Why a Christian Homeless Shelter is Being Sued & What You Can Do About It

It is said that no good deed goes unpunished.  Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (UGM) is learning that may be true.

The Union Gospel Mission is the most effective and visible homeless ministry in the City of Seattle.  They operate every hour of the day, every day of the year, meeting the needs of Seattle’s growing homeless population.

One of the many free services they provide is a legal aid clinic that helps homeless people, who obviously can’t afford a lawyer, deal with legal challenges that may be keeping them from getting a job, getting their drivers license, or othewise get back on their feet.

Matt Woods was a volunteer their legal aid clinic and later applied for a full-time position. However, upon disclosing that he was in a same-sex relationship, he was told that was inconsistent with their Code of Conduct so they would not be able to hire him.

So he sued them.

This case is different than cases involving florists, bakers, and photographers because UGM is a private, religious organization. Legally speaking, they are a church.

The good news is that the rights of private, religious organizations are strong, so UGM should prevail.

The problem is that this lawsuit is even happening.

Not that long ago, Americans universally agreed that government should not tell a private religious organization how they must operate.

We called it the separation of church and state.

Today, however, telling religious organizations and individuals how they should live is standard operating procedure for many.

What can we do in response? Make a contribution to the Seattle Union Gospel Mission.

Then, after you make a contribution, send a quick note to Mr. Wood’s attorney, Denise Diskin and let her know about your contribution. Her email address is denise@stellerlaw.com. You might include a note that says something like this.

“Ms. Diskin. I heard about the lawsuit you filed against the Union Gospel Mission and wanted to let you know that I have just made a contribution to their work in response.  I will be encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

I am disappointed by the lawsuit but also committed to make sure that it is the best thing that ever happened to them.  Please let Mr. Woods know as well.”


The best way to stop harassment like this is to convince the mob that their attempts to harm people actually help them.

Once you’ve made your contribution and sent your email, please share this story so your friends can push back too.

I promise you’ll feel good about it.

One other thing.

Can we finally stop pretending that if Christians just start being nicer that the sexual revolution will be happy?

This is a homeless shelter.  They look after heroine addicts and the mentally ill for free because it’s right and their faith compels them to. They’ve been doing it for 85 years.  If this movement is shameless enough to sue a homeless shelter that offends their secular sensibilities, tell me again why they’re going to leave you alone because you’re so nice?

Of course we should be kind, but this has never been about who is mean or who is kind.  It is a clash of worldviews and they have no intention of tolerating you or coexisting with you.

We will either successfully defend ourselves or become their subjects.

I know what I prefer.



New Jersey: Boys No Longer Required to Prove Gender Dysphoria to Compete with Girls

The State of New Jersey will now allow student athletes to compete with the gender of their choice without medical consultation, according to a new policy released by the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) on Wednesday.

Previously, students wishing to compete with students of the opposite gender would be required to show medical proof of gender dysphoria.

However, since rules discriminate, they’ve decided to get rid of them.

A few restrictions remain. Kind of.

First, students cannot compete with both the boys and the girls at the same time.  They have to choose.  This requirement clearly reflects animus towards students who identify as both male and female so we should expect it to go away soon.

Second, a school may appeal a student’s eligibility if they feel it would “adversely affect competition or safety.”  However, the appeal may not consider whether a student experiences gender dysphoria. Presumably, this rule is to provide some recourse in the event that a young Andre the Giant decided to join the girls wrestling team instead of the boys.

Third, students can’t change their gender in the middle of the season.  I suspect this bigoted rule will also soon go away. After all, who are we to tell anyone that there is a “right” time to start living as their authentic selves.

Students who identify as transgender are also explicitly permitted to use banned substances prohibited for every other athlete if it is used in connection with “hormone treatment.”

Perhaps the most revealing statement in the new rules is the last one. “If a transgender student, at some point during their high school career, no longer identifies as a transgender student, this policy shall not apply.”

In other words, if you want these rule to apply to you, they do.  Which is another way of saying, there are no rules.

The rules clearly acknowledges the fluidity and unpredictability of gender confusion and, by eliminating the requirement that a medical opinion be involved, gives complete control of the situation to students.

There is no other educational situation I am aware of in which the adults, by rule, have divested themselves of any authority or influence.

Whether it will happen with any regularity or not remains to be seen, but these rules clearly allow a student to compete as a boy in the fall and spring, but as a girl in the winter.

