In the wake of SCOTUS decision to strike down Roe v. Wade and the so-called “right” to abortion, we praise God for the dozens of states in the nation that have moved to ban or greatly restrict this heinous practice. In blue states like Illinois however, those who love death are busy establishing new death chambers, expanding to strategic new locations and inviting people over the state line to destroy innocent human life. Illinois State Lawmakers are going out of their way to support an industry committed to ending the lives of innocent pre-born babies.

As we once again recognize Sanctity of Human Life Sunday (January 22, 2023), Christ followers must respond intentionally, bringing both salt and light to this desperate situation. (Click HERE for a bulletin insert.) Here are some suggested deliberate steps we all can take:

Be intentional in prayer. If we truly believe that the fervent prayer of the righteous “avails much” (James 5:16); and if we truly believe that God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17); and if we truly believe that we are called to “deliver those who stumble toward death” (Proverbs 24:11); and if we truly believe that the second great commandment in God’s law is to love our neighbor—born or unborn (Matthew 22:36-40); we should be offering up earnest prayers regularly throughout the day.

We should pray for mothers who are facing an unplanned pregnancy or who are facing threats, abuse, and coercion to end their pregnancy. We should pray for abortion workers to leave their work that enables the “termination” of pre-born life. And we should pray for our local community, elected officials, leaders, and neighbors who do not understand the gruesome truth that abortion takes a human life.

We highly recommend that Christians intentionally participate in 40 Days for Life prayer vigils. If we truly believe that God’s ears are attentive to our cries and that He answers every prayer that aligns with His perfect will (1 John 5:14, Psalm 34:15 and 5:3), we can wait in eager anticipation for His hand to work when the time is right.

• Pray that human life would be cherished at every stage of life, regardless of circumstances.

• Pray for the end of abortion in all states.

• Pray for the pregnancy resource centers that are helping women facing an unplanned pregnancy.

• Pray for political and church leaders, and that they would be willing to stand up for life.

• Pray that God will open the eyes of policymakers and candidates running for office to the sanctity of life. Pray that they will become defenders of innocent human life and not enablers of sexual immorality and death.

• Pray for a softening of hearts and minds. May God give us opportunities to minister to those who are hurting and may our conversations be filled with His grace and love.

Be intentional to educate yourself. Being pro-life is much more than being anti-abortion. Contraception, sterilization, IVF and, on the other end of the spectrum, the so-called “right” to die movement, all foster and promote a culture of death. Read and/or watch experts on these topics to learn how to defend the pro-life position with reasons.

Also, be cognizant of the ways contemporary negative attitudes toward having and raising children undermine the culture of life. Avoid making critical remarks about children being a burden or interfering with your sleep/work, schedule or budget. Start seeing them through God’s eyes, as a blessing and a reward. (Psalm 127:3-5)

Moreover, Bethany Bomberger’s book, Pro-Life Kids, is an excellent resource that reinforces the importance of every human life and Ryan Anderson’s newest book, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, discusses the lasting impact that abortion has had on our country.

Be intentional and proactive in your church. Talk to your pastor and church leaders about supporting a local pregnancy center, recognizing and celebrating Sanctity of Life Sunday, and explaining the importance from a biblical view of voting for candidates committed to supporting pro-life legislation. There are a variety of resources that you can share with your community. You can find these at sanctitysunday.com.

Encourage your church to host meetings throughout the year to highlight the battle for the right-to-life. These can include documentary film screenings, special speakers, right-to-life apologetics, and Bible studies on God’s view of every human life.

Encourage your church to have a ministry that reaches out to post-abortive women who, like all of us, need to know that Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross and that His love, mercy, and forgiveness are available and sufficient. The local church can be a place for these women to start healing.

Be intentional to be an advocate. Whether with a large audience or just your family, start a conversation about life and its value.  Need help talking about abortion? Check out the pro-life apologetics organization Life Training Institute. They have been equipping Christians to defend their unborn neighbors since 2004.

You can also attend the Annual SpeakOut Illinois pro-life conference. This year’s event will be held in Oakbrook Terrace on February 25th. For more information, click HERE.

Additionally, we encourage you to join us for the annual IFI Worldview Conference on March 18th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year we are featuring three well-respected Pro-Life Christian leaders who will help us better understand, debate and persuade people in our spheres of influence to the sanctity of human life. Learn more HERE.

