Written by Dr. Everett Piper

More than 60 years ago, in “The Abolition of Man,” C.S. Lewis challenged his readers to enter the town square and the marketplace of ideas with boldness and confidence. He argued that in failing to do so, we would become “men without chests;” a culture of heartless people divorced from any agreement of what is right and wrong; a society of disconnected individuals who care little for what is enduring, accurate or true.

The Oxford don warned of a time when questions would lie fallow in a field of disingenuous inquiry with little interest in a harvest of answers.

With the political season upon us, we face a time of big questions.

Life: When does it begin, when does it end, and who has the right to define it and take it?

Climate: Is the theory of anthropomorphic warming scientific, principled or opportunistic?

Sexuality: What is healthy and best for body, soul, family and society?

Tolerance: Are all worldviews and religions epistemologically, ontologically and morally equal?

Women: Is a female a biological fact? Should she have the right to her own bathroom, facilities and sport?

Feminism: Can you be a feminist if you deny the reality of the feminine?

Socialism: With 100 million already dead at its hand, why are we intent on repeating history?

Immigration: Can a nation exist if it doesn’t have clearly defined and defended borders?

Justice: If society rather than God defines justice, then isn’t the concept of what is just and unjust somewhat arbitrary, meaningless and potentially deadly?

These are fundamental questions. But do we really want answers? In the present political climate, do we care more about silencing our opponents than correcting our opinions? Do we want to learn, or are we content to lecture? Does our query assume that one position is going to be closer to the truth than another? Are we honest enough to want an answer even at the expense of being wrong?

In “The Great Divorce,” Lewis challenges our intellectual laziness and political expediency.

“Our opinions were not honestly come by,” he said. “We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful … You know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause.”

He goes on:

“You and I were playing with loaded dice. We didn’t want the other to be true. We were afraid … of a breach with the spirit of the age, afraid of ridicule.”

“Having allowed [ourselves] to drift, unresisting …, accepting every half-conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the [the truth]. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend.”

Lewis concludes:

“Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again … You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry [was made] for truth.”

The critical question for us today is obvious. Do we really want answers? Or are we more interested in seeking “good marks and saying the kind of things that win applause?” Do we embody childlike sincerity in wanting to know what is true, or do we look more like manipulative teenagers who are merely hungry for popularity? Do we want our arguments to be right, or would we rather be politically correct and “fashionable?”

Os Guinness, in his book “Time for Truth,” challenges our adolescent tendency to eschew the factual in favor of the faddish: “Truth does not yield to opinion or fashion,” he says. “It is simply true, and that is the end of it. It is one of the Permanent Things. Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it.”

Thus, both Lewis and Guinness make it clear that confidence in popular trends (i.e., fallacies of argumentum ad populum) has very little, if anything, to do with ideological veracity. Truth is not determined by vim, vigor or a vote.

In this New Year, perhaps our resolution should be to humbly set aside our adolescent desire for “good marks” and, instead, seek what is true (even if it is dreadfully unpopular) and give up what is false (even if it is a dearly loved passion).

The integrity of real questions demands nothing less.

Dr. Everett Piper, former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is a columnist for The Washington Times and author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017). This article was originally published at the WashingtonTimes.com.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C. has a special holiday treat for the kiddies this year: My Fair Lady. Austin Ruse, President of the Center for Family & Human Rights, and his wife Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council, took their 14- and 11-year-old daughters to see it, and here is an excerpt from his review  published in the Washington Examiner:

Act 2, Scene 4: Alfred P. Doolittle is about to get married. … And what do we see …? Men dressed as can-can dancers singing and dancing to Alfred P. Doolittle’s joyous swansong Get Me to the Church on Time. It appeared that Drag Queen Story Hour had come to the Kennedy Center. …

[W]e were not prepared for the act to devolve into a staged orgy with simulated sex acts performed by and on a man dressed as a garish bride, the focal point of the choreography.

At one point, the “bride,” whose low-cut wedding dress repeatedly falls down to expose “breasts,” jumps on the top of a piano and leans back while another man exaggeratedly fondles his “breasts.” Then the “bride” spreads his legs in the air while another man pumps his face into the “bride’s” crotch, quite obviously simulating oral sex. This in front of my daughters and every other child unlucky enough to be there.

But there is more. The “bride” jumps down, dances across the stage, and bends over while Alfred P. Doolittle lifts his dress and simulates sex “doggy-style” for the gentle audience.

At the end of his number, there was rousing applause.

Nothing like simulated oral sex between a cross-dressing man and another man to celebrate the holidays.

