“This is Life We’re Talking About” — Abortion and the Health Care Bill

Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 3:50 am ET

Ground Zero for the sanctity of human life is now the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Democratic leadership is pulling all the levers to come up with the 216 votes necessary to pass the Obama health care bill. While most of the nation seems preoccupied with the politics of the issue and the political machinations of the frenzied legislative process, the preeminent issue is abortion and the sanctity of human life.

While President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have insisted that the current bill is "abortion neutral," it is not. As Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life argues, the bill represents "the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision."

Some background information is in order. Federal funding for abortion is prevented by the Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1976 in order to prevent taxpayer funds from paying for abortions. The concept behind the Hyde Amendment is simple and important. Abortion is a highly divisive issue, and the federal government should not require American citizens to violate their consciences by subsidizing abortions. Just a few months ago, the House of Representatives adopted language similar to the Hyde Amendment in the form of what became known as the Stupak Amendment, named for Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who introduced the legislation.

The bill currently before Congress does not include the Stupak Amendment, nor anything like the Hyde Amendment. When the President and congressional leaders insist that the current bill does not subsidize abortions, they mislead the American public.

The bill requires all Americans to purchase health insurance through qualified government-approved policies. The current version, based on the bill passed by the Senate, would require qualified plans to cover abortion only through a separate policy, paid for with a separate check or payroll deduction. Yet, as Dr. Yoest argues, this leaves plenty of room for American citizens to be coerced into financial involvement with abortion.

At the first level, this is true because the entire health care insurance system, complete with mandates to individual American citizens, would effectively reset the economy of scale, meaning that we will all, in effect, be subsidizing abortion services in an indirect subsidy. More directly, employees of companies that choose a policy with abortion coverage will be coerced into a direct subsidy -- required to pay what would amount to an abortion tax.

There is also the issue of mandated coverage through action of the federal courts. The Hyde Amendment became necessary because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 1996 that abortion must be covered by Medicaid as a "mandatory" category of medical care. The Hyde Amendment is all that stands between that ruling and taxpayer funding of abortion.

The creeping coverage of abortions is what Dr. Yoest has in mind when she writes: "Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions."

Beyond all this, the current bill lacks the conscience protections necessary to prevent medical personnel from being required to participate in abortions.

Why are the Democratic leaders so determined to exclude the Stupak Amendment from the bill? The most stunning and revealing explanation comes from Rep. Stupak himself. Consider this:

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue.

This language is nothing less than horrifying. "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."

As James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal insists, this is nothing less than a call for eugenics. Where does this logic lead?

He writes: "In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born."

Americans may disagree on virtually every dimension of this health care bill, but this is now about far more than health care. As Rep. Stupak asserts, "This is life we're talking about." Unless adequate protections for the unborn are added to this bill, we are indeed witnessing a radical turn in this nation's moral character. Time is running out. The adoption of adequate protections for the unborn should be beyond debate.

Rep. Stupak's words bear repeating, over and over again. "This is life we're talking about."

_____________________________________

I have refrained from extended comment on the health care reform bills -- not because I do not have multiple concerns about the bills, but because I recognize that committed Christians can and will disagree over the political and policy issues involved. The trip-wire for me is the issue of human life. The current bill spells disaster when it comes to abortion. I cannot remain silent in this crucial moment where the sanctity of human life is at stake.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Charmaine Yoest, "Abortion and the Health Bill," The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 4, 2010.

James Taranto, "ObamaCare and Eugenics," The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 15, 2010.

Robert Costa, "They Just Want This Over," National Review, "The Corner," Friday, March 12, 2010.

Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Limits of Public Discourse

Posted: Monday, March 15, 2010 at 4:46 am ET

Fox News broadcaster Glenn Beck is famous for launching verbal grenades, and he did so again in recent days, calling upon church members to flee congregations that promote social justice. His comments incited an immediate controversy, where far more heat than light has yet been evident. As expected, there is more to this story than meets the eye -- or may reach the ear via the public conversation.

During his March 2, 2010 radio broadcast, Beck said this:

I beg you, look for the words "social justice" or "economic justice" on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I'm going to Jeremiah's Wright's church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, "Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?" I don't care what the church is. If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: "Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?" And if they say, "Yeah, we're all in that social justice thing," I'm in the wrong place.

Almost immediately, reaction statements emerged with furor, found in press releases and public statements made by figures like Sojourner's editor Jim Wallis and various social justice advocacy groups. Like Captain Renault in Casablanca, various media outlets rounded up the "usual suspects." The resultant public conversation has not been very substantial, but it has offered media magnetism.

Some of those outraged by Beck's statements immediately insisted that social justice is the very heart of the Gospel, while others insisted with equal force that Beck had offered a courageous call for Christians to flee liberal churches that had abandoned the Gospel.

As anyone familiar with incendiary public debates should have expected, though the truth is a bit harder to determine, the issue is indeed worth whatever hard thinking a clarification of the issue requires.

Is Glenn Beck right? That is the question most in the media were asking, along with a good number of Christians who were aware of the debate. With just a few words, Beck, a convert to Mormonism, set the world of American religion into a frenzy of discourse.

At first glance, Beck's statements are hard to defend. How can justice, social or private, be anything other than a biblical mandate? A quick look at the Bible will reveal that justice is, above all, an attribute of God himself. God is perfectly just, and the Bible is filled with God's condemnation of injustice in any form. The prophets thundered God's denunciation of social injustice and the call for God's people to live justly, to uphold justice, and to refrain from any perversion of justice.

The one who pleases the Lord is he who will "keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice" (Gen. 18:19). Israel is told to "do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor" (Lev. 19:15). God "has established his throne for justice" (Psalm 9:7) and "loves righteousness and justice" (Psalm 33:5). Princes are to "rule in justice" (Is. 32:1) even as the Lord "will fill Zion with justice and righteousness" (Is. 33:5). In the face of injustice, the prophet Amos thundered: "But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (Amos 5:18). In a classic statement, Micah reminded Israel: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8).

To assert that a call for social justice is reason for faithful Christians to flee their churches is nonsense, given the Bible's overwhelming affirmation that justice is one of God's own foremost concerns.

But, there is more going on here. Glenn Beck's statements lacked nuance, fair consideration, and context. It was reckless to use a national media platform to rail against social justice in such a manner, leaving Beck with little defense against a tidal wave of biblical mandates.

A closer look at his statements reveals a political context. He made a specific reference to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and to other priests or preachers who would use "social justice" and "economic justice" as "code words." Is there anything to this?

Of course there is. Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice.

The immediate roots of this phenomenon go back to the mid-nineteenth century, when figures like Washington Gladden, a Columbus, Ohio pastor, promoted what they called a new "social gospel." Gladden was morally offended by the idea of a God who would offer his own Son as a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful humanity and, as one of the founders of liberal theology in America, offered the social gospel as an alternative message, complete with a political agenda. It was not social reform that made the social gospel liberal, it was its theological message. As Gary Dorrien, the preeminent historian of liberal theology, asserts, the distinctive mark of the social gospel was "its theology of social salvation."

Even more famously, the social gospel would be identified with Walter Rauschenbusch, a liberal figure of the early twentieth century. Rauschenbusch made his arguments most classically in his books, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and Theology for the Social Gospel (1917). In a 1904 essay, "The New Evangelism," Rauschenbusch called for a departure from "the old evangelism" which was all about salvation from sin through faith in Christ, and for the embrace of a "new evangelism" which was about salvation from social ills and injustice in order to realize, at least partially, the Kingdom of God on earth. He called for Christian missions to be redirected in order to "Christianize international politics."

The last century has seen many churches and denominations embrace the social gospel in some form, trading the Gospel of Christ for a liberal vision of social change, revolution, economic liberation, and, yes, social justice. Liberal Protestantism has largely embraced this agenda as its central message.

The urgency for any faithful Christian is this -- flee any church that for any reason or in any form has abandoned the Gospel of Christ for any other gospel.

