The snowflake metaphor for Millennials who quash speech they don’t like seems particularly inapt. These petulant ruffians are more like jackhammers.

Snowflakes are delicate, silent, complex, singular, ineffably beautiful, and naturally occurring. They fall from the sky through no human intervention.

In contrast, jackhammers are brute, noisy, simplistic, uniform, and ugly creations of man that destroy the seemingly indestructible foundations of the buildings in which we live and the solid paths on which we trod.

Millennials who stomp through the streets, smashing windows and shouting obscenities and witless slogans to protest the expression of ideas they don’t like from Ann Coulter, Heather MacDonald, and Charles Murray are not snowflakes. They’re jackhammers.

They aren’t hurt or offended. They’re outraged at the audacity of anyone who dares to utter ideas with which they disagree. They’re poseurs. They don’t need safe spaces, therapy dogs, coddling or mollycoddling. And they know it.

These fake victims/real jack hammers are the ugly, noisy, brute creations of a Frankensteinian culture. Who is our Victor Frankenstein? Victor is our schools, our heterodox churches, our professional mental health communities, and our storytellers (that is, Hollywood).

Many are aware of the jackhammering of presentations by Coulter, MacDonald, and Murray because those attacks on the First Amendment have been well-covered by FOX News. A lesser known attack was perpetrated against the inestimable scholar Anthony Esolen, who until last week taught at Providence College (aptly called PC), a supposedly Catholic college in Rhode Island. Writing on Public Discourse, Michael Bradley, a graduate student in theology at the University of Notre Dame, offers this description http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18900/ of Dr. Esolen, a prolific writer who contributes to Crisis and Touchstone magazines:

Anthony Esolen is the contemporary incarnation of GK Chesterton. The simple and beautiful prose, the acute diagnostic precision, the commonsense appeal to and on behalf of everyday things, the recipe for renewal—all these things Esolen shares with Chesterton, the preeminent cultural physician of the early twentieth century. Like Chesterton, Esolen bluntly identifies our problems. And like him, Esolen’s solution centers on God and faith, learning and virtue, and a robust sense of human nature.

What, you may be wondering, so incensed the jackhammers at this tiny Catholic-in-Name-Only (CAMO) College that camouflages itself as a Catholic school and lies in wait for unsuspecting Catholic students? Here is an excerpt from the essay Dr. Esolen wrote about intellectual diversity at PC for the Catholic magazine Crisis that got the jackhammers’ motors roaring:

[T]here is no evidence on our Diversity page that we wish to be what God has called us to be, a committedly and forthrightly Catholic school with life-changing truths to bring to the world. It is as if, deep down, we did not really believe it. So let us suppose that a professor should affirm some aspect of the Church’s teaching as regards the neuralgia of our time, sex. Will his right to do so be confirmed by those who say they are committed to diversity? Put it this way. Suppose someone were to ask, “Is it permitted for a secular liberal, at a secular and liberal college, to affirm in the classroom a secular view of sex and the family?” The question would strike everyone as absurd. It would be like asking whether we were permitted to walk on two feet or to look up at the sky. Then why should it not also be absurd to ask, “Is it permitted for a Catholic, at a college that advertises itself as Catholic, to affirm a Catholic view of sex and the family?” And I am not talking merely about professors whose specific job it is to teach moral philosophy or moral theology. I am talking about all professors.

In my now extensive experience, Catholic professors in Catholic colleges have been notably tolerant of the limitations of their secular colleagues. We make allowances all the time. We understand, though, that some of them—not all, but then it only takes a few—would silence us for good, if they had the power. They have made life hell for more than one of my friends. All, now, in the name of an undefined and perhaps undefinable diversity, to which you had damned well better give honor and glory. If you don’t—and you may not even be aware of the lese majeste as you commit it—you’d better have eyes in the back of your head. 

In response, students protested on campus and created a petition signed by students and 40 faculty members in which they pledged to break the silence surrounding the allegedly hateful statements Dr. Esolen made.

I kid you not. Campus Leftists claimed that campus Leftists have been silent about matters related to “diversity” in general and homosexuality in particular.

Worse still the administration refused to meet with Dr. Esolen and a group of other Catholic professors to discuss the issues surrounding diversity (or the lack thereof).

We should by now see the danger in the “hate speech” ideology. Hatred has been redefined to mean absence of  affirmation of all the desires, beliefs, and actions of culturally favored elites. Hatred no longer denotes antipathy toward persons but disagreement with moral claims. To be more accurate, it means disagreement with “progressive” moral claims.

Once hatred was redefined, the Left needed to persuade society that hatred leads to acts of violence via words and then persuade them that acts of violence can be prevented only by banning the hateful words that Leftists claim lead ineluctably to hateful deeds. Voila! The First Amendment is “disappeared.”

Jackhammers believe that if the claim that homoerotic activity is immoral and destructive to individual lives and the public good is spoken, then someone may, in response, say or do ugly things to those who identify as homosexual.

Jackhammers are right. Someone may do something ugly. And whenever jackhammers express the idea that all who hold homoerotic activity as perverse are hateful haters, someone may say or do something ugly to those purported haters. There’s no way to escape or prevent all the dastardly deeds that fallen human beings commit. That’s why we have laws: to prevent and penalize egregiously harmful deeds.

