If a woman decides to abort her child, but chooses to put the child up for adoption using an artificial womb, does that make it a pro-life decision? A challenging question to be sure. The very kind of issue that comes under scrutiny at The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (CBHD) in Deerfield, Illinois.

Several days ago, IFI published my first article on the subject of ectogenesis—enabling life to develop outside of a natural womb. Today, the conversation continues with Dr. Matthew Eppinette, the Executive Director of the CBHD.

When I asked him if the ectogenesis debate involves moral or ethical issues he simply replied, “Yes.” He noted that

the important thing is that in both [moral and ethical] we are concerned about how to live, which, as theologian James William McClendon said, “is a question no one can escape.”

Dr. Eppinette read the article I sent to him titled, “Artificial Wombs will Change Abortion Rights Forever.” He was impressed that the writer did a good job of working through various scenarios. Despite a more generally liberal slant to the publication Wired, he felt they offered strong questions about the headline they chose.

Will artificial wombs change abortion rights forever? Doubtful. As Dr. Eppinette says, “Perhaps most women would be unwilling to have their unborn child placed in an artificial womb rather than continue their pregnancy.” He adds, “Technological advances do change ethical conversations simply by creating additional options.”

The Wired article makes clear that ectogenesis will not ultimately upend abortion debates.

Okay, but… could ectogenesis advance the cause of the pro-life community? Or might it work against us? Dr. Eppinette is concerned that by embracing the ectogenesis technologies as an alternative to abortion, we might be alienating human beings from one another.

How so? We might find ourselves leaning heavily “into cultural narratives of radical individual autonomy rather than acknowledging the deep dependence that human beings have on one another.” That would likely happen no matter how much we might want to avoid acknowledging it.

He cites on this point Carter Snead’s book What It Means to be Human. This work considers the “Virtues of Acknowledged Dependence”—things like justice, generosity, hospitality, compassion, gratitude, humility, and openness, among others.

Dr. Eppinette explains that caring well for mother and child both during pregnancy and long after, are “far more important to pro-life work than technological solutions.” And thus we see why, like most issues surrounding “life,” complexity remains.

But how might this birthing option change opportunities for parents hoping to adopt? In other words, some women might choose to forego abortion and instead transfer the baby into an artificial womb so that someone could adopt the baby. To which Dr. Eppinette replied,

It does not seem possible to know whether or how often that might happen, but I am skeptical that this will be a frequently chosen path.

Finally, I asked if the CBHD has a position paper on ectogenesis. While they do not, Dr. Eppinette recommended this 2021 article: “Artificial Wombs: A Theological-Ethical Analysis about Partial Ectogenesis.”

In reading the aforementioned article, one paragraph personally troubled me. A reference was made to a 1971 essay on A Defense of Abortion by philosopher Judith Thompson. She argued this:

That even if a fetus is a person at the moment of conception, a woman’s bodily autonomy…means that it is morally acceptable to remove the fetus from her body. The ensuing death of the fetus is an inevitable consequence of ending the pregnancy, rather than the woman’s intention. This means that abortion is more an act of self-defense on the woman’s part than an intentional killing.

My, what ludicrous lengths we will go to to justify our actions. And to attempt to absolve ourselves of the guilt that often results.

Those who seek the wisdom of the Divine should consider these words in Job 10:11-12: “You clothed me with skin and flesh, and you knit my bones and sinews together. You gave me life and showed me your unfailing love. My life was preserved by your care.” (NLT)

May those who love God be of like mind and do the work of preserving life.

The website CBHD.org offers a wealth of information on a wide variety of bioethical issues.

Our culture deals with the pervasive sin of sexual immorality to the point where many people just view sex outside of marriage (in every way possible) as “normal.”

It’s a serious problem, and the root of a lot of the current cultural chaos.

At Illinois Family Institute’s 2023 Worldview Conference, Dr. John Diggs spoke on “The Consequences of Sexual Immorality.” He does a deep dive into the consequences of sexual immorality, including STD’s, why it’s such big deal, and how the confusion about gender increases unbiblical disorder.

Please watch and share!

Sometimes our pro-life arguments can become overcomplicated by statistics, rabbit-trails, and long rebuttals to straw-man arguments from the other side. We want to defend the pro-life position with everything we can muster, but sometimes it seems like we must have an answer to every argument from a pro-abortionist to properly defend life.

Fortunately, that is not true. All we need to know in order to effectively engage is a simple syllogism and three questions, which you can find here:

In this video, Scott Klusendorf, a pro-life speaker and author with the Life Training Institute, speaks at Illinois Family Institute’s 2023 Worldview Conference on “The Issue of Abortion” and what we need to engage.

You’ll want to re-watch this multiple times, both for the instructive content and humor!

Americans are big on choice. We can choose restaurants, automobiles, our clothing, and even where to live. We can make good choices and bad choices. Our prisons are packed with those who’ve chosen the wrong path. Leaders in government often make us wonder, “What were they thinking?”

One of the saddest of choices millions of Americans have made is the decision to terminate a human life through abortion. In bizarre fashion, we even call this a “pro-choice” decision. Frightening.

The progressive “choice” crowd is always looking for an out—a way to justify the gruesomeness of killing a baby. But there is a secondary issue at play in the discussion: the term “unwanted pregnancy.” This raises the question, what if there were a way for a woman to end her pregnancy without ending the life of the child?

Sound a bit twisted? I recently came across an article describing the growing interest in ectogenesis. It was in an April 2023 edition of Wired magazine and titled, “Artificial Wombs will Change Abortion Rights Forever.” Now THAT caught my attention.

To get a better grasp on the subject, I contacted Dr. Matthew Eppinette, director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. He graciously provided helpful answers to several of my questions.

Before we discuss “artificial wombs,” you should know a bit about the CBHD’s work. Dr. Eppinette explains,

CBHD addresses a full range of bioethics issues—what to pursue and what not pursue when it comes to matters of life and health. Said simply, issues involved in Taking Life, Making Life, Sustaining Life, and Faking Life.

Obviously, “Making Life” issues include questions arising from reproductive technologies that allow for the creation of human life in laboratory settings. Thus this issue of artificial wombs (ectogenesis) is in their wheelhouse.

