R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 197

The End of Parental Rights? A Chilling Case From Canada

The overload of media in the modern age has made it difficult to distinguish between the significant and the merely sensational. Sometimes, especially in this morally confused age, a story turns out to be both significant and sensational. That happened in Canada this past week—a story that bears enormous moral consequences and is utterly scandalous in its content.

Jeremiah Keenan, reporter for the Federalist, documented a decision last Wednesday in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent. The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, the parents could be charged with family violence.

Evidently, the girl’s school counselor encouraged her to identify as a boy as early as the seventh grade. When Maxine—the name used in the Federalist article—turned 13, Dr. Brenden Hursh and his colleagues at the British Columbia Children’s Hospital decided that she, “Should begin taking testosterone injections in order to develop a more masculine appearance.” Keenan reported that while the mother accepted the idea of hormone injections, the girl’s father was “concerned about the permanent ramifications of cross-sex hormones.” Further: “Suspecting that his daughter’s mental health issues might be more of the cause than the effect of her gender dysphoria. He ultimately decided that it would be better for her to wait until she was older before she embarked on any irreversible course of treatment.”

Despite the father’s concerns and rights as a parent, the doctor informed the parents that hormone treatments would commence simply based on the expressed consent of the child and the agreement of doctors. The lead doctor claimed that he had the right to usurp parental control due to prevailing law in British Columbia known as the Infants’ Act. When the father sought an injunction from the court in British Columbia, a judge deemed that the daughter was empowered with “consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria.” The father responded to the court’s decision, stating, “The government has taken over my parental rights. They’re using [his daughter] like she’s a guinea pig in an experiment.”

The father continued in his outrage, asking, “Is the British Columbia Children’s Hospital going to be there in 5 years when she rejects her male identity? No, they’re not. They don’t care. They want numbers.” Keenan aptly reported that the majority of children diagnosed by sex change clinics with gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder have actually returned to identify with their gender assigned at birth.

The sexual revolutionaries are scandalously dishonest about the consequences or implications of their worldview. Indeed, the father reflected on transgender clinics in England that, due to enormous activist pressure, fast track children into transition treatments. The father commented, “These activists are taking over and it’s not in the interest of our kids. It’s in the interest of self-promotion and the things that they want to do and accomplish.”

Indeed, the sexual revolution aims to normalize its entire transgender ideology. The LGBTQ revolutionaries have chipped away at the moral foundation of society—by opening the door to adult gender dysphoria, it would only be a matter of time before they extended their logic to young children who should have access to hormonal treatments and gender reversal medical procedures. No matter how hard they try, however, the sexual revolutionaries have no way to normalize what they propose for children. There is no way to look at this story without serious moral concern and outrage; an outrage not only directed at the indoctrination of young minds but the disavowal of parental rights.

This story out of Canada reveals the deeply subversive developments of the sexual revolutionaries and their agenda—they now target the rights of parents; they disrupt the life of the home and subvert familial bonds. The court’s decision in British Columbia opened the door to the nullification of all parental rights—the child, no matter the age, is increasingly considered to be autonomous. Children and teenagers, guided and advised and even pushed by activists and medical authorities, can decide what to do with their bodies. Not only that, if the parents dare to refer to their transgender child by their actual sex, the parents can be charged with violating the family violence laws.

This is not a twisted fantasy novel. It is a real case, with real people, with a real judge, and with massively real consequences.

A moral reorientation of society occurs when the revolutionaries enact the logical and consistent implications of their worldview. For the sexual revolution, it began with claims that, for adults, gender is merely a social construct and gender identity is up to the individual. But if that logic applies to adults, it will inevitable apply to adolescents and children as well. The fluidity of gender and its deconstruction as a fixed, moral norm must extend to every person at every age. Every individual, even little children, must possess legally protected autonomy to decide their gender identity, declare it, and seek hormonal treatments and more.

When that logic infects a society, moral absolutes disappear. In Canada, the sexual revolution has sacrificed parental rights on the altar of a perverse moral ideology.