But our Founding Fathers rightly saw that the suppression of speech poses a far greater danger to individuals and the public good than does the abuse that some humans may engage in as a result of hearing ideas.

The mellifluous-sounding babble that has been pouring out of the professional mental health community, our pseudo-educational government  school industry, mainline churches, and Hollywood has taught that self-esteem can grow only when sinful humans are affirmed in their sinful choices and their ids are fed and watered. If we want a metaphor from nature for the juveniles who attack a man of such integrity, wisdom, courage, and intellectual depth as Dr. Esolen, it would not be snowflakes. What we have grown in our cultural hothouses are prickly, unlovely weeds who are taking over the well-tended gardens of civilization.

“Progressives” believe that if we ban the expression of ideas that don’t tickle the ears of “progressives,” we will create utopia. But what about those words that are expressed in print or virtual print? If people shouldn’t be allowed to speak ideas “progressives” find undesirable, why should they be allowed to have them published or posted?  And what about the phenomenon that precedes even speech: thoughts. Just imagine if liberals could find a way to access those.

The good news is that God has worked some ugly things at Providence College together for good for Dr. Esolen, which he describes in a recent heart-melting essay in Crisis Magazine from which this excerpt is taken:

Sometimes a single encounter with what is healthy and ordinary…is enough to shake you out of the bad dreams of disease and confusion. If it isn’t quite yet like meeting Saint Francis on the road, it is like meeting a bluff and jovial fellow who has just come from a conversation with that great little man of God.

I’ve had such an encounter, at Thomas More College, in New Hampshire.

Dr. Esolen’s describes his encounter with devotion to God and love of beauty and truth among both students and faculty at Thomas More College, which led to his decision to leave his tenured position at Providence College for a new position at Thomas More where he will teach and help found a center dedicated to furthering the college’s mission “to wed virtue and scholarship, contemplation with cultural engagement”:

I have countless memories of fine students at Providence College, some of whom are now my close friends; and to my colleagues in Western Civilization—of whom many have retired and some have passed away—I owe a debt I can never repay, for their friendship and support and instruction. But I am too old to want to spend the evening of my career trying to shore up a crumbling wall, when those who are in authority at the college are unwilling to listen to our pleas, or even to meet with us so that we can make the pleas in person….

No, I’d prefer to be in on building something exciting for the Church and for sheer ordinary humanity: The Center for Cultural Renewal, at Thomas More College.

…

A window shuts, and a door opens—or rather the very roof is blown off, and I see again, in their silent and ordinary beauty, the stars.

IFI was deeply blessed and honored to have Dr. Esolen as one of our banquet speakers two years ago.  To be edified by the man jackhammers tried to crush, watch this:

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

Fulfilling a campaign promise to get rid of the “Johnson Amendment,” President Donald Trump, according to Liberty Counsel, “signed an executive order today that promotes religious liberty throughout the federal agencies in general and in certain specific areas”:

The executive order declares that it is the policy of the Administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty, directs the IRS to exercise maximum enforcement of discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment, and provides regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare’s burdensome preventive services mandate.

The Johnson Amendment, named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas and enacted into law in 1954, restricts tax-exempt organizations, including churches and religious organizations, from endorsing or opposing candidates for elected office. The executive order will provide some relief by directing the IRS to relax its enforcement of the provision.

For decades, the Johnson Amendment has deterred many church pastors and leaders from speaking about the moral issues of the day due to the fear of having their tax-exempt status revoked. Unfortunately, it was also used as an excuse to avoid controversial matters of morality that, over the years, became dominated by politics.

In an article earlier this year, Dr. Michael Brown wrote that he believes “it is the fear of man that has muzzled us and it is our desire to be affirmed by the world that has silenced us”:

The Johnson Amendment, as wrong as it is, is quite limited in its scope, primarily prohibiting “certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.”

It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against political corruption. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against LGBT activism. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against abortion.

Nevertheless, many pastors and leaders have feared losing church members or offending those who disagreed. Now, with the loss of the excuse of the Johnson Amendment, Christian pastors and leaders can now, in the words of Dr. Brown, get back to the business of helping believers “sort out” cultural matters  “based on Scripture.”

“This is an appropriate way to commemorate the National Day of Prayer,” said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver, “as our President commits to protect and promote religious freedom.”

To learn more about the Johnson Amendment and what churches can and cannot do, click here.

Please join the Illinois Family Institute in thanking President Trump.

Take ACTION: CLICK HERE to thank President Trump for keeping his promise to protect free speech and religious liberty.

Editor’s Note:  Today’s action is a great first step in restoring First Amendment religious liberty rights, however it doesn’t change some of our nation’s most troubling laws, like the 1954 Johnson Amendment, or state laws that tyrannize Christian business owners.  We must keep in mind that this Executive Order could easily be overturned by the next president…  so we still have much work to do.

Lawmakers in Washington D.C. and Springfield must still follow through in making real changes to defend religious liberty against despotism.

Image credit: Liberty Counsel.

Would you help IFI continue this work?
Would you contribute $25, $50, or $100 today to help us fight for religious liberty?

