She could have been my cousin!

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s most recent nominee to the Supreme Court, looks and sounds like anyone of my cousins. Maybe that makes her less scary to me. She’s so familiar—from the mild pinch in her voice, to the soft r’s in her speech, to her facial features and even to her body morph. Even more so, it’s Miss Kagan’s worldview—her philosophy of life—that pervaded my own upbringing. So, in that way, she’s definitely one of my “peeps.” For me, the only thing that is unusual about her is that her idiosyncrasies—unlike those of my cousins—could, very soon, become the law of the land.

What I learned about Elena Kagan this week was, well, at the same time a lot—and nothing at all. What I learned was, again, oh so familiar. She’s the quintessential Northeastern liberal–make that, the epitome of the New England liberal, cast in an ethnically Jewish personality. (During my growing up years, my father’s side was almost entirely in Connecticut.) At the same time, on the legal front, none of us really learned anything at all. What people saw was a likable and unflappable personality (she stuttered in only a couple of exchanges), but she largely deflected the pointed questions and gave only bland and ambiguous answers on the really salient subjects.

One certainty I think anyone one of us could take away from the committee inquiry is that Miss Kagan engaged, at least at one time, in pro-abortion activism. This point is quite significant. We haven’t really had an unapologetic, politically oriented abortion activist on the Court since the late Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade. (And he didn’t start out his professional career that way, as Miss Kagan apparently did.)  So, Miss Kagan, as “Justice Kagan,” could turn out to be Harry Blackmun revivified on the High Bench—and then some. That would be a bad thing. Having said that, though, let me tell you what I harbor in my heart for the likely and near-future Justice Kagan.

Although (we’re told), Miss Kagan had a falling out with the Orthodox Judaism of her childhood, she still has a Jewish conscience in her soul. (There is no indication she has utterly repudiated her Jewish roots—culturally or religiously.) This is hopeful. The Great Apostle Paul (and former Rabbi Saul) wrote of those who may not apparently know God, “the work of the law [is] written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (see Romans 2:15). A seed of conscience can always be nurtured. I’m convinced for most of us, the older we get, the richer is the soil of our hearts and, therefore, the better are the chances the seed of conscience can sprout—and even grow.

Should the Judiciary Committee vote this month to recommend Miss Kagan to the full Senate for a vote; and should she subsequently receive a majority of “Yea” votes in August (both outcomes are a virtual fait accompli), she will be sworn in as the next sitting associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. That’s when our work begins. Faith and Action will call the people of God to pray for Justice Kagan, and we will do everything God enables us to do to persuade her to return to the roots of her conscience, which are found in God’s Word, and epitomized in the Great Commandments.

The success of this endeavor is predicated on building an amicable relationship with Miss Kagan, starting now. So, at the expense of criticism from our friends and allies, we will continue to treat Nominee Kagan (the presumptive Justice Kagan) with all due respect, deference and generosity. For those who think we are compromising by doing so, I would hope they would consult the entirety of God’s Word on the treatment of others—including enemies—before rendering a final verdict on us.

To review or catch up with the Kagan confirmation, be sure to go to http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx.

Rob +

I am monitoring the last hours of questioning for President Obama’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Hope you’re watching and praying with me. I highly recommend watching at http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx. Today will be the last day for questions to be posed to the nominee. Tomorrow will be witnesses speaking mostly in support of her. A committee vote will be taken sometime before the end of next week, and a vote by the full Senate is expected in late July.

Tonight I’ll post my full appraisal of General Kagan as an individual, a nominee and a prospective Supreme Court justice. It will be my take as a missionary to elected and appointed officials and a chaplain on Capitol Hill. It will not be a legal or constitutional analysis. That perspective is better left to other experts and our allied ministries.

Back later . . .

Rob +

While monitoring the proceedings and praying inside the hearing room, Faith and Action’s Peggy Nienaber had this view of Nominee Kagan.