As I read the statements of Glenn Beck, it seems that his primary concern is political. Speaking to a national audience, he warned of "code words" that betray a leftist political agenda of big government, liberal social action, economic redistribution, and the confiscation of wealth. In that context, his loyal audience almost surely understood his point.

My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ -- the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church's main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ's command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and the Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.

And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God's purposes and the perfection of God's own judgment.

Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God's judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.

Glenn Beck's statements about social justice demonstrate the limits of our public discourse. The issues raised by his comments and the resultant controversy are worthy of our most careful thinking and most earnest struggle. Yet, the media, including Mr. Beck, will have moved on to any number of other flash points before the ink has dried on this kerfuffle. Serious-minded Christians cannot move on from this issue so quickly.

________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

ABC World News Tonight, "Beck Attacks Church, Christians Boycott," broadcast March 12, 2010. I appear (very briefly) in this coverage.

Tobin Grant, "Glenn Beck" 'Leave Your Church,'" Christianity Today, "Political Advocacy Tracker," posted March 12, 2010. This appears to be the best source for the transcript of Glenn Beck's comments.

Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, 1900-1950 (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003).

Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001).

Walter Rauschenbusch, "The New Evangelism," Independent, 56 (May 12, 1904). Found in William R. Hutchison, ed., American Protestant Thought in the Liberal Era (University Press of America, 1968), pp. 108-116.

NewsNote: “In God We Trust” and “Under God” = “No Theological Impact?”

Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010 at 12:46 pm ET

The famous words "In God We Trust" and "under God" are safe . . . for now. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday that those phrases from the national currency and the Pledge of Allegiance do not represent a governmental establishment of religion.

The court, one of the most liberal among the Federal courts, ruled against Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist known for previous suits against the phrase "under God" in the pledge.

Here is how the Los Angeles Times summarized the decision:

Joined by other Sacramento-area parents opposed to the pledge, Newdow, a physician with a law degree, brought an identical challenge against the Rio Linda Union School District practice of leading daily pledges and secured a ruling in his favor from U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The judge cited the 9th Circuit's holding that Congress rendered the pledge unconstitutional when it added the words "under God" in 1954, in a Cold War-era gesture against the godless communism of the Soviet Union.

Thursday's ruling brings the 9th Circuit in line with other federal appeals courts in upholding a school's right to conduct the patriotic ritual. That unity among the circuit courts makes it unlikely that the Supreme Court will again review the decision, both Newdow and those in favor of preserving the "under God" reference said.

This decision is good news, and comes as something of a relief -- especially considering the fact that the Ninth Circuit is involved. There is no substance to the claim that these two phrases violate the Constitution. Furthermore, they represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to such questions. This kind of language pervades official discourse - extending even to the phrase "the year of our Lord" in the dating of many government documents.

But, what does it mean? Christians should pay close attention to the logic employed by the court in these two decisions. Consider this section of the court's opinion in which it cites its own precedent in the case Aronow v. United States:

It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted ‘In God We Trust’ or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. . . .   While ‘ceremonial’ and ‘patriotic’ may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has ‘spiritual and psychological value’ and ‘inspirational quality.’

In other words, the phrase "In God We Trust" as our national motto is theologically and religiously meaningless, having "no theological or ritualistic impact," but only a "spiritual and psychological value."

In the decision on the Pledge of Allegiance the court used similar logic and language:

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.

The court is arguing that the phrases in question are not really theological statements at all, presumably because if the court found theological significance in the phrases it would have been led to rule otherwise.

This legal logic is recognizable, but so is the theological dimension of all this. The court has ruled, in effect, that the language of these contested phrases represents what is rightly called "civil religion." In essence, civil religion is the mass religion that serves the purposes of the state and the culture as a unifying force -- a rather bland and diffused religiosity -- an innocuous theology with little specificity.

Christians must never confuse civil religion with the real thing. When our fellow citizens recite the pledge, it is not to be taken as a statement of personal faith in God. In that sense, Christians are rightly concerned that we make clear what authentic faith in God requires and means. Confusing civil religion with Christianity is deadly dangerous.

On the other hand, Christians are well aware of the constant danger of idolatry, and no entity rivals a powerful government in terms of the idolatrous temptation. In that sense, it is healthy and good that we employ language that relativizes the power and authority of the state. It is both important and healthy that our motto places trust in God, and not in the state. And the knowledge that the nation exists "under God" is no small matter.

So, we should welcome the decision of the Ninth Circuit panel but not read too much into the decision or the language at stake. Another legal challenge is always right around the corner. The task of defining true faith in God falls to us right now.

__________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Carol J. Williams, "Pledge of Allegiance's God References Now Upheld by Court," the Los Angeles Times, Friday, March 12, 2010.

The opinions in the cases are available in PDF form from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls

Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 5:44 am ET

The reality has been known for years now, though the Western media have generally resisted any direct coverage of the horror. That changed this week when The Economist published its stunning cover story -- "Gendercide -- What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?"

In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing -- sacrificed by parents who desired a son.  Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.

The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, "Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys' greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale."

In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: "It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions--aborted, killed, neglected to death."

In its detailed and extensive investigative report, the magazine opens its article with chilling force. A baby girl is born in China's Shandong province. Chinese writer Xinran Xue, present for the birth, then hears a man's voice respond to the sight of the newborn baby girl. "Useless thing," he cried in disappointment. The witness then heard a plop in the slops pail. "To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail!"  When she tried to intervene she was restrained by police. An older woman simply explained to her, "Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here."

The number of dead and missing baby girls is astounding. In some Chinese provinces, there are more than 130 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. The culture places a premium value on sons, and girls are considered an economic drain. A Hindu saying conveys this prejudice: "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden."

Midwives even charge more for the birth of a baby boy. But the preference for a boy rises with both economic power and the number of children born to a couple. The imbalance of boys to girls is no accident -- it reflects a prejudice that runs throughout the societies where the abortion and killing of baby girls is considered both understandable and routine.

Add to this the widespread availability of ultrasound imaging services. Even though the governments of China and India have officially declared sex-selection abortions to be illegal, they persist by the millions. (And, interestingly, the magazine notes that Sweden actually legalized sex-selection abortions in 2009.)

This sentence from the investigative report is particularly horrifying: "In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin."

In other words, even as the spread of ultrasound technology has greatly aided the pro-life movement by making the humanity of the unborn baby visible and undeniable, among those determined to give birth only to baby boys, in millions of cases the same technology has meant a death warrant for a baby girl in the womb.

There are multiple factors that lead to the preference for boys over girls. In China, the government's draconian "one child only" policy has led to both forced abortions and an effective death sentence for baby girls when a couple is determined that, if their children are to be so drastically limited, they will insist on having a son. As the magazine explains, "For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son."

Consider this:

In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.

The social consequences of this imbalance are vast and uncorrectable. China and India now face the reality of millions of young men and boys who have absolutely no hope of a wife and family. In China, these young men are called guanggun or "broken branches." Just consider this -- the 30 to 40 million "broken branches" in China are about equal in number to the total number of all boys and young men in the United States.

These young men represent a looming disaster on the societal level. Young males commit the greatest number of criminal acts and acts of violence. Marriage has been the great taming institution for the social development of young males. Without prospect for marriage and a normal sex and family life, these multiple millions of unmarried young men are becoming a significant social challenge in China and India. Some observers even argue that this may lead to an increased militarism in the region.

Of course, the greatest disaster is personal for the young men and boys who face the future as "broken branches." The parents who insist on having boys are dooming their own sons to lives of brokenness, frustration, and grief.

And the future looks even more ominous for baby girls. Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute points to "the fatal collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility." As the magazine adds, "Over the next generation, many of the problems associated with sex selection will get worse. The social consequences will become more evident because the boys born in large numbers over the past decade will reach maturity then. Meanwhile, the practice of sex selection itself may spread because fertility rates are continuing to fall and ultrasound scanners reach throughout the developing world."