If you want to know what lurks in the hearts, minds, and mouths of many taxpayer-subsidized “educators” in government schools, watch the first 8 1/2 minutes of this video of unhinged assistant principal Zach Ruff shouting, hurling obscenities, and singing show tunes to silence two young pro-life Christian conservatives.

Last Friday, 40-year-old administrator Ruff—henceforth referred to as Gruff Ruff—verbally accosted 19-year-old Lauren Haines and her 16-year-old brother Connor on the sidewalk outside STEM Academy in Downingtown, Pennsylvannia where they were protesting abortion and sharing their faith.

Here are some choice comments from the tolerant, diversity-lovin’ Gruff Ruff:

When Connor Haines referred to the killing of 60 million humans as a holocaust and stated that aborted humans are image-bearers of God, Gruff Ruff told Haines, “There’s no holocaust in America. You can go to hell where they [aborted babies] are.”

Connor defended his description of abortion as a holocaust: “These children are being murdered….Sir, these are innocent human beings.”

Gruff Ruff exploded:

“They’re not children! They’re cells! Go home! Take [the fetus] out. If it can live on its own, then it’s freakin’ awesome! Otherwise shut up! Leave me alone. I will call the police for you harassing me….They’re not innocent. They’re cells. They’re the size of a dime. They’re cells. ”

Perhaps Gruff Ruff could point to the full-term newborns who can live on their own, or the one year olds, or the two year olds.

He defended his indefensible verbal pummeling of two teenagers by claiming that protecting STEM Academy students was his sole motivation:

“I wish to protect my students from unsightly things that they don’t need to see. We don’t have a single pregnancy in my school. I’ve been here for five years. Nobody’s been pregnant.  And there has never been a single abortion.”

It’s hard to understand how a photo of cells no bigger than a dime could be too unsightly for students in a science and technology high school. It’s even harder to understand how an assistant principal could possibly know that no girl in the high school is pregnant, that no student has been pregnant in the past five years, and that there has never been a single abortion. Is Ruff not only gruff but omniscient as well?

According to the Daily Mail, “a Facebook user who identified themselves as a STEM Academy student” said the posters depicted “a horrendous image of a dead baby covered in blood.”

So, was it a dime-sized clump of cells or a dead baby? Or is Gruff Ruff unable to distinguish between the two?

Does Gruff Ruff try to prevent STEM Academy students from seeing all unsightly images? Does he stop teachers from showing photos of lynchings, the Jewish Holocaust, My Lai massacre, or the famous photo of the napalmed Vietnamese girl? Does he stop teachers from showing the movies Amistad or Schindler’s List? And what kinds of unsightly images of cells does he censor in biology classes?

In the face of Gruff Ruff’s blistering rage, Connor said, “Sir, you need to turn to Jesus Christ who can set you free from your sins,” and then things took an even uglier turn.

With a perverse laugh, Gruff Ruff offered this unexpected response:

Listen here, son. All right, I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*ck what you think Jesus tells me and what I should and should not be doing. Just because you choose to believe a book of fiction doesn’t mean I have to. Prove it to me with science….You and Trump can go to hell. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it a fact….Shut up and leave me and my children alone….Shut your mouth and don’t talk to my students. You do not have permission to speak and engage….This isn’t the time or the place for you to harass innocent school children who have nothing to do with your twisted or perverted agenda….That is your opinion….It’s like a***oles. Everyone has one and they all stink.”

Yikes! Ruff’s in a leadership position in a public school. He’s a role model for “innocent children” whom he believes belong to him. In post-modern America, an arrogant fool who hurls obscenities at teenagers, affirms sexual perversity, and denies the dignity and rights of humans in the womb is paid to educate other people’s children. Remarkable.

Much of the rest of the video shows Gruff Ruff’s more aesthetic side as a prances about singing show tunes to silence the Haines siblings.

While Zach Huff’s public diatribe may be unusual, his beliefs and arrogance are not. Many “progressive” teachers view themselves as agents of change and have arrogated to themselves the right to use their positions to change the moral, philosophical, and political views of other people’s children—all in the service of diversity, of course. Unlike the unglued Ruff, however, most “progressive” change-agents have the cunning sense to conceal their pernicious beliefs, their rage at conservatives, and their expletive-laden language from the public at large and certainly from their conservative students’ parents.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click HERE to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

If Jesus has changed your life and set you free from homosexual practice, your testimony is not welcome on Vimeo – not now, not ever. And if you see homosexuality as another aspect of sexual brokenness, something for which Jesus died and something from which you can be healed, your opinion is not welcome on Vimeo. Case closed, door shut, end of subject. In the words of Dr. David Kyle Foster, director of Pure Passion Ministries and himself a former homosexual, “This is pure religious bigotry and censorship.”

Last December, Vimeo contacted Foster to inform him that some of Pure Passion’s videos had been marked by a moderator since “Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred or depict excessive violence.”

They instructed him to “remove any and all videos of this sort from” from his account – he had 850 videos on Vimeo – and let him know that his account would be reviewed in 48 hours. If his ministry failed to remove the allegedly offensive videos, then, he was informed, “your videos and/or your account may be removed by a Vimeo moderator.”

