Author archives: Rob Schwarzwalder

Framing Christian Thinking About Human Sexuality: Three Theological Considerations

by Rob Schwarzwalder

August 17, 2015

What follows are three points regarding historic Christian teaching about human sexuality. This list is neither comprehensive nor thorough, but instead addresses three of the most commonly-raised issues relating to the Bible and sexual matters.

 

  1.  Of the three components of the Mosaic law, the ceremonial and sacrificial element was symbolic of both the need for holiness and the need of a mediator between God and man, and the civil element applied only to Israel in a specific historic context (although the principles are relevant - e.g., the prohibition against allowing children to play on rooftops so they won’t fall off was animated by trans-cultural need to protect children). The moral element of the Mosaic law articulated in Exodus through Deuteronomy is composed of commandments that are found from Genesis through Revelation. The moral law is applicable to all people at all times.
  2. Using careful exegesis and sound hermeneutical principles, faithful believers can come to different conclusions about eschatological, ecclesiastical, and other non-essential theological matters. But no honest evaluation of Scripture can lead to any conclusion other than that sexual intimacy is reserved for one man and one woman in the covenant of marriage. This teaching is not ambiguous; it is clear.
  3. If the Bible is God’s written Word, its teaching is not malleable and the truths it teaches cannot be tailored to any culture’s preferences. If all Scripture is God-breathed, its authority is final.  Thus, faithful Christians are not to employ fanciful exegetical gymnastic exercises to obtain the result they wish but are called by God to submit to His propositional, clear, and authoritative Word.

To learn more on this topic watch FRC’s lecture featuring Robert Gagnon, as well as our articles ‘Leviticus, Jesus, and Homosexuality’ and ‘The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and Family.’

Religious Liberty in Action: A Lesson from Early America

by Rob Schwarzwalder

August 6, 2015

This week marks the 411th anniversary of the birth of John Eliot. Not familiar to you? Eliot, an Englishman by birth, came to the colony of Massachusetts where, so burdened for the salvation of the regional Indians, he translated all 66 books of the Bible - after developing an Algonquian grammar, no less - into the language of the Native Americans around him. The Eliot translation was published at Harvard College.

Sharing the Gospel with those who had never heard it was of Supreme importance to Eliot. And the religious liberty he enjoyed enabled Eliot to pursue his deep desire to enable the Algonquian Indians to read the good news about Jesus Christ in their own tongue.

American religious liberty has been with us since the dawning of the country we have become. FRC’s Freedom to Believe site is a compilation of stories of men and women whose exercise of the God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberty we always have enjoyed has been placed at-risk. John Eliot would, I think have stood with them. FRC does. Join us. And look up the Eliot translation online to be reminded why this core liberty is so critical.

Social Conservative Review: An Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News August 3, 2015

by Rob Schwarzwalder

August 3, 2015

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review


Planned Parenthood’s assault on the unborn outrages our sense of justice, a sense engraved on the hearts upon which the “works of the law” have been “written” (Romans 2:15). Our hearts.

A lot of the articles in this edition of the Social Conservative Review pertain to the sustained and graphic portrayals of human evil depicted in the Planned Parenthood videos. Yet we take comfort in knowing those precious little lives are now in the arms of a loving Savior, their creator and eternal comforter.

It’s up to us, and those we’ve elected, to seize this moment to further focus the national conscience and end these atrocities. Christians are picketing PPFA “clinics,” urging Congress to defund this unseemly behemoth of the culture of death, and calling its justifiers to public account. Don’t let upand keep checking www.frc.org for the latest updates.  And pray for those within PPFA and for their advocates, whose blindness is so clear and whose need of Christ is so great.

On a different note, one of the challenges we at FRC face in producing the Social Conservative Review is trying to sift-through the growing volume of outstanding conservative writing and speaking pouring-forth on-line. A whole new crop of Christian writers and thinkers are emerging to articulate anew the reasons for “a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish and religious liberty thrives.”

Many of those voices are featured in this edition. Read them – and contact them, as many are readily accessible and can always use encouragement. The same encouragement they give us through their bold, thoughtful, promise-bearing young voices.

Ultimately, of course, Christians take encouragement in reflecting on the One of Whom Isaiah said, “He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might, He increases power” (Isaiah 40:29). That strength and power are always there for those “who for refuge to Jesus have fled.”

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

P.S. The Social Conservative Review will be on hiatus until the end of August. In the interim, be sure to listen to FRC President Tony Perkins’ daily “Washington Watch” radio program for interviews with leading conservatives from across the country. And don’t miss FRC’s August 4 panel on international religious liberty – “Radical Islam and Christian Persecution: What’s Happening in the Middle East and Africa.”


Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

International Religious Liberty

 

Life

Abortion

Adoption

Federal funding of abortion

Fetal Pain

 

Healthcare conscience

 

Family

Human Sexuality (Homosexual/ gender issues)

Abstinence Education

Pornography

Human Trafficking

 

FRC Publications

Policy publications (booklets, Issue Analyses, Issue Briefs)

Op-eds and Blogs

Religious Liberty: The Prospect of Its Loss

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 29, 2015

The managing editor of TheAtlantic.com, Emma Green, has published an important article, “Gay Rights May Come at the Cost of Religious Freedom.”

This is what concerned observers have been saying for years, especially in light of myriad examples of how free religious exercise has been penalized repeatedly when it conflicts with the “rights” of homosexuals (see FRC’s copiously documented “Free to Believe” site for numerous examples).  Just last week, Christian educational leaders from across the country joined FRC’s Travis Weber and Greg Baylor of the Alliance Defending Freedom on a nationwide webcast to explore how the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision (finding a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage) could well jeopardize the liberty and financial viability of religious schools and colleges. And I’ve just published an FRC Issue Brief on how the loss of tax exempt status could do profound harm to churches and religious organizations. 

Green’s article begins by noting a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Green called “astounding:” It says that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” This is, as Green notes, a “big deal” because it expands the definition of sex from one of biology to one of sexual “orientation,” meaning that homosexuality must now be regarded in federal law as such recognizably benign and immutable characteristics as race and ethnicity.

This should come as no surprise, really. The EEOC is led by Chai Feldblum, a former Georgetown Law professor who is reported to have said in 2006, “in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner. I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Ms. Feldblum is, it would seem, as good as her word, a rare and laudable quality in the political class. Too bad that her commitment is to the side of anti-religious bigotry.

Many religious leaders, most particularly Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, have issued statements saying we will close our churches and schools and charities before bending the knee to any insistent demand we compromise the truth of Scripture and the self-apparent evidence of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” We have meant it. We continue to mean it.

The cost not only to the religious but to everyone who refuses to bow to subversions of our God-given liberties would be so high as to be difficult to imagine. They would render America a nation its Founders could never have imagined, a quasi-fascist state run by the repressive and coercive elites. 

It’s to avoid such a fate that we will use our “tools” with all the grace, truth, courage, wisdom, and tenacity we can muster.  We love our opponents too much to do otherwise.

Kansas Gov. Brownback: Investigating Planned Parenthood for “Treating the Unborn as Commodities”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 22, 2015

For two decades, in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and now as Governor of Kansas, Sam Brownback has stood with conviction and compassion for the unborn and for their mothers, both victimized by a predatory abortion industry. Under his leadership, Kansas has now become the eighth state to address the gruesome videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discuss the marketing of organs from unborn babies aborted late in the term of their pregnancies. Here is an excerpt from Gov. Brownback’s statement:

Kansas remains committed to a culture that respects the dignity of life at all stages. Recent videos show Planned Parenthood employees treating the unborn as commodities as they discuss the sale of tissue and organs. This does not reflect the culture of life most Kansans want.

We now call upon the Kansas Board of Healing Arts to address the issue of sale of tissue and organs from the unborn in its inspections of Kansas medical offices.

Human life has dignity at all stages of life. Senate Bill 95, banning dismemberment abortion in Kansas, prevents the barbaric procedure of dismembering an unborn child.

We must remind ourselves and others that unborn children are just that — children — with certain inalienable rights that we must respect and protect.”

FRC applauds Gov. Brownback, the governors of Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas, and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine for are standing up to the Planned Parenthood behemoth in calling for reviews of Planned Parenthood practices and how they might violate the law.

For a timely, clear analysis, watch FRC President Tony Perkins talking with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly about Planned Parenthood’s practice of harvesting the organs of healthy aborted babies.

Eloquence About Life: Commentary On the Planned Parenthood Video

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 20, 2015

Much has been written about Planned Parenthood’s abort-for-organs video.  That’s encouraging; not to have seen an effusion of outrage, pain, grief, and sheer horror would have been a dreadful commentary on our national hardness.

As Ed Stetzer notes, “progressive” Evangelicals and Mainstream Protestants, usually the first to accuse the pro-life community of caring more about the unborn than (a) their mothers, (b) babies after they are born, or (c) virtually immeasurable cryptosporidium pollution in certain public water shelves (we plead guilty to the last), “have been conspicuously absent, when they’ve spoken up on so many other issues.”