While imbalances such as now found in China and India are unknown in the West, the practice of sex-selection abortion is found here as well. Indeed, there is no current law against the practice in the United States, where abortion is legal for any reason, at least in earlier stages of pregnancy. In reality, sex selection abortions happen here, too. After all, proponents of abortion in the United States infamously insist on a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion "for any reason, or for no reason."

The Economist is right to call this tragedy gendercide -- the targeting of baby girls for death and destruction simply because of their gender. The magazine deserves appreciation for its no-holds-barred report on this tragedy, and for forcing the issue to be faced. Furthermore, The Economist ends its editorial with the right message, "The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down."

Will reports like this awaken the conscience of the world to the unspeakable crime and global tragedy of gendercide? If not, what will it take? The blood of millions of murdered and missing baby girls cries out to the world's conscience. Will we hear?

________________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

"Gendercide," [editorial] The Economist, March 6, 2010.

"Gendercide -- The Worldwide War on Baby Girls," The Economist, March 6, 2010. The extensive investigative report is available in the magazine's print editions but is available online only to subscribers.

Women and Children First? A Tale of Two Ships

Posted: Friday, March 05, 2010 at 2:16 pm ET

The scenario is well known, and the story still haunts the modern mind. The great ocean liner that was built as unsinkable struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912 and sank early the next morning, taking 1,517 of 2,223 lives on board. The RMS Titanic became a parable of modernity -- of the limits of technology and the hubris of humanity. It is also a subject of enduring fascination because of the stories of those who lived and died, known to us because of the fame and fortune of so many on the Titanic.

Less known to many is the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which was torpedoed by a German U-boat on May 7, 1915, taking 1,198 of 1,959 lives on board. The sinking of the Lusitania was a major factor in bringing the United States into war against the German Empire in World War I, but it plays a much less prominent role in the American imagination -- largely thanks to Hollywood and its fascination with the Titanic.

But more is at play here, for the two sinkings were notably different in one crucial respect. The Titanic took hours to sink, leaving time for a remarkable human drama on board the sinking ship. The Lusitania sank in just eighteen minutes, leaving far less of a human trace in the imagination.

As it turns out, there was another crucial difference. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looks at the difference in the behavior of the men aboard the two sinking ships. The difference was remarkable. Aboard the Titanic, the men generally behaved with great concern for women and children, doing their best to get the women and children into the precious and insufficient seats in the lifeboats. Hundreds of men died with the Titanic, demonstrating a commitment to put the welfare and lives of women and children above their own.

Aboard the sinking Lusitania, the scene was very different. Women and children were less likely than men to survive that disaster, because the men used their natural strength and speed to take the spaces on the lifeboats, with women and children forced out of their way.

As The New York Times summarizes: "On the Titanic, the study found, children were 14.8 percent more likely to survive than adults, while on the Lusitania they were 5.3 percent less likely to do so. And women on the Titanic were 53 percent more likely to survive than men, while on the Lusitania they were 1.1 percent less likely to do so."

TIME Magazine offers further detail:

The results told a revealing tale. Aboard the Titanic, children under 16 years old were nearly 31% likelier than the reference group to have survived, but those on the Lusitania were 0.7% less likely. Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania. For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%. The most striking survival disparity — no surprise, given the era — was determined by class. The Titanic's first-class passengers had a 43.9% greater chance of making it off the ship and into a lifeboat than the reference group; the Lusitania's, remarkably, were 11.5% less likely.

What accounts for the difference? The researchers looked at several factors, but settled on one that appeared more obvious as they considered the question -- the length of time it took the ship to sink. As the report explains, on the Lusitania "the short-run flight impulse dominated behavior. On the slowly sinking Titanic, there was time for socially determined behavioral patterns to reemerge."

Put plainly, on the Lusitania the male passengers demonstrated "selfish rationality." As TIME explains, this is "a behavior that's every bit as me-centered as it sounds and that provides an edge to strong, younger males in particular. On the Titanic, the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children — in other words, good manners — had a chance to assert themselves."

Note carefully the assumption here that "the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children" are ascribed to "good manners" and "socially determined behavioral patterns." In other words, the male decision to give priority to the welfare of women and children is just a learned behavior, a social convention.

Is that all there is to it? There is a huge question looming in this -- is it right for men to act with care and concern toward women and children, or is this just an outmoded relic of Victorian morality?

What do modern feminists do with this? Those who stake their lives on the elimination of all meaningful gender distinctions must, if honest, take what they see on the Lusitania as the inevitable result of such a worldview. Are we really to believe that the moral call that makes men act against their own self-preservation is just a socially-constructed artifact of manners?

Aboard the Lusitania, young males acted out of a selfish survival instinct, and women and children were cast aside, left to the waves. Aboard the Titanic, there was time for men to consider what was at stake and to call themselves to a higher morality. There was time for conscience to raise its voice and authority, and for men, young and old, to know and to do their duty.

The Christian worldview based in Scripture explains this in terms of God's revelation of moral order within the structures of creation, and especially in what we call conscience. Even in our fallen state, this moral knowledge speaks to us, and there is a moral knowledge within us that calls us to do what we otherwise would never do -- even what is plainly not in our direct self-interest.

A secular worldview has little at its disposal to explain all this, and is left with some argument based in evolutionary survival behaviors or socially constructed morality. The feminists are in even worse shape in this. They call for a world like the Lusitania, but must hope against hope that the world is really more like the Titanic.

Women and children first. Civilization itself depends upon this kind of moral knowledge. Without it, the entire enterprise of human civilization is destined to sink beneath the waves.

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Sindya Bhanoo, "How the Men Reacted as the Titanic and Lusitania Went Under," The New York Times, Monday, March 1, 2010.

Jeffrey Kluger, "Titanic and Lusitania -- How People Behave in a Disaster," TIME Magazine, Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

Trey, Savage, and Torgler, "Interaction of Natural Survival Instincts and Internalized Social Norms: Exploring the Titanic and Lusitania Disasters," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 1, 2010. [Abstract only]

NewsNote: Black Children Are an Endangered Species?

Posted: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 at 6:48 am ET

Catherine Davis is a woman with a message, and that message is getting harder to ignore. "Black children are an endangered species."

The Director of Minority Outreach for Georgia Right to Life, Davis is taking that message to the public, along with a massive public awareness campaign that has captured national and international attention. Drivers in the metro Atlanta area are seeing billboards that demand attention -- and are changing minds.

Her argument is simple and the statistics are irrefutable. She accuses abortion providers in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular, of targeting blacks for abortion. She told The New York Times, "The impact of abortion has become so great that it has begun to impact our fertility rate."

Consider the chilling facts documented in the data. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 57.4% of the abortions performed in Georgia in 2006 were performed on African-American women, but blacks make up only 30% of Georgia's population. Nationwide, the pattern is similarly stacked against black babies -- black women have approximately 37% of all abortions each year, while blacks make up only 13% of the national population.

You can see why Catherine Davis' message demands attention. She points also to the fact that, in Georgia, every single abortion clinic is located in areas of black concentration. She argues, quite pointedly, that this amounts to an intentional effort to reduce the black population in the United States.

As she told the Los Angeles Times, "Let me put it this way . . . 18,870,000 black babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. If those babies had not been aborted, we would be 59 million strong -- over 19% of the population."

She is not only making the argument, however, she is reaching the African-American community with that argument.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, "An increasingly vocal segment of the antiabortion community has embraced the idea that black women are targeted for abortion in an effort to keep the black population down."  Similarly, from The New York Times: "Abortion opponents say the number is so high because abortion clinics are deliberately located in black neighborhoods and prey upon black women. The evidence, they say, is everywhere: Planned Parenthood’s response to the anti-abortion ad that aired during the Super Bowl featured two black athletes, they note, and several women’s clinics offered free services — including abortions — to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina."

“The more I dug into it, the more vast I found that the network was,” Catherine Davis told the paper. "And I realized that African-American women just did not know the truth, they did not understand the truth about the abortion industry.”

