Not “Who We Are” Mr. President?
Thursday, December 11, 2014, 3:34 PM

I keep thinking about President Obama’s high rhetoric against torture, how it’s not “who we are.” And not because I’ve been thinking about torture lately or am a fan of it. But because of the natural follow up question, “Who are we, then?”

Well, who are we, Mr. President? If it is abhorrent, to use the adjective of CIA Director John Brennan, to water-board terrorists committed to killing innocent civilians, is it abhorrent to deliberately drown a child in utero in lethal saline solution to kill her, because her mother wants her dead? Who are you, indeed, Mr. President, who could not even stomach to vote to forbid partial-birth abortions (unlike Hillary Clinton)?  Indeed, who are we? And who are you?

Now’s the Time for Salvo: Special Offer
Friday, December 5, 2014, 11:05 AM
Salvo31 228x300 Nows the Time for Salvo: Special Offer

Salvo Issue 31

Modern Society celebrates (almost) everything: Love, Sex, Drugs, No-Fault Divorce, Women’s Reproductive Rights, Multi-Partner Marriages (and more) are all part of this “new millennial sexual revolution.”

SALVO Magazine unblushingly offers an honest, rational, and respectful response to hard questions about sex, science, and society. SALVO’s Christian worldview offers the perspective that takes up the conversation where many are afraid to go. Check it out at SALVOMAG.COM.

Subscribe today or “gift it” by December 31, 2014 to get a DISCOUNT plus a FREE bonus issue on Science and Faith. You surely know a young person or two who should be reading SALVO!

Order on-line here at and enter the code DEC14 to receive the discount and the FREE issue. Or call 1-800-283-8333 and give the code DEC14.

You will receive the new Winter 2014-2015 issue as your first issue. It and the Science-Faith issue are already packed in envelopes ready to be mailed out to you! Order today.


Global Woodstock? No, Worse
Thursday, November 20, 2014, 3:17 PM

Yikes, but not surprising….From our beloved United Nations channel as reported by C-FAM:

“[Y]oung people require a wide range of sexual and reproductive health services, including . . . safe abortion care,” says the 2014 State of World Population, released Tuesday.

Well, Woodstock didn’t include abortion care, I don’t think, or paid prostitution (FREE love, right?) but:

UNFPA also criticizes laws against “same-sex behaviour, drug use, and selling sex or sex work,” on the grounds that they “fall particularly hard on young people realizing their sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

The UN has come a long way.

“I Now Pronounce You Human and Human”
Thursday, March 20, 2014, 2:57 PM

Louis Markos has posted his latest on the inclusive language and gender-neutral madness:

How “Gender Neutral” Bible Translations Prepared the Way for Christian Acceptance of Gay Marriage. An excerpt:

I would propose a third cause for why so many Bible-believing Christians are embracing, or at least not openly opposing, the eventual legalization of marriage between people of the same sex. They are doing so because the ground has been carefully laid and watered by a subtle but pervasive change in our cultural perceptions of men and women. Rather than identify, nurture, and celebrate masculinity and femininity as distinct but complementary God-given realities, our culture has been coaxed—by forces within the public school system, the media, the academy, and (alas) the seminary—to view boys and girls, men and women, husbands and wives as ultimately interchangeable.

The message, though not always stated so baldly, has been simply this: God may have provided us with our respective genitalia, but it is by the creative power of socialization that we are masculine or feminine. And because it was society, not God, who made us male and female, that same society can redefine at will the contours of our sexuality.

St. Augustine’s College Weston Lecture
Thursday, March 20, 2014, 1:57 PM

The Weston Lecture at St. Augustine’s College, Ottawa, Canada, in will be given on April 4. (If I lived anywhere nearby, I’d be there.) Theme:

“The Incarnation, Human Dignity, and Freedom: The Christian in the Public Square” by Canada’s Ambassador of Religious Freedom and Dean of Augustine College, Dr. Andrew Bennett.

