Philip Pullman, author of the best-selling “His Dark Materials” trilogy, makes some rather incredible statements in an opinion piece published in today’s edition of the Los Angeles Times. Pullman is something of a C. S. Lewis in reverse–an author who uses literature to attack and subvert Christianity. Given that his primary audience is young teenage readers, this should be of concern to parents. In his article publshed today, “A Subtle School of Morals,” Pullman bares his teeth at Christianity, claiming that secular literature is a sounder teacher of morality for the young. “I don’t profess any religion. I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty understanding what is meant by the words ’spiritual’ or ’spirituality.’ But I think I can say something about moral education.” He argues that literature and the theater should be the teachers of morality to the young. Christianity is to be avoided at all costs, since it inevitably leads to “theocratic absolutism.” He attacks the Bible and any concept of heresy, apostasy, etc. Where, we might ask, would he find the morals he is so ready to teach the young? In stories, which “show us human beings like ourselves acting in recognizable human ways, and they affect our emotions and our intelligence as life itself affects us.” Well, no risk of absolutism there. It is all relative to which stories you read, after all. This article reveals a great deal about Philip Pullman. Its presence in the opinion section of the Los Angeles Times tells us a great deal about that newspaper. More on this later.

The conviction of a lesbian minister in the United Methodist Church has been reversed by an appeals panel, The New York Times reports. The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud was removed from the ministry after a Methodist court had found her guilty of violating the Book of Dicipline of the United Methodist Church by announcing that she was in a lesbian relationship with another woman. The Book of Discipline states that homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and excludes “practicing homosexuals” from the ordained ministry. Following the sad example of other liberal church courts, this panel, which voted 8-1 to reverse the conviction, ignored the clear instruction of the church. In this case, the panel declared that the denomination had never defined the phrase “practicing homosexual.” By now, all must know that a determined band of homosexual activists will not rest until homosexuality is normalized, even in the ministry. They will ignore the clear teachings of Scripture, the discipline of their churches, and the integrity of the English language. When “practicing homosexual” needs further definition, sanity has left the room. Rev. Ira Gallaway of The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church released the following statement: “The Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals has refused to follow the teaching of Scripture, two-thousand years of Judeo-Christian tradition, and the clear teaching of The Book of Doctrine and Discipline of The United Methodist Church with regard to homosexual practice. Beth Stroud is a self-avowed practicing lesbian living in a relationship with another woman by her own testimony. By reversing the Clergy Court verdict, the Jurisdictional Committee has brought great harm to The United Methodist Church. Surely the Judicial Council will take a careful look at this action and reverse this decision. The Council has already ruled in 2004 that a clergy person found to be a practicing homosexual by a Church trial may not be appointed to serve as a United Methodist pastor. How tragic that a radical minority within The United Methodist Church seem determined to divide the Church.” Tragic, indeed–but the tragedy is not limited to one denomination. Furthermore, the UMC language is abundantly clear. It’s Book of Discipline reads as follows: “While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” In a footnote, the text stipulates a definition: “‘Self-avowed practicing homosexual’ is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.”

Much confusion has been spawned by use of the term “person of faith.” The phrase has now entered our cultural parlance, and the term has become a neutral shorthand for the secular media. No doubt, the term serves a purpose–referring to persons whose worldview commitments are based in some form of a theological truth claim. Nevertheless, the term probably confuses more than it clarifies. From a biblical perspective, faith is measured by its object. The Bible is concerned with faith in Christ, not some vague faith without an object. In today’s theological confusion, this is often lost on the public–and on an alarming number of Christians. Several years ago, Britain’s perfectly postmodern Prince Charles told interviewer Jonathan Dimbleby that he would reject the traditional throne language used in the British coronation ceremony, rejecting “Defender of the Faith” in favor of “Defender of Faith.” No specific faith, you understand. Every individual is a person of some faith, even if that faith is secular, agnostic, or atheistic. All persons operate out of some basic framework of beliefs and understanding of reality. In essence, that is their faith. Saving faith is faith in Christ. God reveals Himself to be very unimpressed with “faith” without the proper object. After all, Elijah did not greet the pagan prophets at Mount Carmel as fellow “prophets of faith.” [See 1 Kings 18:20-40]. Can we come up with a more helpful terminology? Something more consistent with the Gospel?