The Supreme Court in British Columbia has handed down a terrible decision—it not only nullified parental rights over their children but made it criminal for parents even to refer to their child as the gender assigned at birth. The judge ruled, “Attempting to persuade [their daughter] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing [their daughter] by his birth name, or with female pronouns, whether to him directly or to third parties shall be considered to be family violence under Section 38 of the Family Law Act.”

Like a destructive tidal wave, the moral revolution crushes the norms and moral structures that have guided human civilization for thousands of years. In this secular moment, parents no longer serve as the responsible authorities for the nurturing of their children but obstacles that must be removed.

Indeed, the sexual revolution continuously seeks to undermine parental authority as evidenced by another case in Alberta. Jill Croteau for Global News reported a story with the headline, “Gay-straight alliance law challenged at Alberta Court of Appeal.” Croteau writes, “A court of Appeal heard both sides on the impacts of Gay-straight alliances in schools. While one side argues they limit a parent’s right to know, the other says it protects children whose parents may not accept their sexual identity.”

The substance of this issue centers around schools which refer students to Gay-straight alliances, or clubs, without divulging that information to parents. Indeed, some schools will place students with an openly gay or LGBTQ counselor without every notifying the parents. These students will receive encouragement to accept a gay identity—conversations that go on while parents remain oblivious and intentionally left in the dark.

A moral meltdown has erupted. The forces of secularism and the moral revolutionaries have pressed an agenda with a ruinous fallout. The logic is clear: Parents must be severed from their children if the parents refuse to get on board.

The sexual revolution must push and invade. If it asserts the full autonomy of the individual, then it must extend that right to young children. If the moral revolutionaries fail in this endeavor, or agree that children should remain under the care of their parents, then they undermine the entire worldview and sexual agenda of the movement. If personal autonomy is absolute, then it absolutely must apply to every person at every stage of life.

Furthermore, the sexual revolution chooses its skirmishes in the battlefields of the courts—and they are winning those contests. Lawsuits and cases, timed just right, and placed in front of the right set of judges, will procure a ruling that will favor the sexual revolution. Rather than public discourse and debate over these enormous issues, the sexual revolution seeks judicial mandate. Through jurisprudence, the sexual revolutionaries build precedence. When one case goes their way, it lays a foundation for further cases that will extend their ideology. It has been an effective strategy, even in the United States with cases like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

This is how a moral change takes place within a society—not only aided and abetted by the courts but driven by the courts. The headlines that demand our attention often include the names of one judge or another; one justice or one court after another. That is no accident. That is the strategy to transform the culture—and, as court decision after court decision indicates, the revolutionaries are winning.

The post The End of Parental Rights? A Chilling Case From Canada appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, March 4, 2019

The implications of transgender ideology actualized: Parental rights is the next victim of the sexual revolution in CanadaThe Federalist (Jeremiah Keenan) — Canadian Court Rules Parents Can’t Stop 14-Year-Old from Taking Trans HormonesGlobal News (Jill Croteau) — Gay-straight alliance law challenged at Alberta Court of Appeal

Should men competitively wrestle women? Christian convictions lead high school wrestler to forfeit his shot at the state championshipWashington Post (Samantha Pell) — Rather than wrestle a girl in the state championship, this high schooler forfeitedUSA Today (Christine Brennan) — High school boys had better learn to compete with girlsAlbertMohler.com (Albert Mohler) — Boys Wrestling Girls — A Clash of Worlds and Worldviews

From the tennis court to the wrestling mat and everywhere in between, the athletic arena grapples with how to handle LGBTQ competitorsNBC News (Associated Press) — Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares

The post Monday, March 4, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Scandal of the Peace Cross: Secularists Take Aim at a Monument

Does the simple existence of a large, concrete cross on public land that honors veterans from World War I violate the United States Constitution? The Supreme Court took up that question during the oral arguments of The American Legion v. American Humanist Association. The issues at stake, like the monument itself, loom large over the landscape.

The case centers on the memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, and it is one of the most important cases to appear before the Supreme Court on religious liberty in a very long time. On the one hand, the issue might seem frivolous—why would anyone dispute a memorial honoring World War I veterans? On the other hand, the case marks the inevitable outcome of an increasingly secular society and a Supreme Court that has offered deeply confusing judgments.