As a result, peer pressure will be the only thing that stands between order and chaos in New Jersey high school athletics.  Presumably, most boys would be too embarrassed to declare themselves female solely to gain a competitive advantage.  However, the moment the social climate in a school changes so that it is either acceptable–or simply funny–there will be no recourse.

In the end, the winners will be the adults who get to puff our chests out and pat each other on the back for how tolerant we are.

The losers will be the girls who just wanted the chance to play sports with other girls and the trail of confused young adults, many of whom will do irreparable harm to themselves because they’re being parented by the internet, who one day will look back and wonder where all the adults were when they needed them.

House Passes Tax Reform That Would Repeal Johnson Amendment

Today in Washington DC, the House of Representatives Passed a tax reform bill by a vote of 227-205.  The bill is a key part of President Trump’s campaign platform and now moves to the Senate.   The bill contains $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, including cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent..

In addition to reforming the current tax system, the bill revokes the controversial Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a law from 1954 that prohibits churches from engaging in “political activity” including endorsing candidates for office.  Churches and religious organizations have long seen the Johnson Amendment as an attempt by government to restrict the free speech rights of churches simply because they are churches.

The Johnson Amendment has been referenced by groups like American’s United for Separation of Church and State to threaten churches with legal action for discussing campaigns or issues.

The language in the tax reform bill mirrors the language in the Free Speech Fairness Act, which had been introduced by Rep. Steve Scalise.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where their own tax reform bill is being debated.

The Senate bill faced early opposition from the pro-life community because it eliminated the adoption tax credit.  That tax-credit has since been restored.

The Senate bill also eliminates the individual mandate from Obamacare requiring people to purchase health insurance.

Before final passage, the House and the Senate will have to agree on a single bill that they would send to the President.

The President has indicated his desire to see a final tax reform proposal passed before Christmas.

Can Pregnancy Centers be Forced to Advertise Abortions? Supreme Court will Decide.

Can pregnancy centers be forced to tell people how to get abortions?

That is a question the Supreme Court has decided it will answer.

The case is NIFLA v. Becerra and comes to us from the land of fruits and nuts, California, where the state passed a law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to help women get abortions.

While these clinics exist specifically to provide women the resources they need to keep their baby alive, the law says that those centers must tell women how they can get free abortions.

Can you imagine Planned Parenthood being forced to provide the names and phone numbers of adoption agencies to any pregnant woman who walks into their office?

Me neither.

This proposal isn’t just mean-spirited, it also violates the principles of free speech we Americans have always enjoyed and cherished.

Compelled speech is what terrorists do to hostages to make a point; it shouldn’t be tolerated in a country that considers itself free.

We know that the First Amendment protects our rights to say the things we want to say, but it also protects your right not to say things you don’t want to say.

That’s why you can criticize the government if you want and you can also refuse to say the pledge of allegiance as well.

However, in California, as well as Hawaii and Illinois where similar laws have been passed, the government is trying to compel people to provide information in support of a cause they believe to be immoral.

Similar legislation was introduced multiple times in the Washington State legislature, but thanks to an amazing response from the public, they were defeated.

This shouldn’t be a pro-life, pro-choice debate.

Even if you personally support abortion, you shouldn’t support people being forced to advertise for activities they find to be immoral.   What if the shoe was on the other foot?

Fortunately, help may be on the way.

Tom Glessner, the President of NIFLA, the Plaintiff in this case, told FPIW he is confident they will prevail. In fact, based on rulings by the court in recent free speech cases, he believes it could be a unanimous decision.  Despite our differences, a shared commitment to an individual’s right to free speech should unite us.  Hopefully, the Supreme Court will lead the way.

Oral arguments are expected to happen sometime in February.

Let’s hope the First Amendment, and common decency, prevail.

Democrats Take Control of Washington State. What Does It Mean?

Special election results from the 45th legislative district (Woodinville/Redmond) last night indicate that the Democrats just took control of the Washington State Senate.  With that change, Democrats now control the Governor’s mansion and both branches of the legislature.

The stakes involved were reflected in the record $8.5 million that was spent was spent on the race, which filled a vacancy created when moderate Republican Andy Hill lost a battle with cancer.

The Republicans had been in control of the Senate since 2012.

Republican control of the Senate meant that Democrat leadership in the House and Governor’s mansion was forced to compromise on budgets, taxes, education, and a range of social issues.