She also has an argument from history. The founder of what became Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger, who no one can deny was a proponent of eugenics -- the effort to encourage the improvement of the human population by selective breeding. She advocated the forced sterilization of those deemed less fit to reproduce. As the Los Angeles Times noted, "That was often believed to include blacks." Planned Parenthood was also involved in a recent controversy when some Planned Parenthood employees were taped encouraging donations targeted toward the abortion of black babies.

Catherine Davis is not alone in making the argument, either. The Rev. Clenard Childress, Jr. of New Jersey has described the womb as the most dangerous place for a black child. Another black pastor, Rev. Johnny M. Hunter of Fayetteville, North Carolina said, "What's giving [this argument] momentum is blacks are finally figuring out what's going down. . . . The game changes when blacks get involved. And in the pro-life movement, a lot of the groups that have been ignored for years, they're now getting involved."

The case is also being made with force and candor by Alveda King, a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: "I know for sure that the black community is being targeted by abortionists for the purpose of ethnic cleansing . . . . How can the dream survive if we are willing to sacrifice the futures of our children?"

The scandal of abortion is not limited to abortion, as these facts and patterns make clear. Catherine Davis and her colleagues are making a difference with this message -- and mostly within the black community.

What about the rest of the nation? Is America content to be the land where every baby in the womb is endangered, and where black babies are at even greater risk? That question should haunt every single American.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Shaila Dewan, "Anti-Abortion Ads Split Atlanta," The New York Times, Saturday, February 6, 2010.

Shaila Dewan, "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case," The New York Times, Friday, February 26, 2010.

Robin Abcarian, "Antiabortion Ads Claim Conspiracy Against Blacks," Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

See the Web site www.toomanyaborted.com and the resources at the site.

Catherine Davis was my guest for The Albert Mohler Program on Tuesday, March 2. Listen here.

Permanence Before Experience — The Wisdom of Marriage

Posted: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 at 1:33 pm ET

Rightly understood, marriage is all about permanence. In a world of transitory experiences, events, and commitments, marriage is intransigent. It simply is what it is -- a permanent commitment made by a man and a woman who commit themselves to live faithfully unto one another until the parting of death.

That is what makes marriage what it is. The logic of marriage is easy to understand and difficult to subvert, which is one reason the institution has survived over so many millennia. Marriage lasts because of its fundamental status. It is literally what a healthy and functioning society cannot survive without.

And yet, modernity can be seen as one long attempt to subvert the permanent -- including marriage. The modern age has brought the rise of individual autonomy, the collection of populations in cities, the weakening of family commitments, the waning of faith, the routinization of divorce, and a host of other developments that subvert marriage and the commitment it requires.

Added to this list is the phenomenon of cohabitation. The twentieth century saw the phenomenon of cohabitation become the expectation among many, if not most, young adults. But the end of the century, the progression of intimacy (including sexual intimacy) was likely to follow a line from "hooking up" to cohabiting.

A new study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics suggests two very important findings: First, that cohabiting is now the norm for younger adults. Second, cohabiting makes divorce more likely after eventual marriage.

“Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults," states the report. The facts seem daunting. The percentage of women in their 30s who report having cohabited is over 60 percent -- doubled over the last fifteen years.

Reporting in The New York Times, Sam Roberts documents the rise of cohabitation among the young. He cites Pamela J. Smock of the University of Michigan's Population Studies Center. "From the perspective of many young adults, marrying without living together first seems quite foolish," she explains.

That perfectly captures the new logic -- that it would be foolish to marry without first cohabiting. How can you know if you are really meant for each other? How can you measure compatibility without the experience of living together?

That logic makes perfect sense in a society that is increasingly sexualized, secularized, and "liberated" from the expectations of the past.

Reacting to the research findings, Professor Kelly A. Musick of Cornell University asserted, “The figures suggest to me that cohabitation is still a pathway to marriage for many college graduates, while it may be an end in itself for many less educated women."  The study report affirmed her assessment: “Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults . . . . As a result of the growing prevalence of cohabitation, the number of children born to unmarried cohabiting parents has also increased.”

But, as this new report suggests, cohabiting before marriage does not lead to a stronger and more permanent union. Instead, the experience of cohabiting weakens the union. As Roberts reports: "The likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, the study found."

Pamela Smock argues that the research will fall on deaf ears. “Just because some academic studies have shown that living together may increase the chance of divorce somewhat, young adults themselves don’t believe that.”

That may be true, and it surely captures the spirit of the age. The experience of cohabiting just makes sense to many young adults. Their logic is that marriage is what happens after a relationship becomes sexually intimate and is found to be adequately fulfilling -- not before.

They do not know that what they are actually doing is undoing marriage. They miss the central logic of marriage as an institution of permanence. They miss the essential wisdom of marriage -- that the commitment must come before the intimacy, that the vows must come before the shared living, that the wisdom of marriage is its permanence before its experience.

Cohabitation weakens marriage -- even a cohabiting couple's eventual marriage -- because a temporary and transitory commitment always weakens a permanent commitment. Having lived together with the open possibility of parting, that possibility always remains, and never leaves.

This research might not alter the plans of many young couples, who are not likely to read, much less be advised by such research. But it does affirm what makes marriage what it is, and what weakens and destroys marriage as an institution.

From a Christian perspective there is more, of course. We are reminded of marriage as God's gift and expectation, and of the divine goodness of it. We are also reminded that it is our Creator, and not we ourselves, who knows that we need permanence before experience. We need marriage.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Sam Roberts, "Living Together First Doesn't Make Marriage Last, Study Finds," The New York Times, Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

Where Homeschooling is Outlawed — Asylum?

Posted: Monday, March 01, 2010 at 1:15 pm ET

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike may have been considered outside the norms of civil society in their native Germany, but not in Morristown, Tennessee, where they and their five children now live. The Romeikes are homeschoolers who are determined to provide the education for their children, ranging in age from two to twelve. In Morristown, that is about as controversial as bass fishing, but in Germany it is a crime.

The Romeike's tale is big news today, with both TIME Magazine and The New York Times devoting major stories to their plight, and to the fact that a federal immigration judge in Memphis granted them asylum -- and homeschooling is the reason.

As Campbell Robertson reports in today's edition of The New York Times, the Romeike's determination to homeschool their children ran into direct collision with German laws banning the practice: "Among European countries, Germany is nearly alone in requiring, and enforcing, attendance of children at an officially recognized school. The school can be private or religious, but it must be a school. Exceptions can be made for health reasons but not for principled objections."

The Romeikes are described in the paper as "devout Christians" who decided to homeschool their children after they became concerned about both behavioral and curricular issues in the German state schools. A fellow church member alerted them to the possibility of homeschooling, and the Romeikes determined that homeschooling is right for their children.

It was not long before they were threatened with prosecution, fines, and the possible removal of their children from the home. The couple was fined over $11,000 and threatened with losing custody of their children. At one point, the Romeike home was visited by the police, who took the Romeike children to school in a police van.

The Romeikes decided to act before losing their children, and after meeting an official from the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), based in Virginia, they moved their family to Morristown, Tennessee, where another German family had recently moved for the same reason.

Upon arriving in the United States, the Romeikes filed for asylum, claiming that they and their family were under threat of persecution due to their Christian convictions concerning homeschooling. Judge Lawrence O. Burman agreed with the couple, declaring them to be under threat of persecution in Germany due to their "principled opposition to government policy."

Indeed, it is Judge Burman's decision that has brought attention to the Romeike case. Most observers believe that this case may be the very first in which a judge has ruled for asylum on the basis of a determination to homeschool. Judge Burman also found that homeschooling parents are "members of a particular group" experiencing the threat of persecution in Germany.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has appealed the decision, and the Romeike's case may not be over. Nevertheless, their plight has brought attention to the homeschooling issue and the rights of parents to determine the education of their children.

In Europe, homeschooling is not the mass movement it is in America, though numbers are rising. In the United States, the homeschooling movement was pioneered by parents who were both liberal and conservative in worldview, joined together in dissatisfaction with other educational alternatives -- primarily the public schools. In Germany, it is now estimated that some 1,000 families may be homeschooling their children, and most of them are thought to be conservative Christians.