But Foster’s ministry is not the first to be unfairly censured. Last year, Vimeo closed the account of Restored Hope Network, which is an association of ministries that help people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions. Vimeo also closed the account of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is an association of psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and therapists who have had the temerity to stand up to the PC establishment and who refuse to celebrate LGBT activism. For such a horrific ideological crime, their Vimeo account is no more.

Vimeo’s message is clear: If you have same-sex attractions, whatever their cause, you must embrace them, if not celebrate them.

Foster was quite aware of Vimeo’s history, but he was not about to go down without a hearty protest. So he wrote back to Vimeo, saying, “You must have the wrong account. We are an award-winning Christian ministry that only posts content that helps people, not hurts them. We never defame anyone. We never incite hatred or depict violence of any kind. Our message has been one of love from start to finish.”

He explained that, “Our videos help sexual abuse victims, people who have been sex trafficked, those who are addicted or in any other condition that causes them distress. We are constantly receiving professional awards and commendations from people who have been helped by the world-class experts who populate our videos.”

He even asked Vimeo to please cite “any video that does otherwise and we will have a second look. It would be a shame to remove the hundreds of videos that help people in very desperate circumstances – some of whom have even claimed to have been prevented from suicide by the messages of hope that we produce.”

The next day, Melissa B., a “Trust and Safety Coordinator,” responded: “It seems that a number of your videos go against the Vimeo Guidelines of: ‘We also forbid content that displays a demeaning attitude toward specific groups, including: Videos that promote Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE).’”

By this logic, Alcoholics Anonymous would not be welcome on Vimeo, since their videos demean alcoholism, or weight loss videos would not be welcome, because they shame the overweight, or testimonies of Christian converts from Islam would not be welcome, because they shame Muslims.

In reality, all these videos are welcome on Vimeo, because none of them cross the forbidden line of saying: If you’re not happy being gay (or bisexual or transgender), God has a better way.

Foster wrote back again, explaining why they were targeting the wrong account. And he noted that, “The testimonies of people who have been significantly helped by our videos is practically endless. Why would anyone want to censor such a voice for the broken and helpless?”

Surprisingly, Vimeo accepted his explanation, telling Foster he did not need to remove his videos “at this time” but asking him to keep their guidelines in mind “for any future uploads.”

Unfortunately, on March 16, the cycle started again, with Vimeo giving Foster one week to remove the supposedly offensive videos.

When he wrote back, noting that the matter had previously been resolved, he received an email from Sean M. who explained:

Your statement equating homosexuality to “sexual brokenness” betrays the underlying stance of your organization. To put it plainly, we don’t believe that homosexuality requires a cure and we don’t allow videos on our platform that espouse this point of view.

Please remove any and all videos that discuss homosexuality as a condition requiring healing. We also consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow.

You can see why Foster described this as “pure religious bigotry and censorship.”

Vimeo is forbidding you from agreeing with the Bible when it comes to human sin and brokenness.

Vimeo is forbidding you from preaching the gospel of transformation when it comes to homosexuality.

Vimeo is engaging in blatant, unapologetic, aggressive anti-Christian censorship.

Foster wrote to me privately, pointing out that Vimeo allows “videos of terrorists and pornographers,” which made their stand against his ministry even more hypocritical.

He and Sean then engaged in a series of emails, but this was Vimeo’s bottom line: They recognized that Foster’s ministry was not “overtly vitriolic”. However, “Referring to homosexuality as a ‘dysfunction of sexual brokenness’ or ‘sexual distortion’ is not OK, nor is reference to ‘the fact that God can transform the life of anyone caught in homosexual confusion’. . . . Vimeo disagrees wholeheartedly with the notion that homosexuality is a form of brokenness, or something that requires healing, or something that people need to seek freedom from.”

To repeat: This is forbidden on Vimeo!

To paraphrase: Dr. Foster, we know you’re not hateful, but don’t you dare proclaim your testimony of transformation in Jesus, and don’t you dare imply that there is anything wrong with being gay. Not a word!

Then, on March 24, all 850 videos were removed and the Pure Passion account was closed.

This is an outrage, and it needs to be addressed. Here’s what you can do today:

1) Write to Vimeo and ask them to restore immediately the account of Dr. David Kyle Foster and Pure Passion, stating politely that this is a form of religious censorship and bigotry. If you can say something positive about Foster’s ministry through your own experience, do that as well.

2) Subscribe to Pure Passion’s YouTube channel, which, at least for now, has not been shut down. There you’ll find videos from speakers like Kay Arthur and John Bevere, addressing issues of sexual addiction and pornography, videos exposing the horrors of sex-trafficking, and videos of ex-gays.

3) Consider getting a copy of Foster’s powerful “Such Were Some of You” DVD.

4) Share this article with a friend.

5) Pray that the message of freedom and liberty in Jesus – from ALL brokenness and sin – would be proclaimed even more loudly and powerfully in the days ahead. May Vimeo’s efforts to silence a powerful ministry (along with other excellent ministries and organizations) result in the amplifying of this ministry’s message.

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com.

Novelist Vikram Seth wrote, “God save us from people who mean well.” Who are among those well-meaning people from whom we desperately need saving?

Politicians.

