Family Research Council

President Endorses Intelligent Design!

by Robert Morrison

April 8, 2013

In a letter of this date, a two-term President of the United States, writing to his predecessor, wrote this:

…the Theist, pointing to the heavens above, and to the earth beneath, and to the waters under the earth, asked if these did not proclaim a first cause, possessing intelligence and power; power in the production, and intelligence in the design, and constant preservation of the system; urged the palpable existence of final causes, that the eye was made to see, and the ear to hear, and not that we see because we have eyes, and hear because we have ears…

Well, as you will readily discern, dear reader, this is not President Obama’s or President George W. Bush’s accustomed style of writing.

This letter, dated April 8, 1816, was penned by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello and addressed to his reconciled friend, John Adams. It’s worth parsing the eighteenth century language because it’s a keen insight into the minds of our Founding Fathers.

In this letter, the former president, Thomas Jefferson, one of the leading scientific minds of his day, rejects the atheism of some of the French philosophes with whom he shared so many ideas. He ascribes to the Creator “power in the production, intelligence in the design, and constant preservation of the system…”

Jefferson’s ideas of Intelligent Design were put to a court test in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005. The federal judge in that case came down hard against any students in the public schools learning what Jefferson actually believed about origins of our universe. The judge found Mr. Jefferson’s reasoning a form of religious indoctrination that was wholly unconstitutional.

Today, liberals routinely cite Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptists as their source for all church-state jurisprudence. No matter that they have completely twistified (Jefferson’s own word) what he thought and what he wrote.

Noted author Eric Metaxas shows where such twistifying leads. It leads to a doctrine of religious freedom that is narrowly construed to permit “freedom of worship” and which at the same time comes down hard on “free exercise.” The First Amendment doesn’t just guarantee freedom of worship. It is broader than that.

Here’s a portion of Eric Metaxas’s recent speech at CPAC:

Let me begin with my hometown, Danbury, CT. Some of you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in [1802], in which he uses the phrase “separation of church and state” — and in case there is anyone who doesn’t know it, the sense in which Jefferson uses that phrase is actually the opposite of how it’s generally thought of today. Today we often hear that it means that the state needs to be protected from religion, and that religion should have no place in government or society.

Jefferson and the Founders thought the opposite. They knew that the State was always tempted to take over everything — including the religious side of people’s lives. So they put a protection in the Constitution that the government could not favor any religion over another… and could not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

They wanted churches and religions to be protected from the government — from Leviathan. Why? Because they knew that what people believed and their freedom to live out and practice one’s most deeply held beliefs was at the very heart of this radical and fragile experiment they had just launched into the world.

Okay, so where are the threats to Religious Freedom in America today? Well, for one thing, understand we are not talking about Freedom of Worship. In a speech 18 months ago, Hillary Clinton replaced the phrase Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship — and my hero and friend Chuck Colson noticed and was disturbed by it. Why? Because these are radically different things. They have Freedom of Worship in China. But what exactly is Freedom of Worship?

In my book Bonhoeffer I talk about a meeting between Bonhoeffer’s friend, the Rev. Martin Niemoller, who early on in the Third Reich was one of those fooled by Hitler. And in that meeting he says something to Hitler about how he, Niemoller, cares about Germany and Third Reich — and Hitler cuts him off and says “I built the Third Reich. You just worry about your sermons!”

There in a few words you have the idea of Freedom of Worship. Freedom of Worship says you can have your little strange rituals and say whatever you like in your little religious buildings for an hour or two on Sundays, but once you leave that building you will bow to the secular orthodoxy of the state! We will tell you what to think on the big and important questions. Questions like when life begins and who gets to decide when to end it and what marriage is… And if you don’t like it, tough luck! That’s Freedom of Worship and that have that in China and they had it in Germany in Bonhoeffer’s day…

Freedom of Worship is limited to the four walls of your church or synagogue. It creates the “naked public square” that the late Richard John Neuhaus warned about. It crushes civil society and puts everything under the power of the all-encompassing State.

In 2010, in celebration of the Fourth of July, the National Archives breathlessly informed us they had found an early draft of the Declaration of Independence. In that rough draft, Thomas Jefferson scratched out the word Subjects and replaced it with Citizens. The archivists were right to point to the significance of this change of language. It was the first time we Americans thought of ourselves as Citizens of a republic and not Subjects of a king.