The German government schools date back to the era even before the unification of Germany under Bismark. The Prussians designed the German public schools as a means of raising children in a context of German patriotism and common knowledge. In more recent times, the schools have been seen as central to the German project of avoiding the development or encouragement of what some call "parallel societies." Tristana Moore of TIME reports:

In Germany, mandatory school attendance dates back to 1717, when it was introduced in Prussia, and the policy has traditionally been viewed as a social good. "This law protects children," says Josef Kraus, president of the German Teachers' Association. The European Court of Human Rights agrees with him. In 2006, the court threw out a homeschooling family's case when it deemed Germany's compulsory-schooling law as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty drafted in 1950. Given this backdrop, it's little wonder the Romeikes came up against a wall of opposition when they tried to talk to their school principal about the merits of homeschooling.

The plight of the Romeikes is a sign of the times. Many Americans are likely unaware that the public schools in this country were founded on a similar vision. This is especially true in the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth. Public school advocates preached a message of cultural disaster if children were not raised in a common culture. Concern over the assimilation of immigrant children fueled the sense of crisis, but more was at stake. John Dewey, one of the most influential figures in the development of the public school ideal, explicitly argued that children should be educated in public schools so that the schools could help them break with the traditions and perspectives of their parents.

That is exactly what propelled the rise of the homeschooling movement in America, and it is what drove the Romeikes to Morristown. Christians must recognize and contend for the right of parents to determine the education of their own children. Otherwise, we subvert both parental authority and parental responsibility. The Romeikes are determined to educate their children according to their Christian convictions, and to do so through homeschooling. Not all Christian parents will make the same choice, but all Christian parents do share the same responsibility to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. On this ground, all Christians should contend for the right to make the decision the Romeikes made. Otherwise, we quietly accept conditions for the forced indoctrination of our own children.

Time will tell if Judge Burman's decision stands. In the meantime, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are busy living their lives and teaching their children in Morristown, Tennessee. May God bless them as they do.

____________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Campbell Robertson, "Judge in Memphis Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers," The New York Times, Monday, March 1, 2010.

Tristana Moore, "Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Homeschool," TIME Magazine, cover date March 8, 2010.

This was written at 33,000 feet over the southwestern United States. Cheers for wireless availability on passenger aircraft.

Is the Reformation Over?

Posted: Friday, February 26, 2010 at 5:36 am ET

The Rev. Eric Bergman thinks he has seen the future -- and it isn't Protestant. Known as Father Bergman now, Rev. Bergman became a Catholic priest after serving for years as an Episcopalian minister. His conversion to Roman Catholicism came, he relates, after he began to ponder the moral and theological issues related to contraception. Looking back, he dates the fall of the Anglican tradition to 1930, when the Church of England accepted birth control. "Out of that," he says, "came a confusion about the roles of men and women, a theology of androgyny."

We know all this thanks to an article by Charlotte Hays, whose writings are always thoughtful and perceptive. She serves as editor of a very interesting journal, In Character, but this article was published in Friday's edition of The Wall Street Journal. In "The Beginning of the Reformation's End?," she fires a salvo at mainline Protestantism.

She writes of a Washington gathering of "ex-Episcopalians, curious Catholics, and a smattering of earnest Episcopal priests in clerical collars" who were drawn to an Evensong and Benediction service sung according to the Book of Divine Worship, which Hays describes as "an Anglican use liturgical book still being prepared in Rome." In the main, it follows the order and language set down by Thomas Cranmer almost 500 years ago.

Confused yet? The phrase "Anglican use" refers to a limited allowance for Roman Catholics to use a revised version of the Anglican liturgy in Catholic worship. The idea has taken on a new urgency with Pope Benedict XVI's declaration of the Apostolic Constitution known as Anglicanorum coetibus, handed down back in November. As Hays rightly explains, this papal allowance "provides for former Anglicans to come into the Catholic Church as a group and retain certain of their traditions."

Significantly, Anglican priests undergoing conversion to Catholicism under this constitution may retain their wives, but if their wife should subsequently die, the priest may not remarry. Priests who convert to Catholicism are "every bit as much priests as other Catholic priests," she insists, even though married priests will not be eligible to serve as bishop. There will be an "ordinariate" (much like a diocese) that will oversee Episcopalian members, priests, and congregations that convert.

The Pope's outreach to Anglicans did not go without protest from Anglican leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Nevertheless, there is more here than Catholic opportunism. The Pope is reaching out to Anglicans who are outraged by the liberalism within their communion. The election of an openly-homosexual bishop in 2003 was the last straw for many Episcopalians. The election of a second openly-gay bishop in recent weeks will add insult to injury.

Rev. Bergman sees even more. As Charlotte Hays reports:

But Father Bergman not only predicts a mass movement toward Rome. He believes Anglican Use may mark the beginning of the end of the Reformation. There will be "a flourishing of this throughout the world," he says. "Wherever there are Anglicans, there will be people who want to enter Holy Mother Church." As he told a rapt audience at St. Mary's, "If we look at histories, heresies run themselves out after about 500 years. I believe we are seeing the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups."

The beginning of the end of the Reformation? Rev. Bergman sees the 60 people gathered for Evensong and Benediction as a sign that the Reformation is over. He describes the Reformation as a movement of "heresies" and then suggests, quite creatively, that "heresies run themselves out after about 500 years." Thus, he now sees "the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups."

In all honesty, I have to give him his due on that last argument. A look around mainline Protestantism will provide ample evidence of "the last gasp of the Reformation" within many churches and denominations founded and grounded in the faith of the Reformers.

The Episcopal Church seems determined to commit ecclesiastical suicide, electing homosexual bishops, looking the other way when same-sex unions are blessed, and generally allowing just about any heresy to find a voice and a constituency -- often among its bishops. Those looking for evidence of theological disaster need look no further than the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, the retired bishop of Newark, New Jersey. Spong has denied every conceivable Christian doctrine, leaving Christianity itself beyond its "last gasp" in his reconstruction.

The mainline Lutheran denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA] voted this past summer to distort Martin Luther's affirmation of his conscience "bound by the Word of God" to allow for its ministers to deny clear teachings of Scripture and requirements of the creeds. The denomination now allows for the service of openly-homosexual and "partnered" clergy and same-sex blessings.

The largest Presbyterian denomination, the Presbyterian Church, USA [PCUSA] has debated the same issues for years now, even as it has discussed allowing its clergy to replace references to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with metaphors like "Rainbow, Ark and Dove," "Speaker, Word and Breath," "Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River," "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb," "Sun, Light and Burning Ray," "Giver, Gift and Giving," "Lover, Beloved and Love," "Rock, Cornerstone and Temple," and "Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains."

Several other denominations with Reformation roots have followed similar courses or have merged within new denominational forms that allow for much the same. The bottom line is that there is no shortage of evidence to support Rev. Bergman's argument that "the last gasp of the Reformation" can be seen in many quarters.

Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine liberal Lutherans, Presbyterians, or members of the United Church of Christ converting to Catholicism. The same holds true, of course, for liberal Episcopalians in the United States or liberal Anglicans worldwide. Rev. Bergman knows this, but he sees the promise of more conservative Protestants giving up on their churches, giving up their Reformation convictions, and coming home to Rome.

With the zeal of a convert, Rev. Bergman calls the convictions of the Reformation "heresies." While I hold these doctrines to be the very Gospel of Christ, I do understand and appreciate Rev. Bergman's honesty. Evidently, he has read the anathemas from the Council of Trent.

The central doctrine of the Reformation is this -- justification by faith alone. Angry and disenchanted Episcopalians may seek refuge from their denomination's apostasy, but if they "cross the Tiber" they deny the central doctrine of the Reformation and take the position that it is heresy.

In other words, the exodus of any number of Episcopalians -- whether it be large or small -- will not point to the end of the Reformation, or even to what Charlotte Hays describes as "the beginning of the end of the Reformation." Instead, it will point to the urgent need for genuine reformation in the churches that once claimed Reformation faith.