Dr. Eppinette explains,

Ectogenesis is the process of gestating a baby outside the body of a woman. To some degree, a version of ectogenesis occurs in IVF (In Vitro Fertilization), where eggs are fertilized in Petri dishes and allowed to develop briefly before being transferred into a woman’s uterus, placed into frozen storage, or discarded. In general, though, ectogenesis has to do with bringing a child toward full term in some technological device, outside of a womb.

Stages of this are currently being done. Most labs hold to the “14-day rule,” which forbids keeping human embryos alive in laboratories for more than 14 days.” Dr. Eppinette notes, however, there is increasing pressure “to extend the 14-day rule to 21 or even 28 or more days.”

Some of the experimenting has been done on lambs showing that a developing lamb fetus can be removed from the ewe’s uterus and gestated in an artificial womb until ready for birth. A gap exists between 14 or so days and several weeks in humans. So, to Dr. Eppinette’s knowledge, this line has not yet been crossed. Thus, no successful removal from an animal embryo from conception to birth has taken place entirely in an external womb. That, by defintion, is ectogenesis.

But wait…there must be some positive, real-life value to this “technology.” And there is. Dr. Eppinette offers this scenario. Consider a child being born very prematurely. (No child has survived in under 21 weeks of gestation). In this case, the baby spends weeks to months undergoing very intensive care. This child often faces significant developmental delays and even continued challenges throughout life.

However, a child reaching 18-24 weeks gestation could be transferred into an artificial womb. This would allow the baby to continue to develop for several more weeks before being fully delivered. Dr. Eppinette terms this “partial ectogenesis” and would be the most likely scenario in which this will be used.

But like any emerging technology, there are downsides. Among them, as Dr. Eppinette explains,

are all of the unknowns that go on between the body of the mother and the body of the child during pregnancy. We are only at the beginning of understanding the interplay between the two bodies and perhaps even more, between the mother’s body and the child’s mental and emotional development.

There’s more to be said on this. My next blog will include Dr. Eppinette’s answer on “will artificial wombs change abortion rights forever.”

For now, let’s ponder in amazement what King David wrote in Psalm 139, “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”  Verse 14 (ESV)

For more information, contact The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity.

Parenting is tough. Aside from having to keep little people (often with sizeable attitudes) alive, parents are also entrusted with the responsibility of training their child in the way he (or she) should go – so that they love the Lord and live it out.

That last one is difficult and can easily fall by the wayside. So whether you’re a new parent who’s struggling, or a confident experienced parent, this sermon by Dr. Rob Reinow from Visionary Family Ministries is a must-see.

Focusing on Deuteronomy 6:5-9, he shares how God created and designed discipleship to take place inside the home and the when and how for parents to instruct their children.

It’s incredibly helpful for parents from any walk of life – give it a watch and share it with parents and grandparents in your circle!

I grew up as a “Cashew.” For those who are unfamiliar with that term, a “cashew” is a person with one Catholic parent and one Jewish parent. Though in my case, neither of my parents practiced their respective faiths very often.

I distinctly remember when I was a child, my mother taking me to church a couple of times on Christmas Eve for midnight Mass. On Jewish holidays, I’d sometimes go over to a cousin’s house the day after Yom Kippur to “break the fast” (even though we never actually fasted…but that was not brought up).

That was the extent of my religious upbringing. I lived as a pagan for the first 22 years of my life.

When the Lord radically saved me in August 2002 through a Bible study with a Korean missionary, I had a very strong desire to share the gospel with everyone I knew, especially the Jewish side of my family because I knew that they outright rejected Jesus as Messiah. One day, early on in my walk with the Lord, I read the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:16,

…I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile.

I was struck that the verse talks about both sides of my family, and since it says, “to the Jew first,” I decided that my dad’s side would be the ones upon whom I would focus my early evangelistic zeal. Though sometimes that zeal was mixed with a certain youthful lack of wisdom, it was always with the intention to see my family come to faith in Christ.

Romans 1:16 is a fascinating verse because it contains Paul’s own “Ordo Missionis” – his Order of Missions. A further study of the Book of Acts confirms this, because even though the mighty Apostle says in Romans 11:13 that he was commissioned as the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” whenever he traveled on his missionary journeys, he went to the synagogue first to preach Jesus to the Jews (See: Acts 13:5, 13:14, 14:1, 17:1-2, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4-5, 18:19, 19:8, 21:27, and 28:17-30).

For Paul, preaching the Good News of the Risen Messiah to his kinsman was his priority for two reasons. First, because of his love for his people and deep desire for them to know the Messiah, whom he had previously fought so hard against. And Second, because Paul was convinced that their salvation would mean “life from the dead” (Rom 11:15).

These simple Bible truths drove my own passion as well. So then, even within Paul’s own ministry in Acts, he always went to the Jew first. Think about that. The Apostle to the Gentiles always went into the synagogue in every town to preach to the Gospel to the Jewish people. Paul’s ministry should be an example to us, but I don’t think his pattern of evangelism happens much anymore.

To be sure, “to the Jew first” certainly doesn’t mean “to the Jew last” or “to the Jew never.” Jewish ministry is important to God. Jesus says, “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few, therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest field.”

There is a great need for Christians to have a heart to share the Gospel with Jews. There are indeed very few missionaries to Jewish people, and what has happened as a result is that the Jewish people today, en masse, are like sheep without a shepherd. I have done Jewish missions work in some capacity for almost 20 years, but the Jewish people are still mostly an “unreached” people group, even in America.

As hard as that may be to believe, consider this: how many Jewish missionaries does your church support? Perhaps you DO have one or two, and that’s great! But then my follow up question is, how often to YOU personally share the Gospel? To the Jew first and also to the Gentile – that was Paul’s order of missions.

What is yours?

I am writing this article to encourage my brothers and sisters to have a heart for their Jewish neighbor, and witness to them in a loving, sensitive, and appropriate way. Not boasting over those branches that were cut off, but pleading with them to be grafted back in. They need the Good News! They need to hear that Jesus the Messiah of Israel has come, and He has opened heaven to all who believe in Him, through his atoning death and resurrection. Keith Green, my favorite Jewish singer once sang:

“Oh, bless me, Lord! Bless me, Lord!” You know, it’s all I ever hear! No one aches. No one hurts. No one even sheds one tear. But, He cries, He weeps, He bleeds. And He cares for your needs. And you just lay back and keep soaking it in.