Citizens govern themselves. Subjects have to obey Mandates from a distant HHS. Citizens have a right to free exercise of religion. Subjects are granted mere freedom of worship by the overawing power of the State.

FRC in the News: January 25, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

January 25, 2013

The Pro-Life March Continues

Jessica Prol, FRC’s Managing Editor for Policy Publications, wrote about the history and the dangers of legal abortion in an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Times. She celebrates life on the day of the famous March for Life today in Washington, D.C. and tells the story of a sweet baby girl, Naomi, who will prayerfully experience one of God’s greatest gifts—life.

Robert Morrison, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, wrote an op-ed that appeared in Human Events today about abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, and the future of the pro-life movement.

General Boykin in the NY Times and on Fox News Sunday

This Sunday, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret.-USA), Executive Vice President at FRCwill be featured on Fox News Sunday and was recently quoted in the New York Times with his expertise concerning women in combat roles. Boykin, whose long career includes much time in the Special Forces Operations, made the statement that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” Read Boykin’s response on the FRC website and op-ed that appeared in USA Today about women in frontline combat.

You Can Fight for the Country’s Freedom, But be Denied Your Own

FRC President Tony Perkins commented on a story done by Fox News Radio that explained how the Army ordered a cross and steeple to be taken off of a chapel in Afghanistan. Tony stated that “Under this Administration, the military has become a Christianity-free zone. As a veteran, there’s an irony here. You put on the uniform to defend freedom — chief among them is freedom of religion. And yet, you are stripped of your own freedom to practice your faith.”

America’s Religious Heritage is not a “Patchwork,” Mr. President

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 16, 2013

In today’s proclamation concerning “Religious Freedom Day,” President Obama refers to America’s religious heritage as a “patchwork.”

This is revisionism, a conscious dilution of the historical record. The reality is that America’s religious heritage is grounded in the Jewish and Christian faiths. To maintain this is nothing more than a matter of intellectual integrity.

No serious scholar argues that every American alive in 1776 was a Christian, or that all of the leading Founders were biblical inerrantists. Rather, just about all of them had been drenched in the Bible from their youth. Their worldview was informed and animated by their belief in an infinitely wise, all-powerful, and personally intervening God – the God of the Old and New Testaments.

Consider the words of four respected American historians:

Daniel Dreisbach, Ph.D. (Oxford), American University: “the Founders … identified themselves as Christians, were influenced in important ways by Christian ideas, and generally thought it appropriate for civic authorities to encourage Christianity.”

Mark David Hall, Ph.D. (University of Virginia), George Fox University: “Christian ideas underlie some key tenets ofAmerica’s constitutional order. For instance, the Founders believed that humans are created in the image of God, which led them to design institutions and laws meant to protect and promote human dignity. Because they were convinced that humans are sinful, they attempted to avoid the concentration of power by framing a national government with carefully enumerated powers. As well, the Founders were committed to liberty, but they never imagined that provisions of the Bill of Rights would be used to protect licentiousness. And they clearly thought moral considerations should inform legislation.”

Ellis Sandoz, Ph.D. (University of Munich), Louisiana State University: “The Constitution owes a great debt to the spiritual convictions of the country and to its Christian traditions … It is primarily in terms of contextual factors that the spiritual aspects of the Constitution are to be sought.” A Government of Laws: Political Theory, Religion, and the American Founding: Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2001, p.126.

Matt Spalding, Ph.D. (Claremont Graduate School): From the perspective of religious faith, the basic principles of the Founding, at the level of political principles, were understood to be in essential agreement with the core precepts of the Bible. That this is the case can be seen throughout the many church sermons published from the founding era.

The Judeo-Christian emphasis on personal moral accountability and liberty of conscience has allowed religions of all kinds to find a home in America. But all faiths have not been equal in the shaping of our Republic. This is not to disparage any faith other than Judaism or Christianity, but only to stand by a historical record that is clear.

Contra the President, our religious heritage is not a “patchwork.” It has been, rather, an almost seamless garment of biblical convictions and values. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “we cannot escape history.” Let’s not try.

