A Governor, a King, and the Tragedy of Adultery

Posted: Thursday, July 02, 2009 at 5:24 am ET

The sad spectacle of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford continues to dominate the headlines as further revelations add one bizarre twist after another to the governor's tale of adultery, deceit, and the consequences of sin. With every passing day, pressure mounts for the governor to resign. As the revelations unfold, his leadership credibility is further destroyed. The people of South Carolina now look to their governor's mansion with a sense of dread and embarrassment.

Governor Sanford's admission of adultery came only after he was ambushed by the media after returning from a liaison in Argentina. In a rambling confession, the governor admitted to an ongoing relationship and an extramarital affair. While the media quickly turned to ask questions about money and the affairs of state, many others immediately thought of the governor's wife and four sons and the horrible pain and embarrassment they were now forced to bear.

In his original statement, Governor Sanford seemed to acknowledge the evil of his actions and, using biblical language, he appeared to understand the sinfulness of his adultery and betrayal. Yet, his statement was rambling and disconnected and, upon reflection, his words raised more questions than they answered. How did this affair happen? Was the relationship really over?

When Governor Sanford addressed his cabinet just a few days after his confession, he offered an apology to his colleagues and promised to "carry on" as governor. “I wanted generally to apologize to every one of you all, for letting you down,” he said. Of course, "letting you down" hardly covers the behavior that brought the governor to this admission. The governor violated his marital vows, engaged in an elaborate and sickening correspondence with his mistress, abandoned his responsibility as husband and father, and forfeited his right to lead the state which twice had elected him governor.

When speaking to the Cabinet, Governor Sanford referred to the biblical story of King David. The governor spoke of "the way in which he fell mightily -- he fell in very, very significant ways --- but then picked up the pieces and built from there." The governor also suggested that remaining in office would set a good example for his four boys, teaching them to persevere after a fall. The great shame is that the governor did not have his four boys in mind as he committed adultery.

Naturally, questions emerged related to the extent and duration of the extramarital affair. The governor's initial statement was unclear about several key issues. The days following would render the situation even more unclear.

Most recently, in a lengthy interview granted to the Associated Press, Governor Sanford added what the wire service called "explosive details" that made the picture all the more troubling. In the first place, the governor admitted to having "crossed the lines" with other women. "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines that I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," said the governor.

But the most troubling words from the governor concerned the nature of his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman with whom he had the affair. "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," he said. He added: "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."

Speaking, not of his wife, but of his mistress, Governor Sanford declared that he would go to his grave "knowing that I had met my soul mate."

Immediately following the governor's first admission, it seemed that he might survive politically and remain in office. The nation found itself once again in a debate about the relationship between personal virtue and public responsibility. This is a question that is particularly vexing to Christian conservatives, who must simultaneously understand that all are sinners in need of redemption and, at the same time, affirm that some sins disqualify individuals from public service and influence.

America's recent political history indicates that some politicians can survive revelations of adultery. While Christians should be less concerned about the political consequences and more concerned about the spiritual consequences, it is fair to observe that those politicians who survive more often than not do so when the adulterous relationship is clearly over and in the more distant past and when the politician has given himself in a demonstrable way to the priority of rebuilding his marriage and reestablishing credibility with his family.

Put simply, Governor Sanford's most recent comments point to a worst-case scenario. His words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife. With tragic candor, the governor has spoken of trying to fall back in love with his wife. He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as "a love story at the end of the day."

Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel's King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David's adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.

Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the "detestation of sin." This is a far cry from what we've heard from Governor Sanford.

If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons -- and all who have eyes to see -- how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.

Richard Dawkins Jumps The Shark

Posted: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 4:47 am ET

News out of Great Britain indicates that Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most famous living atheist, is setting up a summer camp intended to help children and teenagers adopt atheism. As The Times [London] reports: "Give Richard Dawkins a child for a week's summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life."

The camp, based upon an American precursor, is to be financially subsidized by Dawkins. According to media reports, all 24 places at the camp have been taken.

As Lois Rogers of The Times reports:

Budding atheists will be given lessons to arm themselves in the ways of rational scepticism. There will be sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology along with more conventional pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war. There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.

The organizers of the camp are doing everything possible to emulate more traditional summer camps, generally organized by Christian groups or venerable organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Campers are to learn about evolution even as they go canoeing and swimming. Like their counterparts at Christian camps, these campers will sing songs around the campfire. As might be expected, the songs will be quite different.  "Instead of singing Kumbiya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out 'Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too.'"

Camp Quest, established in the United States in 1996, has now expanded to six locations. While its numbers are small in terms of attendance, especially as compared to more traditional camps, the camps for atheists receive a good deal of media attention.

In this light, it appears that this announcement hardly adds to the reputation of Richard Dawkins. In the parlance of American popular culture, he appears to have "jumped the shark." As this phrase indicates, some figures in the public eye become something like parodies of themselves. In this case, the recently retired Oxford University professor has thrown his public reputation behind an effort that appears to be profoundly unserious when it comes to reaching the masses. If Richard Dawkins is really so concerned to support atheism, it hardly seems that a summer camp limited to 24 children and teenagers represents a bold advance for his cause.

In recent months, Dawkins has spent his personal credibility on a project to put atheistic messages on London buses and, now, on this very small experiment in a secularist camp for children. The bus advertisement campaign became something of a joke, with the signs declaring only the claimed probability that there is no God. Londoners seemed more bemused than persuaded. Now, Professor Dawkins lends both his name and his financial support to an atheistic summer camp that will teach evolution to children by day and teach them to sing the songs of John Lennon by night. The Boy Scouts should not fear the competition.

At a deeper level, the existence of this camp in Great Britain and its sister camps in the United States indicates something of the intellectual insecurity of contemporary atheism and agnosticism. The effort to create a religion-free zone for summer camp makes for an interesting news story in the media, but it is not likely to draw the masses.

What comes after atheistic bus signs and a secularist summer camp? Time, as they say, will tell.

____________________________________

See also:  The Times, "There Will Be No Tent for God at Camp Dawkins."