Before the perverse, anti-family creepers got their grimy mitts on it, My Fair Lady was a family-friendly affair, but every inch of the public square must be sullied before the deviant among us are sated.

The inclusion of scenes of sexuality in plays that historically might have only alluded to sexuality is not new. Ten years ago, Chicago Shakespeare Theatre’s production of Macbeth included these scenes:

• Just after Lady Macbeth has read the letter from Macbeth in which he describes the witches’ prophecy, the actress playing Lady Macbeth removed her top and performed topless. When Macbeth arrived home, she mounted him and they simulated sex while the actor playing Macbeth fondled the actress’ bare breasts.
• After Macbeth becomes undone by the vision of Banquo’s bloody head, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth retreated to their bedchambers where she knelt down in front of Macbeth and simulated an act of oral sex.
• Three scenes were set in a strip club. There was no nudity, but one of the witches wore a buttocks-baring thong and gyrated like a professional stripper.

Despite what “progressives” claim, objections to vulgarity like this do not constitute provincial philistinism, and the performances of actresses who perform nude or topless are not “brave” performances. Except for exhibitionists, it takes nerve to exhibit publicly those parts of the human anatomy that are sexual or excretory in nature, but the nerve needed to entertain a theater audience through nudity is different from the bravery needed to risk suffering or death in the service of a noble cause.

The actress, Karen Aldridge, was degraded and objectified. Her exhibition of her body and her willingness to be publicly fondled was disgraceful and distracting. It added nothing of value to our understanding of Macbeth and pulled audience attention out of the story.

If it is brave and justifiable to publicly exhibit and exploit one’s body, then we should stop telling our children that the parts of their anatomy that are inherently sexual are “private parts.”

For an actress to be willing to bare her breasts in front of hundreds of strangers night after night and allow a man who is not her husband to fondle them suggests a heretical Gnostic view of the human person—a view that separates the physical body from the internal “spiritual” self. This is a troubling and false dualistic view of the human person, which denies the reality that our physical, material bodies are inseparable from our immaterial spiritual selves and are sacred.

Despite what many within our “artistic” communities may claim, “art,” or rather some contemporary misconception of art, is not an ultimate value. It does not transcend or supersede the objective truth that our naked bodies are not for public display or public consumption.

As with the Ruse family, no warning was provided to my family that the production was R-rated. Clearly, the artistic staff at Chicago Shakespeare was not concerned about offending audience members, including those who brought their middle or high school-age children to the play as my husband and I did. Nor did they seem to consider the possibility that there may be people who struggle with an all too common, family-destroying porn addiction and consciously avoid graphic sexual imagery.

After IFI posted a short warning about the play, we received this email from a woman who objected to my objections:

Your evaluation of Macbeth made me chuckle. I am going to see the production tonight. My daughter, who works at the theatre, has seen it and was quite impressed with the production. I will reserve my comments to you until after I have seen it. However, I must be upfront and tell you I have little, if any, respect for your organization, so, naturally, your opinion is of no importance. However, I did want to share with you this funny (sad?) anecdote. One parent that came into the theatre worried about the sexual overtones of the show was quite accepting of the violence. No problem there! We can maim people, carry guns, annihilate anyone with whom we disagree, but show people having sex???? Blasphemy!! What a mixed-up set of values …

I’m not sure she knew what an “overtone” is. An overtone is “a subtle or elusive quality or implication.” There was nothing remotely subtle in the sexuality depicted in the Macbeth production. If the sexuality had been subtle, elusive, or implied, I wouldn’t have objected.

Her comparison of depictions of violence to actual nudity is flawed. Even a comparison of depictions of violence to depictions of sex acts is flawed. Many people, perhaps most, believe that sexual acts (and excretory acts) though perfectly normal are intimate, private acts that are not for public consumption. Violence is quite different. While violent acts are always unpleasant and often abhorrent or repugnant—even when necessary and justifiable—they are not thought of as intrinsically private, intimate acts.

Violent acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context, just as sexual acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context. But sexual acts are always intended to be private acts. And for many, actual nudity is appropriate in only very limited contexts. Opposition to seeing such displays of nudity does not grow out of prudery. Rather, such opposition grows out of a profound respect for the human body and a recognition of its inextricable connection to our spiritual natures.