PDF Flyer is available here.

Syrian Nuns Set Free
Monday, March 10, 2014, 11:50 AM

I heard news of this development last night and there are several sources confirming the freeing of a dozen (or 13?) nuns who were abducted  from the convent in Ma’loula in Syria (where Aramaic is still spoken) several months ago. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald. Our sisters in Christ have been in our prayers for their release, and we had feared for their lives. Thanks be to God.

UK’s High Court Justice & the Pedophile Support Group
Monday, March 10, 2014, 11:32 AM

Well, pedophiles in high places? Who knows.

The man: Lord Justice Fulford, high court judge–”One of Britain’s most senior judges actively campaigned to support a vile paedophile group that tried to legalise sex with children, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.” And they do here. Fulford is an Advisor to the Queen.

“An investigation by the Mail on Sunday has discovered that Fulford was a founder member of a campaign to defend PIE while it was openly calling for the age of consent to be lowered to just four.”

Got that? Age FOUR. Our beloved American Liberator Alfred Kinsey would be proud. It is astonishing that Kinsey published Table 34 in his book on sex and was not arrested for sexual crimes or exposed as a liar for making up data. Seriously? A sane scientist records sexual “orgasms” in children 5 months, 11 months, 2 years old, including the time it took to reach those orgasms? Why is this not denounced as a shameful episode in “science,” and why isn’t his book and the warm reception of it considered a shameful episode in American history? Lord Injustice Fulford and much of modern sex “education” drinks from the poison well of Kinsey that has bubbled up from the lower depths. But Holywood lionizes Kinsey with a film by that name, the same well-drinkers who overlook the foibles of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen.

Ethical Free Fall: How Far? Come & Find Out March 14
Thursday, March 6, 2014, 2:37 PM

How far down does this hole go?

Bloomberg reports that the FDA is considering approving a new technology that would combine the DNA of two mothers with one male “donor” in order to create a better baby. Can anyone say “Frankenstein,” please?

I wish Robert P. George was still on the President’s Council on Bioethics to  discuss the morality, er, ethics, of this latest “improvement”–but that Council was disbanded before its term ran out by President Obama, but it was replaced in 2010 with the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, which has held 16 meetings since 2010. At its most recent one in Feb. 2014 this was discussed in session 2:

Now, so shall we be thinking about the possibility of giving medications or drugs to people as a way of causing them to be less aggressive and thereby to better fit in with society, be more functional in families, more functional in school, more functional in their work?

So some of the ethical issues raised by this kind of possibility and raised in our discussion were concerns about justice, the justice of such drugs, the dignity, the human dignity involved in using pharmaceuticals to enhance ourselves morally; how such drugs or other resources might affect the notion of free will and autonomy.  Is it really me freely deciding to be a moral person if I’ve taken a pill?

These questions are out there. In the view of utopian science, one way to perfect man may be through drugs, but maybe you can do it through genetic manipulation. If you care about whether or not Frankenstein is given a free pass and you live in Chicago, I URGE you to attend this luncheon lecture by William Hurlbut of Stanford University next Friday March 14. We are being warned, but who will take heed? Can a society endure that murders 55 million of its unborn while spending billions on Frankenstein’s new laboratory?

A Review of “Son of God”
Tuesday, March 4, 2014, 10:19 AM

By Timothy R. Furnish, PhD
In his 1925 book The Everlasting Man, Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton notes (pp. 190ff) that no church has ever erected a “statue of Christ in wrath:” whipping moneylenders out of the Temple courtyard, or cursing an unproductive fig tree—much less the warrior-judge of Revelation.  On the contrary, Christians throughout history have gone out of their way to present Jesus as “almost entirely mild and merciful.”  Following in this understandable, if one-sided, vein the new “Son of God” movie vastly overemphasizes Jesus’ kindness,  to the detriment of his divine determination—thus undermining the true Christ of the New Testament.