Promote, help, donate to, and fundraise for your local crisis pregnancy center and/or local pro-life group. Attend a Hike for Life fundraiser or banquet.

Speak out against pro-abortion legislation. Most people have absolutely no idea what bills are being decided in Springfield or Washington, D. C. It is vital to get alerts from IFI and other pro-life groups who will let you know when to speak out on specific pending legislation.

Visit your local lawmakers to thank them for their service and to see how you can pray for them. Let them know how important the life issue is to you and to our culture. Urge them to become a champion for the pre-born.

Make sure you are subscribed to Illinois Family Institute’s emails and Action Alerts to stay involved about bills affecting the unborn! As responsible citizens that love their community, use this information to contact your representatives. Hold them accountable to protect human beings at all stages of life, from conception to natural death.

Be intentional to celebrate life. It is tragic to realize that we are immersed in a culture that does not value life. Many babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb are aborted. Other potential disabilities and/or genetic conditions are targeted as well. Women use abortion as a means of birth control. Senior citizens who need assisted living or who live in nursing homes are frequently mistreated, ignored, or forgotten.

Celebrating the people you know who have challenging conditions can set an example to others not only how to treat “the least of these” with respect and dignity, but to think about them as equally worthy of life as those of us blessed with good health.

Be intentional to promote and support pro-life candidates. In every election cycle we have opportunities to promote pro-life candidates running for local, state, or federal office. You should pick a candidate or two to support in word, with your time, and, if possible, with your finances. They are the ones voting to pass laws that either expand or limit ending precious pre-born human life.

You should make your pro-life views known to your community during election time.

“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.” ~ George Washington

Additionally, you can support pro-life candidates by putting up yard signs, making phone calls, distributing literature, going door-to-door with the candidate, hosting a meet-and-greet in your home, using social media, attending rallies, and marching in parades.

Go one step further and identify your local pro-life elected officials and write them a letter of encouragement and thanks.

Conclusion

Scripture is clear, God is infuriated with the shedding of innocent blood (Psalm 106:38; Proverbs 6:16-17) and the apathy of so many Christians who remain on the sidelines in the face of evil (Ezekiel 12:2; James 1:22-25). Make no mistake, He sees what is going on in Illinois and in the rest of the world. But God gives us insight into why it appears He may have overlooked this grave evil.

The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. ~2 Peter 3:9

God wants us to repent, and He is sovereign. He wants to work through us to change everything–even the hearts of those who work inside these clinics. Let’s not forget that God specializes in cases that look surmountable. (Jeremiah 32:37; Luke 1:37; Ephesians 3:20; Luke 18:27)

God wants us to repent, and He is sovereign. He wants to work through us to change everything–even the hearts of those who work inside these clinics. Let’s not forget that God specializes in hard cases. (Jeremiah 32:37; Luke 1:37; Ephesians 3:20; Luke 18:27)

We are to pray for one another too (Ephesians 6:18; James 5:16), because we tend to grow weary and discouraged. Therefore, we should be praying for the strength and resolve of those who are on the frontlines of this battle as we also pray that God would remove all fear and timidity from Christians who have not yet engaged in the battle for truth, righteousness, and the sanctity of human life.

What was once unthinkable has become unquestionable. And so, every Christian must know how to engage this transgender moment.

Imagine this scenario: Your 17-year-old daughter tells you she’s trapped in the wrong body, is really a boy, and wants hormone therapy to begin the process of transitioning. As her parent, you love your daughter, but you disagree. You want to look at other options to help her.

She decides to take you to court. Even though she’s a minor under your care, the judge decides your beliefs are a danger to your daughter, and takes her from your custody.

Well, imagine this scenario no more. That’s exactly what happened in Ohio recently.

And we shouldn’t be surprised. As Ryan Anderson, a Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation warns, Americans can expect more cases just like this one.

Anderson’s in-depth research of the transgender movement and sexual ideology is now available in his new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.” And I don’t say this lightly, this book is one every single Christian needs to read and understand.

This is a movement with considerable momentum—in popular culture, education, and even public policy. It’s an evolving movement. Here’s what I mean: as Anderson points out, gender ideology used to be based on the idea that our sex (in other words our physical natures, including reproductive organs and hormones) was biological, but our gender was socially constructed.