Nudity, actual erotic acts (e.g., fondling breasts), simulated erotic and sexual acts (e.g., oral “sex” and intercourse), and perversion (e.g., drag queens telling stories to and twerking with toddlers in public libraries) are not new in the “arts” and entertainment world. The perverse, pagan, and hedonistic elites who control our culturally essential storytelling mechanisms have slowly, incrementally pushed decency out to make space for indecency. What still shocks is the brazenness and glee with which elites now introduce perversion to children, calling such exposure “education” and “inclusivity.” They include indecent ideas and images—not to condemn them through art—but to celebrate them—as all pagan societies have done and do. Make no mistake: They want the hearts, minds, and bodies of your children. Storytelling is one of the most effective means by which to capture first hearts, then minds, and finally bodies.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre 
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Holiday-Depravity-and-Arrogance-from-Theater-Community_audio.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

I read a fascinating article this morning from the Associated Press entitled “US finally giving boot to official foot measurement.”

It seems that, for many years, there have been two different ways to define precisely how long a foot is. There’s the international foot, and the U.S. survey foot. The difference is infinitesimally small: it only makes an eighth of an inch difference over the distance of a mile.

You might be thinking, “Big deal. Who cares?”

The problem is that some surveyors and contractors use the U.S. foot, and some use the international foot. And on some projects, that can make a difference.

“A contractor from a state that uses the U.S. foot planned a building in the glide path of a major airport in a state that uses the international foot,” the AP article reports, relaying a story from Michael Dennis, a project manager for NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey. “The confusion over the two different feet caused delays, extra cost and redesign of the building to be one floor shorter.”

And how is it that we came to have two different definitions of what equals a foot?

“In 1893,” the AP article says, “the U.S. government defined a foot as 1,200 meters divided by 3,937. Plug those numbers into a calculator and you get 0.3048006 meters. Those last three digits (and it goes on even longer if you want to be technical) are important.”

It seems that when the international foot was created a few decades later, they rounded that number down a little bit, dropping off the final “006.”

And that was enough to set up the problem.

All of this is a good reminder that sometimes the small stuff really does matter. Sometimes that’s because the small stuff adds up over time, and sometimes it’s because the small stuff isn’t really so small after all.

And think about it: we spend most of our lives dealing with things that seem small. Yes, there are the grand moments and the big decisions. But most of the time, we live moment by moment, one small decision after another. If we mess up in the realm of the small, it’s going to matter.

Here are a few areas where we should pay attention to the little things in our lives.

Our Words

We speak thousands of words a day. Words are small and free, easily thrown out—but impossible to take back. The Bible tells us that “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 8:21). James reminds us that the tongue is small, but it can cause enormous damage (James 3:5).

Words can build up, or they can tear down. They can encourage our children or defeat them. They can make our spouse feel loved or rejected.

God cares about the words we use. In fact, in a sobering statement, Jesus tells us we will give account to God for every idle word we speak (Matthew 12:36).

I don’t know about you, but I don’t use encouraging words often enough. This is an area I want to grow. I want to be an encourager to my family. I want to be known as someone who is thoughtful and uplifting with the words I speak.

Our Testimony

I don’t mean our testimony of salvation, but the overall testimony of our lives—how we live in front of others, the reputation we have, and the impression we’re giving of our God and His people.

We can destroy our testimony in a matter of moments, and it doesn’t always take something big to do it. I remember a message a former pastor of mine preached years ago on Ecclesiastes 10:1: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.”

In other words, dead flies are small, but they’ll ruin the fragrance of a precious ointment or perfume. In the same way, it doesn’t take much foolishness to ruin the reputation of someone who is known for wisdom and honor.

Our Marriage

There are many ways to ruin a marriage, and many of them start out small. For instance, few husbands or wives would wake up one morning and decide to commit adultery out of the clear blue sky. But by a hundred small steps, many have ended up there. Stop taking the small steps, and the major failure wouldn’t happen.

Whether it’s gradual neglect, lapsed expressions of love, or creeping selfishness, there are many “small” ways we can plant the seeds of an unhappy—or failed—marriage.

Small Can Be Good or Bad

The truth is, it’s not just the small bad stuff we should pay attention to. Yes, those things can negatively impact our lives when they accumulate, lead to larger failures, or when we simply tolerate them when we know we shouldn’t. But the flip side is also true. Good habits—even small ones—can make a positive difference. I think it’s true that if we’ll simply be faithful in the small things of our lives, we’ll avoid a lot of the bigger headaches.

Is there something small you should—or shouldn’t—do today? Remember, you never know the impact of a small word or deed. The small stuff really does matter.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

While we continue to press forward, it is beneficial to pause and look back.  There is much we can learn and apply to life today from the victories and failures of the past.

In his address at a past IFI Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet, author, speaker, and radio host, Eric Metaxas, recounts William Wilberforce’s victory in changing how England viewed slavery. He also describes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s failure to awaken the German church to the truth of Hitler’s evil intentions.