Originally, mothers of soldiers who fell during World War I led the effort to construct the cross in Bladensburg. Later, the American Legion championed the memorial. Then, in the middle of the 20th century, the county took responsibility for maintaining the monument. The cross-shaped memorial features prominently in Bladensburg—hence the dilemma in this secular environment where some have taken offense to the existence of the cross on what is now public land.

Opponents of the memorial view the county’s maintenance of the cross as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and have sought legal action against the cross. This drama has made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on February 27.

What did the oral arguments reveal? Nina Totenberg of NPR reported that “the US Supreme Court appeared ready to let stand a 40-foot cross on public land in Maryland, but the justices struggled to come up with a test to clarify the separation of church and state in this country.”

Indeed, the oral arguments indicated that a majority of the justices believed that the cross, in its current existence on public land, should not be removed. The justices, however, had difficulty articulating judicial reasoning for their apparent position—the ambiguity of their reasoning points to enormous questions regarding our constitutional order and the direction of religious liberty in American public life. This case involves more than a World War I moment; it gravitates around a host of religious liberty issues, especially the public expression of religion in civil spheres. The Supreme Court must rule on the limits of the First Amendment of the Constitution and the intersection of religious freedom with societal order. This is an enormous responsibility entrusted to the Supreme Court.

Regrettably, the Court made a massive mess of these questions over the last few decades. Justice Neil Gorsuch lamentably referred to existing Supreme Court precedence on religious liberty as “a dog’s breakfast.” The Supreme Court has handed down a history of muddied, inconsistent decisions and has done more to obfuscate the constitutional meaning of religious freedom rather than to clarify.

In her NPR report, Nina Totenberg argued that the Supreme Court has the responsibility to “clarify the separation of church and state in this country.” And yet, the phrase “separation of church and state”—is nowhere found in the United States Constitution. She grounded the Court’s duty, not in any constitutional provision, but in a line traceable to a letter by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Moreover, no branch of government advocating the adage “separation of church and state” has consistently applied that principle in any coherent pattern. Both houses of Congress open every session with prayer; our bills are marked by the printed words, “In God we Trust.” Even the Supreme Court bows to religious traditions and symbols—it begins every session with the declaration, “May God save this honorable court,” and the building features a massive frieze of Moses holding the 10 commandments.

The actual text of the First Amendment to the Constitution does not contain the phrase, “separation of church and state.” Instead, it has two different clauses: one guarantees the free exercise of religion while the other forbids the national government from establishing a state church—no establishment of religion.

With the energies of secularism rising, new challenges emerge against religious liberty—challenges that are unprecedented in American history. A barrage of arguments assail religious liberty as secularists claim that the mere sight of religious symbols violates their sensitivities and therefore must also violate the American Constitution. Moreover, liberal ideology seeks to reconstrue religious liberty, not as a fundamental human right, but a convenient tool of religious classes to justify discrimination.

Adam Liptak, reporting for The New York Times, stated, “The Supreme Court seemed ready on Wednesday to allow a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I to remain in place on public land in Maryland. But the unusually vigorous, and at times heated argument over the issue revealed deep divisions among the justices on the more general question of what role religion may play in public life.”

Liptak encapsulates the larger issue at stake in this case argued before the Supreme Court. He rightly points to the issue of religion’s role in public life as the key dilemma facing the Court’s decision. He continued, “A majority of the justices appeared inclined to rule that the particular cross at issue in the case, which is part of a memorial to 49 fallen soldiers from Prince George’s county, did not run afoul of the Fist Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion by sending a message of favoritism to Christianity.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, two liberal justices on the court, based their allowance of the moment on its age—the memorial caused no controversy in 1925 and the nation had an overwhelming Christian identity during the early part of the 20th century. Yet, that standard has now changed in 2019. Justice Stephen Breyer argued, “No more. We’re a different country. We are a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions.” At one time, a cross-shaped memorial might have been acceptable for America—the times, however, have changed.

