Pulpits Are Silent

Jeremiah 5:26-31

For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich; they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the Lord, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?” An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?

Despite what the political parties would like you to believe, the problem in America is not the politicians, it is the pulpits. I hate to break the news to you, but most of America’s pulpits are filled with cowardly men unwilling to address the issues that have swept over our country like a tidal wave.

I am about fed-up with what I see. How did we ever get such man-pleasing leaders? All that our fore-fathers held dear is being destroyed before our very eyes and hardly a peep from the pulpit. They don’t want to hear it. It's the pulpiteers that I am talking about. They are concerned with being too harsh, they tell me that “Jesus is in control,” that they are not “called” to fight evil and that "we should pray for our enemies.”

What we need is a return of the Voice of God thundering through the prophets standing in America’s pulpits. Not the prissy purpose driven therapeutic Christianity drivel passing as the Gospel today. Few of the feminized-preachers of the day can hold a candle to those who ushered in The Great Awakening which led to the American Revolution, and the abolition of slavery -- two world-changing events spearheaded by the pulpit.

·         Public schools are destroying the faith of Christian children and the pulpits are silent.

·         Legislation is introduced to remove the rights of parents and the pulpits are silent.

·         Children are taught they came from apes and the pulpits are silent.

·         Millions of children are “medicated” to control their behavior and the pulpits are silent.

·         Gambling is promoted to pay for schools and the pulpit is silent.

·         Precious babies are being murdered in the womb and the pulpits are silent.

·         Planned Parenthood kills babies with our tax dollars and the pulpits are silent.

·         Judges make laws and the pulpits are silent.

·         Tolerance trumps Truth and the pulpits are silent.

·         Sodomy is granted legal protection and the pulpits are silent.

·         The institution of marriage is crumbling and the pulpits are silent.

·         Obama says the Sermon on the Mount justifies gay marriage and the pulpits are silent.

·         Government has replaced God as defender and provider and the pulpits are silent.

·         Faith-based initiatives invite the government into the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         The IRS muzzles the voice of the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         Taxes are levied to do the work of the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         The Church locks arms with compassionate-conservativism and the pulpits are silent.

·         Children’s service agencies separate family members and the pulpits are silent.

·         Self-help books replace the Bible and the pulpits are silent.

·         A Purpose Driven Life is elevated above dying to self and the pulpits are silent.

·         Leaders say Christians and Muslims worship the same God and the pulpits are silent.

·         The Constitution is ignored and the pulpits are silent.

·         Pagans pray to open a session of Congress and the pulpits are silent.

·         Our elected officials lie and steal and the pulpits are silent.

·         Private property is stolen by government and the pulpits are silent.

·         Mother Earth is protected more than Father God is defended and the pulpits are silent.

·         Illegal aliens over-run our borders and the pulpits are silent.

·         The entertainment industry celebrates debauchery and the pulpits are silent.

The Gay Divorcees

There are more than you might think.
By Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate for National Review

Announcing the results of his long-term “evolution” on the subject last week, President Obama revived the debate over gay marriage. In the widespread discussion, however, there is one question that’s rarely asked: How interested are gay couples in getting married?

Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them — equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States. This number does not appear to be low because of the fact that only a few states have allowed full “marriage”; indeed, in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University, seems to confirm the trend. Anderson looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 — the year it was legalized — and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples.

Controlling for the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals does little to explain the enthusiasm gap. For rates to be similar, we would have to pretend that only 0.5 percent of the population of Sweden, 0.7 percent of the population of Norway, and less than 2 percent of the population of Holland is gay. In fact, the numbers tend closer to an average of 4 percent, which suggests that heterosexual couples are up to eight times more interested in registering their relationships than homosexual couples. It is, of course, possible that the estimated number of homosexuals is wrong, but, if anything, gay-rights groups tend to argue that the projected numbers are too low, and statistics show that the numbers of self-identified gay citizens are going up in every Western country.

Enthusiasm for marriage is somewhat lopsided by gender. Divorces, too. According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples in the United States are lesbian. (Solely on the “marriage” front, in Massachusetts’s first four years, this statistic was 62 percent.) While data in the United States are clearly limited, Scandinavian countries have been at this a little longer. Denmark was the first country to introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships, coining the term “registered partnership” in 1989. Norway followed suit in 1993, and then Sweden in 1995. Again, Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. This should not be surprising: In the United States, women request approximately two-thirds of divorces in all forms of relationships — and have done so since the start of the 19th century — so it reasonably follows that relationships in which both partners are women are more likely to include someone who wishes to exit.

The debate over marriage does not necessarily hinge on its popularity among the eligible, and advocates of gay unions would no doubt assert that “equality” is not a numerical proposition as quickly as their opponents would aver that the very idea is a hopeless category mistake. But it is nonetheless worth noting that there is no particular groundswell — even in states and cities that have both legal gay marriage and significant numbers of homosexuals — and that, when gay couples do decide to get married, they are more likely than their straight equivalents to change their minds later.
— 

A Savage Attack

Redefining Bullying By: Eric Metasxas

A few days ago, Americans got a lesson in hypocrisy -- and of how dangerous it can be to redefine words.

It all began when the National High School Journalism Conference invited a gay rights activist named Dan Savage to speak to students in Seattle about the need to prevent bullying. But it turned out that this was a lesson Savage badly needed to learn himself.