Five years later, Metaxas’ message of hope and encouragement is as timely and needed as ever, and his questions: “Are you giving God everything you have?” and “Are you longing for heaven?” are still deserving of our thoughtful contemplation.

If you were privileged to hear Eric Metaxas speak in 2014, you will enjoy revisiting this heartfelt and humorous address. If you haven’t heard his presentation, you will definitely want to view the video and share it with family and friends!

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

It’s always nice to be able to point to the polls when they support your position. But polling, when done accurately, does nothing more than tell you what other people think. And just because you have the majority on your side doesn’t mean you are right. In fact, when it comes to morality, the majority is often at odds with the Bible, which sets the standard of morality for practicing Christians.

But this should come as no surprise.

After all, Jesus famously said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13–14).

As the related saying goes, the road to destruction is broad.

Ironically, a Gallup article from June, 2018 indicated that, “Forty-nine percent of Americans say the state of moral values in the U.S. is ‘poor’ — the highest percentage in Gallup’s trend on this measure since its inception in 2002. Meanwhile, 37 percent of U.S. adults say moral values are ‘only fair,’ and 14 percent say they are ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’”

So, almost half of the country thinks that the moral values of the country are “poor,” leading to an obvious question: Are we right about our morals being wrong? If so, then why are so many of us immoral?

Gallup reported in May of this year that, “A majority of Americans (63 percent) continue to say same-sex “marriage” should be legal, on par with the 64 percent to 67 percent Gallup has recorded since 2017.”

As recently as 1996, however, only 27 percent of Americans believed same-sex “marriage” should be legal.

As for same-sex relationships in general (outside of marriage), Gallup reports that in 1987, 57 percent of Americans said that consenting, adult relationships between gays or lesbians should not be legal while only 32 percent said they should be legal. By 2019, those numbers had more than flipped, with only 26 percent saying those relationships should not be illegal and 73 percent saying they should.

The Gallup chart is quite graphic, with the numbers crisscrossing somewhat through 2004 and then becoming an ever-widening gap from roughly 2005.

Are these numbers significant? Absolutely.

Do they point to major social shifts? Obviously, they do.

Are they great news for LGBT activists? Without a doubt.

Do they prove anything when it comes to determining what is moral? No, they do not.

During the time period from 2003 to 2017, support for polygamy in America rose from 7 percent to 17 percent, an even more dramatic shift from a statistical point of view. And it’s up to 18 percent in 2019.

Gallup noted that this “may simply be the result of the broader leftward shift on moral issues Americans have exhibited in recent years. Or, as conservative columnist Ross Douthat notes in his New York Times blog, ‘Polygamy is bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake …’ To Douthat and other social conservatives, warming attitudes toward polygamy is a logical consequence of changing social norms — that values underpinning social liberalism offer ‘no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry.’”

Gallup also observed that, “It is certainly true that moral perceptions have significantly, fundamentally changed on a number of social issues or behaviors since 2001 — most notably, gay/lesbian relations, having a baby outside of wedlock, sex between unmarried men and women, and divorce.”

Interestingly, Gallup also noted that there were social reasons that help to explain some of this larger leftward shift (including the rise in divorce and changes in laws; another obvious reason is that people have friends and family members who identify as gay or lesbian).

In contrast, “there is little reason to believe that Americans are more likely to know or be polygamists now than at any other time in the past. But there is one way Americans may feel more familiar with or sympathetic to polygamy: television.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tolerance as: A: “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own; or B: the act of allowing something: Toleration.”

Modern culture would like for you to believe that America went from an intolerant nation in the 20^th Century to a very tolerant one today.   In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Tolerance has come to mean embracing only one point of view, the liberal one.  Otherwise one is not tolerant, but intolerant.

If only one viewpoint is allowed there is nothing to tolerate.  Tolerance requires disagreement.  For example, if my teenage children listened to the music I listened to in high school, I wouldn’t be tolerating their choice, because it’s what I like and might choose myself.  True toleration involves my having to politely endure this new stuff, which I really don’t like.

A new poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard University has found that intolerance is pervasive, particularly in places designed for the examination of ideas.  It found that only a third (35 percent) of college students who consider themselves Republican are comfortable sharing their political views.   While young Democrats and Republicans are about equally as likely to feel comfortable sharing their beliefs with their friends, Republicans are far less likely to feel comfortable about sharing their beliefs on a college campus.

This fits with a September poll which found that 73 percent of college students who identify as conservative say that they censor their own academic work in order to protect their grades.

An October 2016 poll found that 75 percent of Yale University students agreed that Yale “does not provide a welcoming environment for conservative students to share their opinions on political matters.”