In a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to attack the widespread and grievous problem of domestic violence, State Senator Melinda Bush (D-Grayslake) is pushing SB 912. The bill would force religious leaders to undergo domestic violence recognition-training within one year of their initial employment and every five years thereafter.

The bill amends the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act which requires a wide range of professions, including medical professionals, teachers, and foster parents, to report any signs of domestic abuse to authorities. However, SB 912 singles out only religious leaders to take the mandated training.

This is a deeply troubling development.  The state of Illinois has no business requiring clergy to do anything.  It is easy to see how a precedent like this could lead to additional mandates that would pit secular values and beliefs against orthodox Christian values and teachings.

Moreover, the bill’s scope is not limited to pastors, priests, or heads of a ministry. Under the Act, clergy is defined as any “practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he or she belongs.” This language is broad enough to include elders, deacons, and even school teachers in some denominations.

The First Amendment prevents civil authorities from interfering with the establishment of religion, which is clearly involved here. Never before has the state dictated forms of training for religious leaders, and one can foresee new types of training down the road. What is to prevent the state from mandating other types of training such as sensitivity-training toward sexually immoral lifestyles?

Setting aside the laudable intentions of this proposal, we cannot emphasize enough just how dangerous this precedent is to religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

While the bill mentions no penalty for the refusal of religious leaders to take the training, it is not known  whether this means there will be no consequences for refusal to comply or whether penalties are to come.

Finally, who is going to pay for this training? Thousands of people across the state will be mandated to take this training on a regular basis which will be costly. The bill does not state whether the clergy or the state will pay for it. Clergy generally do not have the funds to take on extra costs, and the state of Illinois is certainly not in a position to increase spending.

Many denominations already provide training to  help leaders recognize signs of domestic abuse. State interference in the training of religious institutions is an unreasonable, unnecessary, and unconstitutional response to the problem of domestic abuse.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator, urging him or her to oppose state-mandated training for religious leaders.

IFI Forums: Climate Change & the Christian

Join us during the last week of April as we have Dr. Calvin Beisner, the founder & national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation discuss the Christian responsibility to the environment as we learn how to discern truth and myth in the climate change controversy.

April 25th in Rockford
April 26th in Arlington Heights
April 27th in Orland Park
April 28th in Peoria

Click HERE to learn more!

To boycott, or not to boycott? That is the question. Inevitably a company will take a social position that offends the sensibilities of a large segment of their customer base. This happens on the political right and left. Those whose values have been offended or assaulted often respond with a call for a boycott on the offending business, and refuse to buy from that company.

My experience is that while many engage in these reactive “buy-cotts”, many others grow weary of having to keep track of whom to avoid and whom to support. To them, it’s just a lot of fuss over nothing. Who cares what you buy, or from whom? This mentality insists that if I want to buy Levi’s jeans or Clorox bleach, then by George, I’m going to buy it. I don’t care what the corporation supports financially, or what social positions they embrace, I want the product I want. There is also the view that boycotts don’t accomplish much, other than that many of those who engage in them appear to be radical extremists who don’t know how to deal with the fact that there are people in the world who disagree with them.

Stewardship

The Biblical concept of stewardship is that, as Christians, we own nothing. God owns everything. We are only caretakers and stewards of God’s resources. We see this in the parable of Jesus regarding The Talents. When we understand this concept, it radically changes the way we live our lives. Our life is made up almost exclusively by how we allocate our ideas and skills through our time and resources. If everything we have as Christians is to be under the control of God’s will, it alters our priorities. Instead of orienting our lives around our own selfish whims and wishes, we need to think in terms of God’s Kingdom. Are we putting God’s kingdom first as our foremost priority?

What is odd about Christians is that they often seem to be passionate about supporting and funding movements, causes, products and organizations that are completely contrary to their professed values and beliefs. Almost no other people group does this. Almost every other sub-culture on the planet recognizes the value of spending money (through donations or through commerce) within their own philosophical neighborhood, so to speak.

Not Christians. Christians are often some of the primary contributors to the causes that are committed to their ideological destruction. Take Planned Parenthood, for example. Not only do most Christians never contribute strategically to pro-life organizations, who are on the front lines opposing abortion on demand, but Christian will gladly fund any and all companies who fund Planned Parenthood, as long as it is a product or experience they enjoy.

Anti-Christian organizations do not return the favor. They will categorically avoid spending money with movements and organizations that do not support their worldview and life-vision.

Beyond Boycotting

I don’t like the term, “boycotting.” It sounds reactive. It sounds like I’m just mad about something. Personally, I don’t think that way at all. Instead, I think about my values and convictions, and I ask myself, how can I funnel the most amount of money possible (directly through donations, and indirectly, through my purchases), to causes in which I believe? How can I ensure that organizations and groups that support my values have the funding they need to do the things that I believe will make our nation (and world) a better place?

Personally, I don’t want one penny of my dollars to knowingly go to support groups like Planned Parenthood. Can I avoid, altogether, supporting some causes for which I am opposed? Unfortunately, because of the world in which we live, I can’t completely avoid spending money or utilizing services with groups who oppose my worldview (especially the government, when they tax me for immoral causes they fund). I can’t do everything, but I can do something. I can seek to be the best financial steward that I can be, and spend God’s money as He would have me spend it. I hope you will pray and consider how you can do this as well.