To the shock of the students, Savage launched a vicious attack on the Bible and Christian beliefs. As he put it, “We can learn to ignore the [BS] in the Bible about gay people.” Of course he didn’t say "BS." As Savage continued his attack, some students broke into tears. Dozens of offended students walked out of the auditorium. As they left, Savage heckled them with vulgar words I can’t repeat on the air.

One of the teachers present — Rick Tuttle of Sutter Union High School in California — said the speech “took a real dark, hostile turn ... It became very hostile toward Christianity.”

Savage later apologized for using vulgarity to describe the students. But he refused to back down on his other comments —including his offensive comments about the Bible.

Now, what are we to make of this conundrum?

First, I think we can safely assume that the term “bullying” has gone the way of “tolerance.”

Tolerance used to be defined as a willingness to put up with the beliefs or practices of those with whom we disagree. Today, tolerance means we must accept the beliefs and practices of others as correct — or risk being called a bigot. It's interesting that this redefinition of tolerance almost always involves debates over homosexuality — and it always seems to be people on just one side of the debate calling those with whom they disagree “intolerant.”

I mean, when was the last time you heard a Christian accusing a gay-rights activist of intolerance because he refused to acknowledge that biblical teachings about homosexuality are correct?

And now we're seeing the same kind of redefinition going on regarding the word bullying. If you so much as whisper that you believe that true marriage can take place only between one man and one woman, you're accused of bullying.

You and I need to be aware of changes in word definitions that are used as weapons against Christians. But we need to do a couple of other things, as well.

First of all, whatever the subject, we must always take care to make our case winsomely, and with great civility. No one should ever be able to truthfully accuse Christians of bullying, including the kind of verbal bullying Dan Savage demonstrated last week.

This insistence on graciousness and civility for those on the other side of these issues was the hallmark of what Chuck Colson believed, and let it be ours as well.  As for intolerance towards homosexuals, Christians ought to be — and often have been — the first to volunteer at AIDS hospices, to demonstrate kindness to the children of same-sex couples, and otherwise display the love of Christ to those with whom we have such different views. In other words, we should demonstrate love and true tolerance. In this way, as the Bible teaches, we heap ashes upon the heads of those who dislike us for our views.

Second we need to pray for people like Dan Savage — so filled with anger and hurt — that their eyes would be opened to God's love and mercy, just as we pray for our own loved ones.

Finally, three cheers for those high school students who refused to sit still and listen to attacks on their faith. We should never be bullied into silence.

1st Pres Colorado Springs votes to leave PC(USA)

By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter

April 23, 2012|5:01 pm

The largest Colorado congregation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to leave the denomination over theological differences.

First Presbyterian Church of Colorado Springs voted Sunday morning to leave the Pueblo Presbytery of PC(USA) in large part due to the denomination's decision in 2010 to allow the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

Of the 1,769 congregants of the 4,000-strong church present for the vote, 1,689 members voted in favor of dismissal from PC(USA) to join the recently created Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.

Ronald D. Anderson, executive presbyter for the Pueblo Presbytery, told The Christian Post that he was not surprised by the result of the vote.

"I was not surprised at the overwhelming vote because of the earlier 'straw vote' and the extensive process the church has enacted since to address the questions of people who had unanswered questions," said Anderson.

When asked if he felt that there might be a large percentage of the members who did not vote that would have supported remaining in PC(USA), Anderson stated that he had "no indication that this was the case."

First Presbyterian is one of many PC(USA) congregations across the country that have voted to leave the mainline Protestant denomination due to the decision at the 219th General Assembly of PC(USA) to allow presbyteries to decide to ordain non-celibate homosexuals to church positions.

Amendment 10A, which amended the PC(USA) rules to allow for this, was passed by a vote of the presbyteries with 373 yeas, 323 nays, and 4 abstentions. Pueblo Presbytery voted nay.

In the months that followed, efforts organized by the Fellowship of Presbyterians, a conservative group within PC(USA), led to the creation of a new reformed church body known as the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO).

Last month, as part of the process First Presbyterian was taking for dismissal, leaders at the church asked the congregation to vote on whether or not the church should continue to consider leaving PC(USA).

In that vote, also held on a Sunday, 88 percent of the members approved the continuation of the process for dismissal. In an interview with CP not long after that vote, Alison Murray, leader of staff for First Presbyterian Church, explained that there were many reasons connected to "the decline in the PC(USA)" that prompted members to want to join ECO.

"What we are trying to do is make an adaptive change that would keep us engaged and relevant as a faith community in today's culture," said Murray.

"We don't feel that the PC(USA), the way its structured, is really supporting the local churches in their outreach Kingdom building efforts. So really that is what this is about."

"Under Presbyterian polity only the presbytery can dismiss a congregation," said Anderson, regarding what step in the dismissal process would come next.

"The congregation's request to be dismissed to ECO will come before the presbytery at its next meeting, which is June 16th."

Vandals smash windows at Mars Hill Church in southeast Portland

 "Hate Crime"?

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) -
Vandals smashed nine windows with rocks at Mars Hill Church in southeast Portland overnight and a group claimed responsibility in an email sent to FOX 12.