The Editorial Board of The Washington Post offered its opinion of yesterday’s oral arguments, stating, “The Latin cross symbolizes Christianity. If Americans today got together to design a new memorial on public space, at public expense, to their fallen soldiers, they would almost certainly not choose this patently sectarian form. The days are long gone when it could be plausibly assumed that all or nearly all of this country’s soldiers are Christian. And so whatever else might be said about the granite and cement Bladensburg Peace Cross, which towers 40 feet above a busy intersection in Prince George’s County, it is not a model for the future.”

Many commentators appear to celebrate the de-Christianization of the American landscape. They argue that America, though once religious, is now secular and that religious symbols represent an antiquated system of values no longer shared by the American people.

The Washington Post noted myriad of contradictions and compromises that have plagued religious liberty cases in the United Stated. Indeed, the constitutional issues at stake, and the muddied precedence complicates the Court’s deliberation and judicial reasoning. The Editorial Board for the Wall Street Journal, however, argued that this case presented a unique opportunity for the Supreme Court to clear out the fog and enshrine a new precedence for future cases on religious liberty. The Wall Street Journal argued, “The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether a 93-year-old cross-shaped war memorial on public land violates the Constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. The specific case is an easy call, but the Justices also have an opportunity to clear up their messy Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

A 1971 case known as Lemon v. Kurtzman serves as the source of the legal mess lamented by the Wall Street Journal. In that case, the majority opinion of the court handed down the infamous “Lemon Test.”

The “Lemon Test” has three different probes into issues of religious liberty. First, if a law is constitutional, it must have an essentially secular purpose. Second, the principle effect must neither advance nor inhibit any religion. Finally, a constitutional law must not foster excessive interference between government and religion.

This test is itself a mess, with dubious, subjective, and ambiguous qualifications. It can lead to inconsistent jurisprudence because one judge utilizes the test differently than another judge. The Wall Street Journal has called upon the court to do away with the “Lemon Test,” and develop a new standard for cases of religious liberty—one that will clear the mists of confusion and jurisprudence.

The Constitutional issues at stake in this case cannot be overstated. The implications of the Court’s decision will send shockwaves throughout the nation. If the court rules the memorial as unconstitutional, it inevitably calls into question the thousands of crosses, which mark the graves of America’s soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. Monument by monument, town by town—the entire public landscape of America will undergo a massive cleansing.

Behind this case lies the simmering hostility of secularists against Christianity. The secular tides of modernity seek to erode the idea of Christian involvement in the public square. Christian symbols, prayers, and monuments stand in the crosshairs of the secular elites.

Christians, however, must guard against another argument made in this case. Some argue that the cross-shaped monument in no way violates the Constitution because it is not an inherently Christian symbol. Christians run the danger of agreeing with that sentiment in order to protect the existence of other cross-shaped monuments.

The cross, however, bears tremendous weight as a symbol. It stands as nothing less than the symbol of Jesus Christ crucified—the sign of the Son of God who died as a propitiatory sacrifice and atonement for sinners. To state anything less empties the cross of its inherent theological message as a symbol of the Christian faith.

The secular onslaught must not be met with Christians jettisoning the glory and weight of its symbols. There is no victory for religious liberty if Christians simply reduce the cross to a secular symbol with no theological, doctrinal, or historical meaning. If the cross is only a secular symbol, then there is no threat to religious liberty.

Christians must understand that, notwithstanding the importance of religious liberty, we dare not surrender theological fidelity for civilly protected rights. Our ultimate concern is not for religious freedom, but for the message, meaning, and power of the cross of Jesus Christ.

The post The Scandal of the Peace Cross: Secularists Take Aim at a Monument appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Friday, March 1, 2019

Talks between U.S. and North Korea break off: How the underlying motives of the Korean dictator revealed themselves in summit meetingWall Street Journal (James Freeman) — What Does Kim Want?