See also FRC Senior Fellow Bob Morrison’s booklet, “Deeds Not Words: What the Founders Really Did on Religious Freedom,” and Dr. Dreisbach’s FRC lecture on “The Bible and the Founders.

The Cry of the Martyrs Webcast: Emmanuel Ogebe

by FRC Media Office

November 15, 2012

Yesterday, FRC, along with Voice of Martyrs, had a webcast on the threats to religious liberty around the world. “The Cry of the Martyrs: The Threat to Religious Liberty Around the World” featured many experts speaking on religious persecution and how to fight the attacks against religion.

Emmanuel Ogebe, a Nigerian Christian attorney, spoke about the persecution in Nigeria and Boko Haram. Below is the video from the webcast.

Why Is God Such a Big Deal?

by Nathan Oppman

September 21, 2012

There has been much talk regarding the use of God in the major party platforms. One simple word contributed to a major firestorm at the Democratic convention. In a recent column Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar, said he wished for a more humble expression of faith and less use of God as a prop. He calls our Constitution godless, in support of His argument that God should not be in the party platforms.

So is he right? Well perhaps partly in that we should not use God as a prop for anything but as the foundation for everything. To call our Constitution godless simply because God is not mentioned would be like calling the Book of Esther in the Scriptures godless because God is not mentioned. Principles come from somewhere. From whom did the Founders think we receive the blessings of liberty? If being godly meant simply referring to God, then we are indeed a very godly nation. But I think we all know it goes a lot deeper.

No matter how hard one tries to remain secular, God seems to come up in American culture. From health care to football (courtesy of Tim Tebow) God pops up in discussion. Recognizing that we are subject to the will and Laws of Nature and Natures God is a very humble position to take. It is not merely using God as a prop but recognizing that He is the foundation of all order in the Universe. If our rights and potential come from God then we have immense value. If they come from government they can be ignored and destroyed. If they come from God they should be recognized and protected. God must be recognized or all we have held dear for so long inAmericais potentially up for debate. If the Declaration was incorrect in saying the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident rights from God endowed on every man, then much is at stake. What, you ask? Lets look.

If God is taken out of the equation then one could make a utilitarian argument for killing those who were disabled or simply unproductive. Instead of debating how to help the poor and infirm, we could be debating how to dispose of them because of cost and inconvenience. One could limit the pursuit of happiness by restricting religious liberty and dictating to people what they should believe and how to apply that belief. Even career choice could be limited, as could the type of car, or the size of the soda.

And lest you doubt that God plays the critical role in these things or that they could not occur in a modern society, I offer some thoughts. In the debate over abortion, those who dont answer the fundamental question, when does life begin? are left to talk about the cost to the mother of raising an unwanted baby, of a womans choice, or of privacy. Of course, these all become secondary concerns if God grants a baby a right to life from conception and it is an inalienable right. In godless regimes such asNorth KoreaandChinayou have the untold slaughter of many through forced abortions, prison camp killings, and general government purges. All of this in the name of some greater good espoused by the ruler or ruling party. In this country, people like Margaret Sanger argued that some should be forcibly sterilized if they had bad blood lines. If God doesnt grant liberty then people are bound to be ruled by the government and the changing views its members espouse. The recent health care law passed by Congress and the President told many organizations who believe that abortion and contraception are wrong that they had to believe something else because the government said so. Cases have come up repeatedly about whether prayers and religious symbols should be allowed in the public square. Even the definition of marriage can be changed by a few members of a court.

Why is government so important when it comes to the rights of man? Because of a less quoted phrase in the Declaration after the statements on inalienable rights, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. The government exists to protect us from those who would infringe on our God-given rights and to promote a culture that praises good things. Im thankful we still care about having God in our party platforms, but even more importantly may He be at the heart of our great Republic and the policies we promote. The moment a government forgets God is the moment it becomes god. And that is a scary thought.

“Religious Freedom Under the Gun:” The Obama Administrations Failure to Defend International Religious Liberty

by Rob Schwarzwalder

July 9, 2012

It is, perhaps, the most stinging rebuke yet written of the current administration’s failure to defend religious liberty throughout the world.

The article, “Religious Freedom Under the Gun: The Obama Administration neglects a key foreign policy issue was written by Americas first director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (1999-2003), Dr. Tom Farr. Dr. Farr, who was FRCs Witherspoon Lecturer in 2010 and spoke again on religious liberty at FRC last fall, is now director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown Universitys Berkley Center.