A website that helps you to know at a glance which companies support the values that are important to you, is 2ndvote.com. Check them out! God bless!

IFI Forums: Climate Change & the Christian

Join us during the last week of April as we have Dr. Calvin Beisner, the founder & national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation discuss the Christian responsibility to the environment as we learn how to discern truth and myth in the climate change controversy.

April 25th in Rockford
April 26th in Arlington Heights
April 27th in Orland Park
April 28th in Peoria

Click HERE to learn more!

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty [on Thursday]. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of the God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs – beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well – her house, her savings, her retirement funds – by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.

Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronelle rejected the proposed settlement.

She explained, “Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”

She continued, “I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.”

Today, on my radio show, shortly after the ruling was announced and with the full weight of the state’s ruling hanging over her head, she told me would do the same thing again (stating that when God changes His Word, she will change her mind), also stating without the slightest trace of bitterness that she would gladly serve Robert Ingersoll should he come into her store today.

Friends, what are we witnessing today is a breathtaking abuse of power, an extreme overreach by the government, a shocking example of LGBT activism out of control, yet over the next 7 days, church services will come and go without a word being spoken, and over the next 48 hours, the Christian blogosphere will remain relatively quiet. How can this be?

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (November 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well. And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.

Please stop and read these words carefully.

Schlink wrote, “We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues, we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes. But we lacked the ardor of love – love that is never passive, love that cannot bear it when its fellowmen are in misery, particularly when they are subjected to such appalling treatment and tortured to death. Indeed, if we had loved God, we would not have endured seeing those houses of God set ablaze; and holy, divine wrath would have filled our souls. . . . Oh, that we as Germans and as Christians would stand aghast and cry out ever anew, ‘What have we done!’ At every further evidence of our guilt may we repeat the cry.” (From her book Israel, My Chosen People: A German Confession Before God and the Jews.)

What adds to the tragic irony of the moment is that in recent weeks, designers have said they will no longer work with Melania Trump and stores have dropped Ivanka Trump product lines, not because of deeply held religious beliefs, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, but because of political differences. And these companies and individuals are being praised by liberal Americans for standing on their convictions. But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away from the gospel – as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the LGBT community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Let me urge you, then, to do three things: 1) share this article with others to help spread the word; 2) make a statement about this gross injustice however you can (on social media; to your family; from your pulpit – I’m urging every pastor reading this column to say something to your flock the next opportunity you have); 3) go to this website to stand with Barronelle and her team; 4) pray for God to awaken the Church of America.

Will you take a stand today?

Three and a half years ago in an article titled “Frightening The Horses,” writer and editor Rod Dreher opens giving a fellow writer kudos. “Ben Domenech calls it,” Dreher notes, and then excerpts him:

I think they have really been arguing against the rise of something which has a much larger impact than just a small number of homosexuals getting married — they have instead been arguing against the modern concept of sexual identity. And this is a much tougher task, considering how ingrained this concept has become in our lives.

During the sexual revolution, we crossed a line from sex being something you do to defining who you are. When it enters into that territory, we move beyond the possibility of having a society in which sex acts were tolerated, in the Mrs. Patrick Campbell sense — “I don’t care what they do, so long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses” — and one where it is insufficient to be anything but a cheerleader for sexual persuasion of all manner and type, because to be any less so is to hate the person themselves. Sex stopped being an aspect of a person, and became their lodestar — in much the same way religion is for others.

After commenting on that, Dreher goes back to Domenech again:

So the real issue here is not about gay marriage at all, but the sexual revolution’s consequences, witnessed in the shift toward prioritization of sexual identity, and the concurrent rise of the nones and the decline of the traditional family. The real reason Obama’s freedom to worship limitation can take hold is that we are now a country where the average person prioritizes sex far more than religion.

. . .

In a nation where fewer people truly practice religion, fewer people external to those communities will see any practical reason to protect the liberty of those who do.

I highly recommend Rod Dreher’s entire article, where he weaves together several more excerpts from others, including the late Justice Antinon Scalia. Ben Domenech’s article The Future of Religious Liberty is also worth your time. Their point — that opening the door to mandated acceptance of everyone’s choice of identity has serious negative consequences.

Let’s turn to our next identity. A few years ago the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins wrote an article titled, “Whole: A New Documentary on a Troubling Disorder.” Here is the opening:

The new documentary Whole, which recently premiered at the Los Angeles Film Festival, explores the troubling topic of Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). This disorder, which I have mentioned in several articles, used to be called apotemnophilia.

Those who suffer from BIID identify with amputees and seek to have their bodies align with their psychological identity. That is to say, they seek to have healthy limbs amputated. Many of those who suffer from BIID (known colloquially as “amputee wannabes”) recount feeling these desires from a very young age. Some have accomplished their goal through self-mutilation, and at least two have been facilitated in their quest by a doctor in Scotland.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page (emphasis added):

Body integrity identity disorder (BIID, also referred to as amputee identity disorder) is a psychological disorder wherein sufferers feel they would be happier living as an amputee…

BIID is typically accompanied by the desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs to achieve that end. BIID can be associated with apotemnophilia, sexual arousal based on the image of one’s self as an amputee.