Activists challenged traditional gender roles as being oppressive and too generalized. But today the movement claims that sex is not biological, but assigned at birth. As if the doctor makes a random decision to identify a child as male or female. That’s how, the popular theory goes, boys can be trapped in girl’s bodies, and vice versa.

This is, of course, a scientifically indefensible position, and assumes that deep in some part of one’s brain (though we’re not sure where), our true gender identity is located. The theory is advancing, not on its merits, but on political power and name-calling: that only bigots insist on biological realities.

What Anderson does so well in “When Harry Became Sally” is to articulate how transgender ideology is hopelessly tied up in contradictions. He’ll help you spot those contradictions and articulate them with clarity and kindness to others.

But even so, many Christians still wonder why they should care about this one. Maybe they are still wearied over the same-sex marriage battle, or like many of us, maybe this is one of those issue that hits a little too close to home.

Well, I think there are at least two reasons we should care. First, Christians have always proclaimed that our bodies matter. This is no trivial point of Christian theology. Scripture tells us that God made us in His image, male and female. That Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, and that He was physically resurrected from the dead. We cannot go along with any ideology that denies God’s created order.

And the second reason we should care is, well, the children. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. Transgender ideology is disproportionately aiming at children, teaching them that they are not the inherently valuable image bearers God created them to be. If we love our neighbors, especially the kids, we cannot remain silent on this one.

We will send you a copy of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” as a thank you for your gift today. Visit BreakPoint.org to get your copy.  It will equip you to defend the truth of God’s plan for human sexuality and identity—and help those impacted by the transgender movement.

And if you come to our website, you’ll find other articles and teaching resources on this issue also.

This article was originally published at BreakPoint.org

Before Christmas, I warned how Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity laws, or SOGI laws, as they’re called, create new protected classes of people based on inclination and behavior, not biological realities of race and sex.

I also warned that so-called compromises to carve out religious exemptions for churches and religious organizations would not only fail to protect people of conscience not in religious organizations, it would mark all of us seeking exemptions as bigots with a Scarlet B.

Now it seems that we’re at an impasse, but not really. I’m grateful how the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson has demonstrated, in a new report, that fighting discrimination and protecting religious liberty do not have to be mutually exclusive.

A key point of the report, which is entitled “How to Think about Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Policies and Religious Freedom,” is that proponents of such wide-ranging SOGI laws have failed to prove they’re even needed. In fact, as Ryan says, there’s “no evidence that people who identify as LGBT have been turned away by a single hotel chain, a single major restaurant, or a single major employer.”

Even so, like all laws, SOGI laws will have a pedagogical role in our society, teaching that the Judeo-Christian worldview is “not only false, but discriminatory and rooted in animus.” They will impose a new orthodoxy concerning human sexuality “by punishing dissent and treating as irrational, bigoted, and unjust the beliefs that men and women are biologically rooted and made for each other in marriage.”

So at their core, Anderson writes, “SOGI laws are not about the freedom of LGBT people to engage in certain actions, but about coercing and penalizing people who in good conscience cannot endorse those actions.”

So what’s the way forward? First, as Anderson suggests, we should identify real-world instances of discrimination and then tailor-focus responses appropriate for the need, rather than implementing sweeping SOGI legislation. We might even find, as we look for specific real-world instances of discrimination, that government action is not even necessary—if “social, economic, and cultural forces” (are) sufficient to address the needs on their own.

Second, Anderson points out, both sides need to carefully define terms. There is a difference, for example, between discrimination and making distinctions. Sex-specific bathrooms and locker rooms, for instance, are not based on discrimination, but upon observable physiological and common-sense distinctions. And here’s another distinction: religious adoption agencies “decline to place the children entrusted to their care with same-sex couples not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the conviction that children deserve both a mother and a father.”

Another term to define is “public accommodation.” If a church holds a spaghetti dinner and welcomes the public, does that make it a place of “public accommodation” subject to SOGI laws? No. But the commonwealth of Massachusetts seems to think so.

Ryan concludes, “if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other. This would,” Anderson asserts, “leave all Americans—not just the lucky few who are sufficiently well-connected to be exempted from SOGI laws—free to act on those convictions.”