Reading the article would be among the more profitable ways for any of us to spend a little time. Dr. Farr argues that America should stand with the persecuted as a matter of principle (millions of people are suffering because of violent religious persecution) and national self-interest. As he puts it:

… the advancement of religious freedom would serve vital American interests. Both history and social science make it clear that highly religious nations like Egypt and Pakistan will not achieve stable democracy unless they embrace religious freedom in full. Nor will they be able to defeat the toxic religious ideas that feed violent Islamist terrorism, including the kind that has reached American shores.

He also makes the disturbing but well-documented point that the Obama Administration has made the advancement of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender rights a higher priority in its foreign policy than defending religious liberty. This is an embarrassment and shame to our country.

The evidenceboth in the world and at Foggy Bottommakes it reasonably clear that the United States is doing little to advance religious freedom in its foreign policy, writes Dr. Farr. This is a break with our moral convictions and our vital security interests as a nation.

It is all of a larger piece, of course: The current administration is committed to violating the religious conscience of all who believe in the sanctity of life by compelling Catholic hospitals and Catholic and Evangelical colleges and universities to offer health care plans that include abortion and abortion drug coverage. FRC has taken a leading role in opposing this historic and massive violation of our first freedom, religious liberty.

The failure of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to defend religious liberty abroad, although disheartening, is almost inevitable: They cannot defend abroad what they and their administration colleagues are working to erode here at home.

Thankfully, leaders like U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Trent Franks (R-AZ) continue to fight for the protection of Christians and other religious minorities in the developing world. Lets pray for them – and for our own nation, conceived in liberty in the belief that God has made each person valuable and accountable. Thats the core of what it means to be American. We dare not lose it.

Rallying for Religious Freedom in New Jersey

by Jeanne Monahan

June 11, 2012

On Friday, June 8, I had the privilege of participating in a rally for religious freedom in Trenton, New Jersey, sponsored by Right to Life of New Jersey. The rally was one of many held around the country in protest of the HHS Mandate violating religious freedom. The June 8 date was significant because on that day in 1789 James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress.

As I took the train up to New Jersey I was excited to be with like-minded people on Friday, but nothing could have prepared me for the enthusiasm, courage and faith that I would witness in those few short hours. It began with a mass at 10:30 at the Cathedral, St. Mary of the Assumption. Even though it was a work-day, literally every seat was taken with well over 1000 people in attendance. Over 30 priests celebrated mass alongside Bishop OConnell, former President of Catholic University. The Bishop received a standing ovation after he encouraged those in attendance to be courageous, persistent and continue to pray for religious liberty.

Following the mass, those in attendance processed from the Cathedral to the state capitol, where we met up with many others from different religious and secular backgrounds outside of the New Jersey state capitol. It was a true honor to speak to this crowd and the whole experience reminded me of the role of the people of faith in overturning Communism in Poland. It was the faith, courage, energy and persistence of the Polish people, especially during masses and other outdoor events when the newly elected John Paul II visited, that began the demise of Communism and the road to restored religious freedom in that country. And so it will be here in the United States. Despite the heat and strong sunlight, the rally went on well over an hour and a half.

Remarks on Religious Liberty

by Darin Miller

May 29, 2012

Prepared Remarks of the Hon. Ken Blackwell

Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment, Family Research Council

To the American Religious Freedom Program Conference

Good afternoon. It is good to be with so many like-minded men and women, people who are committed to defending our most essential freedom — religious liberty.

We tend naturally to focus on religious freedom issues that rise to the national level. Those cases that come before the Supreme Court rank high in public interest and command the attention of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other giants of the main-stream media.

One of the most unprecedented and ominous assaults on religious freedom is the proposed Health and Human Services contraception mandate. As I have written in a variety of opinion pieces, there has been nothing comparable to this in 225 years in this country. There is truly no precedent for the threat embodied in theHHSMandate.

If the federal government can force not only Catholic institutions, but those of many other faith communities, and small businesses, and family-owned firms to provide drugs that can cause abortions or chemical contraceptives that violate their beliefs, then the First Amendment to the Constitution has effectively been repealed.