Follow Albert Mohler on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

The Assurance of Things Hoped For

Posted: Monday, June 29, 2009 at 5:01 am ET

THE ASSURANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR: A LIVING STEWARDSHIP FOR THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President

Delivered June 24, 2009 at the Service Commemorating the Sesquicentennial of the Seminary’s Founding

I greet you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ as we join together to commemorate and to celebrate the sesquicentennial of the founding of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is a moment filled with memory, gratitude, promise, and wonder. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, we gather in the shadow of those who a century and a half ago established this great institution and dedicated their lives, their reputations, their hopes, and their unflagging energies to the great task of training ministers of the Gospel.

We gather to celebrate fifteen decades of history and to consider the magnitude of this moment in light of the eternal purposes of God. Behind us stands a long line of faithfulness, traced through many generations and reaching around the globe. Those who established this school in 1859 could scarcely imagine that we would commemorate this occasion as the Southern Baptist theological seminary now looks to the future propelled and inspired by a century and a half of history.

To be human is to experience time. We are chronological creatures, who cannot imagine our lives without reference to the frame of past, present, and future. We make constant reference to the clock and the calendar. Our consciousness is marked by memory and we feel the passage of time in the marrow of our bones. We find ourselves marking time by anniversaries and celebrations of past events that provide the necessary context for understanding who we are and to whom we belong.

For the people of God, memory serves not only as a necessary faculty of human consciousness, but as a stewardship. Memory is required for faithfulness, even as Israel was constantly reminded to remember and to commemorate the great acts of God that brought Abraham out of Ur, Israel out of Egypt, and the children of Moses into the land of promise.

Likewise, Christians are called to commemorate the saving acts of God in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are to live in the present, drawing our confidence from our sure and certain knowledge of God’s saving acts and of Christ’s promises to his church. We cannot live without memory, and our confidence for the future is secured by our Lord, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

A sesquicentennial celebration takes us well outside any human lifespan. Though some present among us today can trace their lives through much of this institution’s history, not one of us was present when the historic events that brought The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary into existence took place. Though the origins of the school can be traced far behind 1859, that year marks the historic founding of the school. Thus, it is to 1859 that we look as we seek to ground our story in the frame of time, place, and purpose.

Just three years earlier, James Petigru Boyce had delivered his inaugural address as a professor at Furman University. With an audacity that can only be described as breathtaking, matched to a vision more bold than others could see, Boyce delivered the Magna Carta of Southern Seminary. Though Southern Baptists could at that time point only to a handful of struggling theological departments in colleges and universities, Boyce saw both the need for and the promise of a great central theological institution that would serve the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention as the young denomination looked to the future and to the call of God to the nations.

In retrospect, it is nothing short of amazing that the institution ever came into existence. Though many shared Boyce’s dream of a central theological institution, others thought his conception to be too bold, too ambitious, or too costly to their own institutional purposes. The establishment of Southern Seminary required not only vision, but also a level of commitment, generosity, and sacrifice that surpassed anything that founding generation had ever known before.

Of course, the level of commitment required for Southern Seminary’s founding would quickly be exceeded by that required for the school’s survival. As Professor Gregory A. Wills recounts:

On the first day of October 1859, four young professors and nine students opened the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was an uncertain undertaking. Southern Baptists were not sure that they needed it, and many doubted its success. And opposition to it came from many quarters. By November Professor Basil Manly Jr. judged that the seminary’s survival was already “drawing to a crisis,” and he grieved at the prospect of seeing “so auspicious a moment for Southern Baptist interests come to naught.”

Thankfully, that moment did not come to naught, but the question of the school’s survival remained open, to a greater or lesser degree, well into the twentieth century. Even then, crises and the challenges would arise and recur. An endeavor this bold would require successive generations of almost irrational dedication to the cause.

Celebrating this occasion, our minds naturally go back to Greenville, South Carolina and to that October day in 1859 when James P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, Basil Manly Jr., and William Williams, joined by only nine students, stepped into history. Those who observed that first day of classes must have marveled that such a day had ever arrived. At the same time, the foreclosure of their dream loomed as an ever-present possibility.

The Southern Baptist Convention had been established only 14 years previously, and the churches of the young denomination were stretched to support two mission boards and their own ministries. A network of struggling colleges and universities had been established, but nowhere in the South could a central theological institution for Baptists be found. Not, that is, until that October day in 1859.

Seen in that light, the history of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is integral to the history of the Southern Baptist Convention. The story of this school cannot be told without constant reference to the convention of churches to whom it belongs and whose cause it serves. Even as we commemorate the four founding faculty of the school, we must thank God for the vision and sacrificial commitment of countless Southern Baptists whose names are known only to God.

In a sense, an institution like Southern Seminary must have its story told in a structure more like biography than history. We naturally think of the founding of the school as something akin to birth, and we trace the history of the school through phases that correspond to something like childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Seen in this frame, the childhood of Southern Seminary was tempestuous, dangerous, and filled with peril. The young school would soon find itself in the maelstrom of national strife and the division. The Civil War would tear the nation asunder and put the school into a hiatus from which only the boldest could be confident the school would ever emerge. But, Southern Seminary did survive the war, but the newly reopened school soon found itself in no less peril as war gave way to Reconstruction. Southern Seminary’s transition from childhood to adolescence required energies and sacrifices that would exceed even those required for its founding.

The generation of E. Y. Mullins brought Southern seminary into the twentieth century and, to a considerable degree, into the modern world. Many in that generation could trace their lifelines back to the founding of the school in 1859, but they would know a world vastly different from that of the founding generation. Along with the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary would see the new century as a time of unparalleled opportunity and continuing progress.

Of course, the experience of the twentieth century was, as no shortage of historians remind us, vastly different from that envisioned by so many as the century dawned. Yet, even through the experiences of two world wars, a vast economic depression, and the transition of the United States into the position of world leadership, this Seminary continued to expand its reach and its vision even as the Southern Baptist Convention experienced unprecedented growth, outstripping the dreams of 1845.

