After implying that Republicans were making a huge mistake in bringing up the issue, the Times now tells us that two-thirds of Americans completely opposes legal second-trimester abortions. The House passes a bill putting limitations on a procedure (second-trimester abortions) that most Americans think should be completely outlawed, and the headline is about the GOP appeasing their vocal base?

No one expects the New York Times to provide fair and balanced coverage of the abortion issue; that would require a greater allegiance to objective journalism than the paper can muster. But the least the Times can do is respect its readers enough to keep the editorials on the editorial page.

Read the rest here.

CNN’s Belief Blog reports that the marketing campaign for the new Superman movie includes a direct appeal to Christian movie-goers. A marketing firm is highlighting the Messianic themes of the film in order to attract the Christian market to “Man of Steel.” The firm has created an entire website filled with “Man of Steel” ministry resources including sermon outlines, video downloads, and digital images from the movie. They even hired a theologian to write sermon notes for pastors who want to make “Man of Steel” the subject matter of their Sunday morning sermon. The sermon intro calls for a viewing of the movie trailer during the sermon!

I am not sure how much commentary this actually requires. I hope there aren’t too many pastors who will be taken in by this. I couldn’t agree more with the line I saw in Jared Wilson’s twitter feed yesterday: “Pastors, your desperation to be relevant is easily manipulated.” Manipulation is exactly what is going on here, pastors, but the motivation is not the gospel. The marketers are not trying to help you to be relevant. On the contrary, their motive is to sell movie tickets, and these marketers have no problem whatsoever co-opting your pulpit for their profits.

Listen, I’m not against telling stories or using vivid illustrations in the pulpit. I’m not even opposed to a movie reference every now and again when appropriate. In fact, I began my sermon yesterday morning at my church with a long story about Forrest Gump. So I’m not railing against stories and illustrations in sermons. I am, however, railing against anything that displaces the centrality of the biblical text in preaching. Your preaching agenda ought to be set for you by the text of scripture, not by a Hollywood marketing firm trying to use you for profits.

The apostle Paul says it this way:

2 Corinthians 4:2 We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

So preach the word, brothers.

That’s all I have to say about that.

There’s an ad campaign rolling out in Chicago that is designed to discourage teen pregnancy (see above). The ads feature enhanced images of teenage boys with pregnant bellies. Somehow this is supposed to make teens think twice about…what exactly? Most teens have heard of Photoshop and have at least a rudimentary understanding of the fact that boys can’t get pregnant. So what is the logic behind this ad campaign? Does anyone believe that these ads are going to thwart the flood of teenage hormones?

John Piper is spending the year in Knoxville, Tennessee writing and serving Desiring God. Trillia Newbell conducted an interview with him on his front porch where he waxes philosophical about fatherhood. The interview appears on the website of the Knoxville News Sentinel. Watch it above. (HT: The Gospel Coalition)

Another little gem from Igniter Media.

John McCormack is reporting at The Weekly Standard about a question about abortion that he recently posed to Rep. Nancy Pelosi. It was very simple:

So the question I have for you is what is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?

You can watch her response and the exchange that follows above. The most telling thing about Pelosi’s answer is that she never answers his question. She chides him for asking the question, and she lashes out when he follows-up with her. She has a great deal of bluster, but no answer to his question.

The reason for her non-answer is very simple. There is no moral difference between the baby born alive at 23 weeks and a baby of the same age that is killed just moments before birth. But she can’t admit that in public. Why? Because for her to recognize the humanity of the unborn at any stage of development puts abortion rights at risk. Roe v. Wade has presided over the deaths of over 50 million babies since 1973, and Pelosi won’t do anything to jeopardize the right of a woman to have her baby killed at any stage of development. Roe v. Wade makes it legal to kill these babies up and until birth, and she doesn’t want that to change.

The vast majority of Americans disagree with Pelosi on this. But Pelosi says that this is “sacred ground,” and she won’t even discuss it.

My view is that no reporter should allow any politician to hold forth on abortion who cannot answer that simple question.

(HT: Jim Smith)

But redefinition won’t end with polygamous marriage either. The polyamorists are beginning to make their case as well. In an article for Slate magazine, Jillian Keenan argues that polyamorous unions should be on an equal footing with all other marriages. The polyamorous “family” featured in the article includes two men and two women, all of whom share one another sexually. Their relationship is defined as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.”

What does all of this have to do with legal marriage? According to the article,

Despite the stereotype of polyamorists as sexual anarchists who wouldn’t be interested in legal marriage anyway… 65 percent of poly families would choose to legalize their unions if they could, and an additional 20 percent would at least consider the option if it were available.

