A new book by Religious News Service reporter Jack Jenkins (American Prophets: The Religious Roots of Progressive Politics and the Ongoing Fight for the Soul of the Country) argues that not only is the Religious Left alive and well in contemporary America—it is the “beating heart of modern progressivism.” Modern politics in the Trump era often stereotype people into rather rigid categories. This is not very helpful and is in fact often intellectually dishonest. As I have argued on Issues over the last few months, genuine, biblical Christian leaders are all over the map in their political leanings.

According to Stephanie Kramer, “A [2019] Pew Research Center study of 130 countries and territories shows that the U.S. has the world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households. Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%).

This summer, the Supreme Court has ruled, for the second time in the last two months, against a church which sought exemptions from statewide restrictions on houses of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic (Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak). Calvary Chapel involved a Nevada public health order governing which businesses and institutions are able to remain open during the pandemic, and under what terms these institutions may do so.

1 Corinthians 8-10 detail the central biblical teaching on Christian liberty. The premise is that brothers and sisters in Christ should be willing to set aside their rights for the sake of others. The COVID-19 pandemic has been disruptive and has necessitated the surrender of some of our freedoms for the sake of the larger public health. To satisfactorily balance individual rights with public health issues is excruciatingly difficult. In this Perspective, I seek to explore in-depth the matter of religious liberty and its application to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Who decides questions of truth? Who defines the boundaries of human rights? In a pluralistic culture, who defines the standards of behavior based on these rights? In our Postmodern, Post Christian era, answering these questions is no longer easy. There is no foundation for our civilization, no agreed-upon set of ethical standards, and no transcendent authority to which to appeal. Human autonomy is a given and the boundaries to that autonomy appear limitless. Two recent developments highlight the ongoing redefinition of human rights and human identity.

Ideas have consequences! Human beings are physical, spiritual, social, emotional and intellectual creatures. Humans respond to stimuli and react to that which both pleases and threatens. The complexity of humanity is reflected in the social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), each of which attempts to explain why humans behave the way they do.

Several weeks ago in the weekly edition of Issues, I wrote a critique of the Bostock Supreme Court decision, which extended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and transgender status as worthy of federal protection against discrimination. I still regard this important decision as a potential threat to religious liberty in America. However, in early July, in two 7-2 decisions, the Supreme Court upheld “conscience protections for nuns and parochial schools,” producing a level of encouragement that the Court, as now structured, seeks to protect religious liberty.

Sociologists often organize populations according to the generational differences they observe and then create categories with labels and timeline distinctives.

Arguably, Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president in American History.  He led the nation through its greatest test—the Civil War (1861-1865).  As early as 1838, Lincoln argued that the Republic would not collapse from an outside invasion; rather, it would collapse from within.  He also believed that popular governments, which rest their sovereignty in the
[continue reading…]

In June the Supreme Court handed down its major 2020 decision on LGBTQ rights in the workplace. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia involved a man named Gerald Bostock—by all accounts an exemplary worker with a decade on the job—who was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a government employee shortly after he had started participating in a gay softball league.