So, next on our list of basic and important questions: How will society respond to “After the Ball” type efforts to normalize BIID, remove it from the DSM’s (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) list of mental disorders, and demonize those who disapprove of it?

It is their identity, after all, and you shouldn’t be a bigot.

Up next: Transgenderism.

The Donald Trump presidency is underway. However, for “Progressives,” that’s just another incentive for them to step up their assault on freedom. But a religious liberty advocate says if Christians pray, maybe the new president will stand for the faithful even when they dare to be a voice in the public square.

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!

Written by LifeSiteNews staff

Chicago area pro-life advocates achieved a victory last week when a judge denied the City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss a federal complaint challenging Chicago’s abortion-protective “bubble zone.”

The ruling by United States District Judge Amy J. St. Eve was in response to the Thomas More Society’s challenge, on behalf of the Pro-Life Action League, Live Pro-Life Group and several individual pro-life counselors, that the ordinance denies life advocates their First Amendments rights and impedes their ability to share life-affirming alternatives with women seeking abortions.

Ann Scheidler, Anna Marie Scinto Mesia, David Berquist and Veronica Price are citizens who peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights on the public ways near Chicago abortion facilities by reaching out to women who are approaching the clinics.  These “sidewalk counselors” and their organizations inform these abortion-bound women of the dangers inherent in the procedures and share life-affirming alternatives. Their complaint asserts that Chicago’s “bubble zone” law unconstitutionally constrains the peaceful work of these counselors because police have selectively and erratically applied it against them, but not abortion clinic escorts.

Judge St. Eve ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with the challenge to the “bubble zone” ordinance.  She decided that since the law was enacted in 2009, enough instances of discriminatory and inconsistent enforcement have been alleged to warrant a hearing. She deemed valid the need for a hearing on whether the Chicago police enforced the ordinance with “deliberate indifference” toward the rights of the plaintiffs.

The “bubble zone” law, which is exclusively applicable to abortion facilities, designates a 50-foot radius of an abortion clinic entrance as an area in which a pro-life counselor is prohibited from intentionally coming closer than eight feet to a person approaching the entrance, unless that person gives permission for the counselor to approach.

Thomas More Society Senior Counsel and Co-Executive Director Thomas Olp explained, “Contrary to pro-abortion propaganda, pro-life counselors do not intimidate women approaching abortion clinics. That type of engagement would be ineffective.  Pro-life sidewalk counselors compassionately and calmly approach women, one-on-one, to offer them information about abortion alternatives. The Chicago ‘bubble zone’ ordinance is designed to impede — and does impede — this communication. This law is unconstitutional and it deliberately curtails our clients’ First Amendment rights.”

Read U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve’s January 4, 2017, Memorandum Opinion and Order handed down in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division in the case, Veronica Price et al. v. The City of Chicago et al., here.

Article originally published at LifeSiteNews.com.

If President Trump succeeds in removing the oppressive Johnson Amendment, which limits freedom of speech from the pulpits, will Christian leaders be more outspoken on controversial moral, cultural, and political issues? I have my doubts, since I don’t believe it is the Johnson Amendment that has muzzled preachers across America.

I believe it is the fear of man that has muzzled us and it is our desire to be affirmed by the world that has silenced us. Until we repent of these sinful, carnal attitudes, our tongues will not be loosed. We have been paralyzed from the inside, not the outside, and the removal of outward hindrances will not set us free within.

Let’s be honest about this. The Johnson Amendment, as wrong as it is, is quite limited in its scope, primarily prohibiting “certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.”

It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against political corruption. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against LGBT activism. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against abortion.

It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against a host of other moral and cultural issues, yet it is here that we have seriously failed our people — I say “we” because I too am a ministry leader, although not a pastor — since these are the very issues so many of us studiously avoid.

Who needs the controversy? Who wants to be vilified? Why stick your hand into a hornet’s nest? Why ask for trouble?

What Really Holds Pastors Back

You might say, “Maybe some pastors think like this, but that’s not the real issue for them. The issue is that they don’t want to distract from the gospel. They just want to tell people about Jesus.”

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning doesn’t hold water, since Jesus Himself was tremendously controversial — if memory serves me right, He was actually put to death by His generation — and He said that if we followed Him faithfully, we would be hated just as He was hated (see John 15:18; Matthew 10:24).

Why is it, then, that the same world that hated him so much loves us so much? Why is it that He offended so many — by being a perfect, shining light, full of grace and truth — yet we offend so few? (Sad to say, when we do offend people, it is often due to us being offensive and obnoxious or hypocritical and self-righteous rather than shining so brightly that people hate our light.)

It is true that Jesus was a friend of sinners — especially the societal outcasts — and we do well to follow His example. But it is equally true that He was a threat to all that was wrong in His society — including the religious establishment — while we frequently find ourselves completely at home in this world. How can this be?

In 2014, George Barna discussed the results of his latest poll during an interview on American Family Radio. He explained that, “What we’re finding is that when we ask [pastors] about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, ‘Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues.’ Then we ask them: ‘Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?’ and the numbers drop … to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.”

And what, exactly, holds them back from addressing controversial issues from the pulpit, including, “societal, moral and political issues”? According to Barna, “There are five factors that the vast majority of pastors turn to. Attendance, giving, number of programs, number of staff, and square footage.”

