Some of you may have seen the recent interview between CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Vice President Dick Cheney. A particular moment in that interview is drawing media attention and it is worth every Christian’s notice. Here’s a snip from a review posted at foxnews.com,

Cheney said he was “delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild” during the interview with a cable news network. But asked about his reaction to a statement by Focus on the Family, the organization led by James Dobson, Cheney stared down his questioner, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s best for the child,” Blitzer read, quoting the organization.

Asked if Cheney wanted to respond, the vice president paused and stared at Blitzer before saying, “No, I don’t.”

…“I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question. … I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective.”

The Vice President’s wife chimed in on another occasion, saying, “Dick and I [are] both very much looking forward to this new baby,” and said her daughter would be a “great mom.”

As traditionalists, Christians argue for a particular view of marriage. We have a particular vision of what is right and good concerning marriage, family and sexuality. For Christians, this vision is grounded in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, though we argue for that vision in a number of ways when engaging culture in the public square. We appeal to common sense (biology indicates that we were made for the opposite sex), history (heterosexual marriage has stood the test of time while all other arrangements dissolve the society that embraces them as normal) and what is observably best for children (ie. its better for a baby boy to have a mom and a dad rather than two moms or two dads). Many affirm the Christian vision of the family who are not themselves Christian. In deed, anyone who believes that marriage is important, that it is to be between a man and a woman and that it entails a lifelong commitment, believes a Christian thing! The Christian vision of the family is attractive and its arguments satisfying because the Christian vision of the family is true.

But what happens when its your daughter who is a homosexual and your granddaughter who is her child? How will we speak about such an arrangement when it exists within our own families? Well, it goes without saying – we cannot allow the circumstances of life to determine the things we believe. But this is tempting. On the local news, I remember the mother of a murderer saying, “he is really a good kid, he’s a loving person.” In a sense, we can all understand the struggle inside this mothers heart. But morality is not determined by popular vote, or by the standard of living embraced by the people whom we love most. Lying is wrong and our children will lie. Lust is wrong and our children will lust. Homosexuality is wrong and some of our children will be homosexuals.

So, exactly what will we say when posed with this kind of question? For, its not a matter of if we will be asked this kind of question but when. Well, for a perfect example in our quest for an answer, we need go no farther than the example and genius of Jesus Christ, who did not avoid though questions or awkward situations, but told the truth, provided the way and offered life.

In his conversation with the woman at the well, found in John 4, for example, Jesus was clever, he was creative and he was clear.

A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.”(For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

In the pattern of Jesus, we should not just brace ourselves for conversations about what is “right” and what is “wrong,” but actively seek them out. For in talking about how the world and everyone in the world, including ourselves, is bent toward sin, we create an opportunity to speak of how God originally intended the world to be, exactly what it is that went wrong and how God, in Christ, means to redeem a people for himself. Jesus is our champion in this task.

I expect that the days ahead will make Jesus Christ more interesting and more marvelous than he has ever been to us before.

In Albert Mohler’s most recent commentary, he reviews an article by Maureen N. McLane, a lecturer in history and literature at Harvard University, who has written an essay recently in the Boston Review. Interacting with her article, Mohler makes the point that in discussions about sex and sexuality, “Value-neutrality is impossible”. I am thankful to Albert Mohler, personally, for helping me read the world in world-view categories.

Here’s from Mohler’s commentary, titled, Why Sex Education is in Such a Mess,

McLane correctly observes that the origins of the sex education movement are found in the social hygiene movement and post-war “family-life education.” As she describes these roots: “In the ’50s, sex ed typically appeared as one small precinct of “family-life education,” aimed primarily at training young people for monogamous, rigidly gendered, companionate marriages in a booming consumer culture.”

She argues that a major turn came in the 1960s, when more explicit sex education curricula were adopted by many school districts, leading to a conservative reaction. The early reaction was a call to end sex education. Eventually, the focus of conservative groups and many parents shifted to changing the curriculum.

As McLane argues:

By the ’80s conservatives pushed sex-ed discussions to a new place: the question now (as Irvine tells us) was not whether a sex-ed curriculum should be offered, but which one. A new battleground was emerging: “comprehensive” vs. “abstinence-only” sexual education. This distinction, though wobbly in practice, is significant: comprehensive sexual education communicates information about contraception and usually includes value-neutral discussion of abortion, sexual orientation, and other controversial topics; abstinence-only curricula promote abstinence as the only acceptable standard for youth–indeed for anyone not in heterosexual marriage–and mention contraception, if at all, only to emphasize failure rates.

A major problem immediately arises — there is no “value-neutral discussion of abortion, sexual orientation, and other controversial topics.” Value-neutrality is impossible. Suggesting abortion as an option is not value-neutral. There is no way to talk about sexual orientation without tripping ideological implications. The very concept is tied to an ideological agenda.

Of course, from the vantage point of “comprehensive” sex education proponents, a push for abstinence-only sex education looks similarly ideological — and it is, of course. The battles over sex education are battles that reveal worldviews in conflict, with our children on the battlefield.

James 1:45-15 says this, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” And sin brings forth death in more than one way. Adam’s first sin brought death itself into human experience, and “because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man” (Romans 5:17). So death itself is part of the vortex of a world cursed with sin. Sin also has a way of speeding up death. Gluttony can do this. Drunkenness can do this. Reckless driving can do this. But in an even more tragic way, in the pattern set by Cain, sin can bring death through murder. Cain murdered his brother in cold blood in a fit of jealous rage (Genesis 4:8).