Oh, can’t you see such sin?! ‘Cause He brings people to your door, and you turn them away, as you smile and say: “God bless you! Be at peace!” And all Heaven just weeps ’cause Jesus came to your door. You left Him out on the streets…

I certainly don’t want to be that kind of Christian, yet I still see so much of it in me. So much selfishness, so much fear, so much navel-gazing, so much laziness…God have mercy. But how can I stay silent? My Jewish neighbors need Jesus! There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved!

I am going to go out into the mission field with a renewed sense of love and compassion for my people. Will you join me? Open your mouth and share the Gospel with your Jewish neighbor today. Don’t be afraid! Listen to Paul who says, “follow me as I follow Christ!”

O Zion, You who bring good tidings, Get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, You who bring good tidings, Lift up your voice with strength, Lift it up, be not afraid; Say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” –Isaiah 40:9

Protect Children & Taxpayers From Radical Gender Ideology

On May 15, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced two bills to the U.S. Senate—one that would prohibit federal funds from supporting gender transition procedures, and another that would altogether ban such procedures on minors.

These bills are so radical in light of contemporary opinion, yet so simple and straightforward in achieving their goals, that when I read their respective texts, I was awed that the U.S. Senate still contains the type of statesman who will stand for the truth in this way.

And Marshall isn’t alone; co-sponsoring one or both of these bills are U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Lee (R-UT), Markwayne Mulllin (R-OK), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

On the one hand, the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1595) would prohibit several of the current ways that federal dollars can fund gender transition procedures. Under this bill’s provisions, federal funds may not directly fund gender transition therapy or surgery. Neither may they be shuttled into health care plans that include such practices in their coverage.

Further still, no health care service that is furnished by a physician employed by the federal government or even furnished in a facility owned by the federal government may provide gender transition procedures.

The bill does clarify that non-federal health care providers would be free to provide such treatment, and that customers would still be free to seek out separate (non-federal) plans that cover such treatment should they want it. Yet, the federal government must stay out of it.

On the other hand, the Protecting Children From Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1597) takes it a step further when dealing with minors; it would ban gender transition procedures for minors in almost all cases—excepting rare medical situations. Under its provisions, any physical or mental healthcare professional would be fined (or face up to five years in prison) for performing or even referring a gender transition procedure.

The bill makes sure to clarify that minors may not be prosecuted for receiving such treatment; however, recipients of the treatment are allowed to bring civil action for relief against the physician who performed it.

Marshall and his colleagues’ stand for the truth deserves three whole-hearted cheers. They are daring to suggest that physicians performing supposedly “essential” gender transition care should be imprisoned! While it seems harsh, it is not any less harsh than the “care” they are purporting to provide—nothing less than a 21st-century version of the self-mutilation practiced in pagan rites for millennia, an abomination which defiles God’s created order bestowed to each one of us since our conception.

Now, it’s one thing to sit back and cheer for U.S. Senators who are willing to take stands like this, drawing clear lines between black and white in a world filled with multitudinous shades of grey. But politics is not a spectator sport. “The people” are more than just the hypothetical but fictitious “12th man” on the football team. “The people” send the players onto the field, tell them how to play, and recall them when they don’t do their jobs right.

Many of Marshall’s colleagues are assuredly shocked at his audacious proposal. But it’s audacious when viewed from a worldview that presupposes society has already settled the question—or at least the toleration—of gender transition procedures.

Thankfully, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) has introduced the same legislation in the U.S. House (H.R. 3328 and H.R. 3329), which has 40 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Mike Bost and Mary Miller from southern Illinois.

If we all called or emailed our representatives right now and let them know that we—their very own constituents—agree with Marshall’s stand for the truth, the excuses to dismiss his position as audacious and radical, will start disappearing. Let them know that you sent them on to the field to represent you, and you will not tolerate government support of lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to ask them to support or even co-sponsor these two bills. Impressionable children should not be making life-altering, body-mutilating decisions about their sexuality and adults should not be pushing woke sexual anarchy either.

U.S. Representative LaMalfa rightly points out in his press release,

let kids be kids and wait until adulthood to make a choice they likely wish they hadn’t as a child. Adults and the medical field shouldn’t be allowed to coerce this “woke” agenda onto them when they should be their protectors. Adults need to realize that their coercion is abuse, and should face appropriate consequences.

Nothing opens your mind to new worlds and new possibilities better than a book. Stories can communicate ideas, themes, and lessons considerably better than a lecture does. Children love to act out the stories of their favorite characters, adopting their mannerisms and wishing to be them. You probably can think of a book that has impacted you deeply and maybe even encouraged you to change your behavior in some manner.

Stories are incredibly powerful, sometimes bringing about great change in a culture.

Throughout history, various groups and organizations have banned books for a myriad of reasons: they were deemed inappropriate or immoral, the ideas proliferated were considered dangerous or heretical, or a tyrant thought they would stir up unrest and opposition to his rule.

Book banning is not a good thing. Because of the innate sinfulness of humanity, banning one book opens the door for unjust people or groups to ban anything they choose.

Lately, so-called book banning has been forefront in the news; a story complicated by the narrative the media is spinning. In 2020, when everything shut down due to Covid, public schooling moved to Zoom, and parents could see what their children were being taught and the material they were assigned, including the books their kids were reading.

At some point during all of this, it was discovered that there are books in elementary through high school libraries that are highly pornographic. This is not an exaggeration. If you don’t believe me, watch this video posted by a concerned mother  (WARNING: graphic content).

Understandably, parents began forming groups to advocate for having more of a say in what their children are learning in public schools and began rightly contesting books such as Gender Queer, All Boys aren’t Blue, and Lawn Boy, reading them out loud at school board meetings, requesting that schools remove them from their libraries, and asking that they provide age-appropriate reading material only.

Now the media is attacking parents and parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty. The story is being framed to make it look like these parents are trying to ban books because they are bigots who don’t want their children exposed to “diverse” ideas. They’re comparing concerned parents to Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984 (which is ironic, since in 1984 it was Big Brother that was providing people with porn).