The ever-interesting Stanley Kurtz has written a great article that will put the gender police in a fit. In “Can We Make Boys and Girls Alike?,” published in the current issue of City Journal, Kurtz traces recent debates, goes to the sources, and dispels much confusion. He correctly identifies the ideological underpinnings of gender feminism and its assault on sex differences. Then he goes for the kill, pointing to evidence gained from the experiences of the ‘kibbutzniks’ in Israel. Deeply committed to androgyny, the kibbutz leaders separated children from their parents for all but two hours a day [mothers were thought to reinforce sexual stereotypes in their sons and daughters] and tried to remove all traces of sex differnces in the socialization of children. The effort failed miserably. Why did it fail? Kurtz explains: “The experiment collapsed within a generation, and a traditional family and gender system reasserted itself. Why? Those who believe in hardwired natural differences obviously would say that cultural conditioning couldn’t remove the sexes’ genetic programming.” From a Christian perspective there is far more to it than that, of course. The Bible presents the male/female distinction as a revelation of God’s glory in creation. Nevertheless, Kurtz is really on to something. As he concludes: “From either a biological or cultural point of view, then, the feminist project of androgyny is ultimately doomed. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t do harm in the meantime. In America, many boys are slipping behind in school; their sisters are significantly more likely to go on to college. Yet thanks largely to the influence of academic feminists, legal and educational resources still flow disproportionately to supposedly victimized girls. In the end, gender won’t disappear, whatever the mavens of women’s studies hope, but the careers of some bright young men probably will.”

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an address to The American Society of International Law earlier this month, and it shows just how she, and some of her colleagues, are now willing to use selected foreign court decisions and laws in determining deciding issues of constitutional interpretation in the U.S. She said, “Before taking up the diversity of opinions on this matter, I will state and endeavor to explain my view, which is simply this: If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.” Her wording is both instructive and scary. She argues that the U.S. Supreme Court, assigned the task of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, should take into account the decisions and interpretations of foreign courts “engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.” Her language means that she will give deference to courts in liberal Europe, where “the measuring [of] ordinary laws” has been influenced by treaties, charters, and cultural factors that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. Just consider her argument that, since judges can consult any authorities they may choose, they can consult foreign courts. In her words: “If we can consult those writings, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?” We are in big, big trouble. A good response to Justice Ginsburg’s speech is offered by M. Edward Whelan III of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Associated Press reports that the ongoing effort by the forces of political correctness to remove the terms ‘B.C.’ and ‘A.D.’ has run into complications. For some years, secularists and advocates of cultural inclusivism have argued for the exclsuion of the terms ‘B.C.’ [for 'before Christ] and A.D. [Latin, anno Domini, or 'year of our Lord']because these are offensive to non-Christians. For over a hundred years, some Jewish scholars have substituted ‘B.C.E.’ [before common era] and ‘C.E.’ [common era] in an effort to avoid reference to Jesus Christ. This has posed a dilemma for publishers of textbooks and historians, who must decide how to reference specific years. Steven Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, explained, “When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar . . . that’s difficult for us.” In his article, reporter Michael Gormley also cited Gary B. Nash of the National Center for History in the Schools, who remarked, “I think it’s pretty common now. Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few.” A relative few? Candace de Russy, a trustee for the State University of New York, nailed the real issue. “The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police–a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order.” She’s absolutely right, of course. Beyond this, who do they think they are fooling? You can rewrite the initials and revise the textbooks, but you can’t get around the fact that the incarnation of Jesus Christ was recognized in the development of our calendar as a signal event that required a new starting point for history. Ignoring the obvious is not a winning strategy.