House bill offers single-payer, universal healthcare, but there’s more at stake than what meets the eye New York Times (Robert Pear) — As Over 100 House Democrats Embrace ‘Medicare for All,’ a Party Division Appears

Religious unbelief is actually belief: New Portland law proves America isn’t as secular as some would thinkHuffington Post (Carol Kuruvilla) — Portland Bans Discrimination Against Atheists and Agnostics

The post Friday, March 1, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019

Will the Peace Cross still stand? The Supreme Court must clarify the confusion it has created in previous cases and respect the role of religion in public life.National Public Radio (Nina Totenberg) — Supreme Court Appears Ready to Let Cross Stand But Struggles With Church-State TestNew York Times (Adam Liptak) — Supreme Court seems ready to allow cross honoring war deadLos Angeles Times (David Savage) — Supreme Court Will Look at Whether a Cross is Promotion of Religion or War MemorialWashington Post (Charles Haynes) — The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross: Here’s the important backstory

In the face of hostility, Christians must uphold that the cross is, in fact, a Christian symbolWashington Post (Editorial Board) — The Supreme Court’s struggles on the Peace Cross case reflect a bigger challengeWall Street Journal (Editorial Board) — A Supreme Court cross-roads

The meltdown of identity politics: Even an all-LGBTQ city council cannot satisfy the ever-growing expectation of intersectionalityWashington Post (Scott Wilson) — In Palm Springs, the nation’s first all-LGBTQ city council tests the modern meaning of diversity

Judgement after death: The Supreme Court overturns decision of judge who was already dead when ruling was publishedLos Angeles Times (David Savage) — Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit equal-pay decision because of judge’s death

The post Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Church History Made Before Our Eyes: United Methodists Make History, Affirm Biblical Standards of Sexuality

Church history spans two millennia—2,000 years of recorded experience. The weight of that history is heavy and humbling. Seen in that light, it takes a really big event to rank as historical, even as it happens. Such an event happened within the last seven days.

In St. Louis Missouri, the United Methodist Church met for a special General Conference to answer unavoidable questions central to the sexual revolution and the LGBTQ agenda. The United Methodist Church stands as the last mainline Protestant denomination that has not yet fully surrendered to the sexual revolution. The church has long agonized over this issue, with many in the church advocating for capitulation while a slim conservative majority still held to an orthodox teaching of marriage and sexuality.

A standoff has engulfed the church since the 1970s, with liberals pushing for the full acceptance and normalization of homosexuality and the entire spectrum of the LGBTQ ethic—they demand the ordination of openly gay clergy, the affirmation of same-sex marriage, and even electing homosexual bishops. But the liberals within the United Methodist Church have been thwarted in this effort – and the reason is illuminating.

Despite its basic theological liberalism, the UMC made history this week by upholding a biblical ethic on sexual morality. The General Conference sustained its biblical standards on marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman and rejected the LGBTQ revolution. This has never happened before and thus history was made. A mainline Protestant denomination long characterized by theological liberalism defeated the LGBTQ juggernaut and affirmed the biblical vision for marriage and sexuality. This demands our attention.

Though Methodism stretches back to the 18th century with the teachings of John and Charles Wesley, the UMC, as a denomination, is only about 50 years old. In 1968, The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren merged, forming the United Methodist Church. Generally identified with liberal Protestantism, the UMC also included a large representation of classical Methodists committed to traditional Christianity—many of these Methodists could rightly be described as evangelical.

Those conservative members have long summoned the UMC back to its historic, evangelical roots. In the wake of liberalism within mainline denominations, the evangelicals in the UMC founded the Good News Movement, which promoted conservative and orthodox theology, encouraged evangelism, and opposed the abdication of biblical morality.

As the sexual revolution targeted and captured many mainline Protestant denominations, the UMC held its ground. The committed conservatives within the church did not leave; they pressed on with convictional leadership as they attempted to stem the tides of secularism and liberal theology. Moreover, conservative leaders in the UMC received encouragement when the denomination opened its membership to international churches in Africa and Asia—these churches maintained a deep fidelity to traditional, biblical sexuality. Indeed, over the last several decades, the majority of the UMC’s growth arises from those Methodist churches abroad. Thus, when the denomination gathers every four years for its General Conference, conservatives have enjoyed greater representation because more representatives hail from places like Africa and the Philippines.