In one sense, the twentieth century would see the world changed over and over again.  Horses would give way to railways, which would in turn give way to automobiles and airplanes.  The century would see the development of antibiotics, the splitting of the atom, and man on the moon. The United States would become a superpower and the globe would shrink as communications and travel were transformed. The demography of the United States would be reshaped as great urban centers developed and their populations burgeoned. Tremendous social, moral, and political shifts would reshape American culture and challenge its churches.

Throughout the decades, Southern Seminary turned out hundreds and then thousands of ministers of the Gospel, missionaries, and denominational leaders. Southern Seminary was at the forefront of the denomination’s growth, expansion, and dreams.

Of course, there were also times of testing and trial. When James P. Boyce set out his vision for a central theological institution for Southern Baptists, he both understood and insisted that the school must be confessional to the core, committed without reservation to the historic Christian faith, to Baptist beliefs, and to an eager embrace of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The history of this school stands as a humbling reminder of the necessity of that task.

Boyce understood what others both failed and refused to see. An institution that was not boldly committed to the revealed truths of Christianity – without hesitation or reservation -- would quickly become an infectious source of heterodoxy into the lives of our churches. The twentieth century saw the pervasive influence of theological liberalism bring mainline Protestantism to disaster and decline. By God’s grace, Southern seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention would, at century’s end, emerge from the convulsion of necessary controversy into an opportunity for renewed faithfulness and recovered conviction.

As we observe this spectacular occasion today, we do so with the knowledge that God has afforded this school the opportunity for a new future even as we have recovered the convictions upon which the school was first established. On this occasion, we celebrate the gift of this opportunity and the stewardship it represents.

So long as The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary exists, it must serve the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention by training God-called ministers of the Gospel for service, leadership, and the tasks of ministry. We stand without apology upon the authority, inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Bible. Without qualification, we require every professor to affirm all that is contained within the Abstract of Principles and The Baptist Faith and Message. Without embarrassment, we bear the scandal of the cross even as we seek to produce a generation filled with unprecedented passion to see the nations exult in Christ and the Gospel taken to the uttermost part of the world.

Our sesquicentennial requires us to remember that Southern Seminary is a servant to the churches. We gladly serve the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and this institution would never have come into existence, much less have arrived at a moment of such unprecedented promise, without the faithful prayers and the generous support of the convention and its churches. Through the Cooperative Program, the hopes for more faithful ministry have been minted into the lives of literally thousands of ministers and missionaries serving all around the world.

In the year 2009, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary stands as one of the leading theological institutions in the world, one of the largest theological institutions in the history of the Christian Church, and one of the most venerable and respected institutions of the evangelical world. All this comes by the grace and mercy of God. A smiling providence marks this school’s celebration of such a consequential anniversary. We are a generation most blessed and most grateful.

In the Book of Hebrews we read, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.” [Hebrews 11:1-2]   Do these words not frame our thoughts as we observe and commemorate this day?

Looking backward, we trace the Southern Seminary’s history, not only to 1859 or 1845, but to the eternal purposes and assured promises of God. The writer of the Book of Hebrews has affirmed and elucidated justification by faith alone, and here he turns to affirm faith as central and essential to the experience of the people of God. Faith, in its essence , is the assurance of things hoped for. The hopes of those who founded Southern Seminary were hopes worthy of the people of God. They trusted God to fulfill his promises to his church, and they established this school in order that those promises might be realized in the faithful ministries of those who would serve the church.

By faith, “the men of old gained approval.” We would not be here today, marking and celebrating the sesquicentennial of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, had Almighty God not approved of the vision that brought the school into being and had He not preserved it through countless dangers, toils, and snares. The unprecedented stature and opportunities that mark this school at the present hour are the gift of God to this generation. Of course, this gift is a matter of our most precious stewardship.

Southern Seminary’s sesquicentennial celebration begins and ends in the affirmation of the stewardship that is invested and entrusted to this school and to the Southern Baptist Convention. By faith, the generations that have preceded us gained approval. May God grant to our generation the same faith and even greater faithfulness.

This stewardship requires that we, gathered on this day of commemoration and celebration, commit ourselves anew to the vision, convictions, passions, and pledges that brought this precious school into being. Given the scope of opportunities now before us, we must be even more fervently committed to the Great Commission and the task of reaching the world with the Gospel. We must inspire a new generation with passion for evangelism and the joy of seeing men and women come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must train a new generation in the glad calling of the Ministry and in the central tasks of preaching and teaching the Word of God. We must train this generation rightly to divide the Word of truth and arm them to serve without the compromise of truth or integrity. We must strive to prepare a generation to be sensitive shepherds of the flock of God who are also warriors of the Spirit and soldiers of the cross.

In the words of Southern Seminary’s hymn, our vision is to see “soldiers of Christ in truth arrayed.”   In our sesquicentennial year, we gratefully and gladly return to the touchstone which brought this school into being.

We stand at the intersection of history and hope, encouraged by legacy and inspired by destiny.  May we dedicate ourselves this day to the vision that sustains us, the truth that possesses us, and the legacy that inspires us.  By God’s grace, may we, like those who founded this seminary a century and a half ago, find our confidence for the future where alone it can be found -– in the assurance of things hoped for.

Welcome Address to the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention

Posted: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 2:51 am ET

[This week the Southern Baptist Convention met in Louisville for its annual meeting.  This is the welcome address I was privileged to deliver on June 23, 2009.  Responsibilities with the SBC this week precluded regular commentary writing.  I will return to regular commentary next week.]

It is my high honor to welcome messengers of the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention to the city of Louisville, Kentucky. The city, strategically located within the heart of the nation and historically situated where America’s westward expansion began, is now one of America’s major cities and metropolitan areas. This city welcomes the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention.

Baptists have been active in Louisville and its surrounding area ever since settlers crossed over the Alleghenies in the Revolutionary era. Baptist pioneers helped to establish the communities of Kentucky even as they planted churches, supported missionaries, and sought to win their neighbors to Christ.

Now, the Long Run Baptist Association and the Kentucky Baptist Convention number hundreds of Baptist churches. The roots of the Southern Baptist Convention reach deep within the churches of Kentucky and Louisville and Baptists from this area played leading roles in the shaping of Baptist identity and the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here, at the Falls of the Ohio, Baptists learned to defend their faith and theology over against the rise of rival denominations with different conceptions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here, Baptists developed historic patterns of cooperation and cooperative giving to missions.