As I write this, President Obama is hosting a private Easter prayer breakfast at the White House for a select group of religious leaders from around the country. The only minister I know personally is in the room is Joel Osteen. (I’ve never commented on my relationship to the Osteens, but I preached for his father at the Lakewood Church many years ago, when Joel was just a young guy on staff!) Anyway, the other person I think is there is Washington Post reporter and fellow Christian Hamil Harris. I’ve done many interviews with him over the years. Mr. Harris and I once actually teamed up in an televised debate with Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Viewers were surprised that a Post Reporter and I were on the same side of the argument!

In any case, I was NOT on the invitation list for the breakfast. (Hmm . . I wonder why?) I’ll pass along anything I find out about what went on and what was said.

On a related matter, you may have seen that we covered the President’s Easter visit with his family to a nearby church, the Allen Chapel AME (African Methodist Episcopal) congregation in Southeast Washington. I’m familiar with the church and know one of the deacons there. I was actually criticized for the posting, as if we shouldn’t mention when the President goes to church. Frankly, I’d rather see the President attending church–no matter his motive–than not attending. A lot has been made that Mr. Obama, since being inaugurated, has spent more Sunday mornings shooting hoops than sitting in pews. This was a positive break in that pattern. Let’s pray it has a lasting effect on him.

OK, back later with more.

Rob +

If the current health care reform bill passes in the House of Representatives on Sunday, the US Government will officially enter into the business of abortion.

Let me explain how:

The bill creates a separate fund into which citizens will pay private monies if they elect an insurance plan that offers abortion coverage. That fund will be set up, managed, monitored and dispersed by federal government employees. Voila! Your tax dollars used to administer money for abortion businesses.

And there’s more: The pressure is on now–the US Government will be fully engaged in all aspects of health care. Insurers will comply with strong-arm tactics because they won’t want any more of the camel in their tent. All the US Government needs to say, with a wink and a nod, is, “You don’t have to offer abortion coverage, but, you better!” Voila! Abortion coverage.

No matter how you cut it, the new health care scheme will provide millions and millions of dollars to abortionists, compliments of the US Government. I’m sure Planned Parenthood, the world’s biggest abortion business, is licking its chops, working feverishly to exploit the new arrangement and open lots of “community health centers.” Voila! More abortions.

It’s amazing how much can get done very fast when billions of dollars are flowing.

Watching and praying . . .

Rob +

Yesterday, our Faith & Action chief of program, Peggy Nienaber, spent the day at a White House conference on Faith Based and Community Partnerships. She took some heat for that. Some people thought we may be compromising our core convictions by even fraternizing with this administration. Well, that’s not the case.

Our mission theory is simple: Take whatever platform is offered to us and use it for the ultimate purpose of advancing biblical truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At yesterday’s conference, all voices were invited to the table. That included everybody from homosexual activists to ardent, pro-life Catholics and firm traditional marriage advocates. Peggy was there to explore what contribution we can make to the conversation. St. Paul did that among the pagan philosophers on Mars Hill. We need to do it in places like the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, as we did yesterday.

So far, we’ve found one important place where we can support Mr. Obama and the Administration: The President’s Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. Admittedly, it’s a narrow space, but it’s there and we intend to prayerfully make the most of it. Fatherhood is first a biblical concept; Second, we are commanded by God to be good fathers; Third, the President himself has given even more than fatherhood for his rationale for this worthy effort. He says one of the primary reasons he launched it is because the responsibility of fatherhood, “does not end at conception.”

We agree. Fatherhood continues throughout the life of that child–FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. It is a father’s role to protect and provide for his child from the very moment the child makes his or her debut into existence, and throughout pregnancy, birth, and every stage of development. Even, to a certain degree, into adulthood.

Many of the President’s policies, resources and allegiances conflict with his own statement on when the responsibilities of fatherhood begin–especially when it comes to abortion. We will do everything to point this out to him and to those who work with and for him. I believe that whenever truth is spoken, it is a good thing. Unlike some, I also believe that truth is powerful wherever it is presented. If that’s the Obama White House, it makes it even more so.