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

When Chick-fil-A announced the change in its charitable donation process on Nov. 18, the faith-based social media world reacted swiftly. Some with shock and disbelief, others with anger, and then there were those who went on the defensive.

It all began when Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told the website Bisnow, “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.” With its charitable giving contracts expiring at the end of the year, the Atlanta-based restaurant chain said it is taking the opportunity to “focus on three initiatives with one accompanying charity each: education, homelessness and hunger.”

The “message” it wanted to be clear about appeared to be its stance on LGBTQ issues. The Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes are two of the 300 charities Chick-Fil-A has been making charitable donations to and they have received the most criticism by detractors who consider them to be anti-LGBTQ.  Bisnow reported Tassopoulos said, future charitable “partners could include faith-based and non-faith-based charities, but the company said none of the organizations have anti-LGBT positions.”

Many see this as a betrayal. Though Chick-fil-A is a business with a bottom line to uphold, many believers have gone out of their way to support Chick-fil-A in the culture war, seeing an ally in the corporation. Online they cited articles from Christianity Today and Rod Dreher in the American Conservative.

When LGBTQ groups were calling for boycotts of the fast-food restaurant, people of faith were the ones who stood in long lines around the stores to show their support for shared Biblical values on “Chick-fil-A Day.” Now some of these same people are calling for their own boycotts of Chick-fil-A.

Others defended the restaurant arguing that Chick-Fil-A is still a corporation with Christian values and is doing good in the communities they serve. They also say as a business it is free to make its own decisions. Besides, they argue, “Who can fault donating to charities that help provide education, help the homeless, and give food to the hungry?” The defenders were quick also to point to an article written for Relevant Magazine claiming to know “what’s actually going on.”

Here’s what’s actually going on is. Many feel betrayed and it hurts.

Bible believers are watching the culture move away from its Biblical foundation. There was a feeling of “we are in this together.” Now there isn’t. As they saw it, Chick-fil-A was not discriminating in its hiring practices or in who it serves. The Salvation Army serves all who are in need no matter their sexual orientation. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is an organization for Christian athletes with Biblical guidelines. That’s just how members-only groups work. To them, this move is a rejection and an acceptance of the smear against faith-based organizations, especially at Christmas.

It remains to be seen how this plays out for Chick-fil-A, its faith-based customers, and for the LGBTQIA groups who have opposed and boycotted them. Will the latter now welcome Chick-fil-A with open arms? It will be interesting to watch in the coming weeks.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A recent survey has found 70 percent of Millennials say they are likely to vote for a Socialist. The survey conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation also found just one in two have a favorable view of Capitalism.

According to the survey breakdown, 50 percent of Millennials say they are “somewhat likely” and 20 percent say they are “extremely likely” to vote for a socialist candidate, an increase of 10 percent over last year. The good news is 53 percent of Americans overall are hesitant about voting for a “democratic socialist,” which is an increase of 6 percent over 2018.

The Foundation’s executive director attributed the findings to this generation’s lack of educational awareness. “The historical amnesia about the dangers of Communism and Socialism is on full display in this year’s report,” said Marion Smith. “When we don’t educate our youngest generations about the historical truth of 100 million victims murdered at the hands of communist regimes over the past century, we shouldn’t be surprised at their willingness to embrace Marxist ideas.” The survey showed 72 percent of Americans did not know Communism killed more than 100 million people in 100 years.

More than a third of Millennials (36 percent) view Communism favorably, and 22 percent believe “society would be better if all private property was abolished.” Fifteen percent believe the world would be a better place if the Soviet Union still existed.

Despite the latest crackdowns on freedom of speech in China and Hong Kong, just over half of Generation Z (57 percent) and nearly two-thirds of Millennials (62 percent) believe China is a communist country.

The survey reader does wonder about these generation’s interpretations of the concepts of freedom and liberty when discovering just over half (57 percent) of Millennials believe the Declaration of Independence better guarantees freedom and equality over the Communist Manifesto.

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is open about his socialist politics as are several other Democrat party members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY). Both are popular with Millennials and Gen Z as are the socialist programs promoted by the Democratic Party.

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” It’s to be determined if the younger American generations will heed that warning or learn the lesson.

View the entire survey results at https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Earlier this month the Trump administration announced the reversal of an Obama-era rule regarding the role of faith-based organizations in providing foster care and adoption services.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed new rules Nov. 1 allowing faith-based providers to continue serving their communities in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. According to a conference call between Vice President Mike Pence’s office and the media, the Obama rule jeopardized the ability of faith-based providers to continue serving their communities, penalizing them for their deeply held beliefs. It did so by forcing these providers to either place children in the homes of same-sex couples or discontinue care.