This is the eighth occasion on which the city of Louisville has welcomed the Southern Baptist Convention for its annual meeting. In 1857, the seventh session of the Southern Baptist Convention was held in Louisville with 184 registered messengers and R.B.C. Howell of Virginia serving as president. In 1870, the Convention returned to Louisville with 399 registered messengers and P.H. Mell of Georgia presiding. The Convention returned in 1887, when P.H. Mell again presided, this time with 689 registered messengers. In 1899 the Convention was once again in Louisville with 869 registered messengers and W.J. Northen of Georgia serving as president. In 1909, just ten years later, the number of registered messengers was 1,547, almost double the registered attendance just a decade before. Joshua Levering of Maryland served as president. The convention was once again in Louisville in 1927 when President George W. Truett presided over 4,424 messengers. Finally, the Southern Baptist Convention came to Louisville in 1959 – exactly a half-century ago - when 12,326 messengers were registered and Brooks Hays of Arkansas served as president. Now, the Southern Baptist Convention makes history by returning to Louisville 50 years after the last Louisville convention.

This historical survey points to the growth and development of the Southern Baptist Convention, its churches, and its reach around the world. This year, the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Louisville not only to mark history but to make history.

In 1959, the Southern Baptist Convention came to Louisville in order to celebrate the centennial of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Now the Southern Baptist Convention returns to Louisville in order to mark the sesquicentennial celebration of Southern Baptist’s mother seminary.

Southern Seminary was born within the bosom of the Southern Baptist Convention and it began its history as classes first opened in Greenville South Carolina in 1859. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Seminary moved to Louisville in 1877, finding here a city and a community of Baptists that would provide vital support and sustenance for the Seminary and keep it alive.

Now, as The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary celebrates its 150th anniversary, it does so by making clear its commitment to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, to the convictions that frame our identity as Baptists, to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the great task of sending ministers and missionaries into our churches and to the outermost parts of the earth in order to see the name of Jesus Christ exalted among the nations.

By God’s grace, Southern Seminary today is one of the largest theological institutions ever to serve the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. More importantly it is an institution that has been brought home to Biblical inerrancy, theological fidelity, and missionary urgency.

Southern Seminary welcomes the Southern Baptist convention to Louisville Kentucky and we welcome all Southern Baptists to celebrate the 150th birthday of Southern Baptist’s oldest institution and to visit your mother seminary as you visit Louisville.

Brothers and sisters, in these precious hours we spend together in this Convention may we not only mark history in Louisville -- may we make history.

To God be the glory, Amen.

_______________________

Photo: John Gill

Watch Out for Myths About Fatherhood

Posted: Friday, June 19, 2009 at 1:45 pm ET

The role of the father is increasingly problematic in the context of modern American culture. Fatherhood has been marginalized and the rule and authority of fathers have been depreciated, ridiculed, and continuously redefined. From the Berenstain Bears to The Simpsons, fathers are all too often the object of ridicule or the subject of the laugh line.

Of course, some fathers bring this marginalization upon themselves as they either neglect or forfeit their own fatherly responsibilities. In many sectors of our society, fathers are most noted by their absence. Indeed, millions of American children are growing up without any significant father figure, much less their biological father.

The marginalization of fatherhood can be traced to many developments, but one prime source of this marginalization is the intellectual class and its radical commitment to ideological feminism. Fatherhood is now an ideological category that is inescapably linked to everything from patriarchy (considered to be the original sin) to popular culture (where the intellectual elites exert a very significant, if indirect influence).

Fatherhood has been marginalized in the society at large, and even the biological contribution of a father can now be replaced by a mere "donor" from a sperm bank or a fertility clinic.

Given the marginalization of fatherhood and the confusion about the role of fathers, Father's Day becomes more and more awkward. Nevertheless it still comes on the calendar and journalists, intellectuals, and cultural observers feel the need to say something about fatherhood in June.

W. Bradford Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, warns that much of what is said about fatherhood in connection with Father's Day is nothing less than mythological -- and many of these myths are downright dangerous.

Writing in National Review magazine, Wilcox identifies five myths about fatherhood that are likely to rear their heads in connection with Father's Day. Anticipating a flow of news reports around Father's Day, Wilcox warns: "Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction." In other words, "Be on the lookout."

Beyond this general warning, Wilcox offers some specific myths that are all too likely to appear. First, he warns about the "Mr. Mom surge" that has recently appeared in the media. While the current economic dislocation has had a disproportionate effect upon men, and thus upon fathers, stay-at-home dads "make up a minuscule share of American fathers." According to the most recent U.S. Census data, stay-at-home dads represent less than 1% of the 22.5 million families in America. Stay-at-home moms, on the other hand, represent 24% of all families.

Brad Wilcox reminds us that most American families still know dad as the primary breadwinner. Indeed, the father is the primary earner in almost 3/4 of American families. Wilcox is right in suggesting that the media focus on the "exotic breed" of the stay-at-home dad obscures the fact that providership is essential to the role of most fathers in most families. This should be honored and respected, not lost in a fog of media attention that distracts from the fundamental reality.

The second myth Wilcox dispels is the claim that most women want a 50-50 distribution between work and family life for fathers. He concedes this might be true for "the average journalist or academic" but not for the average American mom. While moms do want dads to be more involved with the hands-on tasks of parenting and with housework, "most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time."

Third, Wilcox cites ample research to dispel the myth that cohabitation is as good as marriage. Today, a significant minority of American children will spend some time with cohabiting parents. As Wilcox concedes, this leads many intellectuals to attempt to minimize the differences between married and cohabiting fathers. But, cohabiting fathers are much less likely to stay around and stay significant in the lives of their children. Marriage and fatherhood turn out to be "a package deal" for most men.

Fourth, Wilcox goes after the claim that divorce has not been harmful to children. Research indicates that girls whose parents divorce are far more likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer depression. "Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life."

We should add that boys, often neglected in so many of these studies, experience the loss of father and suffer this loss, often in silence. The pathology often evident in the lives of young males can often be traced directly to this loss.

