Last week, the President of the United States, during an interview with ABC?s Robin Roberts, declared that ?I?ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.? Simply put, the President has agreed to a radical redefinition of the most fundamental institution of civilization. President Obama?s views on this subject have, in his words, been ?evolving.? Although Obama?s declaration does not affect public policy per se, to have the President of the United States so boldly redefine marriage is stunning! Several key thoughts:

Recent developments both within the United States and outside our nation point to the astounding confusion about the value and worth of a human life. What gives value to life? Is a baby growing in its mother?s womb of value and worth? Is China?s repugnant one-child policy, which despite denials is still, practically speaking, the policy of China, acceptable or ethically wrong? How should we even think about the contraception issue that surfaced as a result of President Obama?s health care law? These are three interrelated categories that I seek to address on this edition of Issues.

?Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king?s horses and all the king?s men
Could not put Humpty Dumpty together again.?

Although the origin of this nursery rhyme is much disputed?the point for us is well taken: Once something is broken, it is most difficult/nearly impossible to fix or restore.

In May 1960, the FDA approved a new oral contraceptive, which ushered in a veritable revolution in American culture?indeed for the whole world. It truly was one of those watersheds in human history. Today, over 100 million women use this oral contraceptive. But we are still working through the massive effects of this pill, which altered so much in our culture. How should we think about the social revolution brought about by the pill?

Religion remains a powerful force in Western civilization, especially the United States. . . As I argued in a recent edition of Issues in Perspective, the God of many Americans, especially teens and emerging adults, is a moralistic therapeutic deistic God, not the God of the Bible. So, where does this leave us as a civilization? Is genuine, biblical Christianity viable in the United States?

One of my favorite authors today is sociologist Christian Smith, who has authored a series of books that superbly analyze the culture of American teens and emerging adults (18-30 years of age). In his 2005 study, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, Smith summarizes the worldview of America?s teen culture. In this Perspective, I want to summarize Smith?s thesis.

If you have a young daughter or granddaughter, you have no doubt heard of The Hunger Games, the first of three novels written by Suzanne Collins. A remarkable best-seller that has enthralled young girls and boys, it is now a blockbuster movie, setting records for a just-released movie. It is an engaging and provocative story, filled with themes and underlying messages, not incompatible with biblical Christianity.

As a Christian leader, I believe that only the Christian worldview provides answers to the challenges of our world. Let me use three examples in this edition of Issues in Perspective.

The Health-Care law of the Obama administration has caused no small controversy. Most recently, the provision that all employers must provide contraceptive products to their employees as a health care benefit regardless of the religious convictions of that institution is one of the most egregious. This provision and the subsequent discussion and debate within our culture gets to the heart of conscience, a precious biblical concept and a precious concept central to religious liberty in the American culture.

By definition, dictators are not voted into power. They do not rule by consensus developed within a legislative body. They do not run for the political office they hold by making promises or developing a campaign platform. They rule by raw power, usually military in nature. Such rulers often take on the image of divinity or at least quasi-divinity. Historically, one thinks of the Caesars of the Roman Empire.