Editor threatens on-line contributor for reporting abusive comments

By now we have all witnessed malicious comments on news articles and editorials by on-line readers. Most on-line communities have guidelines encouraging proper and civil conduct in posting comments along with a method to report improper comments to the on-line community moderator.

I seldom use this method because I have felt that by allowing inappropriate comments to remain on articles readers get a better insight towards the character of the agency publishing the content article. However, I have communicated concern with comments on several occasions to our local newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune. My most recent encounter was interesting to say the least.

The editorial board ran an editorial suggesting that Wyoming begin considering charter schools in an attempt to help improve graduation rate and overall academic improvement. I posted a comment supporting the idea and gave examples of how the local school district wastes money and is “top heavy”.

Moments after I commented another reader, screen name embarcadero, commented, personally attacking me and with completely off topic remarks. I reported the distasteful comment through the “report to moderator” process. I then posted another comment referring back to the editorial article in an attempt to keep any further discussion on topic. Again, moments after posting, embarcadero fired another round of similarly distasteful remarks towards me and others; also mentioning them by name. These people were not mentioned in the editorial or commenting on the article. This was especially troubling to me so I reported that comment to be removed also. My second request read as follows:

Report number two: Continued personal attacks - "Hate Group". Also in violation of the following "Rules for Commenting":

• Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Value
• Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
• Stay focused, and ask questions. Keep on the story's topic.

If embarcadero's (Sean Patrick Larvie) slanderous comments are not removed immediately I will follow-up in person on Monday April 23rd. by 9:00 A.M.

Thanks you,

Marc

 This happened in the late evening hours on Sunday so I knew that moderation would not be immediate. Consequently, with my second “report of abuse” I added that if the slanderous comments were not removed by 9:00 am Monday morning I would be following up in person.

The comments were removed as requested but later in the day I received an e-mail from the Editor, Darrell Ehrlick . It is posted here in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Smith,

William Zeiders, our online editor, forwarded a concern written by you regarding another online comment. When comments escalate or cause us concern, we review them.

Your comment is particularly concerning to me. One of the challenges anyone has is reading tone and intent into email. In this instance, I have opted to handle your comment internally, rather than follow another protocol that we could have employed. We have reviewed the comment you found offensive, like we do with all that are reported to us. However, in the future if you make similar reports that include a specific threat, then I will have to take the following action. You will be banned from online commenting on our site. Secondly, I will report it to law enforcement.

Again, I don’t believe this was your intent. However, I cannot intuit intention in email. If you have questions about our policies or have concerns, you can contact me. We must take all threats seriously, though. We have to believe you meant what you said. We will continue to take you at your word. 

Thanks for your understanding,

-Darrell

Editor Ehrlick apparently felt that by me saying that I would follow-up if the comments were not removed was some kind of a personal threat.

It is amazing to me that the chief editor of a statewide newspaper doesn’t know what follow-up means and would take it as a threat that would warrant banning me from their on-line community and secondly report it to law enforcement before consulting his dictionary. After all, Mr. Ehrlick is working in the field of journalism. The response by this newspaper and their chief editor is unfounded, absolutely absurd and completely beyond reason.

I can assure you that the comments directed towards me and others by embarcadero and then the threat by editor Ehrlick were far more concerning than me letting the Casper Star Tribune know that I would follow-up to make sure that action was taken to remove the comments as their policy outlines.

The obvious over reaction by Mr. Ehrlick suggests a number of things, not the least of which is that they truly don’t want to be bothered by well meaning readers who assume that the Casper Star Tribune is actually serious about maintaining civility within their on-line community comments area. Of greater concern should be; what is the motive behind someone who believes that reporting abuse and following-up on the report is in any way a threat which would justify banning the person reporting abuse and then threatening to notify law enforcement? Something else is obviously at play here, bubbling under the surface. When someone in Mr. Ehrlick’s position can’t correctly identify a threat in a situation as simple as this, one must ask; what is the real issue? Could it be something as simple as insecurity or is it something larger, like a clash of worldviews and an editor with an agenda?

Check out embarcadero, who is Sean Patrick Larvie, and Darrell Ehrlick’s agenda should become a little more clear as you gain perspective. Any and all who disagree with either one of these gentleman are simply labeled as bigots. I have discovered that Mr Ehrlick believes these "bigots" must be banned from commenting and reported to law enforcement. Should the head editor of Wyoming's only statewide newspaper be so prejudiced?        

Mike Wallace Interview With Margaret Sanger Surfaces After Death

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/9/12

Following the death of journalist and reporter Mike Wallace, an interview he conducted with Planned Parenthood founder and eugenicist Margaret Sanger made the rounds across the Internet over the weekend.

Below are clips from the interview Margaret Sanger gave to Mike Wallace in 1957. During the interview, the full version of which can be seen here, Sanger talks to Wallace about why she became an advocate for birth control, abortion, stopping so-called overpopulation, and talks about the Catholic Church, and morality.

Angela Franks is one of the foremost authorities on the life and pro-abortion and pro-eugenics views of Sanger. She profiled Sanger for LifeNews in February:

Margaret Sanger was many things admirable: a vibrant personality, a brilliant organizer, a canny reader of the temperature of the times, a woman who built powerful institutions in a man’s world. But she was also many things ugly and even despicable: an egotist who frequently clashed with others; a free-love advocate who had a dizzying number of affairs and who hurt many men as a result; and a eugenicist who argued that “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

Even Planned Parenthood has had to drop the denials of Sanger’s commitment to eugenics and now urges us all instead to avoid judging those of another historical era. After all, as Hillary Clinton basically said in 2009, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he still did some pretty nifty things. Take what you like and leave the rest, that’s the new approach to Sanger.