That may no longer be necessary.

While the majorities in both houses are slim, (25 -24  in the Senate and 50-48 in the House) Governor Inslee is hoping it allows him to do everything he’s been unable to do since he was first elected in 2012.

He told The New York Times,  “We intend to make a full-scale effort in the next session of the Legislature if we win.” 

This likely means an effort to pass a new carbon tax and possibly an income tax as well.

An income tax has been found to be in violation of the Washington State Constitution’s requirement that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property” but the current state Supreme Court is effectively an extension of the Democratic Party. There is some speculation–even hope in Democrat circles–that the Supreme Court will invent a new interpretation of the Constitution that allows the legislature to create an income tax.

Still, Washington State remains in an apparently permanent anti-tax mood.

While voters last night were giving Democrats control over all three branches of power, they also soundly rejected three separate tax increases that passed the legislature as part of this years budget.   It is likely that Democrats in swing districts will be less than enthusiastic about supporting substantial tax increases right before their elections.

On social issues, the landscape is likely to become very challenging.   The abortion industry, in particular, has had their legislative priorities stonewalled for five years.  The legislation they have proposed but failed to pass includes:

  1. Regulation of pro-life pregnancy clinics in ways that would make it very difficult for them to exist.
  2. Bringing repealed contraceptive and abortion mandates from Washington DC to Washington State.

In addition, last night’s results could provide the opportunity for radical social policies from other Democratically controlled states to be debated in Washington. We could see things like:

  1. Oregon style abortion law requiring every insurer to cover abortion and contraception without any cost to patients.
  2. Adding creative new gender categories to driver’s licenses and other forms of government ID.
  3. Efforts to cut students at Christian universities off from government funding sources as long as those universities ascribe to a Christian understanding of marriage, sexuality, and gender.

Other issues tabled because of the Republican-led Senate that could be resurrected include:

  1. Commercial surrogacy.  Womb renting is illegal almost everywhere on the planet, but the LGBT lobby wants to make it more available so that homosexual men can pay women to have their babies.  The scenario has numerous opportunity for abuses, which is why it has been recently banned in every Southeast Asian country, where it has been most common.
  2. Third-party parenting. Should a judge be able to overrule the wishes of parents and give visitation to a third-party, non-parents?  Legislation introduced several years ago would do exactly that, making it easier for former same-sex partners to have visitation with other people’s children.  It was defeated in the Senate, but could soon return.
  3. Therapy bans.  The left has been pushing very hard to pass legislation that makes it illegal for a therapist to help minors who want to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction.  Three times it was defeated in the Senate.  On social issues, this could be the priority.

While it was an off-year election with relatively little at stake nationally, in places where there were elections, Democrats did very well.  Voter enthusiasm appears to have strongly favored Democrats as well, a likely result of continuing anger on the left over President Trump’s election.

After President Obama was elected in 2008, Republicans proceeded to pick up 1,000 seats at the local, state and federal level across the country.  Whether President Trump will similarly inspire the left remains to be seen, but they are encouraged by the start.

For those of us in Washington State, we don’t need to wait.

If you care about life or religious freedom, your situation just became much more difficult.

It is far from impossible, but if everyone looks for someone else to take care of it, they probably won’t like the outcome.

Don’t Be This Pastor

Carl Lentz is a pastor of Hillsong Church in New York City; a church that is best known for its music.

Last week he made an appearance on The View, as part of a book promotional tour.

The interview is a little uncomfortable but worth watching.

It starts off with a flurry as one of the hosts asks, “Hillsong is seen as this hip, millennial church…but it’s still evangelical. Where do you stand on social issues…like gay marriage, abortion, like how do you address those.”

Lentz is flustered. “So we’re going to go right there?” he responds.

For the record, this is not a vexing theological question.  God is opposed to abortion and same-sex, sexual relationships.

It seems Lentz knows this but feels like saying so would defeat some other purpose for the interview.

Upon gathering himself, he responds with, “I think our job is still…not necessarily to change how people think, but to try to point them to what God has said.”

If you’re trying to keep everyone happy, this may be the best play you can run.

First, say something heretical to score points with those who hate the God you represent, then say something biblical to remind your church you still care about what that God thinks.

It’s possible that when he said “It’s not our job to change how people think” what he really meant was, “changing your political positions aren’t of primary importance.” If that’s what he meant, then we agree.  But that’s not what he said so it is worth emphasizing that the gospel is definitely concerned with changing how people think.