Pence’s office contended that by “excluding thousands of willing organizations and families, the Obama rule threatened the well-being of children in search of a good home.”

HHS reports there are approximately 443,000 children in foster care nationwide, with more than 100,000 awaiting adoption, and that number has risen for five consecutive years, fueled in part by the opioid crisis.

“Allowing faith-based organizations to provide an enhanced role in foster care will take the pressure off some states who are need of additional foster families and foster care capacity,” Pence’s office claimed.

However, it’s too early to celebrate. Lori Windham, a religious liberty lawyer at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, tweeted, “it’s a smart thing to do, but it would only fix part of the problem.” She shared that state and local governments can use similar rules to try to close faith-based agencies. In Illinois, faith-based agencies are only affected if they accept government funding.

Windham tweeted further, “Ultimately, we need not just better regulations, but a clear answer from the courts. @BECKETlaw has asked #SCOTUS to ensure that these critical social services are no longer jeopardized. The petition for Fulton v. Philadelphia has been conferenced for Nov 15.”

Brittany Raymer at Focus on the Family pointed out, “The Equality Act, which has been passed by the U.S. House but not the U.S. Senate, would have amended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. This would mean that even if this new regulation is in effect, the potential passing of the Equality Act would still force agencies to place children with same-sex couples or close unless there are religious freedom protection.”

The announcement also reversed Obama Administration policy denying federal disaster aid to houses of worship.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Less than 20 years into the 21^st Century and it seems that many Americans have either forgotten, or simply do not know about, what could arguably be described as the largest worldwide scourge of the 20^th Century.  Roughly 97 million people died in two world wars.  However, more than 100 million people died under the governing system of Communism in what many historians have called the bloodiest century in the history of man.

Each year the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation commissions a poll of Americans to find out what they know about Socialism, Marxism and Communism, the triplets of totalitarianism.

Here is what their newly released 2019 survey has found:

•  The percentage of American Millennials who say that they are likely to vote for a socialist is 70%.   The number who say they are “extremely likely” to vote for a socialist candidate has doubled from 10% in 2018 to 20% in 2019.

• Young people aged 23-38, known as Millennials, and those aged 16-22, known as Generation Z, views of capitalism has taken a big hit with only one-in-two having a favorable view of capitalism.

• Communism is viewed favorably by more than one-in-three Millennials (36%), up 8 points since 2018.

• Marxism has the highest favorability among Millennials at 35%, up 6 points since 2018.

• 7 in 10 Americans do not know that communism has killed over 100 million people.

• Only 57% of Gen Z and 62% of Millennials, compared to 88% of Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation, think that China is a communist country.  (I’d bet that a poll of NBA players and owners is closer to 1%. Most of them seemed to have had no idea that Twitter has been banned by the government of China since 2009.)

• While 80% of Americans say that they trust themselves more than government or community to take care of their own interests, younger generations are 25% less likely to say this.

• Overall, capitalism is still viewed favorably by 61% of all Americans.

• Overall, among all Americans there is more hesitancy to vote for a “democratic socialist” than there was last year.

• Perceptions of communism and Marxism vary widely across generations.

• Only 57% of Millennials, compared to 94% of the Silent Generation think the Declaration of Independence better guarantees freedom and equality over the Communist Manifesto.

• Millennials are the least likely to have studied communism in high school, but they are more likely to have studied it in college.

• Millennials are much more likely to report communism being presented favorably in K-12 and college than are older generations.

• While 83% of Americans say that they know at least a little about socialism, 66% of Americans cannot accurately define socialism.

• Baby Boomer opposition to voting for a democratic socialist has increased by 8 points since 2018.

• Nearly half of Millennials think that the government should provide a job for everyone who wants to work but can’t find a job.

• 37% of Millennials think America is one of the most unequal societies in the world.

• One in four Americans say that Donald Trump is a bigger threat to world peace than figures like Kim Jung-un, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Professor Anthony Esolen is one of America’s cultural treasures. He writes about moral decline in America with insight, boldness, and eloquence—no timid, hesitant, evasive speech from Professor Esolen. Professor Esolen writes and speaks about the pernicious lies with which leftists sexual revolutionaries have poisoned America.

In 2015, Dr. Esolen wrote,

The latest apologists for the Sexual Revolution—that great swamp of sewage backup, human misery, family breakdown, squalid entertainment, and lawyers—have been saying that the most radical anthropological breach ever known to man, the detachment of marriage from childbirth and the plain facts of nature, will have no effect (none at all, not to worry) on marriage and childbirth and family and community life. To which I reply, “Haven’t you said that before?” About what exactly have the sexual revolutionaries been right?