Cameron defends remarks on homosexuality, 'gay marriage'

LOS ANGELES - Actor Kirk Cameron says he shouldn't be accused of hate speech for responding honestly when he was asked what he believed about homosexuality and "gay marriage."

Cameron told CNN's Piers Morgan that marriage "was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve -- one man, one woman for life." He added that in his view, homosexuality is "socially destructive," "unnatural," ''detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

That prompted homosexual advocates to launch an online petition that has more than 6,000 signatures. It says Cameron's views are "out of step" with other people of faith who don't believe homosexuals should be "condemned because of their sexual orientation."

The Christian actor responds in a statement that he tries to love everyone, but believes "God has something to say about these things." Cameron adds that people who preach tolerance shouldn't expect him to be silent or bend his "beliefs to their moral standards."

Social issues and the economy

Do divorce rates, incarceration, abortion, and low educational achievement affect the economy and government spending in America?

Of course they do.  Yet political pundits are trying to make us think the upcoming presidential election is solely about the economy.  Even some right-leaning commentators want us to believe that America's political parties, candidates, and voters have to choose between economic issues and social ones.

It's a false dichotomy. America's social and economic issues are inextricably inter-connected! America cannot have a healthy economy without strong moral values. Consider:

Marriage—Traditional marriage is vital for numerous reasons. As I've witnessed working in prisons for the past 35 years, the breakdown of the family is the principle reason why the prison population has increased tenfold since 1975. As the traditional marriage unit disintegrates, more and more single parents struggle to provide for their children, relying on public assistance and putting further strain on our economy. A recent study by the Institute of Marriage and Family says that the family breakdown's cost to society amounts to more than $6 billion a year in the U.S.  It's both a moral and economic crisis.

Protection of life—This is key.  Abortion, which kills more than 1 million babies each year, is the leading edge of the encroaching culture of death today. It is the overriding issue at the heart of what we are as a civilization. In addition to the moral toll that abortion takes on our society, the economic costs are also significant. Besides the $330 million of taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood every year, there are also 52 million lives that have ended since the legalization of abortion. These babies could have been consumers, producers, and inventors in our society. In essence, abortion has eliminated key players in our national economy.

That defense of life—that commitment to the equal dignity to every single human being—is the reason we have a free market economy! Christian theologians realized that work had innate dignity. As a result, a capitalist economic system developed in the northern Italian states during the 11th century. This freed people to work and give full expression to their God-given creative gifts.

Low Educational Achievement—As the world economy globalizes, the U.S. public school system has less and less influence on the world market. Historically, the mission of schools was to develop in the young both intellectual and moral virtues. Early universities—Bologna, the Sorbonne, Oxford, and Cambridge—were founded by Christians to serve as institutes for Christian education. Christians knew that to fulfill their God-given potential they needed to be educated not just in the Bible but also in virtue.  Without a virtue-filled education, society—both moral and economic—will eventually breakdown. We are witnessing these effects in our lifetime. Our schools are now ruled by moral irrelevance resulting in low educational achievement and limited Kingdom impact.

To have a strong economy, you must have a strong moral foundation. But the "Great Illusion"—the myth that we can somehow have a values-free economy and keep it free—has affected American life. Our nation's social and economic issues have always been inextricably interconnected and must remain so if we are to survive.

As a Colson Center supporter, we know you "get it." Your courage to speak out is paramount—especially since courage is in such short supply! I hope you know how much we appreciate your efforts to seek out and speak out truth.

The Colson Center is here to help strengthen your Christian worldview. Please use the articles, tools, resources, and educational materials available at ColsonCenter.org. Participate in our ministry. Grow in your faith. And speak out for truth.

To encourage you, your family, and your friends to live unashamedly for God's Truth, we would like to offer you a copy of The Sky Is Not Falling. This book is a compilation of articles I've written in Christianity Today over the past dozen years, and it addresses many of the issues facing our culture today—and how we Christians can arm ourselves with knowledge and a vision for living with renewed optimism.

The support of friends like you is vital to our ability to share these truths with others! I am delighted to offer you this book as a thank you when you become a Member of The Colson Center.  Your contribution will help us share these truths, educate our friends and family, and restore our country's moral and fiscal values.

By standing together, combating the myths, and educating with Christ's love and hope, God can awaken His people and change our world. Our society can be changed. In fact, the onlyway a society is ever changed is by a movement of the people—and that's you and us together.

Will you stand with us today?

Yours in His service,

Charles W. Colson
Founder

Deafening Silence

Moral Issues in the Election

By Chuck Colson | Published Date: February 06, 2012

This reflection from the 2010 elections continues to be relevant for this year.

Here we are, six days from the midterm elections, and the silence is deafening.

Next Tuesday, I hope you will do your Christian duty and head to the polls to vote for the candidate of your choice. I trust that your faith will guide you in your decision. Which candidate will best promote justice and preserve order? After all, those are the biblically sanctioned roles of government.

And which candidate best exemplifies the cardinal virtue of prudence in his or her public and private life?