Keenan goes on to argue that children can flourish just as easily in polyamorous families as they can in a traditional family. If that sounds outlandish to you, here she is on her own words:

Studies have found that diverse parenting environments, including polyamorous ones, aren’t necessarily better or worse for the children involved. In fact, children in some plural families can actually benefit from the increased resources, care, and flexibility that additional adults provide. From a global and historical perspective, the phenomenon of the two-parent nuclear family is relatively new, and not the only environment that can be healthy for children. The happiness and well-being of kids in all kinds of families (monogamous, polyamorous, heterosexual, homosexual, or single-parent) depend far more on things like stability, boundaries, support, and love—not on the private, responsibly conducted sex lives of the adults involved.

This article is just one more piece of evidence that the redefinition of marriage won’t end with legal gay “marriage.” The trajectory that we are on means that legal marriage may very well be defined out of existence. If all unions are privileged in law, then no unions are privileged. There is evidence that this is precisely what the sexual revolutionaries have wanted all along.

This article also shows that our public debate about the nature of marriage often excludes certain voices. To argue that polyamory is immoral is simply not allowed. One can make an appeal to equality or to “best outcomes for children,” but one can hardly make the case anymore for a public policy based on a moral norm (at least in the realm of sexual ethics). In this article, the moral goodness of polyamory is simply assumed. Those who would argue that monogamy and heterosexuality ought to be the norm are not even a part of the conversation.

This article also shows that many people in our culture take it as self-evident that sexual license must not only be tolerated but also enshrined and privileged in law as a social good. It is more an assumption based on libertarian notions of equality than it is an argument based on a moral premise.

The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper every day.

From the fellas at Igniter Media.

A cake shop owner in Colorado finds himself in legal trouble after refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. Although participating in a gay wedding goes against his Christian beliefs, he says that he has no problem serving gay people otherwise. The Colorado attorney general filed the complaint against him on behalf of the gay couple that ordered the cake. According to an Associated Press report:

The complaint seeks to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to “cease and desist” the practice of refusing wedding cakes for gay couples, and to tell the public that their business is open to everyone.

If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.

“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice,” Martin said.

Here we have another instance that puts on full display how religious liberty is being threatened by the legal redefinition of marriage and by treating homosexuals as a protected class. If this complaint stands, this cake-shop owner will have to choose between being faithful to his conscience and going out of business.

I have already noted several other stories like this one, and I expect we will see many more in the future. Christians are going to have to navigate some tough ethical questions in the coming days. I believe that many Christian business owners will be able serve homosexuals and do so with a good conscience. For many owners, relationships with such customers may very well be the context for their ongoing Christian witness to them. For a Christian selling hamburgers, providing goods and services is a no-brainer. But for the Christian wedding planner, there will likely be a different moral calculus. And there’s the rub.

The key issue that will weigh on the Christian conscience is whether providing a good or a service might be construed as approving homosexuality or the sinful fiction known as gay “marriage.” That’s why the cake shop owner in this case is happy to serve gay people but not to participate in their wedding celebration. His conscience dictates a course of action that may very well run him afoul of the legal authorities. These are exactly the kinds of cases that are going to test the limits of religious liberty in coming days. Get ready.

Our sincere hope is that Southern Baptists will be served by this statement. It is an honest statement of great common agreement, and of significant disagreement. That ground of vast agreement on the Gospel and Baptist convictions, mixed with disagreement over specific doctrinal questions, puts us right back where the SBC was founded.

The statement’s title is not accidental. The words are sequential. Truth comes first, then trust. We speak from deep conviction, based upon a common commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and to the faith once for all delivered the saints. We trust each other, not because we agree on everything, but because we agree where it matters most. We also trust each other because we know each other, not just as participants in debate, but as friends of truth and co-laborers in Christ’s kingdom. We also trust each other because we know each other, learn from each other, and like each other. We are brothers in Christ, not just figures in a great debate.

Out of truth comes trust, and that trust produces a common testimony — even a common testimony about where we disagree. We are thankful that the Southern Baptist Convention is engaged in this debate, and not the debates over core doctrines and biblical morality that are shattering liberal Protestantism.

One symptom of a toxic theological debate is the tendency to write about one another rather than to talk to each other. I am committed, especially after the experience of working together on this statement, to pick up the phone before I pick up my pen.

Read the rest of Mohler’s statement here. Read the committee’s report here: “TRUTH, TRUST, and TESTIMONY in a TIME of TENSION.”