Many who take compassionate, unequivocal, and unashamed stances on the sanctity of unborn life and the predation of the abortion industry on vulnerable women commented with unusual passion and eloquence.  Here are few choice selections:

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, writing in Politico

The true import of the Nucatola video is its casual moral grotesqueness. Manipulating a baby in the womb to kill it in a fashion best suited to selling off its organs is a repellant act, pure and simple … We have long been told how unborn babies are “blobs of tissue” that deserve no moral respect or legal protection. Yet here is an official from the leading abortion provider in the country talking of their livers, lungs and hearts, and of preserving those organs for their value. What Deborah Nucatola describes is the reality of abortion. If you can’t handle it, you can’t handle the truth.

U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), speaking on the floor of the Senate

… It doesn’t bring me comfort to know that one child is torn apart so that maybe they can do research on the child’s organs to in some future moment help a different child. Not every woman is being asked that her aborted child would be used for research and we really don’t know the whys. Maybe they’re looking for particularly healthy moms. Maybe they’re looking for very mature, healthy babies. Maybe it’s a situation where a particular mom couldn’t afford to have the abortion procedure and so they swap off and say if you can’t afford to have the abortion procedure maybe we can cover the cost by then possibly selling some of these organs then. We don’t know. But I think maybe the question needs to be asked.

Peter Wehner, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Dr. Nucatola adds, “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.” So think about this: Planned Parenthood opposes the use of ultrasounds when their purpose is to reveal the humanity of a child (and in doing so may discourage abortion) – but it supports the use of ultrasounds when the purpose is for selling the body parts of unborn children. After all, how are we going to know which parts of an unborn child to crush without ultrasound guidance?

Albert Mohler, President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Writing at Cosmopolitan magazine, abortion supporter Robin Marty said that she had seen the video. Then she said, “Now, frankly, I’m just going to yawn.” Maybe she will, but if so that will require a massive act of denial. Later in her own essay she stated: “I shuddered when listening to the discussion of how the fetus can be removed, and the idea of a ‘menu’ of fetal tissue and organs that could be procured depending on the gestational age of the pregnancies being terminated and the number of patients who consent to donating is one I hope I never have to encounter again.”

Once again, which is it?

I give the last word to Briton Timothy Stanley, writing in CNN.com:

What matters about this video is what it appears to reveal about the reality behind America’s sanitized image of abortion; the reality of what an abortion is and how it morally compromises us all … It’s like watching Hannibal Lecter discuss making a human casserole and protesting that all the ingredients were provided willingly … We’ve been too casual for too long about some of the terrible problems that lie around us — be they abortions or the poverty and desperation that can drive women to seek one. The Planned Parenthood video holds up a mirror to a society that has become compromised by horrors that it regards as “every day.” The face of 21st-century America is Nucatola’s: discussing pulverized lungs and hearts between mouthfuls of salad.

Let’s pray for Dr. Nucatola, for Cecile Richards, for all of their Planned Parenthood colleagues, and for the thousands of women looking for help and healing instead of an abortionist’s scalpel and a culture’s grand, cold, deathly lie.

Social Conservative Review: An Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News July 16, 2015

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 17, 2015

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review


The events of the past few days have been hard not just for conservatives but everyone with a sense of decency..

We have seen the repulsive video of Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, talking happily about her group’s practice of selling the body parts of late-term, aborted babies. She boasts, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, (and) liver” of unborn children.

We have seen a growing attack on Christian liberty as some policymakers and advocates of radical sexual autonomy openly ponder churches and religious institutions losing their tax-exempt status.

The good news is that there are brave national leaders working to address these issues. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) gave a moving speech in the Senate today on Planned Parenthood’s brutality, and conscientious Members of Congress like ‎Fred Upton (R-MI) are planning to hold hearings on the organization’s activities.

Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which would prohibit any kind of federal penalties against churches or individuals practicing their faith with respect to marriage, was the subject of an address he gave this week here at FRC. The historical case for religious liberty received a powerful review, also this week, at an FRC lecture by distinguished historian Dr. Mark Hall of George Fox University.

And FRC led the successful charge to have the House leadership cancel “a vote … on H.R. 2722, the Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act, a measure that would have poured up to $4,750,000 into the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a major donor to Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider.” Instead, all of the funding went to non-controversial breast cancer research organization.

The news can be overwhelming. The fight for faith, family, and freedom can be exhausting. And the results are often unpredictable.

But whatever the outcome, unborn children are worth defending, religious liberty is worth sustaining, and prudent, principled political action can make a difference. Maybe not a final or comprehensive difference in the here-and-now, but for Christians, the battle is far more than temporal.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

P.S. FRC’s Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment, the Hon. Ken Blackwell, was featured on C-SPAN on Monday of this week.  Be sure to watch and gain wise counsel from a distinguished Christian statesman.


Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life

Abortion

Bioethics

Obamacare

 

Marriage & Family

Economy and the family

Fatherhood

Homosexuality and Gender Issues

Human Trafficking

Marriage

Pornography

 

Religious Liberty

 

Religion in Public Life

 

Education

Justice Kennedy and the Lonely Promethean Man of Liberalism

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 9, 2015

In The Public Discourse, David Azerrad, director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, has written the best analysis of the underlying philosophy of Justice Kennedy’s opinion I have yet read. It is penetrating, eloquent, and compelling. The full text follows.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/07/15286/

Justice Kennedy and the Lonely Promethean Man of Liberalism

by David Azerrad

July 8th, 2015

Conjured as it was from Justice Kennedy’s imagination, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges has little to teach us about the Constitution. It does, however, afford us keen insights into the liberal worldview. In the opinion, it is less Anthony Kennedy the Supreme Court Justice than Anthony Kennedy the aspiring liberal political theorist who speaks.

Woven throughout his musings on the dynamic synergies between the various clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is the central premise of modern liberalism: individual autonomy. It is the very first argument that the Court offers on behalf of the newfound constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Indeed, in the opening sentence of the decision, Kennedy proclaims all individuals free “to define and express their identity,” thereby echoing his even more grandiloquent pronouncement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that at “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

On this foundation, the edifice of modern liberalism is built. We are all sovereign individuals, radically free to fashion and refashion ourselves into anything we so please at any point in our lives. Man is the undefined animal. He is auto nomos—self-legislating. Neither God, nor nature, nor tradition, nor the obligations he previously contracted may hem him in. Bruce Jenner may become Caitlyn whenever she so pleases—and then become Bruce again if he wants.

Beyond the rudimentary demands of refraining from harming others, nothing may constrain the choices we make in defining and redefining our identity. This is democratized, domesticated Nietzscheanism. Prometheus not fully unbound—just mindful of the rights of others. This, it should be pointed out, is also the starting-point of libertarianism—but also its end point. Not so for liberalism.

Loneliness, Insecurity, and the Need for Recognition

 

Liberalism’s exalted view of man’s limitless possibilities, paradoxically enough, is not accompanied by an equally exalted view of his inner strength and resolve. One might think that liberalism would encourage individuals to trust in themselves and to be scornful of society’s staid bourgeois conventions in defining and expressing their identity.

It doesn’t. For all his purported god-like powers of self-creation, liberal promethean man is actually a weak, insecure, and isolated individual. It is not enough that he define and express his identity. He needs others to recognize it, embrace it, and celebrate it. He needs the state to confer dignity upon it.

Otherwise, he may find himself marginalized by his peers, crippled by their disapproving looks, and insecure in his choice of an identity. After all, a particular lifestyle or living arrangement may not be illegal, but it can still be viewed as dishonorable by some. Even before the Court’s ruling, gay couples could marry in a house of worship or banquet hall in any of the states that still defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But they carried the lack of state recognition for their marriages like the mark of Cain.

Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty, ” explains Kennedy. The Court’s opinion is replete with references to stigma, hurt, and humiliation. “It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” It is therefore incumbent upon the state to dignify them. As Matthew Franck wrote in Public Discourse last week: “In Kennedy’s mind, the Constitution has been converted into a great Dignity Document.”

An earlier generation of liberals would have told the man to go to hell with his marriage certificate. “We don’t need no thought control,” they would have yelled. “All in all you’re just another brick in the wall!” To have the suits recognize your alternative lifestyle would have defeated the whole purpose of embracing it in the first place.

Contemporary liberalism, by contrast, views man as a weak and fragile creature. Adversity doesn’t forge character. It stigmatizes and demeans. Unless others affirm our choices, they are worthless. We have no unshakable inner convictions or faith. We are all insecure.

Promethean man, it turns out, is a pathetic creature. He thinks himself the measure of all things, but must in fact have his solipsistic existence be publicly affirmed and dignified by the state. He is simultaneously everything and nothing.

Kennedy’s Feigned Appeal to Nature

Liberalism’s celebration of human autonomy is obviously incompatible with any conception of an unchosen nature that restricts our scope of action. Nevertheless, Kennedy twice appeals to the idea of a permanent nature in the decision. Homosexuals have an “immutable nature,” he asserts. They are born gay and cannot change. So are heterosexuals, bisexuals, and all other flavor-du-jour-sexuals for that matter: “sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

The essence of liberty is the freedom to define and express one’s identity, just not when it comes to sexual orientation, which is innate and immutable. We can choose our gender—that is not fixed at birth—but our sexual orientation is handed down to us by the gods and must be accepted with passive resignation (for a contrasting view, see this Public Discourse essay by Paul McHugh and Gerard Bradley).