The Reformation was fed and led by those who affirmed, with Luther, that justification by faith alone is "the article by which the church stands or falls."  Thus, those who go "home to Rome" are repudiating the core of the Reformation. This is about far more than homosexual bishops and wacky metaphors for the Trinity.

The Reformation may be on its "last gasp" in the liberal churches of mainline Protestantism, but thankfully not everywhere. If Rev. Bergman gets out much he is more likely to find a generation of young evangelicals who are embracing with fervor and commitment the very doctrines he sees as heresies on their last gasp.

Short of a major act of God, mainline Protestantism will continue its slide into apostasy and irrelevance. Pope Benedict is likely to find more than a few Catholic-leaning Anglicans who are exhausted by Anglican travails and ready to cross over to Rome.

But is the Reformation on its last gasp? Not where the Gospel is prized and preached.  Not where a repudiation of justification by faith alone is known to be a repudiation of the Gospel itself -- and to be a heresy that has lasted far more than 500 years.

__________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Charlotte Hays, "The Beginning of the Reformation's End?," The Wall Street Journal, Friday, February 26, 2010.

The portrait of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer is by an unknown artist of the 16th century.

NewsNote: A Message from Michigan?

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 2:53 am ET

All laws are intended to have an effect, but one of the perverse rules of politics is that laws often have effects very different than those desired or expected. Beyond this, the operational reality of a law, once passed into statute and interpreted by courts, is very often different than the sponsors of the law had envisioned.

In the case of so-called "no-fault" divorce, however, legislators and governors should have been able to know a disaster when they saw one, but they didn't. State after state began adopting "no-fault" measures in answer to demands that divorce be made "more humane."

By the middle of the 1970s, the battle was largely over. States adopted no-fault divorce laws citing various rationales, including the unclogging of courts burdened with contested divorce proceedings. No-fault laws enabled one spouse to seek a divorce, acting unilaterally. These statutes only required that one spouse declare the marriage irretrievably broken.

Previous to this, divorce was considered a matter of far greater social importance and common concern. Marriage was considered the bedrock institution of society and divorce was seen as a subversion of society, as well as the breakup of a marriage. Under this system, divorces required legal cause -- some ground recognized in law as constituting an adequate reason for the dissolution of a marriage. A spouse could fight the divorce and contest the grounds offered by the spouse who sued for divorce.

Under no-fault divorce, no ground is necessary. By definition, there is no fault ascribed to either spouse -- fault is no longer considered to be of legal or societal importance.

Demanded by those who claimed that no-fault divorce would be more humane, the laws actually allowed two very different (but entirely foreseeable) results, and both are disastrous. The first is the fact that no-fault divorce has allowed millions of men to abandon their families and leave their children and former wives to poverty. The statistics are clear enough -- men who divorce their wives and no longer live with their children generally improve their standard of living over the next few years. The family left behind generally has the opposite experience, with children and former wives living at significantly reduced income levels.

The second result is almost the opposite of the first. No-fault divorce has also allowed women to end the marriage unilaterally, usually retaining primary custodial authority over the children. In such situations, men -- who are not even charged with any fault by their wives -- can find themselves robbed of their own children. No state has yet remedied the unjust assault on fatherhood that no-fault divorce set loose.

In times past, contested divorces may have clogged the courts and entailed acrimony, but can anyone really justify the pain and emotional carnage caused by no-fault divorce laws? Add to these ills the continued cultural subversion of marriage aided and abetted by no-fault divorce. One other angle on this tragedy is often missed -- an entire industry has grown up around divorce, with divorces proving very lucrative for many attorneys and legal professionals.

All that is what makes a legislative move in Michigan so interesting. State Senator Michelle McManus has emerged as the sole sponsor of a bill that would repeal no-fault divorce in that state.

As Eartha Jane Melzer of The Michigan Messenger explains, "Since 1972 Michigan’s 'no fault' divorce law has required only that one spouse say 'there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.'"

Under McManus's proposal, specific grounds would have to be both alleged and proved in order for a divorce to be granted.

As expected, many divorce lawyers adamantly oppose the move. Michael A. Robbins, president of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said: “You can't legislate morality and you can’t force people to stay together if they don’t want to stay together.” Of course, that statement ignores the fact that no-fault laws also "legislate morality" -- just in the form of a moral undermining of marriage as an institution. As a matter of fact, most laws are passed for the expressed purpose of "legislating morality."

Henry Gornbein, former chairperson of the Family Law Council of the State Bar of Michigan, told the paper that the McManus legislation “would be an unmitigated disaster," adding: “If one party wants out there is a breakdown."

No-fault divorce laws put the entire society at fault for weakening and injuring the most basic institution of human life and culture. There is plenty of fault to go around on this one.

Observers of Michigan politics argue that Michelle McManus's bill has little hope of passage. She is running for the office of Michigan's Secretary of State, and one defender of no-fault divorce simply charged her with pandering to voters.

That seems unlikely. There simply is not enough public opposition to no-fault statutes as yet. If anything, Michelle McManus's proposed bill may be a sign that a public debate on the effects of no-fault divorce might be taking shape. If so, this can only be for good. Let's hope that this bill sends the message that at least one state might muster the courage to rethink no-fault divorce.

_________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Eartha Jane Melzer, "McManus Pushes to End No-Fault Divorce," The Michigan Messenger, Monday, February 22, 2010.

Darrell Dawsey, "A War on Divorce?," The Detroit Blog, Time.com, posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

NewsNote: Tiger Woods’ Buddhist Confession

Posted: Monday, February 22, 2010 at 3:58 am ET

Americans are accustomed to a certain kind of public confession, argues Susan Wise Bauer -- and that means a confession that is shaped by the Christian faith. Indeed, in her seminal book, The Art of the Public Grovel, Bauer argues that Americans are actually accustomed to a public confession that she describes as Augustinian.

She refers, of course, to Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo in Africa and greatest among the theologians of the early church. In his Confessions, Augustine (who had been involved in considerable sin and debauchery prior to his adult conversion to Christianity) set the stage and example for the public confession of wrongdoing. Remarkably, Augustine wrote not only of what wrongs he had done, but also of why he believed he had committed such sinful acts. Theology is mixed with psychology.

The public confession made by Tiger Woods and watched by millions of viewers last Friday was, in the main, much like the confessions made by others, ranging from former President Bill Clinton to evangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Woods was clear in making his public admission of wrongdoing, and he spoke directly and candidly of his personal responsibility.

"The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior," he said. "I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame."

Those are not evasive statements. Woods was forthright and he used the right words. He did not speak of adultery, but he left no doubt about his numerous adulterous affairs.

He added:

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife's family, my friends, my foundation, and kids all around the world who admired me.

This section of his statement takes a form familiar to anyone who knows recovery programs and the therapeutic language of the recovery movement. He takes responsibility and restates the rules he admits he has broken, along with the resultant pain and harm. Once again, the language is both clear and recognizable. He spoke of his time in "therapy" and of his return "for more treatment and more therapy." Therapy, we are to understand, promises healing and recovery.

Then, Tiger Woods added these words:

I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.

With these words, Woods publicly reclaimed his Buddhist identity, having been raised in the philosophy of Thai Buddhism by his mother. The two key sentences are these: "Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint."

As Professor Stephen Prothero of Boston University affirmed, this is an accurate distillation of Buddhist beliefs. In his words: "In an elegant distillation of the Buddha's dharma (teaching), Woods said, "Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security." Here he is obviously describing his craving for sexual encounters with beautiful women. But he is also describing our collective obsession with the next new thing."

Indeed, Buddhism teaches the aim of emptying the self of all desire. As Prothero observes, "Buddhists observe that suffering arises from a 12-fold chain of interlocking causes and effects. Among these causes is craving. We crave this woman or that car because we think that getting her or it will make us happy. But this craving only ties us into an unending cycle of misery, because even if we get what we want there is always something more to crave — another woman or another man, a faster car or a bigger house."