Liberals saw the writing on the wall—they understood the general trend of the denomination towards a conservative theology and biblical ethic. As such, the liberals who fought for the UMC’s acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda understood that with every passing year, their chances of success dwindled. The liberal leaders within the UMC knew they needed to force a vote on these issues fast, hence the special General Conference of 2019.

The showdown in Missouri stems from a long line of debates held at every General Conference since 1972. For the last 47 years, liberals have already fought for the liberalization of the UMC’s official teaching, which is known as the Book of Discipline. The historic discipline of the denomination asserts that “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals cannot be ordained as ministers, even as it is to be recognized that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God.” It also promotes marriage as union of one man and one woman, and states that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Despite the clarity of that language, the liberal faction in the UMC has repeatedly defied the denomination’s dogma. Dissident pastors have affirmed the LGBTQ agenda and celebrated homosexual marriages in their churches. Openly gay pastors serve in pulpits, and one conference of the UMC is led by an openly gay bishop – all in open defiance of the Book of Discipline.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Church practice cannot be severed from official church doctrine. The separation between doctrine and practice will doom any denomination. Indeed, the UMC stood at a crossroads. It would have to go one way or the other—a decision that would assuredly lead to a massive division in the church and eventuate in a denominational split. After yesterday’s decision, the UMC will most likely endure a schism between conservatives and liberals, with the conservatives holding onto the UMC while the liberals start a new denomination made in the image of the sexual revolution.

When the delegates arrived at the General Conference, they faced three different proposals: the liberal option, the traditional option, and a middle option. The middle option, known as the “One Church Plan,” boasted the overwhelming support of the bishops in the church. It promoted a local option, where congregations and conferences (regional jurisdictions of the UMC) could decide for themselves which direction to take.

The middle option was illogical and unprincipled. The UMC’s bishops would willingly sacrifice doctrinal and moral clarity on the altar of denominational unity. The “One Church Plan” surrendered theological conviction for a loosely defined and weak ecclesiology.

Furthermore, 93 presidents of historically Methodist universities implored the General Conference to join the sexual revolution. These presidents represented universities like Duke, Boston University, Emory, and American University in Washington D.C. They demanded the liberal option.

Thus, the battle lines were drawn. Liberals and conservatives marshaled their forces, counted votes, wrote articles, preached sermons, and descended on St. Louis for a historic showdown over the future of America’s second largest Protestant denomination.

The final vote not only rejected the liberal option but the defeat of the  “One Church Plan” as well. The General Conference upheld the historic teaching of the church regarding sexuality and marriage. The vote, however, was remarkably close—438 to 384, or 53% to 47%. This marks a deep divide within the UMC.

There is no going back. This divide will not heal. The theological divergences that have plagued the UMC bubbled over this week in St. Louis and the results will undoubtedly lead to a massive split in this global denomination. The two sides of this debate essentially affirm different religions, not just different visions of Methodism.

Perhaps the most important decision taken by the General Conference centered on its rejection of the middle option. Even though an overwhelming number of UMC bishops called for the “One Church Plan,” the delegates decided that unity at the expense of doctrine is no unity at all—if the church does not present a unified and clear teaching on something as basic as sexual morality then it is no church at all. It cannot stand as one body, unified by its faith in Christ, if half the church upholds orthodox sexuality while the other half joins the sexual revolution. This decision by the General Conference took an enormous amount of conviction and fortitude. It sent a clear message that the UMC will not join the sexual revolution.

Even though the UMC remains a generally liberal denomination, that will likely change as the ripples of this decision spread. Eventually, a church must decide which road to take. The forces of modernity and the tides of secularism have swept many churches and denominations away. The UMC, however, drew a line in the sand and made no compromises on sexual ethics. As such, part of the history made yesterday is not only a mainline denominations refusal to join the sexual revolution, but a denomination that may, in the years to come, return to its evangelical heritage and theological roots that reach back to men like John and Charles Wesley.