That’s why we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5) and be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2).  If it is true that “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov 23:7) thinking straight is the foundation of discipleship and faith.

After that exchange, Lentz continues talking but doesn’t say much. What’s clear is that he means well, and he wants people to understand that he cares about them, but Joy Behar, one of the hosts of The View, tries to get the conversation back on point. “So it’s not a sin in your church to have an abortion?”

Lentz is on the hot seat again. “That’s the kind of conversation we would have finding out your story, where you’re from, what you believe.”

As if your story is somehow relevant to whether God thinks abortion is wrong or not.

But he’s clearly a nice guy.

He follows that up with, “God’s the judge.  People have to live to their own convictions.”   That little piece of heresy draws an applause from the audience.

Behar seems surprised.  “So it’s not an open and shut case with you?”

Lentz continues to equivocate. “To some people it is.”

To which everyone watching thinks, “Yeah, but she asked you.”

He tries to recover. “Before I start picking and choosing what I think is sin in your life, I’d like to know your name.”

Of course, whether Carl Lentz knows your name or not has no impact on whether your behavior aligns with God’s best for your life or not.

After that, they let him off the hot seat.

Lentz gained confidence when the conversation turns to racism.  After a host applauded his “courage” for calling out President Trump and speaking in defense of the Black Lives Matter movement, he explained his obligation to speak to the issue because “of course this is an issue, of course, this is wrong.”

If he must speak about race because God obviously cares, it makes one wonder why he had such a hard time saying anything about gay marriage or abortion.

I don’t know Carl Lentz. To my knowledge, this was the first time I’ve seen him or heard him talk, so there is no personal ax to grind.  I do not doubt at all that his intentions are good.

For me, however, this conversation perfectly captures the strategy of the American church when it comes to engagement with a secular culture in 2017: speak directly and answer questions only when you know progressives will agree, change the subject if you fear they won’t, and above all, remember that good marketing is what brings people to Jesus.

Feels kind of silly doesn’t it?

When its all over, the church gets the same response all the politicians get; a furrowed brow and a, “Why can’t you at least be honest?”

They know what we believe, but they don’t respect our unwillingness to say so and they shouldn’t.

Do people hate the church today?  Sure. Some do.  People hate anything that suggests they can’t do whatever they want to do.

Still, if we want to convince the world that we have a better alternative to suicidal hedonism, we should probably be prepared for obvious questions and we definitely shouldn’t be afraid to answer them, even if we think Joy Behar might disapprove.


Do Parents Have the Right to Seek Help for Their Children?

Who decides what medical or mental health care is best for your child? Would it surprise you to know that in the mental health arena the ‘age of consent’ is only 13 years of age in Washington?  Like laws surrounding abortion, parents of adolescents are potentially cut out of the decision making and mental health care of their teenage children.

When it comes to mental health treatment for issues of sexual orientation or gender identity, it could be even worse.

Conversion therapy, the use of talk therapy to help children suffering from questions of Sexual Orientation or Gender Dysphoria, was banned in Seattle as of August 2016.

The legislation sponsored by Councilmember M. Lorena González made the practice of conversion therapy on minors by licensed medical or mental-health professionals punishable by fines of up to $1,000. It also prohibits the advertising of conversion therapy.

In 2017, the Washington state senate introduced SB5722, which would extend the ban to minors statewide. When the legislature returns early in 2018, the debate is set to continue.  If such a ban were to pass, parents would not be able to seek mental health treatment for their children who may be struggling with gender identity or sexual orientation issues.

The American Psychological Association (APA) calls transgender, an “umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” The diagnosis often assigned these individuals by the clinical community is Gender Dysphoria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) contains separate criteria for diagnosing it in adults and adolescents versus children.

While it is typically recognized that adult citizens of the United States have full jurisdiction over their own medical choices, those under 18 are considered under the authority of their parents. A debate, on these terms, surrounding the appropriate treatment for children and adolescents who may be transgender is taking shape all around the world.

The Daily Mail recently profiled parents who felt the state-sponsored, National Health Service (NHS) in England was pressuring their kids to go through with medical procedures to change their sex. The article reports that one mother was shocked to find her child being referred to a specialist transgender clinic, after only a 40-minute evaluation. Some of the parents made claims that their children only began hating the biological sex they were born after cases of extreme bullying by other students and that NHS employees refused to listen to their claims.