Last, Wilcox dispels the myth that "dads are dispensable." The phenomenon of single mothers by choice receives a great deal of positive press. Nevertheless, as Wilcox asserts: "this myth fails to take into account the now-vast social scientific literature . . . showing that children typically do better in an intact, married family with their fathers than they do in families headed by single mothers."

Brad Wilcox ends his essay with a call for more journalists "to confront hard truths about the roles that fathers and marriage play in advancing the welfare of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, our children."

Christians have a special stake in this argument, for we believe that fatherhood is not just a social construction but a matter of biblical importance. Though informed by sociological analysis and encouraged by academics like Bradford Wilcox, our confidence in the role of fathers is based in the fact that fatherhood is a role that is honored, dignified, and defined in Holy Scripture. The Christian father is answerable to a far higher calling, but the data surveyed in Brad Wilcox's essay serve as a reminder that fatherhood is a gift to all creation and that the evidence of the Creator's design for fatherhood defies all the ideological efforts of so many to subvert fathers and fatherhood.

Thanks goes to Brad Wilcox for dispelling these myths. As Father's Day now approaches, let us all tell the truth about fatherhood and honor God as we honor faithful fathers.

Religion on the Brain?

Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 3:26 am ET

Readers of Monday's edition of USA Today were treated to an introduction into the sociobiology of belief. Interestingly, this article appeared in the opinion pages of the paper -- which is right where the article belongs.

Andrew Newberg, associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that religion can be a force for good or for evil, depending on the conception of God that is the focus of belief. In its most basic form, Newberg's article can be reduced to his belief that when individuals believe in a God of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, they are likely to experience benefits from this belief and then have a generally positive outlook on life. On the other hand, those who believe in a God of wrath, judgment, and vengeance are more likely to experience negative consequences in their lives and to demonstrate a basically negative outlook.

Newberg, along with his colleague Mark Robert Waldman, have been working on a psychiatric understanding of religious belief. Their recent book, How God Changes Your Brain, presents a comprehensive version of their argument and model of understanding. Newberg's article in USA Today is something of a distillation of the arguments made in their book.

The USA Today article presents an understanding of religion that is reduced to biological elements. Nevertheless, some readers of Newberg's article are likely to miss the basic biological reductionism and methodological naturalism that marks his understanding of religion and belief in God. Newberg's argument seems to be that we will be better off if more Americans held to an understanding of God that is, by his evaluation, more positive. As he writes:

There seems to be little question that when people view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and mental health. Again, the research is clear: If you ruminate on negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are involved in anger, fear and stress. This can ultimately damage important parts of the brain and the body. What's worse, negative emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear, distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold different or opposing beliefs. Thus, it becomes more easy to believe that "I, and my religion, is right and you, and your religion, are wrong." It is this destructive religious rhetoric that atheists are quick to point their fingers at when focusing on the negative qualities of faith.

In other words, Newberg would trace negative emotions and "destructive religious rhetoric" to an individual's conception of God. Beyond this, he attempts to trace this belief in God to biological causation and the specific areas in the human brain.

Writing in How God Changes Your Brain, Newberg and Waldman argue that "God can change your brain." They insist that this is true without respect to the specific belief in God. In their words, "it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, or an agnostic or an atheist." According to their model, the brain creates understandings of God -- a capacity developed through the evolutionary process. In terms of the neurological process, it really doesn't matter if God does or does not exist. "In fact, as far as we can tell, most of the human brain does not even worry if the things we see are actually real. Instead, it only needs to know if they are useful for survival."

Newberg and Waldman assert that it is the thalamus in the brain that determines what is real and what is unreal. "The thalamus makes no distinction between inner and outer realities, and thus any idea, if contemplated long enough, will take on a semblance of reality. Your belief becomes neurologically real, and your brain will respond accordingly."

This is a remarkable assertion, but it goes hand-in-hand with the reduction of human consciousness to a purely naturalistic reality. Furthermore, this effort at scientific explanation reduces belief to no more than biochemistry and reduces religion to a mere social function. But, if belief in God is nothing more than biochemistry, why believe at all?

Newberg's answer to this is rather straightforward -- he hopes for more Americans to believe in a basically benign deity. He believes that this would lead to a decrease in social tension and an increase in social harmony.

In their book, Newberg and Waldman rely on a study conducted by a team of sociologists at Baylor University. In the Baylor study, done in cooperation with the Gallup organization, four different conceptions of God were presented. These include "the authoritarian God," "the critical God," "the distant God," and "the benevolent God." Fundamentalism is associated with belief in the authoritarian God and this pattern of belief is traced to the limbic areas of the brain. "Envisioning an authoritarian or critical entity -- be it another person or God -- will activate the limbic areas of the brain that generate fear and anger," they suggest.

By contrast, belief in God as a benevolent force is stimulated in the prefrontal cortex and, specifically, in the anterior cingulate. In their words, "We suggest that the anterior cingulate is the true 'heart' of your neurological soul, and when this part of the brain is activated, you will feel greater tolerance and acceptance toward others who hold different beliefs. The God of the limbic system is a frightening God, but the God of the anterior cingulate is loving."

Let's be clear: If religious belief is nothing more than a biological process and if God is nothing more than a concept originating inside the neurobiological process of the brain, then we should simply wish for more persons to hold to what might be considered healthy understandings of God as compared to those which might be considered unhealthy. Of course, it is at this very point that the logic breaks down. Thinking in purely conceptual terms, virtually any sane person would take greater comfort in a God who is both benevolent and judgmental. After all, do we not all yearn for God to bring judgment upon mass murderers, child molesters, and the perpetrators of vast economic fraud?

The functional view of religion reduces belief in God to its potential personal and social utility. According to Andrew Newberg, certain forms of religion can indeed offer positive benefits, while other forms of belief bring both personal and social harms. Newberg and Waldman are at least honest in acknowledging that their understanding of religion is completely independent of the question of God's existence or nonexistence.