In the four years since Dr. Esolen wrote those words, the fetid swamp has spread, human misery has increased, squalid entertainment entraps more and younger people, and lies are celebrated as truth. Please watch Dr. Esolen describe the cultural darkness in which we are now immersed and articulate a counter-cultural vision for America and America’s children that is built on a firm foundation.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Last month, Erica Komisar, author of the book Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters, wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal under the headline “Political Correctness is Bad for Kids.”

In her first paragraph, Komisar writes:

Family life shouldn’t be politicized, but a new poll suggests that it is. Only 33% of U.S. liberals “agree that marriage is needed to create strong families,” according to the survey from the Institute for Family Studies. The figures are 80% of conservatives and 55% of moderates.

Despite her status as a liberal and self-declared feminist, Komisar goes on to write that,

“On this subject, the conservative majority is right. Marriage provides children both emotional and material security, and the ideal environment for children is a loving household with both a sensitive and empathic mother and a playful, engaged and protective father. It’s a shame that political correctness inhibits discussions of what’s best for children.”

It’s remarkable, isn’t it? We’ve come to the point in America when standing up for traditional views on marriage and motherhood is controversial. James Taranto, in a 2017 piece for The Wall Street Journal, quotes Komisar as saying that the publication of her book had made her “a bit of a pariah” on the left. She had been interviewed on Christian radio and Fox & Friends but couldn’t get on NPR. She had been “rejected wholesale” by the liberal press, and when she went on ABC’s Good Morning America, the interviewer told her right before they went on that, “I don’t believe in the premise of your book at all. I don’t like your book.” All of this presumably because she was challenging mothers to “prioritize motherhood” to the maximum extent they could, which, apparently, is perceived as a threat to the idea that a woman can have it all, all at the same time.

I don’t have any data on this, but I suspect we wouldn’t have to rewind history very far to find virtually universal support for both marriage and motherhood. But in today’s increasingly liberal society, traditional views on these matters are fading.

The Bible, of course, gives us the truth on these subjects. God created marriage, therefore we know it’s important. God placed children in families, therefore we know that parents matter.

It’s not just the Bible. The very nature of creation also points to the importance of traditional families.

Have you ever considered the possibility that God could have created human existence in any way he chose? He was under no constraints to create marriage and the nuclear family as the basis for bringing children into the world and raising them to adulthood. Remember, He was starting with a blank canvas—He could have done anything. Hey, He could have created the world in such a way that human babies spring into existence through spontaneous generation and raise themselves to adulthood in baby communes deep in the forest. Why not? Just because it sounds crazy to us doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be completely normal if that’s the way it had always been. God gets to decide reality, and if He had chosen to create reality in a different way, that’s His privilege as the all-powerful Creator.

The fact that He chose to create the world in a certain way gives us clues as to how He intends human life to work best. The fact that He created marriage, family, and both mothers and fathers tells us something important: this is the way God wants the world to work. This is the way He created us to flourish and experience the best of His plans for us as His creation. And what the created order tells us implicitly, the Word of God tells us explicitly: marriage and parents are vital.

The bottom line is, God is the Creator of reality, and we have the best chance of happiness, satisfaction, joy, and success when we conform our lives to God’s created reality. When we shun the created order that God established—by rejecting marriage, for instance—we put ourselves at odds not simply with a moral code, but with reality itself.

On the other hand, if we reject God as creator, we’re left to come up with our own ideas of reality and how human life should work. We’re seeing this daily with the redefinition of marriage, the concept of “gender fluidity,” the rise of intentionally single mothers, and so on. We’re remaking family in whatever shape and form we choose because we’ve rejected God’s created reality and the truth of His Word. We think we can flourish in whatever way we choose. But violating reality will never produce the best results.

The cultural trends may be discouraging, but take heart. If you’re following God’s plan as outlined in Scripture and His created reality, trust Him to bless you and your family. Live as a testimony to the superiority of God’s ways. And in the midst of a culture increasingly out of alignment with God’s plan for humanity, you and I have the opportunity to shine as bright lights. Who knows? Perhaps your happy marriage can be the very thing God uses to draw others to Himself.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Kanye West’s new album, Jesus is King, has literally taken social media by storm! Kanye’s recent conversion to Christianity has caused a buzz in both the Christian and non-Christian worlds.