Turning to marriage, Kennedy implicitly carves out another exception to the realm of autonomy. Marriage, though clearly not possessing a permanent nature, is nevertheless “essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.” This implies that happiness outside of marriage is not possible. No one will be forced to get married—but all who aspire to be happy (and who doesn’t?) will want to. Marriage is no longer what earlier liberals called an “obscene bourgeois institution” or “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Only marriage can respond “to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there,” writes Kennedy. Not to marry is to “be condemned to live in loneliness.” Lovers, friends, parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, neighbors, coreligionists, brothers-in-arm, colleagues—none of them can be counted on to respond to our lonely cries of anguish. All bachelors are not only unmarried—they’re also unhappy.

All this adds up to a really interesting coincidence. In deliberating on the question of gay marriage, Justice Kennedy proclaims that we are absolutely free to be who we want to be—except when it comes to gayness and marriage.

Only Kennedy’s syllogism trumps autonomy:

1. Everyone has a right to pursue happiness.

2. No happiness is possible outside of marriage.

3. Sexual orientation being immutable, gay marriage is therefore a right.

Either Kennedy is a sloppy thinker who hasn’t thought through the implications of the autonomy he celebrates, or this is a calculated move on his behalf to elicit public support for his pronouncement by bending his argument to appeal to two widespread beliefs: people are not responsible for their genes, and marriage is good.

Either way, this is not a rigorous argument. But it is fitting that a decision that reveals the contradictions of modern liberalism should also reveal the contradictions of Kennedy’s arguments.

Wise Thoughts on Christians Trying to Conform Jesus to the Culture

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 2, 2015

From Tim Challies:

Many (Christians) … are redefining the terms of their friendship by redefining their friend. They are creating a new version of their friend Jesus, rewriting him in their own image, or in the image of the culture around them, making him into a figure who has been misunderstood and who is far more tolerant, far more accepting, far more palatable. This inoffensive Jesus loves without judgment, he gives without expectation, he proudly waves a rainbow flag.

But, of course, Jesus is unchanged and unchanging. He will not bow to the changing culture, he will not cede to the rising tide. Jesus will only ever be who he is and who he has always been. And each of us has a choice to make.

Social Conservative Review: An Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News July 2, 2015

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 2, 2015

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review


The World Turned Upside-Down” reportedly was the tune the British played when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. Perhaps close listeners could have heard the strains of the tune emanating from the Supreme Court last week.

Those who understand that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for purposes of natural procreation, child-rearing, and male-female complementarity were heartbroken by the specious constitutional and moral reasoning captured in the majority’s opinion making same-sex unions legal nationwide.

The Court’s rulings in Obergefell and the Affordable Care Act case jettisoned the text of the Constitution and institutionalized subjectivism as the only consistent interpretive grid the Supreme Court now applies to the nation’s charter text.

Many of the entries in this week’s Social Conservative Review address these two landmark decisions. Analysis is replete in conservative journals, magazines, and blog sites. Perhaps Justice Antonin Scalia offered the most penetrating summary of the implications of the rulings. Writing of Obergefell, Mr. Justice Scalia said:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court … This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Speaking of 1776, FRC hopes you and your family have a glorious Fourth celebrating the many benefits of life in our beloved country. Although some of the foundational freedoms we have long enjoyed are under growing threat, we can look back on our long history with gratitude and our future with the confident knowledge that Jesus Christ remains Lord.

This truth transcends national boundaries, human endeavors, all time and all places. No court, human institution, or leader of any political party can ever change it.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

P.S. FRC President Tony Perkins and Senior Fellows Ken Blackwell and Peter Sprigg have been making the rounds of places like CBS, ABC, and CNN to discuss last week’s rulings. Go to FRC’s Newsroom to get their take on these historic events.

P.S.S. The nightmarish shootings South Carolina and the burning of several Black churches in the South have prompted renewed consideration of race among Christians nationwide. In “Taking the Charleston Shooting Personally,” writer Hope E. Ferguson (the great-granddaughter and granddaughter of AME ministers) calls on her “brothers and sisters in Christ, be they white, black, brown, or any other color, would put down our differences at the foot of the cross.” Amen.


Social Conservative Review

Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life

Abortion

Assisted Suicide

Bioethics

Obamacare

Marriage & Family

Economy and the family

Fatherhood

Homosexuality and Gender Issues

Marriage

Pornography

Religious Liberty: Domestic

Religious Liberty: International

Education

Other Stories of Note

Archives