Professor Prothero points to the statement by Tiger Woods as distinctive from previous apologies specifically because Woods cited a Buddhist rationale, rather than a Christian logic. Prothero sees this as evidence of America's religious diversity and of the need for religious literacy in order to understand each other.

From an Evangelical perspective, the statement by Tiger Woods points to the radical distinction between Christianity and Buddhism -- between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the dharma of the Buddha.

Christianity speaks honestly of desire and affirms that wrongful desires can and do lead to sin, destruction, and death. Nevertheless, Christianity does not teach that all desire is wrong. Indeed, the Bible affirms that God made us to desire Him. Even in our sinful state, something within us cries out for our need -- and desire -- for divine forgiveness and redemption.

Christianity does not teach that we should (or could) empty ourselves of all desire, but rather that we should desire the salvation that Christ alone has accomplished for us -- the salvation that leads to divine forgiveness and the restoration of relationship we should surely desire. Once we know that salvation, our desire for God is only increased and pointed to eternity.

Tiger Woods made a remarkable statement of confession. Even as it was couched in the language of the recovery movement and coached by public relation professionals, it should be taken at face value. But the most remarkable aspect of his confession is its Buddhist shape. American Christians should look at those words with care.

A Christian looking at those words sees just how distant they are from the Gospel. The distinction between the Christian and Buddhist worldviews is laid bare for all to see. Tiger Woods should be taken at his word when he grounds his apology and confession in Buddhism. Evangelical Christians should see this as further reason to pray for Tiger Woods. We should respect the integrity and honesty of his statement, but hope and pray that he will one day come to know the salvation and forgiveness of sin that comes only through faith in Christ. We believe that he will not find salvation in renouncing all desire. We would hope instead that he might hear the Gospel and desire Christ.

____________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

"Transcript: Tiger Woods' Statement," USA Today, posted Friday, February 19, 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2010-02-19-tiger-woods-transcript_N.htm

Stephen Prothero, "A Buddhist Moment in America," USA Today, Monday, February 22, 2010. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/column-a-buddhist-moment-in-america.html#more

Susan Wise Bauer, The Art of the Public Grovel, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).

Falling on Deaf Ears? — Why So Many Churches Hear So Little of the Bible

Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 at 8:32 am ET

"It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out." That stunningly clear sentence reflects one of the most amazing, tragic, and lamentable characteristics of contemporary Christianity -- an impatience with the Word of God.

The sentence above comes from Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today in an essay entitled "Yawning at the Word." In just a few hundred words, he captures the tragedy of a church increasingly impatient with and resistant to the reading and preaching of the Bible. We may wince when we read him relate his recent experiences, but we also recognize the ring of truth.

Galli was told to cut down on the biblical references in his sermon. "You'll lose people," the staff member warned. In a Bible study session on creation, the teacher was requested to come back the next Sunday prepared to take questions at the expense of reading the relevant scriptural texts on the doctrine. Cutting down on the number of Bible verses "would save time and, it was strongly implied, would better hold people's interest."

As Galli reflected, "Anyone who's been in the preaching and teaching business knows these are not isolated examples but represent the larger reality."

Indeed, in many churches there is very little reading of the Bible in worship, and sermons are marked by attention to the congregation's concerns - not by an adequate attention to the biblical text. The exposition of the Bible has given way to the concerns, real or perceived, of the listeners. The authority of the Bible is swallowed up in the imposed authority of congregational concerns.

As Mark Galli notes:

It has been said to the point of boredom that we live in a narcissistic age, where we are wont to fixate on our needs, our wants, our wishes, and our hopes—at the expense of others and certainly at the expense of God. We do not like it when a teacher uses up the whole class time presenting her material, even if it is material from the Word of God. We want to be able to ask our questions about our concerns, otherwise we feel talked down to, or we feel the class is not relevant to our lives.

It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out. Don't spend a lot of time in the Bible, we tell our preachers, but be sure to get to personal illustrations, examples from daily life, and most importantly, an application that we can use.

The fixation on our own sense of need and interest looms as the most significant factor in this marginalization and silencing of the Word. Individually, each human being in the room is an amalgam of wants, needs, intuitions, interests, and distractions. Corporately, the congregation is a mass of expectations, desperate hopes, consuming fears, and impatient urges. All of this adds up, unless countered by the authentic reading and preaching of the Word of God, to a form of group therapy, entertainment, and wasted time -- if not worse.

Galli has this situation clearly in his sights when he asserts that many congregations expect the preacher to start from some text in the Bible, but then quickly move on "to things that really interest us." Like . . . ourselves?

One of the earliest examples of what we would call the preaching of the Bible may well be found in Nehemiah 8:1-8:

And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel. So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading with their faces to the ground. [English Standard Version]

Ezra and his companions stood on a platform before the congregation. They read the scriptural text clearly, and then explained the meaning of the Scripture to the people. The congregation received the Word humbly, while standing. The pattern is profoundly easy to understand -- the Bible was read and explained and received.

As Hughes Oliphant Old comments, "This account of the reading of the Law indicates that already at the time of the writing of this text there was a considerable amount of ceremonial framing of the public reading of Scripture. This ceremonial framing is a witness to the authority of the Bible." The reading and exposition took place in a context of worship as the people listened to the Word of God. The point of the sermon was simple -- "to make clear the reading of the Scriptures."

In many churches, there is almost no public reading of the Word of God. Worship is filled with music, but congregations seem disinterested in listening to the reading of the Bible. We are called to sing in worship, but the congregation cannot live only on the portions of Scripture that are woven into songs and hymns. Christians need the ministry of the Word as the Bible is read before the congregation and God's people -- young and old, rich and poor, married and unmarried, sick and well -- hear it together. The sermon is to consist of the exposition of the Word of God, powerfully and faithfully read, explained, and applied. It is not enough that the sermon take a biblical text as its starting point.

How can so many of today's churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear -- the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. God rescues his church from error, preserves his church in truth, and propels his church in witness only by his Word -- not by congregational self-study.

In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We -- both individually and congregationally -- neglect God's Word to our own ruin.

As Jesus himself declared, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

__________________________________

Mark Galli, "Yawning at the Word," Christianity Today [online edition], posted November 5, 2009. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/novemberweb-only/144-41.0.html

Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 1, "The Biblical Period" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 98-99.

Did He Get Married Too Young?

Posted: Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 5:04 am ET

You have to give David Lapp credit. The 22-year-old young man knew what he wanted, and he got her -- a wife. It wasn't easy. When David and his wife Amber told her father that they wanted to get married (at ages 22 and 21, respectively), he hit the ceiling.

Thankfully, Amber's father changed his mind. The couple is now happily married, and David has told the whole world about it in an op-ed column for The Wall Street Journal. In the column, he deals head-on with objections to young marriage.

He writes, "As college-educated, professionally aspiring young adults in New York, my wife and I were bucking the prevailing social script by marrying in our early 20s." Indeed, the average age for first marriage for young men is now 28, and for women it is now 26. That reflects a significant change in the way Americans live, love, and marry. We now have the twin phenomena of delayed adulthood and extended adolescence. Young Americans, by and large, are not waiting for sex . . . but they are putting marriage off into a distant future.

As David Lapp reports, some social scientists argue that "early marriage" is a leading cause of marital breakup and divorce. Lapp puts that argument to flight with his point that the early marriages that fail are often teenage marriages.

In his words:

First, let's take a closer look at that term "early marriage." While it's true that teenage marriages are a significant predictor of divorce, it turns out that marriages of people in their early to mid-20s are not nearly as much at risk. According to a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control, 48% of people who enter marriage when under age 18, and 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds, will eventually divorce. But only 29% of those who get married at age 20 to 24 will eventually divorce—very similar to the 24% of the 25-and-older cohort. In fact, Hispanics who marry between the ages of 20 and 24 actually have a greater likelihood of marital success (31% chance of divorce) than those who first marry at age 25 and older (36% chance of divorce).