Well, sex, a gift from God designed to enhance and produce life – in a sin torn world, also destroys life. Today brings us a story that reminds us of the murder committed by David, who, upon finding out his mistress was pregnant, had her husband, Uriah, killed. In his case, it was the protection of his own reputation that quickened his friend’s death.

Here’s an article posted at foxnews.com, in which we see what is likely a connection between promiscuous sex and murder. The article ends, “the motive for the crime is most probably in the passionate area. The accused denies the charges.” Of course, we should not make certain claims as to a person’s guilt – but we can agree that such a possibility is consistent with what we know of the human heart. Sin leads to death – sometimes murder.

Here’s the story,

Belgian Police Suspect Female Skydiver Murdered Love Rival by Sabotaging Parachute

BRUSSELS, Belgium — A married woman who was having an affair with a fellow skydiver plunged 13,000 feet to her death after her love rival and best friend tampered with her parachute, police say.

Els Van Doren, 37, fell to earth in a garden in front of a group of onlookers. Els Clottemans, 22, has been charged with her murder.

Minutes earlier the pair had joined hands in a star formation with two other skydivers including Clottemans’ boyfriend, a Dutchman named only as Marcel, who police say was having an affair with Van Doren.

While he and Clottemans broke away at 4,000 feet when their parachutes inflated, Van Doren, a mother of two, was unable to open either her main parachute or the reserve and crashed to her death in the town of Opglabbeek, Belgium.

Her final moments were filmed by her own head-mounted camera.

Wally Elters, a witness at the aerodrome from which the fatal flight departed, said: “I was working on my plane when I heard someone on the ground screaming and pointing to the sky.

“I looked up and saw a black spot falling quickly to the ground. It was wriggling about and it was pretty obvious it was a person.

“Above it were three people in parachutes coming down slowly. Then it hit the ground. It was an appalling moment.”

Police say that video footage taken by Van Doren as she tried to open her parachute provided evidence that led them to suspect that a fellow club member had sabotaged the equipment. A spokesman said: “A close inspection of the parachutes leads us to believe they had been meddled with.”

An employee at the airfield in Zwarteberg added: “It is very rare for one parachute not to open, but for two to fail is virtually unheard of.”

At Van Doren’s funeral, about 1,000 people heard her sister deliver a bitter eulogy. “You did all you could during that final jump to save yourself,” she was quoted as saying in the Belgian press. “But someone did not want you to live.”

Clottemans was arrested and charged after a two-month investigation. She denies the allegations but is being held in custody before a court appearance later this month.

Police became increasingly suspicious of Clottemans after discovering the affair between Van Doren and Marcel. All three had skydived together for several years.

Clottemans, a secretary, is understood to have attempted suicide hours before being brought in for questioning by detectives for a second time last month. She is said to be suffering from a personality disorder and is receiving treatment.

Police have also disclosed that Clottemans had previously been arrested for attempting to run over an American boyfriend. He escaped injury and she was released without charge.

According to the Belgian media, Marcel tried to arrange his liaisons so that neither woman found out about the other. His affair with Clottemans began a year ago and he would spend Friday evening through to Saturday morning with her.

In the afternoon, he would meet Van Doren after she had spent the morning working in her husband’s jewelry shop. Their relationship had begun some years earlier and the two would spend the night in nearby Eindhoven, before returning to the skydiving club the next day.

Despite Marcel’s precautions, Clottemans appears to have found out about her rival, although Van Doren was unaware that he was also involved with her close friend.

A statement from the public prosecutor said: “A thorough investigation of the available evidence and analysis of the motive provide sufficient reason for arresting the suspect. The investigating magistrate charged her with murder, issued an arrest warrant and had her locked up in Hasselt prison.

“In order not to jeopardize the smooth running of the investigation, no further information will be supplied. As has already been suggested in the media, the motive for the crime is most probably in the passionate area. The accused denies the charges.”

Here is an example of how such a medium as YouTube can be used for great good.

Prepare yourself for this video, as it is very graphic. But watch it nonetheless, for abortion is the genocide of our highly developed and technologically advanced society. It is the greatest evil of our time and the sacrifice required by the God of human autonomy in exchange for sexual promiscuity, muted gender roles within our culture, and the sacred convenience of the right to choose one’s own destiny. See Why is This Image Dangerous? for more reflections on this topic. May God help us in the application of Scripture to this subtle but violent expression of truth suppressing unbelief!

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court issued its ruling for Roe v. Wade, a case whose ruling deeply divides American people to this day.

Here are some resources suggested Dr. Piper in our fight against this evil,

Dear friends of life created in God’s image,

This is mainly for pastors and teachers who want to say something in connection with the January sanctity of life effort. Don’t think you don’t know enough. One of the young men in our church just told me that this past week he spoke with a junior higher who did not know what abortion was! Never heard of it! If you know anything about abortion, you know enough to be helpful. Here are a few suggested resources:

1. Pictures of the beautiful preborn.
2. The S.L.E.D acronym is a very helpful summary of arguments against abortion.
3. Warning! Stomach-turning graphic. A horrific video of an actual abortion.
4. Abort73.com is a very compelling overall site with everything you need.
5. Corrine and Brian Cords have put together displays that are visually provocative and educational for churches and schools to use.
6. The Live Education And Resource Network have a web site highlighting the implications of abortion for the black community.
7. A list of 15 arguments and facts against abortion that I put together some years ago.

May the Lord give you courage to address the carnage. I find it appalling that there are pastors and churches that never address this issue.

John Piper

HT: Justin Taylor