Interestingly, both in the book and in the USA Today article, Newberg relates an incident that, to him, represents the form of religious belief he wants to see pass away:

When I was in high school, I dated a girl whose family regarded themselves as "born-again" Christians. It was my first encounter with devoutly religious people who strongly disagreed with my perspective on faith. They were always pleasant to me, but they were quite clear that in their view I had deeply sinned by not turning to Jesus. Oh, and because of this, I was going to hell.

If nothing else, this paragraph serves to demonstrate that to Newberg and Waldman, belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ represents a "negative" form of religious belief. In their book, the authors express hope that such exclusivist forms of belief will give way to "a very slow acceptance of pluralism." As Newberg comments, "But as I have always argued, if God is truly infinite, then God must have infinite manifestations."

Andrew Newberg's article in USA Today offers a fascinating glimpse into what happens when belief in God is reduced to biochemistry, neuroscience, and the evolutionary process. If you accept this worldview, you must hope for humanity to evolve towards a form of religious belief most to your liking.

Of course, Christianity is based on belief in the one true God who is objectively real -- in the God who is the self existent, self revealing, God of the Bible. Based on the Bible, we believe that God is both benevolent and holy, both forgiving and judging. God's judgment is always right, just, and perfect -- and his judgment will be demonstrated in absolute perfection on the Day of Judgment. On that day, God's judgment will demonstrate his righteousness and mercy in the forgiveness of sinners who have come by faith to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. In that same judgment, God's wrath will be righteously poured out upon those who are without Christ and thus without a Savior, an Advocate, or a hope.

And that takes us back to Andrew Newberg's experience with the family of "born again" Christians, who believed that those who do not turn to Jesus are going to hell. So far as he is concerned, this represents nothing more than a regrettable neurological process that erupts as a negative religious attitude. Of course, the question he does not want to answer -- and his scientific model allows him not to answer -- is this: What if they were right?

Avoid the Summer Brain Drain

Posted: Monday, June 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm ET

A teenager I happen to know quite well (seeing that he lives in my house) announced last week that summer is time off for his brain.  Well, nothing fires up the parental learning plans like a teenager who announces his plans to learn as little as possible over the summer.  Suffice it to say that the young man has a wonderfully enriching summer on his way.  And -- I promise you this -- he will enjoy it.  Like I say, I know the kid.

Actually, my wife and I have planned almost every summer as a time of learning, and much of that knowledge can never be learned in a book.  We have dragged our children through museums and libraries all over the world, retraced movements of battles, seen the seats of government power, sat in cockpits of modern supersonic fighters, been into the Everglades to spot dangerous wildlife (boys especially love to find anything that can eat or kill you), and shared a disastrous experience of car sickness while discussing God's creation of the world just after visiting the Grand Canyon.  (HINT: When big sister says little brother is about to blow . . . listen to her, stop the car, and UNLOCK THE CAR DOORS.  That last part turns out to be really important.)

The Washington Post just reported that educators are particularly concerned about what they call the "summer brain drain."  Evidently, educators now believe that almost all students lose between two and 2 1/2 months of math computational skills over the summer.  The good news is that most of the students can recapture that learning quite quickly in the fall.  The bad news is the reminder that a brain in neutral is a brain losing ground.

The data on reading ability are particularly interesting. Children who read over the summer grow in reading knowledge and comprehension. No surprise there. The really interesting part of this research is the suggestion that a wide variety of summer experiences can provide background knowledge that turns out to be indispensable to growth in the understanding of what is read. "Life experiences other than reading can lead to advantages in reading comprehension," advised Daniel T. Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. "If you don't have a reading problem or a problem with decoding . . . your ability to read a passage is dependent on having some relevant background knowledge."

The gap in rich learning experiences turns out to have much to do with socio-economic factors. Children who are deprived of the kinds of experiences that come through travel, conversations with parents, cultural experiences, and contact with nature turn out to have problems reading that have nothing to do with words on a page and everything to do with missing background knowledge.

This research should encourage parents to think of the summer -- and particularly of summer vacation plans -- as an opportunity to provide invaluable "background knowledge" for the entire family. Summer vacation affords a priceless opportunity for families to learn together. To our shame, many families drive right past incredible opportunities for learning. How did the states get their shape? Where exactly does this river flow? What is this historical marker telling us?

Turning the summer into a fun and enriching learning opportunity is, seen in this light, a parental responsibility. It is also a lot of fun. During the school year, whatever the educational model, children are largely directed to learn what is required by the curriculum and, in many cases, individual learning projects and the interests of the children are left behind. The summer affords an all-too-brief opportunity to let your children learn about what interests them the most -- and become teachers of their siblings (and sometimes their parents as well). Where exactly was the "Little House on the Prairie?" What are the different kinds of bridges and how are they used? Just what is the difference between a frog and a toad?

You do not have to go far to find unparalleled opportunities for learning. While travel remains one of the most intellectually enriching experiences for people of all ages, there are plenty of opportunities close at home. Have you taken your children to the county courthouse or City Hall? Have you plundered all opportunities to visit the museums, libraries, and cultural assets close to home? Do your children even know about the wildlife they can find in the grass outside the back door?

Christian parents are responsible for a particular stewardship of learning, for we are responsible to inculcate a Christian worldview and distinctively Christian patterns of thinking in our children. The summer affords an unparalleled opportunity for this as well, as every event, observation, book, news story, and road trip offers a constant and precious opportunity to turn our children's questions into moments of timely learning.  Take every opportunity to add to the Christian "background knowledge" that leads to a deeper understanding of the Gospel and the Christian faith.

So enjoy the summer and make the most of it, whether hitting the beach, resting in the mountains, climbing the local hill, or visiting grandparents. Just remember to maximize every opportunity for learning and to provide important "background knowledge" for the education of children. Who knows? Parents who pay attention to this might well avoid their own "summer brain drain."

____________________

Christopher kindly gave me permission to use the opening anecdote. I will count that as extra credit.  As always, let me know what you are thinking and send along anything you think I should see.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Don't miss today's edition of The Reading Log [read here].

Adventures Among the Twitterati -- Why Use Twitter?

Posted: Friday, June 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm ET

Some would argue that Twitter hit the big leagues long ago, but the cover of TIME magazine is the ultimate sign that Twitter has arrived at the forefront of our cultural conversation.  As TIME managing editor Richard Stengel commented, Twitter and other social networks "are changing the way we communicate and live."