I encourage you to read Anderson’s report. Then send the report to your state and federal representatives, as well as to friends and relatives open to a common-sense discussion of these very choppy waters. Finally, consider adding your name to our statement on SOGI Laws. You can find it at our website: BreakPoint.org.

BreakPoint is a Christian worldview ministry that seeks to build and resource a movement of Christians committed to living and defending Christian worldview in all areas of life. Begun by Chuck Colson in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends via radio, interactive media, and print. Today BreakPoint commentaries, co-hosted by Eric Metaxas and John Stonestreet, air daily on more than 1,200 outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people. Feel free to contact us at BreakPoint.org where you can read and search answers to common questions.

The next several years are going to be messy for Christians. We already know that some who claim to be within our fold will continue to challenge the historic, orthodox teaching about sexuality, marriage, and the essence of what it means to be made in the image of God. But even those of us who agree that marriage is what the church has always thought it was, will disagree on how best to move forward in a culture hell-bent on denying it.

Case in point: Over at First Things, a premier publication of Christian thought, Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz have offered what they refer to as “The Marriage Pledge,” calling clergy of all stripes to no longer sign government documents of civil marriage. To be a “clear witness,” they have decided they “will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage” because to do so would be to “implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.”

This is an idea that has been kicked around for some time. Past First Things articles have suggested it, as has my friend S. Michael Craven in his guest contribution to my recent book “Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God’s Design for Marriage.” Among those who have signed The Marriage Pledge are the clergy of my own church here in Colorado Springs. And Anne Morse, one of our terrific writers here at the Colson Center, has praised these clergy for distancing themselves from American lawmakers who are “increasingly making nonsense of marriage.”

Because Anne worked closely with Chuck Colson for decades, I hesitate to disagree with her. No doubt, as Anne writes, Chuck “would have been proud of these ministers” and their commitment to stand on their convictions. In that respect, they exemplify at least part of what he hoped to accomplish with the Manhattan Declaration.

However, I do not think that he would have agreed with this pledge. Neither do I.

Before I go into my reasons, let me first clarify that those who disagree on whether or not to sign this Pledge do not disagree about the nature, definition, or importance of marriage. Rather, we disagree about what to do, now that the state has denied the clear definition of marriage.

I should also make clear that I do not think—not in the least—that any clergy who have signed the Pledge, or anyone—like Anne Morse—who thinks clergy should sign, has “compromised” in any way. (And, I hope they do not think that of me or any of others—like Ryan Anderson, Douglas Wilson,Russell Moore, or Edward Peters—who disagree). My own clergy members who signed the pledge, and who have graciously and vigorously engaged with me on this topic, have more than earned their stripes by standing for marriage in a church that famously, over the last several decades, became neo-pagan. They fought hard before re-organizing under a different denominational identity.

No, ours is a disagreement of strategy and timing, not of faithfulness.

There may very well come a time when the church must take this step. It is quite conceivable that church officials will be forced out of the civil marriage business and not even given the option of being an agent of the state. But my view is that we’ll know when that time comes—because we’ll have been forced out. But let them do it to us. Let’s not leave before then.

This conversation reminds me of 2012. Remember when Louis Giglio stepped down from praying at President Barack Obama’s second Inauguration? The four years between the first and second Inaugurations had made quite a difference. Rick Warren was allowed to pray at the first, despite having vocally spoken out for marriage that same year during California’s Proposition 8 battle. But the critics were far less tolerant of Giglio four years later, even though the only evidence they could find of his so-called homophobia was nearly twenty years old. In light of the controversy, Giglio decided to graciously back out.

I think Giglio made a mistake—not because he was gracious, but because he backed out. I think he should have graciously stayed in. There’s a world of difference between being disinvited and backing out, and one can be gracious either way. I understand Giglio’s reasoning, but in a culture that needs to know where the church stands on things like sexuality and marriage and sin and the Gospel, it was the wrong strategy at the wrong time.

In my view, “The Marriage Pledge” commits the same strategic mistake, only on a much larger scale. We may, in fact, get disinvited from marrying people, and perhaps we’ll even be forcibly removed from this part of the public square. But let’s not leave of our own accord. We can be just as gracious one way as the other, with handcuffs or without.