Without coming right out and saying it, they’re purporting that schools should have these books in their libraries precisely because parents don’t want their kids to read them. The idea seems to be, “What if those poor kids feel uncomfortable with who they are and need a place to express themselves and learn about every aspect of the LGBTQIA agenda without the involvement of their mean, strict parents?”

Not only is this a twisted spin on the facts, but it is a downright lie. Banning a book means that the book is banned. It’s illegal to buy, sell, read, or own, and anyone caught with it would face punishment. That isn’t what these parents are requesting. Asking that a book be removed from a school library because of inappropriate content doesn’t vilify the parent.

Similarly, we wouldn’t blame a parent for taking a phone away from their child who is doing things he or she isn’t supposed to with it. Children aren’t allowed to go to tattoo parlors or tanning salons, and we rate movies based on the content because there are things children (and people in general) should not see.

Requesting only age-appropriate content in public schools doesn’t constitute a ban.

Much of the reasoning behind the media’s spin of the story is because most, if not all, of the contested books are LGBTQIA+ related. Our culture is obsessed with self– personal autonomy, total unrestricted freedom, and the pursuit of making oneself happy. It’s a worldview that says, “Anything goes, but if you get in the way of my anything, you need to go.”

But freedom in this world isn’t unlimited. Free societies still have laws and legal consequences for breaking them because people do bad things. If those things were allowed to continue without repercussions, society would collapse. Insisting on having the freedom to gratify the desires of the flesh ends up in slavery to death and eternal destruction.

The backbone of true freedom is Biblical morality.

Some things absolutely should be illegal. In reality, the LGBTQIA+ movement has to do with a grotesque focus on sex. It’s openly targeting children, who, be they seven or seventeen, ought to be guarded against, not exposed to pornography. Adults shouldn’t be filling their minds with it either.

Stories have the power to change minds, for good or for evil. Requesting that a school provide only age-appropriate material is a good thing, and very different from book banning.

The problem of child sexual abuse in the United States is far greater than most people realize. Sixty million American adults are sexual abuse survivors. Twenty percent of us. Thirty-nine million of the victims were abused before turning twelve years old. Because most of them will never tell anyone about their experiences, the scope of the problem remains largely a hidden evil.

One in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before reaching eighteen.

Why is so little being done to stop it?

During the 70’s and early 80’s I worked for the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission, eventually becoming the Chief Investigator. More commonly known as the Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, the agency was created to attack organized crime and official misconduct. Because of that focus, we were directed to investigate the rising instances of child pornography and child prostitution that we were seeing throughout the country.

It was well known that vice activities were dominated by organized crime. So it stood to reason that the outfit was responsible for sexually exploiting growing numbers of children as well. That theory proved to be untrue.

Ninety percent of abuse victims are abused by someone they know. Sixty percent are abused by a family member. Almost twelve percent of students who graduate from high school are victims of educator sexual misconduct sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade. The mob was not behind it.

The sexual exploitation of children turned out to be something beyond what anybody thought.

Our investigation uncovered a range of horrors none of our investigators ever expected and it led to an almost eight-year investigation into every aspect of the issue—the victims, the families, the perpetrators, the social service agencies, the health workers, the police and detectives, the prosecutors, the entire judicial system. It was all a mess. Nothing worked smoothly. There was little or no cooperation or coordination between and among agencies. Every facet of the system was riddled with incompetence and indifference.

There is no easy solution.

We contacted every police department in the state and interviewed scores of detectives about sex abuse cases they handled. What became very clear immediately was most detectives did not like being assigned these cases. A downstate detective told me one time he heard over the radio the call come in about a child being sexually abused. Immediately, he said, he hid under his desk until the supervisor assigned it to someone else.

The cases were depressing, even more so than homicides. And because the conviction rates were so poor and because they sometimes involved prominent people in the community, they were seen as career killers. Today, these cases generally are handled by specialists. But there are not enough of them.

As a way to improve the overall system, we drafted the initial enabling legislation for what has now become known as the Child Advocacy Centers. There were none back then. Today there are over 800 around the country and, for a time, they were performing a coordinating function that was very effective. Based on indicators I’ve seen recently, I am not sure that is true anymore. In Illinois they seemed to have lost touch with the original intended purpose. I have seen a similar erosion of purpose in other states as well.

During the 70’s, prosecutors were reluctant to take on cases involving child sexual abuse because convictions were hard to get. That remains the situation today. Prosecutors often take plea deals that don’t involve the perpetrator admitting to a sex offense. Or, they agree to a less serious offense that has less jail time.

Social workers for DCFS and contract agencies remain ill equipped to handle any serious cases as they remain hamstrung by rules that prevent adequate triaging of the caseload. Often, then and now, they will spend more time on easy cases where parents and caretakers are cooperative, than they will on much more serious cases where the parents actively resist and evade the caseworkers.

You would think that at least the health care workers would be universally committed to the protection of children. Not always. They generally are pretty good at reporting suspected cases of abuse, at least physical abuse. But underage girls who are pregnant sometimes are not reported as victims of abuse, despite the prima facia evidence that the child was sexually abused. Children legally cannot give consent.

In some cases, health workers help arrange, or provide, abortions without notifying the police, DCFS or any other official.

This is also sometimes true when there is evidence boys have been sexually abused, and the boys refuse to cooperate.

No report.

When a case overcomes all the hurdles, and the prosecutor secures a conviction, there is no guarantee justice will be served. Too often, judges minimize the sentencing.

Recently, a teacher in Michigan engaged in sexual intercourse repeatedly over several months with her 13-year-old student. She was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, for which she could have received life imprisonment. She was sentenced to 3 to 20 years. Period. She probably will be out much earlier. She’s not the only one. It’s the same as it was 50 years ago.

In the 70’s, one of our first cases involved a man who was sexually abusing a girl for three years, starting when she was 6. We got him cold on child pornography charges and he gave a full confession. He was sentenced to five years.

Pathetic.

Those immersed in the system know all this is true, but for one reason or another are not inclined to do anything about it. Those outside the system are largely oblivious, and very often want to remain ignorant.

