brought to France. In fact, it is to escape many of these elements of sharia law that France’s immigrants first came to this European country.

Only half in jest, I suggest to our distinguished visitors that they might consider a Values Bus tour of the French countryside. It is well known that the provinces of France are more conservative than Paris is. Might it be possible to spark a resistance movement in French countryside for marriage? Let us pray.

My own time on the Values Bus is rapidly coming to a close. This weekend, we’re headed to Pennsylvania. After that, Virginia will be our next targeted state. What an honor it is to carry the FRC message to America’s heartland. And if—just if— there should be a Values Bus tour of France (“L’autobus de Valeurs?”), I would be the first to volunteer!

As I bade farewell to our distinguished visitors, I added one more argument:

We want there to be a France in a hundred years. Without true marriage, France herself will disappear. This fight is not for today alone, but for a vast future. Long live France-and long live the French.

Fighting a Plague in the Church

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 18, 2012

Dinesh DSouza has resigned as president of The Kings College, a leading Christian liberal arts institution in New York City. While he denies any moral wrongdoing, his conduct regarding his marriage and fiance (he is married to one woman, engaged to another) has raised serious questions about his capacity for spiritual leadership.

At lunch today, I learned that a pastor in my home state of Washington recently admitted that he had had a decade-long affair with a woman in his church.

My former pastor carries in his Bible a list of all his friends from seminary who have fallen from the ministry due to sexual sin. Its more than 20 names long.

Whatever the dynamics, adultery is a plague in the leadership of the church. According to psychologist Mark Laaser, author of Healing the Wounds of Sexual Addiction, over the past two decades adultery has become “an escalating crisis in the church” so that “rarely a day goes by that I don’t get a call about a ‘fallen’ pastor.”

Why? Being a pastor is hard and lonely. It requires time by oneself in intensive study, which by definition is draining. This often is augmented by frequent acquaintance with the broken things of life, from substance abuse to officiating at a childs funeral. Pastors are needy, as are many women in our churches. The quiet of a church mid-week provides opportunity. And, thus …

However, there is never a biblically justified excuse for sin. Christian leaders must must build in safeguards to discourage the likelihood of infidelity. Accountability partners, working hard to have a vibrant, affirming relationship with ones wife, having an open Internet history that reliable friends can check at will: These are a few of the tools faithful men can employ to remain morally pure.

Yet with all of that said, Scripture gives only prescription for dealing with sexual temptation: Flight. Heres what Joseph did when the wife of his owner Potiphar attempted to seduce him: She caught (Joseph) by his garment, saying, Lie with me! And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside (Genesis 39:12).

Similarly, Paul the apostle tells his young disciple Timothy, Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart (II Timothy2:22).

Dont try to rationalize away the potential for temptation. Dont say, Oh, were just friends and having lunch together is harmless. Dont share things of the heart with a woman other than your wife. Flee.

A few years ago a friend told me of a woman who seemed to want to have an affair with him. He related that she had come to the door of his office and engaged in a flirtatious conversation with him.

I said to him, You should have said, I cant talk with you now, and shut the door. He responded, I couldnt do that, as he was concerned with rudeness. I replied, Yes, you could. Better to be rude than ruin your marriage.

Adultery is the success of self-exaltation: For the sake of my perceived happiness, Ill do what I want, whoever it hurts. You shall be like gods, the serpent told Eve. He still whispers this to all of us, including to men who put their desires ahead of their Lord, their wives, their children, their ministries, their friends, and their honor and the honor of the God they profess to serve.

Christians should pray for Dinesh DSouza and his family as they begin a new journey in their lives, and for others each of us know who have collapsed into infidelity. And Christian leaders should feel a slight shudder in their souls as they pray: None of us is immune.

When adultery walks in, writes theologian Woodrow Kroll, everything worth having walks out.

Everything. Pretty high cost, that.

September 2012 «

» November 2012

Archives