And clergy can still marry people without compromising the biblical view. As Edward Peters notes, there is nothing on a civil marriage license itself that requires clergy to say marriage is something that it is not. But by refusing to proclaim to the state that those the church chooses to marry are indeed married, we are missing an opportunity to proclaim in the public square what marriage, in truth, is. R. R. Reno suggests that by having a separate church wedding and refusing to sign the state’s marriage license, the church is claiming marriage for itself, and we won’t let it be confused with what the state is now calling marriage. Perhaps, but that assumes people are listening. The boy who takes his ball and goes home isn’t playing anymore, and pretty soon is forgotten.

It could come across from that analogy that I think the state is the one defining the game. Not at all, or at least not any more than players define baseball. Underneath my point is this reality: Marriage is not created by the state, nor is it created by the church. Marriage precedes both church and state, and both are responsible to recognize it wherever it happens. When the church recognizes a marriage, it also proclaims it to the state. This we should continue to do.

By backing out of the civil marriage business, we risk reinforcing the growing opinion that our views on marriage are valid only to us and belong only in the private, religious recesses of our culture. We also risk perpetuating the very troubling myth that marriage is something that government defines, instead of something it recognizes. If we are still in the business, we can remind them. If not, we can’t.

Of course, whether the church can be a legitimate agent of the state without compromise is a valid question. But keep in mind that the church is not an agent of the state per se; it only serves as one in this matter. And don’t agents of the state who demonstrate and proclaim their loyalty to a higher authority have a stronger witness than someone who is not an agent of the state at all?

I’ve already heard of, and even met, several justices of the peace who have either resigned or who now refuse to marry anyone because they may be asked to marry same-sex couples. I understand the dilemma, but to them I say, “Stay in the game! Keep your post, but refuse to render to Caesar authority that does not belong to him. Get fired! Get censured! Get sued! Be nice and kind, but firm; keep the witness as long as you can.”

I realize, of course, that it is easy for me to say this to a justice of the peace from this side of the keyboard. I won’t face that sort of trouble for simply writing a book on the issue. I may get some angry tweets, but that’s not much to worry about. But, with apologies for my cushy position, I still think it’s the right thing to do. It’s what I would try to do if I were in that person’s place.

Clergy members are like justices of the peace, but with a much more protected position because of our religious freedoms, such as they currently are. So they have even more reason to stay in the game. And since the more troubling cultural problem is the precipitous decline of marriage rates in general, taking our exit now would be tantamount to saying that people who really are legitimately married for us are not married for the state.

“But we are marrying them—in a church wedding,” the response might be. True, but because marriage is a creational reality, not a church one, I can’t see how we ought to recognize it in the church while not also proclaiming to the state (and everyone else) that “these two are now one flesh” in a way that others are not. In this way, the church has the unique role of simultaneously being an agent of and a messenger to the state. When it plays this role, it reminds the state of whose world this really is.

Of course, the moment that clergy are asked to marry same-sex couples, they ought flatly to refuse. Period. End of story. And at that point, we’ll have to decide our next step. But let’s not step too soon out of the marriage game happening in the public square.

This brings up two other arguments against “The Marriage Pledge,” neither of which originates with me. First, the document suggests that the couple being married by the church should go off on their own to claim the benefits of civil marriage bestowed by state. But if it is wrong for clergy to be involved with the state on marriage, how is it less wrong for the laity to be involved?

This is a real problem, and creates more problems. For example, if we are to consider church marriage different from civil marriage, by what means will the church enforce its understanding of marriage and divorce to those married by the church? Why should anyone listen?

Even more, if same-sex marriage demands our separation from civil marriage, aren’t we late to the game? Why didn’t we take this step when no-fault divorce made marriage vows a mockery, and children the victim of a parent’s “right to be happy”? Shouldn’t we have done this a long time ago?

Well, we didn’t, and I argue we shouldn’t have. Instead, we should have been more serious about what it means to be married. We should have displayed a little more courage in the matter of whom we married and whom we did not, as well as how we handled those we married that violated their vows. But we didn’t, because that would have “gotten in the way of the Gospel,” or something like that.

In our book “Same-Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I suggest that in this brave new world we’ll need to be more creative. As a model, we point to Daniel, who was faced with two options: Eat the king’s meat or be killed. But Daniel came up with a third option, which allowed him to honor his commitment “not to defile himself with the king’s food” and still stay in the game and influence the power center of Babylon.