And which candidate will best promote the sanctity of human life, advocate for traditional marriage, and protect religious freedom?  Well, if you’ve got an answer for that last question, then you’re among the few. Because for the life of me, I have never heard so little about these core issues during a political campaign. These core issues—human life, marriage, and freedom—which—all expressed so powerfully in the Manhattan Declaration and supported by half a million signatories, aren’t even on the political radar this year.

And that, to me is shocking.

Shocking to me because I know that politicians are survivors. They watch the polls. They know what people want. And all the candidates seem to be talking about is the economy.

One side swears up and down that they have saved our economy from another great depression. The others side says Congress is spending our nation into bankruptcy and that they’ll slash federal spending.

But no one—OK, hardly anyone—is talking about life, marriage, and liberty.

Why is that? It’s because we Christians--whether it’s from culture-war fatigue or worry over our own jobs and bank accounts--have not been vocal enough on these issues.

The Republicans devised their Pledge to America after months and months of polling, focus groups, and web chats. These moral issues weren’t on their supporters’ minds or lips—at least not until I asked you to tell the Republican leadership that you want them to address these issues. You emailed by the thousands . . . but it was only enough to get the Republicans to throw us a bone. One short paragraph in a 45-page document!

But folks, I’ve made the case again and again, we cannot have a healthy economy apart from morality and ethics. Without promoting stable, healthy families, without protecting life and freedom, without promoting a Christian ethic that values work and saving over instant spending and gratification, no economy or nation can thrive.

So, where do we Christian stand with our political leaders and the two political parties?

I want you to come to ColsonCenter.org today and watch this week’s Two Minute Warning. It’s called “Politically Homeless.” I want to share some thoughts and observations that may startle you.

And I also want you to share your thoughts with me. Go to ColsonCenter.org or BreakPoint.org and click on “Speak Out with Chuck” session. How should Christians approach this election? Will either party ever realty promote the values we hold dear? I want to hear from you. I will read every comment and will respond where I can.

But make no mistake. No matter how silent the candidates are on life, marriage, and liberty, we believers must never be silent. For the sake of our faith in Christ, our nation, and the common good, we must speak out.

Outrageous Choice

Religious Freedom or Healthcare? By: Chuck Colson | Published: February 2, 2012

I’ve told you that the Obama Administration is intentionally restricting religious freedom. I’ve told you we are in danger of losing the right to exercise our faith in public.

Well, maybe I’ve been too understated. The attack is relentless.

Just recently, the Obama Administration announced that the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, requires that employers pay for contraception, including abortifacients, and that Catholic institutions are not exempt from this requirement.

Well, Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and other bishops are blowing the trumpets on the ramparts. And my hat’s off to them. They see the Administration’s actions for what they truly are.

In an open letter released last week, Zubik said that, “Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration, have said ‘To [H-] with You’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States. To [H-] with your religious beliefs, to [H-] with your religious liberty, to [H-] with your freedom of conscience.” I’ll leave it to your imagination what the H- stands for.

In the administration’s twisted way of thinking, contraception is “preventive care” that helps prevent illness in the same way that cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes screening do — even though pregnancy is the means by which life is perpetuated and the species’ existence continued.

Even worse is the willful refusal to accommodate the beliefs of the nation’s largest religious body.

Sibelius defended the decision as “striking the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” This is the same Kathleen Sibelius who told the crowd of abortion supporters at a NARAL fund-raiser, “we are at war” over the “pregnancy prevention” issue.

This the same Kathleen Sibelius whose department has issued hundreds of waivers for plans that fail to meet other Health and Human Service standards, including those offered by McDonalds. “Appropriate balance,” my foot!

Every Christian, not just Catholics, should be outraged by the Obama Administration’s decision. The regulations represent a move to define religious liberty in the narrowest possible terms. As one wag put it, the exemptions in these regulations are so narrow Jesus would not have been able to get through them.

Given the Catholic presence in areas such as health care, education and other social services, this is folly. Think of the public serves that won’t be delivered to people in need.  And, Catholics are being asked to make a choice no Christian should ever be forced to make: heeding your conscience or serving your neighbor.

Folks, we’ve got to stand with all Christians and protest the Administration’s outrageous assault on religious liberty. Our religious freedom is in grave peril. Today, now, I want you to go to BreakPoint.org. We will link you to Bishop Zubik’s letter. I want you to read it and then send it to everyone you know.

And then today, as well, go sign the Manhattan Declaration. Again, we’ll link you to it. In the coming months, you will be hearing much more from us on efforts to defend life, marriage, and religious liberty, for we have no time to lose.

Superintendent bullies Christian student

School officials at Shawano High School in Wisconsin have censored and punished Brandon Wegner, a 15-year-old, for writing an op-ed article explaining the Biblical view of homosexuality and supporting natural mother-father adoption, according to Liberty Counsel.
After Brandon wrote this article he was pulled into hours of meetings with school administrators and staff, without his parents' knowledge.

Superintendent Todd Carlson

Superintendent Todd Carlson told him that the column "went against the bullying policy," and asked him if he "regretted" writing it. According to Liberty Counsel, when Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he had "to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic," that "we have the power to suspend you if we want to" and that the column had "personally offended me, so I know you offended other people!"