According to recent reports, Twitter may have over 12 million users by year-end.  Facebook, by contrast, has almost 200 million users.  But, like some earlier technologies and platforms, Twitter seems to have reached a transformational moment.  The question seems to have shifted from "Why do you use Twitter?" to "Why not?."

Most commentary about social media looks like cheerleading.  There is no shortage of voices ready to predict that this or that technology will rule the world and that those who opt out will be -- to use a phrase evangelicals will recognize -- left behind.

Believe it or not, there are faithful Christians who do not even use a computer.  There are pastors who are still using nothing but books, pencils, pens, and paper.  God love them, they are probably not as distracted as the rest of us.  Hold on, I need to post a Tweet.

Ok, back.  We need to be very careful that we do not become overly enamored with any technology.  As observers like Jacques Ellul and Neil Postman reminded us, our technologies shape our lives perhaps more than we realize.  As followers of Christ, Christians have a special stake in this, for everything must come down to what most honors God and serves the Kingdom.

Can Twitter serve the Kingdom?  Can a technology that limits users to 140 characters be used for anything meaningful?  Is my time well spent reading about what someone had for breakfast?  Is all this an exercise in communal narcissism?  Well, my answer is evident in my own use of Twitter.  I find the advantages to outweigh the dangers by far.

Let's admit the obvious -- much of what we read in Twitter is useless, at least from an informational point of view.  It is not the place to find the deepest moral, theological, and spiritual reflection.  On the other hand, it can be used to point to more substantial offerings on the Web.  Like any medium, it is only as worthy as its users.  There is the potential to do great harm and the responsibility to do great good, but this is true of almost any technology.  The potential to do good or evil did not appear only with the Internet.

Is Twitter just a fad?  The specific platform may change, but TIME's Steven B. Johnson answers that question quite well:

Social networks are notoriously vulnerable to the fickle tastes of teens and 20-somethings (remember Friendster?), so it's entirely possible that three or four years from now, we'll have moved on to some Twitter successor. But the key elements of the Twitter platform — the follower structure, link-sharing, real-time searching — will persevere regardless of Twitter's fortunes, just as Web conventions like links, posts and feeds have endured over the past decade. In fact, every major channel of information will be Twitterfied in one way or another in the coming years.

We can see this happening already.  In one sense, anyone who can say something meaningful in 140 characters on Twitter can probably learn to use that skill elsewhere.

I use Twitter because I find it to be a powerful (if sometimes perplexing) means of connecting.  I am able to pass things along and make some points to people who I would otherwise never reach.  I hope this makes a Great Commission impact and serves a wholesome Kingdom purpose.  I'll quickly admit something else -- Twitter can be fun.  In a life of serious endeavor, that is no small gift.  I like how technology writer Clive Thompson defines the experience of Twitter --  "ambient awareness."

Twitter has changed my prayer life.  More than any development in years, Twitter helps me to know what is going on in the lives of many friends and people far beyond.  I have known how to pray in many specific ways.  I have rejoiced with friends and have grieved with others.  Priceless.

I also let folks know what I am doing and thinking as I can.  When I see something interesting that is tweet-worthy, I pass it along.  I appreciate when others do the same. I can let my friends, students, and board members know what is going on in my life and ministry, if they care to follow on Twitter.  Facebook limits that reach to 5,000 -- and I struggle with the decisions that forces.  Twitter relieves me of that burden.  Anyone can follow.  All are welcome.

I do not believe that Twitter belongs in worship, but it does belong among the people of God.  Tweet before and after a service of worship.  Every once in a while, take a break.  You really can share a great deal in a tweet.  On the other hand, some things cannot be reduced to 140 characters of text.  So don't try. Tweet on.

________________________

Follow on Twitter both "AlbertMohler" and "MohlerRadio."  We will discuss Twitter on today's edition of The Albert Mohler Program.

See also John Piper, "Why and How I am Tweeting."  Josh Harris, "Should We Use Twitter During Church?"

"Where Do All the Colors Go at Night?" -- Children and the Need for Silence

Posted: Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 3:49 am ET

One of the most lamentable aspects of modern life is the disappearance of silence. Throughout most of human history, silence has been a part of life. Many individuals lived a significant portion of their lives in silence, working in solitude and untroubled by the intrusion of constant noise.

Historians often point to the Industrial Revolution as a great turning point in the human experience of environmental sound and constant noise. The arrival of the factory and the concentration of human populations in cities brought a transformation that was accompanied by increased noise and the displaced silence. Today, the problem of noise pollution is a matter of concern to many of us, who find our lives frequently interrupted by unwanted sounds and constant noise.

Our culture now assumes noise and the constant availability of music, electronic chatter, and entertainment. In many homes, there is virtually no silence -- at least during waking hours. In some homes, family members live in isolated environments of independent sound, with iPods, televisions, radios, and any number of other technologies providing a customized experience of noise.

All this takes a toll upon the soul. Psychologists argue that the development of individual identity requires extended periods of solitude, reflection, and silence. The Christian tradition has honored silence as a matter of spiritual discipline and an intentional effort to flee the noise of everyday life in order to hear what noise cannot supply.

If this is true for adults, it is perhaps even more true for children. But today's children are often subjected to a constant barrage of noise. Many are raised to the soundtrack of the television or other forms of entertainment. Some parents seem to fear silence and do their best to make certain that children are never without some form of sound.

Writing in the June issue of Standpoint, Susan Hill argues that our children are being impoverished by being deprived of silence. We have betrayed children, she asserts, by "confiscating their silence." As she explains:

But so difficult has it become to find such oases of silence, that many children never experience it. In adapting to constant noise, we seem to have become afraid of silence. Why? Are we afraid of what we will discover when we come face to face with ourselves there? Perhaps there will be nothing but a great void, nothing within us, and nothing outside of us either. Terrifying. Let's drown our fears out with some noise, quickly.

Most of us will quickly realize the truth contained in her assessment. It seems that many of us are, to a greater or lesser degree, almost afraid of silence. Our children quickly inherit the same fear.