This leaves our next generation condemned to evade the predators as best they can largely on their own. The consequences? More and more children will become victims of child sexual abuse. In thirty years maybe there will be 90 million adult survivors. By then, twenty five percent of us?

Unless we step up and start doing something much more effective, the numbers are going to keep growing.

(Next time, some things that are working and what you can do.)

March 22nd was a very difficult day for me. It has taken some time for me to even be able to write meaningfully about the “event” of that day. We bade a not-so-fond-farewell to our treasured rat terrier, Pepito. My buddy. My blessed companion. He needed to go. His last days were very difficult. He died in my arms. And I wept.

One of the lesser known songs from years past in Christian radio is titled, “Goldie’s Last Day.” It’s from a 1993 album by the same title from a group called PFR (Pray for Rain.) Here’s the first verse:

Puppy love, puppy love
Yes, she gave all she had
Not like a brother or sister
More like a Mom or a Dad
We never asked her, never gave her a choice
We just barked out commands
Sit, Stay, Don’t beg
Stop licking my hands
Those days are gone now
I wish Goldie could come out and play
Goldie’s last day, Goldie’s last day

Anyone who has lost a beloved pet knows the pain that death brings. And we try to cope in many different ways. One of the more misguided of our efforts is to claim our pet has “crossed over ‘the Rainbow Bridge’.”

It’s suggested that the pet Rainbow Bridge idea may be connected to the Bifröst bridge of Norse Mythology. There, the idea is presented that a rainbow bridge reaches between Midgard (Earth) and Asgard, the realm of the gods.

Then there’s a book called Beautiful Joe’s Paradise by Margaret Marshall Saunders. In this work, we find pets awaiting their owners in a grassland. In this “divine” location, they offer help so others can heal from cruelty endured during their earthly lives. No mention is made of a “Rainbow Bridge,” however.

Instead, the idea apparently derived from a poem by Paul C. Dahm. This man was a grief counselor in Oregon. The Rainbow Bridge poem was originally composed in prose style. Here’s a sampling:

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

To use another animal reference, “Hogwash!” The Rainbow Bridge is a nice sentiment perhaps. But written only to comfort humans of their loss. There’s no sniffing in the meadows of the afterlife for animals. Because they have no afterlife.

Think about it. If the Rainbow Bridge existed, do we really want to see alligators, coyotes, lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) crossing over? I doubt even cats would participate in the crossing. Way too independent!

Now there may well be a complete set of animals in the new creation. (Avoid the dinosaurs, please.) What makes mankind unique from all other creatures put on earth by God is that we are made in His Image. Homo sapiens are the only known species in creation who can respond to God by learning to love Him “with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” (Mark 12:30-31, NLT)

There is simply no biblical support for the idea that animals have souls that move into eternity. I wish they did. (Well, maybe not one of the dogs I had.) I thought my little Pepito was one of the sweetest dogs to ever walk the planet. I am grateful for the blessing he was in my life and how much joy he brought to our family. Parting was so much more than sweet sorrow.

People also often say that humans become angels when we die. No we don’t. Jesus answered the Sadducees on a marriage question by telling them in heaven we will be “like angels,” not that we become angels. They’re a different breed in God’s creation.

Related to that, in the passing of a loved one you might hear, “God must have needed another angel.” Not true. God has all the angels He needs.

Friend, do not fret over the eternity of saved souls. God’s future Kingdom will be so grand and glorious you will bask in the Light of His very Presence. Let that assurance be your comfort in all loss. And be thankful for the animal friends God blessed you with. Farewell, my little Pepito.

Things are truly upside-down. Christians, who have been scorned forever as weak and milk-toast, are suddenly public enemy number one. And while Christianity has been the source of thousands of American charities and the inspiration for hospitals, medical care, and education worldwide, it is now labeled by the Left as hateful and bigoted. Then we see destructive anarchist groups like Antifa and BLM glorified in the Media and academia as forces for good! How could this be?

The Left has had an advantage over conservatives in shaping the public’s perception of things for many years because they have controlled the narrative. They have presented themselves as caring and compassionate, sympathetic to the poor and the disadvantaged. And, because of the Christian ideal of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we have accepted that maybe they were truly concerned for those who are less advantaged.

However, because Leftists now have so much power, they no longer feel the need to hide their true objective. They seek political dominance and the elimination of Christianity in all public forums and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals. They have portrayed themselves as selfless champions of the downtrodden, and conservatives as greedy. However, we must no longer tolerate that narrative. It is a lie, and their duplicity is clear to all whose eyes are open.

Leftists have done well at creating the perception that they are not in politics for money, thus masking their greed. But make no mistake! They are as greedy as one can be. However, if you have enough power, you do not need personal wealth because you control other peoples’ money.

With the power to tax, politicians can live as if they are wealthy by legally confiscating and spending other people’s money. Creating wealth is difficult and requires certain skills and discipline. But if you are not talented in this area and are lazy and unethical, politics provides you with a vehicle to achieve your dreams without the hard work and risk that capital creation requires.

What we have seen over the last 60 years is the Left demonizing those who create wealth in order to justify confiscating it.

At the same time, the leftists, who disdain wealth creators, have convinced the public that they (the Leftists) are better and more selfless stewards of that wealth. Thus, we have people who are incapable of creating wealth, taking it from those who do and spending it according to their own desires and accruing to themselves more power in the process. It is interesting how many politicians have become multimillionaires even as they denounce those who created the wealth in the first place.

We are now governed by people who have no idea how to create or wisely manage wealth, and whose real motivation is that of controlling the rest of us. They are the embodiment of greed. They are concerned primarily for themselves and serve others only as a means of accruing power and wealth to themselves.

While one would expect that they would alienate most everyone because of their greed, they have managed to gain a substantial following among three groups who sustain them in power: those who are content to take a handout and produce nothing, those who are genuinely needy and have become dependent upon the politicians, and a third group who are equally cynical and see an opportunity to accrue some personal power and prestige by supporting the Leftists and their sordid process.

Sadly, the Media, whose primary responsibility is to hold public figures accountable, cover for their corruption. There is no way to describe it other than that of non-producers stealing and controlling what the producers have created. They are truly parasitic.