Late in the 19th Century,Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck waged an assault against Catholics. The Prime Minister intended to close down Catholic schools and hospitals, convents and monasteries throughout the country. We’re not there yet; but we must be vigilant.

Approximately one in six hospital patients inAmericais cared for in Catholic hospitals. These hospitals employ more than 550,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-timers.

One thing needs to be emphasized here: Many of those employees and many of the millions of patients seen in those hospitals choose Catholic health care because it is grounded in a set of moral convictions. This is true even, and perhaps especially, for non-Catholics who seek care or who work in these Catholic institutions.

My Family Research Council colleague, Bob Morrison, a Lutheran, has twin granddaughters who were delivered at a Catholic hospital last December. When these newborns came down with the life-threatening RSV virus over Christmas, Bob was relieved that the twins were cared for in a Catholic institution. There, he could trust the care-givers and the administrators to share his family’s pro-life convictions and practice them in the way they treated his grandchildren.

Even when it is a specifically Catholic institution being threatened, the religious liberties of all Americans are in jeopardy. If Catholic hospitals are forced to choose between God and Caesar, bureaucrats will eventually compel other religious organizations and faith-based ministries to make an identical choice.

And ironically, even though Obamacare is intended to help the uninsured, it’s those of lower income who will suffer most as Catholic hospitals and religious colleges suspend health insurance altogether.

This present danger notwithstanding, our experience suggests that most threats to religious freedom have come at the state and local levels. One of the most blatant examples was the case of Oregon in the 1920s. There, a popular referendum strongly backed by the Ku Klux Klan outlawed private education. Only when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) was this threat blocked. It was in this case that the Court memorably said: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.”

Then there were the Blaine Amendments, named for James Gillespie Blaine the powerful Republican who sought to ban any public funds from aiding — even indirectly — what were then called “sectarian” institutions.

Though the Blaine Amendment, a vestige of the Know-Nothing movement of the 1800’s, was never passed at the federal level, similar legislation was enacted and is even today still on the books in many state constitutions. They were put in state constitutions to stop families from educating their children in Catholic schools (instead of public schools). Now, they have become a wall between private faith and the public square.

The Blaine Amendments, on record in 40 jurisdictions, constitute a serious barrier to education reform and parental choice.

The Becket Fund, a non-profit that protects the free expression of all faiths, is litigating a case inOklahoma. There a family seeks to use a state scholarship to send their autistic son to a religious school for special needs children.

InIndiana, the state teachers union, predictably, is leading the charge to prevent parents from using vouchers at religious schools. The union claims these parents are violating the Indiana Blaine Amendment.

InFlorida, voters will have the chance this November to repeal that state’s Blaine Amendment. Local family policy councils, state and national public interest law firms, and citizen-activists have worked tirelessly to bring this policy change to the ballot.

The government not only threatens religious liberty in our education, it also threatens through supposed discrimination laws. We have the case of aMichiganpublic university grad student, Julea Ward. Because of her religious convictions, she asked to refer a homosexual client to another counselor. She was then ordered to go through “remediation.” Ms. Ward refused and was expelled. A host of religious liberty defenders, most notably the Alliance Defense Fund, are standing with her.

We have seen Catholic Charities forced out of adoptions in Massachusetts and Illinois because they will not place children in same-sex or unmarried households. In Washington, D.C., this so-called “non-discrimination policy” was used by the City Council to achieve the ends of anti-Catholicism. Told by the Archdiocese that they might be forcing Catholic Charities out of adoptions in the nation’ capital, one councilman said, and I quote:

“Good. We’ve been trying to get you out of it forever. And, besides, we are paying you to do it. So, get out!” (Interview by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal,31 March 2012)

Conscience Protection Laws are vitally needed. Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansasrecently signed a strong one. But many state laws are weak or unenforced. In WashingtonState, for example, Gov. Christine Gregoire pressured a pharmacy owned and operated by two sisters who refused to dispense the so-called morning after pill. This drug can cause abortions. The Governor personally joined in a boycott of this family-owned pharmacy. So much for the war on women.

