Pastor's Blog

M any on the left often advocate the rejection of Christian sexual ethics with the argument that lifelong monogamy is unnatural. And by unnatural they mean not merely among human beings, but among animals. In their worldview, of course, man is simply an animal—a highly evolved animal, to be sure, but an animal nonetheless. And how better to gain an understanding of ourselves than to study what is “natural” in the animal world? David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy , tells us:   “There has been quite a revolution in scientific understanding of the lives of animals and we can learn a lot about ourselves by looking at other creatures.” [1] Presumably, Barash would take exception to Pope’s famous line, “The proper study of Mankind is Man.” Perhaps he would wish to rewrite it to something like, “The proper study of Mankind is Manimal.” Meghan Laslocky, author of The Little Book of Heartbreak:  Love Gone Wrong Through the Ages , opined for CNN, “The bottom line is that flings ar

We have seen much in the news recently about attempts by those who call themselves the Islamic State (IS) to establish a new Caliphate—a sovereign state governing the entire Muslim world under Islamic law (Sharia), derived from the Quran and the Sunnah (the example of Muhammad). Here is an example of the “wisdom” of Quranic jurisprudence: As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise (5:38). Pardon me for not thinking this very wise. We might call it jurisprudence without the prudence. A thief, presumably, is unwilling to work for his own support. After the imposition of Sharia, he is rendered unable to work, at least not at full capacity. How, exactly, is this any better for him or for society? And l est you are tempted to think that this is an archaic penalty no longer applied, you might want to view this video , but not if you have a weak stomach. Contrast

JESTER NEWS— In a move that was widely expected among court-watchers, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that reading the Founding Fathers in public schools and appealing to them in legal arguments is unconstitutional. “We have been watching this court for sometime now,” said Gary Shyster, a lawyer with the ACLU, who filed a brief in the case. “We knew that it was only a matter of time.” Christa Phobe, executive director of Hysterical Americans United for the Removal of all Traces of a Christian Past, was elated with the court’s decision. “We knew we had a strong case since the court had previously ruled against the posting of the Declaration of Independence in government buildings because of its appeal to ‘the Creator.’ If the Declaration had to go, we knew the rest of the Founding Fathers’ writings couldn’t be far behind.”  The case originated when Ima Bigot of Berkeley, California objected to an assignment her son was given in his high school government cla

The Dutch theologian, Herman Bavinck, began his short, but masterful book on   The Christian Family   by observing that   the history of the human race begins with a wedding . This is significant because marriage is one of the things that sets human beings apart from everything else that God has made. Man is unique in this relationship. He is created differently in this respect from those creatures both above and below him—that is, differently from both angels and animals—and created for different purposes, too. The animals he created by the word of his command. He literally   spoke   them into existence:    “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,” he said, “and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens” (Gen. 1:20). And in obedience to his command, they sprang into being. “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. And it was so” (Gen. 1:2

Mother Jones today posted an article with what it calls “The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent on theHobby Lobby Contraception Decision.”  Here they are, with a few of my own quick observations. 1.  “‘ In a decision of startling breadth’ [the decision] would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find ‘incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.’” See my response to number six below. 2.  “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.” To be clear, Hobby Lobby provides coverage for more than twenty different kinds of contraception. The company’s objection to the Affordable Care Act’s ( aka Obamacare) mandate focuses on four kinds of “contraceptives” that are not contraceptives at all, but abortifacients  that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus resulting in the death of the newly conceived child. All of Hobby