The General Conference’s decision amounted to a surprising and stunning turn for this major denomination. It contradicted the wisdom of the world, which demands that all churches dance to the tune of the sexual revolution. Long ago, many denominations surrendered their theology in the service of cultural relevance. Those churches are now dying—the churches that are growing are those who have held fast to the clear teachings and admonitions of Scripture.

No church or congregation can move in two contradictory directions at once. Theological fidelity cannot mix with cultural capitulation. One must give way to the other. Yesterday, the UMC stood upon the authority of the Bible. History was made, and such a moment, rare as it it, should give hope to all biblically minded Christians.

 

The post Church History Made Before Our Eyes: United Methodists Make History, Affirm Biblical Standards of Sexuality appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019

United Methodist Church defies mainline Protestant history by saying no to the sexual revolutionReligion News Service (Jacob Lupfer) — United Methodists should acknowledge reality that they are no longer united

Where does the United Methodist Church go after historic vote upholding biblical sexuality?New York Times (Timothy Williams and Elizabeth Dias) — United Methodists tighten ban on same-sex marriage and gay clergyWashington Post (David Crary and Jim Salter) — United Methodists delegates reject recognizing gay marriage

Why Christians understand that equality of males and females does not necessitate women entering military draftUSA Today (Gregory Korte) — With women in combat roles, a federal court rules male-only draft unconstitutional

The post Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Age of Infanticide: The Senate Will Not Even Protect Babies Born Alive

Late yesterday, the United States Senate failed to muster enough votes to protect the lives of children born alive after an attempted abortion. This vote comes as one of the most important events in recent American political history—and it is simultaneously tragic and telling. This latest failure to protect human life represents the latest chapter in America’s lamentable and horrific Culture of Death – a culture driven by the pro-abortion movement.

Mike DeBonis and Felicia Sonmez covered the story for The Washington Post, reporting, “The Senate voted Monday to block consideration of a measure that would punish any doctor who fails to provide medical care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion. All but three Democrats voted against a procedural motion on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, denying it the necessary 60 votes to proceed. The final vote count was 53 in favor and 44 opposed.”

A slim majority voted in favor of the legislation while 44 senators voted against it. The number 44 demands attention—44 United States Senators voted against a bill banning infanticide. This is a chilling moment in American history.

The bill would have required health-care providers to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child’ as he or she would to ‘any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”  The bill also provided for criminal penalties and the right of the mother to bring civil action.

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, the author and main sponsor of the legislation, said, “I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re okay with infanticide. It is too blunt for many people in this body, but frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today… Are we a country that protects babies that are live, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?” Sasse described the legislation as an “infanticide ban” that would have protected the lives of innocent newborns who survived an abortion that failed.

Yesterday’s vote shows the bare teeth of the pro-abortion movement and the death grip it holds upon the modern Democratic Party. The pro-abortion forces now push for radical abortion laws, which allow for abortions up to and even after a baby’s due date. They advocate for abortions in every legal circumstance and have succeeded in New York, while other states like Virginia, Rhode Island, and Illinois line up to join this sickening spiral of death.

The Christian worldview affirms the sanctity of human life at every moment, from fertilization to natural death. Thus, every abortion amounts to the murder of an unborn child. Yet, even the most radical pro-abortion lobbyists have shied away from public and eager support for late-term abortion. Now, all the limits are off. There is no line too far and no moral absolute governs the pro-abortion ideology. Their only absolute is absolute support for abortion.

Yesterday, only three Democrats dared to cross the aisle in support of this bill. That fact is not surprising given the states those senators represent: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Alabama. Tellingly, all the current contenders for the Democratic nomination for President serving in the Senate fell over themselves to record their opposition to this bill banning infanticide. With the 2020 election looming on the horizon, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kristen Gillibrand, and Kamila Harris, all voted “No” on this bill. Each of these senators sent a clear message by their opposition—they are utterly and unreservedly sold out to the pro-abortion movement. This is the new moral vector of the Democratic Party heading into a Presidential election cycle. This is the now party unwilling to protect the lives of babies born alive.