The rush to label children transgender comes on the heels of the NHS signing a “memorandum of understanding,” which is nearly identical to implementing a ban on conversion therapy. The memorandum makes it illegal for staff to challenge the person’s gender confusion.

It is pertinent to note that the science on this matter has not been settled yet either. There is much debate in the medical community as to whether transgender is a clinical disorder and furthermore if those who don’t adhere to the gender binary deserve protections similar to that which is guaranteed based upon immutable characteristics like race.

Dr. Quentin Vanmeter, a pediatric endocrinologist from the American College of Pediatricians does not view transgenderism as a civil rights issue. He says that transgenderism is a mental health issue, and there is no scientific evidence that it’s a physiological phenomenon. He believes that treating it as if it’s a natural phenomenon and speaking about it as a civil rights issue is doing a disservice to the children struggling with this type of mental illness.

He’s not alone either, former Chief of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Paul McHugh, also believes that being transgender is a psychological problem, not a biological phenomenon. He thinks that transgender individuals should be referred to mental health counseling, not surgery.  A statewide ban such as Seattle’s on talk-therapy for minors dealing with gender dysphoria would make this impossible.

With a degree of doubt cast on the advocacy of LGBT groups painting transgender as a biological phenomenon and not a psychological problem, parents need to be skeptical of hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgery, which hold the potential to alter a child or adolescent’s  life indefinitely.

Parents should have the right to explore all of the options available for their children and adolescents and make the decision that seems most appropriate to them, not the state.

Genevieve Malandra is a contributing writer to Family Policy Institute of Washington.

Science versus Ideology – A matter of life and death

In the current iteration of its 2018-2022 strategic plan, the United States Department of Health and Human Services defines life as beginning at conception. The draft of the strategic plan reads:

“HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception…”

The current plan, drafted during the Obama administration, makes no reference to the sanctity of human life or a specific timeframe of when life begins. However, science has conclusively shown for some time now that life begins at conception (also known as fertilization).

Planned Parenthood and NARAL hate this language because naturally, it would hinder their profits. Liberal activists are claiming Trump will use this new idea as a way to somehow attack contraception, abortion, and IVF. Even further, some have atrociously criticized Objective 3.3 for saying HHS will “Protect women and their unborn children from harm.”

You may be surprised to know that at one time, even Democrats accepted that life begins at conception. In 1994, the Federal advisory board appointed by former President Bill Clinton affirmed that “The preimplantation human embryo warrants serious moral consideration as a developing form of human life.” [SOURCE]: National Institutes of Health, Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel (Sept. 1994), p. 2.

Unfortunately, present-day Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten this fact. But that doesn’t change that it is a fact, one which medical professionals have reiterated time and again for years.

A 2014 research brief on the scientific view of when life begins, published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute stated:

“Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells.  The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way.  Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life.  This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

The research brief concluded in no uncertain terms:

“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.”

The research brief makes an excellent point, demonstrating that the debate concerning when life begins is not a scientific one, but is instead usually a political debate.

A study published in March of this year by the American College of Pediatricians stated:

“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

The study further noted that in 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology attempted to redefine conception to mean implantation as opposed to the previous understanding that it becomes a life at the point of fertilization.

In reality, there is no scientific debate whatsoever about whether or not life begins at conception (fertilization).  A recent study published by Marta N. Shahbazi and colleagues from the UK demonstrates that an embryo, or the fertilized egg, is an autonomous living being at the point of conception. It is even programmed for survival.

You can call it whatever you wish – a zygote, a clump of cells, an embryo, a fetus, a fertilized egg, or a product of conception – but no amount of renaming can change the scientific fact that it is a human life. It should go without saying that every human has value no matter the stage or circumstances. The draft by the Department of Health and Human Services to publicly acknowledge this scientific fact is one that should be supported and applauded.

Josh Denton is a contributing writer for Family Policy Institute of Washington.

It All Begins At Home

During the 1850’s Frederick Douglass had a series of conversations with white slave owners about how slavery would affect generations to come.

It was during one of these dialogues that he penned the words, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”  One could also offer this corollary, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair a broken society.”

Even though they were penned well over 150 years ago, these words still ring true today. As we mourn a broken society made up of broken men, we should turn our eyes to take the long view. To repair our nation, we should focus our efforts on our homes and the institutions that directly impact our children.  Raising the next generation of strong children is the best way to repair our broken society.