Have we really exhausted all of our other options? Have we even thought of all of our options? I don’t think so. Let’s stay in a while longer, pray for strength and wisdom, stand our ground on our convictions, and see what happens. When it’s time to go, we’ll know by the pushy state arm that will be squarely in the center of our backs.

John Stonestreet is a speaker and fellow of the Colson Center and, along with Eric Metaxas, host of BreakPoint Radio.  This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

Why We Must Defend Religious Liberty

In Appleton, Wisconsin, Marge Christensen labors tirelessly to share the Gospel. In her eighties, Marge is active in her church and has been promoting biblical citizenship for more than twenty years. She and her husband are ambassadors for the Alliance Defending Freedom and have been working lately to encourage churches to promote marriage with greater boldness.

Recently, Marge shared with a colleague of mine that churches do not seem to sense the urgency of teaching on matters of marriage, family and especially religious liberty.

Folks, that’s a problem.

A friend of mine, you may have heard of him, Rick Santorum, shares Marge’s concerns. After a long and illustrious career in politics, Rick has taken over as chief executive of EchoLight Studios with the goal of bringing top-notch and redemptive media to a darkened culture.

EchoLight’s latest documentary film, “One Generation Away,” draws its inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s famous inaugural address as California’s 33rd governor. In it, Reagan warned: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Several of the cases examined in the movie are familiar to us. There’s the decades-long battle to remove the large cross from the Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in San Diego. And then there’s the coercive healthcare mandate that sought to force businesses like Hobby Lobby to violate Christian conscience and pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

But what makes “One Generation Away” so interesting and valuable is that it interviews leaders on both sides of the issue. Along with a great cast of stalwart defenders of religious freedom like Mike Huckabee and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, you’ll hear from members of the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—people who are leading the crusade to restrict religious expression in public life.

And as I myself say in the film (and yes, I was privileged to take a part in it), to preserve our freedom we have to know what our liberties are and what they aren’t. And we have to defend them—and that requires knowing our opponents’ arguments and intentions.

Part of the task will be reminding our fellow Christians that we believers have full rights of citizenship. Too many of us have bought into the idea that religion is purely a private matter. God forbid! As Vincent Munoz of Notre Dame said so well in the film, “Just as other citizens can bring their convictions into the public square, religious citizens can and should bring their convictions into the public square. Don’t you lose your rights because you’re religious!”

Folks, the lesson of “One Generation Away” is that vigilance in defending our freedoms is not a one-time task, but a sacred trust that we pass from generation to generation.

This is why I hope you will get your church to host a screening of “One Generation Away”—and please get your friends and neighbors to attend. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. We’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can learn how your church can premiere the movie at no cost to you or your congregation.

Folks, we’ve got to do something. And this is something we can do. I hope you’ll do it.

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

The legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will have far-reaching, devastating and pernicious cultural consequences, including within our public schools. Here are some of the ineluctable changes in public education that Illinoisans can expect if “same-sex marriage” is legalized: 

1. If Illinois legalizes “same-sex marriage,” parents can expect elementary school teachers to include homosexuality in discussions of family and marriage. 
   
   
2. Elementary schools will not be able to keep picture books that portray homosexuality positively out of their libraries and classrooms. Those who still harbor the stereotype of librarians as conservative stuffed shirts will be surprised to learn that librarians and university programs in library science are, like teacher education programs, notoriously liberal.

   Ironically, the program one would most associate with diversity of thought and the free exploration of ideas has been actively promoting one set of ideas about homosexuality. The infamous American Library Association has been fervently soliciting homosexuality-affirming books from publishers while still making time to adopt formal positions on the legalization of same-sex marriage.
   
   Yes, picture books affirming homosexuality are already in many elementary school libraries, but there are libraries that have been able to keep them out. They just don’t purchase them. If Illinois changes marriage law to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, it will become more difficult for those communities that want to keep all images and ideas about homosexuality out of their schools to do so.
   
   Some make the absurd argument that since families led by homosexuals exist, schools must teach about them. The truth is, however, that schools have no obligation to teach about every phenomenon that exists, nor do they have to include resources that affirm every phenomenon that exists. Does anyone believe that if a student being raised by polyamorists were enrolled in a public elementary school, teachers or administrators would feel obligated to include books in their libraries that affirm polyamorous family structures? 