Brandon's opinion was a part of an editorial page which presented viewpoints both for and against homosexual adoption, each articulated by a student. After the school newspaper was published in the local town paper, a homosexual in the community complained to the school. School officials then censored Brandon's article, forcing him and his classmates to pull the page out of the newspaper before distribution at the school.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said "The bullying at Shawano High School is by Superintendent Todd Carlson and the school officials, not the student, Brandon Wegner. The school officials have displayed blatant intolerance of a view on homosexuality held by many people. The school's actions are shocking and unjustified. The superintendent should immediately apologize and stop the bullying."

TAKE ACTION
Send an email to Shawano Superintendent Todd Carlson. Urge him to immediately apologize for his unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation of student Brandon Wegner.

Ask Mr. Carlson to publicly acknowledge that, in the future, all students will be allowed to express their religious beliefs, free from bullying and harassment by school administrators, staff and other students.

First It Was the Catholics

Restricting Religious Freedom

By: Chuck Colson | Published: January 24, 2012

If you needed more proof that religious freedom is in danger, the Obama Administration is glad to help.

In yesterday broadcast, I warned you that the Supreme Court’s decision to grant religious groups a “ministerial exception” in hiring, while important, does nothing to halt the Obama Administration’s relentless crusade to restrict religious freedom.

Just Friday, the Administration announced it would not expand exemptions for religiously affiliated organizations when it comes to insurance. So, a Catholic hospital, for instance, will be forced to purchase insurance for its employees that would provide free contraception and sterilization services.
Now, in case you didn’t know, the Catholic Church teaches that using artificial contraception or undergoing sterilization are grave sins. The government now said, “Tough.”

Even the liberal Washington Post sees this for what it is: a restriction of religious freedom. Its lead editorial called the Administration’s decision, “wrong.”

Perhaps the Administration was feeling benevolent because it delayed the implementation of the insurance mandate for a year.

Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan wasn’t feeling the love. He rightly fumed: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” Dolan said that “to force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. . . Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

Folks, I’ve been warning for more than a year now that the Administration is constricting religious liberty bit by bit. It has abandoned any defense of traditional marriage. It is promoting gay rights abroad at the expense of religious rights. And I’ve documented that the Administration, beginning with Secretary of State Clinton, has intentionally used the phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion,” implying that one’s faith is a private matter — and that exercising that faith in public is not a protected right.

Well, if the Administration’s latest move isn’t proof of that, I don’t know what will be.

Now, to all my evangelical brethren who may be wondering why I’m making so much of this — after all, the vast majority of evangelicals don’t have a problem with contraception — I will say this: Which of our religious convictions will we be forced to abandon one day? Will our religiously affiliated groups be forced to hire people who oppose our faith? Will the government force a curriculum upon our schools and homeschoolers? Just a few years ago these possibilities seemed crazy. Now, they seem very real.

I’m reminded of the famous saying of German pastor Martin Niemoeller, referring to the horrors of Nazi Germany:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.”

Folks, all Christians speak out against this latest attack — and every attack — on religious liberty. Please, I plead with you, sign — and get your friends to sign — the Manhattan Declaration in support of religious liberty. Do it today at ManhattanDeclaration.org.

Because pretty soon no one will be left to speak out for us.

AUL’s “Life List” Shows Huge Legislative Gains for Life in the 50 states in 2011

By Americans United for Life
Thursday, January 19th, 2012
And AUL prepares for 39^th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Events with AUL’s
Dr. Charmaine Yoest and Abby Johnson together during the March for Life.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (01-19-12) –Americans United for Life released its seventh annual “Life List” – a ranking of all 50 states based on the way each deals with a comprehensive list of life issues – from abortion to euthanasia. For the second time in three years, Louisiana tops the list, followed closely by Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Arkansas.

Washington, California, Hawaii, Vermont, and Montana come in as the least life-affirming states, while Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, and Utah rate as the “most improved.” For the entire list, and a graphic model of the nation, click here.

AUL CEO and President Dr. Charmaine Yoest said that the remarkable gains for Life at the state level reveal that many state legislators are creating a blueprint for legislative changes when Roe v. Wade is ultimately overturned. 2011 was a watershed year in the defense of life. Forty-seven states considered more than 460 abortion-related measures, ultimately enacting more than 70 of them. And that is just the beginning.

Yoest noted that AUL legislative involvement was significant. During the 2011 state legislative session:

At least 86 bills were introduced in 32 states that were based in whole or in part on AUL’s model language and/or on which AUL consulted and advised.

• AUL’s experts testified 21 times, supporting 20 pro-life bills and opposing legislation in Hawaii that would have compromised healthcare freedom of conscience.
• AUL distributed more than 1,600 copies of our model legislation (with accompanying policy guides) to individuals in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and overseas nations.

“As the legal arm of the pro-life movement, the AUL legal team has created the legal architecture for reversing Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Yoest. “The states are preparing for the day after Roe. And as the Life List documents, we’re seeing tremendous gains in defending life in law.”

One of the key tools for state legislators who wish to advocate for constitutionally sound and effective pro-life policies is Defending Life, AUL’s guidebook of Model Legislation. This year’s soon-to-be released guidebook will include 43 pieces of model legislation, including legislation restricting insurance coverage of abortions within state Exchanges created pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s healthcare plan. AUL’s model legislation has already been used by five states to opt out of Obama’s healthcare law.