Rob +

Today the following notice appeared on the website for the Marriage Bureau of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia:

NOTE: Pursuant to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, A18-248, effective March 3, 2010, same sex couples may apply for marriage licenses in the District of Columbia.

Yes, the notice is in red font. The color seems to highlight the alarming content. As of today, Wednesday, March 3, 2010, our country’s showcase city–the seat of American culture, politics and influence in the world–takes a huge step backward, to a morally primitive time. It is not “progress,” as the proponents of same-sex legal pairings assert; it is the opposite. It recalls a period in human history where sexual behavior was indiscreet, unbridled, animalistic and injurious.

The revelation of God’s moral law on Sinai and the subsequent charge to mothers and fathers to model and instruct their children in right and wrong behavior was the cure to an otherwise self-destructive impulse. Research has shown that the human drive towards sex is stronger than the drive for food–and it’s not terribly discriminating. A big part of “civilization” has to do with curbing, controlling and steering this “power” into positive, constructive and ethical directions.

I’ve been engaged for a long time in the conversation and debate on same-sex sexual relationships–and the attendant proposals for publicly sanctioning them with laws and certificates. The argument goes something like this, “There’s no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, therefore gay and lesbian people should be allowed to express their love just like straight people do.” I agree–to a point.

Men should not only be allowed to love other men, but encouraged to do so. In fact, the Bible says this is the only way we can know for sure that we are “saved,” part of the redeemed; indeed, that we are Christians at all, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.” (1 John 3:14) Obviously, the same is true for women. Love between men and men and women and women is part of the experience of knowing God, who is Himself “Love.” (See 1 John 4:7-11) However, this love of God, and by extension, this “love of the brethren,” is not expressed sexually. In fact, most love bonds do not–or at least should not–have a sexual component. Love for children, for example, is never to be expressed sexually. The same is true of love between siblings.

“Well, of course not!” I hear the celebrants of today’s same-sex marriage licensing saying. “Everyone knows that!” Well, not true. Sadly, there are plenty of people in the world–even in our own country–who don’t respect these moral boundaries on sex. Recent headlines bear that out. Sexual predation of children is on the rise and often includes unspeakably horrible acts, including torture and brutal murders. We think of these things as frightening aberrations, but that’s only true of human culture in the recent past. For example, in ancient times–in fact, in Bible times–pederasty and incest were rampant; inbreeding was practiced as a genetic purifier for royal family lines; and girls were routinely seized and held as sexual slaves by much older men.

Religious, moral and legal governors of sexual behavior are relatively recent innovations. They are only a few thousand to a few hundred years old, and there are plenty of places left in the world where they either remain unknown, non-practiced or are ignored. Just yesterday I sat in on a heart-breaking briefing on the current state of world-wide human trafficking, much of it driven by the sex-trade. My wife, Cheryl, is in training now to be a counselor to victims of child sexual abuse. She’ll tell you just how devastating and life-long these injuries are to soul, mind and body.

All this to say that human sexual behavior cannot be left to simple impulse. Human beings are built for a certain kind of sexual interaction. The body’s architecture alone makes that quite plain, but the soul and psyche even more so. Children are not built for sexual interaction with each other or with adults; and men are not built for sexual interaction with men, neither are women with women. And that grand result of God’s exquisite sexual design, the conception and bearing of children, can only happen between a male and female, wether through intercourse or in a test tube. It’s simple yet profound: It takes a daddy and a mommy to make a baby.

Let me remind everyone that there’s nothing new about what happened today at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Marriage Bureau. In fact, it’s very old. Thousands of years ago, the world at the base of Mount Sinai looked very much like Indiana Avenue, NW, the street outside the Marriage Bureau office. Actually, it was far worse. On the Day of Pentecost, when the Christian Church was born at Jerusalem, Greco-Roman athletes competed in the nude and engaged in homosexual acts to titillate insatiably wild crowds. Worse, Roman men of stature kept wives to sire children by, but young boys as sexual play toys. Temple prostitutes were used and abused as an act of worship.