3. Public schools will be hiring teachers who are in legal “homosexual marriages.” These teachers will put photos of their homosexual spouses on their desks and talk about their homosexual spouses to their students. Such images and ideas coming from teachers whom children love and admire will powerfully shape the feelings and beliefs of young boys and girls, particularly when such images and ideas are reinforced countless times in other cultural contexts. Such images and ideas will undermine what is being taught at home.
   
   Some will argue that schools are already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, so the legalization of same-sex marriage won’t change anything. They are only partly correct. Although schools are, unfortunately, already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, once the government recognizes homosexual unions as marriages, administrators and school boards—particularly in elementary schools—will have the social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions knocked out from under them. And this, of course, is the chief motivation for homosexuals to pursue same-sex marriage when they already have all the benefits and privileges of marriage through Illinois’ civil union law. 
   
   
4. For years, activists within and without our public schools have been exploiting public education to advance their unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. This will continue and intensify whether or not we change our marriage laws. But changing our marriage laws will inarguably make it more difficult to keep Leftist ideas about homosexuality in general and marriage and family in particular out of our schools. Our youngest, most impressionable children will be taught both implicitly and explicitly the following lies,  and all resources that challenge these lies will be censored as hate-filled bigotry: 

• Children will be taught that homosexuality is normative and good. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and equally able to contribute to human flourishing. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that men and women are inherently indistinguishable (Ironically, this is at odds with what homosexuals in other contexts claim. When homosexual men and women say they are only attracted to persons of the same-sex, they are implicitly acknowledging the truth that men and women are inherently different and that those differences are not merely anatomical). 
  
  
• Children will be taught that either mothers or fathers are expendable. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to a child’s development. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that the government’s interest and involvement in marriage has nothing inherently to do with reproductive potential or the needs and rights of children. 
  
  
• Children will be taught in social studies classes that including sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage was a violation of the civil rights of those who wanted to marry someone of their same sex. 
  
  
• Children will be taught eventually that opposition to the legalization of “same-sex marriage” was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance and hatred. 

Already liberal “educators” exploit bullying-prevention programs, sex education, and English, social studies, and theater classes to advance their personal beliefs about homosexuality. We have lost sight of the truth that no arm of the government has the right to propagate non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality—including public schools. 

One word about public school teachers who profess to be Christians: You are not exempt from the obligation to speak truth simply because it may cost you personally or professionally. You have an obligation to stand for truth and to protect children. Recently theologian and pastor Peter Leithart wrote about the moral obligation pastors have to stand for truth on the issue of homosexuality. He wrote that if they are not willing to endure persecution on this subject, they should get out of the business. I would argue that this moral imperative applies to Christian teachers in public schools as well. And yes, you will be hated. 

Far too many Christian teachers in public schools have stood by silently as lies and political activism have infiltrated public schools through plays, novels, essays, magazine articles, films, guest speakers, anti-bullying resources, sex education, discussions of “family diversity,” picture books, and professional development activities. Their silence ensures that in coming years the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources will be greater, the suppression of dissenting ideas greater, and the oppression of conservative teachers greater. They need to ask themselves if there’s anything they’re willing to sacrifice to protect children from lies? 

There are several obstacles that serve to prevent the public from recognizing the educational consequences of redefining marriage. First, we are an intellectually lazy culture that doesn’t want to spend any time imagining the logical outcomes of ideas, policies and laws. 

Second, we are a cowardly bunch, unwilling to express counter-cultural ideas unless we’re guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. If we think that expressing our views to a teacher, administrator, school board, colleague, boss, friend, neighbor, member of our church, pastor, priest, lawmaker, or the local press will cost us anything, we choose self-censorship. Though the cost could be public excoriation, loss of employment, or a lawsuit, the cost we’re unwilling to pay is most often as trivial as having someone become angry with us. We should be ashamed of such cowardice. 

Anyone who proclaims that the redefinition of legal marriage will have no effect on the culture is either foolish or lying. Adopting what Robert George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis call the “revisionist view” of marriage will radically alter the cultural landscape in countless and profoundly harmful ways. 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.