It is amazing how quickly this storm has arisen. In 2008, at the end of the Bush administration, our colleague then-Secretary Mike Leavitt issued conscience regulations on behalf of the Departmentment of Health and Human Services. These were good conscience regs — protecting doctors and hospitals from being forced to practice medicine that they found morally objectionable. Immediately upon coming into office, the Obama administration revoked the regulations.

With theHHSMandate, the gloves have come off. The carve-out for religious institutions is so narrow, so restricted, that it is hard to imagine even cloistered nuns qualifying for a religious exemption.

Knights of Columbus Grand Knight Carl Anderson questions whether Jesus’ own ministry would qualify for an exemption from theHHS Mandate. Was His work wholly religious? Or was He engaged in the food service industry with those loaves and fishes?

There’s a scene in a famous movie I recommend watching over again. In A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More is facing execution for standing by his conscience in a time of agitation.

More tells his prosecutors: “I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live.”

Thank God, we have not gotten to that point.

But our task is to make sure we never get to that point. We cannot allow these salami tactics — this divide-and-conquer strategy — to succeed. If theHHScan that we subsidize abortion-causing drugs now, what is to stop them from mandating our support for surgical abortions next year?

So we are not being alarmist when we take alarm. James Madison knew something of liberty: “The people are right,”Madisonsaid, “to take alarm at the first advance on their liberties.”

The battle is raging inWashington, without question. But the key battle-front of this fight is in your state — at your local hospital, or adoption agency. Are you up for the challenge?

Secretary Sebelius on Religious Freedom Protections

by Jeanne Monahan

April 26, 2012

This morning in a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, HHS Secretary Sebelius was questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on the topic of religious liberty. Specifically, Rep. Gowdy questioned Secretary Sebelius’ statement in her testimony indicating the careful consideration she undertook to “balance” religious liberty protections with preventive services in making the decision about the contraceptive mandate (which includes drugs that can cause abortions).

Rep. Gowdy asked the Secretary about the specifics of her “balance”. In doing so he explained three tests for legal balance, depending on the content and issues being weighed. He explained that because religious liberty is a fundamental right any decision that might violate it would require the strictest scrutiny.

Under oath, the nation’s HHS head stated that in making this decision and taking into consideration religious liberty issues, she relied on the expertise of HHS General Counsel. When questioned further about the counsel she received, the Secretary reported that guidance was provided entirely in discussion, and no legal memo was written on the topic. When asked further about her knowledge of the most significant cases related to relgious liberty that have been decided by the Supreme Court, the Secretary responded that she was unaware/unfamiliar with these cases. It is a telling moment.

The full video is a must-see and just over five minutes:

An Eternal Perspective on Cultural Disarray

by Rob Schwarzwalder

February 8, 2012

Proposition Eight, the California ballot initiative that declared marriage exists solely between one man and one woman, has been struck down by a federal court. President Obama is planning to compel religious institutions to pay for abortifacients and other contraceptives as part of their health insurance programs. New York City is about to prohibit churches from meeting in public schools.

Is the sky falling? Are the nation’s moral foundations so eroded that they are on the verge of collapse?

For two reasons, I will answer no. In the past year, in states across the country, there have been wonderful wins for the cause of life and family. Ultra-sound bills and abortion clinic regulations have been enacted and polls show that Americans are more troubled than ever by abortion-on-demand. There have even been some Supreme Court judicial rulings (e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Spencer v. World Vision) favorable to religious liberty.

These things should inspire us to keep working for faith, family, and freedom in the public square. Although the assaults on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, the very nature of the family, and the religious and economic liberty we cherish are manifold, not to fight them would be to surrender our biblical obligation to work for justice and stand for the oppressed (Proverbs 31:8-9). For the sake of the Just One Himself, this we must never do.

Second, Jesus Christ is Lord of time and eternity. He is Lord when we rejoice and when we weep. He is the sovereign before Whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). Who sustains all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:2). And according to the Psalmist, God is unthreatened by the machinations of political man: (Though) the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed … He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them (2:2-4).

In other words, God is accomplishing His will in ways our limited human understanding might find puzzling but which are fully commensurate with His character and plan for humanity.

The Most High rules in the realm of mankind, we read in Daniels prophecy (4:2). He has called us to stand for righteousness and human dignity in every sphere of life. Whatever external wins or losses we might experience in the moment, these truths should sustain us in our efforts at all times.