Add to this the fact that other studies indicate that couples who marry between the ages of 22 and 25 "went on to experience the happiest marriages." You don't hear about that on "Oprah."

Some parents object to early marriage because of financial concerns, but Lapp observes that marriage tends to produce thrift. As he explains, "Knowing that my spending and savings habits affect not just me but also my wife and future family, I'm more likely to set a budget, pack a lunch, and put some money in savings instead of buying that new iPhone. The upshot is that my wife and I are able to pay off our college debt more quickly than we could by ourselves."

Among the young, the leading objection to early marriage is probably the fact that marriage, by definition, creates boundaries to individual autonomy. Lapp cites psychologist Jeffrey Jensen, who has argued that many young adults fear marriage because it will limit or inhibit their "identity exploration" and "self-focused development."

Lapp is not opposed to exploration and fulfillment; he just thinks that marriage is a better way to get there and to enjoy the experience. "As focused as we young adults are on self-development, what if the path to that development is actually learning to live with and love another person?," he asks. "We may be startled to find that the greatest adventure lies not in knowing oneself as much as in knowing and committing to another person."

He adds, "Instead of trekking to Africa or exploring Rome alone, why not marry the person of your dreams and take him or her along?"

My wife, Mary, and I married young -- just a year older than David and Amber Lapp. We built our adult lives together, "emerged" into the experience of adulthood together, and have never looked back. We started with very little money, but that was considered normal for young couples in our day. Our first home was a very small furnished apartment. I rented the apartment before Mary saw it. When she asked where the kitchen was I sheepishly opened two slender folding doors. That was it. We started our financial lives together, developed our adult friends together, studied abroad on a wing and a prayer (and student rail passes), and dreamed big dreams. Looking back, we would not trade those years for anything.

The delay of marriage is a huge problem, and Christians should be in the forefront of seeing and understanding the problem -- and countering the arguments against early marriage. Churches and parents need to ask why we are not getting young adults ready for marriage. Abdication to the "hooking up" culture of young adulthood is just not an option.

David Lapp writes with heartwarming sincerity and eagerness. This is a young man who is glad to be married -- and glad to tell us all about it. The conclusion to his essay is priceless:

Did I get married too young? I may not have the freedom to globetrot at my own leisure or to carouse at a bar late into the night. But when I step into our 500-square-foot one-bedroom apartment, warmly lighted and smelling of fresh flowers and baked bread, I do have the freedom to kiss my beautiful wife and best friend—the woman I pledged to always love and cherish, and to raise a family with. I have no regrets.

Best wishes to David and Amber Lapp. May they know all the joys of marriage, and keep themselves only to each other for the rest of their lives. Here's hoping that their story is increasingly shared by a generation of young Christians ready to follow their example.

____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

David Lapp, "Did I Get Married Too Young?," The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2010.

NewsNote: Just How Secular Can an Education Be?

Posted: Monday, February 15, 2010 at 4:29 pm ET

Lisa Miller of Newsweek begins her article with what would seem to be a statement beyond dispute:  "It doesn't take a degree from Harvard to see that in today's world, a person needs to know something about religion." Note that she does not make any specific religious or theological claims, and that her horizon of concern is decidedly this-worldly. She simply makes the common sense observation that a knowledge of religion is important in these times. This would make perfect sense to any journalist, and to just about any other person of intelligence and curiosity.

Nevertheless, that opening sentence about it not taking "a degree from Harvard" to see all this is filled with intentional irony, for Lisa Miller is taking Harvard University to task for its "crisis of faith" -- which amounts to a crisis in its curriculum for undergraduates. As Miller explains, "the Harvard faculty cannot cope with religion."

As she looks around the globe, Miller sees religion as a driving force of world events. In her words:

The conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians; between Christians, Muslims, and animists in Africa; between religious conservatives and progressives at home over abortion and gay marriage—all these relate, if indirectly, to what rival groups believe about God and scripture. Any resolution of these conflicts will have to come from people who understand how religious belief and practice influence our world: why, in particular, believers see some things as worth fighting and dying for.

But a 2006 proposal to require Harvard undergraduates to take at least one course in religion was flattened by faculty opposition. In that year, Harvard was considering a revised curriculum for undergraduates. Louis Menand, an influential English professor, and Steven Pinker, a well-known evolutionary psychologist, locked horns in a battle that went public, but ended with no religion requirement. Pinker argued that the modern university should be a completely secular space, where reason, and not faith, was the only legitimate concern.

Miller explains:

In the end, Menand & Co. backed down, and the matter never made it to a vote. A more brutal fight was put off for another day. But that's a pity—for Harvard, its students, and the rest of us who need leaders better informed about faith and the motivations of the faithful. Harvard may or may not be the pinnacle of higher learning in the world, but because it is Harvard, it reflects—for better or worse—the priorities of the nation's intellectual set. To decline to grapple head-on with the role of religion in a liberal-arts education, even as debates over faith and reason rage on blogs, and as publishers churn out books defending and attacking religious belief, is at best timid and at worst self-defeating.

In the midst of that fight, Pinker wrote a column for The Harvard Crimson that roiled the waters at Harvard. In that column he chided Menand and other colleagues for even contemplating a "faith and reason" component of a Harvard undergraduate education. First, he suggested that "faith" is just a code-word for religion. Then, he added:

Second, the juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these. Imagine if we had a requirement for “Astronomy and Astrology” or “Psychology and Parapsychology.” It may be true that more people are knowledgeable about astrology than about astronomy, and it may be true that astrology deserves study as a significant historical and sociological phenomenon. But it would be a terrible mistake to juxtapose it with astronomy, if only for the false appearance of symmetry.

In other words, even the use of "faith and reason" is illegitimate for Harvard (or for any other university) because faith has no place at all in the secular space of modern academia.

Miller recognizes the awkwardness of this claim, given Harvard's history. "Harvard's distaste for engaging with religion as an academic subject is particularly ironic, given that it was founded in 1636 as a training ground for Christian ministers," Miller notes.  "According to the office of the president, Veritas was only officially adopted as its motto in 1843; until then it had been Christo et Ecclesiae ("For Christ and the Church")."

She also notes that other major universities, including schools such as the University of Texas, Arizona State, and Indiana University, do include religion in the undergraduate curriculum and enroll a considerable number of majors.

Peter Gomes, Harvard's chaplain, told Miller, "My colleagues fear that taking religion seriously would undermine everything a great university stands for . . . . I think that's unfounded, but there it is."

The secularization of the modern university is one of the most significant intellectual developments of the past century. The most elite institutions of higher education have, by and large, been the most ardent secularizers. Many of these, like Harvard, were established on explicitly Christian beliefs and for the purpose of educating future ministers. To professors like Steven Pinker, this is an embarrassment.

Pinker's evolutionary psychology, well documented in his many writings, is one of the most reductionistic models of thought to be found. He reduces the human being and all human experience to the merely physical -- everything experienced or imagined by the human being is nothing more than the work of biochemicals and physical entities that emerged out of the evolutionary process. Nevertheless, Pinker's insistence on keeping Harvard free of any noteworthy study of religion at the undergraduate level prevailed.

Lisa Miller is perplexed by the Harvard faculty's "anxiety about religion." She is rightly distressed that students "can graduate from Harvard without having to grapple directly with questions about a world in which people define themselves and their histories according to their views of God." Idolizing reason, the university has become unreasonable.

By now, evangelical Christians are well aware of the secularization of modern academia. Nevertheless, the secular extremism of faculty members like Steven Pinker -- who won the battle at Harvard, after all -- is unknown to many outside the modern university.

Lisa Miller is right to call this ideological secularism "unreasonable." It is more than that, of course. It is a clear and undeniable example of what might best be described as secular fundamentalism.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Lisa Miller, "Harvard's Crisis of Faith," Newsweek, February 11, 2010 (published in the February 22, 2010 edition of the magazine).

Steven Pinker, "Less Faith, More Reason," The Harvard Crimson, October 27, 2006.