Evangelical Groups Warn of Dangers of Redefining Marriage

by Karla DialA coalition of almost 40 faith-group leaders signed an open letter to all Americans on Thursday, warning them that everywhere marriage is redefined, religious persecution follows.Though the effort was organized by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), it was signed by people from a broad spectrum of faith backgrounds — including Catholics, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Foursquare Church, Mormons, Pentecostals, Orthodox Jews, Anglicans, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Vineyard churches and Assemblies of God congregations.

The reason, said Galen Carey, the NAE’s vice president for government relations, is that marriage and religious freedom are both woven so deeply into the fabric of society that when laws are changed, everyone is affected.

“It’s a very broad-based concern,” he said. “We issued a letter last year on the protection of marriage, and in following up, we thought we should look at this important question of how changing the definition of marriage would impact basic religious freedoms. That’s something we think hasn’t been getting enough attention in the current debates.”

Though some people say the greatest threat legalized same-sex marriage and civil unions hold is forcing pastors and other faith leaders to officiate the ceremonies — or forcing churches to allow them to be held on their property — the issue is actually much deeper than that, according to the letter.

“We believe the most urgent peril is this: Forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies — to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct,” the authors wrote. “There is no doubt that many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result. … altering the civil definition of ‘marriage’ does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once.”

Carey said most people “haven’t thought through all the implications” of redefining marriage yet. But since a slew of legislation and court cases seeking to radically change the institution forever is in play this year, the need for critical thinking is urgent.

“When you change the law, you’re giving a societal stamp of approval to something we don’t believe is correct, that we actually believe is wrong. When we say so, we are branded as bigots, and the full force of societal and governmental sanctions can be brought to bear to punish us — and we don’t think that’s right.

“I think it’s important for people to start talking about this in churches,” he concluded. “As we do that, it’s important to focus the debate on the positive values — religious freedom and the family as God gave it to us. We can get sidetracked into attacking others, but our goal is not to attack anybody. It’s to uphold the values that we think will give us the foundation for God to bless our country.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read “Open Letter on Marriage and Religious Freedom.”

Morality and the Economy

No Separating the Two

By: Chuck Colson|Published: January 9, 2012

The next election should be all about the economy, right? Wrong in spades!

During the seemingly endless build-up to the Iowa caucuses, there was one consistent refrain repeated over and over. It’s like the big lie — the more you keep repeating it, the more people are going to believe it, but it remains a lie.

The lie was simply this: that the political parties have to choose between social issues and economic issues. This year, the media and the party machines are telling us ad nauseam that the only issue that matters is the economy.

So any candidate who wants to win the White House should just shut up about things like marriage, the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and those other annoying issues that distract us from focusing on jobs and the economy.

But that’s crazy! Doesn’t anybody get the connection between the social issues and economics issues?

One candidate who does, Rick Santorum had the courage to link the two in a recent Iowa town hall meeting. (And before I go on, please, folks, I’m not endorsing him or anyone. I never do.)

Here’s what Senator Santorum said:

“Yes, [the election is] about growth and the economy, [but] it’s also about what is at the core of our country . . . faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral, and decent lives.”

Precisely right. And what does he get for his remarks? Backhanded compliments for his showing in Iowa and a stern warning from, among others, the conservative National Review:

Here’s what the National Review wrote online:

“In a general election…where the focus is almost certainly going to be on economic issues, it is questionable whether Santorum’s relentless focus on social issues will play well with independent voters, especially in the crucial suburbs.”

Hogwash. If the nation’s current economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that a healthy economy cannot thrive in the midst of moral breakdown. Ethical failures on Wall Street, Main Street, and Capitol Hill put us into this mess we’re in today, as I’ve said many times before.

But how about some facts? I’ll have the citations for you at BreakPoint.org: Take incarceration rates: something Santorum has alluded to and I’ve seen with my own eyes: “Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families.” And “70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.”

How about education? 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. And children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes.

I could go on and on.

Do you think that crime rates, incarceration, low educational achievement, out of wedlock births, affect the economy and government spending? Of course they do, and the statistics prove this!

If you want a healthy, thriving economy you’ve got to have a strong moral societal foundation. And any so-called “conservatives” who think otherwise are simply deluding themselves; the two issues simply can’t be separated.

As Christians, we can’t buy into the lie that we can separate economic prosperity from moral behavior. And we can’t be afraid to hold the candidates’ feet to the fire on this, either.

Occupy Wall Street solidifies message.

Until recently the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement has been criticized for not having a consistent message, making it difficult for bystanders – the true 99%, the general populace – to understand what the movement’s protests represent or are about.

While organizers have been busy chanting it is about economic & political equality the truth is slowly being revealed. Have you identified the primary message?

The one message that is consistent throughout is same sex partnership. Yes, the LGBT community has commandeered the movement to advance their agenda of normalizing sexual immorality under the banner of ‘Equality’.

Stephanie Donald of LGBT Today recently wrote;

"As far as allying the LGBT civil rights movement with the OWS movement, in the case of the OWS and union protesters in Washington State, the gay and lesbian alliance threw their whole-hearted support behind the union and OWS movement and this past week the executive board of the UFCW Local 21 has endorsed and petitioned the Washington State Legislature to pass marriage equality.