“Son of God” was created by the husband-wife team of Mark Burnett and Roma Downey as a follow-on to their wildly-successful 2013 TV miniseries “The Bible.”  Their stated intent was to produce a “love story for an ‘under-served’ audience”—non-Christians, presumably—so that viewers would “fall in love with Jesus.”  The movie finished number two in its opening weekend (at least as gauged by take, not the rather tenuous  love-of-Jesus metric).

Trying adequately to tell the life-story of the founder of the world’s largest religion in 138 minutes would, of course, require miraculous film-making.  “Son of God” attempts such by both leaving out important parts of Jesus’ life and compressing and conflating others.  For example, according to the four Gospels Jesus performed 35 miracles: 23 healings, nine exhibiting power over nature, and three resurrections.  “Son of God” shows only six: Peter’s miraculous catch of fish at Jesus’ behest, as well as Christ healing a paralytic, feeding the multitude, walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead and healing Malchus’ ear after Peter strikes it with a sword.   Admittedly, demonstrating all his miracles would have turned this into a thamaturgical saga.  But almost a quarter of Jesus’ recorded healings were in fact exorcisms, making problematic Burnett and Downey’s insistence on cinematically “casting the devil out.”  Exorcising Obama look-alike Satan will probably help the movie appeal to the unchurched legions among Millennials and Hipsters, but leaving out all of Jesus’ dealings with devils reduces his enemies—notably the Romans personified by Pontius Pilate, and the Pharisees led by the High Priest Caiaphas—to merely human ones.  While this approach might help with the “political thriller” aspect about which Downey gushes, it also severely undermines the cosmic import of Christ’s Incarnation, as well as his power over the forces of darkness—what Chesterton (again), calls Jesus’ “lion-tamer” aspect.

Compression of events, while cinematically understandable, is still rather jarring in “Son of God.”  Jesus’ birth (and the ahistorical, albeit traditional, presence of the Magi shortly after) is followed immediately by him commencing his public ministry by calling Peter then, in short order, all the apostles are following Jesus to Jerusalem.  Satan having fallen out of this film, Christ’s temptation in the desert by the evil archangel is nowhere to be seen.  Jesus’ growing popularity is counterposed with scenes in which Caiaphas worries about this “simple-minded” preacher and Nicodemus’ growing fascination with, and defense of, the new “prophet” and his movement.  Pilate is Machiavellian and merciless (quite in contrast to the more nuanced and almost-sympathetic Roman procurator of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ  and Ethiopian Christianity).   This approach reinforces the idea of purely political opposition to Jesus leading to his crucifixion, while also contrasting his lovable nature with that of  both the ruthless Roman governor and the inflexible, rules-obsessed Jewish High Priest.

Overall, “Son of God” tells a rather straightforward, albeit truncated and anodyne, version of the gospel truth.  And  there are good moments herein:  Jesus  delivering the famous “render to Caesar” line, then tossing the coin to a Roman soldier; the contraposition between Jesus praying to his Father, Caiaphas to the Hebrews’ God and Pilate and Claudia to their ancestors; Jesus on the way to Golgotha while a lamb is being sacrificed at the Temple for Passover.   But its Jesus, while easy to love, commands little respect—from his interlocutors or from viewers.  Closer to the Gospels are the otherworldly steel of Robert Powell’s “Jesus of Nazareth,” or even the heroic anguish of Jim Cavizel’s Christ’s passion.  One might well ask:  what does it profit the church to gain adherents via a milquetoast Jesus, only to lose its Gospel soul?

–Timothy R. Furnish

Respect for Traditional View or Write Off as Bankrupt & Bigoted?
Monday, March 3, 2014, 12:38 PM

Oh, to be out of fashion with the rising “gay marriage” tide!
Hunter Baker poses some thoughtful questions and counterpoints at The Federalist. How do children respond?

Older Posts »