The cover of the July issue of Vanity Fair displays Caitlyn Jenner (the new transgender identity of 1976 Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner). Caitlyn is the new ?poster girl? of the transgender movement in western civilization … There is obvious tension between the transgender movement and modern feminism.

In many parts of the world, there is a growing concern about the retreat of the United States from global leadership in the economic, political and military arenas. In the international economic area, American leadership in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is of acute concern. For example, Kevin Rafferty, former World Bank official, writes that ?The United States has lost its way and is rapidly forfeiting claims to global financial, economic, political and moral leadership . . . Not for the first time, Obama has shown he can talk eloquently, but does not have a political clue how to get things done.? Although provocative, Rafferty?s statement is not unique. There is the perception among many of the world?s leaders that the US is disengaged and failing to provide the kind of leadership it has consistently done since World War II.

The assumption of personal faith, which used to be a staple of American culture, is no longer valid. Postmodern pluralism and relativism define our culture and personal autonomy drives individual ambition and meaning. For those of us who love Christ and see our identity as being in Christ, it is easy to become defensive and imagine ourselves as ?an aggrieved and repressed remnant.? But the New Testament offers another approach: Believers in Christ are to speak the truth in love. Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, argues that Christians should be a ?joyful minority. [But] we are no longer effective at persuasion because we lack humility. Some in the faith community are losing legitimacy among younger people because many Christians only speak truth and fail to do truth.?

Largely because of the procedure known as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), thousands of couples across the US are facing an ethical dilemma never faced before in history: What to do with their frozen embryos? The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that more than 600,000 frozen embryos are stored nationwide, in addition to countless more cryo-preserved eggs and sperm. [It is difficult to estimate how many frozen embryos there are worldwide.] IVF produces embryos in a petri dish, where the wife?s eggs are fertilized by the husband?s sperm. [Sometimes donor eggs and/or donor sperm are used as well.] Generally, there are multiple fertilizations and several are placed into the woman?s body in hopes one or more will attach to the uterine wall as a successful pregnancy. The rest of the robust embryos are frozen.

The Pew Research Center recently released its US Religious Landscape Study, which summarizes the conclusions from a monumental study of how American religion has changed between 2007 and 2014. Conducted among 35,000 adults in English and Spanish, the study fills in the gaps left by the data released by the US Census Bureau. This is necessary because the Bureau does not ask Americans about their religion. What follows is a salient summary of this important survey. It enables us to understand what is happening across the American religious landscape.

A group of scientists in China has crossed an ethical line in their use of a relatively new genetic technology called gene editing. Seeking to cure a disease called beta thalassemia, an inherited blood disease, they sought to abolish the broken gene that causes it. The technique seeks to modify genetically the stem cells that
[continue reading…]

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges. The Constitutional question being asked the Court is whether the US Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry. The Court will not hand down its decision until the end of June, but there is little question that this case will change the definition of marriage within the United States; I believe the decision will be a 5-4 decision that will legitimize same-sex marriage in the United States. I also believe that this decision, coupled with the other significant cultural developments dealing with same-sex marriage, will pose a significant threat to religious liberty in this nation.

My wife and I recently visited our son, Jonathan, and his family in London, England, where they live. While there one evening we watched one of this year?s important movies, Christopher Nolan?s Interstellar. At one level it is merely a movie of science fiction, but at another level it is deeply metaphysical and profound. In this edition of Issues, I want to explore some of the themes developed in this unsettling movie.

President Obama, the government of Iran, and other major nations including Britain, France and Russia, recently announced a framework for a deal to slow down Iran?s nuclear program and remove the sanctions that have somewhat crippled the Iranian economy. That it is controversial is an understatement. Even after it was announced, there was evident disagreement between Iran and the US over when and how the sanctions would be removed and over details about inspections and verification as the agreement is implemented. This is astonishing in its own right because the announcement is only about a framework; the specific details about implementing the framework are yet to be negotiated and this is to be completed by 30 June 2015.

In 1993, the US Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA applied only to the federal government, some 20 states since then have passed their own RFRAs. Another dozen states have adopted RFRA-style protections in other ways. Probably the most important invocation of an RFRA, in a federal case, was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which reached the Supreme Court last year. Recently Indiana passed its own RFRA, which has created a firestorm. The law establishes that the state ?may not substantially burden? a person?s free exercise of religion unless ?it is essential to further a compelling governmental interest? and ?the least restrictive means? of doing so.