It was into this kind of moral abandon that the Jews first taught God’s moral code and Christians later were called to evangelize. Both remain our challenge today. It was this kind of sin-sick, miserably wretched, often shockingly coarse and even frightening world that “God so loved,” and to which He “gave His only begotten son.” (John 3:16) This is the solution to the backsliding of human culture. It’s not to cower, shrink back, denounce or scold, but to love with the love of God; it’s to make known the Truth that alone can “set you free.” (John 8:32)

If there’s anything to be disappointed about today here in the Nation’s Capital, it’s that we thought human progress had come so far, but, in fact, it has regressed. Should that surprise us? The preacher in Ecclesiastes doesn’t think so: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) This is why the wise Apostle would later write to us, “[L]et us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” (Galatians 6:9)

With the help of God, let us get on to the work at hand . . .

Rob +

If you’re not already reading WORLD Magazine, I recommend highly that you do. I’ve known WORLD for over ten years. I’ve found it to be consistently the best, most professional source of news and commentary I get from an Evangelical Christian perspective. This week’s issue (online and in print) has a good cover story on alternatives to the health care reform proposals offered by President Obama and Democrat congressional leaders. Check it out: WORLD Magazine (www.worldmag.com)

Rob +

OK, somebody has to say it. It’s uncomfortable and it makes whoever says it open to being called a “Pharisee,” a “homophobe,” a “bigot,” a sanctimonious hater, a benighted troglodyte, or worse. Somebody has to endure that, though. We need to act like grown up, secure people who can talk about difficult things and resolve them.

So, to quote one of my favorites, Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, “Call me a relic, call me what you will. Say I’m old-fashioned, say I’m over the hill,” but here it goes.

First, for the President to use the State of the Union to call on Congress to repeal the current policy on gays serving in the military was wrong. It is incendiary, provocative, distressing and contrary to the most deeply held religious and moral convictions of millions of Americans. Second, if he really believes passionately in this, he has other means to accomplish it. He can use the budget process, or, even quicker and cleaner, he can simply issue an executive order.  He used such an order last night for something far less consequential. The President obviously thought the deficit so important he by-passed the Congress and created a Deficit Commission by fiat.

If, in fact, allowing gays to serve openly in the military is, as the President said, “The right thing to do,” then why not simply do it? What the President actually did was lob an explosively contentious grenade into the public square. Gay activists were instantly in knots about it—disgusted the President didn’t do what they really wanted, but only renewed a campaign promise by punting to the Legislative Branch. And a whole lot of ethnic and cultural groups, moral conservatives, religious people, and, yes, military men and women, are now left to painfully wrestle with what is surely another divisive, corrosive and likely dead-end issue.

Why is this? Because no matter how you cut it, gays-in-the-military does not present the same set of questions as blacks-in-the-military, or latinos-in-the-military. There is near universal belief that it is always wrong to use race, color or ethnicity to judge a person’s character, ability or willingness to serve. (For that matter, there’s no debate the data eliminate whether a gay person can serve admirably or is willing to serve admirably. In fact, not only have gay persons done so, they have given the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.)

The question really is whether it is appropriate for the military to be used to validate a dubious sexual practice. Lets face it, that’s what this is really all about. To the gay rights activists, please be at least that transparent. Tell us what you’re really thinking so we can have an honest conversation. This is about validation of a lifestyle that has as its defining feature a sexual attraction and even a set of sexual acts. After all, isn’t that what on the opposite side makes a heterosexual?

The fact is, well-considered, well-informed, carefully researched and fully contemplated moral and religious philosophies hold that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are injurious to the individuals involved and the society around them. These convictions cannot be dismissed as veneers for irrational hatred or the base animus of the uneducated and ignorant masses. There are plenty of Ivy League PhDs in this camp, along with caring, compassionate, even loving pastors of souls; there are also the vast majority of those who embrace one of the earth’s three great monotheistic faiths. Which brings me to the next point.