This brings us to the very important question: what does the Bible say about all this?  As “pilgrims” here are we to be compliant and silent? Compassion and generosity are certainly Christian values! But as an aside, let us put to rest the nostrum that Leftism is compassionate. It decidedly is not! After decades of the federal government spending literally trillions of dollars on numerous supposedly compassionate programs, the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless.

If these programs are as bad as they appear, we should turn our attention to their impact on society in general and on those who contribute. Is it moral to confiscate resources from those who create and earn it only to squander it on ineffective programs? I believe the evidence suggests that the exorbitant taxation upon the middle and upper classes in America over the last 50 years has been both immoral and counterproductive.

So, what does the Bible teach about such things? One need not be a Bible scholar to know that stealing is wrong. Therefore, without having good reason the government should not take from one citizen to give to another. Having the government’s imprimatur does not change the reality that transferring wealth from earners to non-earners without Constitutional authority is theft.  The right to personal property guaranteed in the Constitution is not simply to provide for an individual’s greed, but rather to protect his life.

Unprotected property rights place every citizen’s life at risk. If the government can take, at will, one’s wealth, it can starve that person to death. And the fact that even after trillions of dollars have been transferred, primarily from earners to non-earners, there are still many millions in poverty underscores the need to rethink our “compassionate” welfare system. As constructed, it is a colossal failure.

Foundational to the issue is the fact that government is incapable of ministering compassion. It must fall to other social institutions and organizations, such as churches, to resolve the poverty problem.

The Bible notes that “wisdom is justified of her children,” (Luke 7:35), meaning that the wisdom of an act is revealed by its consequences; and Jesus stated that “a tree is known by its fruit,” (Luke 6:44). Therefore, if a particular activity repeatedly produces bad results one can assume the act is foolish and ought to be discontinued. One’s intentions mean nothing in this.

While the Left burnishes their “compassion badges,” boasting of how much they care, virtually everything they have done for over fifty years has produced nothing but heartache, misery, poverty and increased public unrest. It cannot be ignored that as Christianity has been pushed to the fringes of society there have been tragic increases in crime, depression, suicide, divorce, sexual perversion, and confusion.

Setting aside for the moment those who cannot provide for themselves, the Bible is very clear that anyone who refuses to work should not eat. Witness the sorry tales of so many lottery winners to understand that we do not do well with unearned wealth! Therefore, government should do nothing to facilitate a comfortable life for those unwilling to work. Sources, secular and sacred, confirm that generally, those who are diligent, disciplined, and work hard do not go hungry.

Scriptures tell us that God gives rain to those who love Him and those who don’t. He is gracious! This does not mean that His provision will always be abundant. We should all be grateful to him for his care and provision for us whether it be modest or abundant. It may be that one of our biggest errors, culturally, is that we have raised a generation of Americans who believe they are owed a rich and comfortable existence even though they have done little or nothing productive. To give it to them would be immoral and destructive!

Colonial Jamestown, VA scholar, Martha McCartney, wrote in Encyclopedia Virginia, (Dec 7, 2020) that Captain John Smith, early President of the colony, would have nothing of slothfulness, declaring that

“the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine a hundred and fiftie idle loyterers.”

Whatever his motives, it is quite clear that his stubbornness preserved lives. Very few died under his leadership while a large number perished under the leadership of his successor who was not so strict. As McCartney noted,

“Regardless of whether Smith recognized this fact, he found that even small amounts of work improved both the material life and health of the colonists.”

These realities are so obvious that no politician can honestly deny them. To create a public welfare system where productivity and hard work are discouraged by the government’s confiscation of wealth from producers to distribute it to those who are unwilling to work is simply immoral and will, if not corrected, contribute to the collapse of the entire economy. It is impossible for our politicians not to understand this, therefore, we need no longer accept the notion that they are well-intentioned but misguided.

No, they are simply greedy, either for money or power, or both. They are snakes in the grass who ought to be exposed for what they are. Their programs have produced virtually nothing of value and instead an abundance of suffering.

In seeking a biblical perspective, the faithful Christian should consider two primary principles: First is his responsibility to the poor. Numerous biblical texts in both Old and New Testaments give God’s answer. On one hand, Christ Himself noted that, “the poor you have with you always.” This is merely a sad acknowledgement of reality. People are poor for a variety of reasons, many of which are intractable.

This must not be construed as cause for doing nothing. Many Christians and others have seen the impossibility of eliminating poverty as cause for discouragement and apathy.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that while we may not be able to do much about poverty across the globe, we can do something about people in need who cross our paths regularly. Therefore, the Christian ought to be known for wise generosity: encouraging work for those able, and compassionate giving to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Which leads to the second principle: Just as it is wrong to ignore genuine need, it is wrong to indulge the indolent. The Scriptures teach that if a man refuses to work, he should not be given food. It is for his own betterment that others refuse to support him in his slothful choices. He will gain more than a meal when he learns the value of hard work.

America is at a fork in the road. Will we return to the imperfections, yet relative goodness of a society guided by the principles and truths of Christianity and the Bible, or adopt Marxism and fall back into the despotism and misery that has otherwise characterized human history from its beginnings?

The choice seems pretty clear to me!

God is loving, we are told, and thus accepts us as we are.  The idea that God will judge people for their sins is now so unpopular that few are willing to state it publicly, and many pastors have sadly bowed to the pressure to present a palatable God, a doting “Grandpa” who silently approves of His children regardless of their conduct.

If you have been caught up in this heresy, I warn you to retreat to truth.  God not only has a much higher standard of righteousness than we do, His standard is absolute perfection!

Many years ago, I spoke with a friend, a biblical counselor, regarding the problem of perfectionism.  We have all dealt with perfectionists.  They can be demanding at times!  Maybe you are one!  My friend noted sternly that only God has the right to be a perfectionist for He alone is perfect!

Most of us are not perfectionists, but therein lies a different problem.  Because we do not demand perfection from others (how could we as often as we fail?), we assume that God does not demand perfection from us.  But He does!  Matthew 5:48 reads, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (KJV). No, He does not expect perfection immediately, but do not confuse His patience with tolerance.   At some point, we will be brought individually to account for every time we fail to match His perfect righteousness and holiness.   That ought to be very troubling to us!