In the floor debate yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the proposed law, “a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies.” He also indicted Democrats, arguing that they “seem to be suggesting that newborn babies’ right to life may be contingent on the circumstances surrounding their birth.” Senator McConnell rightly assessed the harrowing implications of the Democratic argument, but recently, the pro-abortion movement and its allies in Congress have continued to expunge the dignity of life from the moral compass of the American society—they have even, in recent years, opposed the Partial-Birth-Abortion-Ban Act, which prevented and outlawed the most macabre murder of an unborn baby in the womb.

What happened yesterday represents a lurch forward for the Culture of Death. Indeed, the Democratic Party has aligned itself with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America—it is beholden to the moral agenda of this pro-abortion organization bent on securing unfettered access to abortions for every woman no matter the circumstance, reason, or age of the child in the womb. Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, “We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights. This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

This is where the arguments from the pro-abortion agenda break down and depart from any intellectual honesty or consistency. First, they argue that the practice does not exist. But if the practice does not exist, why oppose a bill that would outlaw infanticide?

The pro-abortion argument demonstrates a deadly contradiction in its moral and ethical reasoning. They argue that the practices described in this bill do not happen and that we must not outlaw it. Indeed, some of the statements against the legislation exude an unparalleled level of insanity. Senator Patty Murray of Washington described the legislation as “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.” On what planet can lawmakers deem a bill that bans infanticide as “anti-family?”

Senator Murray continued, “It has no place becoming law. Its proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal. [The legislation would] do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”

The Senator has erected a structure of one incompatible argument on another. If the bill set out to make something illegal that is already illegal, then why oppose the bill? If it is already illegal, then how would this law do anything to deny a woman’s right to choose? Does this practice happen, or does it not happen? Sadly, it does happen.

The opinions against yesterday’s bill look less like rational arguments grounded in reality and more like Alice in Wonderland—lunacy, fantasy, and deep rabbit hole of deadly logic. Words no longer matter as pro-abortion advocates make every desperate, unfounded argument against a pro-life bill imaginable—even a bill that would have protected the life of a baby outside the womb.

Christians should note this event closely and consider the ramifications gravely. The developments over the last few weeks and days show how far the Culture of Death advances by the hour in the United States of America. Yesterday’s vote in the Senate is just a sign of deadly developments to follow.

The post The Age of Infanticide: The Senate Will Not Even Protect Babies Born Alive appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019

The culture of death lurches forward: Senate fails to pass legislation that would protect the lives of children born aliveThe Washington Post (Mike DeBonis and Felicia Sonmez) — Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion

With all eyes on the Vatican, the meeting on Catholic clergy sex abuse ends with no concrete policy developmentsNew York Times (Jason Horowitz and Elizabeth Dias) — Pope Francis Ends Landmark Sex Abuse Meeting With Strong Words, but Few ActionsNew York Times (Elisabetta Povoledo) — The Vatican Is Talking About Clerical Abuse, but Italy Isn’t. Here’s Why.Wall Street Journal (Francis X. Rocca) — Pope Vows to Combat Sex Abuse but Critics Say He Falls Short

In the background of the Catholic clerical sex abuse crisis lies a contradiction in the church’s official doctrine and the reality of homosexualityNew York Times (Jason Horowitz and Elisabetta Povoledo) — The Most Talked About Non-Topic at the Vatican? HomosexualityNew York Times (Elizabeth Dias) — ‘It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.New York Times (Frank Bruni) — The Vatican’s Gay Overlords

The post Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, Feb. 25, 2019

The moral messaging of the Oscars: How the entertainment industry influences society.

How new regulations further prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortion— with Planned Parenthood at issue.Associated Press (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and David Crary) — Trump sets up abortion obstacles, barring clinic referralsNew York Times (Pam Belluck) — Trump Administration Blocks Funds for Planned Parenthood and Others Over Abortion Referrals

Gender revolutionaries want you to believe that men and women will dress identically, but is that really so?The Wall Street Journal (Jacob Gallagher and Hayley Phelan) — Who Needs Gender? Why Men and Women are Dressing Identically

Spirit cleansing? When Christianity is removed from society, the void is always filled with some kind of spirituality.

The post Monday, Feb. 25, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.