We’ve reached a point of critical mass with the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The more opposition they encounter the more support the movement gets from people previously uninvolved. The Oakland, California debacle is turning out to be a disaster for the Police Chief and the Mayor and the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet with Governor Jerry Brown and I’m quite sure he will have something very biting to say about how the situation was handled."

Notice that there is no emphasis on economic or political equality. Notice that the LGBT community is being encouraged to resort to hostility in an effort to draw support from those on the sidelines who are unaware of the underlying LGBT agenda. Hostility and aggression, as demonstrated during the Proposition 8 vote in the 2008 California election, is a tactic that has become trademark of the more extreme and militant LGBT faction.

Is it about equality at all or is it about a very small minority forcing the normalization of immorality at society’s expense? Indeed, isn’t the LGBT community actually doing exactly what the OWS movement is supposedly protesting against – a few dictating to the masses?

Baker Won't Play Flour Girl at Gay 'Wedding'

She may be a baker, but Victoria Childress isn't in it for the dough. At her Iowa Cake Cottage, she knows the recipe for success is sticking by your convictions--even if it costs you some business. So when two lesbians asked Childress to make their "wedding" cake this fall, she politely refused. "She introduced herself," Childress told Fox News, "and I said, 'Is this your sister?' She said, 'No, this is my partner.'" At that point, Victoria knew what she had to do. "I was straight-forward with them and explained that I'm a Christian, and that I have very strong [beliefs]." When the couple went to the press with their story, gay activists launched a boycott. "It's not to discriminate against them," Victoria explained on TV. "As I keep saying, it's not so much to do with them as it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will have to answer for."

The two lesbians don't see it that way. "It was degrading," they told KCCI. But apparently, calling Victoria a bigot is not? Obviously, the only form of discrimination that's acceptable in this country is directed at men and women of faith. Whether this couple likes it or not, religious freedom is for everyone--including Christian business owners. Just because Victoria runs a bakery doesn't mean she has to check her conscience at the kitchen door. Childress is well within her rights to decline an order that would force her to join in the assault on marriage.

Usually, homosexual activists like to sugar-coat their agenda--but not these two. The couple came right out and admitted that this controversy " is not about cake or someone's right to refuse service to a customer." It's about running Christians out of business. Unfortunately, Americans don't seem to understand that religious freedom and same-sex "marriage" can never coexist. Why? Because the Left's definition of "tolerance" is surrender. And until more people like Victoria dig in their heels and refuse, homosexual activists will continue to bully anyone who disagrees with them.

Despite the threats and hate mail, Victoria has no regrets. "People are telling me they were proud of me for standing up for my beliefs because not many people do that these days," she said. "Business people are afraid to because they're afraid to lose money." At the Cake Cottage, Victoria isn't worried about her profits getting battered. This baker's here to serve Jesus.

Putting on the Brakes

A First Look at ''Second Chances''
By: Chuck Colson | Published: November 9, 2011

Divorce is epidemic in the culture and, I’m sad to say, in the Church. Can that change?

In her 1968 country tear-jerker about her divorce, Tammy Wynette sang about her son and about-to-be ex-husband, “I love you both and this will be pure H. E. double L. for me. Oh, I wish that we could stop this D.I.V.O.R.C.E.”

New research shows that Tammy is not alone.

Working with the Institute for American Values, principal investigators Professor William Doherty of the University of Minnesota and retired Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears discovered that “About forty percent of couples already deeply into the divorce process report that one or both spouses are interested in the possibility of reconciliation.”

According to their study, “Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce,” this means that a significant number of divorces are preventable and thus unnecessary.

Most people believe that divorce is the result of long-term marital strife, but this turns out to be false. As Dr. Doherty and Justice Sears wrote in the Washington Post, “[O]nly a minority of divorcing couples experience high conflict and abuse during their marriages. Most divorces occur with couples who have drifted apart and handle everyday disagreements poorly.”

And they add, “It is these ‘average’ divorces that research shows are the most harmful to children.” And because the state has a compelling interest in the wellbeing of children, the state also has a compelling interest in preventing these unnecessary divorces.

That’s why Doherty and Sears have gone beyond research to develop a proposal for changing state laws.

First, they recommend a one-year waiting period before a divorce is granted. The decision to divorce is often made when emotions are hot. Once the papers are filed, couples find themselves on what Justice Sears calls “the divorce superhighway.”

As a result, couples find they don’t have the time, the tools, or the space to reconsider. A slower road, especially for couples with children, will allow couples to consider the consequences of divorce against other options.

Second, they recommend a mandatory early warning letter from the spouse intent on filing for divorce. It’s a way of putting the other spouse on notice that, “we have a problem” before the legal wheels begin turning. And it would trigger mandatory pre-filing education for parents of minor children.

Doherty and Sears go on to recommend that couples contemplating divorce have access to marriage reconciliation services whether they use them or not. While many couples with troubled marriages seek counseling, most therapists aren’t adequately trained in couples counseling and many feel they should be neutral on the question of divorce. Second Chances recommends proper training and a pro-marriage bias for counselors.

Second Chances is “a modest proposal” to reduce divorce, and I am all for it. My question for Christians and for churches is, why wait for a new law? Do we really believe that marriage was instituted by God, that He intended it for human flourishing, and that marriage and the family unit are the cornerstones of civilization?Then for heaven’s sake, let’s use our creativity and gifts to do everything we can to help struggling married couples stay together.