He continued: “What I’m suggesting is [those pastors] won’t probably get involved in politics because it’s very controversial. Controversy keeps people from being in the seats, controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs.”

Yes, at all costs, we must avoid the controversy that will stop us leaders from fulfilling the Christian version of the American dream: Great success and popularity, and a happy, financially prosperous congregation, all made possible by preaching a watered-down gospel.

This mindset has nothing whatsoever to do with the New Testament faith.

The Deliberate Disobedience of America’s Pastors

Fired up by the results of the Barna poll, pastor and radio host Chuck Baldwin wrote,

Please understand this: America’s malaise is directly due to the deliberate disobedience of America’s pastors — and the willingness of the Christians in the pews to tolerate the disobedience of their pastor. Nothing more! Nothing less! When Paul wrote his own epitaph, it read, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” (II Timothy 4:7) He didn’t say, “I had a large congregation, we had big offerings, we had a lot of programs, I had a large staff, and we had large facilities.”

Are his accusations too harsh? In many cases, yes, since there are sincere shepherds who simply feel ill-equipped to address the hot-button issues of the day, instead finding their gifting in the systematic teaching of the Scriptures and caring for their flocks. It is not fear that holds them back as much as a sense of calling to minister in a different way.

But in all too many cases, Baldwin’s accusations are right on target: We have compromised for the sake of comfort and convenience. We have found a way to bypass the Cross and its shame. We have created a no-cost, pop-gospel, forgetting that a gospel that costs nothing saves no one and is not a gospel at all.

The irony of all this is that Barna’s survey also indicated that the vast majority of Christians surveyed — around 90 percent — wanted their pastors to address these difficult moral and cultural issues, since this is the world they live in and these are the problems they confront, right down to their kids in nursery school.

They are expecting their pastors and leaders to help them sort these things out based on scripture, and they are frustrated and grieved when the men and women they look to are not there when they need them. Shouldn’t the shepherds care more about the well-being of their flocks than their own popularity? Shouldn’t the pastors care more about the health of their congregation than the wealth of their congregation?

To be clear, I have preached in wealthy, large mega-churches that are not afraid to tackle the controversies and I have preached in poor, small churches that are afraid to tackle these issues. The fear of man comes in many shapes and sizes, but the expression of it will always be the same: You will not do what you know is right because you fear the negative consequences.

That is a fear that must be broken, and it is only the Lord — not Donald Trump — who can help us break it.

Will we rise to the occasion, when society needs us the most, or we will cower behind our cheap excuses?

It’s time for the lion to roar.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Bible colleges in Illinois say they should be allowed to grant religious degrees without government interfering in their religious teaching. A court ruling will have a major impact on religious liberty in post-secondary education.

Year-End Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Temporarily Halts Illinois Abortion Referral Mandate

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems that our nation’s founding fathers were not clear enough with their use of language in the First Amendment, which protects some of our God-given rights. That “make no law” thing is confusing for many, and that “abridging” business, well, that’s way over the heads of Leftists.

While the U.S. Constitution binds Congress, our state constitution binds our state government, and the spirit of the First Amendment is expressed using different words in our state constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Regardless, in Illinois, our governor and General Assembly have now taken up the task of telling people what they can’t say. Reparative therapy is now against the law. So anyone seeking help to escape unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are going to have to find a state where therapists retain their freedom of speech.

In addition, they passed a law forcing pro-life counselors and medical professionals to violate their conscience by telling patients the benefits of abortion and going so far as to require them to give referrals, making them complicit in ending a human life. Here is Michele Bachmann speaking at an IFI event in September:

It is amazing to me that the law compels believers to say something they know isn’t true. Doctors, caregivers, people in pro-life centers — they’re forced, compelled, by a state entity, to share information that not only violates their moral conscience, but they know fundamentally, maybe even experientially in their own life — it is not only wrong — it will bring about death. And yet their government says they must say it.  (Read more here.)

The Alliance Defending Freedom is reporting some good news on this latter front — the doctors and healthcare professionals at the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford have been given a reprieve by a state court in the form of a preliminary injunction.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Matt Bowman commented on the injunction:

“Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry in violation of their freedom of conscience is unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical. No state has the authority to compel health professionals, against their will and their sacred oath to “do no harm,” to promote abortion. We commend the court’s ruling which is a victory for free speech and the freedom of conscience.”

ADF reported that in its nineteen-page order issued Tuesday, “the state court noted that Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford raised sufficient questions as to whether the new law is either legal or constitutional as applied to pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers.”

As an example, according to ADF, the ruling states:”Why must the State, which licenses and regulates those who provide the objected-to services, rely on the very people who object to the services to be the source of information about them?”

Click here to read the order of the state court granting preliminary injunction.

Upcoming Event:  Join thousands at March for Life Chicago 2017 as we come together from across Chicago, the Midwest and the U.S. to defend, protect and celebrate LIFE on January 15th.

Illinois Family Spotlight:  Listen to this week’s podcast as Monte Larrick and Dave Smith talk with pro-life hero Jill Stanek about what the pro-life movement can expect over the next few years in a Donald Trump administration.

End-of-Year Challange

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477