A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told me chaplains are “critical to good order and morale, and therefore to the success of our military.” As a board member of an organization that fields a large number of chaplains to the military, I interact with them regularly and I routinely hear about the things that concern them, and this is definitely one. And this doesn’t only affect Evangelical or Catholic clergy. I’m also talking about Jewish, Muslim and Mormon chaplains. In each case, their religious systems teach homosexual behavior violates God’s intended purpose for human sexuality and is therefore not allowed. You don’t have to have a Harvard degree (though many of these chaplains do) to know there will be conflict between what these chaplains are charged to teach and preach, and the President’s proposed policy change. It’s a huge—read that HUGE—problem for morale and good order.

And there’s another thing. Come ‘on, let’s be grown ups. There’s a reason the military doesn’t have men and women showering together. Please don’t dismiss this one as a childish vestige of a now distant Victorian past. The fact is you don’t generally want people around you in a shower that are erotically stimulated by your naked body. Now, I may be betraying my naïve ignorance here about how gay people get excited, but none of my gay acquaintances have ever said it works terribly different for them then it does for straights. The site of an attractive nude body probably does for gays what it does for straights. (Unless, of course, you are gifted with a disinterest in sex, period. That’s another matter.) For most of us, testosterone, estrogen and libido are forward moving forces that need at least a modicum of external controls, including segregated showering and dressing spaces.

I’ve purposely left until last the most incendiary element of this State of the Union attack on personal, moral, social and religious sensibilities—its affect on our relations with the Muslim world. When I participated in my first face-to-face formal dialogue between Christian and Muslim leaders in an Islamic country, I was asked at the start, “Do you accept homosexuality?” Homosexuality is a deal-breaker for the vast majority of Muslims. I know, we don’t want to kowtow to oppressive religions, no matter how many adherents they have, but, again, if we’re looking to solve problems, this is not the way to do it.

Surely the President knows these things. He told us during his campaign he’s a man of deep and considered Christian faith; he had a Muslim father and a partial Muslim upbringing; he has a Harvard law degree and an IQ off the charts. Surely he’s not ignorant of the considerable and principled convictions held by so many on this subject; and of the dangerous pitfalls it presents given the already tense environment military women and men sacrificially occupy.

Let’s grow up and have the big conversation before President Obama’s proposal brings about unintended, irreversible and even terrible consequences for our valiant American heroes.

I’d really like to hear from you on this.

Rob +

Just got definite word the President will infringe on the sanctity of marriage and the family in tonight’s State of the Union address, when he asks Congress to repeal the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexual behavior in the military. The proposal is a huge problem for morale and for the privacy of our men and women in uniform, not to mention for chaplains and even our relationship to other nations and cultures. Watch for my post on this after the State of the Union.

Rob +

For the 16th year in a row, I was humbled to open the annual prayer service we hold in the US Capitol focused on ending the terrible blight of abortion. Each year hundreds of the most dedicated pro-life activists in our country attend this two-hour  gathering. While most of the program is given to prayer and scripture reading, we do hear from from distinguished leaders on the sacredness of  human life. This year they included our great friend of so many years, Fr. Frank Pavone, president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, the primary sponsor of the event. Joining him was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and the firey Bishop Harry Jackson, an outstanding voice in the African-American pro-life community.

This is the only uncompromosing prayer and preaching event of its kind ever held INSIDE the US Capitol complex. It doesn’t happen without a herculean struggle, though. Every year we get right up to start time and we’re still threatened with expulsion, even though we go through all the proper channels for approval. This year we were rescued by Virginia congressman Randy Forbes, a fine Christianwho navigated treacherous political waters to ensure we could hold our event. Even so, as we sang–accapella as directed–an emissary was sent to shut us down.  Notwithstanding the opposition, we had “church” today in the US Capitol, with Christians of every tradition praying together and listening to the Word being powerfully proclaimed!

Hope you can join us next year–always on or about Januray 22. Mark your calendar now!!

Rob +