God’s perfection is related to, among other things, His holiness, righteousness, and justice.  In all of His eternal existence God has never varied from absolute perfection.  He has never erred in even the smallest way.  And being Creator and Steward of the universe, He takes responsibility for everything that happens within its boundaries, which means that we all must live by His rules.

Our failure to match God’s perfections has an important moral element.  It is not just that we are not as strong or intelligent as God is, we adamantly refuse to do His will!  Every human act is tainted by self-will rather than God service.  Scriptures declare that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,” (Jer. 17:9, NKJV).  The sad tale of mankind’s history is sufficient proof of this!  Everything we do is unsatisfactory to God!

Some philosophers have reasoned that God is so great that He is indifferent to what we do.  We neither add to Him nor take away from Him and thus we need not concern ourselves with the issue of our sinfulness.  It does seem unreasonable (to us) that God would care about what insignificant beings like us do.  However, it is due to His infiniteness that these things do matter.  Acts large or small to us are identical in scale to Him.  His infiniteness extends both directions on the linear scale.

God is not just infinitely greater than we humans. As Creator and Sustainer of the universe, He has the moral responsibility to separate from and condemn all who fall short of His holy perfections.  He commands, “Be holy for I am holy!”  Lest I be misunderstood, God cannot wink at human moral failure, which Scripture labels as sin.  It is in His eternal constitution to repudiate everything that fails to conform to His holiness.  He cannot soften His wrath against it.

In the same way that a company is responsible for the conduct of its employees, God is ultimately responsible for what transpires on planet Earth.  Ironically, while He hates wickedness, and has gone to great lengths to expose and oppose it, He is often blamed for the evils that sinners perpetrate day-after-day contrary to His will and word!  Because of His grace He is willing to “take the blame” for the moment but understand that such an injustice must and will be corrected.  He is blameless!

As Creator He is owed love, allegiance, and submission, yet people have thumbed their noses at Him and rejected His authority and His call on their lives.  Mankind’s failure is not only a matter of quantity, it is a failure of quality.  It is not that He expects us to accomplish ABC and we are only able to do A and B.  Rather, we spurn His commands and do the opposite.  He created us to bring glory to Him, but we shame Him instead.

Even we, having created a work of art, literature, or some other accomplishment, expect to get the credit for it.  Millions of lawsuits attest to the fact that we do not accept others getting or taking credit for our work!  But in our relationship with God, we do worse!  We not only fail to give Him the credit (glory) due Him for who He is and what He does, we seek to take His glory to ourselves!  We stand in awe of a DaVinci painting, or listen in rapture to a Beethoven symphony, but curse Christ, the God who with a word created the beauty of a sunset, a daffodil, and the glorious galaxies and seek to take credit for talents and abilities He “loaned” to us!

Glorifying God is not just crediting Him for who He is and what He does.  It is matching His moral perfections.  He is personally flawless and demands the same from His creation for which He is responsible.  He can tolerate no flaws in His universe.  Our every sin is a blight on His name and reputation and must be corrected.  He will not forever take the blame for our conduct, nor will He allow others to claim credit for His gracious acts.  Ultimately, He will set the record straight.

If there were aliens from other galaxies (and there are not), but if there were and they visited planet Earth, they might well ask, “Who is responsible for this horrific mess?”  A casual observer may blame God, but that conclusion would not stand.  Every broken heart, every dark blot on creation derives from the failure of created beings, not the Creator.  You and I cannot escape our accountability.  We must come to terms with God.

If you love God, you are offended by that which offends God, and you want His good name cleared.  You look with great expectation to the day when He will set the record straight and the guilty parties will be punished.  If you do not love God, I warn you that the days of evading your responsibility will have an end.

Judgement day is coming!  You may believe you can avoid God forever, but the Bible states that there will be a day when “every knee shall bow. . . and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” (Phil. 2:10-11, NKJV).  This includes every soul in Heaven, Earth, and Hell.  And the standard by which each will be measured will not be one of their own devising, but rather the perfections of Jesus Christ!

In moments of quietness, when you have found yourself examining your own heart, you know that God’s word is true: you stand guilty.  We all stand guilty, not of mere incompetence, but of rebellion!  This fact is born out not only in our consciences, but in the dark and bloody history of humanity.  Rejecting this truth would be understandable if there were no escape from the resultant condemnation.  Denial is a common coping mechanism for those who have no hope.

But there is hope!  Wonderful hope!  And it only requires our acknowledgement of the truth, turning from sin (confession) and an acceptance of God’s forgiveness purchased by Christ on the cross!  And His forgiveness does more than simply wash away our sin.  It changes us!  First Corinthians 15:51 says that “we shall be changed,” and texts like Psalm 17:15 and I John 3:2 declare what that change entails: “We shall be like Him!”  We will be rendered perfect just as He is perfect!

Which brings us to the other side to this coin.  Because God is perfect, He will and must keep His word!  He said he would judge sinners, so He will.  But He also, as early as Genesis 3:16, promised to provide a Savior, and He has done just that!  While His perfections doom all who fall short of them, His perfections also provide grace to all who come under the shadow of His wings!

How can you say no?

It’s incredibly awkward when you’re in an important worldview conversation with a friend, and you don’t know what to say. You can’t figure out the right facts or convincing words to combat their argument, and worse, the conversation ends with you questioning your own beliefs.

First Peter 3:15 says “…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Though this verse is speaking about sharing the gospel, the principle – always being prepared to make a defense with gentleness and respect – applies to anything we believe.

The Sanctity of Life is one area in which it’s especially important to be prepared. This video about the abortion pill from Live Action is a good starting place to build practical knowledge for your next conversation. Check it out and share the video!

This Sunday, Americans will celebrate another Mother’s Day. Since everyone has a mother, it’s an important proposition to honor them. Biblical, too. You know, “honor your father and mother” is one of the Big Ten.

One Illinois mom who has an extra reason to celebrate this year is Caron Lamen. In February, this Aurora mom was at home alone with her daughter Aria. Caron suddenly passed out while talking to her daughter.

Aria quickly called her father. Then 911. The dispatcher kept Aria on the line while giving her instructions as the girl checked on mom’s breathing. As Caron Lamen would say, “For her to do what she did and stay so calm is amazing.” Indeed.