Perhaps his most controversial track on the new gospel album is a song called “Closed on Sunday,” (see lyrics) which Kanye performed recently on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

This line in the song has offended many people, especially those in the LGBTQ community:

Closed on Sunday, you my Chick-fil-A
You’re my number one, with the lemonade

Many media outlets including Business Insider, Cosmopolitan, FoxNews and others have written on how Kanye is promoting a fast-food brand, and one that has a strong connection to Christianity. LGBTQ activists are outraged that he would recommend a “homophobic” restaurant that does not celebrate their lifestyles.

It always surprises me how much outrage a Christian-owned chicken sandwich company can generate. But they aren’t the real story here.

In an interview with Zane Lowe for Apple Music, Kayne used the term “closed on Sunday,” in the context of his family life.

“I have to protect and take care of my family and make sure with the power that God has put in my hands that I do everything that I can, as the father, to provide the best chance (for them to be) the maximum success they can be.”

I believe the term, “Chick-fil-A,” in the song is simply a metaphor for a larger context. In the corporate world, the restaurant chain has surprised business analysts by choosing to close one day out of seven, in honor of the Bible’s admonition. Honoring God has paid off in huge financial dividends for the company.

Kanye takes that analogy and applies it to the responsibility a father has in stewarding his home (in the same way a CEO must steward a corporation). Tough decisions need to be made. Can a family take time away from digital and social media in order to focus on God and each other? Can we learn to take a Sabbath from the constant pull from the screens in our pocket?

Hold the selfies, put the ’Gram away
Get your family, y’all hold hands and pray

He is referring here to Instagram (the social media of choice for many teens). He suggests that our time could be better spent looking to the Lord, rather than pictures of ourselves.

He also warns of the dangers that lurk in the world and the need for fathers to protect their children.

When you got daughters, always keep ’em safe
Watch out for vipers, don’t let them indoctrinate

Raise our sons, train them in the faith
Through temptations, make sure they’re wide awake
Follow Jesus, listen and obey
No more livin’ for the culture, we nobody’s slave

As a father of ten, I resonate with these words. This is my desire as well.

In the interview mentioned above, he also described the devastating impact a life-long pornography addiction has had in his life. From his first exposure when he was only five, he said his addiction fueled most of his decisions throughout his life and career. As a Christian man now, he is battling back. As fathers, we all know the temptations that exist for our families. Being intentional and making tough decisions to honor God above our flesh, will result in spiritual health for us, just as Chick-fil-A has experienced business and financial success. In 1 Samuel 2:15 we are told, “Those who honor Me, I will honor.”

Speaking to this issue of temptation, Kayne says, “Jezebel don’t even stand a chance.”

Realizing the parallel Kanye is making by using the “Closed on Sunday” metaphor, and applying it to our need as families to shut things down and re-prioritize, the song shifts from being a cheap advertisement for a company, or a confusing mishmash of random concepts, to a brilliant apologetic for fathers to fight for their families and make hard decisions to honor God and do what is right. The media has this all wrong. This song has nothing to do with chicken, and everything to do with family.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Sanity as Insurrection is the title of the final session of the 2019 Illinois Family Institute Worldview Conference on the “trans” ideology. In this presentation, Pastor Doug Wilson stressed the importance of asking sane questions, ones that strike at the heart of the matter, when we engage in debate with our adversaries because “deliberate and premeditated sanity is a challenge to the powers that be.”

Pastor Wilson also detailed seven theological/intellectual life hacks–non-negotiables regarding orthodox theology, faith, and truth–that will illuminate what’s going on in the world around us. We cannot recommend this session highly enough to you. Please, share this with your friends and church leaders, or better yet, invite them over to watch and discuss it together. You will be edified, enlightened, emboldened, and inspired.

Doug Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also an author, speaker, and Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

More than half of all those who identify as “conservative” have happy family lives, compared to just 4 in 10 who identify as “liberal” or “moderate” according to the American Family Study conducted by YouGov.   At the same time, conservatives are more concerned about the condition of the family in America overall than are their moderate or liberal counterparts.

More than 4 in 10 conservatives report that marriages in America are weaker now than they were just two years ago. In contrast, a much smaller share of liberals (23 percent) say this is the case.

A vast majority (80 percent) of American conservatives believe that marriage is needed to create strong families, while only 1 in 3 liberals and half of moderates agree. Not surprisingly, conservatives (62 percent) are much more likely than liberals (39 percent) or moderates (46 percent) to be married.

Conservatives’ higher family satisfaction can be partly attributed to the fact that they are more likely than others to be married. (Married people are generally more satisfied with their family life.) Other factors, such as religion, also play a role. The study found that in a model that includes religious service attendance, family income, marital status, age, education, and race/ethnicity, being a conservative (vs. a non-conservative) increases the odds of being “completely satisfied with family life” by 23 percent.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.