The march toward routine killing of newborns in the Netherlands moves forward, and one of the doctors leading the charge is amazingly candid about his involvement in killing babies. Dr. Eduard Verhagen, a pediatrician at the Groningen Hospital, told a British television audience last night that he operates above the reach of the law: “We know the law says you are not allowed to kill anyone against their will. We also know death can be more humane than continued life if it involves extreme suffering. We are facing patients, and their parents, who we think should be given the option of actively ending their lives.” Verhagen is one of the authors of the “Groningen Protocol” for the killing of newborns. [See "Euthanasia for Newborns--Killing in the Netherlands," my commentary on the Groningen Protocol. In the British interview, Verhagen chillingly described his observations as euthanized babies. He said, "In the last minutes or seconds you see the pain relax and they fall asleep . . . At the end, after the lethal injection, their fists are unclenched and there is relief for everyone in the room. Finally, they get what they should have been given earlier." Thus speaks the agent of professionalized death in the nursery. Source: The Times of London, April 26, 2005. [subscription required]

Many thanks to RadioBlogger [an invaluable site you should bookmark quickly], who posted a transcript of my address at ‘Justice Sunday.’ I stand by every word. Here it is:

Unsurprisingly, The Courier-Journal missed the point again. Of course, it wasn’t by accident. There is no way that anyone smart enough to write their lead editorial could be so completely unable to follow a logical argument. In truth, once again they have demonstrated their lack of journalistic integrity. Take this, for example, from today’s editorial page: “Worst of all was the demagoguery of R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said that putting more evangelicals in judgeships will lead to more rulings consistent with ‘Christian citizenship.’ ‘We are not asking for persons merely to be moral,’ he said. ‘We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.’ It would be hard to articulate a more succinct definition of a theocracy, and that is precisely what this country is not.” Come again? I never even addressed a need for more “evangelical judges” and I did not say that we wanted judges to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. I prefaced my remarks by reminding the church that our mission is a Gospel mission, and that we want to see all persons come to know the Lord Jesus Christ. I had not even mentioned judges at that point. Furthermore, I did not suggest that adding more evangelical judges [a phrase I never mentioned] would lead to rulings consistent with Christian citizenship. I did say that Christians should exercise their Christian citizenship in becoming educated and engaged in the judicial confirmation process. A simple look at a transcript of the event will set the record straight.

The Justice Sunday program is now history. The media coverage should be interesting. I appeared on Fox News broadcast before the event, but left the debate after the event to others. There was no way to avoid all controversy, since we were dealing with some of the most controversial issues of our times. My point in opening comments was to make clear that the main mission of the church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ–not any political platform or movement. We are a people commissioned to bear witness to the Gospel that saves. Furthermore, we cannot reduce the Gospel to a moral program. At the same time, the Gospel has political implications. Here’s the way I put my case:

A group of Washington State legislators thought they had a great idea when they began pushing for “family preservation” classes in high schools. The problem is simple–the legislature will not agree on a definition of the “family” they want to preserve. Opponents of the legislation claim that the classes would present the intact nuclear family as the norm and marginalize other “forms” of family such as blended families, single-parent households, and same-sex couples. The Los Angeles Times reports that Rep. Steve Kirby [D-Tacoma], who is in a “blended” family after he and his current spouse divorced previous spouses, said, “One of my concerns would be my son coming home and telling me, ‘Guess what, Dad? We’re doing things wrong.’” Of course, somebody is doing something wrong as the family is being subverted and redefined. Larry Kvamme, a citizen activist pushing the “family preservation” classes, said: “This kind of teaching shouldn’t really be considered controversial. The thrust is not in teaching values, it’s in teaching personal skills.” Who is he kidding? You can’t talk about preserving the family without a deep discussion of what are now called “values.” And it is insanity to talk about preserving what you will not define.

I’ll be discussing several issues tonight on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” at 10:00 Eastern. Other scheduled guests include Pat Buchanan, Jim Wallis (Sojourners Community), and Bob Edgar (National Council of Churches). It should be interesting.