In fact, you could safely assume that this now famous quote is Biblically-based. Proverbs 22:6 says something strikingly similar: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

The Bible gives parents a process on how to properly instill Biblical values in their children. Deuteronomy 6:5-9 says:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

Scripture commands us to “build strong children” and to raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In the above passage, parents are commanded to keep God’s law always on their hearts and to instruct their children in the teachings of the Bible. God first commands that parents should discuss Scripture at home with their children. This is because the primary education of every child starts in the home. Whether intentionally or unconsciously, all parents teach their children by example, and the home environment lays the foundation for every child’s development.

God wants parents to be deliberate with their time and conscious of their example and make sure that their children are raised with a proper understanding of God’s Word. In ancient Israel, the primary mode of transportation was walking; much time was spent traveling from one place to another. Today’s equivalent would be when you are driving somewhere with your family. The Bible teaches that parents should make use of the time to discuss the teachings of Scripture.

Finally, God teaches that parents should teach their children about the things of God “when you lie down, and when you rise.” Simply put, God says to set aside a time each morning to take a bit and read the Bible to your children. Additionally, God says to take some time as you prepare for bed or assist your children with their bedtime preparations to think of the precepts and principles of Scripture.

Teaching your children about Scripture will take discipline, but the Bible promises that even a rebellious child cannot outrun or forget the principles instilled by faithful parents.

And strong children grow to be healthy men and women, leading a healthy and strong society.

Josh Denton is a contributing writer for Family Policy Institute of Washington.

The Devil Hit the Jackpot

[Editor’s Note: As FPIW prepared to post this entry, the following quote appeared on a Facebook Friend’s timeline; it serves as an excellent introduction.  “What a jackpot the devil hit with the sexual revolution. Hard to imagine it delivering for him more than it has (including its own ongoing, no-end-in-sight genocide).”]

It comes as little surprise to those veterans of the so-called “culture wars,” who have for decades been predicting the catastrophic consequences of abandoning traditional sexual norms in favor of the spirit of the age. Nonetheless, it is astonishing to stand at a distance and survey the carnage it has wrought on our society. The damage of the sexual revolution is most clearly seen in the mass slaughter of innocents via abortion, the prevalence of STDs in America today, and sky-high rates of porn usage.

Undoubtedly, the bloodiest fruit of the sexual revolution is the normalization and legalization of elective abortion. Since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton forced abortion on all 50 states in 1973, more than 55 million babies have been dismembered, starved, and burned alive. Our medical waste buckets are full of the dead bodies of our children, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. If this were all, it would be enough to condemn the sexual revolution and abandon its precepts to the trash heap of history. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end here.

It turns out that ram-rodding “comprehensive” sexual education classes into our schools and giving billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood is not enough to create institutions capable of handling the fallout from the sexual revolution and a culture dominated by casual sex. As evidence, one need look no further than the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). According to recent CDC statistics, at any given time 110 million Americans, or about 1 in 3, has an STD. Mind you that these numbers include both the very young and the very old, so If they were isolated for just the sexually active the numbers would be even higher.

Equally concerning is the astronomically high rate of porn consumption. A 2014 Barna survey found that 79% of men aged 18-30 reported watching porn at least monthly. This piece is not an article on the harm of pornography—abler pens than mine have devoted themselves to that question more efficiently than I can in this blog. Suffice to say that porn is not a laughing matter, and its prevalence in our society is an awful testament to the pervasiveness of the sexual revolution.

It becomes difficult to separate these three consequences from each other, and this is understandable because they are related. They are different fruits from the same deadly tree. Enough souls have been broken and spirits crushed by the insidious lies of the sexual revolution. As David French recently wrote in National Review: “Now is the time for Christians to leave their defensive crouch, to approach the public square with confidence. A wounded and broken sexual culture searches for answers. Who are we to withhold the truth?” In light of the sad state of our culture, the church must prepare itself to love and serve the survivors of the deadliest revolution of our time—the sexual revolution.

Porn statistics found at- https://www.provenmen.org/pornography-survey-statistics-2014/
David French’s quote is from- http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452683/sex-consent-morality-culture-ruined-sexual-revolution

Bryce Asberg is a contributing writer to Family Policy Institute and a full-time student at Hillsdale College.