In "Silence, Please," Susan Hill describes the delights of silence in a way that beautifully captures what so many have lost:

In a quiet library, the turning of a page, the scratch of pencil on paper, are separate, distinctive, sounds. They identify themselves to us, they have a personality. They are beautiful. It is not only natural sounds that gain a richness set in the context of silence — all sounds do. To deprive ourselves and our children of the ability to distinguish such aural detail is to diminish our sensory life.

As Susan Hill acknowledges, complete silence is very difficult to achieve. Her goal is not to see children experience an artificial silence, but instead to see children experience the natural sounds that come as gifts -- sounds that require turning off the television to hear.

"Our children are too rarely given that opportunity or taught that the contrast between noise and quietness, like the parallel one between being in company and being alone, is vital to the growth and maturity of the individual," she explains. This growth and maturity, cultivated by silence, is essential to education -- both of the mind and the soul. Reading, writing, analysis, and reflection require some level of silence. Many children, particularly teenagers, are shortchanging their education by developing a dependence on noise, even when studying (or what they call studying).

The life of the mind and the shaping of the soul require the ability to hear, recognize, and understand what would be lost in a cacophony of sound. She expresses this beautifully:

If children do not learn to focus and concentrate in a pool of quietness, their minds become fragmented and their temperaments irritable, their ability to absorb knowledge and sift it, grade it and evaluate it do not develop fully. Reading a book quietly, watching a raindrop slide slowly down a windowpane or a ladybird crawl up a leaf, trying to hear the sound of a cat breathing when it is asleep, asking strange questions, such as, "Where do all the colors go at night?" and speculating about the possible answers — all of these are best done in silence where the imagination can flourish and the intricate minutiae of the world around us can be examined with the greatest concentration.

Where do all the colors go at night? All of us, what ever our age, need the gift of silence so that we can ponder such questions -- and hear what constant noise denies us.

A Matter of Pride?

Posted: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 at 4:48 am ET

The issue of homosexuality presents all morally serious persons with an unavoidable question:  What is the moral status of homosexual acts and relationships?  One way or the other, some judgment on this matter will be made.

Are homosexual acts inherently wrong, dishonorable, and sinful?  Or, is homosexuality morally neutral, with specific sexual acts and relationships determined to be either right or wrong by context and intention?  Are homosexual acts morally good and honorable?  These assertions of moral judgment represent something of the range of possibilities and cover most of the main alternatives.

Most Americans come to moral judgments by a complex and often confused process that combines moral intuition with emotivism and some (often quite minimal) knowledge of the history of moral judgment.  Add to this the fact that most Americans are highly influenced by popular culture and mass opinion.  In the end, as many observers have argued, most Americans are probably moral pragmatists at heart.

On an issue as controversial as homosexuality, moral confusion abounds.  Americans respond to questions related to homosexuality with a range of often inconsistent and contradictory moral judgments.  Ask a question about same-sex marriage one way and you get one answer.  Change the question slightly, and you might get a very different response from the very same person.

President Barack Obama recently signed a proclamation designating the month of June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009."  The President declared:

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

President Obama is not the first American president to make such a declaration.  In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a similar executive order declaring June of that year as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month."  At that time, President Clinton stated:

This June, recognizing the joys and sorrows that the gay and lesbian movement has witnessed and the work that remains to be done, we observe Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans.

President Obama's proclamation goes far beyond the statement signed by President Clinton.  After meeting massive opposition to his proposal to allow openly-homosexual citizens to serve in the Armed Forces, President Clinton crafted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  In his declaration, President Obama pledges to end that policy.  President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  President Obama has called for a repeal of that legislation.

In issuing his order, President Obama applauded the successes of the gay rights movement to date, but affirmed his judgment that "there is more work to be done."  He called for enhanced federal hate crimes laws, adoption rights for homosexuals, and for "civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples," among other goals.

Nevertheless, the most morally significant dimension of President Obama's proclamation is the use of the word "pride."  With the stroke of a pen, a vast moral judgment was communicated.

Given the background noise of cultural conversation, most Americans probably gave little thought to that word.  Yet, by means of this proclamation President Obama called for all Americans to find pride in the fact that some of our fellow citizens are homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered.

This poses a big problem for citizens who believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful.  Can we find pride in what we know to be sin?  That question contains its own answer.  There is no way that biblical Christians can join in the chorus of gay pride.  The Bible is straightforward in its consistent identification of homosexual acts as inherently sinful.  Homosexual acts are not singled out as the only form of sexual sin.  The Bible condemns any number of heterosexual sins, ranging from fornication and adultery to a catalogue of forbidden acts and relationships.

Beyond sexual sins, the Bible condemns sins as various and deadly as anger, envy, covetousness, disobedience, gluttony, greed, and dishonesty.  The Bible declares all of us to be sinners and makes clear that no one of us can even understand the full sinfulness of our own sin.  Sin is deceptive and addictive.  Sin leads to death, judgment, and eternal destruction.

The Bible allows no room for finding pride in sin.  Indeed, such pride amounts to further evidence that sin is deceptive and subversive.  Perhaps one of the most horrifying aspects of sin is just this -- we will find a way to be proud of our sin and the sins of others.

In signing this proclamation, President Obama put the issue right before us all.  During the 1980s the gay rights movement began using the "pride" language in an effort to defy negative moral judgments about homosexuality.  Calls for gay liberation became calls for gay pride.  The new theme brought political, strategic, and psychological advantages.  The assertion of homosexual pride is the ultimate rejection of normative heterosexuality.

Those citizens who believe that morality is mere social construction can go along with this.  Those who believe that homosexuality is morally positive will champion the call for gay pride.  Most Americans will probably give passing attention to the President's call.  But Christians committed to the authority of the Bible as the Word of God cannot find pride in sin.  To do so is not only to confuse sin, but to undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Morally serious persons must take the President's proclamation as a morally serious act.  As such, it demands a response.  Evangelical Christians dare not respond with a claim of moral superiority as if we are not ourselves sinners.  But we must be clear that we cannot find pride in sin, whether these are our own sins or those of others.  The Gospel of Christ simply does not allow us to see sin -- any sin -- as a matter of pride.