Aria then had to compose herself to help first responders get the needed information to save Caron’s life. The dispatcher, Tracie Whalen, sent the ambulance. Observed Tracie,”I’ve taken calls for 30 years. I have never seen a kid ever do as well as she did. I don’t see most adults do as well as she did.”

Mom came back home after spending 16 days in the hospital. Such a godly blessing! And what a special Mother’s Day this will be for the Lamen family!

But worth noting, how many mothers have been by their child’s side as they struggled with the many issues of life? Too many to count. Whether it’s an illness or injury, an emotional or relational problem, or some other form of pain, a loving mom will be the chief support person for her children.

One seemingly impossible task is to select a national “Mother of the Year.” Yes, there is such a competition. And the nominees appear to be selected having earned the same title in their home state.

Rachel Ternstrom was selected by the nonprofit American Mothers Inc. as the 2022 Illinois Mother of the Year. (Not able to find a 2023 winner yet.) The Rolling Meadows woman was the 72nd woman in Illinois history to receive the honor.  She has two daughters.

Ms. Ternstrom graduated from DePaul University. She worked for many years in the recruiting and sales industry. Then she became a stay-at-home mom. Her passions are interior styling and home decor.

I personally know a previous state of Illinois winner. Her name is Kendra Smiley. She was selected as the Illinois Mother of the Year in 2001. Kendra was the “baby” in her family and a true achiever. This woman graduated with highest honors from the University of Illinois and earned her Master of Science degree from the University of North Dakota. Again, graduating with highest honors.

Kendra and her husband John have raised three sons. She is a true “Proverbs 31 woman” having spent years as a teacher and a girls basketball coach. Kendra also served as a church and community leader. She’s a member of Advanced Writers and Speakers Association.

A few years ago, Kendra gave women a wonderful devotional blessing. It’s a book titled, Mother of the Year: 365 Days of Encouragement for Devoted Moms. Along with her several other books, Kendra has touched the lives of women as a speaker and host of the daily radio program Live Life Intentionally. She has also been a blogger a TV personality.

While every one of us has a mother, not everyone has a mom with whom they feel connected. And, of course, there are women across our country who are unable to have children and experience the joys—and pains—of motherhood. Yes, the celebration of Mother’s Day annually can leave gaps.

My children have learned from my wife not to greet women randomly with “Happy Mother’s Day.” Unless, of course, she’s your own mother! That greeting is reserved only for that maternal relationship.

There is a mother who stands head and shoulders above all others. She gave birth to the Savior of the world—Jesus the Messiah. Her name is Mary.

When this special “pregnant virgin” went to visit her cousin, here is the account: “Elizabeth gave a glad cry and exclaimed to Mary, ‘God has blessed you above all women, and your child is blessed.’” (Luke 1:42, NLT)

The opportunity to be a mother means a woman has been blessed to bring life to another soul in this world. What a privilege! And honor. Even…a divine calling.

We’ve all seen the bumper sticker that spells COEXIST by combining the symbols of major world religions in a convenient order. The bumper sticker seems reasonable; after all, isn’t it just representing the world as it is—people of many religions all existing side by side in the same space? If that were all the bumper sticker meant, then I might consider putting one on my car; it’s an obviously true fact about the world. However, the sticker means much more than that—it doesn’t just commend the idea of people of many different religions all living in the same space, it preaches the doctrine that the ideas promoted by many different religions must be appreciated at the same level.

The distinction between accepting people and accepting ideas is a subtle yet fundamental concept when it comes to discussing tolerance, and today’s world has gotten it exactly backwards. The unruly protest sparked by Riley Gaines‘ talk at San Francisco State University earlier this month is a case in point.

Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who has held the All-American champ title 12 times, gave a talk at San Francisco State University on April 6 to speak out against the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Given that Gaines’ message is unpopular in many universities, it was entirely to be expected that she would have received some pushback and perhaps had to engage in some difficult conversations. And one wouldn’t expect much different to occur at a university — an institution ostensibly dedicated to pursuing and disseminating truth, which often requires a clash of conflicting ideas.

But Gaines received far more than uncomfortable conversation—she received a shouting attack. Angry supporters of women’s-sports-trans-inclusion got so verbally violent and physically intimidating that city police had to arrive to help Gaines safely exit the campus. View a short video of the ugly interaction here (this video does contain profanity), which shows an irate trans supporter shouting the mantra “trans rights are human rights” mixed with foul language.

How can an ideology so dedicated to “tolerance” produce adherents who are so obviously intolerant? Herein lies our critical distinction tolerating ideas and tolerating people are two entirely different things. When people praise “tolerance” as a virtue, much of its appeal comes
from the traditional understanding of the word. Tolerance traditionally means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you ought to respect them as fellow human beings, even if you don’t agree with their ideas.

Under this interpretation of tolerance, people can vigorously argue, debate, and refute each other, but at the end of the day they all realize that they each retain special dignity by virtue of simply being human beings created in God’s image, and they can part ways still respecting each other.

However, the contemporary interpretation of “tolerance” flips things on its head. To many, the word still deceptively retains the dignity associated with its noble meaning, but it is now completely redefined: tolerance means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you must accept their ideas as if they were worthy of belief. Attempting to refute, persuade, or even advocate ideas contrary to someone else’s beliefs thus becomes aggression and intolerance.

The problem with this interpretation is that there really are no grounds for accepting all ideas equally. I can accept and respect all other human beings because they are fellow human beings created in the image of God, but should I be forced to readily accept all ideas by virtue of them being… well… “fellow ideas” with my own? To say such implies that all ideas—by virtue of simply being ideas—are worthy of acceptance or respect. But, unlike people, ideas can be stack-ranked according to value. The idea that “gravity is real” is a whole lot more valuable than the idea that “gravity isn’t real.”

Unfortunately, this contemporary definition of tolerance is often accompanied by intolerance of people—the exact opposite of its traditional definition. The protestors at Gaines’ talk disagreed with her ideas, but translated that into attacks on her as a person.

Our culture desperately needs to recover the proper virtue of tolerance—accepting all people, but not all ideas.